Agriculture, Forestry & Economic Development- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (11)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB506
Act 712
· 3 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE RESIDENT FEE WHEN VISITING A PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ting areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. DEFINE "PROCEEDS". 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IVES FOR HEALTHY FOOD RETAILERS IN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…L FACILITIES THAT QUALIFY AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS. 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
what was best for them to maintain their livelihood, to be able to continue to have their family farm. Farmers make decisions every day. When I pass by a field and the crop is coming up, I can't tell, and I hate to admit this, I can't tell if it's soybeans or wheat or rice or any other plant, but a farmer can. When you drive by a field and you wonder, I wonder what that field is. A farmer can tell. You can ask a farmer, what's the daily commodity
price of soybeans or corn or wheat? I don't know the price of that, but a farmer does. I don't know the cost of fertilizer on that day and whether I should buy or not buy and whether of that will impact my yield. If I spend $10,000 on fertilizer, that either gets washed away or helps my crop double in size. All of those decisions are made by individual farmers trying
to make a living on their farm. Farmers trust very few people to make decisions in their best interest. They want to be able to make those decisions for themselves because they're the ones whose livelihoods are on the line, not the government. Farmers trust the county extension agent. For us, it's Benton County and it's Johnny Gonzalez. They trust their local NRCS agent. For
us, it's Mike Whitus in Benton County. They trust their conservation district people because those people are looking out for them, for what's in their best interest on that day, real time. They also trust Farm Bureau because it is a grassroots membership-based organization who looks out for small farmers like myself and my husband and always have for 43 years. We're not big farmers. We can't hire our own lawyers or our own economists,
But that's what a grassroots, membership-based, county-based organization does of farmers who represent themselves. The bill before you today is not regulatory in any means. It doesn't need a government bureaucracy to run this. What it needs is the people who grow the crops or the beef or the catfish to be making decisions that impact their research and promotion on their agricultural product.
I just would ask that for consideration, this bill provides for the people that know their product the best to continue to serve those farmers in their field of agricultural production. And with that, I will ask if Jared Yates from Farm Bureau could come up and also speak for the committee and answer any
Jared Yates
Unverified
3:23
Identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee. My name is Jared Yates, and I'm with Arkansas Farm Bureau Federation.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
3:46
Committee, do you have any questions? Okay. Representative Lynch, you're recognized. All right. Could you tell us why the
Jared Yates
Unverified
3:52
Farm Bureau is in support of this bill? Yes, sir. So this is, obviously this has been a hot topic around the Capitol and the recent weeks.
We've graciously support this legislation. You know, Farm Bureau has been the administrator of these six promotion boards since their inception. I want to make the point that this bill removes Farm Bureau as the administrator. It removes Farm Bureau as the registered agent on all six of these promotion boards. So Farm Bureau is no longer named in the legislation in her bill in either of those two roles.
We feel strongly that the boards and the structure and the appointment need to be addressed to ensure that they are constitutional. So we support that effort. And if the administration is an issue, you know, we feel that it's important that just as Ms. Hawke mentioned, that these boards themselves have the ability to choose who administers their checkoff. If they choose the Department of Ag or they choose Farm Bureau or they choose the Cattlemen's,
they should have that authority and that ability to choose what's best for them and their interests. These are assessments that farmers have voted on themselves. And these funds need to be maximized for research and promotion. These dollars are precious. You know, farmers who struggle to make ends meet and are still paying these assessment fees into the research and promotion boards, the reason they're doing that is because they feel like this research and promotion dollars do have an impact,
a positive impact on their industry and their commodity. So, instead of spending money on administration, maximizing every dollar that can go to promotion and research is vitally important. And that's why Farm Bureau for years has done it at no cost, because Farm Bureau membership is made up of farmers who paid in this assessment, by and large, and, you know, they feel like it is important for those dollars not to be spent on administration and rather maximized in research and promotion.
Speaker 15
6:08
Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other? Representative Anker?
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
6:15
Thank you for your explanation and for Representative Hock for bringing this to our attention. When considering legislation, I do like to ask a few questions, and I'll do them kind of collectively, if that's okay. One is always, who does this help? Who does it hurt? And is there any movement of money? If you could address those three things, I'd appreciate
Speaker 1
6:39
it. so who it helps is the catfish promotion board the soybean promotion board the rice research
and promotion board the wheat promotion board the corn and grain sorghum promotion board and the beef council that's who this bill helps because they are the ones as Mr. Yates has said this comes out of their paycheck this is not a government tax or revenue so it doesn't hurt anyone on the taxpayer side or the government side at all. It's only funded by the farmers for the farmers. So the money is administered, and as this bill states, it still would be
administered by the Department of Agriculture. These boards would just be able to govern, set up who is the ones making the decisions for them. After the governor, these are all governor appointed people to these boards, and that's a major change from, as you can see, in the legislation where it's very, before was very specified who could be a member of each of these boards. The governor has the authority to choose all members of each of these boards
with authorization and approval by the Senate. So it really doesn't impact anyone on the governmental side except the farmers who know what is best for them. And I just would like for us to think about when we receive a check, it has the suicide hotline number. Farmers have one of the highest suicide rates in the country because they've spent their lives trying to eke out a living on their farm and they can't see any hope. A lot of these, as Mr. Yates has said, these are pennies
on the dollar that are being taken out of their commodity prices and sent to these research and promotion boards to help future areas of these agricultural crops. So to answer your question, every bit that a farmer has to give up and when they're just hanging on by their fingernails is important to them and this is what they are asking will help them. Thank you. That's very helpful.
Speaker 26
9:02
Thank you. Representative McGee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm assuming,
Speaker 27
9:11
correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming all these boards are, they're still, the monies that they collect and all are subject to legislative audit. Is that correct? That is correct. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Okay. Any other questions? Hey, we've got some people signed up.
Speaker 5
9:36
Okay, first will be Joe Christensen to speak for. If you'll identify yourself for
Speaker 34
9:49
the record. Ross Farmer in Cricket County. Also serve as chairman of the Ross Research and Promotion Board. Go ahead and speak. I'm in favor of this bill. I just think that everything's working well. I mean, I say I'm in favor of it.
I really don't like, I understand we've got to change the appointment process, but I've been on the promotion board for 20 years, and that board has worked great. And that's not people, I didn't look at, I was appointed by Farm Bureau, or I was nominated by Farm Bureau, but all our guys going there were rice farmers first. and that's exactly what we do we do the best for the rice farmer we had people from northeast arkansas all the way down to the southern tip of arkansas and we did our best and i've served
with different people and i never knew anybody that put their organization before the rice farmer that's what we did you know and i hate to see the appointment process change but you know different world different time so anyway and and listen Farm Bureau has done great job administrating this and I'm supportive of letting the boards decide where they want their uh whoever is going to manage this you know and I got a lot of things to say about 506 but we're up here
talking about another thing so I can answer any questions.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
11:24
for Mr. Christensen? Representative Lynch? Mr. Christensen, do you feel that the other boards are supported as strongly as the rice
Speaker 34
11:32
board by the farmers? Well, I think so, but I can't speak for them. You know, I have not heard any complaints about any of the boards and the way they've run. I mean, you know, I wouldn't be in this position
if it wasn't for the Farm Bureau. And I started as just a young man starting to grow a crop. And a neighbor asked me, you want to be in Foreign Bureau? High school education, no college degree, you know. And if you change this process, I wouldn't have that opportunity, I don't think. You know, and I can say a lot more about 506. But I just, I feel like most of the boards are happy, but I can't say that because I'm not on it. But I can say the Rice Board is happy the way it has been working.
Speaker 1
12:18
All right. Thank you. And we have received letters from the other boards as well. In particular, you may have received them as well. But the Soybean Council, of course, the Rice Council and so on, the Beef Council, the Cattlemen's Association, all are in
Speaker 2
12:34
favor of this bill because it leaves those decisions in the hands of
Speaker 5
12:40
farmers. All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thank you. We have no one signed up to speak against. We have another one for Derek Helms.
Would you come to the table and identify yourself? Looks like Mr. Helms might not be here right now, so we'll go down to Tommy Young, who also is signed up to speak. Are you Mr. Helms? Go down and identify yourself for
Speaker 44
13:18
the record, please. i'm derrick helms i am president of arkansas soybean association i'm also a dairy farmer
and a peach farmer and a soybean and row crop farmer from archadelphia arkansas i'm here to speak on behalf of keeping the checkoffs administered independently from the ag department most states i serve two two roles i serve as the president of arkansas Soybean Association, and I also serve on the Arkansas Soybean Promotion Board. Sorry, I'm out of breath. I had a milk pump this morning that was throwing a breaker,
and as Ms. Hawk can tell you, Mr. Bill, that's a pretty important thing, and I'm running a little late. You just take your time and catch your breath. We got all day and all night. um we find is the as and i'll speak on behalf of the soybean association as my role as president and what our our members want is to keep that check off as close to the producer as possible um i have a wife that works for the federal government i understand quite a bit about
government bureaucracy i get i get a lot of her headaches in dealing with that So keeping it as close, there's nothing I can switch a little bit and talk a little bit about my role is on the promotion board and my understandings of how the promotion boards work and the administration. The administration is completely independent regardless of who does it. Most state checkoffs, the bigger I states, the larger soybean-producing states,
um they they're in the they're administered independent from state government it's on a contractual basis uh some of them bid it out some of them don't um but there there's nothing the governance from usb from ams which is the agricultural marketing service um with through usda the federal government and provided for in the act in the order which was passed by congress in 1990 um setting up the checkoffs uh provides government governance and oversight
we're we're always audited by dfa legislative audit every year um we get a we get a that is done and we get a report from on the audit so there's oversight there um and it's it's best that our board can have a say in who our administrator is you don't always get it and it's best that the cost be kept down as low as possible to those producers that pay this
check off that's why a lot of the other states do it on a bid basis and a contractual basis so that they can keep that down and the governance again i'll reiterate is always there on the checkoff and i i can i can try to answer questions about you know and i'm speaking on behalf of the soybean checkoff which i know more about the cattle the beef checkoff is similar set up through the act and order the other four uh somebody could speak a little bit more clearly about their their
governance, to be clear. Thank you, Mr. Helms. Committee, do you have
Speaker 46
16:56
any questions? Seeing none, we thank you
Speaker 5
17:01
for your testimony. Okay, again, there is no one signed up to speak against. Tommy Young is here to speak for. If you'll introduce yourself. I'm
Chair
Unverified
17:16
Tommy Young from Jackson County. I
Speaker 53
17:20
am a rice, corn, wheat, and soybean producer in Jackson County.
I'm here in support of this. And I am also the chairman of the Arkansas Corn and Grain Sorghum Board. I will tell you that it has been an honor and privilege to be a part of that board. I am very disheartened of the way that things are turning out related to the way these boards are being treated now. I was talking with my brother-in-law the other evening, and he is a pharmacist and owns several pharmacies.
Speaker 54
17:55
And I asked him, I said, do you all have a board? And he said, yes, it's the pharmaceutical board. And I said, how do you determine who's the best to be on that board? And he said, well, through our association. Our association there, it kind of knows who needs to be on these boards. And guess what? That board kind of does a little bit of regulation. Our board does not. But anyway, he said all those names come through that association,
Speaker 55
18:26
and then they're put before the governor. And so guess what? They have the best of the best running their board. us as farmers we want the best of the best as well but yet we've changed that the bill that is before us the other bill it totally makes it to where all
Speaker 54
18:55
the levels of how the board members are chosen is taken away the grassroots part of creating who gets to be on
the boards is taken away and it's totally turned over to bureaucracy and we think that's okay but that doesn't ensure us as farmers to getting to be the best of the best but I guess we're going to have to do that because we got a ruling there that says we do I appreciate you so very much of trying to help us here this board that i sit on and have been chairman of is an excellent board because when it first
started corn in arkansas was a minority crop we only had a couple hundred thousand acres and we weren't a part of any national organization we weren't a part of anything that even recognized Arkansas on the map as part of the National Corn Growers Association, as a part of the U.S. Grains Council. We had an administrator that said, we need to be a part of these. And that administrator
was from Farm Bureau. He said, because Arkansas, it needs to have its state colored in as being a part of that. And so guess what? We set up and we became a part of the U.S. Grains Council. And so our state is known all across the world now as being a part of an organization that helps promote corn and grain sorghum out of our state to other parts of the world. It's also part of the National Corn Growers Association, which helps us to do the best we
can be, to be the best we can, and be level with the I-states. I pride myself in saying that when we go to a meeting of the National Corn Growers Association, we have one vote. Iowa has 10. But you know what? I can yell loud. I can talk in the lobby to some good friends from Iowa, and I can tell them things are a little different in Arkansas than they are here in Iowa, and so we might need to adjust a little bit and make it to where we can work. And guess what? They kind of
hear that, even though I've got one vote. We can influence change. So our board has done, and I'm using my board, the corn board, as an example because all the boards operate the same way. They all have the same structure. But no one has said anything about Farm Bureau here from the standpoint of it's a national organization. We have over 200,000 members in the state of Arkansas, over 6 million across the United States and Puerto Rico. Well, we can connect our state
and our corn-producing board with those tentacles that go out all across the country, and that makes good network. It makes good connection. Do you know that Kansas State has a number of people coming from all parts of the world to just come to their university to study and as a result of our board, as a result of Farm Bureau and the administrator that we had at the time,
we've got people coming to the University of Arkansas now from all parts of the world to study poultry. to study how they make nutrition changes in their diet. I traveled across all parts of Europe when they had a wheat shortage to try to get them to buy grain sorghum. They didn't know what grain sorghum was, and guess what? They do now because I told them, and I told them how itchy it was and how hard it was, and when I set my combine, I did not have to change it.
