Judiciary Committee - Senate

Senate Judiciary. First bill will be representative Dalby. House Bill fifteen twenty two. Representative dobby you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair members of the committee a house bill fourteen seventy three is simply a bill to update and modernize the name change procedure in Arkansas section one days out of date or to just two minutes representative W. you talk about fifteen twenty two. Fifty of fourteen seventy three. Thank change. Not hang on circuit which. What sixteen twenty three what's the other one I'll present it to the fifteen twenty two. It's only. According to. Yeah. You're under under the. Sorry your honor German that is the salaries of the various court personnel and that's the bill that has an amendment that that it needs to be a Senate amendment for Stone County and what you give that approval and we can run that amendment that bill is ready to go that's you're talking about fifteen twenty two correct yeah. Hands so many fourteen fifteen twenty two has an amendment that needs to be run on it because Stone County court found something they wanted to change. Mr chairman. Yeah you're recognized Hey at. You will recognize the the workload that chairman Dalby has and I I would ask the committee to a move her bill from an active to the regular agenda and us here it if if members are okay with that. it's H. bill for H. H. B. fourteen seventy three. Are we better motions second move after fourteen thirty three to the active agenda I apologize I all in favor say aye opposed. The card thank you so recognized represent Dalby I'm sorry I apologize the Committee I thought that was the one we were on fourteen seventy three is just a modernization of the name change procedure in Arkansas section one is updating adults out of date language section two and three is where the orders since it to law enforcement in the crime information center for purposes of find some Mortensen those types of things and then the last section of number see it allows is giving the court's permission to seal that name change if need be for purposes say like in a domestic violence situation that you wouldn't want the perpetrator to know of the name change that's all this bill does And I would be happy to take any questions okay committee your verdict explains bill or any questions. Anyone from the audience like to speak for against. Representative W. close for you remained closed for a bill and I would ask for a motion that we have a motion do pass second Senator rise in discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed graduations representative calendar thank you Mr chair I mean I don't know how you want to handle fifteen twenty two if you want to amended on the Senate floor or how you want to do it or you just want to wait until we come back after I think we would be better to wait to come back and get it amended thank you thank you Mr chair thank you members who are. Mr. Yes yes well you're recognized DO is to pages sure Tucker thank you Mister chair I just want to welcome some pages that we have today I think we have a number of pages back here feel all please stand I've got three three pages personally here today we have Mr Jack's seat here on the right on the front row Mr William Taylor. right here on the front right to left and then had a lord in the back row all three little rock residence great great young people and happy to have me here with me today. Ms centennial. So I'm proud to have Connor foot from Crossett he actually is a relative of senator mark Johnson so don't hold that against him but he is I guess we're sort of sharing his paging services between centre Johnson myself but glad to have him because from a very old respected family they're actually County of which mark is a very distant relative but with that I appreciate him being here. Our thank you thank you for being. All right next bill on the agenda. Representative bill. You're. In the city centre Penzo. Okay you're recognized. Senate bill three ninety. Senator Tucker we have room. We have an amendment to this bill. Welcome Amendment for yes Sir we have an amendment the only explain the amendment you're recognized thank you Mr chair senator Penzo and I worked on this is the bill Senator Penzo brought on Monday addressing the criminal liability for employers who violate child labor laws and Senator brands on I work to address the concerns that are raised and and a couple other concerns. I'll I'll just go ahead and explain the amendment before I make a motion I guess but the concern the other day if you remember was I don't know how you could put criminal liability necessarily on a corporation that would be a challenging logistical matter for any prosecutor in my judgment and we wanted to create that criminal liability for individuals who are violating the child labor laws if you look at the current bill. There's also concern about identifying parents guardians and custodians so we were able to kill two birds with one stone if you look on page two of the bill on lines eleven and twelve and then on lines eighteen and nineteen that's where it listed out. person firm corporation partnership association parent guardian guardian or custodian and we cut all of those words and just put the word employer there and then we're adding the word knowingly because we need that mental state in there and so the way that will read is it'll say any employer who knowingly violates this subchapter now. The second piece of that is that the definition of employer and we didn't create anything new there was another definition of employer elsewhere in the labor code and if you look at the at the bottom of the amendment the new subsection K. that's where the word employers to. And it means every person firm corporation partnership stock association so that still list the entities or not excluding them but then in addition to that it says agent manager representative foreman or other person having control or custody of any employment place of employment or of any employee so that way basically the employer as as a legal entity or the person who's in control of the minor employees that are in violation of the child labor laws can all be held criminally liable. And then the second thing that the amendment really does is. It also makes it a violation of this subsection if an employer. Is not cooperating with the department of labor investigation of child labor practices so that's what the amendment does I'm happy to take any questions on the amendment our gentleman you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Any questions. What we have a motion to adopt we have a motion to adopt the amendment and the second second of any discussion all those in favor say aye opposed. March you're recognized president of Senate bill three nine thank you Mr I don't have a ton to add beyond that we all heard the testimony the other day right now the existing laws that you importer can only be fined for violating the child labor practices and this makes it a Class C. misdemeanor of the first offense Class B. misdemeanor on subsequent offenses we clean that language up a little bit not I think we have a good bill we we did add myself as a co sponsor in the minute I should have mentioned that you might change your vote but But we also added senator Bryant and Senator Leding as well so you know we've got a good group here on the on the co sponsors so. All right we are in discussion on the bill as amended I just I just point out that with the name that it is may be awash on you know that balance of good bill but with that I'll make a motion property are. Thank you should indeed anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Saying none of we have a motion do pass motion. Yes as amended we have a second. I have a second any discussion all in favor say aye aye aye All opposed grades like Senator Tucker bill passed thank you Mr thank you members. Senator Tucker you want to go and do. Can you give me just a minute on the okay I do want to I've got the names of the other two pages back I just want to identify them by name they're pages for Senator Wallace Whitley Hawkins and Riley white hat are also here with us today so what. But if you can give me a minute on four on four oh nine okay. Senator Clark are you are you ready to run the. Senate bill three to thirty seven. No Mr that sure prison training all this week with the what about. Two thirty eight same same arts centre Johnson you have a bill. You're recognized to present house bill fourteen thirty four. Her way down. You state your name and your. Position Senator Blake Johnson district twenty one art you're recognized thank you John thank you members this is the house bill fourteen thirty four the this bill the use of burden of proof the actions under the. The against our agricultural operation. We're clarifying that we are of fact pleading state so you can't to a farmer for his practice on his or her farm without facts that's what this bill does members. Our members you've heard an explanation of the billing questions. Senator Clark you're recognized for questions Senator Johnson what is practically. If you just so you have a chicken farm and it and you want to claim that that is a nuisance You have to you had is the burden of proof is on the call the claimant the that it is a nuisance and it's outside the normal. Chicken farm. That that would be. If you're gonna see the farmer for for its practices. Is that not open already the case this is just clarifies so. Okay so it's not a frivolous bill thank you are any other questions from committee members. G. one the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Saying none of Senator Johnson close for your bill thank you Sir I'm closing version good vote. Are we have a motion do pass out Senator Rice. I have a second sent Gilmore instruction. All those in favor say aye opposed. Graduations Johnson the Bill pass. Clued older. Hammer you. Mr where your conferring. One person point of personal privilege. we have one of the pages Becker was not introduced us she's because nobody from this committee. Of. New or of Rachel Hodges from Wynn would you stand against police. is your within proposal will today and she's a junior and when Arkansas. What what is right here. Your. VOL. Of this Senator Stubblefield futility what they are you will run into an issue in your yes please yes we're gonna run house bill fourteen twenty six. Okay. You're going to densify yourself and who you're with you yes I've been marm staff attorney administrative office the courts. Okay. You're recognized the. Centers this is a a relatively simple bill at all it does is clarify the law that that the summons and subpoena fee is not assessed in the small claims division of a District Court at it does not change the statutory amount that the fee RT is that which is two dollars and fifty cents and it does not change where that money ultimately goes it's just a clarification of the law. Okay you finished. Yes okay do for public record we had a number of these this session we're stating there is no fee increase is just clarifying in law that is that is Iraq we're making that very clear. anything further Senator Stubblefield. No I'm closes pretty simple bill. Any anyone here to speak for against. Not center close to. I would ask for a do pass a motion do pass on fourteen twenty six second the center Gilmore all in favor aye. Three weeks back and I'll take it opposed. Okay thank you based your bill fourteens House fourteen twenty seven. Thank you senator rice we have there's no one else here. Okay. with Simurq Senator Hammer night discussing he's allow me to run SP three seventy seven form if the chairs okay with that okay mark you're recognized run Senate bill three seven seven. Your state your name and your position for the record stay Senator bart Hester and. thank you Mr chairman members from time to time we are accused of I'm running a bill for an issue that doesn't exist this this bill is certainly not that this is a this is us this is a real problem that we're dealing with in Arkansas and a problem that we need to fix and it just says that it's a crime to destroy signatures for an initiated act and that it if you are going to be a blocker someone to stop people from signing on