Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House

The day today committee I appreciate everyone being here without objection we're gonna take some of these bills out of order Reggie LUNDSTRUM are you here prepared to present house bill fourteen thirty. You're recognized as set the table present your bill. Do you have an amendment to that bill as well yes Sir I have to both bills okay so I guess you're recognized to present your minute to House Bill fourteen thirty this coming around yes thank you. With the committee's indulgence House Bill fourteen thirty is just adding co sponsors. Within minutes adding because because once you close for that amendment yes Sir the motion motion to pass all those in favor say aye opposed C. nine you're recognized president house bill fourteen thirty okay medical Jan Hudson to the stand just to be as expert with witness should there be any questions yes absolutely thank you just come to the table Mr as an entity separate committee. Morning committee jim Hudson chief of staff department commerce. Colleagues at H. B. fourteen thirty is pretty straightforward it cuts unemployment from four months to three months reduces new employers assessed you I can tell contributions from two point nine percent which is the highest among neighboring states to one point nine percent which would be the lowest I'm not among the bottom third it reduces the penalty rate assess from fourteen percent to ten percent which puts us in a much better advantage when competing it reduces the current stabilization tax from twenty percent to our skews me point two percent to one point two five percent in FY twenty four to point one zero percent and FY twenty five it has no physical impact on revenue produces about a thirty one million tax cut. And. It will make us much more competitive and help folks go back to work that much faster. I want to thank the department of workforce services for the help on this bill. With that I'll entertain any questions members of the questions. C. nine as everyone signed up to speak for against the bill. See no one are you closing your bill yes Sir so that they'd have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Do pass as amended any discussion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Graduations are zero three passed your bill thank you Sir we are you prepared to present house bill fourteen thirty three yes Sir I understand you have an amendment for that as well yes Sir okay you're recognized to present that amendment as it's being passed around. Colleagues that deletes lines fourteen and fifteen. With the committee's indulgence. A president that is along with the bill and if I could also called jim had some back to the stand just in case you have a question absolutely there isn't any questions on the amendment. Seeing no questions on the amendment you oppose the amendment yes Sir. The motion to pass all those in favor say aye. Opposed seaman you're minutes past you're recognized president house bill fourteen thirty three thank you colleagues this is more of a technical correction I want to call your attention to three pertinent sections first section clarifies what an emergency is and when funds are received and what those conditions are and it also requires the director to come back to a LC to the executive board to review those issues section two provides DHS department work for such with some confidentiality concerning fraud right now they currently have to reveal all the ways they catch the bad guys probably not a good idea so that allows them to cloak that and allows them to catch folks that are fraudulent. and then section three clarifies that when someone is not adversely affected by the decision that they don't need a judicial appeal. And with that I will entertain any questions members of any questions. C. nine as innocent of speak for against the bill. You closing your bill yes Sir. Motion do pass as amended all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Seeing none your bills passed and resolutions represent luncheon thank you colleagues thank you for your time. Represent Berks are you prepared to present house bill Fortino one. Thank you Mr chairman may also be joined by the court with opportunity Arkansas absolutely if you just come to the table in both yet in for sales for committee be great representative Rebecca Burke's District eleven. A new cordon founder and CEO of up to the Arkansas action. Colleague's fourteen one is a as a bill that changes the existing twenty four month time limit for households with work eligible able bodied adults receiving cash welfare under the tenant program to twelve months the tennis program is a time limit to this distance program to help needy families with children become responsible for their own support less dependent on public assistance this does not change anything relating to the child only cases so under ten if children can receive this benefit this does not change anything relating to them this only changes the benefit for work eligible able bodied adults currently right now they can stay on the program for twenty four months this reduces it to twelve months the the kicker here is that DWS has the ability to extend that beyond the twelve months under the way the legislation is written and their discretion so if somebody were in a training program for example that lasted for eighteen months DWS could give a waiver and extend that beyond the twelve months so that person could finish their training program. it's designed to obviously help the most vulnerable children only cases are not affected it helps folks get out of the trap of government dependency and bolsters our workforce by returning people to the workforce sooner without I'm happy to answer any questions. President Allen you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman. Would you define able body yes it's actually defined in the statute So if you if you go over to the in the bill rather Fortino one. down the line thirty five on page two an individual is determined by the Division case manager who property participated activities but was unable to obtain employment because of circumstances or barriers beyond his control that's one one thing that defines you as not work eligible it doesn't apply to child only cases also an individual unable to obtain employment because of a lack of support services they might be considered not work eligible if you're a parent or caregiver over sixty years of age you wouldn't be work eligible a parent or caregiver who is caring for a disabled child or relative or disabled adult relative and then six seven eight nine ten other reasons listed there include a disabled parent or care giver would not be work eligible a parent less than eighteen years of age an individual who is unable to obtain employment due to the effects of domestic abuse individuals determined by the Division And then individuals participating in education or training program would none of those would be work eligible able bodied adults that this applies to. Follows request for a follow up is working on some of the same as able bodied. A. Those are my words those are not the words that are that are used in the statute I just read to you what's what's Inc I'm sorry in the bill I just read to the definition of what's considered able balik able bodied. And the bill. Okay. The other questions from the committee. So we do have some incentives do you have a question for the rest yes yeah you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chair so just to make sure I understood you correctly it's changing the term from twenty four months down to twelve months however should the need to be present it can be fixed be extended to the twenty four month as it is currently that it can be extended actually up to sixty months DWS has the ability to extend to this program and their discretion. The. A follow up and just to make sure I understand they'll just simply have to apply or qualify for that extension that's correct okay thank you any other questions represent Lundstrum you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair Mr Horton maybe you could answer this for me do you know how many actual. Disabled people in Arkansas are currently receiving Tanith. yes Sir there's about eleven hundred households that are on this program and about eight hundred forty seven of those households or individuals in those households are able bodied to the remaining would be the child only cases or individuals with disabilities and as represent work said well this this change would not apply to