City, County & Local Affairs Committee- House

Meeting to order. chair sees a quorum. if anyone wish to speak for or against the bill on the day's agenda I ask you to sign up here on my write up your own on the sign up sheet. representative Lundstrum has a bill that she says is very quick so we're gonna let her present this first. If you would identify yourself and and and percent of the bill number is house bill twelve fifty eight. Thank you chairman. This is a bill to allow Arkansas to remove a old law and to encourage if if they so choose to have Skylanders and what's gone lanterns are I have sent this around to some of you I'm sure have seen this it's basically a no it's no longer flammable it's eco friendly biodegradable they go up they come down there called the tax in. All right with that I would answer any questions. You have any questions. Yes a. A representative the Clinton yes you're recognized motion to do pass when appropriate. Did you hear me Moshi motion do pass when appropriate All property I'm OK representative right. Do you have a question. Okay well it sounds like it's proper time seeing the right. Representative let in a you're recognized for your motion. Okay we have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Okay seeing none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. You are correct thank you chairman thank you for your eyes your bill thank you. Okay up next we have Senate bill of forty three. represent let representative Bentley would you come to the table present your bill. Thank you chairman college we have an amendment this okay I'd like to. Folksy the minute first we'll get that passed first thank you okay. you're ready to present your amendment in I am. You colleagues this amendment to SB forty three just further clarifies the language of what we're trying to do with this bill we're trying to stop explicit material in front of our children right trying to stop plays or lip sinking in those kind of things I'm sure you as well as I have received some emails from schools and that's our number one fundraiser we don't want to stop that so this bill does not stop lease sinking or someone is dressing up in opposite sexist specifically trying to protect our children from explicit sexual material so that's really what the amendment does And so with that I'd appreciate a good vote on the amendment to SB forty three. Thank you chairman I'm so I represent Bentonville in Bellavista and my constituents did have some questions about the bill and how it impacts the LGB community clearly we all want to protect kids but and we think we agree they should be exposed to adult materials but we don't wanna target or isolate the members of that community so who is making the judgment on what is Perry because pretty much anything can be sexualized and so there's can you clarify who's making that judgment how they'll be taken care as a well established legal terms been of established by judges the judges are making that term I think if you I would like to this to focus on the amendment this point so and I'm just for the clarifies we're trying to do so if you look at the amendment take a minute to look at that anybody has questions on the amendment I'll be happy to take that but again we're not trying to isolate and we're trying to protect our children's not anti anybody's just again keep in sexual explicit material away from our kids okay can I ask a follow up. Yes you're recognized thank you and can you also just address the issue of Hooters are twenty X. and taking his there is that something that will fall under your bill so that's are already covering for other statues this is specifically going against outdoor entertainment those things are looking that's that's already covered another statutes and somebody wants to run another bill they're happy to do that but this is covering this one specific area thank you thank you. Okay representative Cavenaugh rep recognized yes Sir I'll make a motion to accept amendment. Okay we have a motion to accept amendment in the discussion. Representative Brad you have discussion on the motion. Please turn your light on. Yes our second that motion. Okay we'll. Hi. Any other discussion. Say none all in favor the amendment say aye. Those post a note. Your member passes you may present your bill as amended thank you chairman Preciado. In my recent primary elections I knocked on thousands of doors in my district I repeatedly heard this word over and over to me what is going on with our kids why I could not stop the sexually grooming or children we should protect our kids we used to protect innocents why we're not doing that sure there's something that you can do to help protect our children so that's where this bill came from to protect our children the stock was being pushed back mobile kitchen and trying to attack our kids the children in our state are struggling I think if you miss with any of your superintendents or teachers they're gonna take your kids are struggling. We have a record number of students on prescription antidepressants number students that are addicted to drugs children that are committing suicide at the highest rate ever the rate of you struggling with gender identity has us has skyrocketed and continue to see an increase in child molestation and children trapped in sex trafficking. We used to cherish the innocence of our kids are protected into everything we could to protecting go above and beyond to protect innocence of our children somehow we've forgotten that we've left that behind. How is it possible. I went House possibly okay for children to present a direct performance were purpose are wary percent **** uses a microphone or drag queens chance usually one who like this where we P. those are things that are going on right in Texas right below which those are videos that are being sent to me from my constituents just appalled was going on in front of our kids. How Queen loud children right here in Little Rock to have emergency contraceptives tossed in their direction well there a debate gay pride parades ACT March the concept of the children's hospital sticker attached to it. We have got to say enough is enough we're going to protect our kids that's exactly what this bill does I work very hard with the with the attorney general's office with the governor's office with alliance defending freedom to get a bill that will be passable in court with the language to be approved in court and so that's what this bill does is to specifically stops if you look and read there on the amendment read twenty six there doubt about an adult oriented performance ms before Mrs intended to appeal to the prurient interest and that features a person who appears in a state of nudity or semi nude the purpose of purposeful exposure with a complete or partial of this specific anatomical area or representative genital or press or specific sexual activity so we just try to keep minors away from sexual explicit material we're not trying to be anti anybody anti trans into anything we're just trying to protect our kids is the purpose of the bill is what our constituents I know mine vastly want us to just be sure to protect our kids to protect their innocence again we've been doing this for years we've kept kids other strip clubs would keep kids out of ours we keep them from getting attached user just adding in that area that we want to protect our kids from adults can do what adults want to do when as adults present and children not their. It's really simply what the bill does is not anti anybody so we've again been doing this for decades we just try to protect our kids not trying to stop plays not dressed up you to pander to see or any of those things. This not we're trying to do with the bill would just simply wanting to protect our kids And with that I'll be happy to take any questions