initiated act that you got to follow the same rules as those that are paid canvassers as well but I want to ask a friend of mine John Burris to fill in the gaps for me. Thank you Mr chairman Senator Hester my name's John Burris embarrassed help president Senate bill three seventy seven. I walk through the the quick nuts and bolts of it we're going to try to be very differential to your time. A personal just a second let us get these handouts yes Sir. Okay Mister Burch your you're recognized see thank you Mr chairman members of the committee it will try to be very differential tear Thomas Senator Hester said you know we we appreciate the opportunity because this is a real issue the bill is drafted does two things it makes it a misdemeanor or primarily two things it makes it a misdemeanor offense to pay to destroy signature after it's been collected and it creates a process by which paid blockers must follow the same rules as paid canvassers I'm gonna talk about our experience with this process in one this bill came to be as we walk through you know why what why you're here today we do have two people signed up to speak for the bill also they're gonna tell you there specific stories as canvassers on a ballot initiative last last summer they're gonna tell you there individual stories about how they live this in the real world I'm an attempt to summarize the bill talk about why it's needed from a more global perspective to protect our Kansans and the right to access the ballot regarding the first section of the bill you'll see that as I said it there is as always there's legal language involved but it primarily says that it is a misdemeanor offense to pay to destroy signature or to interfere in other various ways why that why we are here today and what senator Hammer proposed this legislation because we approach them we were involved in a ballot question committee last summer to remove the the casino for Polk County and that that's not so much relevant that this is not a casino related bill but that's the the question that we were working on you do have an idea a transcript of an audio recording where professional political consultants you know presented to our canvassers and offered them money to destroy signatures that they had already collected and to not turn in signatures they had already collected and to stop working stop working may not be against the law you're anybody can hire anybody but to pay to destroy signature we believe should be a crime we sent a letter to the prosecutor I believe that's in the packet in addition. The transcript that you see the prosecutor said that it was actually not a crime to pay to destroy signature and and in his to his credit he was offended that the behavior that's my word but you know I you know I think he was surprises us that would not be an actual crime to do and that's what we're here today to be on that on the paid blocker side the also have an article that shows. How a convicted voter fraud stir was hired to important the term in the articles the signature gathering army into the state what that what what what happens then is that are canvassers had to be registered instead there's all these requirements for paid canvassers you have to be an in state resident you have to pass a criminal background check you have to do various sorts of things you have to disclose where you live your physical address that's going to become very relevant when you're one of our speakers speak they were followed home and eventually even worse but I'm gonna let her tell our own story but the law as it's written today sets up a disadvantage for Arkansas citizens who must register pass background checks declare their physical address online if they want to try to be a paid canvassers words paid blockers have no requirements so there was a ballot question committee formed to oppose our efforts it was primarily funded by the casino licensee released an affiliate of the casino licensee they hired the person who you have a story on it or an article about as it was March Kobe you can Google his name it's nothing good it's just various forms of bad and he's been convicted of voter fraud he has a signature gathering army that does nothing but go around and cause problems sometimes criminally to harass paid canvassers to try to keep people off the ballot that's exactly what they did to our canvassers the annual of two people here to talk about their experience in it and I I think you'll be compelled by a but the reason paid blocker should have the same rules is because we should not be disadvantaging our citizens trying to access their ballot but advantage you're not requiring paid blockers to do the same thing. The United club but somewhat close by saying. We all cuts like sometimes you know that sometimes and on these petition bills gets presented as just people trying to access their ballot in democracy and sometimes it is I would argue that's exactly what we were doing we have people from Polk County here today that sincerely believed in a in an issue and they attempted organically from their own County to remove a mandate for a casino and they were met by a lot paid interest hired professionals and their names are in the transcript that's David couch primarily who hired in a signature gathering army of what consists of largely out of state criminals to come in here and inhibit their ability to access the ballot while we can't undo what was done our hope in presenting this bill today and make and making these things law is that so it it does not happen to the next group of citizens who are actually just trying to access their ballot to write something that they've you is wrong so we think these are reasonable changes and we would ask you to consider them and we would appreciate a good vote when the time comes but happy to answer any questions in the meantime. R. O. Senator Tucker you have a question. I just have two questions and and one is a little bit of a continuation conversation we were just have an I just didn't know that blocking was a thing but it it's something that exists I want to continue just and so I understand now after a conversation that destroying signatures that have been gathered is different in principle from saying it I'm trying to write my reminder on the blocking it basically if if someone is here gathering signatures on a petition and I'm sending maximum sand Hey don't signed that petition that's a blocker for or to explain the blocking to me yes Sir and then you're very skilled lawyer and I mean that someone at glance while I answer I believe important is that it's a paid locker and so you know that is an important distinction if you're just care about an issue and you want to do what you want to do none of this would apply but if you're hired by ballot questions come about like a campaign to be a paid blocker this bill would require you to follow the same rules that we place on paid canvassers and so we go yes so I now understand that distinction. But I'm also just trying to wrap my brain around the the blocking activity but that's basically what it is where you're standing next to a canvassers saying Hey don't signed that petition I'm I'm I'm going to it is very fair question two of our canvassers are going to they are here to speak they're gonna tell you their story I'm I'm trying not to you know totally still at from them but at the same time I would say what you describe is act probably what most people picture but it's also know what happened you often times what happened was again these are out of state people Texas license plates frankly items and outside my house in office for more than weeks at a time there oftentimes criminals they we have one female canvassers will tell our story but usually what blocking practically means at least one of within terms of this committee in this campaign for five min what's around women custom out call all sorts of names following home run off the road sometimes show up at their house tell them that they know we know where you live put their dress sometimes our family name to them because they get the campus or has to register do all that stuff whereas the blocker can just be an out of state criminal and that's exactly who this company hired. Okay. then my my other question it does drawn the distinction that you made it's only for paid blockers and that's the same on the canvassing side yes Sir and the reason for that is is because the first amendment concerns if you're just there a voluntary capacity you have first member protections but if you're being paid to do it it's a little bit different and that's why you have this registration process yes Sir okay and you you pretty much answered this question but I just wanna make sure like the list of crimes that are disqualifying that's the same for the blockers is on the campus excited and everything is just borrowed from the big pay canvassing side yes Sir okay I'm gonna be overly talkative which I can be but in fairness to you that there was some bills this session to be honest I haven't kept full track but the changes those requirements for paid canvassers so when those going to affect it may not parallel but in terms of what's in this bill it exactly parallels what was in the code when we drafted a parent thank you. Are any other questions from committee. Senator Clark you're recognized. Of the Mister of the sensors of the presenter wants to wait for some witnesses to testify like to reserve the right to ask some questions if I if we can after they testify if you are because I think there's gonna be some rays of. So. We have paid petition gatherer gatherers which I think the court to rule constitutionally we can't this while. Of. But we won't be able to have somebody to counteract that. Then be paid. On the opposite side. If I understand correctly you would be it's only saying that because of the what usually happens is in a committee forms to hire canvassers a committee formed to block there's always money to interest on both sides it's not organic democracy at least temporarily and so this bill would require the paid blockers to abide by the same law as the paid canvassers it would still be allowed and what you said is true it's rarely if I can't the mayor to members last thing I remember that was organic yes Sir the only thing I remember that was organic actually and yet the same folks will come forward if we do anything to limit this process or attempted anything like this process And claimants all order yes Sir to to the Arkansas voters so of. All the would be interested in in hearings because the everything you described was terrible but already criminal. Of running somebody off the road through surrounding them and terroristic threatening. Except for operation threatening and I would assume that there's no criminal charges fall that nobody was prosecuted. We sent a letter to the prosecutor which is in the packet of documents I know you just got it but we sent a letter to the prosecutor regarding the payment to destroy signatures because we have the audio recording which you have the transcript of its planes day and they said they've done it with other canvassers we just finally got tired of the recorded conversation and so we sent a letter to the prosecutor and the prosecutor so that it was not against the law the the while he was offended and against his credit at I think you said a lot of good things but he said he could not find it actual statute that it violated in regards the paid blocker activity. Follows that it was just so hard to pin down you know I I told you it's this is not about me at all but I people parked outside my house in my office for weeks at a time of walk out they put me off feel some cuss words and drop off always with a Texas license plate with I want to hear everybody I'm not as offended that the signatures were thrown in the trash as I stand in here and listen to people lie to voters and to see voters so that they can get paid so much for signature I'm not as of the date that those signatures that were before the C. because we're assuming we're we're saying we're offended that all that was all above board and everything was legitimate and there doesn't seem to be a whole lot legitimate about the process of once we once money entered into it so I'll if you'll I'll