State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Two sixty seven and If it's okay I'll stay here. We I got a text on the floor that would engrossed from the governor's office and it was the amendment so. I thought we had amended again we're not recommended again. It's it's rat but Senate Medicare just in case but. If it's are at there's no objections I make a motion to send it back to the floor thank. All in favor say aye Thank you. The you want to fourteen nineteen. Not yet. Anybody around three thirty five. Should introduce yourself and you're recognized thank you Mr chair Josh o'brien District thirty two. So. This bill is a it actually did originate by me and with a representative Mark Perry. I am I'm as as better and he is a veteran we we belong to multiple different groups that try to advocate for for veterans. And so as I as retaining these groups one of our calls action outside of trying to House veterans the veterans support mental mental conditions of veterans where the VA or the state lapses we got asked if we could if we could keep chip chipping in to. To preserve our monument so we've got a couple monuments on our capital and I think what why is the state handling this like if you if we we have fallen on individuals or we at the names if we have you know if weather conditions affect the monument and people are viewing our visitors reviewing these monuments why are we are almost a little embarrassed that were not of keeping this and so the answer I got from the secretary of state's office who's here if we if we need to get the weeds on it is well we don't have a path for that because that was of the commission was formed money was raised it was built there's a little bit of seed money given to the state and then the commission absolves itself because it is job but there's no Avenue written into law for the secretary of state's office to up to basically of keeper maintain repair et cetera so the commission has to be reformed they have to go through this process of asking it's it's society to chip in money to make those repairs and then the process starts over again with the as as myself in general very we're talking secretary of state's office a civil over money that's like that so I went over here to the gold star families and there's bricks missing there's names missing because you know following members of fallen since then and they have the same same issue firefighters money has the same issue all these monuments have the same issue so collectively said we'll see if we can fix this issue let's see if we can give some authority back for secretary of state's office to to take those those that private funding and also at the will of the General Assembly collect some some state funding to keep our our monuments that we've collectively agreed as as a body that we need to celebrate and preserve and remember of our history so that's that's the essence of the bill. Is to allow. Private money to flow to the state and in state money before the secretary of state's office set by the the the rate of the General Assembly however that is yearly or tower budget comes up to be able to give that permission authority to our secretary of state's office to Perform maintenance repair alterations and additions or reconstruction to upkeep of any kind to these monuments. Thank you senator questions. Go ahead Senator Clark. The senator Bryant I think as I read this bill. Of the funds from private individuals associations whatever they can be dedicated to a particular monument is that correct yes this center console of the fund would go would be separated. And use just for that particular monument yes that the Avenue have the still available in fact the the very last page identifies funds it's not the single them out other than is is that that is has funding available they're just they're not to the point where they can do anything that might be a dollar and their account but those can can be dedicated to secretary of state's office for those particular months and then any state funding we want to put into the into the fund can be added to that to to make those alterations repairs upkeep at. Did you choose the the specific. Monuments and memorials that are on that last page to include only those five well I'd ask about that in an all of them are included the but the reason these these are our. Singled out is because they have money available the all all funds as they have money available are included in the list so all all monuments throughout our our Capitol grounds are included in the ability for this for this act for the for this bill so with private funds came in for. The Little Rock Nine it would only be used for that particular vehicle for the Little Rock Nine and if there's any additional funds in in this new fund truck we're trying to I'm trying to recommend we create they can add to it as well to make sure that that happens okay thank you. Additional questions. Senator Tucker. Monica our members present we're doing here center my only question is at and I'm I'm sure makes sense. But as I'm as you're presenting I'm reading are there other monuments that are not on the State Capitol grounds that we should consider including as well I do not believe so. I don't know if we we got some secretary of state individuals here that might be able to answer that question. Still state. Is this a clarify what I was referring to state monuments that are SO in the Capitol grounds but still state money to yes Michael Hary managing attorney for the secretary state I'll service chair for the capitol arts and grounds Commission Senator Tucker those are not contemplated in this bill because the secretary state doesn't have authority over those particular monuments even though they are state monuments they would be under the purview of where they're located. So I figured there was a good answer thank. The other questions. Seeing none you are I have no one signed up to speak for against the bill you'll close the deal committee I appreciate your consideration for this I thank as as as you I encourage you to walk our monuments if you have in a while just to see that that we can do better and we need to give give our secretary of state the forty to do better where they can. What's will committee motion by Senator Pitsch and second by Senator Tucker all in favor say aye opposed Like sign thank you senator for should thank you Mr. Senate bill three forty three. The right. Yes. Is to introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank you members of Kim Hammer station District sixteen would you mind if I had either Tom or Kevin from lego to come up to the table with me please. Yes thank you Introduce yourself and who you're with us and. Mostly all recognized. Kevin White with Arkansas legislative audit. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee back when the transformation bill ran there was question is whether or not it was a cost savings or not so initiated a piece of legislation because after its initial start there was a question about the definition of savings and whose definition or were using select past piece of legislation that established what it meant by the term savings so that lake audit could then go on and produce report as to the savings that was created by the transformation bill we've had two cycles of that and those reports speak for themselves but since that time and that was a piece of legislation that was intended for that particular moment in our history since that time we now are able to let legislative audit determine things through the normal course in through the process of their normal auditing procedures and so what I'm asking for is for that piece of legislation that I sponsored to be repealed because it's pretty well established what we thought and we can maintain through the normal budgeting process and just do the normal auditing process now especially with the new administration and so that that piece of legislation I passed his lived its time it served its purpose and if we could repeal it it would take a additional burden at this time all for the bureau because already doing the work and we don't need this report in order to be able to measure with the transformation is cost savings or not that's the simple explanation it repeals the entire act and it was my act and so I'm asking for to be repealed and I work with legislative audit and it's something that they would like as well a fully transparent in that will still be able to monitor there's there's no lack of transparency by doing this we just put we just put under the microscope for a couple times and now we can move forward without having to have this report generated be glad to answer any questions or if chair would allow him to. Add an additional com or comments. Senator Hammer did a great job explaining it have nothing more to add thank you. Jason Rapert center Payton. Thank you and I agree with what you're doing here no reason to continue do it after it served its purpose just I'd like verification that the reports that were created will be preserved and still be part of the public record if you don't mind I'll defer Kevin if you have any questions about the report specifically he would be more proficient but those reports have been produced apart the permit records but let Kevin And onto please yes Sir just like all of our reports they are currently stored we have maintained a parent and they're available on our website as well we have all the previous reports there and available and are available on request from us at any point thank you thank you Mr. Any other questions. Senator flowers just to say all on it reports are stored. Yes not not just related to this that is correct senator flowers I believe back and my apologies to the specific year might be around the late nineteen nineties is available on our website all audit reports back to that point there. Thank you. Your other questions. Seeing none the your clothes your bill. Yes Sir good efficiency bill will be able to continue to do what we're done under a new chapter and we can all watch it through the budget process through the processes are in place by audit appreciate a good vote what's will of committee. Motion by Senator knots and second by Senator Payton all in favor say aye aye All opposed Like sign thank you senator thank you Mr chairman members of committee. Going to fourteen nineteen. Just. Introduce yourself and you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee State senator district thirty four. Jim Dotson House Bill fourteen nineteen if you'll recall a few weeks ago. We had a very similar piece of legislation that was Senate bill that brought before this committee And we pass that out of here there is a house version that was filed and and we did some amendments and. The House version is. Basically little more streamlined and the Senate version was so held on to the street the the Senate version and have brought the house version to you instead this this is passed through the house now at this point but This is the ensuring access for all our Kansans of voter protection act twenty twenty three What this would do right now under our constitution. It says that signatures will be counted from at least fifty team counties in order to get ballot access for constitutional amendment and and initiate acts. This proposal would say that because it's at least fifteen in the constitution that's the four this would make it to the at least fifteen counties so we have a broader representation of counties when set citizens are collecting signatures and more rule counties throughout the state would be represented in in that and at this point that's literally. All of the bill does so one happy try to answer questions. The questions Senator Tucker. R. want to relitigate what we went over before I I think this plainly violates the language of the state constitution and it's obvious. however. I understand you disagree I don't want to relitigate that today one question I didn't ask when this came through last time is in two thousand nineteen the legislature referred out a constitutional amendment that would change the number of counties. Four required to gather signatures from from