from the committee. A representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you Mr chair I just want to clarify you have just said that this in no way will affect the ator no musicals no plays that anyone's having what about the high schools that have these things called male beauty pageants where them where they dress up to raise money and for their whatever their charity My Baby is that going to affect this not in any way whatsoever. And follow up Mister chair. Yes follow up if a parent still chooses to take a child to the drag performance are they still allowed to do so nine of thirty one we're listed here in this performance of there's nudity so the Senator depends on what they're doing right there's things that are program for children is like we rate movies we have G. rated movies with X. rated movies correct and so there's things that may happen at their the have to be a aware what's going on in that performance of this type of nudity or sexual activity listen this definition and that was not appropriate for them to take their child to that I didn't ask if it was appropriate I ask were they going to be allowed at the parent made the decision that they wanted to take their child to one of these performances no one has performances manager not be allowed in these performances under this definition that we have here thank you sorry thank you for the clarification. Okay representative McCauley you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair of representative Bentley how how will this be enforced. How will this bill be enforced just like we boards every other law that we have on someone and can't get into a strip club or an X. rated movie. We enforce it now we're not allowed to use into a bar where there was alcohol would allow them to a strip club so it's coming force XXI ways been forced their. Follow up Mr. Yes follow up thank you. I. I would say I probably setting up here been to maybe more directions anyone up here they've always been in clubs in places where you couldn't get in unless you were of age to that legal age to to do that I've also participated in pride parades and and different things like that and I've also talked to my constituents and and I've heard nothing nothing about any of this I've seen none of this happened happening across the state so I'm still trying to understand why the words attack in I mean I do believe that's what's happenings attacking this very small group of people can you explain that to me I representative for the state then you do must part is a very conservative in the them to exactly my constituents have asked me to do or not was not for tenant those under club or minors are present this has absolutely no effect on that whatsoever. Robeson McCauley's FOR yes Sir okay a representative college you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair so I'm looking at the the new language here in twenty six post amendment and I want to ask you about this twenty six a first of all what is semi nude I don't think it's defined in here so I'd like your definition of what that even means and second the way that this is not separated this is a and B. is not separated with a conjunction and or and or I would read that to be in the absence of a construction or so is the intent to say that an adult oriented performance could be either someone who appears in a state of nudity or semi nude or the staff and the or the staff and say yes Sir okay so any of those things independently would would be considered adult oriented performance and I also curious about this I mean is yes Sir. And that was a term by judge not by me and I you the judges there to enforce the law. Follow place. is there an intent of what semi nude means amend it is our common parlance of what's amended means to you. I'm a numerous videos that I've seen of that again it's not for me to determine for you determine to be for a judge determined and for common sense we're trying to bring common sense back into what should be in front Ricky is I don't know why we're intent on brain sexually explicit material in front of our children we're just trying to stop that. Well I do think that the words in our bills are what we determined that thank you. A representative Hutcheon you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair representative Bentley why do we need this additional language I'm looking at fourteen one three oh two and this appears to be ground that's already been tread so why is it necessary to add another definitions that is essentially more or less what's already included in that part of the of the code I think it's necessary I think we've up not drawn the line and I think we've seen of this being pushed a little bit out in front an open so it's exactly what we're trying to do with the of the bill which I to keep expects explicit material referred my children in public I think the public area agency for than the bills on air there really trying to make sure that minors not present when things are done with nudity or semi nudity of those things we're trying to protect children that's really what the bill is about and a my constituents feel would currently not covered with what we're doing. Follow up. You're recognized. Okay so going back to what representative Collins was saying with regard to some of the definitions which are pretty Bay and I can appreciate that that you say that a court is supposed to figure this out although we're already dealing with significant backlogs in the court and I don't know that the judges will be thrilled to for having them try to define words that we didn't but I'm thinking in terms of concerts that come through Miley Cyrus in a short skirt Madonna with the cones on builds. Are those semi nude are we going to quit allowing major pop artists to come through. It's not the purpose of the bill as a purpose of the bills keep sexual explicit material away from our kids. And you some common sense or taking care of our kids. But would you agree with me that without an explicit definition that it's likely that people will be confused by the intent of the bill of this language is brought to me by lowers it fills a very well to be protected so I'm gonna go with the borders I have I worked with to makes this bill the best it can be. Thank you Mr. Representative right you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair representative Bentley as I read through the committee emails that I've received on this bill one of the common themes that keeps coming up is people say don't criminalize this behavior but as I read the bill it seems to me like you're just regulating these types of performances in the same way any other adult oriented performance would be regulated am I missing something or is that correct are you second not trying to ban anything at all transmitted else to an adult presence and keep children protected. Okay representative Collins you're recognized thank you Mr chair representative as you know the Attorney General has made it available and self available to help members with questions about constitutionality of Bills have you spoken with anyone Attorney General's office about the constitutionality of this bill as it's presented to us The Amendment came from his office may working with his office that all came constitutional for years and he believes this is constitutionally sound yes it does okay thank you as does the governor's office so I've been working with them next to do the members that we've done the bill makes it sure is constitutionally sound I don't want to pass the bill just to pass the bill for theater I want to protect children so this or make sure that will hold up in court as best as we possibly can. Rex's representative calling you're recognized thank you Mr chair there there's been a long history of drag queens as per as performance art and I know