add an important part that I didn't mention and I don't know the exact line I apologize but it does also make this a misdemeanor to misrepresent a petition so in the in the theme of what you're saying I think this would help in that regard make it only I'm on board. Okay Senator rise you you're recognized I will hear those it's testifying also but refresh my memory do we not like it a. The penalty if there are felons that are canvassers is that yes Sir there's a so so this would just make the same yes Sir thank you. Tucker you're recognized thank you want one more question I spotted. Right above that misrepresents section so it's on page two one five that subsection six the starting there yes I'm just not as familiar with this process so. The sponsors list filed with the Secretary of State that would be someone trying to get an issue on the ballot and they provide their list of canvassers yes Sir that's what that means yes Sir okay and then basically you're proposing to make it a crime. If you tell someone a sponsor to use the term in the bill sponsor Hamidi campus for for you and then you take money to do not gather signatures that's that's what that is yes Sir okay I understand that my question though is is there a process for I can't answer to unwind yes Sir and switch sides yes Sir and not surprisingly you for the mail on the head of this is something we spend a lot of time on with the lawyers when drafting because what we don't want to do is prohibits speech you know everybody's got a right to seek employment anybody's got a right to take a better job that that's offered our understanding of the way that the attorneys explained this would be that essentially all it requires that is if you do choose to change jerseys you declare first you can ask your you can on register from the petition that you're working on and then be required to register for whoever's not paying you it would not prohibit that anyway it just sets a more process. Okay thank you. Any more questions from committee. Sanandaj anyone in the audience we have a Ted shields. Just pick for the bill. Sure there will be on the table and Jennifer yourself for the record. You're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman my name is Ted spirits. So I was a of the cancer last summer and I experienced a considerable amount of blocking harassment during that time. a lot of the things or stated were my personal experience walk you through one example so I spent some time up in Northwest Arkansas at the farmers market which is if any of you have been up there is typically very peaceful place for canvassers to out there meeting people there is one of the things that was set up by the opposition was a they were paying people for tips on or canvassers were so within about thirty minutes of my getting there the Barker started arriving and from the outset their behavior was extremely disruptive the and and so escalated over the course of the morning so the kinds of things they would do would you know it can be at that people walking through they would say things like this man is trying to steal your information and sell it online it's not a real petition he's lying to you they made it clear to me that they knew who I was what what I lived things like that the would yield demoralizing things at me lots of vulgar sexual comments as well their behavior was so bad that the police were called up. Twice in my canvassing experience there was uh at that for that particular day at the farmers market the farmers market staff came and asked them to behave in a more civilized manner on three separate occasions the there were several farmers market patrons who were so frustrated at their behavior that there's concerns about fist fights breaking out the Committee does go over the course of the morning the suggested that the quote break my legs and leave me for dead. And when I finished my day there to walk to the car to drive home to my family including young children they sent several several men who are taller than me to follow me to my car at which point I turned around and told them to leave me alone had to escort them to my vehicle and made several laps around the block to make sure they're gone so they wouldn't know which car was driving. This is that this is those typical of the kind of the typical environment for some or out there it was a it was hair raising to say the least and probably the worst public situation I've been in my life it's hard to be an individual being screamed at by seven people at the same time and when you don't know who they are and they know who you are there's a. Of. Scary asymmetry of power there so. Thank you for your time. Committee members questions Senator Clark since. how many times for the please call the. But one time that today just one. Yes Sir of and what do they do when they came. They told the blockers that they needed to leave people alone and that they needed to not step in the the right of way for patrons and then they left it at that the behavior calm down a little bit after the police came. Did it escalated escalate anymore afterwards on that date yes Sir so their their behavior towards the patrons of the farmers market was a less aggressive but they continue to make a considerable number of grotesque and violent personal comments towards me. Okay of the so there's questions to be asked about the people because these are all organized crime top. Activities which could very much or somebody was interested be prosecuted. Of under current laws of what we canvassing for. It was the put the ballot initiative that was in relation to the amendment one hundred. And what is that that was the amendment that was dealing with the licensing of casinos in Arkansas. You were. The other centers to order no to it did it was an amendment that would remove the Polk County license from the amendment removed the Lawson's okay yes Sir and the of and you were getting paid. Yes Sir and how much we can put it. If I recall is thirty dollars an hour okay. The have you done this type work before no Sir okay so you would have any experience other than this time. Knows I'd done about a week of volunteer petitioning at another point but I've never been employed in this way so you didn't call the police again about them following you to your call or. And the continued threatening. No Sir the There's various reasons but mostly in general the police didn't seem to care and so I wanted to be left alone and that could be but within less you call in we don't know would you agree with the. We would know what Sir we don't know that they don't care unless we unless we call the. Senate about that sure the police were called multiple times like multiple because it because if if that's a problem we need to know that too because this is this is despicable behavior that's already covered under law and I don't care if you're if you're gathering signatures for what you're doing. That's not allow. We agree completely and your questions are very fair like the police I will venture so we called police over dozens of times you know in the sense to specifically what jurisdiction always be sure we get that on the record it would cover usually whatever the city that we were not this time state bill yeah is it fair federal your senate bill the police were called several times. You were you were. Threaten the your legs broken and let. Thank you in fall two but did call police on that but all the staff and the police were called several times and came once the end of the fully we had several incidents across yes Sir it's just in the eye with the I think very practically to answer questions a lot of times these paid blockers their goal not emphasize again we're not even restricting every activity we're just gonna try to at least say they have to register and pass background checks but a lot of times their goal is to just create the disruption so like if you're in a public place if you're trying to gather it like a convenience store you just causing the disruption is enough to get were the campus circuit's asked to leave a lot of times the police you know accurately say you know yelling mean things may not be a crime no witnesses things like that it's just really difficult to pin down a lot of times the police or sponsored we called on dozens of times they are just limited it because these are in the end professionals and they're pretty good at following you and maybe knowing the exact rules of the oftentimes bailing before the police get there and and then very importantly we don't know who they are which is what this bill would correct. And and again and I'm I'm I'm not because I might be in fear for my life okay and then not as likely to be entered from a lot probably is a lot of petitioners would be but we have these little handy instruments now that that include a camera so. As far as recognizing somebody. That becomes fairly simple does it not just Senator Clark if I may the the response from the police on that instance in particular was that they are exercising free speech I had a I recorded about thirty minutes a video of the initial part my phone died because I've been recording for so long and so the threats to my to my wife we're not in that but I mean that's that's available and did you tell the police that the police didn't speak even even talk to me it was farmers market patrons that have called the police officers I don't know why they didn't come and talk to me. All right thank you. All right anymore Senator Tucker you're recognized. With your permission Mister out I've got a follow up question for Mr Burris okay. It's just a follow up on our conversation I just this subsection six on page two that we were talking about earlier. Except surprise money or anything of value for not obtaining signatures. And what we were talking about which is what I was thinking of in which you address this changing jerseys. But I'm. I have a follow up question kind of more broad than that. And an overall or simply trying to do with the bill I'm just kind of. Concern about this particular language like what if you register with the sponsors of cancer and then you just you don't switch jerseys you just take another job entirely or you move for you go to college rural I guess that doesn't qualify because you need a job something is paying you money but then you have another full time job so you're accepting money and as a result of that you're not obtaining signatures. You see my point. Yes Sir I do and I would would never attempt to outlaw you again I mean that sincerely the way I read it is it just the money would have to be offered for the for the purpose of not obtaining the signature you know we all have various laws law these are part time workers you know I would venture to say that the and that no one would be successfully bring a charge for working another job of a in the context of the code. The clear implication is that you're accepting the money for not obtaining a signature after you've registered to be a campus or. I think what you just said would result my concern and the other seven items listed there are fairly clear to ma'am you have to actively destroys signature or some such thing I think they're all pretty clear. but I'm number six. If you added. The purpose of between four and not. That will improve This I'd be happy to you know what Legislative intent certainly matters at least on some level I think Senator Hammer would be happy to clarify when I read it again as a layman but you know you have to accept the money or anything of value quote for not obtaining signatures and to me that that it's a drug dresses the spirit of your point. Thank you Mr thank you Mr president or any other questions from committee. Senator Clark you're recognized. Searcher I believe Senator Ross had a question since I've already asked all the four art center have. Bring over some of this to the one that talks about in some of this material. About to. Being a high school drop out and never paid taxes into last year and. And the. Create millionaires out of this. Business. Contracting. Is there anything in racketeering. The party in which one thing. Two harassing block. In in this bill will take care of it's despicable what. What we are happen in this with you far against them to make their report