those households. So it's not affecting anyone that falls in that category no Sir they don't have to go. Ask for an appeal or get a waiver or anything like that no Sir those folks are currently not subject to the time limit so they would not be affected by this reduction in the time of. Thank you Sir is there any other questions. See now we do have someone signed up to speak against the bill. Mr showers printer showers you're recognized that. You can actually trade out. You state your name for the committee here with yes my name's Bernie showers on the senior policy analyst for Arkansas advocates for children and families. depreciate you Mr chair members of the committee for the opportunity today I just wanna explain explain why we oppose each be Fortino one and that's specifically because it reduces the maximum number of months someone can participate in the work pays program of which is a subsidized employment program and you know I've heard a lot of legislators talking about or workforce issues in subsidizing point programs are actually a well established way to address them it increases employment labor force participate participation rates especially among disadvantaged workers like those that participate in tennis and work pays wraparound services and employment subsidies help disadvantaged workers improve their skills and employability wall they're working their way up the ladder employers benefit from a larger and more productive work force in in the long term government benefits from higher tax receipts. then I understand we're only reducing the length of the sentence and the the length of the program it there's provisions for waivers and I I see it sincerely appreciate that but the research really suggests that if we give people a little bit of a longer time a longer offramp that helps them not just get a job but really get a foothold in their career and start looking for getting good paying work that really supports them and their families and so I think the twenty four month women is reasonable and that's why we oppose shortening it. zero you're recognized for a question. Yes Sir thank you for testimony today you mentioned that this reduces how long that they could qualify for the benefits is that correct the maximum one yeah and so currently how long as a maximum length is twenty four months right now this changes it to twelve so representative Burch is mentioning other than qualify for up to sixty months. Yes that's correct under the federal law which governs this program they can qualify for up to sixty months. So I'm confused. Your Senate. That they would lose. You're saying that they would lose the amount of time that they could qualify for but I'm hearing that they could still qualify for up to sixty months the maximum amount goes from toward presumptively goes for twenty four months to twelve and they need to apply for waivers and qualifications I'm just saying it goes from you know standard twenty four to down to twelve is this legislation is written okay I understand now you're saying that the the standard it's not that they're disqualified from qualifying for twenty four months is that they just don't immediately received twenty four months and I understand it correctly I yeah okay that's fair enough of freezing I just wanna make sure I understand because I was hearing it that it was it you could continue to qualify for up to sixty months and now I'm hearing that they're going to be done at twelve but that's not the case they will qualify for twelve yes and could continue to qualify for more afterwards you will. I would say that they would stop qualifying at twelve unless they proactively seek out away not to is I think how that works okay so yes they could then try to extend their qualification longer so thank you for clarifying thank you thank you for the question read the first and you have a question. You're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman I guess I need a little bit better explanation of what Tina fey is I mean I thought ten if was sort of a welfare to work program and and limited already. Yes so it it is and you know so there's actually a couple different components intent if we have T. and also work pays I'm not going to pretend that I could explain all the differences in those to you but the way that this legislation is written is it is it up puts a twelve month women on the workpiece program right now the work pays program has a twenty four month limit the reason I think that's important is that if it's currently structured to be twenty four months so there's certain subsidies and incentives built in there over that twenty month time frame so we could change it to twelve but that would make significant changes to the people that are administering the program and and how it works right now I think. President will your or do you have a follow up yeah you have hello Sir. I guess I need a little bit better explanation of what actually happens in a work pays program I don't really I'm not familiar with that. J. does so it provides subsidies to people on this on tenet for really who are getting off of ten if in order to help them in addition to providing wrap around services it also provides like a monthly stipend it's considered an employment subsidy because it helps make ends meet even if the work that they're for ceiling doesn't quite you know meet the needs of their chip their children their family so it sensually there's bonuses in there for if you're working a certain number of months within that twenty four month period if you get a job that pays good enough so if you if you move your employment your income up to like a hundred fifty percent of the federal poverty level you get a bonus in there in in the inset the idea here is kind of you know there's a carrot and a stick philosophy the care it is that this in the stick is there's already a work requirement on ten if you're not working you could get kicked off if you are working on improving yourself you're going to help you out a little bit. President will bridge you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr I guess my question would be I understand the federal program sixty months and that currently Arkansas is twenty four months we're looking to reduce that to twelve and put a waiver in place who is making the decision on the waiver and what criteria they use to make that decision how can we ensure that that's fairly being made across the board to all applicants. The representative Berks. Magis that Mister chair should the witness finished. Okay in the in the bill and Fortino one currently in in the statute DWS DWS oversees and administers the program and there are local council individuals that are also involved in making and and helping to assess and make the decision because they're working with the apple or the participants throughout their time in the program. Yes follows yes Sir thank you Mr. Thank you for that I appreciate that I just wanna make sure that it's being unfairly applied across the board so how many different people would have the ability I guess you may not be able to answer that and how many different people would be able to to make the ability to grant a waiver and can we make sure somehow or is there provision that we can make sure there's some criteria that it's equally being applied to all participants because we don't want some being approved for a waiver based on who their work areas and others not being and I would just respond to that by saying the waiver process the waiver language is currently in the law now and it's being used with the twenty four month limitation. And if if we can do to to keep our questions presently to the witness to the table I will have time to ask representative personal questions are there any more questions for Mr showers specifically. Mmhm that seeks out would start with shall represent Graham like I say aye in first downs. I thank you Mr chairman I have two questions of the very closely related one at how easy is it to apply for an extension and to what percentage of those extensions are granted. I don't know the answer to those questions I'm sorry did not. I'm focused on like the statutory twenty four months in my testimony in our opposition I really don't know about the waiver process very very much. Represent Pilkington you're recognized for a question thank you chairman Johnson zero seven the subsidized work. I guess I'm confused on that because we have such a work force issue I mean are people to really not able to find jobs in the fact that we need to subsidize their work right now because