a person Bentley talked a lot about common sense and everything in the past have constituents and parents and people just not. Cared about their children in the past since this is never come up before. Is appointed as coming out into the public in public arenas where children are present and more more saying direct family shows that my considers don't deliver direct from that children friendly at all things at the expense it. Presley sexual explicit material saying aye that is the examples I gave before about address before using a prosthetic **** and using that as a microphone in front of children I think it's horrible but that's been what's going on around our country and in Texas and close by so those the things that my constituents want to protect us from follow up Mr you're recognized thank you it can can you tell me specific instances in Arkansas over those things have happened. I'd almost one thing I gave two was about the act emergency contraceptives being thrown at which children are present in a direct parade with the children's hospital sticker on there that's not things we need to their kids during an emergency contraceptives I don't have specific videos here in Arkansas but again we pass bills all the time proactively to protect our kids I don't know what to its here to have parents live it was going on with our kids are Arkansas is protected by beforehand it's going on all across the country Texas is just two hours away I don't want to wait till is here also check beforehand to make sure kids are safe that's what my constituents of ask me to do and that's exactly what we're trying to do today with this bill. So no specific incident in Arkansas. Not that I'm aware of that is amended hasn't happened I know the other folks of some scenes things that I don't have a video I have people that have contacted me from Mountain Home and said they weren't Bates was super heaven sakes we moved Arkansas away from Oregon to be here in Arkansas where things are fresh and clean and hope and wholesome for kids to be around where they were very disturbed things This auditor at a pride parade there so again I don't have videos of it all but are there things going on this time I constituents act again I was in the primary going door to door visiting with folks what what they were concerned about and they were very concerned what was happening to our kids and wanted to get think this is not the end all was going on with our kids I'm not trying to say that is one step in a number of things I know of the members of this body or doing other things to protect our kids from **** and different things that's all that we're trying to do this bill of one more follower Mr yes go ahead do you believe are presented Bentley there can be a drag performance that's the that is appropriate. Yes I do. Through represented yes thank you okay. Representative McClendon you're recognized thank you chairman I just following up on representative race point I just want to clarify that this bill is simply equating adult drag shows to other adult entertainment it is not trying it out as a separate class or category is just saying included with X. rated shows and strip clubs we're going to add the adult oriented directions as well is that correct correct thank you. Okay. Representative Richardson you're recognized I'll have a motion at the proper time. A representative Hudson direction recognized thank you Mr chair so whenever we start talking about artistic expression I worry a great deal about government interference a on a first minute basis and assuming that we look at this or there's an argument that that there is artistic value to these performances and we're regulating them why isn't the narrowest way that the government can can. Blake this type of artistic expression to simply recommend to our constituents that they don't take their children to events that they don't think that they ought to see my concern is is that when when we talk about regulating these types of performances in the way that you're you're saying that we create a first amendment issue. Do you have a specific question on here question them yes why isn't the solution to simply not take your kids if you're worried about exposing them to these types of performances because these performances being doing in public or people are not specifically taking their kids so it's kind of tough for parents protect their kids if they're walking by somewhere had no idea that was going on it's out open for people to see so that's the whole point of it that the it used to be where was in the club we're wasn't open the public for children to see but now it's an open areas where people are specifically taking their children but they're saying it anyway. That's the whole purpose of the bill and I have again I'm not a lawyer I've been missing constitutional lawyers to make this is found in the scenarios we can't I'm not trying to be anti anybody anti trans anti anything we're trying to protect our children specifically what the bill is about. Follow Mr yes you're recognized so that kind of to follow up and representative Michael is question have there been instances where people were literally walking by a performance and in Arkansas or nearby and and at direct performance or an obscene performance what's happening on the side of the street. I can tell you again the folks that call me that moved here from Oregon that wants to get their kids into a place where say they were very offended by the things they saw the Director prayed openly in Batesville going down the street and again with the children receiving emergency contraceptives with children's hospital sticker tossed at them of the pride parade here in Little Rock I don't have specific answers but assist other specific things again things are going on right here in Texas all around the nation my considers wants to stop it here before it's any further that's the whole purpose of the bill. They put some guardrails up to protect our kids. It rubs in college did you have a question yes I would you please measure but I think it's on okay all right thank you Mr chair you know we spoken a few times about the differences between your district in your area and maybe some other representatives districts and areas you know I represent a district where we really do value diversity and an expression and freedom and certain ways of that maybe is different it sounds like from where you're representing I'm curious do you believe that this is something like this would be preempted war in permissible to do at the local level do you think that is not allowed to do that you know to ban the type of things you're trying to ban here at the local level I think when it expanded to state policy exactly I'm here today. Thank you. Thank you Mister chair I apologize represent Bentley I was a little late getting in here as I told you the other day I had to go run a bill so I may have missed your opening comments and I apologize if you're having to repeat my question really deals with section two on page two of where it talks about an adult oriented performance shall not take place on public property. Admit any minor for attendance or be funded whole or part by public funds so my question is will this bill also take care of what if there's a private performance of somebody had something on it I don't know I've never been to a drag queen performance don't know much about it but let's say somebody had something in their home or it It is wasn't a business but it was a private like a private party a private performance is that going to be prohibited by this bill I just curious as to that and I apologize if you've already addressed any of that no that's fine and we have business with the AG's office we believe so and the first part of that under section twenty twenty six on the page one so under that