when you've got people coming in like that but. It is our need to be more legislation besides this. I senator eyes I agree completely I do want to note I think or other campus or you'll find even more as compelling with a different twist and I want to make sure that she does speak out I will say to your point those are like we included. I don't know I'm not a lawyer but one of the things that was so offensive to me was was the whole structure of this again for people and I will just say specially like Mr couch to pretend as if this is organic democracy in that the legislature somehow restricting citizens access all while performing these things to protect the casino license you know I I find it very hypocritical on the campaign finance report you'll see that Mr Jacoby which is who is the the signature gathering army that was hired he was wired money directly of from an affiliate of the of the license holder it was reported as an in kind contribution to this ballot question committee so essentially the the license holder hired an army of oftentimes criminals to come in and arrest or in state citizens trying to access to the ballot we talked about a lot of things I find it very offensive in the end. We just couldn't get any traction and it surprised me a lot but while we're here today and I mean this sincerely the legislature is the first branch of government the voice the people that I think the citizens were denied an unprotected by their government when they should have been and this will not do that but will at least help ensure that other people don't go through the same thing okay thank you I'm I'm open air another witness Richard wants to. The Senator Hester. Well if we if we're done with this particular of witness I'd like to move on here of because of from a list of the pretty competitive pretty compelling but if you've got a question directly for them my wife. Okay we have a Melissa Harris. Melissa here to view here you come forward to identify yourself. Hi Melissa Harris. Okay so um when I first got the job as the canvassers it. It was going fine everything was fine I was working at election headquarters whenever I was offered a bribe to Destroyer throwaway my legally collected signatures. I was offered money And. Thanks started going down here Health quickly after that the bribe I was working in Conway and and that big shopping center that has like Coles and stuff in it and I was working in front of TJ Max because I got a lot of signatures there and The blockers would come in it would be sometimes four five six guys that was never females it was always males they would call me me names they would call me a liar you know they would tell people that I was honest with you know to that I was lying that I was trying to rob pope county of of millions of dollars and and. AS one instance there were two men behind me and I heard him say maybe we should just pushed her on to the road and when a car comes by. They would try to and they were just very vulgar I won't repeat the names that they called me because they were disgusting but they want. There it was just really it was really bad to have to experience I know at one point I told them and don't speak to me I don't know you I don't talk to people I don't know I'm not intimidated by you even I was I was I was flying at that to them at that point just to just to try to get them to to back off me And they said well we know you and they told me my name and they told me my address and they were right like they had somehow they they knew who I was they knew my name they knew my address that same day they followed me home there are they followed me not all the way home I'm sorry they followed me I am from Conway to the Blackwell exit I did call my boss at the time and I believe they did call the police I did not call the police that day Anyway F. you days later my house burned down and and. I I don't have. I can't I can't say for certain that they're the ones who did it you know that they are responsible But I have. PTSD and Tom I've had to go to the doctor and get on medication Because of the continual harassment and And I just don't want it to happen to anybody else. So that's why I'm here given a first hand account to what happened to me I was harassed and It just it just wasn't right so that's my story. Senator Gilmore you have a question just just for clarity that the transcript that we have is this is this the conversation with you and a person are okay and thank you for being here and sharing this in a I know this is probably stressful to sort of relive it so I'm going to be sympathetic to that thank you so I again thank you for being here just I'm just looking through this and this is actually really disturbing couple that with your testimony so I mean I see you're on page one they literally ask you to throw your petitions in the trash and not collect more offering you money for that yes I thought that was very an American those people that signed that petition we're counting on me to turn that in and yeah I thought that was very disgusting and an American and then on I see that they tell you and this this Kristin foster is the person you were talking that's correct so she tells you this is a hundred percent legal and then I see on page. Well let's not it is number us yep Page seven. And I guess to try to call Mrkos wage some concerns you might have she she tells you the the person that she's working for as told her this is okay right my tracking that's right and she names that individuals David counts on page seven dateline that's right okay. Thank you Mr thank you again for being thank you senator rice you're recognized for a question. Thank you for being here danger testimony did did you conduct law enforcement I did not I thank my I think the people that I work for did. Did you. Izard investigation on your house burn yes there was with no determination. Senator russified might cause a court date a little bit more this on behalf of their family we we did contact the not out at and I hope I don't miss speak miss Harris but you know the fires in the middle of the night family inside no homeowners insurance so I think you can eliminate a lot of other possibilities because of the events that have been occurring over the past week as all this was around the same time frame or bribe was offered rejected we sent a letter to the prosecutor which you had. Are the IRS we continue to accept your and and I want to be careful of state at the same time we're not connecting dots but we're laying out the fact pattern so when after house burned that that morning we contacted law enforcement Harris family lives in a rural part of the county they said they didn't have something to the effect of not having the resources we hired of licensed investigator for the state the investigated soil samples etcetera descent definitively concluded it was arson there is some especially the fire Pat the burn pattern things like that that nature indicated explosion to the front door of the soil tested positive for excel or we sent that report to the prosecutor to the state police after a couple weeks not hearing much in some some prodding the state police unit that was investigating which is based in Clarksville I believe so that it was a civil matter and that they would not investigate you know if they were sitting here they probably give a different version they probably say they did investigate what I can tell you is that they didn't visit the scene that in talks there's family then contact our license investigator so if they investigated I don't know what it was but their response in the end was we've reviewed the file we believe this is a civil matter and we're not touching it. I appreciate your answer but it's not that they need to come up for this at this time but I'd I'd like to know more about this I don't see how. This does it get in the sum. Very serious laws that's already on the books and there's either not interested or they they're just like an inch to political or what but to begin thank you for your testimony. Senate senator Clark you're recognized. Yes of. Ironically I think that probably the testimony on the arson probably of. Helps the other side because there's nothing in the bill about burning anyone's house down the street correct. That is correct if I might quickly say we do have another bill or there's another piece of legislation yeah that would address and require the state police to investigate on a complaint of arson if provided with evidence and then provide a written report to the family so would there is legislation to attempt to address that situation you know that it would take legislation to address that situation of. The so. Ma'am are. Not a sympathetic could not because I'm not sympathetic because I to probably been on the same side of the petition gatherers of but the doubt sympathetic as a center Gilmore I'm pretty much an equal opportunity skeptics so. You saw nothing wrong with being paid to gather signatures not at all but you did see something wrong with being asked to not gather signatures. We need to we talk about I saw something wrong with the fact that I had already gathered these legally and honestly I didn't lie to anybody when I obtained my signatures those people are counting on me to turn it in I see something wrong with somebody asking me to throw those in the trash good. For assessment good answer the of but but back to it is bit something wrong with being offered money to not gather signatures of it's okay to be offered money to gather signatures. I I just I'm not understanding adult thank that was okay now and I think that's okay I think that's a bride I would say CIDR were still allowing paid on both sides that is that the industry norm you know the reality is to get on the ballot you're gonna have to hire canvassers were not disallowing the hiring of a block or and again the Mr first who's hiring these criminals. In this situation in your packet you have a ballot question committee that was formed to oppose our efforts of the principles are listed there you can see the donors as well in this instance it was the casino licensee holder that primarily funded the efforts to block it to five Polk County to remove the consent you name somebody else two or three times I have a night so the organizers on the committee were Dustin McDaniel David couch the primary funder was Cherokee Nation it was council yes or was in the yeah ironically again I use that word. Does this bill not help. Calluses the not normally on the side of gathering. The signatures you raise a very good question and I'm and I don't mean this answer to be hope yet all we talked about that as a more of a conservative who watches how these ballot initiatives play out when you require paid blockers to follow the same rules we we meaning conservatives might be blocking an attempt by someone to access the ballot for something that we don't support but in the end what we came to believe that this was appropriate legislation is because we would never do what he did we would never pay criminals to come in from out of state and offer bribes to destroy signatures so I came to the conclusion that it was fair to set the standard because we would meet the standard law or not. A no I think you're on the right track at the I personally think my reading of the bill and let them I may be wrong and conferring with some others but I think it's overly broad because I think there's things that are recovered I think there's some things here that I wouldn't want to cover just because of. Freedom of speech and and the fact that while people can gather signatures people ought to be able to be on the side of and. The rule is that not true Mr president if we you can pay people to gather signatures to do not be able to pay people to be on the other side you absolutely should be able to and you are allowed to under this bill again all it does is to say we have a set of standards now for paid canvassers where's paid blockers is unregulated I like that so you can still pay both sides can pay but both rules apply to both sides we just a couple things in her I think that are overly broad looks at overall a lark Turner bondage I think though that our law enforcement and prosecution because it just like when of people first