I think I'd rather than that full employment then subsidize under appointments. So you know subsidized employment would show up in our labor force statistics just to be clear these people with they would be employed the be contributing to this full employment I think the issue is you know like I use the phrase disadvantage workers I mean people participating in the tan of program face structural barriers to employment that could be elected child care access elected transportation access a lack of skills need to develop education and job training and I know we have a lot of of a lot of different programs that help people do that in this this is one of them so in addition to the subsidizing the employment they provide career coaching services child care assistance I don't know the full suite of the things that they offer but essentially this is helping people get back on their feet so that they don't need subsidized employment. The question specifically from showers recognized for gross do you have yes but you specifically mention the focus to the twenty four month time period do you have data to suggest that the twenty four months is. More efficient more effective more helpful than a twelve month period if data no that's a slam dunk I would say the research is suggestive that the longer you do this the better the long term sustained employment outcomes are for program participants but I couldn't tell you that that's like fifty percent less likely by cutting it fifty percent is that does that make sense yes I was just curious if there is the the length of time suggests a better return. The shares appreciate you taking the time to come and testify Mr Horton you signed up to speak for the bill. You will appreciate it thank you. If you state your name more time for the committee. Absolutely thank you Mr chairman members of the committee US privilege to to speak to you today this legislation H. B. Fortino one is really to me about one big goal one big thing which is getting more able bodied adults off the sidelines in into the work force. Today in Arkansas as it's been discussed with nearly a hundred thousand open jobs employers everywhere desperate for workers businesses here in Little Rock and around the state I'm sure even in many of your districts are having reduced their hours and services because they can't find people who want to work and H. B. Fortino one I believe is a step towards solving this problem. That will be with data points but I do want to give you just a couple of numbers the first one is twenty. Fewer than twenty percent of the able bodied working age adults on ten F. cash welfare in Arkansas are working training getting an education or even looking for a job. And as a result the program that was intended to be a helping hand up has become more of a Hammack. And then the second number is ninety. Ninety percent cash welfare recipients in Arkansas are on the program for more than a year and a half. When you look at able bodied adults only cases the majority of them stay on the program for more than a year. So why people working. And why they remaining on the program so long. Because they can. Think about the last time you did a book report. In school and you had two weeks to turn it in did you turn it in the very next day. Of course not like me you probably waited until the day before it was due. Or very close to it before you completed the assignment. Everybody that's in Arkansas on the tenth welfare program have a due date to it's called the time limit which we've been discussing here today. The length of time that we as a state have decided. We're gonna give able bodied working age adults. Cash welfare benefits in Arkansas this time limit is currently twenty four months or two years but as I mentioned just like that book report. Folks are not jumping right into employment training or education there waiting until near the end of their benefits before they search for a job. And this is not particularly surprising because there's been a lot of studies academic studies and research that shows that people wait till the end of their benefits before they start looking for work. But this is also a huge problem for one other reason. Which is the the research shows that the longer someone's out of work the more difficult it is for them to eventually get back into the work force. And that triggers a cycle of unemployment poverty independency. So right out of work their skills are getting stale the resumes aging. The job contacts are drying up. This or other benefits finally ran out and they have to look for a job they're much less likely to find one that makes sense. Thank you that there is a simple solution to starting to solve this problem which is moving up the due date. The simple change would help produce long term dependency. It would restore this program closer to its original intent as a stepping stone into the workforce. And the data supports it. If someone returns to work within the year of leaving the work force. They're up to twice as likely to receive a call back from a potential employer compared to someone who's been out of work for more than twelve months. As we talked about already today this proposal would not impact the most vulnerable. It would it would only apply to households with work capable able bodied adults eligible doll in the household the time limit does not apply under federal law period and this bill does not seek to change that. And as we discussed the whole host of exemptions for folks with real barriers to employment such as for those caring individuals who are caring for individuals with a disability those who are facing domestic violence those who are making satisfactory progress in their academic journey or job training program and much more. But simply I believe this legislation will help stem the crisis of chronic dependency. Help move more able bodied our Kansans into the work force more quickly. And help starting help start to fill the newly hundred thousand jobs in Arkansas. I preserving resources for those who need them the most. Thank you to be happy to answer any questions committees any questions restored and reserve Alan you're recognized for a question thank you of Mr chairman you said in statement that a lot of the people are waiting for the end of the benefits before they start seeking employment. What evidence do you have and what percentage of the people are doing that and I need to know the source of your information yes Sir that was the second number I sure to ninety percent of the recipients and program or on it for more than a year and a half. Source bill are from DWS okay yes The questions for Mr Wharton. Seeing none represent Burch you close your bill yes I would in closing I would just simply also like to remind folks that the bill includes a provision that there is no link their limit of time on the number of deferrals and exemptions that seems to be of concern to some folks so that is contained in the bill and I would just ask for a good vote. We will motion do pass the discussion on the motion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed no the ayes have it congratulations represent Burch you passed your bill thank you Mr chairman would you like to state as head of the table and present the next bill this is house bill fourteen ten. You're recognized as your leisure going present house bill fourteen thank you Mr chairman may also be joined by the Director part of labor Ralph Hudson absolutely just come to the table identified so for the committee. Ralph motion director division of labor. Collies a House bill fourteen ten relates to the work permit that is required for an individual under sixteen years of all of age when they want to get a job so if you're not familiar with this permit it is a piece of paper that has to be filled out by the by the future employee under sixteen years of age and the employer and sent into the government for approval before that person can get a job the parents have to be involved they have to be involved in this process as well so the parent signs that the employer signs that it's sent into the division of labor it's one small regulation one small burden on businesses that and also steps in front of the parent's decision making process about whether their child under sixteen years of age can get a job this bill only's only seeks to eliminate that piece of paper that permit that is required for that individual to get a job it does not change anything about federal or state laws relating to the number of hours that these individuals can work the number of days that