Speaker 53
23:05
But going on with that, my point is that Farm Bureau helped us bring Arkansas to the light of the country. We don't need to disconnect our boards from Farm Bureau. But guess what? Farmers back home, they want the disconnection from
Speaker 54
23:26
government. They want that disconnect. because, you know what, 90% of the farmers back home that I represent do not consider the money that they give that's held out of their settlement as a tax.
It's a donation. It's money that they consider a donation, per se, from the standpoint that they want it to develop better research. They want it to make it to where we can have better crops. One more example of that, and then I'm going to move on. My dad, my mom's 102. She still lives at home. I took her around the farm the other day to see how much it had rained. We were getting ready to plant corn.
When she was planting corn as a little girl, she planted it three feet apart. I plant it five inches apart now. She may have made 30 bushels to the acre. I'm trying to achieve 300. We can say, well, hybrids have helped, but guess what? No. Research done by the University of Arkansas and other universities across the country have told us how to better manage those things, how to properly do that, how to safely do that,
how to be environmentally friendly, how to be safe. Well, these boards that are seated with the people that I trust, because they've been going through several filters there to get to the level that that governor was able to choose them, I know that the decisions they're making is in my best interest, and it's in my mainstream farm. I could not have achieved what I'm doing now in agriculture without all that, and if we make it to where the boards become separated
from the infrastructure there, the grassroots structure, what you're going to have is bureaucracy. My worry is that in the future, the boards that you're
Speaker 53
25:29
seeing today will not be what they will be five years from now.
Speaker 57
25:48
I'm taking off the pen, if I can get it off, if I can't get it off. It's my Arkansas quarter grain sorghum board pen, taking it off. I'm a farmer now,
Speaker 54
26:10
and I'm just going to say that the money that we're contributing to these boards is my money.
Speaker 53
26:21
I grow about four or five hundred thousand bushels of
corn. It's about five thousand dollars I contributed to the corn board. I'm proud to do that and I'm proud that Farm Bureau and I'm proud that the boards that are seated now, when
Speaker 54
26:43
those university people come to me and they have a project that that project there is what I need. It's not fluff. And I'm glad to say that there's a disconnect. There's a total disconnect between government, between
the Arkansas Agricultural Division. There's a disconnect there because these farmers back home are thinking of that money as being what needs to be done to help me raise my crops. If we put all this together and we make the Department of
Speaker 53
27:19
Ag be the one that's in charge and all these things are underneath that, the
Speaker 54
27:26
farmers back home are not going to trust it. They're not going to think that it is
separate, they're going to think it's just another tax. And it's already been said that the people back home, the everyday person, my mother-in-law who is not connected with agriculture whatsoever, has no earthly idea about this and don't care. The only thing we're trying to do is take care of our farmers, the people here that produce the products, and do that. This bill here, it's
Speaker 53
28:05
a great bill. It allows us to continue the disconnect. It makes people back home going to feel comfortable that we're still going to have boards that represent them. As a farmer, I urge you, please do pass with this. Make it happen. Keep Farm Bureau, keep the tentacles there, keep everything alive, keep all of those things intact instead
of bringing it to a government bureaucracy where you've got a select group of people there
Speaker 54
28:40
that really, really may not truly know what agriculture is. Or you may even see it that you might have some people that think they know what agriculture is, but guess what? It's not mainstream. I would highly advise you to look at California. They have a different idea of agriculture than what we do. And we need to keep our agriculture to where we feed the world. The
hat I brought here is reminiscent of a farmer's hat, but it's talking about trade and keeping all that going. All this is tied together, gentlemen. Do you have any questions for me? Members, do you
Speaker 5
29:21
have any questions? Seeing none, we thank you for your testimony. Again, there is no one to speak against. Jennifer Cook is here to sign up to speak for, If you would identify yourself.
Speaker 63
29:40
I'm Jennifer Cook. I am a beef producer from Faulkner County, a small little town of Worcester.
Speaker 64
29:47
And I represent over 23,000 farms in the state of Arkansas that have beef cattle. What makes me unique is that I'm a first-generation producer. And I think when you look at the entire basket goods of ag products, you could equate about 14 cents of every dollar that's generated for our economy to come back to the farmer, where the other 86 cents will go to supporting career roles
that are also important. But if we don't take care of the farmer, none of those other jobs are going to happen. And the $19 billion ag industry that we brag about in the state of Arkansas is not going to look real pretty. And so when I think about even a phone call I had this morning, I impulsively bought some baby chicks for my birthday, which is this Friday. It took three different phone call attempts to connect with the post office in Greenbrier just to find out if they had arrived yet.
And when I went to market, the six steers that I have now living in my front yard that has turned into a mini feedlot, because we're not a big producer. I only had to reach out to one person, and that was Diane Spann, to get the marketing materials that I need. Now, some of y'all are a lot younger than me and computers, and you get along real well, but when it comes to creating marketing materials to be able to adequately market and produce the beef that has been grown in my front yard
for consumers that want to know where their food comes from, I'm not your girl I can't do that but within five seconds Donette was able to send me the materials that I need to market my my product my protein that is feeding the world and so I just encourage you to vote for this this the passage of this bill and essentially if you don't you're basically biting the hands that's feeding you because we need that support I'm so happy that my checkoff dollars are managed by an organization that takes care of me and takes care of other
little guys and people just like me that are, we just want to be farmers. And it's not the easiest industry to get into if you didn't inherit land. We have a lot of used T-posts. We have a squeeze chute that I'm still surprised one of my kids didn't break an arm on. We're just glad to be here. And I really don't want to have to spend any of my money to pay for three different people to finally give me the information that I need to be able to keep doing what I want to continue to do. Any questions from anybody?
Speaker 51
32:22
Committee, does anyone have any questions? Seeing none, thank you for your
Speaker 5
32:31
testimony. I think that concludes everyone that has signed up to speak for. Did I miss anybody that wants to speak for or against? Representative Hawk, are you ready
Speaker 1
32:42
to close for your bill? Yes, sir, I am. I think you've heard from each representative of these councils that they just want to farm. I can relate so well to a farmer.
My husband had to stop on the morning of our son getting married and make sure a cow was okay and was having her calf okay. And I said, we're not stopping. We are going to the wedding. And he was like, no, I have to stop and do this. These are people who every day face these challenges to make a living. All they're asking for is please let us make the decisions that are best in terms of research and promotion using our dollars, not just a donation, but an investment in their commodity.
Not looking at, these are people who love Sarah Sanders. They voted for her as governor. They love Wes Ward as secretary of the Department of Agriculture. This has nothing to do with those people or personalities. This has everything to do with keep us in charge of the very contributions that come out of that hard work every day. I can so relate to Jennifer getting started as a young farmer with nothing and trying to eke it out for the last 43 years.
And all this bill does is allows those promotion boards to continue to be the advisors on the checkoff monies that they invest in their products. And with that, I would ask, and since I'm a member of the committee, I make a motion due pass. Okay, we have a motion due pass.
Speaker 5
34:22
Is there any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor? Aye. Any opposed?
Congratulations, your bill has passed. Okay, we're going to move on down our list to Senate Bill 506. If you'll go to the end of the table and identify yourselves. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 27
34:59
Chair. Stetson Painter, District 3. Baxter County and Western Fulton County.
Speaker 72
35:04
Bree Ann Davis, State Senate, District 25.
Speaker 5
35:07
Thank you. You are recognized to present your
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
35:10
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are a lot of things I want to go through on this bill. I think I'll start with just explaining it. This bill does two things. It fixes the constitutionality issues with the way promotion boards are currently appointed. So we heard some of that through the last testimony. or testimony on the last bill, but it's based on the 2021 McCarty v. Plant Board case.
The state Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to delegate public power to private interests. So what we're doing in this bill is something we have to do. What happened with the state plant board is they did not fix that language before the Supreme Court ruling, and the entire board was disbanded, or the board was disbanded, and they had to fill those spots from a clean slate. So we're trying to prevent that from happening here. So the bill says in there that as members roll off, that is when the way that we do the new
appointments will come into place. So there'll be a smooth transition over the years to ensure that we both meet the constitutionality requirements of the Supreme Court ruling
and also we don't create any chaos on the boards. They're able to sort of maintain that stability as we
do what we need to do there. So in working on this bill, I took language from all six promotion boards. I worked with them. No promotion boards oppose this bill. Despite the testimony that you
heard, they are neutral on this bill. I want to make that very clear. The Ag Council is also neutral on this bill. I worked with them. I took their language to ensure that it was set up the way that they wanted it to be set up throughout the appointment process. So I would want to be very clear on that. The second thing that this bill does is it moves the registered agent and the administrator of the boards under the Department of Ag. So boards will keep all of their money to carry out their mission and priorities. I want to say that again. They will
keep all of their money. Money will not go to the Department of Ag. The Department of Ag will not control what their priorities are, what they spend their money on, and how they delegate their funds. This also will be at no cost to the promotion boards. We've worked
closely with the Governor's Office and the Department of Ag on this to ensure that the
Department of Ag would be able to absorb the cost of administering these boards. And so we are very clear on that and feel confident in that there have been some other bills this session that consolidate some of the
ag boards from 17 down to four um so that gives space with the over 500 employees that the department of ag currently has to be able to absorb these duties and administer um administer these boards so um i want to say one other thing there um you know we've heard a lot of testimony I guess that about Farm Bureau and removing them from the process but I want to be very clear that nothing in this
bill stops Farm Bureau from being involved from helping their farmers being involved
in the ag industry and doing some of the things that they do that they're already involved in this simply puts the promotion boards in a neutral place they are administered
in a neutral place the reason that Farm Bureau is even listed in state law is because years ago
when this legislation was passed, we didn't have a Department of Ag. And we have one now. And Farm Bureau does not represent all
farmers. And there are people on these promotion boards that maybe aren't Farm
Bureau members. And so I think it's important that these boards represent all farmers in the industry that they are in, and that these boards are administered in a place that is neutral. Like I said, they are still able to fulfill their mission, carry out their priorities, and have every single penny that they currently have. This bill will not take a single penny from any of these promotion boards to carry out their mission. And so I want to be clear and clarify some of that for you all. And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 76
39:29
Committee, do you have any questions? Representative McCollum. Thank you,
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
39:39
Mr. Chair. Thank you both for being here today. A few things. You hit out at the very beginning. Can you kind of walk through the constitutional or accountability concerns and
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
39:50
kind of expand maybe if you can on the thought of trying to bring in some neutrality on this?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
39:57
Yes, I'm happy to do that. So, like, the Department of Finance Administration, they have a role in this.
There are fees paid from the promotion boards to DFA, close to 5% to cut their checks and do some of the stuff. So that role will not change. The boards will still be subject to state budgeting, to procurement laws, and we're adding an annual reporting requirement, which is going to provide the additional transparency and accountability that's been lacking. and quite honestly that many of the producers that pay check-off funds complain about. So we did feel like it was good to put that additional annual reporting requirement in there.
So there's that additional transparency, that additional accountability. And we actually looked at some research through
the National Ag Law Center, and they found that no other states in the country have Farm Bureau administer their promotion boards. So what we're doing is an anomaly. It's an abnormal thing. And so, again, we feel like having these boards housed in a neutral place at the Department of Ag to administer, set up meetings, take minutes, help with agendas,
that's what we're talking about, administering these accounts, some fairly simple
tasks there. And so we think that that's fair to have that housed in
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
41:24
questions? Representative Anka? Thank you. Is there anything in this legislation that would prevent Farm Bureau from continuing their price concessions or donations to any of these boards that they currently provide those to? No, there's not. Thank you.