begin to become predators children over the internet it took law enforcement years to catch up this may be a new area that law enforcement prosecutors need to because this is organized crime is what this is This we believe this bill would give them the ability to do exactly what you're saying. Or thank you. Us to give more you're recognized for a question. Yes and sort of going to the same line of questions Senator Clark I think you make some good points that a lot of this activity that places a lot of criminal behavior more so than what we just covered in the bill I like the fact that this is being tightened up on those specific actions I think that's important in the bill and I like that and I appreciate that but would you agree I mean beyond everything else that it sort of concerns me with all of the criminal behavior taking place I I can I mean I'm not a lawyer but I would argue that terroristic threatening this criminal behavior potential arson is criminal behavior a lot of these things probably should have been in and investigated maybe they were no charges I don't know if the charges were brought it doesn't sound like they were considering that you know with the other hand out we have criminal behavior taking place by the same individuals in other states so but that's something that you know certainly should have been looked at but as far as. Addressing the issue at hand with the. Paid canvassers It's fine to as you think use the the phrase change jerseys if you will so you agree that that's fine if you want to take another job it's not okay To pay someone to destroy signatures yes Sir I agree okay so again we agreed to find change jerseys it's not okay to pay people destroyed signatures are legally gathered server legal purpose and intent yes Sir not quickly add two to your point and I I I realize it is a big bill apart in defense of law enforcement have the arson is by far the to me the most offensive and I'm glad that you all you know on some level we don't have focused in on that in defense of law enforcement more broadly I just again a lot of times the deck is just so unfairly stacked we would call the cops by the time the cops got their blockers gone we report on but we had a picture no evident and that's why by requiring them you know the list so surrounded in guild where she lived and told her for her household names or addresses because she has to register with the secretary of state where is paid blockers do not and so this just levels that playing field to where maybe we can identify someone acting badly law enforcement would be able to reference the registration that they had to file and then actually pursue charges but right now it's unregulated it's in the dark they disappear before the cops get there and they rinse repeat the next day and their goals destruction if they cost us a gathering side in our situation they won for the day and often times that's all they had to do just make a scene in the store manager would be at what asked to leave and their goals disruption and we can't prohibit a lot of things because of speech but requiring them to register just like canvassers to well at least level the playing field. All right any other questions from committee. Saying under anyone in the audience that would like to speak for any other witnesses. Or to speak for against the bill. Senator do you are recognized to oppose the bill. Members I appreciate the of diligence on the on on this bill and I think we would all agree that it's a the number one there is there is an issue out there number two that there should be some fairness right and in the reality I'm far more likely to be a blocker that I am an advocate or on a constitutional amendment the future I think putting everyone on the same playing field to make sure that we don't have criminals and in that the registered is a very basic start for this recognizer can always be concerned with every bill we we do recognize that this is important that we get implement as soon as possible and and clearly if there's something we need to clean up at a later date we will but with that I I am close I have a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass in the second any discussion. Senator Clark. Again of Mr I think that this is a bill that's needed I think there are some things in here that if we pass it as is we will later be sorry for that reason as it is now I will be a no. Senator I would say that is that there are some people who will do anything to win. And when I heard this testimony I know it's easy to find someone to address but there's almost an element of of stalking in this it appears to me so is there any other discussions on the bill a committee. We have a motion do pass we have second. I have a second sent to Gilmore All the favor say aye aye All opposed. March bill passes centers to congratulations. Representative five sorry. We have taken so long of Senate house bill fourteen seventy. And house bill fourteen fifty nine. You may. Thank you Mr chairman I bring my witness to the table. Yes says. If I will go ahead and identify themselves for the record I'm Charlene Fite said representative district twenty four. For Gazaway attorney general's office okay. Thank you Mr Ryan Cooper attorney general's office all right you're recognized save thank you thank you Mr chair this is part of the package of bills from the attorney general's office to strengthen Arkansas's laws against human trafficking I want to read you the definition of human trafficking the end lawful active transporting are coercing people in order to benefit from their work or service typically in the form of forced labor or sexual exploitation and what house bill fourteen fifty nine does is five things one it changes the culpable mental statement into sex trafficking crimes trafficking of persons patronizing a victim of human trafficking from knowing to know or should have known to. It increases from two hundred and fifty dollars to one thousand dollars the additional fine imposed on defendants convicted of trafficking of persons solicitation of sex or prostitution who are found to have paid for sexual activity as part of a crime. Three it as the same special find two additional relevant criminal offenses specifically patronizing a victim of human trafficking grooming a minor for future sex trafficking traveling for the purpose of unlawful sex with a minor and promoting prostitution and the first second and third degree for it splits the fine revenues between the safe harbor Fund for sexually exploited children and the human trafficking victims support fund and finally it adds to the list of appropriate uses for the human trafficking victims support fund and will be glad to take any questions. Are you with before the questions I'm sorry I would like to have this Gazaway speaking or. Hi amber Gazaway its attorney general's office and I'm just going to explain a little bit more about what that bill does so the culpable mental state changes and the charges trafficking of persons or patronizing a victim of human trafficking will prohibit bad actors from claiming I didn't know this Vict this person was a victim of human trafficking it prevents those bad actors from feigning ignorance we want to hold those defendants accountable for Exploiting children so this couple more mental state changes the really good thing will help more. And defendant's be held accountable one of the other changes it dies this additional fines so right now the additional fine is around two hundred and fifty dollars for some offenses the fine is now going to range from one thousand dollars on those smaller misdemeanor charges to twenty five hundred dollars for class D. felonies to up to fifteen thousand dollars for those really large felonies that are either class a felonies or Class Y. felony. This additional fine can only be implemented as they commit the offence by offering to pay agreeing to pay or paying a fee to exchange in sexual activity so if they commit wanted these enumerated fences in that manner than they will be subject to this penalty. The the funds from these penalties I'll tell you a little bit about the to find so one of the funds is the safe harbor fund which is administered by DHS and it's used to provide services and treatment such as securing residential housing health services and social services for sexually exploited children so this particular fine is only used for victims of human trafficking who are minors at the time. And then at the other fine is called the human trafficking victims support fund and it is administered by the attorney general's office and it can currently be used to provide grants to nonprofit religious and other third party organizations that provide services and treatment such as screening residential housing health services social services for victims of human trafficking. And now this bill is also going to allow that human trafficking victims of port wine to also provide money to local law enforcement for training and educating those about human trafficking. Have we seen an increase in the last few years. Human trafficking. My information says that we have that the state of Arkansas yes. You're the witness in the. All right any questions from the any questions from committee. Anyone in the audience wish to speak for against the bill. The fight your clothes you ready to close for you will I am Mr chairman we know that nothing helps human trafficking victims more than law enforcement and the judiciary system fighting against it and freeing them and that's what this bill will help do. We have a motion to what do pass motion. And we have a second. Is there any discussion. It's saying none all those in favor of the bill say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass represents five of. You're recognized to present fourteen seventy. Prime current law states that if the victim has not fully cooperated with law enforcement in a criminal case then the Arkansas crime victims reparation Board may deny withdraw or reduce an award of reparations to that victim. This bill simply provides an exception to that general rule for children who are victims of a sex offense as well as exception for people of any age who fall victim to human trafficking. So if either of these two types of victims are too scared or coerced into silence at the investigate during an investigation this bill will allow them to still receive reparations to which that might otherwise be entitled. All right the Committee verdant explanation the bills sent to Russia question. Clarify for me one more time I like what I'm seeing in this. There are there is an exception not just for a minor victim before a another victim. If what if he or she is as is proven to be a victim of human trafficking okay they can be traumatized they can be in fear of their life water if that's determined that they could still be eligible correct. Yes Sir okay thank you. Are there any other questions from committee. Anyone the audience was speak for against the bill. Saying No representative five you're recognized oppose the bill I'm close for the bill thank you or we have a motion do pass any of. At a second any discussion. All those favour say aye aye All opposed. Graduation center representative fight your bill press thank you Mr chairman thank you committee members. This. Okay Center king. Senate bill seven. Senate bill eight. Taking if you recognize yourself you district and you you are. Thank you senator Bryan king District twenty eight and I have an amendment to Senate bill seven. Okay if you wanna explain your man with. So before I present the bill basically what this amendment says that this law if it if it does get past will expire in four years. So it also creates a fund that a case this can be prosecuted if they find a case then this fund will be created to help prosecuted local prosecutors do not have that the the time and resources this would be a and extrude burden on them to do that but so we would have to come up with some money the states already have millions of dollars in settlements I think it the Attorney General are a previous stranger already turned back some money those are the top possible funds that could be used for this. Our committee her next motions the amendment. We have a motion to optimum and