they can work the kinds of industries that they can work in those laws are still on the books are not affected by this elimination of this one piece of red tape that has to happen for one of these folks can get a job I would also suggest and but tell you that fifteen other states do not have a work permit they do not have this permit in place this is been in place since I ask BLR to give me some information about when this started and why it started and the response I got related to well in nineteen fourteen when we passed a bunch of child labor laws this permit was required to be signed at the time by the superintendent of the school the concern was children were missing school and going to work in the factories of we don't need this permit anymore. Three questions representative Burch. Seeing no questions someone signed up to speak against the bill. Mr price are you here welcome to go to the head of the table state your name for the committee and. Good morning Mister chair good morning members of the committee my name is Josh will price and I am the deputy director of Arkansas United which is a statewide immigrants rights advocacy group we have offices in Northwest Arkansas Fort Smith little rock as well as do miss and I'm here to speak against this bill. You're recognized to speak to the committee all right well first off just wanted to to put on your radar that Arkansas United we're the group that I work with the all previously on the six dot the laws that allowed immigrant children to fill shortages in areas of health excuse me education in tact and go to nursing school as well as get those educational certificates so we are very concerned as an organization that this law is a bit of a step back and puts unnecessary risk on both employers and our youth alongside our immigrant youth and their peers we know from our prior work is organization other school districts that there's challenges in keeping immigrant kids in school and feeling the potential and we believe that this bill would increased truancy as well as lower high school graduation rates and we also think that it's going to. Really put a monkey wrench in that work lot workforce pipeline in an economy moving forward it seems like a a a short term fix but we think that moving forwards can create more problems if anything else so I'm just gonna touch on a few points here to kind of prove my case so number one we believe this bill's going to endanger Arkansas children we have quite a bit of a data points from department of labor in some of the states where this bill has been similar bills been passed and there's no requirement for certification or proof of age or ID there been numerous violations exploitation of children injury and even the death of minor children I'll give you some examples in Lancaster Kentucky just on the fourteenth of this month the meat processing plant allowed eight minor aged aged employees to work outside of federally led hours engage in hazardous work this is under current federal investigation we have several cases in Florida. a tropical smoothie at different restaurants where they have fourteen fifty drugs working outside legally permitted hours in Alabama this was very concerning this was just in October of last year Hyundai and kia kia auto parts company at fourteen fifteen and fourteen and fifteen year old workers even thirteen year old workers working in a factory under hazardous conditions we also have several cases in South Carolina at different fast food restaurants and one that is especially concerning that I'd like to point out in Florida there was a thirteen year old working at actually a gentleman's club a strip club they were hired without proof of ID with a proof of age and come to find out this child was thirteen years old working in this adult business that is currently under investigation by the department of labor so these are just some of the examples where we feel that not having any type of proof of an identification of a you know I I remember getting a job at age fourteen and I'd so I'd get the same certificate shall my birth certificate so muscle security number proof of my age so to not have that requirement we feel is is really gonna put a lot of a lot of our children at risk especially those that are ready at high risk secondly I kind of touched on this but increasing school truancy and dropout rates the kids are working they're gonna tired they're gonna miss class they're gonna lead to lower high school graduation rates and ultimately they don't finish high school they're gonna be stuck in these low paying jobs so I grew up in a very small town called the light in Southwest Arkansas there's really nothing to do in the light except work at the chicken farm or timber mill so if I would have started working there fourteen fifteen sixteen I probably would not finish high school not went to college and just fast for ten twenty years I'm still in the light working at the timber mill so we feel like this this this bill you're you're putting kids into the work pipeline early and and ice I do see the positives of it but there's so many negatives that we've really feel outweighs the positives and we feel like this will. Hurt the future workforce of Arkansas which is gonna require educated and skilled folks to fill those more technical jobs. Also this is gonna cause Arkansas lose tax dollars. So when it when major concerns this bill could be used as a loophole for businesses to avoid paying their fair share of taxes again you're not requiring employee ID you're not requiring a certification you're not perfect providing proof of age and in Arkansas is currently one of just a few states that does not require employers to provide a paste up so on top of that you have no identification of the employer you're not running a pay stub so how do we know that these employees or even being paid a fair wage how do we know they're not being paid under the table like in some of these federal instances I mentioned and there's no record of the seller wages even this thirteen year old in Florida that was working at the gentleman's club there was no information on file they didn't have any information on this person at all no documentation so they've been working there for months and months and months and was off completely off the books so that's another concern so for not tracking any of this paperwork how do we know that these businesses are paying their fair share of taxes so that's going to hurt the revenue of the tax revenue of the state and just just to kind of finish up this this fought We have a pretty large immigrant work force here in Arkansas just some stats Arkansas has the fastest fourth I'm sorry fourth fastest growing immigrant population the country eleven percent of the state and seven percent of the labor force in Arkansas are from immigrants fifty seven percent of which I've lived in the state for over ten years so We believe that a a better kind of alternative if if the sponsors would like to talk to us about it we think that we could work with a bill that kind of builds on what we have here already in the state we have a very robust immigrant workforce that's ready to work and we can rely on them instead and not have to look for other work for some pertinentes that expose employers and our children to risk. And that is all I have for you today. Resent Wardlaw do you have a question. President Pilkington you're recognized for a question yeah I do thank you Mr price for testimony today welcome I think what's interesting is I just feel like we're just getting rid of the certificate here it's not as big of a deal as you making out to be and then I just think to I mean should we trust our parents trust employers to do the right thing that they're doing illegal activity we should go after them I don't know why we're hoping that a piece of paper will somehow stop this I am just I'm I guess I'm not seeing the connection here and I just I think that we should trust our parents don't you agree to make these decisions for their children and not rely on the government to be the nanny state when I have no problem with parents the parents being involved of course they should be involved but a lot of times you have kids that are are runaways you have kids that have maybe don't live with their parents are are bouncing back and forth between parents and a lot of times if that they can still get this job himself the parents going to be part of the picture so without that certification without proof of ID without proof of age what's stopping that child's just go get a job at thirteen