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
41:41
Any other questions, committee? Yes. I'm sorry. You're recognized. How does this bring transparency to the promotion boards when they're audited individually and the Department of Ag
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
41:54
is audited as a whole? well there's going to be like we said additional reporting requirements so that will go through audit and be brought to the legislature so and it being housed under department of ag we'll be able to ensure that we see all of those checkoff funds and where they go and like i said there are producers who pay checkoff funds who have consistently complained about this over the
years and so we feel like it's something we
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
42:16
need to address follow up go ahead so if the is the department of ag currently under a hiring freeze we have to hire some people with the department of ag we're not under a hiring freeze they've got everybody in place to handle this we have everyone going to add to they've got enough staff to run this not hire any positions not cost the taxpayers any
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
42:36
money that's correct they have over 500 employees as i said we've run other bills this session that condense some of the ag boards from 17 down to four and so that's
actually what took me so long to file the bill, not only working with the promotion boards on their language to ensure that the appointment process was set up the way that they wanted it to be, but also waiting to ensure that the Department of Ag could easily absorb these duties. I was not going to file this bill
unless I was assured of that, and I knew that the Department of Ag could easily transition and absorb these duties without adding any personnel and without any cost to any promotion board.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
43:16
Representative Lynch, you're recognized. Senator Davis, if this is a better deal for the farmers, why do you think none of those farmers are here to speak for this
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
43:27
bill? Well, they're probably out there farming. I want to say that I think the testimony, oh, we do have some, actually. I don't know if they're signed up to speak or not. But I think a lot of the people that we've
heard testifying are Farm Bureau farmers. And that's fine, but there are other farmers out there who are on these promotion boards that maybe are not Farm Bureau members.
And the point of these boards is to support the industry and the farmers in their industry, whether or not they're Farm Bureau members. And as I said, the National Ag Law Center has found that no other
states have Farm Bureau administering these promotion boards. And so I think it's an easy way to house
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
44:10
them in a neutral place. So thank you. So the removal of the Farm Bureau as an administration, is that effort as a result of complaints from people on the promotion boards?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
44:23
Well, I think that it is an effort to have efficient and transparent government, to be honest. I mean, like we said, we have heard complaints over time about the transparency part of the checkoff funds that producers pay in. But it just, it makes sense. Like, as I said, when we passed this originally, we didn't have a Department of Ag, and
now we do. And understanding that no other states do it this way, and just for ease of efficient government
and those additional accountability reporting
requirements, I think is a good reason to do it.
Chair
Unverified
45:03
Representative Huck, you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Davis. When you talk about neutrality, we heard
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
45:10
on the last bill, I think we actually kind of heard two bills in the testimony, but this bill is not going to not allow farmers to have a voice on the board.
Whenever they put in, just like for any other appointment, we will still be able to get farmers on this board, but it's just going to be in the Department of Ag, correct? We're not going to go and just get a bunch of people that don't know the
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
45:38
industry to be on the board, correct? Right. Those are sort of two separate parts of the bill. And the way that the boards are going to have members appointed to them, they all have to be producers in that industry. So we had to do that part for constitutionality reasons, and they all will be within their industry. It's very clear on that.
And then separately, the registered agent, which in current law says the registered agent of each promotion board, will be the executive vice president of Farm Bureau. And
times have changed. We have a Department of Ag now, and I think
it's pretty wild that we're listing a group like that just so blatantly, including their address, 10720 Canis Road, in our state law. I don't think that's appropriate at all. So separately, that needs to be housed within the Department of Ag.
But the Department of Ag is not taking away any power or control, function, mission, or priorities of any of the promotion
Speaker 99
46:37
boards. Thank you. Representative Hawk, your recognition. Thank
Speaker 107
46:44
you. So would you say that the previous bill that was heard would also do the same things as your bill, that they correct the constitutionality of the selection of the board members, that it puts it under the Department of Agriculture as well.
It takes Farm Bureau out of it, as was testified, that the promotion boards can select them, just like any other bidding process. They would still report to the Department of Ag. And my last question is, why was this signed out of the Senate Ag Committee and not heard where farmers could actually come and speak on your bill in the
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
47:25
Senate Ag Committee? I actually disagree, Representative Hawk. Our bills do not do the same thing.
So it does on the constitutionality part, but it does not take Farm Bureau out of it. And so there is a clear difference. If our bills were the exact same, I don't think you'd be running yours. And so there is a difference there. The reason that my bill was signed out, you have to have in the Senate five, a majority of members on a Senate committee sign a bill out. So I had a majority of members willing to do that. We were supposed to hear the bill last Thursday evening. The Senate ran very late. As you all know, you've been running late.
And so Senator Caldwell canceled the ag meeting. I waited because I thought maybe we would have another meeting in time, and we did not. I mean, as you know, Senator Caldwell's district was pretty heavily destroyed by the tornado. um so simply for getting it through this process um i
signed it out and worked with those five members um and was you know clear with them on on
the bill they understood it pretty well and so that that's why i mean we all know we're in the last
week of session um time's running out it's
important that we fix the constitutionality issues and um this bill is is mostly through the
process um and we needed to get it out of the senate in so we could get it here today
Speaker 107
48:52
okay brief one please so just to clarify you did say that the previous bill hb um 1843 does also correct the constitutionality questions in the current law yes i believe you guys took my language
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
49:02
it does yes and but i am unsure if senate ag is going to meet again any other questions
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
49:10
okay you're recognized but it would be safe to say if they did meet again they could get five signature, sign it out, and do it quickly and get it moved on
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
49:21
in the process. Would that be safe to say? I do not speak for any members on
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
49:25
ag, so I don't know the answer to that. One more thing, one more follow-up, and I'll be... So you said, does Louisiana not do the same Farm Bureau model as Arkansas or neighboring
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
49:33
state Louisiana? Based on what I saw with the National Ag Law Center, there were no other states that do this with all their promotion boards. I may be
mistaken, but I thought Louisiana... You may be correct. I just know based on the research that
Speaker 5
49:47
I did there. All right. Thank you. Yep. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from the committee? All right. We have several people signed up to speak. And I know I said we've got all day and all night, and we'll take as much time as we need, but I would appreciate if you could be succinct and maybe not repeat yourself. All right. Signed up to speak against the bill is Travis Justice.
Would you go to the table
Travis Justice
Unverified
50:28
and identify yourself, please? Please excuse my immobility here. My name is Travis Justice. I
Speaker 118
50:34
am a retired individual at the moment. I do own land. I do own cattle.
and so from that standpoint i'm a cattle producer but what i retired from i served as administrator of the arkansas beef council since its inception in 1983 up until two years ago so i have been engaged with that program most directly but i've been around the emergence of all six of these programs. I know, uh, very familiar with all of them, the way they were
formatted, the reasons they came into being. Uh, and so, uh, but I can comment more directly about the Beef Council. Uh, the reason these programs were created to start with was to address a need that farmers themselves saw within their industries, uh, for the needs for more production data, more marketing information, support in the production and the sale of their product. A number of efforts were going on nationally.
And in fact, our organization and other organizations in Arkansas, the cattle industry, the livestock marketing industry, were engaged in voluntary programs. Farmers voluntarily contributed to generate a pool of funds to address their research and promotion needs. Those merged into a more full-fledged program, and it led to the creation of the state-legislated programs.
And all of these programs have state legislation, which you're addressing here. they started with state legislated assessment but there was a refund provision farmers didn't agree they could opt and get their money back in all of these programs the refund rate never got over three percent of the hundred percent of people being assessed less than three percent ever requested a refund and in some boards even less
than that. So it became, over the years, it merged into where these are mandatory programs now to remove the refund provision since the majority of these industries supported the programs and the assessments thereof. So these programs emerged out of an outgrowth to address farmer needs. And then the other thing that distinguishes these programs, and it's an assessment program, it's not a tax program, it's an assessment program,
is to create an entity to govern the use of those funds for those particular commodities. Each one of these programs went through a referendum process. There was a format and a procedure and a structure put in place as to how the programs would be set up, governed, and implemented. But farmers, and these were all voted to, subjected to a referendum vote amongst farmers, amongst the producers.
So there was a beef referendum. There was a soybean referendum. There was a rice referendum. Farmers themselves voted to the proposed structure of these programs. The state authorizing legislation. It was authorizing legislation. It was not enabling. If farmers approve of this, here's the structure the state's authorized to implement this, but only upon farmers agreeing to it. So from the way these programs started, the farmers were guiding the ship the entire way.
And so we, up to this point, yes, I understand we may have to adjust the appointment process due to some constitutionality issues. But the operations of the board, the administration of the board, have never been in question. And the administration's been provided at no cost, provided with expertise amongst the individuals.
You know, I was one at one point. And then to address some comments, I've heard some other statements. You know, Farm Bureau's coming into question here. Farm Bureau has graciously provided that staff support. In the interest of serving these boards, and that's the only interest, serving the boards, it is still to each individual board we're talking about here,
it's that individual board that decides how the money's spent, what programs are enacted. The staff support provided by the Farm Bureau is only to implement the direction of the board. Yeah, handle the paperwork that's required through the state vouching and auditing system and some of the day-to-day operations just to manage the agency, managing the board. But the use of money, decisions on how it's to be spent, that's totally at discretion.
These boards always has been and I hope always will be. to address the point made that, yes, Farm Bureau is the, you know, Arkansas is the only state that has Farm Bureau as an administrator. That's not true. There are, depending on whether it's beef, whether it's corn, whether it's soybean, in other states, Farm Bureau is the administrator to serve a similar role that we're serving here, only to facilitate the actions and directions that that board dictates.
So now, more specific on the beef that I know most about, there are no state beef councils that I'm aware of, none. There's 45 state beef councils in the United States. None of them are administered by their State Department of Agriculture. They are all administered by an industry group, whether it's Farm Bureau, whether it's Cattlemen,
whether it's Stock Growers, whether it's a standalone agency in itself. None of them have a connection. Now, some of them have oversight, just as the current boards have oversight. Our funds are appropriated out and justified through appropriations by the state legislature. Our funds are audited by legislative audit.
So we have accountability and oversight. In fact, the only oversight we have is the enforcement of the assessment and to assure funds are used for legal purposes. On the beef side, I'd speak, and it's similar to soybeans because those two programs fall under national legislation. In the creation of the National Beef Checkoff Board, if you will, they have oversight by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the purpose of collections and making sure funds are used properly.
Other than that, it's up to industry groups to handle the day-to-day management administration of the program. And on the beef side, there is a system set up to identify eligible producer groups to name and nominate to the Secretary of Agriculture members to serve on that board. Exactly the format that we follow here in Arkansas.
which we've been following since 1983. The National Board wasn't created until 1986. And so soybeans are set up a similar way. And so they all recognize the importance of established industry groups determining the makeup of these boards. These are the leaders, producer leaders, who have been vetted and demonstrated the capacity to represent their farmer interests
in allocating farmer funds. And so in Arkansas, Farm Bureau happens to be the industry group that is associated in handling the day-to-day administration of these programs. Other states, other type entities do it, but they're all industry-based groups, not government groups. And so to go towards taking part of Ag Ministers runs counter to all the other groups.
That bill runs counter to the other group, not the current bill runs counter to what's been reported here. So those are my comments. I'd be glad I didn't have any questions, but I urge you to stay with the House bill version that you just recommended do pass on. and not support the all-inclusive bill that is represented in 506. It goes a step beyond and further removes and isolates farmer interests
Travis Justice
Unverified
1:00:59
from having direct input in these boards. Okay, thank you for your comments. Any questions? Representative Hock? On
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:01:07
that last statement you just said it eliminates farmers. We just heard from the testimony earlier that farmers are going to be involved still in the board. So how is it that they're going to be removed?
Speaker 118
1:01:25
be removed? Well, I may have overstated there a little bit. But, yeah, the industry groups recommend to the governor now,
and then the governor appoints the current board members. So now you're just selecting people at large. Now, we can still recommend the governor, but it doesn't carry the weight that's required to address those nominees. So it removes that layer of assurance that you've got vetted producers being considered here. And then moving administration, you know, it kind of insulates a little bit on the decision-making.
Okay, the boards didn't decide who our administrator was going to be. Now, on the Beef Council, they did. Other boards, if you'll notice, the Beef Council legislation is a little different from the other boards. Other boards designate Farm Bureau. The Beef Council does not. Beef Council chose to elect
Travis Justice
Unverified
1:02:36
Farm Bureau to retain Farm Bureau's administrators. Thank you. Anything else?
Speaker 5
1:02:43
Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. All right. Signed up to speak for the bill is Charles Williams. Come to the table and identify yourself,
Charles Williams
Unverified
1:03:05
please. Mr. Chairman, members, my name is Charles Williams. I farm with my family in Crittenden County. Excuse my attire.
I'd rather be farming, and I was probably two and a half hours ago. I don't want to belabor the constitutional issues. I think they're well rehearsed, other than to say that industry associations aren't a fourth branch of government. I did a stint as chairman of the Wheat Promotion Board, and I want to speak for the relative merits of SB 506. It adds a much needed level of accountability to the promotion boards.
I'm a member of Farm Bureau, the Soybean Association. I'm a board member of Ag Council of Arkansas and Farm Voice. All that's to say industry associations are important. But they aren't a fourth branch of government. And there's some debate about what these funds are, and I don't want to split hairs here. I'd like to say that these may not technically be checkoff funds.
As the gentleman referred to, you know, a checkoff has a referendum and a refund mechanism. What we're talking about here, these assessments, these are public funds. And so what I'd like to ask is that we just please keep the tentacles, as the word was used, tentacles, Please keep the tentacles of industry associations off these funds that the promotion boards use and exercise.