statute. They believe it will protect my no miners to be laid out and where those performances are taking place okay thank you very much. Again I'm not a lawyer I'm just come with their what I'm being told by those that are. Okay I'm seeing no more questions. it this time we will open it up to the public. I have a I have we have several signed today to speak. So. I would say those speaking against the bill the first one I have is Sarah Everett. All. She. She. Cheers me up. Yes yes I'll make a motion we limit fifteen minutes to each side four for testimony that is a proper motion non debatable all in favor say aye aye those opposed say no. I seven. Yes Sir would you please come forward. Please identify yourself and who you represent for the record please. You may proceed after that my name is Sarah Everton the policy director for the ACLU of Arkansas I am going to try to talk quickly because we are. Once again but not making it possible to hear from our constituents on these issues laws are meant to be instructive and their meaning clear to the average citizen of. This amendment does nothing to clarify the law or its enforceability this bill would require current businesses that don't allow minors into their drive performances to move their businesses in order to be able to have those performances I think it's important to point out that an adult oriented business cannot be located within a thousand feet of any public park any recreational area any walking trail any residence any church and a playground and there is nothing in this bill I can see that would limit the the definition of drag performances to exclude private homes for example The every three other adult oriented business listed here specifically of a business of manual shop there's nothing in this definition of driver performance that that limits set to to a business like that a law violates the constitution with an average citizen cannot determine who is regulate or what conduct is prohibited. The absurdity of this bill is that even people making the law can't tell us when it applies the senators who voted for this bill couldn't even agree on what it meant it's not enough to say that it's not the purpose of the bill or that the courts will sort it out your constituents expect you to pass bills that comply with the constitution not put our rights in jeopardy not use our tax dollars to discover that what we have told you is true it's unconstitutional but that is the goal ultimately of this bill to curb the free speech and expression of the LGBTQ community and their allies. Fear is running this legislature and has been for a long time and it's it's time to stop thank you. Thank you. Okay also speak against it is missing player. Please identify yourself for the record and who you represent you may proceed. My name is Athena Sinclair also known as in the hunter and I'm just representing myself and other dragged in use in the state of Arkansas. I'm actually the drag queen spoke against this bill when it was and Senate Committee and I'm just really disappointed by this bill that she said that they are trying to stop the tears from having dragon performances and things like that however that is what drag actually is this bill is just part you saying I've hatred hateful rhetoric of what you're actually is because these people do not understand what we do what we do is not sexual when I when I dress up in drag I'm doing it because it is simply art I started to go to school and As You BB and went to a performance of Rocky Horror Picture Show and decided that I lived with they were doing it they were expressing themselves in any way that they felt like they needed to to be the top their authentic self and that's why I started doing drag. shows that this wasn't going to affect our current venues and I can tell you right now every single one of our current being used it does track which is less than about six is terrified of this bill because it will affect them they will have to move their venues or stop having drag and this bill is just disgusting because this is a huge part of our entertainment industry and our LGBT community. I can tell you there is one hundred percent no drag shows in representative Bentley's District so I don't see why any of her constituents would be worried about this because it's not happening in her district I feel like this bill is just happening because she said it's happening in Texas none of these things are happening in Texas in public areas where kids can see it is all places that adults are already at so there's no drag queen is going to be sexualizing any child or wanting to be sexual around a child because we're just trying to represent those children who are different from yourselves those children who grow up already being bullied already being you know disappointed disappointing their parents because they don't understand what being gay is are being what the LGBT community is that's what Dr does for these kids it lets them know that there's people out there like them there's people out there that want to represent them that they can say okay there's nothing wrong with me because representive Bentley and Stubblefield actually called trans people and drag entertainers an abomination so I can't say that she's saying that this is not attacking a particular community when she specifically said that it was and that's all I have to say thank you. Would you be willing to take a question yes absolutely representative right you're recognized. Thank you Mr thank you for your testimony I understand we live in a pluralistic society and people have different lifestyles and mine may be different from yours and yours may be different from mine and that's that's part of America I guess my question is specifically with regard to these types of performances why is it so necessary that they take place in front of children. It is not necessary there. If you saw the testimony while servicing and I was completely dressed and a gallon this you could barely see any of my skin all you see is my face so when people usually perform in front of children there dressed extremely appropriate and it's only happening so that those kids can come and see somebody that is like them there's nobody out there that's gonna have bring their kids out there just because all also want to go to directions on or bring my kid usually they bring their kids because their kids are different their kids are unique in their kids are not seeing representation of themselves in anywhere else in the community that's why they bring into a direction so that they can see that there's people like them out there. K. C. no more questions we appreciate your testing you. Okay. And also speak against it is Judson's captain. Close okay. Please identify yourself for the record and you may proceed. Good morning Mr chairman name is Judson Scanlon and before I begin I would actually like to give a chance to the parents who are in the room I know there's some young children here and I'm about to use some language in some scientific terms that they may find questionable so if you want to. As we give you the option. Just a couple minutes please. Thank you Mr okay I made up my house tell you also there's eight minutes left I understand all right I'm not gonna take very long at this all right go ahead I wanna be very clear about some very scientific things that happen. I am transgender that means that my internal self does not identify with my external self and at times in order for me to feel comfortable I actually take steps to match the internal and the external when I choose to do that and when I feel like that is necessary for my own well being there are times that I choose to use an ex an element that I purchase and this element is used in order to help me be real with myself. Now wearing a false **** is actually something