motion dot the amendment and second. Second any discussion. All in favor say aye aye All party members better doctors Senator Teague you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr chairman thank you Mister committee members committee we know that opiate oracle overdoses in the US since the nineties have killed over four hundred thousand people we know that the courts about seven Vietnam wars the fifth no problem today can be traced back to opiates because it started with opiates and more specifically oxy cotton and then it went to her one and then defending all Doxie caught was approved by the FDA in nineteen ninety five it was previously in and they'll give you a little bit beef brief history to try to explain to where I'm going with this service box a cotton was per previous or opiates was previous into blocked roads the secretary family which owns Purdue pharma has connections to British royalty noble priest for prize winners they donate a lot of money for land for tree and a lot of other things but the promotion of oxycontin Purdue pharma marketing arm came from the corporate tax Sabin of Delaware in nineteen ninety six training video for doctors they said addiction to oxycontin was exceedingly rare. They claim that it was safe and reliable with addiction rates less than one percent. What the drug was approved by the FDA and address a little bit about the FDA later in their their approval process but to produce farm hand picked physicians gave incredible bonuses and luxury vehicles to sales reps the higher the milligrams the higher the bonuses industrywide big pharma spent four billion in direct marketing two thousand up sixty four percent from nineteen ninety six. When this drug got out there there was a lot of good people started sounding alarms when was Dr art then see in the appellation mountains and sister Beth Davies sounded alarms about what they were seeing out there with oxy cotton. And when they met with Purdue pharma the company tried to quiet them basically by giving a hundred thousand dollar grants to try and help them in in hopefully they would be quiet later but sister Davies refused the money saying it was blood money former U. S. attorney Bob crouch in Virginia began to take notice as well. Three US attorneys like Randy Ramsey earned and Richemont castle are patriots for their relentless work in trying to hold a produce farmer accountable Dr C. and others were labeled as kooks and trouble makers when they brought up the concerns oxy cotton. We also have instance were former main US attorney J. McCloskey pushed Purdue pharma to drop doctor junkets in the hundred sixty milligram pill Mr Mukasey later was hired as a consultant by Purdue pharma. The company for greed can continue to dismiss and disparaging body to try to send alarms journalist very by year wrote the book pain killer and had producing farmers trust lawyers tried is shutting down there was a lot of cases in the Appalachian hillbilly lawyers took the case is trying to defend people a committee book authors to put publish on this including dope sick with Beth Macy was later made into a series of five Hulu that I encourage everybody to watch. We have to remember that produce farmer did disarm point millionaires wanted become billionaires and they use greed and deception to get that done. Many states like Arkansas now benefit from hundreds of millions of dollars in the settlements all because of these people the career U. S. attorneys that I mentioned before the doctor see in a lot others sit there and stood up and kept fighting these people until they finally got to this point. Purdue pharma and what those drug you can't executives did are no different than a street or drug dealer in fact maybe they're even worse. They still profit off and try and make money off their drugs for greed and to see people and don't care about the destruction that they have. We should not have one standard for street and country drug dealers in another for me in heirs and being there so use or political influence plan for free an appearance someone different. SP seven would be a monumental task to prosecute some type of system and hold these people were criminally responsible not just simply responsible. But so did the patriots so as I mentioned before that set up to produce farmer the journalist that wrote books that had a lot of uh problems and threats on their jobs to keep quiet the money that was paid to keep from sounding the alarm on it. Purdue pharma misled the FTA the EA and brought in brought doctors and caused a tsunami in misery. So that's what today I think the we have to try and address this I do not feel like they should be out to spur civil reasons and not criminal reasons so there's a lot of obstacles and and and it would take a monumental effort but if you look at it it's pretty small compared to that Saddam you misery that they cost. So with that Mister chairman I'll take any questions our committee heard next right to the bill any questions. Senate bill. Thank you Sir can you and I actually have spoken briefly about this bill and and my concerns are raised you at the time and I think you have the response was on jurisdictional issues and and how it would be possible to prosecute individuals who. You may live out of state pretty far away so I don't know if you I think in our discussion I'd mention it I don't know if you talked to prosecutors are not and if you have a response that if you would share it yeah and in the question got brought up and it's a good one but it you know I just looked in you know I'm a border county with Carroll County with Missouri and there's been cases that to somebody in Missouri was prosecuted I mean look at the situation so you got a bookie and and across the line Missouri me as runners in the bets okay the runner in the bed gets arresting Carroll County for bookmaking in that within then that bookmaker can still be prosecuted we've we've had crimes prosecuted across state lines as long as there's approving connection to those crimes you know I even Google does such a case in Benton County right now I found out that there was a kidnapping the murder cost about the line they're still charges by the Benton county prosecutor so as long as there's a connection then there can be of a case and if you look at it the people of Arkansas on the people that took these drugs were believing that these drugs were not addictive so there's definitely a connection because there's probably not a person in this room or somebody that knows it had been affected by the opioid crisis so there's actually damaged on here and then are we going to have to different standards we certainly want to take the hundreds of millions of dollars in the settlement. From the company but we don't wanna criminally prosecute the executives. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Thank you can you address of. Why there's not some federal law or if there's if there is or isn't the federal government anything like this and also are there other states that have this Low or something similar on the books now well let me in in talking to the big pharma rep one of the questions he brought up he said what those laws already that do this support while you're present in. I mean that's just tells you right there where they're at in it I mean like I said he just said what is our role is that already do this well if that's the case then why is this a big deal why your pose so this would be different in that it would be more of a targeted bill and direction to go the second thing is about the federal government I mean if you mention the career U. S. attorneys that literally risked their careers and continue to fight this for you have we always have to depend on the federal government to do everything in our our goal is to work with them and in why I asked them to do more if it hadn't been for those career U. S. attorneys and the one the the other appointed US attorney that sought this out we wouldn't be at the civil penalty part right now so why do we always have to depend on the federal government do it they have done a monumental work and the people that I mentioned before I've already done a lot I don't think this is too much to ask. As far as other states I really don't know but I think that I think that we need to step up and protect the citizens of Arkansas when drug executives like this mislead people and kill people saying we would criminal person. Senator king the federal government was part of the problem the in nineteen ninety five they came out and said that Arkansas Code on oxycontin and these other opioids were not addictive. You know what address set thank you Senator so so the let's look at the FDA that I mentioned earlier in nineteen ninety five the you know it was a it was a time release hair one that's basically what oxy cotton was so the diction of opiates so the FDA wound and approving it so let's look at the FDA and I'm not saying there's anything criminal went on represent us did a video on this and they said in the study of certain drug assessors with the FDA fifty eight percent of them left the FDA to go to work for big pharmaceutical companies. Fifty six percent of DA and justice department officials. I have left their posts to go to work for big pharma to. So once again I mean I sit in this room when we had situation bills came up and it seemed innocuous and everything right we found out much later that's what this endeavor needs to happen is because I think that we can wind up in cover more I mean I just sit there and said the money connection between like I said I'll repeat this back to the FDA from this represent us video in a study of certain drugs sisters fifty eight percent of them left the FDA to work for big pharma these are the people that are proven to do exit later go out and now getting hired by the same companies that they were they were set to protect the citizens for. If that's not a red flag to sit there and say we shouldn't necessarily depend on the federal government at times but also want to mention the Randy ram Sir and Rick mark castle and people like that that set up and restore careers to. Senator Ricky. Thank you Mr chairman Senator can we discuss this a little bit when we had our conversation my concern is mostly with I guess maybe the wording of the bill maybe you can clear up for me. starting in line thirty five person commits prescription drug harm or homicide if and then you've got one. Two three four five. Subsections. Do they commit prescription drug harm if the. Are guilty of one of those subsections or do they have to be guilty of all of the subsections or are there a number of those subsections that they must be. Can Well I don't know how how how are those subsections connected I don't know how they're not tied together I mean if you just take out five the use of prescription drug causes death or serious injury to a person well that may happen okay but if you go back to the big key and it is number three that the person knowingly hides conceals omits or otherwise with cells evidence documentation information that the prescription drug has dangerous effects Purdue pharma clearly did that so. Mr yes. I guess the main thing to me is if you take out number three. Those other clauses happen every single day the drugs are introduced in the market which drug companies know that there are detrimental effects to a certain percentage of the population and so number three is key there if they don't knowingly Haidar conceal or omit or otherwise withhold evidence documentation information on the prescription drug has dangerous affects those other through those other clauses happen every single day people die people have bad reactions to drugs. I just want I am I am I'm new here but I want to make sure that those clauses are connected because if they're not. The bill has major issues and either doesn't do anything or it. Places an individual. Who is the person as an executive officer of the pharmaceutical company and is eighteen years of age or older as a. Violator of this act first off happy prosecuted in and I said it would be a monumental task no prosecutors going to take somebody that just says Hey there's a drug problem that happens you know and the lawyers I talked to the B. key is they have to knowingly hide