They exercise public power with public money, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. I don't know what the current administrator is getting out of this. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I do want to point out that I haven't exhaustively looked at this, but I do know that as I was doing some research for other legislation regarding the Rice Promotion Board assessment,
that in Mississippi and in Louisiana, the Department of Agriculture or their equivalent does administer those programs. And I do know that in North Dakota, the equivalent of the Department of Ag administers their soybean program as well. Again, I haven't looked at it exhaustively, but I just did want to mention that. It's not unheard of. With that, I'd be happy to field any questions.
Speaker 111
1:06:03
Thank you. Are there any questions from
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
1:06:12
the committee? Representative Lynch? Mr. Williams, you said these are public funds? Okay. Are they collected from
Charles Williams
Unverified
1:06:21
the citizenry at large or just the producers? They're producers and, in some instances, first-time purchasers. Okay.
Speaker 5
1:06:36
All right. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Oh, wait. Representative Hawke? So to
Speaker 107
1:06:42
your question then, these are not taxpayer funds. Is that correct? I couldn't
Charles Williams
Unverified
1:06:47
speak to that definitively. I can say that they are an assessment and they are public funds. Okay. Thank
Speaker 5
1:06:56
you. Seeing no other questions, I thank you for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Signed up to speak against is Tommy Young.
If you'll come to the table, introduce yourself,
Speaker 53
1:07:16
please. Tommy Young, Jackson County Farmer. I'd like to comment that I was spraying at 1230 last night, and I'm tired. But I feel like it's important, and we've got rain falling, and I guarantee you if we even had known it was going to rain, this room would probably have been full. But I would just like to address a few comments that was made.
I'm not here because of Farm Bureau. I'm here because I'm a farmer. Senator made the comment that everyone here just about is Farm Bureau. I was nominated to the Arkansas Corn and Grain Sargent Board by Riceland Foods. In the statute, originally, there was multiple organizations there, and I'm not sure if you're aware of that, that were able to make nominations. It gives a good cross-section of people to be able to have a pool of people to put before the governor.
In other words, our board consists of some Farm Bureau members, consists of some Ag Council members, consists of Rice and Foods members. Rice and Foods, I think, was chosen mainly because we're the largest rice-producing state in the nation. And then corn at the time was a very minute crop, but nonetheless, that gave them the ability to have a board there to vet these people through. I hate that the vetting process is being looked at as unconstitutional.
because I feel like that what's going to happen in the future is this boards that we're seeing seated will not be what they are now. I feel like that you're going to have a group of people there that may not be qualified to make the determination whether or not this person needs to be on the board simply because of their signing up online. They may say that they're a farmer, but believe it or not, in Arkansas, to be a century farm, you only have to have 10 acres, and you have to farm that 100 years consecutively by that same
family to be a farm. I farm a lot more acres than that, and I farm diversely. I farm rice, corn, wheat, and soybeans, and I want to think that the people that's representing me are people that understand the way I'm farming as opposed to a gardener. I'm not saying anything's wrong with these small farms. They can be farming, but therefore, when you're on a board there and you've got the university there that is presenting research,
and I'm unqualified to understand that particular research that's being done, but I'm on that board because I'm a farmer. We've vetted those through the process that we currently have, And I hate to say that
Speaker 54
1:10:02
that, has it truly been unconstitutional by our boards yet? I mean, has it been challenged? I don't want it to be challenged, but has it been? It has not. That was only because of the state plant board, and it was a regulatory board.
That is a difference. All these other boards that we're talking about out there besides ours are regulatory that impact the general public. Every walking soul in the state are impacted by some of these others, but ours is not. The rice board only affects me as a rice farmer. The corn board only affects me as a corn farmer. So therefore, I feel like what we're trying to drive home, and I hate to just keep pounding it, is that these dollars are generated by what I grow.
If I decide not to grow any rice this coming year, I won't be paying any checkoff or with Pell funds to that board because I'm not growing any rice. But if I
Speaker 53
1:11:06
grow all corn, I'm going to be paying a whole lot more corn. So therefore, I want to think that those dollars there are being spent on research and promotion for that particular crop, and those things are being administered by people who know what they're doing.
Finally, I'd like to say, what's wrong with the
Speaker 54
1:11:32
disconnect? We're saying we're wanting to create bigger government. I consider myself conservative. And I always thought conservative-minded people wanted smaller government, lesser government, less red tape. one page of things to fill out when you have to do a program instead of an enormous amount of pages.
But yet what we're doing here is we're creating bureaucracy and government that's going to create distrust back home with my fellow farmers back home because they're saying, well, we're just paying a tax now. I
Speaker 53
1:12:13
want to... Am I under oath? Am I under oath? Okay, I want to be. You're recorded and on TV. I want to be under oath because what I
Speaker 54
1:12:23
want to say is that out of the 15 years that I've spent on the board that I'm on,
not one time, not once, has anyone ever approached me and said, we think it needs to go this way. On that particular project, you need to go, and you need to make that go this way. Not one time has Rice and Foods ever approached me and said, Tommy, you need to not do this. You need to do this. And you know what that disconnect does for me not being part of government?
Speaker 53
1:13:03
It enables me, when I have research being presented to me or promotion projects presented
Speaker 54
1:13:09
to me there, and my fellow board members are cohesive in this, that if it's fluff, if it's, hey, I want to do a project growing corn that has
Speaker 53
1:13:23
all different colors of corn. I want to grow ornamental corn. I want to do a project on ornamental corn. And we say, well, the
Speaker 54
1:13:34
tax dollars that's been generated, not tax,
the money that's been generated here for this to give you that, for that project is
Speaker 53
1:13:44
not generated by farmers there that want you to do research on that type of corn. They want you to do research on corn that is used for feed use. So we reject that. That's an elementary example of certain projects, but I'm just going to say that what we want to do
Chair
Unverified
1:14:09
is keep that disconnect there. Port of order, Mr. Chairman. Yes.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
1:14:14
Excuse me just a minute. I think we're a little off the subject. We're talking about
Speaker 15
1:14:21
all kinds of things, and we're not really talking
Speaker 60
1:14:24
about this bill. Okay. Direct your comments specifically to the bill, please. Okay. This particular bill here I feel like creates government that disconnects and makes a total government roundabout ball of wax to
Speaker 53
1:14:34
where farmers back home won't feel comfortable in thinking that things are being done down there at the board is in their best interest.
Speaker 99
1:14:44
Any questions? Thank you. Any questions? Representative
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:14:48
Vaught? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry that I'm late. I was trying to run some bills on the Senate end.
Sir, do you feel like the Department of Agriculture doesn't do a good job for the farmers
Speaker 53
1:14:59
in the state of Arkansas? I'm delighted that we have a Department of Agriculture. I'm delighted with Wes Ward. I think he's a fine example and a great face of agriculture for the state of Arkansas. I think Sarah Huckabee is a great governor and is going to be good for the state of Arkansas.
I feel like these particular things that we're talking about right now
Speaker 54
1:15:19
are not in that wheelhouse. I feel like this is something that don't need to be just put into that wheelhouse. And I think the Department of Ag there don't need to have that responsibility of
Speaker 55
1:15:32
managing this and creating more government. May I have a follow-up, please? Yes. But isn't that the
Speaker 149
1:15:39
business that they're in over there of taking
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:15:43
care of our farmers, making sure? I'm a farmer, just so you know.
I am a farmer. We have, yeah. But in reality, that is what they do, though. Isn't it what they do is take care of our farmers to make sure that people understand what we have available, try to market the best prices that we can for our products in our state, those kind of things. I mean, I'm just really
Speaker 53
1:16:09
asking. No, I think I appreciate the question, and here's how I'm going to respond to that. As I said in the previous conversation and comments that I made, the American Farm Bureau and the Arkansas Farm Bureau are over 6 million strong.
They provide all of those services, and we're providing that service at no cost to these boards now. Arkansas Department of Ag has not that big
Speaker 54
1:16:36
of a tentacle. It's not that big. It can't reach. I feel like I have, at one time, had three ways to reach the president, three steps. I talked to the president of Arkansas Farm Bureau.
He called the president of the American Farm Bureau. That person talked to Zippy Duvall, and then we talked to the president. We had that connection. I'll just say that Arkansas, I feel like what
Speaker 53
1:17:08
we're doing here, and I talked to a man on the way down here to answer your question. I said he thinks that, well, in five years, I won't be able to trust what's coming
Speaker 54
1:17:22
out of these boards because the makeup of the boards will be different, and the oversight of those boards will be government.
Speaker 53
1:17:31
The perception of government, the perception of that one thing. The United States Department of Agriculture administers public funds, tax dollars that are generated by everybody. These things, as was mentioned, are not tax dollars. They are dollars that's generated by me growing a certain crop, wanting to do research and promotion for that. If these were tax dollars that the Arkansas public generated
through the Arkansas Department of Ag, yes, they need to
Speaker 55
1:18:06
be in charge because it's public dollars. These are not. I'll get back
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:18:18
in the queue. Representative McCullough. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here today. So is part of your opposition to this bill, does it have to do with you being opposed to the
Speaker 53
1:18:32
way the boards are being appointed or restructured? We, as I understand it, that's been a Supreme Court decision.
I feel like that Supreme Court decision was probably misinterpreted, but we are going to have to live with that. But the second thing is, I don't want to create... Sorry, but
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:18:53
is that part of your... Yes, that is. It's the way the boards are being
Chair
Unverified
1:19:00
applied? Okay, and sorry, go ahead with the second thing. And the second thing is, is creating a government. that the
Speaker 54
1:19:06
founding fathers of these particular boards, as we want to use the term founding fathers, probably got together around a coffee table somewhere and said,
hey, we can't grow corn very well or we can't grow rice very well, so let's put some money together. And they created this, and they did not have the intention for it to become a public entity per se like we're going to create it today.
Speaker 81
1:19:30
Thank you. I guess, follow up if I may. Yes.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:19:37
I'm just a little confused, and I know I came in late on Representative Hawke's bill before, but if part of the opposition is not liking the way the boards are appointed,
I thought that was also in her bill. Yes, we're accepting that. So can you walk me through, like, I guess if that's part of the opposition, then help me with the train of thought and your perspective on this. We've
Speaker 53
1:20:02
got two things in the same bill, and we're accepting the fact that we're going to have to make change due to what's supposedly unconstitutional in the bill. And so we're in full support of her bill because it does that. It corrects that as we perceive it.
Chair
Unverified
1:20:17
But what I am against in 506 is the total taking away of Farm Bureau as being the sole administrator of that. And
Speaker 54
1:20:27
we want to pass hers because it continues to allow us to be able to use the same system that we've been using, the trusted system that we've been using, and farmers back home can continue to believe that the dollars that they're putting forth when they grow those crops and create that checkoff funds,
Chair
Unverified
1:20:48
that they're being administered in their best interest for the mainstream of the way they
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:20:57
farm today. Thank you. Okay. Representative Hawk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. So we've clarified that we like the director of ag, right? He's a good guy. We like Farm Bureau. They do a great job. But at the same time, I'm trying to figure out the issues here. If we trust the Department of
Ag and what Wes Ward's done for the Department of Ag, but yet we're saying that we don't trust him and them to run these boards is that is am i hearing this correct because basically we're saying one one minute we're saying yes uh we we like what he's doing we we love what he's doing but we don't trust him to run the these boards am i am i
Speaker 151
1:21:38
hearing that correctly i don't think the word
Speaker 53
1:21:41
trust is a good word to be using here i feel like we're getting it done totally free now and we've got a major major organization here a national organization here that's very well
connected all across the United States and they are able to use these we're able to use these boards here and reach out and and be able to get the best knowledge the best research the best everything we can get and that's what we want to continue as a farmer I'm putting my farmer hat on here I feel like if we had that then we have the best of the best I don't know that we'll have the best of the best putting it in the Department of Ag just just for the sake of uh I guess you'd say by creating a system or whatever you want to word, however you want to look at it.
We've got very trained, good people in Farm Bureau that are well-connected nationally that can talk to other state execs and everywhere else to make these boards be run efficiently. and I can tell you not one time have any of those ever had kind of what I would say an influence on me and I want to continue to have that feeling that no one is influencing me
and I'm not telling you that today if it was put over into the Department of Ag we would have a problem but I'm looking at five ten years down the road how is it going to be then especially with the way we're having to vet
Chair
Unverified
1:23:13
people to be on the boards. Does that make sense, sir? Thank you very
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
1:23:21
much. Representative McCullough, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the perspective. And at the proper time, considering all the references that have been made to Secretary Ward,
I'd love to hear from Secretary Ward. I don't know if he's signed up or not, if that's
Speaker 5
1:23:34
something that you could call him. I have to apologize. The old guy up here, his eyes aren't worth. They were. Secretary Ward did actually sign up to speak
Speaker 107
1:23:48
for it, and I'm going to recognize him next. Thank you, sir. Representative Hawke. So I would just like to clarify. Your thinking is, well, what we would really like is for the farmers to decide where their priorities should be, and we would like the Department of Ag to support the farmers
and those that are in the field every day making those decisions be the ones that the Department of Ag would support in moving forward. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes, absolutely. And I appreciate
Speaker 162
1:24:14
the bill. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Secretary Ward, I apologize. You are
Speaker 5
1:24:21
next. Please go at the end of the table and recognize yourself. and you are signed up to speak for the bill.