fourteen fifteen years old and maybe a job that they don't need to be and that's not a good fit for them. So that that's that's the concern really these these kids falling through the cracks kids that don't have parental guidance and supervision. Reversed you have a question. It was along the same vein but more or less as I understood what this does is it changes the authority to me as a father to decide whether my son can go to work instead of saying yes I think you should and then the government having to be the one who makes the ultimate decision so do you think that it is a better situation that the government has the say over what my child can or can't do than me. Because I don't I don't think that but again we are trying to protect the kids that don't have the parental guidance and supervision it's wonderful to have an involved parent and I'll tell you when I had my first job at that sixteen not sorry fifteen actually you know I have to fill out the certification my parents signed off on it the employer signed off on it really wasn't a problem hi to us it's no different than if you're in school you're going on a field trip right you get your parents to sign the slip saying that you're going on the field trip because you are leaving school grounds you know something may happen and that just make sure everything's above board and you know what the risks are and you accept those risks so just you know you have you have to have an idea to go get anything in the state to buy cigarettes to buy alcohol to vote the open a bank account so when you're putting your child to work especially in a situation where if they're working in a factory or even a fast food place they could they could be injured they can be burned all kinds of different things can happen why not have some documentation right that shows that they're they're they're for the right reasons and if the parents signed off on it. It just every follow up just to clarify so my question was do you think it's better to have the government have the say so over my child or not and if and if if I understand right if we don't process if we don't proceed with this it will remain that the government should have a say so as opposed to parent I don't think it's an either or I think that the government and the parent can work together on it. The more questions Richey president Graham recognized for soap was so right now so Children required to get the certification or not so what we gonna caught with the with the verbiage document how many of those are denied. Not very many to my knowledge we we we we look at statistics on that and couldn't really find a lot that cases that it was being denied by settlement so so they means they're rarely or never being denied by the government for the purpose of I mean I mean they're always accepted and that they are always signed off on them this is an additional hurdle like I have children that I'm not gonna mine I'm a school teacher who at fourteen or fifteen are like desperately wanting to get a job but it's it's it's an additional hurdle for a lot of times they want to work in a fast food joint or something on the weekends to make. so. I I I just like if if the if the documents never denied that assists next hurdle that makes our people work okay I understand but I would I would actually flip that on you and say if if it's not being denied then what's wrong with having it. Are there any any other questions from the committee. See now we do have someone else Senate speak against the bill this Callum's are you here you're recognized because of the table and thank you for your testimony today appreciate that thank you very much committee. If you could just state your name for the committee and you represent. Good morning Mr chairman members of the committee Lara Callum's I'm with Arkansas advocates for children and families were a forty five year old organization Arkansas that works to advance public policies that can help children of let grow up healthy and meet their full potential representative Burks was kind enough to meet with our team last week to talk about the intention for this bill and I agree that the bureaucracy and red tape as you all were discussed discussing often get in the way of good things I also understand that the state department of labor doesn't have the resources to investigate child labor instances unless there's a report of abuse and that many of these permits may just go into a file and not ever be revisited and so I fully understand how this this a portion of the law seems like unnecessary red tape however as Mr price said my concern is not for the children who have attentive parents it's not for the children of the fourteen year olds who want to go work down the street at a local business who's you know whose owners may be their friends or their family and they're very familiar to their community my concern is for the children who can fall victim to exploitation of businesses and we just saw it happen I'm sure you all saw the news coverage over the weekend of the subcontractors here in Arkansas who paid big federal fines just last week for hiring dozens of children as young as thirteen to work in really dangerous conditions in poultry processing plants that was right here in Arkansas and of course as you've heard it would still be illegal to hire those children in those conditions even if this bill passes we totally understand that but what it would do is remove. of an element of accountability not just for the the business but for the parents as well one more layer of protection for children it and if we don't have it would really easy in the past for those who choose to break the law and exploit children the work permits it It would dispense with have to include proof of age as you've heard a description of the work schedule and most importantly consent of the parents even if the state doesn't do anything with these permits it's still requires that employers see a piece of paper that says the parent says it's okay for this thirteen year old to have this job. Without that actually I would argue that you're cutting the parents out of the process the opposite of what has just been argued we want all young children in Arkansas to learn the value of work I definitely did when I was sixteen my first job was in a chicken plant my second job was in a chicken plant and my third job presented to comply all during my teenage years I learned really valuable lessons there including how hard my fellow or Kansans work in really tough conditions but the children were talking about our younger than I was and they deserve just that one more layer of protection to ensure that their parents are involved in the decision and to ensure that the employer recognizes that how important a parent role is when the kids are that young I wish these these permits were simply red tape but unfortunately we live in a world where there are people who would take advantage of our most vulnerable for the sake of greed I encourage this body to consider how in some cases this bill is unable to live up to its intention and in fact takes away power from parents and makes it easier to exploit children thank you Mr chairman members of the committee of the happy to answer any questions you may have. Members you have any questions. Seeing none and we have a you have a question representation you're recognized for a question and just real quickly thank you so much for your testimony I'm curious what in the case here in Arkansas we had the children that were being exploited were any of those children currently authorized if you will through the certificate I can't speak for the US department of labor in their investigation so I'm not sure what certificates were on file in the situation do we feel like that the ship sorry Mr hello thank you so do we feel like that that certificate would have stopped that event from occurring I think it would the certificate is as if it's not there it makes it easier for it to happen if that makes sense but it adds a layer of protection that there there's really no point in taking away even if even if businesses are still allowed to ours are are still illegally hiring children outside the law it just has one more layer of protection to ensure again that the parents are involved in the decision for that that child to work that they're not being exploited thank you to resume is also recognized for a question. I thank Mr I'd like to just sit here reading through the news article this some paper today about the situation you're talking about do we know if those if those children