these things these that they're not gonna be prosecuted for these other things I mean that's just a simple that goes on every day I guess I would just say that the the language of this bill doesn't make that clear in my opinion well I've talked to the lawyer and I think the big key is that that of if they're going to be prosecuted the big key is once again the personally knowing hides conceals omits an otherwise withhold evidence I think that if If that's the case there is literally no way that the people are going to be prosecuted for being a drug executive. Unless they knowingly hide its conceal omit the situation to produce farmers situation. Gilmore your question. I've just been reading the bill here I just I just read this we're says. Any money received from a court settlement involving prescription drugs. Does that mean the opioid settlement dollars that we currently have is that future moneys. Because I think a lot of the opioid settlement dollars right now are found to the settlement. Under which we receive that that's true I mean some of them are that that but some of murder or not I mean the tourney General just turn back several money to general revenue. Several million dollars to general revenue so that can be used yeah well and and to those monies those were the reason he got him back as they were. Senate well it's a whole other issue there well and I mean this in there since their Sir can always be in honestly shall game down here where another fund is used I mean I've seen all kinds of money switched around we sit and special language were funds are switched around per year the chair and you know that have certain certain purchases that go to somewhere else in and somebody may have another fun free up trust me I've been down here I'm casting a wide net of a lot of possibilities sixty happen to make sure that if there is a case that we can prosecute them because it's going to take a lot of money to fight these people. Or any other questions from committee Senator Clark. Thirteen of nine eleven was a terrible thing. Of. You believe in government closer to the people of and in the constitution one of the things basic to government is defense of the people. Of those who knowingly addicting kill our citizens of. They any less bad than those who blow up buildings you know I actually think they're worse because if they're telling you that something is good if you know there's a drug dealer or el Chapo or somebody like that we know who those people are the people like the the Sackler family that give all this money to politicians and and acted like they're trying to actually hurt help people remember because of what they did in misleading people that treating pain was like the fifth vital sign I mean this made a monumental impact on our health care all for the idea of saying something good I mean I think even the Bible talks about but the destructive people are the deceptive people and that's exactly what they want I mean I actually think they're worse and that's why we should go after men prosecuting more just because a driver. Private jets and by politicians shouldn't mean that we treatment different than a street or country drug dealer. Most of us remember where we were on nine eleven just because of the the great tragedy in the greater front to this nation. Do you know how many more. Of our citizens have been killed of by these drugs that when these folks knowingly knew what the effects were I mean they throughout the numbers that I mentioned earlier about the opioid drug overdoses but there was a there's been a lot of people mean this this is not a big kids addicted elderly people at the end of their life I mean so they have there is no telling how much and that's what I keep saying this is going to be a monumental effort if it even gets to this point absolutely but in comparison to what the the destruction that is caused it's actually pretty small thank you senator thank. Are any more questions from committee. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none sent can you were close for you will I just wanna say I want to thank the members to committee and I just think it's time that we step up and protect the citizens of Arkansas just because you're a big drug executive and you have money and power and everything like that should mean that you escape justice like I said this is because the tsunami destruction there's probably not a person knows that happen anyway our per capita and remember that you're gonna be dealing with issues like that now and now got its start from oxy cotton. So where is the next any greed is not going to stop in this world but yet we need to have people that step up and I mention the good people in the federal government and like I said I I can't really kind of tired of how we have to always put more on the federal government you know and keep putting up with them I mean I mention the good people like the career U. S. attorneys in the people that Dr appellation that stupid up and sister Davies and I just think it's time that we step up and hold these people criminally responsible the same way we would a street or country drug dealer out here with that appreciate a good vote aren't. US senator flowers you have questions. In late Senator king. S. the section two on the second page deals with this. Prescription drugs for. homicide offense fine but I don't see in the bill. In section one. Where there is even a. Mmhm monetary penalty. On Page two. It just says it's an unclassified felony with the sentence of imprisonment of not less than one year. And not more than life so where would. Would Where the funds coming from that you speak to. In section two of the bill yeah this would be about the criminal prosecution we've already had kind of the civil as suits so that senator morass previous question you know as far as the fund it would take a lot of money to prosecute these people I mean these people have obviously. You know hundreds billions of dollars to to try and have the defense this would be the fun part would be about like maybe if possibly some of the money that is our hundreds of millions it's already been given to the states and potentially more if there's a way that we could use those funds to use those funds in one area may be the it's about having the money to prosecute these people it's not a civil penalty case. But the fine wooden. Exclusively to be used for prosecution. Is that correct this this Fund in this case if we find the case would be for prosecution yes. Thank you. Are there any other questions for members. Part. Seeing none we have a motion. We have a motion to pass with the second of this as amended. We have a motion do pass as amended we have a second Senator Clark any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed no. Roll call it. Senator Hester. Senator Hester no. Senator Rice. Senator Rice yes. Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker. Senate to give more. So therefore no. Certificates. Senate McKee I. Senator Clark. Senator Clark I. Senator flowers Senator flowers I. Sure vote to share about your bill senator king. Thank you members committee. You want to go in that Senate bill eight we're on a roll for me so this is the. Senate bill eight. You're recognized to present Senate bill eight. And it has amendment. If you wanna explain the amendment Senator. Yes Mister chairman this it basically says the same thing except that deals with vaccines on this one. This bill will go away if it's not prosecuted if there's not use it will expire and go away and of the creates the funds basically as a previous bill. All right any questions on the amendment. Sam Nunn. We have motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment at second and second all in favor say aye. All opposed members been adopted sixteen you're recognized procedure bill. Thank you Mr chairman thank you members committee basically Senate bill eight is almost a mirror built in a lot of ways it just deals with vaccines we know that I'm not gonna get into the vaccine debate what I'm going to get into the same situation we have hundreds and millions and billions of dollars being thrown around we do not know what the the you know the produce farmer situation with oxy cotton is a little more clear we do know that of people are having problems with vaccines and taken him as you as you would thank me my background is I am a I was a went to it was a pre that major did not go to that school you know Senator Stubblefield ideal cattle we do with vaccines all the time medications diseases all that so this is not to really get into the the vaccine debate other than to say it's the same thing that the drug executives if they knowingly mislead. Hide conceal helmet without evidence evidence documentation about the vaccine and its effects. Then they could potentially be currently holds a current criminally responsible. Senator flowers if questions. Senator king. I understand it is that these vaccines go to the FDA for approval. So. If that's the case and the FDA approves it. Then. How are you going to prove. Page two. Person. Normally hides conceals limits or otherwise withholds evidence are you talking about they would hail from FDA or what. Well if you look at the case in the previous thing and I know you're gonna be on Education were pretty pharma did knowingly conceal and met stuff so it that same situation has happened the end of yeah the potential is to be criminally responsible as far as the FDA I brought that up and in a previous we know that the FDA was a part of approving oxycontin but the reason about the FDA is to be suspicious is as I mentioned before in a represent us video in a study of a certain drug assessors for the FDA fifty eight percent left the FDA to go to work for big pharmaceutical companies so you know we have a trust factor any no it's just like a stand here's legislator Senator flowers we have a trust factor we do with the bill Legislative Research or D. FNA will sometimes as we found out with other legislators and DHS I mean let's just remember that we had several people that worked at DHS that we depend on preparation are now either in federal prisons are of went to federal prison or waiting to go so there is a cloud out there that we have to be careful and that's why like I said I put the bill out there for four years that we can study the effects of these vaccines and know what happens and it's even previous vaccines that have been approved that can be changed I mean the drug manufacturers could have a a known vaccine that works well and they could change it and knowingly concealing and hide that and it's just about holding these people responsible when they mislead amid evidence and of that could be the harmful effects of a drug that hurt or harm people out here. Yes court. Then. We would. I mean it it seems. Reasonable to me that. It would take a finding from baby if the eight. To come back and say this company with pale evidence is there is that kind of the basis of of the actions that would be. That that is one to know that they knowingly as a pretty pharmacy tuition and other situations when they knowingly mislead the FDA FDA but I would also say that we're looking at a case of we're these vaccines well given you have people as I mention before it's like I'm not saying the reduce corruption at the FDA I'm just saying there is a connection of people going the FDA approved the drugs and then going to work for the companies later so sometimes in these cases if we found out even in in the correction here in Arkansas that flipping over one raw confined in some leads to another no I'm not saying that's happened in this case but yet we do know like I said from the represent us video that there are a large number of people that go the FDA approved the drugs and then later go and are hired by the same companies I'm not saying there's anything nefarious with that but it should just should realize concern for. Any other questions from committee. Gilmore. Not to belabor the point isn't working out I just have some the same concerns and and on this one as I did with the jurisdictional issues and the and the funds As you explained it on the previous bills I think I think the language is similar in this bill is not it is thank you. Our. Senator Clark. Sir king as I