Speaker 167
1:24:43
Thank you, sir. Westmore from the Arkansas Department of Agriculture. So I would like to start. I've got a current roommate while the legislative session is going on, Representative Milligan, and he's always imparting wisdom on my life, but he told me something the other day. It's like, you just have to remember that it's not personal. It's business. We're here to do the best job, and so I say that just to start because I look at this room, and I know everybody in here. I don't think there's anybody in here that I don't know, and I think the world of them, I have a tremendous amount of respect for them and what they do and what they try to do for
our state and our agriculture industry, and so it's nothing against them or nothing saying that they've done a bad job or even disagreeing with their arguments. I think purely it's, as has been representative by Senator Davis and Representative Painter, you know, there are constitutional issues. That's how this conversation got started. And so just looking at the makeup of these boards and not just the research and promotion boards and how that might impact the state's largest industry being agriculture, but as we work through Senate Bill 403, which was,
as Senator Davis mentioned, to consolidate those 16 boards into four. We recognize through those that eight of those 16 had constitutional issues that had to be fixed. If we're going to better and best serve our state's largest industry, we've got to fix those constitutional issues so that we don't have issues and disruption to the industry moving forward. And I think that's a commitment from the governor to make sure that we're responsive, that we're getting rid of things that might hold our industry back. And so we take that very seriously. So the constitutional issues is one aspect of it
that this bill does fix. And then the good governance piece came up as well. You know, how do we make sure that the industry is best served from all farmers, from all aspects of agriculture, whether that's big or small or specialty crop or livestock or poultry or aquaculture, you name it. I mean, we've got a very broad, diverse agriculture industry in the state of Arkansas and trying to find the best way to find good governance and to find a neutral spot so that everybody is there and welcome. And so as this bill has progressed, I will just say this is just me personally as Wes Ward sitting here.
As I look at this bill and I look at how important agriculture is and the conversations that we've had with legislators and with the governor's office and the governor herself, you know, it's something that we take very seriously, that I personally take very seriously because it is that important. That's why these people are here today, because it is important. So you have that commitment from myself and from the department that we will take it seriously. If this bill passes, we're going to dedicate our very best to making sure that there are no hiccups, that there are no issues, that what will be 46, it's either 46 or 47 members that make up those six research and promotion boards,
that they're equipped to make the best decisions that they can, that we're supporting them the best that they can. and that we're reaching out to the farm bureaus and the ag councils and the cattlemen's associations to make sure that they're involved and that they're engaged and that they're making sure that they're helpful and making recommendations to the governor. You have to fix the constitutional issues that exist in statute, but we definitely want them involved. Our agriculture industry needs them involved, so it's not an effort to try to cut them out or to get rid of them or to displace them or to say that they're not important.
It's the opposite. It's just to fix the issues that our agriculture industry isn't disrupted, but with their input and their feedback and their involvement moving forward. And so there's a commitment from us, there's a commitment from me, from the department, to take this very seriously, very seriously, and to make sure that we're implementing the best that we possibly can, and to also do that that doesn't impact cost. So we've made a commitment to the governor and to the legislators that if that moves over to the department, We would not use any of those checkoff funds that comes from the producers or from the industry for administrative costs.
That's a commitment from us, and we're going to hold true to that. And we're going to make sure that they're successful and have the tools that they need to move forward. So I wanted to make those comments. I'm happy to answer any questions, if there are any. But I am in favor of the bill. I'm in favor of our farmers. I'm in favor of our agriculture industry. It's incredibly important. and I don't envy y'all and the role that y'all play in having to review thousands of these bills that are similar to this, but it is important. I think this
Speaker 168
1:29:10
is a good bill that will accomplish what's best for Arkansas agriculture.
Speaker 5
1:29:15
Thank you. Committee, do you have questions? Representative
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:29:21
Wing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And forgive me if I'm asking something that has been answered. This is my fourth committee this morning. I just walked in, so I'm aware of the issue, obviously. And I know that we passed in this committee earlier today, 1843, and I know both of those bills address the constitutionality concerns, which I think has brought up most of this. Can you speak to the, if it's appropriate, Mr. Chair, the differences between the two
and do they both address the constitutionality and your thoughts on both? Yes, sir. Yeah, absolutely. Yes,
Speaker 167
1:29:56
sir. That's a great question, and I appreciate Representative Honk and Senator Stubblefield for their bill. I think that it does address the constitutional issues, and that's incredibly important. Personally, where I think where the difference is is that it leaves to the individual boards, the six boards, to make the decision of how they want to be administered. So a couple things. Point number one is administration.
Point number two is the annual reporting itself. So on the administration itself, so if you give it to the boards, and, you know, I understand where that comment comes from, but from a good governance standpoint, you could end up with six boards being administered in six different places, six different ways. So just for the sake of consistency, you know, that's where I think 506 is different. It puts it in one spot and makes that clear. And then the second point being the reporting. So Senate Bill 506 does require an annual report, both to the governor as well as the chairs of the House and Senate Ag.
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
1:30:55
Follow-up, please, sir. Could you comment on how other states approach this process? Because I know historically we kind of fell into something that was before the Department of Ag was even around. And so kind of talk about what are we seeing best practices from other states? Sure. Yes, sir. And we did,
Speaker 167
1:31:13
as Senator Davis has mentioned a little while ago, we looked at the National Ag Law Center. They've got some incredible resources. We're fortunate to have them located here in Arkansas, and they do a good job.
But we looked at some of their resources, and from what we could find, I'd be happy to share a spreadsheet of what they put together. To my knowledge, they're not administered by Farm Bureau in any other state. A lot of state ag departments are involved in administration of those research and promotion boards. They're just different throughout the country. but would be happy to share what we've got from the National Ag
Speaker 168
1:31:43
Law Center on their administration. Thank you very much. Yes, sir. Representative Anker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
1:31:55
Speaking from a different side of farming, the farming with a PH in the pharmacist world. Boom. Our board is, our boards, we have the State Board of Pharmacy. that's obviously under the purview of the state, and then we have our pharmacy association. The pharmacy association does a selection process to nominate to the governor for consideration any open appointment for that. And in that endeavor, the association can secure endorsements
to sign on to endorse that. It seems I'm hearing a lot of concern from these individual boards that that they will lose the opportunity of their selection process. Would the Department of Ag have the ability and the authority to sign on and endorse, and can you commit to endorsing their selections to the governor when those come open? I
Speaker 167
1:32:51
can't answer that question directly, but I can answer it to my ability. So one, it would be a governor-appointed position. All of the seats on the research and promotion boards,
and I'd have to look at the language, but I think it says actively and principally engaged in whatever each of the six boards are, whether that's rice or cotton or soybeans, not cotton, but that's a separate, I don't mean to mix them, but there's six of them. Cotton's not one of them. But what we've seen with the plant board as that constitutional issue was changed there, we've had people that have reached out to us and saying, hey, we know someone that's good. We want to submit a letter. Can you make sure that y'all get it and that the governor's office gets it? Absolutely. So we would absolutely be and tend to be involved in that capacity of making sure that we're being helpful to the governor in any way that she needs as those nominations or people are, you know, putting in their applications to sit on those boards.
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
1:33:43
Follow up. Yes. So, and this shows a little bit of my naivety, does the secretary of the Department of Agriculture have the freedom to endorse nominees that are sent to the governor? I understand the governor appoints them, but do you have the ability to endorse nominees selected? I would say yes. So it's not
Speaker 167
1:34:04
prohibited or not required. So it would just be, you know, certainly if there was something that we felt pretty strongly about, we would certainly raise that to the governor to make sure that she was aware of.
Speaker 168
1:34:16
But by statute, it doesn't require that or prohibit that. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 107
1:34:26
Any other questions, committee? Representative Hawke. Thank you, Secretary Ward. I appreciate it, and I would just like to ask, since both bills solve some of the constitutionality questions, both bills involve the Department of Ag and the oversight of the legislative audit committees and all of that. Would you not say that for the checkoff promotion and research
that is paid for by the farmers, which do you think the farmers would be more engaged in? the one that feels like they have a voice or the ones that
Speaker 110
1:34:57
feel like the government is taking over their boards and promotions. Sure. Now, that's an excellent point, and I do
Speaker 167
1:35:04
think that's something that, you know, should that happen, that comes over to the department, that's something we're going to have to work very hard on, you know, making sure, you know, that there are public notice of the meetings,
making sure that that information is shared, that producers are welcome, and we want them to be engaged in the six research and promotion boards. So I understand that comment. I certainly do, but we would have open doors for anyone who wanted to participate. Representative
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:35:36
Vaught, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to follow up on Representative
Hawk, I believe. Like, I know how they function over at Farm Bureau.
You know, they have meetings. Everybody comes.
They get to hear their voices. their voice gets to be heard, yada, yada, just because I've been to several of those kind of meetings over there. How will this function in your department? And I have a
Speaker 167
1:36:05
follow-up when you finish with that. Yes, ma'am. So another great question. We would be the administrator of those boards, so the membership would not change. There would still be those producers who serve on those boards that would be making the decisions, setting the agendas.
because our role would be administering, not controlling, not directing, and letting them do the business that they're required to do by the statute and just helping them be able
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:36:30
to do that. Follow-up, please, sir. Yes. So, in other words, you're moving the boards as is, just it will be housed in a different spot? Housed
Speaker 167
1:36:40
and administered, yes, ma'am. That's correct. So we would help with the meeting notices, the annual reporting requirement, sharing that information, but the decision-making would be solely to the boards.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:36:50
Can I have one more follow-up? I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Quickly, quickly. So I've heard
a lot about the monies. So I know that there's appropriations that pass through us, the state, to go to boards, because I know some boards who've come and asked for more dollars to be added to their boards. So how does that part work? Is there tax dollars with promotion dollars mixed together? How does that actually work? Can you explain that to me? Sure. Yes,
Speaker 167
1:37:18
ma'am. So the checkoff itself would be what I would consider a special revenue.
It's not general revenue. It's, you know, industry-generated, producer-generated funds that would go into a separate account, a separate fund, and would stay there. You know, it wouldn't be used for other purposes. You know, we've dealt with some of that and deal with that now currently with the plant board. You know, there are funds that are set up, special revenues for licensing and different fees that the industry pays, and it's used solely for the purpose for which it was collected for. So we can't use it to, we need a new building or we need to, you know, buy a new vehicle. It has to be used solely for that purpose.
And so that would stay the same for these six research and promotion boards. We would be involved, you know, we have, you know, within the department we have a fiscal and HR section. So we have kind of a shared services model that works through that. And so whether it's coming to the legislature for appropriation, you know, those sort of things, you know, working through state procurement, We would be involved in that from that standpoint, but it wouldn't use any of their funding to do that. Any other questions, committee? Professor Lynch.
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
1:38:24
Secretary Ward. Yes, sir. Whether or not Senate Bill 506 passes one way or the other, was that impact in any way the effort that the Department of Agriculture puts out to make our farming industry successful? Not at all. So we're going to pass or
Speaker 167
1:38:42
fail. We're still going to do our best to best serve the industry, and I know that's the same commitment from the governor as well.
Speaker 111
1:38:52
Okay, thank you. We appreciate your testimony.
Speaker 5
1:38:55
All right, we're going to move on. Against is Joe Christensen, and I'm going to have to – we have several people that want to speak. Well, I'm going to help you. five minutes and i'll raise my fingers and everybody in the
Speaker 46
1:39:11
world will know that you're there so go ahead you're recognized and to identify yourself
Speaker 189
1:39:20
could you turn your mic turn your mic
Speaker 5
1:39:23
on sir just push that little button right there there thank
Speaker 34
1:39:29
you perfect okay as far as i know in my knowledge and maybe miss brandy carroll can miss davis has not reached out to the promotion board about whether we were neutral on this bill or not and so i mean i know i mean there's hardly anything that slips past me because this is my passion this this i mean rice is my passion and so i mean my problem with this and what uh what tommy young said mr young said i everything he said that's me too and i think most promotion
board guys feel the same way but if you take and i know you know have we really got a ruling that says these are unconstitutional i know the the plant board is but nobody's at have they really are we just going to assume they are i guess is what we're going to do but anyway if we change the makeup of these promotion boards can y'all assure me that this won't be a pay to play In other words, people are going to give a bunch of money to sit on these boards.