that is done for years and it is actually a medical necessity in order to transition and people don't understand that so this question that I have is this if I am actually in public doing what we refer to as packing in the community does that make me susceptible to arrest if I hold my partner and a young child sees me because according to the language in this bill and arbitrarily decision can be made outside of my knowledge in order to make me a criminal for simply taking that action. Just like you to be aware of the S. this bill chooses to go to arbitrary as opposed to defined and we have fought that for years in the game was being community until nineteen seventy the way I am appearing in front of you would have been illegal in many locations across this country the Stonewall riots were created because people fight back against being arrested for wearing articles of clothing associated with the opposite gender. That's what this bill is about. We are proud our pride parades allow us to exhibit that pride we are humans to actually feel joy and we want others to understand that. You do not have to attend a pride parade and representative Bentley I am thrilled that you found yourself at one to actually experience our community this bill is harmful to many people for many reasons it's harmful to me and it's harmful to my children who get to hear that I am the problem. Thank you very much. Thank you for the question. But I see no questions I appreciate your testimony. All right we have now we have five the law over five minutes left hi Gerry Sullivan. Buletin five yourself for the record. And state your name you may proceed. I'm Gary Sullivan I'm the legal director at the ACLU of Arkansas and I'm also here on my own behalf. I want to congratulate Senator Stubblefield and representative Bentley but before I tell you what I'm gonna tell you very short stories running out of time. Not too far from Little Rock there was this young boy who realized he was an artist and he wanted to be a performer. And he was a little stage shy but he finally got over that and once he got on the stage he realized that that's where he wanted to be and that's what he wanted to do for life and he started out wearing fairly conservative clothing but soon he advanced to more less conservative clothing he certainly start exaggerating things he per from the get go he or I make up he soon started teasing his hair over time to tease that hair higher eventually started dying the hair. His what he wore for performances loose fitting outfits at first they were brightly colored some had plunging necklines all the way down to his naval very revealing. Soon he started shaking his legs and gyrating his hips young people talked about this in more and more young people started finding his hit coming to his of performances and the parents were furious the parents is what parents want to outlaw him the parents got him arrested at least one time for lascivious conduct and lewd behavior. He wasn't swayed by that he started wearing tighter closing more revealing clothing and then boarded you start exaggerating things he got gold rings on his fingers and that gold necklaces big diamonds on three fingers and the more he exaggerated himself the more he became known and people started coming and there was no doubt that his performances were for the prurient interest of the audience because some people started taking off their underwear and throwing it up on the stage. And this went on and it grew and it grew is exaggerated it was prurient it was very sexual when the parents got madder and madder but boy they did not succeed they tried so hard that they couldn't do it so my congratulations to Senator Stubblefield and representative Bentley as you finally done with parents couldn't be sixty years ago yes found a way to outlaw Elvis Presley. No unfortunately I was personally can't perform in Arkansas now but Dolly Parton might Elton John might and this bill would prevent that thank you. I'll accept any questions a single question thank you for your testimony. Up next we have what Courtney person. I know I budgeted so correct me when you get up here. Please identify yourself and who you represent and you may proceed. Section kind of time. You have two minutes and thirty nine seconds well I've tried to prepare short speech I'm Courtney Frierson a native our cans and a social worker and a certified sex therapist I respectfully ask that you vote no on SB forty three I do care deeply about drag performers in their artistic expression and my deepest concerns are the infringement on the rights to assemble the rights of St free speech and the impact this will have an enforcement I don't know how to shorten this the three article rule mentioned earlier were based on masquerading laws spaced in the eighteen forty fives which made it a crime to have one's face painted discolored covered or concealed or be otherwise disguise while in a road or public highway this laws intended purpose was to prevent rural white farmers from darkening their faces to be perceived as native American to avoid taxation after six decades of marginalisation violence sanction by the state enforced by the police a group of black and brown transgender day queer and drive performing people fought back in June of nineteen sixty nine at the stone wall in a New York City the community is resisted arrest fought the police started a riot and sparked a revolution of resistance the first pride was a riot. I do not say this to encourage violence I'm right reminding you of the history at the highlight that this drag bill is an old story. We're tired we've heard this one before and we've already resisted while some of you might opine that the nineteen fifties were the good old days he'd like to go back to this bill is a regurgitation of hateful and oppressive past SB forty three represents outdated gender policing an infringement on the freedoms of assembly and free speech and will and is already harming LGBTQ people and track performers it will be costly to the state this bill is masquerading as protection of children when is a thinly veiled attempt to police the agenda of others if enforced and passed the state will be challenged in court as this bill is unconstitutional for a party that believes in small government and fiscal responsibility it sure is an expensive and harmful way to waste precious taxpayer money I've heard urge you to vote no on SB forty three. Okay we have thirty four seconds left room we have Blake. Tierney. I apologize for the short period of time but. I'll be slow in starting the clock okay thank you my name is Blake Tierney I am here representing myself I'm a queer game in a Christian and I have years of experience the nonprofit field and child welfare child health and child services section three oh five the code that is being amended with this bill allows any citizen to take legal action against individuals or businesses just because we say that is that the courts decide the damages will already have been done the finances reputation and time of these individuals and businesses you get to determine what per year in interest means as we have heard from every individual who has spoken against this bill and for this bill even I have been called out at a public pool for kissing my partner who was a woman at the time before I came out because it was to protect the children. I have been told I've seen through my years experience in child services women many of you are very familiar with breast feeding it is being called shameful people are harassed for that all to protect children from sexually obscene things hi Blake your time is up we give you thirty seconds to wind this up okay I really appreciate that. So thank you for listening to me but I want to close out and say this is targeting LGBTQ people and there's lots of roots