fifteen to forty five. People of Arkansas rejected that in November of twenty twenty of the general election in this. Takes a constitutional amendment which the people rejected and and takes it up five more counties so. Are we not just directly flouting the will of the people of Arkansas with this bill I don't believe so This the constitutional amendment referral that you talk about That was only one component of that constitutional amendment there's also a component in there for recall that added an increased amount of a voter threshold to refer a constitutional amendment out to the people by the legislature they also rejected that in that as well so whether it's. Which part of the the that that particular ballot initiative or referral was certainly much more encompassing than what this proposal is this is streamline down so. I can't speak completely for what every voter was thinking when they read some language in a ballot proposal and it sometimes is a little bit more Maybe not quite as clear as what. Was intended for it to be but I don't think this but this third they're two totally different proposals in my opinion the. Follows go ahead that so you're I'm not saying this is your theory necessarily but the only way that makes sense what you're saying is that the people when they voted twenty twenty said you know. We're not for raising the threshold but we are for raising the counties but on balance I'm going to vote no because I'm against raising the threshold especially when it makes sense. I said I can't speak for whatever voter in the entire state that voted one way or another. Vaught when they cast ballots. Beyond that and twenty twenty one and this is a different proposal. But it what there was a constitutional number referred out by the General Assembly that raise the the voting threshold on citizen initiated ballot initiatives our constitutional limits from fifty percent to sixty percent. A grand that's a different issue but that also failed the message I'm receiving from the people of Arkansas is stop trying to mess with our ability to put issues on the ballot. The you agree or disagree with that I don't. Thank you. Through the questions Senator Hester. Watson also would you agree that the you know the people of Arkansas voted down many constitutional amendments and we don't know why this even particular the one that was just discussed had many issues outside of that issues we can infer why people of Arkansas chose that time to go down many constitutional amendments would you also agree that the people of Arkansas change your mind a routinely they will force you know one party in one election another party another election so I think the thing that I just want to be clear that we will say many many times here of the constitution clearly it says at least fifteen counties if the people of Arkansas wanted to say only fifteen counties that's what they would've sat in counties people are taught and say that they said at least correct three absolutely. Your questions. Seeing none have one to speak against this. Bill and it's misty or print. Please introduce yourself and you're recognized thank you hi good morning Mister chairman of the committee my name is misty or fan and I'm the executive director of common ground Arkansas and I spoke with you a few weeks ago on SB two sixty which center Dotson mention it's very similar to this bill and when I spoke with you guys Allen my concerns about the constitutionality of that bill I'm not going to retread all those same issues but I feel like this has the same concerns with that and I do believe that this is a constitutional change and it's therefore required to be referred to the people of Arkansas for that but. Again today I want to focus instead on some of the arguments that have been made about the perceived benefits of this bill. Supporters have said that the Arkansas constitution is too easy to change and frankly I believe that but I don't think this legislature believes that. And the reason that I say that is that in looking back over the past two decades of ballot issues fifty eight percent of all the issues that I've been on the ballot for constitutional amendments but there by you guys and only seventeen percent of the constitutional amendments that were placed on the ballot came from the people so the legislature attempts to change the constitution or than three times more often than the people of Arkansas do you. If you want to stop changing the constitution stop trying to change the constitution because a majority of the changes are coming from this legislature. And this bill does nothing to curb the ability of the legislature constitutional amendments on the ballot where the vast majority of majority of proposed constitutional amendments come from it only curbs the constitutional right to direct democracy that we the people of Arkansas hold. I'd also like to point out that this bill doesn't just impact Constitutional amendments the people of Arkansas have three main avenues to direct democracy in our constitution yes everyone is Constitutional amendments the second one is initiated act which is our ability to make or change laws through the ballot and the third is referendum which is the people's ability to repeal a law that the legislature passes so it's basically the people's veto and this bill makes it harder for a Kansas to exercise all three of those including referendum and initiated acts. The second argument supporters have made in favor is that there's too much out of state money in our politics and again I agree with that statement. But in fact I'd like to look at that a little bit more and it's actually this bill is actually more likely to have the opposite effect as it will make ballot access more expensive and likely because our Kansans looking to play something on the ballot to have to cast a wider net for funding. And I'd also like to challenge the notion that the people are the responsible for the out of state money coming into our processes in fact in the last election cycle constitutional amendments that were placed on the ballot by the legislature