And it's pretty obvious on a few boards it's already like this. And I don't mean the promotion boards. I mean, and there's people that's mad about people that's getting the percentage of the state sales tax. How is that going? You know, and I mean, we do our job, and I hate to see this because somebody got mad because, and this all stems from dicamba all this stuff started with dicamba and that that leads me to
say all right is the plant board working great you know and it's it's government run and so we're going to move these are they going to be are they going to be run like the plant board is that the way it's going to be you know and another thing I don't know very few times have I had anybody from the State of Agriculture Department of Ag come to my meeting as long as I've been on it. You know, used to be a lawyer come every now and then. And finally, the last
meeting, we have a new lawyer for the state, and she attended. And we appreciated that, you know. So if we're turning on the state, are we really going to make it a better program?
Speaker 111
1:41:47
Thank you. Members, are there any questions? Thank you for your
Speaker 5
1:41:53
testimony okay next one uh to speak against is mark lambert identify yourself for the
Speaker 191
1:42:07
record mark lambert i'm mark lambert i'm state affairs for
Speaker 193
1:42:14
best to keep it as brief as possible i'll help you five minutes or i'm mark lambert state affairs for arkansas farm bureau committee and mr chairman thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak regarding senate bill 506 by senator davis and representative painter um i come i come on behalf of arkansas farm bureau and i come in opposition uh of the more than 180 000 member families across all 75 counties in arkansas arkansas farm bureau federation has been an advocate supporter and diligent administrator
of the Chekhov since the inception of the programs. We have supported the administration of the Chekhov boards through a public-private partnership at no additional cost to the boards to allow those boards to allocate the funds collected for research and promotion. Some of the boards in Arkansas simply cannot fiscally handle additional expenses for administration and still be able to fund researchers, breeders, or promotion activities due to the cyclical nature of the commodity market from domestic and international supply and demand models.
We find that it would be in the best interest of the commodity boards to remain at an organization that is willing and capable to administer and bear the cost of administering these programs, to inherently be diligent and physically responsible. Arkansas farmers are subject to commodity markets and need every penny they possibly can to stay afloat until next year. Commodity boards utilize dollars collected to advance research on fertility, water management, herbicide recommendations, crop insurance, beef promotion, and food science through a collective
approach to maximize those dollars to help minimize unavoidable input cost. Farm Bureau supports these checkoffs through master level economists that follow domestic and international markets to help speculate the amount of dollars to be allocated toward research and promotion by each individual board. Also, our board administrators follow close DFA guidance for disbursement of the monies that are being spent by the board to stay in compliance with all state regulations as well as federal regulations. Currently, the legislative branch
reviews the budget, projects, contracts, and audits of the boards through the joint audit, budget, and review committees. We have fully complied with Arkansas legislative audit each year and have had no issues of misuse currently to date and in some cases for over 50 years. Each board is administered to a different degree and subject to different regulations reporting and how monies are handled. Currently two states in the south handle checkoff boards through their respective farm bureaus. There are others across the United States as well. Across the nation more
programs are separate entities coupled with the respective associations to help maximize their return on investments some boards have smaller collections for instance wheat and catfish and providing a free service to these boards help fund many programs including the nationally recognized UAPB aquaculture research on feeding trials promotion boards contribute annually to research from public and private organizations of more than seven million dollars so we we hope that you will take these concerns into consideration in your decision and being fiscally responsible
to the farmers and ranchers of Arkansas without growing government on the backs of hardworking Arkansans that are farmers and ranchers? We would urge you
Speaker 5
1:45:34
to vote no. And I'll take questions. Thank you, Mr. Lambert. Commitment, is there any questions?
Speaker 26
1:45:41
Representative McGee? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So we've heard a lot about cost and administration of the programs, that sort of thing. Does Farm Bureau, in all the years that they've done this, have they ever looked
at, well, what does this actually cost Farm Bureau, the members of Farm Bureau? It's a free service you're providing, but there's a cost. If it goes over to the Department of Ag, the Department of Ag is going to absorb that. That's a cost. That's a cost to the taxpayer. And do you have any idea? I mean, it's a cost for Farm Bureau to have you sitting down here at the end of the table today so do you have any idea
Speaker 193
1:46:21
of what what that service is valued at so there is one position that that solely focuses on one one uh one promotion board and that's the beef council the beef council
has um has voted to i guess have a management agreement with arkansas farm bureau to provide promotion and administration to one individual. The cost, because the other individuals, they have other duties. They may serve two boards. They may serve one. But that individual's, the cost is somewhere, I think, in real dollars, not car, cell phone, computers, everything.
That cost is about $25,000. Now, you add in the vehicle, the travel, the vehicle, the insurance, the computer, the cell phone, that cost is about $60. I will say with Senate Bill 506, if you take a look at Section 9 of the bill, in the back, it strikes the words Department of Finance and Administration. That is currently who collects the dollars through miscellaneous tax. It is held in the Treasury.
Treasury charges are 3.1% to 3.2%. That wording is struck from the bill, and it specifically states Department of Agriculture. So either way you skin this cat, there's going to be a cost incurred. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 198
1:47:49
Chair. Any other questions? Representative Beatty? Okay,
Speaker 5
1:47:53
thank you. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Thank you all.
Uh, signed up to speak, uh, against Doug Hartz. Recognize yourself for the record and you're authorized. No, the little light
Doug Hartz
Unverified
1:48:26
will come on. Okay. Uh, good morning, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for, and ladies and gentlemen of the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
I must admit this is the first time I've ever come before a government body such as this to speak on behalf or against a bill. And, again, my name is Doug Hartz, and I'll try to stay well within your five minutes. Our family has been involved in production agriculture since the early 1900s. I'm a third-generation soybean farmer from Stuttgart. My grandfather, Jacob Hart Sr., introduced soybeans
to the Mid-South in 1926. Our family has been involved with the soybean industry for many, many years in all aspects, beginning with my grandfather's involvement, my uncle and my father's involvement, not only in association work, but in the checkoff boards and things that go on there. And as a third generation, I'm continuing that, I guess, that legacy, you might say.
The two issues on this bill that I'm concerned with, I just want to address briefly, is the way that the board members are appointed. And I know the other legislation that was discussed earlier addresses that, and as was already mentioned this morning about the concern of there being issues from a Constitution standpoint, and certainly there may be.
That's not proven, as previous people have said. But with that being said, I do believe that there would have been opportunities to explore different ways in which to address that, and I don't believe that that's been thoroughly fleshed out. and I know that as a soybean producer, I'd like to have that opportunity to do that where it might still give the governor the overall say-so as to what transpires,
but by the same token receive input from these organizations that, you know, have worked hard for their various commodities. um secondly uh as far as the administration of these boards are concerned uh it is my opinion as a soybean producer that these boards would best be administered uh themselves and not through the department of agriculture um and so with that being said uh whether um and i know that there's
a big discussion going on about, you know, Farm Bureau and Farm Bureau doing this, you know, and whatnot. And I think it's best that these boards see to it and administer them themselves. So I'm for that part with the previous bill that had been discussed. So now you know where I stand on that type of thing. I do want to address some different things here in the last minute that I have, and that is I think I indicated that I wear many hats, and as many of us do in our lives.
I think the gentleman down here on the right indicated he was a pharmacist, and no telling what all the other folks are involved in. But one of the hats that I wear is I'm currently vice chairman of the soybean promotion board. And I will honestly sit here and tell you that in my position on the soybean promotion board and that of the current chairman, Mr. John Freeman, a producer from Dumas,
neither one of us have been contacted by the authors of this bill for input. And so I just wanted to make that clear. The dissatisfaction that was being discussed when the author was, you know, explaining their bill and the virtues of it, I will say this, that from a standpoint of dissatisfaction in the soybean promotion board,
As it's been stated, this is, you know, dovetailed in with a federal checkoff that's mandatory. Well, a soybean producer in the state of Arkansas has the opportunity to have their funds redirected to the federal checkoff. That redirection has been some of late has been about 1%. And so the way I look at that is that the people that are investing in this checkoff, 99% of those monies people are not having any problem with.
And that's not to say that there's not things that could be done better. I want to make that clear. Transparency, we've already dealt with that and talking about, you know, legislative audit. In the case of soybeans, USB audits us periodically. And any time a new director is put in place, or a new administrator is put in place, that triggers an audit. All right. Thank you so
Chair
Unverified
1:54:18
much. You were very eloquent, but your five minutes are up. Does anybody have any questions for this young man?
Speaker 5
1:54:28
And I hate to interrupt you. I do. I understand. I
Speaker 63
1:54:45
appreciate your time. Thank you for coming. Okay. Jennifer Cook to speak against. Jennifer Cook beef producer from Faulkner County and I'll be
Speaker 64
1:54:50
brief and all of the people that know me in this room knows that that's probably a big deal so but and there really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said and I will just be succinct in saying that my problem with
the senate bill is simply that it takes away my ability as the one who's contributing the one dollar per head of the beef that i sell i don't have a say in who is managing my money and as my papa used to say if it ain't broke don't fix it farm bureau has taken really good care of me through the beef council and again as a first generation cattle producer i've relied heavily on the services that they have provided it's been very easy to get the help that i've needed there and
i also say that the department of agriculture has been good to me too i love them also i love everybody well almost but um but again if it ain't if it ain't broke don't fix it and what we've been doing at least with um the the beef council i can say for sure and with um the money that i have invested from my own small herd. I've been very satisfied with that, and those dollars serve me. I like having the ability to say how it's being spent and who's in control of that money.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:56:14
Any questions? Representative Vaught. I just have a real quick question. So I'm pretty sure that I heard Secretary Ward say that the money would still be at the board's discretion, that they would still be able to use it as the board saw fit so I don't know that anything about how the money is spent changes just so you understand because and I could be wrong but that's what I thought I heard him say was that they were going to have their own allocations like they do right
now and they were going to be able to spend it how they saw fit to spend
Speaker 207
1:56:51
it as a board just so i mean right and the the way i received the
Speaker 64
1:56:56
information from reading the bill is that i would no longer be able so the the house bill is phrased the way i like i i want to be able to choose who is managing that um and the house bill really addresses what i think is a great compromise
for all of us and allows us to still be in control of who we choose to take care of those funds. Okay. I'll yield at that, but I
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:26
do believe that I did hear him say y'all would still have control of your boards and your money, just so you know. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 5
1:57:39
testimony. All right, members, we have heard the discussion for and against.
Senator Davis, are you ready to close?
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
1:58:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, for sticking with us this late into session. I do want to be clear just through some of the testimony
that how the money is spent and who is in control of the money of the boards remains with the board.
So the help that the Beef Council talks about that we heard from Farm Bureau and also the last witness with a management agreement, I want to say that the Beef Council spends $55,000 a year of their own money on a lady that is housed at Farm Bureau, and she does a lot of the work for the Beef Council and is fantastic by everything that I hear from the Beef Council. And nothing about this bill will change that. Nothing about this bill will take away their ability to still have an agreement with her to
pay her to do this work.
So their help will not be taken from them. That's money that they spend themselves, the Beef Council, and they can continue to do that. Because this bill does not take away the ability for these boards to spend their money how they'd like, to ensure that they get to meet their priorities and their mission and the entire reason that they collect these funds in the first place. So they will continue to make those decisions for themselves, and I just wanted to be clear about that. I want to clear up one other thing that I said earlier
when I said no other state uses Farm Bureau as the administrator. I looked at some additional research that was sent to me, and I
want to say it this way, there are only four states in the entire country, Rhode Island, Nebraska, Idaho, and Arkansas, that don't use the Department of Ag as an administrator. So as far as the other three states, whether or not they use Farm Bureau, that was not in the research that I just looked at, but there are only four states in the whole country that do not use
their Department of Ag to administer their promotion boards, and we are one of four that do not use our Department of Ag. So as I said earlier, it's common what other states are doing across the country, and this just streamlines that. Also, I think through testimony, there are lots of issues being confused, and so I just want to be very clear. Again, this bill is about two things. It's about a Supreme Court ruling that declared the current appointment process unconstitutional. They said you cannot take what is public power and give that to private interest.
That is clear. It is a state Supreme Court ruling. People may disagree with the state with the state Supreme Court, but they are the authority on it. And this has to change. It is unconstitutional. And this bill fixes that. The second thing is that what this bill does is it adds an accountability element, which producers that are paying these checkoff funds into these promotion boards have been complaining about. This makes it efficient. It's efficient, it's good governance, and it simply houses the boards in a neutral place.
So it provides additional accountability through annual reporting requirements. They'll be subject to FOI. These producers who pay these funds in will be able to see exactly where their funds are going which is something they cannot do now. So I just want to be clear. It's very simple. The issue has been complicated through testimony, but it's about two things. Fixing something that is unconstitutional and adding accountability to these promotion boards for the producers that
pay into it. So with that, again, nothing changes with how the boards are run. We will not take their money. We will not touch it, not a penny. The Department of Ag is able to easily absorb the duties to administer these boards. They will continue to be in charge of what they need to do. The governor's office supports this bill. They've vetted it thoroughly and have been on board and helping. And I did take language from all six promotion boards on the appointment process and
was told that they were all neutral on this bill. Thank you, members. I appreciate your time
Speaker 5
2:02:18
and ask for a good vote. Thank you, Senator. Committee, you have heard all the testimony. What's the will of the committee? I have
Speaker 209
2:02:31
a motion due pass. Is there any discussion?