in Christianity about this that you are appealing to but I want to point out that first Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for their strict adherence to do aerobic law that marginalized people and Furthermore deletions three Paul said before the coming of the space we're held in custody of the law locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed the law was our guardian so price came we might be justified by faith now the speakers come we are no longer under a guardian so in Christ Jesus you are all children of god through faith for all of you were baptized into Christ have clothed you with Christ there is neither Jew nor gentile neither slave nor threatened with the neither slave nor free nor is there male or female for you are all one in Christ Jesus I urge you S. the forty threes legally spurious it is economically careless is morally bankrupt as deeply of Christian. Please oppose this bill thank you. For. Thank you for your testimony. Now speaking for the bill Jennifer Lancaster. Please identify yourself for the record who represent and you may proceed. Good morning my name is Jennifer Lancaster I represent myself and my children thank you for allowing me the privilege to speak before you today conceptions and freedom are often one sided with people taking the position that they should be free to do anything within the bounds of non harmful conduct this raises many questions about what harmful conduct really is in the true nature of freedom one thing is is clear freedom to act is something that we rightly exalt however freedom for any one person to act must always be tempered by another's freedom the freedom to be free from something harmful or immoral many people are claiming this bill violates their rights they list the rights to free speech express themselves and to be who they are or perceive themselves to be an essence the detractors of this bill espouse of freedom to act and do as they wish they claim this conduct is within the realm of freedom. However we have a myriad of laws that limit individual freedom to that which decided deems harmful. We have laws that limit sexual discussions in the workplace among adults. Should we not have similar laws to protect the most vulnerable society in an environmental atmosphere. This is not a ban on drag shows gender neutrality self expression creativity or any of the freedoms that make America and our canned Arkansas great it is a regulation of adult content that limits that expression to certain venues away from children. And what about the responsibility to young impressionable children with great freedom comes great responsibility we have a god given mandate to be responsible for children what our children really being taught to accept if this bill were to fail. They're taught drag queens reading to children is really about presenting a hyper feminized type or sexualized cross dressing man performing for children at the drive performers are legitimately concerned about litter straight literacy among our children they can abandon the make up and they Wickes and ready to children children do not need to know about the sexual interest or gender identities of adults whether gay or straight story time should not be politicised reflect adult or two signaling. Jack has always been until recent years adult entertainment it is worth asking ourselves why child safeguarding practices is gone out the window when it comes to drug culture. And I'd like to point out that a woman is more than a face full of make up or tease tear to the ceiling or form fitting dress women such as myself and my daughters are more valuable than your clothes and accessories. And neither of woman nor child should be a product to be used for political statements or for showing off that one is open minded and hit. Children are society's most precious precious commodity and every experience and every interaction leaves an indelible mark on the formation of their development and their character. We should not think of freedom is unchecked right to do as we please but as the opportunity to do what is right. I would like to say that SB forty three is not an anti gay Bill it is approachable thank you for allowing me to testify. Thank you appreciate your testimony. Okay we have no others signed up to speak for against this representative Bentley are you prepared to close. Chairman committee thank you for taking this bill again thank you for mending the bill is saying that the bill amendment makes it much better clear to what we're trying to do we're strictly trying to protect our kids from adult things that they don't need to see. Our children are suffering our state and this is one of many good bills I think that will passed during the session so with that I went and this bill will appreciate a good vote. Okay representative Richardson you're recognized. Well I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. representative McCollum we recognize you. Yes I. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Sorry do pass as amended all right okay we have a motion do pass as amended. All in favor say aye Mr isn't I was waiting on him okay I apologize I got yes go ahead. Thank you Mr first of all want to. Apologize for the the limited debate that some of you had this morning I know some of you came for maybe all over the state I don't know exactly where you came from and we had what I felt like was plenty of time to here this morning so thank you for being here thank you for testifying thank you for saying what you had to say as quickly as you could I just wanna say that drag queens have been a part of the LGBTQ community sense. I'm aware the beginning of time this group besides being an artistic expression has also been a group that has often protected members of the LGBTQ community when they've been kicked out of their house they give them a place to stay they've given them something akin to a family so I want to say that also I do believe that there is a fear what people don't understand. often and I do believe that freedom is not alive and well I believe it is for some but not for all I really want to say though that sexually explicit content is already covered under existing law even if it doesn't use the term drag. I do believe this is an attack on a community no matter how many times it stated otherwise to ask that you vote against this bill. K. Singh no others. All in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Okay. Moving on Representive Underwood are you here. All right are you prepared to present house bill eleven seventy five over go to the table and present please. I think Mr I can District sixteen is it okay if I had Municipal League joint table. Yes thank you. John Wilkerson general counsel of the Arkansas Municipal League okay Percy. thank you committee after the second time I'm gonna turn this over to misleading give a stroganoff JDK tell you what the bill maybe answer questions if you have any thank you thank you thank you Mr chair and thank you Mr representive Underwood have risen under way tonight last session worked on a bill back to blue bill and in our trying to figure out how best to craft something and I in a virtually unlimited some language that I wasn't sure is going to be a terribly big deal that turns out it's costs of confusion essentially what the law was prior to twenty twenty one was that the city council's make the policy or have that shall have the power to make policies for the police department this is been in federal law for a long time it's the way that we if at the municipally defend police officers and cities in these types of actions it clarifies the policy maker is and then when it was over in overly omitted we had some concerns about whether or not to cause some confusion on who the policy maker is for the police departments and without also that