by you guys received five percent of their funding from out of state constitutional amendments are placed on the ballot by the people receive zero point one percent of their funding from out of state so again if you want to stop out of state spending or out of state funding for constitutional amendments than the legislatures ballot question committees should stop accepting out of state money for the constitutional amendments that they place their. I would be happy to work with anyone on a bill that actually does care about a state funding and are ballot measures but this bill does not do that. The final argument is that rural counties deserve more of a say in the petition process I grew up in a very rural county in Arkansas and I understand the protecting the voice of our role can our rural communities and counties is crucial. So I believe that it's important to listen to those counties when they speak like they did in twenty twenty on issue three seventy one of seventy five counties in Arkansas voted against doing just what this bill does raise in the county threshold it failed with fifty eight fifty six percent of our Kansas voting against it and in fact many of our rural counties where the counties that voted the most heavily against raising that threshold if you look at Calhoun County which is the state's least populous county it was fifty nine percent against Randolph County was fifty six was sixty five percent against and Newton County my stomping grounds with sixty three percent against. Now as we're all aware rural counties also have the ability to voice their concerns in on these ballot measures in November for every voter in every county has a vote on the issue. I think supporters of this bill and the bill sponsors have done a great job of identifying problems that we have in our political processes however this bill does not address those problems so I ask that you honor the vote of the Arkansas people with that they spoke just three years ago and protect the people's right to direct democracy this man is right in our constitution for over a hundred years now and please vote no on this bill so thank you for your time and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Reserving I'll begin the question yeah you're you're recognized this is not a constitutional amendment. Well I believe that it is I understand that there is an argument being made yes yes or no I don't believe that's yes or no is this a constitutional amendment yes that story I believe it's a constitutional amendment yes is this constitution. Yes okay. So. Is it statutorily reading written our constitutional writ because we're not even to the constitutional process where we could refer. As this body. So is this statutory or constitutional. Constitutional. That's your opinion yes. But is this is written in statute because I'll look to all sides of this. In the constitution does part. And we filled in the blanks and many places. Two for our voting processes by statute is that correct yes. And this is in statute. Not in constitutional languages that are at. Well the at least forty five is not an statute it's that we know this this bill is statutory language correct yes okay thank you. Your any other questions. Sing nine thank you for your testimony here. During the I'll close your bill. thank you Mr chairman or the committee I'll be brief and say I'm closed and make a motion to pass you're a motion do pass. The second by Senator Hester of any discussion. Discussion. Thank you Mr another question came up a couple of times about what the voters may or may not have been thinking when they voted against some proposals that were on the ballot last over a. I'll just say I had a lot of calls from my constituents about how they should vote on the in the. Constitutional amendments referred acts I think there were four or five on the ballot last go round. And after long conversations with many of them the response I got was I can understand on there too long to read on voting against all. And that was the vast majority of the responses I got from my constituents where they go in the polling place they're overwhelmed. By trying to read page after page after page of what's been placed there by the legislature and by the public and it bogs down the polling process if they were to stand there and try to read them I know from experience in reading these bills how difficult that can be and the so if you want to get into the head or the reasoning as to why they may vote against it in most of the instances where I communicated with constituents with I would I would think nears Hendren not in number. The overwhelming majority voted against all of them because they didn't have time. And they didn't want to take the time to read all the way through and so I think when initiative gets on the ballot you need to have overwhelming support from the public not just the topic. But knowing what's in the bill. And I saw support this and I appreciate you bringing it forward. The senator would occur. But let's just be real for a second about what this bill is about. It's not about given role Arkansas more of a voice and having issues on the ballot it's about power and control that's the. That's the. The members of this legislature want to have total control over the laws that are passed in Arkansas. They want to give that ability to the people. The model of this state is regnant populace which means the people rule. If this bill were being transparent about what it's about they would have another section saying that we were changing the state motto for pregnant populist whatever Latin is for the legislature rules. The people have spoken on their desire to get issues on the ballot. As misty pointed out the legislature is the one that keeps amend the constitution. This is the most blatantly contradictory bill to a state constitutional provision that I've ever seen in my time in the state legislature it's obvious what the language at least fifteen counties means it means you don't have to stop at fifteen counties you can gather signatures from all seventy five if you want if