have this permit if the if they fill up the permitted and representative just asked a similar question I can't speak for the US department of labor's investigation about what you know which permits were on file and that situation was definitely illegal to hire those children and in the positions that they were and whether this law passes or not what what this if this bill passed it would just take away a layer of protection to ensure that the parents are involved in the decision about whether that child is working we have to have permits I mean with the permission slip to be joined the volleyball team why should we have a permission from parents to ensure that thirteen year olds are what are permitted to work well I so I don't disagree with that but that's not a government for permission slips to join the volleyball team that's for the parent if it's a school of the school that's a government program. Did you get permission from the parents not from the government to join the volleyball team and this is the and this is the permit permission from the parent to work yes. The other questions represent or any other questions committee for missed calls. Scene and thank you for your testimony presented represents our subject close your bill yes and close just to circle back on that notion that the certificate does save all sections are not complete the application will be denied so it is permission from the government in that sense I would also remind you that in Arkansas child labor laws we have a myriad of laws children under fourteen generally cannot work unless they're working in a family business there's some exceptions set forth we're talking about fourteen fifteen year olds we're talking about empowering parents to make decisions and and not getting permission from the government for this person to work and that I will close that's revoked. We have a motion to passing discussion on the motion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed the ayes have it congratulates. C. to enhance. See I to bear with me my first roll call when you get this sorted out. We'll start of the far into the table. And I believe case can help me that process. Representative Waldridge. Representative will dredge boats now representative Richardson yes representative Richardson votes yes representative Graham Lake yes. Representative Graham like both yes representative road yes representive road votes yes representative more. Representative more votes No representative shoals. Representive Schultz votes yes representative Perry no. Isn't of Perry votes No represented Pilkington. Representative Pilkington votes yes representative Alan no. President of Allen votes No representative Kenneth Ferguson no. Representative Kenneth Ferguson votes No representative Gonzales yes represented Gonzales votes yes representative Bentley. Representative family votes yes representive Ladyman yes. Isn't of Ladyman votes yes representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Deborah Ferguson votes no representive Womack. Representative will make votes yes representative McGee. Representative McGee votes No representative Eubanks. Representive Eubanks votes yes representive Wardlaw. Representive Wardlaw. Representative Miller yes. Graduations reversi pastor bill. Per city center over here. You're recognized can present Senate bill one eighty nine if you can't thank you so much we have an amendment to this bill members that's being passed around. Some thank. Senator Irvin you're recognized presenter amendment. Members the amendment is where some of the there is some disagreement within the provider community I'm about about this definition and so this amendment satisfies those concerns them brings everybody together on the same page. There's any questions on this amendment. C. ninety questions amendment. Yes. For adoption of the amendment the motion do pass as amended all those of favour say aye. Does C. nine you're recognized present your bill okay members at Senate bill one eighty nine to simply clarifies definitions of and make that consistent throughout the code and the provider manuals and all the different programs that Medicaid operates with these individuals. Mark why is here with DHS and is happy to answer any questions you just a. Injudicious the committee and I think we on a business okay thank you Sir thank I Mark why DHS. Any questions resent Ladyman you're recognized for a question. Of Senator mineral or missed white you may need as this but why is this Lexia scratched in this wide we take that out. It looks like to me it is maybe I miss read it but. so reserve Ladyman it's the issue was the and you have multiple statutes got conflicting definitions and they're all slightly different the intent is that we want us to a consistent approach which should encompass everyone this presently defined as ITV but just try to have it because consistent approach across the board. And I can. If I can miss well what and can give you specifics on that point. Being just that entered the chef of the committee for the record. Okay thank you Melissa whether ten AM division director for development disabilities services so it represented Ladyman it had some language in there before that said something similar to if you have dyslexia and one of the above so it was never a standalone diagnoses that makes sense for our development elects with disability in just cause some confusion because we called out a single and developmental delay but it had to be joined with one of the other diagnoses to be considered. So it's just clean out thank you. Any other questions for the committee. Sing ninety because your bill. Yes present a good vote. The motion to pass any discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Graduations pass a bill you have to the bills on our as amended yes yet to the bills on our agenda is prepared to present this at this time yes okay you're recognized president Senate bill two twelve okay Senate bill thank you Mr chair and Senate bill two twelve cents to twenty twenty one DHS implemented electronic criminal background check process for employees of child care centers and Medicaid providers and this is made the process obviously faster a little bit more efficient able to hire people more and hire people at a faster and current law still requires one part of the process to be on paper the law requires a notarized signature on paper from every background check applicants this paper based assessment and requirement creates unnecessary delay and forces your employees and your employers and with additional weight days on for the results of background check also it's important to note that there used to be like a ten day period where you can hire somebody and be waiting for that background check and this eliminates that and so really get rid getting rid of this notarization on paper just speeds up the process gets us these criminal background checks a lot quicker and which is good for the employers it's good for the employees and it's good for the folks that are being served by these individuals be happy to answer any questions. President person you're recognized for a question thank you Mr but they're still having to go to one of these criminal background checks centers that exists to give the fans have been thank you. For any other questions from committee. You hear signed up to speak for against the bill. Are you closing your bill senator I am we appreciate a good vote thank you. The motion to pass any discussion on the motion all those in favor say aye. Those. Graduations Senator pass that does it would you like to now president House or Senate bill two thirteen store. Thank you members of the committee Senate bill two thirteen the purpose of this bill is just to ensure that a provider who employs a direct care and worker in any agency that license out worker can be notified of the screened out process currently they're not able to be notified of a screened out process what constitutes a screened out process is you know DHS through the the hotline will investigate that if the screen that person out generally speaking it's because they didn't meet the definition of what a dollar adults maltreatment would be and so what this does is allows that screened out reports be shared back with the employer and the employer can still do whatever they need to do or want to do or wish to do with the employee but it allows that employer to have that information that this was thoroughly investigated and this was screened out for these specific reasons. The questions from the committee. Sentencing was