the fire fire departments as well have a similar language but it was a consistent one another so essentially what this bill does is puts back in a language to clarify that city council shall have the power to make police policies promulgate rules and for both the police and the fire department we run this by the chiefs association for both the police and fire there's no objections again This clarifies the law the law that's already been in place for a long time and again just gets clarity for all of us moving forward. You're ready for questions. Yes Mr. Seeing none. What's the what's the wishes of the committee. Judy Judy sorry would you like to close I'm close thank you okay what's the wishes of the committee. Okay I have a motion to pass any debate on the motion saying none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. Congratulations passion bills the Committee okay. UP next is house bill eleven ninety six and represent under would I understand you have an amendment to this also yes Sir I do okay. You are recognized to present your amendment okay thank chair of the committee the ultimate is adding co sponsors to the bill. I have two questions if you have an. Okay right. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized I make a motion to accept amendment. I have a motion amendment any discussion on Amendment. Saying none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no. Okay you may present your bill is amended thank you Committee this bill it we we passed a similar bill last session regarding requirements but I believe this bill is a pretty common sense policy and one that most Arkansans probably agree with simply all this bill does is if you are getting public housing assistance you're able bodied you're required to work part time I think that this bill allows to reduces government dependency and allows people to get into the workforce at which I think that is good for individuals businesses and taxpayers but most importantly or or maybe I should say importantly I think that we've some resources for those who truly need the resources so just a quick a couple quick points the work requirement only applies to those who are between the ages of nineteen and sixty four years of age I also exempts those who have you know like a disability or something of that nature to meet the work requirement you have to work part time so that's twenty hours or volunteer for twenty hours or being a workfare program. And finally I say I think although I mentioned earlier I think some reasons why we should pass this policy again it's common sense it's good for the budget reduces government spending it promotes self sufficiency. And in the past we've seen work requirements implemented ended individuals have entered industries that they normally would have been in it's increased out incomes that outweighs the loss of the benefits but again it really helps those who truly need those services forty five percent of able bodied working adults receiving public housing do not work at all on average family spent twenty nine months on section eight waiting list and nineteen months before getting into public housing and forty eight point four percent of section at section eight waiting list are closed to new applicants so those are on those waiting lists are include veterans homeless up those with disabilities the elderly and victims of domestic violence and so. I would like to if you are able bodied I think you should work I think that's good for you and I think that helps us free of those resources for those individuals and I appreciate you and I'm happy to answer questions. Okay representative Dalby you're recognized thank you Mr chair of representative what I really about three questions if the chair will allow me to asking could you explain the difference between this bill this time and the bill we passed last session what what are the differences it's different so if I believe if I remember correctly it's been awhile since I are in the bill that that bills regarding food stamps and this is is regarding at public housing assistance. I'm sorry no I was that we do have work requirements and in various different programs Arkansans follow up follow this is bill violate any federal fair housing standards act or anything like that the on that if we pass this bill that would be on in contravention to with the federal government because most of these are going to be federal programs right I do not believe so again we've passed similar type provisions and and other areas in Arkansas and I believe these requirements are consistent with federal law one more follow up Mr yes go ahead in just so that I'm real clear in section. Be on page one it says as used in this section an able bodied adult needs an individual who is not and if you drop down. Two. Halasz the. Drop down to age so an able bodied individual who is not participating in a drug addiction or alcohol treatment or rehabilitation program. I'm not quite following the wording in here's my question. In the court system in the state of Arkansas we have specialty court's for drugs for folks who who may have a drug addiction pro problem it instead of sitting on to prison they go to a specialty court the and it specialty court may deal with drug and alcohol addictions but part of that specialty court program would be that they maintain housing and that they or in a housing he's got a lot of things like the go to drug and alcohol rehab they have to keep a job they have to maintain housing and it's all in an effort to keep them on the work force in Arkansas paying taxes keeping them out of our prison system giving them the help they need in maybe I'm reading this. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but it it sounds like to me that that would keep that individual from being in public health and in this program and housing am I reading that wrong because that's what it says an able bodied person is not everyone who's doing that so right you would then be kicking those individuals who are who may be in that housing but then or participating in a drug and alcohol treatment can you explain to me because it sure seems worded awkwardly to me no I I don't believe and I appreciate the question I appreciate obviously we just just area we want to the way the the wordings correct so no I don't believe this case the work requirement only applies to those who are able bodied adults and so it says if you're not participating in this program so if you are participating in one of those programs you would not be considered able bodied adults and therefore you would not be subject to the work requirement. You have a sorry you have a question. Follow up. And so I can talk thank you sorry okay I don't think I really have a follow up I just appreciate that comment because it's really hard to read the way this bill is written sure think it's really very difficult I and then so that's why I was having trouble so thank you very much and I appreciate I appreciate question I think it's to me it's clear but obviously I know you know. Different interpretations and so our and I'm happy to talk about that with you further and see if there's if I'm if I'm wrong anyway thank you. Your. Represent college you're recognized thank you Mr chair so I I mean I think everybody appreciates the value of work and and truly if this would always go the way you intend where. You know the the threat of taking away housing would make someone get a job and and work that would be great but I I think we know that's not gonna happen a lot of cases and so when that doesn't happen you're gonna effectively has people who are already for the most part report being kicked out of their housing given all of the issues we have with homelessness and this state and across the country lately are we just creating many many more people who will likely