there were any doubt about that ambiguity that ambiguity is resolved by another provision in the same section of the constitution that says the legislature can't pass any laws to make it harder to get issues on the ballot. I mean it's plain as day. what that section of the constitution says. And. What this bill is about us and we don't want the people to get issues on the ballot because we might not like what those issues are so we want to maintain control and and that's what's happening here. Thank you senator I'll make a comment we're not only a democracy where representative Republic and I am a member I am a person from one of those rural counties. And I want my rule council of sixteen hundred to be in this. And whenever the the fifty counties. Is there is is an representation rather than fifteen. That's one of the United States is set up like it is are we would be governed by a small number of states rather than all state that's why we have two senators in each. Each state. And I appreciate this this effort and and I want those folks whenever they're trying to amend our constitution to consider my counties in that because everyone of them by representative is small and and. I know it's a lot easier to gather signatures. In Pulaski County that it is in clay county the and and other small counties like Randolph County and and I totally I totally. I agree with senator Payton that the best thing you can do is vote against a constitutional measure if you don't understand it and and I think that's a result of of what we've been getting and I have I appreciate the Senator Dotson's efforts here I don't know if they'll be successful but but I I would like my my counties to be one of the one of those that are in the signature process possibly the Senator Hester you. Yeah I just didn't want to miss the fact that the most recent ballot measure put on by the people was just slaughtered at the ballot box as well that's because it was put on by the people it was put on by a very small group of. Extremely rich people who wanted to by our constitution and the people rejected that. and I and I believe that the people of Arkansas don't just want a plastic county Benton County decide what the next amendments going to be a suicide it should be at least in at least fifteen counties I mean that's what we're saying that that it should be a greater group to get decided because the people in Steve Kroll and John Payton district and about Johnson's matters well they should have equal say. Senator flowers. I'm just like to. Comment on the. The rationale that. Senator. Payton said yes. That he's received calls or emails from constituents concerned how difficult it was to read. The ballot. They were too long whatever. Complicated. So they decided medically voted no. What I see appear the legislature. We have bills that are. Sometimes very short. But in the long as well. That are complicated. And it appears to me. Even in our legislature. We can't even read them and understand them. In just merrily vote yes. So I take issue with that. And I agree. With the testimony of the witness. To leave the constitution along. And I think this is changing the constitutional. Requirements. set forth. I think it's wrong for us. Just you Sir the power of the people. We come appearance. Just do stuff. I can't even read our bills don't even understand our bills. Bill you had yesterday on the floor. Didn't seem to understand that it wasn't complete. Sentences were not complete. You're representing those people. I'm vote no. Thank you senator flowers and Senator Tucker I'll be brief thank you Mr chair I think Senator Hester is comment and and yours to Mister chair demonstrates why the current system we have works because there's two steps. For a publicly initiated issue that are totally conflated in this conversation one step is getting an issue on the ballot and the next step is whether the people vote to approve it or not Senator Hester is absolutely right a small group of people put a constitutional amendment on the ballot last time and he's also absolutely right the people voted to reject it that's how all seventy five counties are involved in the process all seventy five counties vote and if anybody brings a bill to say only fifteen counties can pass a law I'll be the first one to speak against it is that's wrong all seventy five counties have a say in every issue as to whether it becomes law in Arkansas are not or talking about here is not the people say rural Arkansas say or rich people getting an issue on the ballot and and that's it we're talking about is just an ability to get an issue on the ballot that's all so those are two separate issues and I want to make that clarification. Thank you senator Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr chair I've heard. Two different things and I thank you for your comments that code what I was thinking We are representative Republic that is the form of government we have the people elect each and everyone of us to come and actually look through pieces legislation that them make a determination and represent their interests we look through the details we should we vote on what. Best represents the constituents that we represent back home Regnant populace. Yes the people rule and it's not the legislative role there is a. Clearer. Balance of power three branches of government basic civics and has to go through both the house and the Senate there's people like to buy thirty thousand folks on the House and in close ninety thousand folks on the Senate and the people's representatives get to have a say on every piece of legislation. The the people get through their representatives get a say on every piece of legislation that goes through here I apologize representive Underwood was going to be here but and a little accident last night with Basketball game. but so you have these numbers I just have my off the top of my head but what we're talking about here is not changing the amount of signatures that are required constitutionally ten percent of the voters from the last election for constitutional referral or eight