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
2:02:33
Senator Gardner? Representative Gardner, I promoted you, sort of. Thank you. Thank you. I just have a quick question about logistics. If we pass both bills out of the House today, out of the committee,
What? Could you just explain what happened? If we pass them
Speaker 5
2:02:49
both, they will both go to the floor, and the floor will decide. That's a good question.
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
2:02:56
Did I see another question? Yes. Committee, just want to make a comment. We're literally at the last AGRA meeting. This is a hugely important deal. We have several folks here speaking against the bill. I mean, guys, if this was that big an issue, we should have got this before the end of session. I would encourage, if this is a big deal, let's look at it later.
Speaker 9
2:03:17
I encourage everybody to vote no. Okay, thank you. Any other discussion?
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
2:03:28
Representative McCollum? Committee, thank you, Chair, and respectfully, Representative Puryear, and I hear what you're saying in terms of the process and making sure we're thoughtful about how things go through. I think most of you all have heard me say things about the process and making sure we're thorough. And, you know, I've heard a lot about what might have happened on the Senate side. I'll just say my ask of the committee is to vote on the merits of the bill in front of you.
We did sit here for over two hours. And, I mean, I don't know who heard what about this bill and at what time throughout. I'll just say that even before
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
2:04:00
session, I was told about the issue, at least on the constitutional issue about this bill. I think that's all I have. Okay. Thank you. All right. We've heard the discussion. We
Speaker 5
2:04:11
have a proper motion to – Representative Beatty, do you have a – Well, I was going to remain
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:04:20
silent on this, but I feel it necessary to speak.
We're 20 members in this committee, and I understand and respect Representative Puryear's viewpoint. But what I'm hearing is it's just a little turf war. We're trying to decide a turf war, and I'd much rather the 100 members of the body of the House of Representatives weigh in and make a decision on these bills, and we can hear these bills on the floor and go that route. So with that, that's kind of how I'm going to vote on this.
Speaker 99
2:04:58
So thank you. All right. Thank you. Representative Hawk.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:05:03
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I want to echo what Representative Beatty says. You know, I think there are some members on this committee that may have never even been on a farm before, you know. And I think that when we look at this bill, we can all agree that there are, we can see sides to both the farmers that have spoken and the presenters of this bill. And I think that, you know, with us here, I know we're part of the Ag Committee and we've got to look at it.
But to what Representative Beatty says, I think that when we get a larger body like the 100 members on the House floor to decide if this is a warranted bill or not, I think that's probably the best case for this. And for that, I'll be a yes. All right. Thank
Speaker 99
2:05:49
you. Representative Hawk, the other one. I would just
Speaker 22
2:05:54
like to say this Hawk was here before that Hawk, so he's the Hawk Jr.
Speaker 1
2:06:02
I like the senior hawk. I would just like to state that it has been said by the members of this bill, the sponsors of this bill, that both bills solve the constitutionality question and both bills have oversight and create transparency and solve any issues that have been forward. So I just wanted to clarify, there's not one that's constitutional and one that's not. Both are constitutional. Both resolve any issues with the funds and the
transparency and the oversight of the legislative audit for these funds. Thank you. Okay,
Speaker 2
2:06:41
we've heard the discussion. Representative Lynch? Okay, so I
Speaker 5
2:06:45
represent a predominantly farming community. All the feedback
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
2:06:49
that I received is is not in support of this bill so and it is our job to sort out which one should go to the floor and so i'll be voting no anybody else one more and i'll shut up i i would just echo that
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
2:07:11
though the guys on the floor are not going to hear the testimony we just heard they're on the floor they won't hear the testimony we heard they won't have time to get the phone calls we got. This isn't like this, you know, dominated the Senate. We signed off on committee with it. It didn't even have enough votes in Senate to get the emergency clause listed in the bill. So I do respect Representative Beatty, but I
Speaker 5
2:07:40
do agree. Okay. I think we've heard just about everybody. Anybody want to speak again? All right. We have a proper motion. Yes.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:07:52
I know y'all have spent hours trying to get all of this fixed for everybody, language-wise, that it kind of made most people neutral. I'll say it that way. How about that? And I do think we have an ag department for a reason, and I do believe that they can handle what's coming at them. um i i hope and pray that it would be just like it was at farm bureau and farmers would still have
a strong voice as they do through farm bureau right now when they go to those meetings but i did want to take a minute and thank y'all for your hard work on this thank
Speaker 5
2:08:37
you mr chair okay thank you okay ready all right there is proper motion all those in favor say aye aye all those opposed?
Speaker 18
2:08:54
No. Really? Okay. How many hands? We need hands for a roll call.
Speaker 5
2:09:02
if you guys want to get yourself on a record you just go ahead and call a
Speaker 228
2:09:24
roll call we'll just do that yeah okay call the rec call the roll representative per year no representative moore no representative hawk rj hawk yes yes representative acre
present present representative delia hawk no representative baity present present representative burrow yes representative cooper Present. Representative Garner. Present. Representative Wing. Present. Representative Watson. No. Representative Hollowell. Present. Representative McCollum. Yes. Representative Vaught. Yes. Representative McNair.
Representative McNair Representative McGee No Representative Cozart Yes Representative Shepard Representative Shepard How much I'd like to
Speaker 39
2:10:41
vote It doesn't have anywhere near enough Votes 3, 4, 5 It needs 10 at least So it doesn't matter if you vote it Correct you don't even have to vote
it's five more tests the vote has failed your
Speaker 200
2:11:02
bill has failed okay no we're not recessing
Speaker 5
2:11:11
if you guys will give me 15 more minutes we won't have to come back tonight do you want to come back tonight or you wanted to go ahead Okay, go ahead.
Representative Johnson, are you ready to prepare, prepared to present?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:11:34
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. Representative Lee Johnson, District 47. Appreciate y'all's patience today. I know it's been a long week for all of us.
I do have a bill to present whenever
the chair is ready. I'm ready. You go ahead. Okay. Okay. Committee members, to understand the context of this bill, you have to understand a little bit of history. So historically, there was a prohibition on communities, cities, counties, providing money to private businesses for any development projects.
This dates back to the Civil War, to restoration. That was changed in a constitutional amendment that went before the people in 2016. So in 2016, there was a constitutional amendment that allowed these economic development projects to happen and be funded at a local level. That was followed in 2017 with some statutory legislation to outline how that might be administered. It defined economic development projects, and there's a list of things that you'll see in the bill that are defined in the Constitution in this constitutional amendment as qualifying economic development projects.
That was amended, that law was amended in 2019 by Representative Perry to add sporting complexes and by Representative Lundrum to add facilities for the sale of retail merchandise. In that amending process, the Constitution was amended to add sporting complexes but did not get amended to add the retail. So right now there's currently a conflict between our statute list and definitions and the Constitution's list and definitions. What we're trying to do is rectify that.
There has been some concern about the broad nature of retail facilities. So in this bill, we're trying to address that by changing the Constitution part to say the General Assembly will define what retail facilities qualify. And then we're putting those qualifiers down in the statute to say clearly that we're putting up some guardrails so that not any retail facility would qualify. I do have someone that's traveled here today to speak for this bill. This affects us and our local community, and I'd love to have the opportunity for him to come and give some testimony if that's okay.
Speaker 5
2:13:42
All right. Thank you. Members, do you have any questions for Representative Johnson? Okay. Seeing none, we have two people signed up to speak, one for and one against. We will take Jim Hudson, who is here to speak for. identify yourself for the
Speaker 239
2:14:06
record thank you mr chairman jim huts i'll be very quick not speaking for just speaking on the bill uh department of commerce uh you know we have a statutory role
at adc to be your economic uh development advisors in addition to advising the governor we also advise you that's our statutory uh role and so i just want to give a little bit of context very quickly about retail businesses. As a general matter, we don't encourage using incentive dollars to support retail businesses. The reason for that is that retail businesses, while very important, vital to the economy, they are not the sort of jobs that produce jobs. If you have a manufacturer come into your
community, that manufacturer is going to be employing people who will need to have dentists, doctors, restaurants, things like that. Those are jobs that produce jobs. Retail jobs tend not to do that. There's also a concern that we have is generally in terms of talking about retail incentives that you could end up incentivizing competition within your community, that you're taking city dollars, government dollars to promote competition against businesses that are already there. So that's just something I just want to
put in front of you for you to think about as you consider this bill. With that, happy to take any
Speaker 5
2:15:22
questions you may have. Thank you. Committee, do you have any questions? Seeing none. Thank you, committee. Signed up to speak against the bill is Randy Zook. Please identify yourself, and then you
Speaker 241
2:15:43
are recognized to speak. Randy Zook, President of Arkansas State Chamber of Commerce. Let me be very clear here and direct.
Speaker 242
2:15:50
It's an unnatural act for me to be down here opposing anything associated with the words economic and development. We are in the business of economic development and economic growth. Why in the world am I speaking against a bill that purports to facilitate that? Well, let me sound a cautionary note. As Mr. Hudson said, typically economic developers do not engage in incentives for retailers,
and there's a reason for that. Major capital investments like manufacturing plants, distribution centers, corporate headquarters are mobile and involve, in most cases, enormous capital investments. Retail stores do not follow that pattern. And as he said, manufacturers create what are called primary jobs in the economic development lingo. Primary jobs drive other jobs.
Retail follows population. Retail will go to any market. Retail goes where the heads, where the people are, where the houses are, where the market is. Manufacturing businesses, distribution centers, what have you, are mobile and can locate wherever it is most economic for them to locate and to nowadays where they can find a workforce. But retail is a different proposition, and that's why incentive dollars, taxpayer dollars,
are not typically or normally for a long time in Arkansas have never been, uh, involved in, in, um, in receiving those kinds of investments, public investments, public support. So that's why we're here to say it's a cautionary note that we're sounding. Um, this will lead ultimately, likely will lead. It will not be long if you pass this before you see bidding wars breaking out between, uh, nearby communities. Uh, it's not hard to
Imagine a major retail proposal putting itself up for bid between Bentonville and Rogers or between Rogers and Fayetteville or between Little Rock and North Little Rock or between Perigold and Jonesboro or between Hot Springs and Benton. It would devolve pretty soon into bidding waters. And that would be unhealthy for the state and for those communities. And it's also a note to remind ourselves that retail has cycles, but it primarily will follow the population.
And Fort Smith, for instance, is about to undergo a major boom because of the foreign military sales program that's coming to Fort Smith with the Air Force, the training centers. They're talking a billion-dollar-a-year impact on the Fort Smith metro area. I assure you, retailers will flock there in pursuit of those opportunities. Retailers go to where the purchasing power is, where the dollars are, where the people are,
without the necessity of incentives from either the state or the community, for that matter. Now, sometimes the state has invested in infrastructure to support an area. It's pretty easy to remind ourselves of the Bass Pro Shop at the Otter Creek Outlet area. The city invested money in that general area for interstate access, other infrastructure like sewer, water, all that sort of thing,
to facilitate that entire area, but not for specific stores, not for specific investors. So that's my only, I'm almost uncomfortable sitting here next to my friend, Representative Johnson. Opposing his bill is pretty nervy, I know, but basic principles need to be applied when we're talking about taxpayer dollars, and this bill will lead to a slippery slope in pretty short order,
so I urge you to back away from this one. Thank you. Happy to take any questions. Members,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:20:31
Representative Beatty. Mr. Zook, do you have any suggestions how this bill could work to accomplish the intent of the bill
Speaker 245
2:20:37
without causing those problems? I'd hate to be
Speaker 242
2:20:44
flipping about it and just toss something off the top of my head, all due respect for the question.
It merits study and consideration over a period of time because this is a really substantial step if you were to take it. Just a follow-up. I mean, it's one of the areas when
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:21:04
you deal with economic development, stated earlier it's one of the areas where uh quite a few jobs created uh and and great impact in in the communities and right now we don't have a mechanism or a tool that we can utilize when
when dealing with retail and uh because of some of the restrictions that we have so it's something that needs to be studied further uh but it is definitely
Speaker 242
2:21:38
something that we need i agree i i I think there's an opportunity here. I think it needs a lot of research and consideration. Texas, for instance, Texas approaches all this a lot differently than we do, but they do all of their economic development efforts around their communities or regions, metros.
It's not the state of Texas that competes for an economic development project like a Tesla plant or something along those lines. It's a region, an area, and, you know, they go at it tooth and nail with obviously great success, and we could learn a lot from them. So I would urge us to give more thought to how to facilitate that, but it needs to be in a lot less than or a lot more than 15 or 20 minutes, the conversation.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:22:28
Thank you, sir. Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Zook. Thank you, committee. Mr. Chairman, I do have a constituent that's traveled quite a ways and waited patiently through a lot of testimony to give some testimony today. If I could have him come to the table. Did he sign up? I don't know that he saw the sign-up sheet, but he's here in the room. Sure. If I could have him come to the table to give us a little more background information, that would be very helpful to me as I close. You bet. And I do think he has a handout.