on a you have a question represent region recognized thank you Mr no why would we want to provide maybe I'm confused on what screened out actually means why would we want in this case a person who's attempting to I guess this makes some sort of claim against an employer that information to go back to that employer with that said create a situation where we have potentially could have you're looking at me like I don't know what screened out is an endo it would be an allegation not against the employer per se but against maybe somebody that they were serving like a client's. It's the most common situations the is the is the employer is making the report right because someone's made a complaining to someone or employees even if they think that allegations not founded they still have to reporters the hotline but then we and so they may suspend that employee license what pending investigation but a current law we can't tell them there will be an investigation because it didn't meet the standard okay thank you yeah then the questions from committee. C. nine zero one signed up to speak for against the bill are you closing your bill yes thank you we have a motion to pass all those in favor say any discussion on the motion All the favor say aye. Post graduation you pass real center thank you so much for being here with thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee reviewed brownie you care to go to the table and present house bill fourteen twenty perfect. Thank you share and with me is permission like to invite Mr mark Berger subside me he is the chairman legislative session of the Faulkner County lamers Association in is the constituent who brought this bill to represent hawks last session who had a the bill drawn up but did not get run and then also they brought it to me to run this session you have to set the table entity subcommittee just state your name and who you're with. Good morning Committee on mark per year I'm with the I am the legislative chair of the Fulton County landfill Association. Brown you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chair up colleagues house bill fourteen twenty is a little bill that don't do much of anything it's intended to address some of the problems by a particular in housing that have arisen in Arkansas with regard to motion support animals it also intends to at the same time protect our Kansans Arkansas consumers from less than scrupulous practices in connection with emotional support animals the first I'd like to draw the committee's attention to is I'm sure that we have all heard of the American disabilities act eighty a service dogs seeing eye dogs please put that out of your mind this bill has absolutely nothing to do with service dogs emotional support animals only in the distinction between those is law defines a service dog as a animal that has been specifically trained to provide a service to a person with a disability you know class example gives a seeing eye dog emotional support animals however by law require no training and so that is the difference this bill does three things the first thing it does is it would change law or adopt a law that provides that if a person is in the business of selling animals and they are advertising these as emotional support animals the person has to disclose to the purchaser in writing that these are not service dogs under the ADA and by purchasing this dog you're not going to get the same rights as you would with a service dog and ADA center protection second thing law does is the same thing in terms of certificates vests halters leashes other things it may say emotional support animal on the side if you sell those in Arkansas consumer you have to disclose to the consumer in writing or have a disclaimer on the product itself that again this does not make this a service dog under the ADA and finally this is to I think help in the housing situation is if you are a healthcare provider and you are prescribing a emotional support animal or certifying someone needs an emotional support animal the law simply requires that you actually have an Arkansas Life. Sins in whatever profession you are practicing and that you have an actual client provider relationship with the person you're prescribing for and that you would renew this on an annual basis now the reason for this provision the law is we've seen it all the time in fact I did one last night is typical situation is someone rents an apartment no pets allowed well the first thing they do is they get on the internet that night and they go to motional support animals dot com forward slash in your credit card and they felt online quiz about whether they need emotional support animal and what you thought that quiz what do you know you're entitled to emotional support animal it brings you to the page we pay a hundred fifty nine dollars was the one I looked at last night to get your certificate from a allegedly licensed therapist or practitioner I don't know where perhaps India Last night just for fun I decide to fill one out and so I answer questions such as question number one in the past two weeks have you had little interest or pleasure in doing things that you usually like to do. Well sometimes because on about child when I get home I'm so the dog tired I usually go straight to bed. I said sometimes another question over the past two weeks have you had a regular sleep yes. Answer no to all the other questions click submit I'm now in tiles emotional support animal if I was going payment of fifty nine dollars so this bill's intention to cut down some of that fraud of these internet websites that are offering such prescriptions essentially for a price if you need us emotional support animal then an actual real therapist Dr clinician someone licensed social worker needs to write to the notice as you need emotional support animal of. With that I'd like to thank the committee for the time this morning I'd also like to thank the co sponsors run co sponsored a bill I have a a a wide bipartisan cross section the House I'm very much appreciate that I'd be glad to answer any questions. The questions from the committee. Representative Graham what you're recognized for a question so if I have some if I don't allow pets my apartment complex that apartment complex but if I don't have pets my apartment complex and someone comes to me and say I have an emotional support cat. Can I deny them because under ADA you can well you cannot and and the reason is the fair housing act actually act that applies in the reason why we have this problem with emotional support animals is the eighty eight specific it was actually meant I think a twenty ten or twenty eleven to specifically say a support a service animal is a dog or I think in very sent certain certain situations like a miniature horse because these animals can actually be trained to perform a function where the road has been at the federal level the fair housing act says that we cannot screaming it's anyone seeking housing if they have a disability and they defined under their regulations a disability can include any emotional illness and so any sort of Pat can. Fulfill that road emotional scramble for emotional illness so there is no train so so you could not deny an emotional support cat however FHA I will not make any comment about cats because I really want to committee approve this but the FHA the fair housing act it does have a few limitations which is in you can ask for more documentation and you can with the eighty a service dog which is why you have to certificates they did finally clamped down in twenty twenty or twenty twenty one that you cannot have an emotional support snake or monkey or other exotic animals has been actual you know what it's like a domesticated pet things that nature but no you cannot deny the emotional support cat. Thank you. President again you have a question motion of the proper time any other questions the committee. Signet the representative Miller you're recognized for a question. Thank you representative brown. For this would you be willing. Two. The manager bill to also outlawed the term emotional support animal. In Arkansas. I'm certainly willing to do whatever the committee desires one thing I would be afraid of that is that since emotional support animal has kind of entered the lexicon I'd be afraid if we outlawed it then we might have troubles with enforcement things that nature in making sure people understand what they have to do to make sure they comply with our picks it simmers but but I swear the committee's pleasure is thank you. Are there any other