percent for a initiated act what we're talking about is the. The announcmenet that have to come from each county and for the smallest county in the state that's less than a hundred. For the largest county in the state Pulaski County is a little over six thousand I don't have the exact numbers on and represent Underwood was supposed to have those or have those and he's not here but. If you can't get under signatures afternoon out of the smallest county in the state or. Get the spread out across the state I. It shouldn't go on the ballot. That's my opinion appreciated. Thank you senator we have a motion the second discussion has finished. All in favor say aye hi All opposed Like sign. Thank you senator you pass. Program. Senator flowers Senator flowers no. Senator Hester. Senator Hester yes senator king. Senator king. Senator Kroll senator Kroll yes senator Payton. Senator Payton yes senator Dotson yes senator Dotson yes Senator Tucker Senator Tucker no. With over five As to Nays one voted not voting. Issue passes thank you senator. The Senator Hill. Senate is yourself and you're recognized we got amendment yes. Senator Ricky Hill district eleven. And we do have an amendment. I mean is likely just one word is deleting under the the word exemptions were construction. Motion the second all in favor say aye. Thank you senator your. You can you're recognized to present your bill is amended thank you Mr chair. Colleagues thank you for letting me be here today as you know Arkansas is one of the most restrictive states will in the US when it comes to licensing renovators who want to work. It is also one of its own that the it's the most over license state as well everyone has to have a license to do anything in the state. We can try to change it to make it where people want to move to this great state of Arkansas when they come here that they can go to work we don't want to be dependent or not be able to do what they do for a living we want them to come here and go to work and be taxpayers for this great state we all live in. And so with that we'll try to take this bill it make it to anyone moving to Arkansas from out of state or if your military which we've got to cover most of the military is will work currently we're doing this for military personnel who moved to the state we're just won't open up for other people who moved to state where they can go to work. Now this does not. Does not cover a professional license this is occupational license if your doctor if you're logging in that's a sex separate separate deal altogether this just covers people coming here wanting to do the work that's the main objective of this bill now if you moved here from another state you must you can get your license but when it comes time to renew your license you must meet all requirements for the state of Arkansas which is you have to have a test you have to have a test. And so we're not saying that you don't have to do that if you have to have a when you come in Arkansas if you're if you're on mac licensing if you need to be bonded and insured you've got to have that with you automatic lasting we're not do away with any of that we're distinctly saying when you come in Arkansas we want to be able to go to work. Nothing like that's what what we need to do and with that being said anyone has any questions I'll be glad to address on. Question by senator Cronin senator flowers so I just wanna make it clear that there this is not the you can just come in and do one big job and then go back home you have to be a resident you're moving to the state of Arkansas the perfect. Senator flowers. And so if they're moving to the state of Arkansas for this occupation. Why would there be a variance in how they are licensed to do the work. But with the very the very areas sometimes Senator flowers and become another state there requirements may be different in the state of Arkansas exactly some may be more strict some may be less strict so we're gonna pay got three years of experience working we want them to be able to come here and go to work. What you said. It may be different in how they will qualified or licensed in another state. And if a. Resident of Arkansas who presently is license and has gone through all the rigmarole all the. requirements for licensure. What would we expect somebody else coming out of the state from out of state. Treat them differently. Well well senator on this right here if you're in another state they have actually met the requirements of that state you're currently working at that state they're moving here and we give them the license continue to work to make a living provide for their family while in the meantime if our requirements are more strict before they can renew that which is about a year. That they have to meet all qualifications of the state of Arkansas. Will. In your bill whatever it is it they could be just the holder in good standing no Page two line twenty nine for one year. Of an occupational licensure with similar scope of practice issued by another state so and and they wouldn't have to take maybe some requirement of an exam so how soon Senator scope of practice is the key word there well if a resident of Arkansas who is pursuing that same occupation and has gone through and qualified by all the requirements for that occupation. What we expect something different. From somebody coming outside the state with over they come in the state of Arkansas we want them to go to work Senator. But is that fair to those that are already here. To come at a have somebody come from out of state to compete with them and they've qualified they've been here they've gone through all of the requirements that a border commission or whatever whoever is set up these requirements have done how is that fair to our residents that are here right now going through all of this I think I think it's fair then we get the other person here they can go to work in the keyboard you said there I really like and that's what this is all about this competition. That's a key word I like that well I'll say it so see it fair. And I think this is unfair to