understand it this bill requires two things it requires harm and it will requires knowingly concealing information is that correct that's correct thank you. Part any other questions from members. Anyone the audience would like to speak for against. Saying none Senator Teague we're ready to close it we just know that we need to protect citizens and sometimes agreed with pharmaceutical companies is any industry that we have out there we know that sometimes we can't trust the government officials as we found out here previous in the legislature when we've had agency people who plead guilty to corruption with legislators plea guilty corruption yet when they come in here and present the bill or give the evidence you know we don't know what's on the other side and I'm just saying with the vaccines and everything we really don't know yet I mean it's like the pharmacy when they asked him said the house is going to go as it's going to go in he said we're going to know more later but what we should know we is that our citizens know that we we have to that we're going to step up and prosecute these people the same way we would a street drug dealer the same way we would a country drug dealer just because you're a big executive in a little by a political money influence power and all those things you shouldn't be able to excavate prosecution what we have a different standard for somebody out here in our community. Or any other questions from committee. Again no one the only if we speak for against senator king your clothes for your bill I'm close. Okay are we have. We have a motion to pass as amended. We have a second all in favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass to send king thank you Mr chairman thank you members committee. You. I've got one thing which would if it is. Fourteen forty eight. H. the house bill eighteen. Senator Stubblefield you're recognize yourself a device they often. It in with you there Senator Gary Stubblefield of Senate district twenty six this is help House Bill fourteen forty eight members. Good morning St I'm glad I'm a circuit judge from Sebastian County. Senator Stubblefield you can proceed. A manager I'm going to go and let judged our goal is thanks Plains bill judge I'm sorry I just had to name already at judge black B. L. A. T. T. black B. as in boy yes ma'am L. A. T. T. you're recognized thank you I know you're running into the lunch time hours all try to be as concise and quick as possible House Bill fourteen forty eight is that probate modernization bill and it simply has five procedural changes to the probate care that will make it easier and more affordable for people handling estates adoptions and guardianships and I'm happy to go to the specific changes if you'd like for me to or. Elaborate more if you want me to. While I personally have not read the bill so I I would appreciate if you would go through it okay I'll be happy to thank you one it raises the a dollar amount to require guardianships when settling personal injury cases involving minors it's currently five thousand dollars to be able to dispense with the guardianship and it raises it to twenty five thousand it is established as better procedures to sell real property in an estate case protect particularly giving reasonable flexibility on sale price makes it more affordable to carry out adoptions by waving home study requirements when an adoptive parent is related within the third degree of consanguinity or has been a guardian for more than one year it gives the court the authority to order a person to pay attorney fees and guardianships when they're found to be in contempt of court or have filed a guardianship case in bad faith and it removes the mandatory requirement for bonds and decedent's estate cases law creating fair procedures to set bonds when they may be appropriate. Well. I have a question would do this pretty fast So you. If you went from I'm looking. I heard the dollar amounts in that strip. Court so on page seven. So if if the guardianship doesn't. In a small state. Are you asking about section nine where it changes the amount so when there is a personal injury lawsuit if the settlement is for five thousand dollars or less then you can dispense with the guardianship and this would increase that limit to twenty five thousand where the court could dispense with a guardianship and allow and the settlement to go to the minor. It doesn't make it mandatory but it would allow you to dispense with the guardianship. Okay I'm not sure if you we had a bill in here. And I think that was senator Stubblefield bill the other day and it it dealt with personal injury correct cases that this bill square with that are you familiar with what that bill did not raise the threshold like this windows from five to twenty five so judgment let you familiar with that okay that the bill we just passed out of. I have reviewed that bill yes ma'am is it this is this consistent with that bill. I believe that it is yes ma'am. But it is still. Okay so the court still has this question. And then. All the pages eight. Personal property. Total value. Less than twenty five thousand dollars. So you dispensing with. Administration there. Thank you sorry deals with the I believe bonds when the president total value of the personal property of a minor is less than one hundred dollars and it changed it to twenty five thousand dollars. And I think in section B. in the last in line eighteen it changes it from five hundred dollars to twenty five thousand dollars. Well that's the value of the estate right we're not talking about a personal injury action. Now this is M. regarding ward's receiving public assistance. Will help me understand what it does I mean. Of the how does it relate to public assistance. I'm not sure I understand the question well twenty film Page seven with the title of twenty eight sixty five five three is ward receiving public assistance. So the circuit court in its discretion without the appointment of guardian of a guardian are given the vote authorize the payment and delivery of moneys. the property DO are made in the future become due. The minor of the incompetent. The authorized payment and delivery to any to some suitable person. Help me help me see a situation where this would apply. Thank you for. And this could be a person where A parent could take care of money for a minor or incompetent person. Without having to apply for a guardianship. So are they getting money from a public assistance of meaningful. Like they apply for social security disability or something and then they get a lump sum settlement what is this. Twenty five thousand dollars. Public assistance I'm trying to under I'm trying to picture what. What is this what what what kind of situation is applied to. I think this could apply to a personal injury settlement for other. Hi. What they have to do with public assistance award receiving public assistance. I don't know the answer to that specific question. We go from one hundred dollars to twenty five thousand dollars I mean I. And like to know what's going on here is. I think it would well I'm sorry to interrupt you and then and when we talk about a minor or incompetent and given it to somebody. On their behalf I'm not understanding this I'm sorry I haven't re it this. At this. I'm trying to envision a scenario where. This is a five. It okay under the title ward receiving public assistance. When there are some words that received in public assistance that may have disabilities or other problems and may also come into other funds and this would just allow the Someone to. Take care of those funds for the minor without having the court oversee it to a guardianship proceeding. A lot of guardianship proceedings require courts to Provide a court order to access their funds and this would allow the court some discretion to allow them to not have to spend the money to petition a court to come in and ask for funds. So like you know social security disability case are applying for social security. After maybe of minors. Parent has died or something they get a lump sum so. Something that's appealed in a lump sum is I'm trying to understand is that what we're talking about here yes. And so they would not have a duty to. Get a guardian for that money. And what a lie it would give the courts the authority to dispense with the guardianship and not it's not an automatic but it would give the courts the authority to dispense with a guardianship and not have to have a guardianship yes because I guess any agency would want a court order. St one way or the other of for the appointment of a guardian yes I think that would be fair yes. And so. This is this bill coming from judicial council is it is it legislation that. It's kind of a uniform throughout the state what am yes ma'am this is coming from judicial council and it just it's kind of a package bill to. Update the probate code in several sections and try to make the probate process more affordable for individuals who were handling estates guardianships and also adoptions. Okay thank you did any other questions from the committee. C. N. nine. Senator. What do we have anybody to speak we don't have anybody to speak for against. Okay a so Senator Stubblefield would you like to close for your bill. Yes Richard this bill really goes along with the other it's similar to the other bill we passed the other day and I'm I know you remember that one Mr questions here so that's just part of that package okay. What the will of the committee. Motion to pass second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no your bill is passed senator Stubblefield thank you thank you chair don't forget that I have a also I have a Amendment. If you remember the other day we ran Senate bill three fifty nine. We passed out early don't that is one seven three fifty nine out of your. All up okay I think staff. If we pass it out here why is it still on the agenda. What we would do that here because I brought it back for amendment. It was re referred yes ma'am has it been engrossed euro Amendment you should have the amendment there. We had. This amendment would also it was done on behalf of the medical society a conversation between the woman. Okay you can be recognized to explain the okay this is this is this amendment this is really simple it distracts takes a strikes out of home page three it removes the strike from a. One sixty one twenty five. The process for which a doctor for doctor believes that the deny access to the his or her medical records for any reason might be detrimental to the patient. Okay it it has been engrossed in the bill. Well I don't have the bill that has been engrossed and I do have the amendment. But. You should have a copy of the members there okay. We have a motion to adopt the amendment second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no okay you're amendment has been adopted I'm pretty sure it's engrossed. In this I'm sure in the bill or okay. Senate other than that it's the same bill that it was the other day when we passed it okay. Question the members with those lines left in. No questions from the committee anyone here to speak for against C. N. nine. So. Okay it is already engrossed shall we need is a motion to do pass okay Senator Gilmore has made a motion to pass your second all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. You're the engrossed bill has passed thank you madam chair thank you from. You senator will meet fifteen minutes upon the germ of the Senate. because we still got a lot of bills are starting to stack up so we will meet fifteen minutes upon the German of the Senate. This. So you know the business for germs. You have so well that. Yes Sir I have a question now I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier I was in another but. What of these on the regular agenda and we completed all the student. We have not no. Well my understanding the other day was. We had taken some bills off of the inactive list correct and and ran those correct and I'm concerned that the public is not getting notice okay so I I would like to ask that we not. Take Bills all Senthil within of an yes if if we move to take him off the inactive list let's let's let him. Be placed on the calendar for the public to see do we know okay thank you. We're journey.