Speaker 255
2:23:04
please identify yourself for the record thank you chairman and members my name
Speaker 256
2:23:34
is benny westfall from Fort Smith, Arkansas, and the packet that you have there is like Representative Johnson
pointed out, the issue with the constitutional amendment and then the statute and the issue we have there. And the reason we're here is that Fort Smith, Arkansas has the opportunity. sir do you have your
Speaker 257
2:23:56
mic on can you hear me now yes there
Speaker 256
2:24:04
we go fort smith arkansas has the opportunity to we're going to call it project x i'm under a confidentiality agreement but it has
the opportunity to have a retail it's that retail slash tourist destination to locate in fort smith and what they're going to do is they're going to go into the old best buy building which about 36,000 square feet, and they're going to take down a state farm building and expand it to about 60,000 square feet, and they may go vertical. And there'll be 93 permanent jobs, average salary about 53,000. They're going to spend 12 to 15 million dollars on the facility,
And they expect the sales to start out at about $28 million a year. And Randy Zook, I have a lot of respect for him, and a lot of what he says is true. but what's happened in our country over the last 15 years or so is that there are certain destination retail businesses
that attract a lot of retail jobs and other businesses when they locate in a community. And I've got some examples here. Like
Speaker 255
2:25:42
in Broken Arrow back in 2006, the city of Broken Arrow,
Speaker 256
2:25:48
they gave $24 million to Bass Pro to build the shop there.
And as a lot of you all have seen, initially there was just a Bass Pro and that Mexican restaurant there next to it. And now look at it. And as of 2016, I know the Broken Arrow sales tax had gone up 50% for that area. Back in Oklahoma City, Bass Pro paid $20 million to Bass Pro to build in Bricktown.
And I don't know if any of y'all have been to Bricktown lately, but that area has just exploded. When they built the Bass Pro, you could look one direction, and all you could see is just red dirt. And once it was announced it was going there, then John Q. Hammonds agreed to build a $35 million hotel. Target came in, and Best Buy came in, and that area just exploded. And the things that this would help is the city.
The bottom line is we're not asking anything from the state. This is something that the city of Fort Smith passed a resolution, the city council, to give Project X in a total package about $6.5 million. And this business looked at 113 cities across the nation. and they have narrowed it down to 12 and Fort Smith is one of them and they want to be in Fort
Smith they want to be in Fort Smith and but they have these other communities that what they when they go into a community they they try to get about seven million dollars in incentives over 10 years and a lot of it is in tax abatements and property tax abatements for so many years maxing out at 10 usually it's five five years a hundred percent abatement and then five years 50
percent but and like one of these i'm gonna give you and and the the thing that that i'd like to is for the state to just allow these cities to have an opportunity to compete for these large destination retailers like Costco, Bass Pro Shop, Target, Trader Joe's, and they just create additional employment, good paying jobs, increase in local and state sales taxes, property taxes,
and increased state income tax. And what's happened is every state that touches Arkansas allows their communities, just like Randy said, allows their communities to come up with these incentive programs. Arkansas has put handcuffs on the communities that may be able to land some of these destination big retailers that bring in a lot of jobs.
They're going to have 93 permanent jobs here. Costco's, they usually have 125 jobs or 250 depending on the size. And one of the reasons that things have changed over recent years and what this company has said, it said, look, these construction costs have gone up so much that we just, to make things work, we've got to go in communities that will work with us, whether write them a check or tax abatements
or TI, tenant improvements. And just to give you an example of a... Sir, we're going to have to
Benny Westfall
Unverified
2:30:05
have a time for questions from the committee. Are you ready for questions? I'm always ready. I'm ready. Okay. Committee, any questions? Seeing
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:30:27
okay i didn't know if i was recognized or not oh yeah okay always good deal could you talk to me a little bit about you you mentioned the other
states around us have is it exact similar legislation is that what i'm hearing right that
Speaker 256
2:30:44
we're the well the hole in the donut yes i mean all the states uh around us uh the city of um of uh memphis gave a hundred million dollars to Bass Probe for the pyramid.
Tulsa, just about nine months ago, gave $3.9 million to Costco's to coax them and to build a second Costco's there in Tulsa. And currently Arkansas does not allow that? No. Well, the problem
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:31:18
that briefly, You know, we made a decision as a General Assembly in 2019 to add facilities to sell retail goods
to the list of defined economic development projects.
We amended the legislation defining that. We did not amend the Constitution. So as a General Assembly, we've settled this issue. That got 93 yay votes out of the House, and it got 35 yay votes out of the Senate. This is something that as an Assembly we spoke to, but in the process of doing this, we didn't extend that to the constitutional amendment. We did extend it to the constitutional amendment with sporting complexes. So, you know, to me it's an issue that we as a General Assembly have decided to support,
but we've got this technical issue that's still creating some confusion because the law says one thing, the constitutional amendment says something different. I do think trying to put up some parameters is reasonable, which is why we've come back with this bill and
tried to define a little better what types of qualifying retail facilities are
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
2:32:23
there. Could you speak to, when I hear our state chamber address this issue and say that this is a major shift in policy, that resonates,
and especially where we are in the session right now in our last week, I think a drastic change in policy is something to be wary of at this point. Can you speak to that concern that this really does change the
Speaker 256
2:32:54
way we do business? Yes, sir. What Randy is worried about is opening Pandora's box to where Dollar General or you name it wants to try to get money from.
And he was thinking about the state. But, see, we're not wanting any money from the state. We just want the state to take the handcuffs off communities and let communities. We have our community, they elected people on the board of directors, and they passed a resolution to support this and to do the tax abatements just on money that the cities can have.
And so it's letting the cities decide what's best for them. And so what we're doing is putting parameters around it to where if you leave it in the city's hands, And like the state of Texas, what the state of Texas did, they've turned it over to the cities, but they put parameters around it to where it has to be so many jobs, like it has to create 75 jobs in an urban area or 25 jobs in a rural area,
and you've got to spend at least $10 million on the facility, and so just down the line. And what he's worried about is it just would open Pandora's box, but that's not what we want to do. What we want to do, because I understand that it does hurt the mom-and-pop operations. There's no question about it when these big retailers come in. But when you've got a town like Fort Smith that we're competing for doctors,
we're competing for teachers, And if you just shut down to where they can't have a chance to get these, and the manufacturing and all that, that is, because that multiplies many times. But when you're a state and you're trying to lower your state income tax, that's why Texas, they are open arms for retail coming in. because they have no state
Speaker 257
2:35:11
income tax, and they live off of the property tax increases,
and they live off of the sales tax. Yes,
Benny Westfall
Unverified
2:35:18
sir. I think you've done a good job explaining that. Well, I'm sorry. Thank you. I'm sorry. I know it's been a long day,
Speaker 271
2:35:26
a long month, and I know you all have to be tired of it. Members, I want to say
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:35:30
just a couple brief things in closing, if that's okay. One is this is a bill that started on the Senate side. It failed on the Senate because it just said facilities that sell retail goods. We brought this back over here because this is an important issue for our community, and we wanted to try to add some guardrails to make the chamber
and other people more comfortable with the topic. This is about local control, in my opinion. When you look at the act we're amending, it's the local. Local is in the act. This is about what communities want to decide to do with their dollars, and I think they ought to have the autonomy to make those decisions. And if they feel like retail facilities coming in is the right thing for them, I think that's the right thing to do. The other point I'll make, and I'll stop, and I think this is to the Chamber's point. The Chamber's concerned that this isn't a primary job supplier. I would argue that there are retail facilities that are primary job providers.
If you look at these destination retail places, they are almost like a tourist attraction in themselves. And so a place like Bass Pro Shop, to me, that's a qualifier of something that would be a primary job driver because it is going to bring other people to the area. One more thing, and I'll stop. We do have precedents for this. So there is, as I understand it, if you're coming to an area around a state park where we have some tourism and we know tourism is coming in, there are some concessions there for retail facilities to come in if they're tied to a tourist area.
I mean, we have a national facility at a park at our community in Fort Smith. We are a tourist community. So with that, I'll close. Again, thank you so
much for being patient with us. And, members, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Beatty?
Speaker 15
2:37:16
Okay, we have a motion. Any discussion? Thank you. Is
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:37:23
there any discussion? Just one point. Uh-huh. You're right, ma'am. I respect the position the State Chamber pointed out,
but what I heard Randy saying or Mr. Zook saying is that it would have Arkansas communities competing against one another. And reading the bill, it specifically states that the owner of the facility is considering only one site in the state. So I think your bill addresses that point and that concern so that communities in the state would not be competing against one another. It could open that door up later, but there's a lot of legislation we consider
and we vote on that could open the door up to other things later. So with that, if it's proper time,
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
2:38:11
right. Is there any more discussion? Representative Garner. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have some questions about this. I grew up in Texas. I've seen those communities bash each other for that stuff. So I have seen that. I know it happens. I've seen the mom-and-pop operations that have just been decimated by some of the things that have happened.
But I also understand that this is a – we have a Bass Pro Shop. Representative Garner.
Chair
Unverified
2:38:35
Yes. He's closed for the bill. You can comment on
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
2:38:38
the motion. Okay, talk to y'all. So, anyway, I do have those concerns about this kind of thing. And just having this as a handout is so much information, and there's so much information that I'd like to get more from the chamber. I just would love to have a little bit more time to think about this and work together to make sure that we can do that.
I hope to be on the economic development subcommittee of this committee and hope that we can do some of those kinds of things as a subcommittee because I do think we've got to build all of it. And I don't want to do anything to the detriment of any one piece of that economic development. But I just would love to see us spend a little more time with
Speaker 5
2:39:24
this. Thank you. Any more discussion? Okay, we have a proper motion. All in favor?
Aye. All opposed? No. I think the ayes have it. Well, the ayes have it. Thank you, committee. Thank you. Representative Maddox, you've waited patiently. We have to get in session in 17 minutes, so
Speaker 46
2:39:50
it's all on your shoulders, dude. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
2:39:58
is. Have I ever let any of you guys down?
Speaker 5
2:40:01
No. Recognize yourself for the record and your sidekick and present your bill. Yes, sir,
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
2:40:08
and I will try to go as quickly as I can. And there are two bills. I'm John Maddox, State Representative of District 86. Go ahead and interview me. Jim Hudson, Department of Commerce. Thank you. So the first one, colleagues, is Senate Bill 464. So I have four bills. There's only two of them that we're going to hear today real quick. These four bills are part of the governor and the first gentleman, as they're calling it, outdoor recreation package.
So all this bill does is it expands an existing Arkansas Tourism Development Act. It creates additional incentives to invest in the hospitality space in Arkansas. To be eligible, it requires a front-end investment of $250,000 in a high-unemployment county, in a county that does not have high unemployment. It's a $500,000 initial upfront investment. So this isn't a grant. This isn't a government giveaway. This is upfront investment. This is existing statutes.
We're just building on that. We think it will be very productive and allow Arkansas to compete in the tourism space. Again, this is something, as you all know, the first gentleman, Brian Sanders, is passionate about this, and this is one of his bills, frankly, and I would be glad to take any questions. Representative Wing, we have a motion at the proper time. Okay. All
Speaker 5
2:41:25
in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your bill's passed.
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
2:41:34
Thank you. I think SB 498 is also on your docket. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Go right ahead. I could do that really quick. And this one is really simple. This is really just a cleanup bill is how I would state this. Existing law allows the state to exempt trails as a donation. This will just allow the acceptance of maintenance and construction of trails as a donation. That's all that this bill does.
Speaker 5
2:42:05
Okay, we have a motion. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Congratulations. Your second bill is passed.
Speaker 15
2:42:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. All right, members. I do thank you so for your
Speaker 50
2:42:24
patience. We're adjourned. And if you've got just a minute, if you'll join.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
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
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 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.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT- HOUSE, Apr 5, 2023 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 1
Speaker 2
Jared Yates
Unverified
Representative Roger D. Lynch
Unverified
Speaker 15
Representative Denise Garner
Unverified
Speaker 26
Speaker 27
Speaker 5
Speaker 34
Speaker 9
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 54
Speaker 55
Speaker 57
Speaker 63
Speaker 64
Speaker 51
Speaker 72
Senator Breanne Davis
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Speaker 82
Representative Chad Puryear
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 99
Speaker 107
Travis Justice
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 121
Charles Williams
Unverified
Speaker 111
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 60
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 149
Speaker 81
Speaker 151
Speaker 162
Speaker 167
Speaker 168
Representative Carlton Wing
Unverified
Speaker 110
Speaker 189
Speaker 191
Speaker 192
Speaker 193
Speaker 198
Doug Hartz
Unverified
Speaker 207
Speaker 209
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 22
Speaker 18
Speaker 228
Speaker 39
Speaker 200
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 239
Speaker 241
Speaker 242
Speaker 245
Speaker 255
Speaker 256
Speaker 257
Benny Westfall
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 169
Speaker 268
Speaker 271
Speaker 247
Representative John Maddox
Unverified
Speaker 50