those that are in Arkansas that have already qualified through all the the requirements that thank you for your opinion on that order has has put forth I respectfully disagree with you well. Is not just me. Is home builders that are in the state of Arkansas already that are writing to me and other professions I mean. I and then there's nothing here I read part of it. At. You know some of it is like they may be required. To Take an exam OR. Do some other things on one part of this it gives you know. To me. It you I think I'm kind of crass about it but. We got some kind of I've seen. A good Ole boy system. No not areas in Arkansas. And when you're talking about somebody coming into this state. That is just one year of licensure from another state I wonder how fair is that not only to those that are in that occupation now in the State of Arkansas that have qualified how far fair is it consumers. Of the state of Arkansas. Say a home builder. You know. I don't want somebody coming in from out of state the only had one year good standing in this no the state I don't know nothing about them they come to my community want to build some shoddy houses. I don't want that. I want them to go through the same kind of requirements and testing and qualifications Rick rigorous kind of training or whatever is required in Arkansas. That the ones in Arkansas who have qualified I have gone through. That's my take on it I think it's a matter not only of protection. For fairness for the people that are in that industry but also that consumer. And I know I have a lot of problems with with people coming in don't have a lot of experience. And when you talk about some of the stuff you have a look at some of the boards. Declining. In construction. We have since I've been up here. Lord the requirement for the amount of the work the value of the work is being performed for licensure. I think that's a problem but certainly something like this is a proper that's my take thank you thank you senator any other questions Senator Hester Senator Tucker. Sir hello I appreciate this and we do here a lot about these things that I wouldn't you agree that the most of the time to kick back on this are from licensure agencies whose focus is anti competition yes Sir all the arguments that I hear anti competition that is not the role of the licensure agency their role is basic a public safety we get way away from that was continuing education's and all the silly things I go to continue education all very little is focused on safety when I believe that is the government's basic role is safety it certainly is not quality control outside of safety measures if somebody wants to come bill shoddy house that's what we live in a free market society they can people can choose to buy shoddy house or not and at the end of the day I agree with this I feel like we have a major responsibility to get away from all these licensure agencies who feel like their role is anti competition and they will always guys it with some safety measures this says if we say that somebody can't come from another state what we're saying is that other state is not practicing safe measures so I've kept a list of these concerns have come to me you know Mississippi's not doing this well I'm gonna find out if they are not down in Mississippi doing that maybe we should do it because our practice should be the least cumbersome on the citizens of Arkansas would you agree or not yes Sir sure duty to encourage competition to come here and the free market will take care of itself Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chairman our social trying to hear Senator I just have a question about a. A piece of the language or to If you if you look at page three. Starting in and subsection C. online six. You with me. Nine six yes Sir. So far this I mean the I like this section mostly because it says. That an occupational licensing entity and then it has two things that they can require either pass an examination specific to relevant state laws or required to furnish a bond financial statement approve insurance coverage so it's given all the entity licensing entity the authority to say Hey. If there some specific state law that we need you to know before we grant you a license then we're gonna make you do that. I guess and and so I think that's a you know generally it's a good approach however my concern is with that word may rather than shall. I would. Just I'm just reading this for the first time this morning at and so that that that's my question if we have issues that are specific to Arkansas should we not. And understand all the other stuff that your county getting around I understand that but if we have issues that are specific to Arkansas should we not require the person to at least study and test for that part only before they get a license that would that would be up to that to the board they are dismissed as may because they'll have to make a professional season at that time right we say shale there's no choice there to be made we will have to give the board some rate so so from rope so that's my point I don't unless I'm wrong I don't believe the licensing entity has that discretion when it comes to current Arkansas residents in the thing that is some of the some of the board or some of the occupation may not require those items and you listed at that financial statement or even even an insurance my may not require that that case we do not have to require them to have right. I understand that some. That's kind of a different issue than what I was asking about is I'm asking about the Arkansas state law that C. one on lines eight and nine Eight nine cis passing examinations Pacific to relevant state laws right so if we have an issue that's specific to Arkansas state law should they not require. The whoever's you know coming into the state to say Hey we got to learn at least about the specific part of Arkansas state law before gonna license so we're we're going to work first and if I need to to do that that that point they can come back when ever get there the renewing that can be forced upon them. Okay