questions from your your reserve represent Gonzalez you're recognized for a question thing Mr So on the healthcare provider part of this it looks like we're being some of punitive to in state providers but and and uses you seem like you mentioned most of the providers they were having trouble with or out of state internet providers what am here allows us to go go after them it seems like we're being punitive to in state but like I don't see how we can how would get a hold of these internet. Issues course that thinkers income lost because that's the issue of any time when you have a people outside your jurisdiction have you really enforcing its out of state I would point out that terms of punitive the the punitive portions of the statute which by the way is a fine of five hundred dollars and accelerates to hunt thousand fifteen hundred if you continue to have problems and can be enforced by city attorney prosecutor things that nature has to the health care providers the only. The only punishment for violation the statute is that they are then subject to whatever their licensing board is if they decide to take any sort of action against the providers of the statute does not punish providers if they break the law but it does leave open that the healthcare provider could be city discipline from there however licenses them the actual punishment statute is only for those who are selling these emotional support animals and are not disclosing to consumers are not service dogs. The questions from the committee. C. nine zero Senate speak for against the bill. Senate you close your bill I am thank you Mr chairman thank committee. To the Committee. Emotion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. Well as opposed congratulations you passed your bill thank you Sir thank you any. Represent Ferguson Jack clear that that was at your bill. You're recognized once you get there to present house bill fourteen forty nine. Thank you Mr chair colleagues I have a simple building here today. Fourteen forty nine he is simply does this if you pull a bill up and look at line twenty three it says a license to the who is fifty five years of age or older and has been actively engaged in the practice of teaching of cosmetology for twenty years or more how may apply for a lifetime license the only thing it does is move sixty five to fifty five a move thirty years to twenty years or more that's all it does this bill came to be of some constituency my district in Jefferson County and in addition a county a cosmetologist and it outside my district a few and Pulaski County I have been talking to some of them August for the past year about this so that's all I have. If there's any questions representative Ferguson. C. nine zero Senate speak for against the bill the ninety closed your bill yes some of the motion you just make a motion make a motion to pass motion do pass these guests on the motion all those of favour say aye. Opposed graduations you've passed your bill reserve Springer would you like to express the table to present house bill fourteen fifty one. It looks like there's an amendment this being passed out. You're recognized presenter amendment at your leisure. Thank you Mr chair members good morning. my amendment has to do with adding the local sponsors Senator Wallace to this bill you close your moment in close. The motion to pass all those of favour say aye. Does the pastor minute you're now recognized to present your bill house bill fourteen fifty one thank you Mr chairman members I want to present to you a few facts about this particular bill according to the US bureau veterans serving during the war war war of the Vietnam War are now the law of the largest group totaling six point four million by twenty twenty there were fewer than five hundred thousand World War two veterans still alive in the United States I have a personal interest in this in that my father served in World War two he is was indeed a veteran and he lived in Washita county Arkansas I don't know if you're familiar with the of towns of Stevens auga mom back meal and make no you sold he was cited in that area and prior to him being called home he told us that he wanted to have the privilege of being buried in the national cemetery here in Little Rock so we brought him a hundred miles from down south to the national cemetery here in Little Rock in fact my mom is also buried there with him so it isn't a deed in order for me to present this bill on behalf of veterans because I do have family members who served in a serve that country this bill itself is to provide unpaid leave a veteran state to veterans of a particular in this field if you look on page one of this bill line thirty six it says that the veteran needs to provide written notice at least one month prior to the of veterans day and also proof of their status as a veteran and also this bill states that this section does not prohibit an employer from allowing the employers employees whether or not. The employee or veterans to have the entirety of the vengeance veterans day at the paid holiday and it also indicates that the secretary of the department of labor may promulgate rules in order to implement this section with that I'll answer any questions members of the question for Bruce Springer. Correct you're recognized for a question this looks great I just I just had one kind of issue so let's say your employer and you've got like you own a dentist clinic and you've got a dentist who is a veteran and they say well I want to have this day off even though no I'm not getting paid and you say well you're my only Dennis I have to have you to work this day how how are employers going to get around that situation well I think they would have to work with that particular veteran with respect to that in the end there may be someone in the department of labor that may decide that they need to promulgate some rules with respect to that I think that this is something that could be worked out between the veteran and the employer. You know it says here particularly that they would give a month in advance so that may be a date the way that they can work around that so that on that particular day that may move that day to some of that they that that person would not have to work on that particular day of maybe have someone else come in and do that work for them. Gates quick follow up you're recognized and if I've been is very good they also may be light switch that day like maybe it was so that's what you said I'm going to try and is that clear okay thank you. The the questions from the committee. Seeing nine new incentives for against the bill C. nine The motion remission do pass any discussion on the motion. Receive Gonzales you're recognized for discussion. Thank Mr. I support the I guess the the spirit of this bill I think we all in here support veterans you know what we've shown ourselves to do that over and over and over again the legislature and it's hard to vote against anything that you know as as you all know that has veterans and that but again I think things like this are a little too intrusive on private employers are for dealing with state than a state employee or employees or whatever I think that's fine to do things like this that's that's under our purview that's what we control that one when you're talking about private employers I think this is just a step too far we already recognize veterans day they know that they can offer that is as a day off to veterans and I would hope that they would do that an appreciation to to veterans that are under their employment but for the state to go in a sense I have to do that I think step too far so I'll I'll be voting against. Three of the discussion president Alan you're recognized thank you Mr chairman. I appreciate what my colleague is saying but there are a lot of bills that we introduce every day. That I intrusive. So this is no difference so I will be supporting this bill. The other commenters cash for the committee. Seeing none all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. The ayes have it congratulates you pass the bill thank you Mr chair of thing as a meeting. Committee this committee said ten bills in an out this could work out we are gonna have a meeting today this afternoon two minute spot to germinate information only the hostile social Asian farms Association a nurse says she's gonna be there to discuss work force in the health care law for all of us to ten the king Committee and it's going to be a joint meeting between us the center be imac big mac a. Any other discussion before we adjourn.