And so on you had reference section C. two lines ten and eleven and you said some boards may not require insurance and understand that. My question is. Should that not read that they should they shall be required to furnish a bond funny Sabin approve insurance coverage at least to the extent required under Arkansas law for current Arkansas residents use if I'm just making something up I'm at let's say you have an occupation where you have to have a certain amount of liability insurance that I understand not everybody not every occupation has a requirement but if your occupation does and someone comes in should they not have that same requirement that a current Arkansas residents actively discovers it I'm sorry thank you Blake this covers it. He said I feel like this covers it. Senator Tucker we of two others as questions over repression our deadline senator Payton. Thank you Mr and reading this one of my biggest concerns was the reciprocity in preserving reciprocity which it applies to a citizen of another state coming in doing work in Arkansas so preserving that is important it's not necessarily somebody moving to Arkansas becoming resident so what helped to alleviate my concerns on that is the fact that this bill is requiring them to establish a resident's but my concern is on the Page two line twenty words says establish a resident. I'd like to know what the interpretation of that is that we talk about a primary residence when there's somebody that might. Set up a secondary residents in the state of Arkansas to get around the reciprocity agreement or whatever and still live in another state and pay their income tax and other state how do we make sure that that their movement Arkansas set up a primary residence in Arkansas the intent of this is to make sure that they are moving the State of Arkansas to make it easier for them are you will have some military personnel that come through here that. That that are working. All own career's outside the military and we economically except those already and so this or just wanna make sure we do the same for these right now I'm not asking about a permanent residents I'm I'm saying primary no words. I know there are some people who have secondary homes or or third residences in different states I just wanna make sure that they're becoming a citizen state Arkansas taxpayers that Arkansas and you know the bill would cover that is the intent okay thank you. Senator Dotson. Thank you Mr Senator Hill I really appreciate this Legislation I've I've ran several different pieces like this throughout the years and and I'm excited to see this through hi just said my name's not on it but just as far as your intent this is to try to make sure that residents of Arkansas I mean we're not talking about people from out of state necessarily that are no longer live out of state they live here in Arkansas we want them to go to work. As soon as they get here in their profession that they've been trained in and they have experience in and to prohibit them from going to work is I kind of consider that to be more unfair than than me would be like saying that you have to wait and go through certain hoops in order to be able to vote but once you become a resident Arkansas you can vote in Arkansas immediately if you're qualified elector wouldn't you agree yes Sir thank you. We we have one to speak for this bill do you still want to speak for this bill because we got a hard deadline and we're past it. Thank you senator I'm exactly but from the Arkansas center for research in economics where a nonpartisan research center house of the college of business at UCLA however our views do not reflect the views of you see as a whole I'm here to speak in support of SB ninety SB ninety is what we for referred to as a universal licensing recognition bill. this is a system where the licenses and certifications obtained by professionals in one state are recognized as valid in another state this can eliminate the need for professionals to obtain separate licenses and certifications each time they move to a new state which can be very time consuming as an expensive. one of the primary benefits as increased mobility for professionals this would make it easier for jobseekers to relocate their careers to Arkansas. without the added hassle of obtaining a license from scratch again. another benefit is the improvement of industry standards by salvaging a set of universal standards it becomes easier for organizations to identify and recruit top talent from around the country it's also helps reduce the economic burden of licensing since license holders moving to a new state will not have to pay the hi and oftentimes high initial licensing and exam fees and other time. Arkansas does have a higher than average number of licensed occupations so that makes this a particularly effective method of reform in Arkansas like Senator Hill said we've already been doing this for military service members and their spouses since twenty twenty one it makes sense that if this policy benefits service members and their spouses that would benefit anyone who was moving to Arkansas nineteen other states including our neighbors Missouri Oklahoma and Mississippi have already enacted similar legislation over the past several years. an early research shows that individuals who live in counties adjacent to states that have already passed this legislation are more likely to seek employment in the states that have passed policies like this across the line so it suggests that people do make choices on where to work based on friendlier licensing policy I would strongly encourage the committee to pass this bill a growing wave of states are passing similar legislation and Arkansas should do the same or we risk risk lagging behind our neighbors. Thank you I'll take any questions thank you very questions suing none of your oppose the bill because. Motion by Senator Johnson as as amended motion by Senator Knox and as amended second by Senator paying all in favor say aye aye opposed Like sign thank you. adjourned at. We are adjourned. For roll call we are adjourned.