become homeless and become a strain on the system man on taxpayers just in different ways no I don't think that's correct so I think again like I mentioned the people who are on waiting lists are not getting those those housing opportunities right now or people who are homeless and and people who truly need those services I think we're opening up those opportunities in addition I mean the work requirement to meet the requirements all you have to do is work part time or volunteer at twenty hours per week so I don't think that's extremely burdensome to do that and if they were to do that it'll increase their income to give them skill sets that will make them give them skills to be successful in and make more money later but in addition it in the bill it discusses giving them a public Housing Authority can can terminate them gives them sixty days to be compliant with that so that I think that's also contemplated in the bill as well thanks for the question. Okay representing Hudson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman president of Underwood I was interested in your thoughts on how you came to settle on and. This is B. one ET and which says that sets that the limit of five. Someone is not required to fall under the work requirement as a parent or caretaker who's responsible for the care of a dependent child under four months of age and and I'm wondering about that just in terms of the fact that even with subsidies daycares often so expensive or the wait list for so long that it's difficult to get your child into a daycare and we don't have necessarily enough spaces for kids who need daycare and so why did you settle on for months as opposed to three or four years old when a child is old enough to go into a public school yes no I appreciate questions and that I did think about that so. I think the part of the answer that is the commission is we do have other programs for those who are low income and I have a child needs help with you know childcare those type of things so and there's also I don't I'm not it's an expert on that that topic but I do believe there's a work requirement those as well but again I think that it's helpful for those individuals to Get the skills that they need and work and so and and that provides a benefit to them long term again the requirement is a super burdensome there's several different ways you meet at volunteering working part time workfare program so I think that it's still very reasonable that she can they can meet that requirement. Thank you. Represent long you're recognized I have a motion of the property Thank you. Representative Dalby you're recognized thank you Mr chair of representing road I want to say first off I'm supportive of your bill but I've also gotten a text of. Message that I think you may want to consider before an before we take a final vote of. Have you talked to workforce services and if not are you aware that This bill might need to be reviewed make sure it falls under the federal unemployment low. That I'm sorry well the reason why I'm asking that is because I believe they have sent this off for it to be reviewed because it has to comply with that federal unemployment low in the question is would you be willing just to pull it down for just till the next time we meet so that they can get that report back from the in a US department of labor to make sure it aligns with that law in that it can be done your bill could be done in alignment with federal law not to kill your bill but just to make sure it all aligned so that it can do what you want to do and I think with this committee wants to do would you yes I think they're just waiting from what I understand they're waiting for a report back from the US department of labor and that wouldn't do anything to to kill your bill but it would make sure that the of the languages in the line with that so that it can all be done correctly would you consider that possibly so that we can make sure that's correct yeah and subject my phone when doing his part this is not possible for just if I had a text of somebody who you know last minute I I didn't see one about the issue I'm happy to share what I just got no you're fine I'm I believe that they see that text I have spoken works for services not about this bill and I spoke with them I think as reasons maybe early this week or late last week so they did not raise that concerns me at that time and this bill has been filed I think for at least a couple of weeks I believe it is complying with federal law I will tell you that that is a concern if if that's the case I will reach out to them talk to them after committee today because I want to see if that is the case they did not raise the issue to me when I spoke to them. Earlier this Monday or Friday or whatever it was that. Mister chair may I read read this to him just because I think we want to see this bill be a good bill some I read this to to the Mr Underwood with a question. Yes If the tax is sent to me is that this bill is been sent to the United States Department of Labor yesterday referred for review for conformity with the federal unemployment low have not heard back from the US department of labor yet said we would like to make sure that the way it's written aligns with the unemployment low so that the workforce services can do with it is that you want done and I think that that's a valid concern because we don't want to pass something that they can't implement we want to be able to be implemented so once again my question to you is if you would be willing just to pull it down for today and bring it back so the next week so they get that report back in your bill is in good shape that's all my question is yeah no I appreciate the question I think from what I've apartment list misunderstood I think it sounds like they just want to review it they don't necessarily or not raising concerns about the bill necessarily they're just looking for that report to confirm that I would say on that I've I could be wrong I feel confident that the bill does comply so I would like to keep running it but I appreciate the opportunity I will also say that that is something that will we'll have that report by the time it goes to Senate committee and so I think we'll have that that opted to know that as well but I I feel confident those good as it is because they corrected but that's I think that's my position at this time so thank you. Okay. Representative calling you're recognized. Thank you Mr that I mean that the sum of my concern to that the congressman had have to approve and authorize some of this stuff and they're they're not taking them. no plans to open the application process again so just wanted to. I think that some of the things you're talking about. Thank you at thank you appreciate the I don't know if I don't I'm not answer questions but I wasn't at. Yeah are you aware of those things I guess that. Can you restrict what doesn't doesn't doesn't Congress some have to authorize and had approved this application process I mean that these things in that they're not accepting those applications sure so I guess maybe I'm hoping not possess any questions be sure certainly federal law dictates what the parameters are but state law has the state has flexibility I'm kind of sitting adding these work requirements again we've done this other programs in Arkansas and we passed a bill just last session to my knowledge has not been any issues with any of those those and based off the people who've he's helped me with this bill in researching this I feel confident that it's it's good it's combined. You representative Richardson you're recognized representative under what thanks for a this bill at I just wanna make sure that I'm clear on section the. Section B. one in G.. as I read this bill you're specifically this section form against real quick sure what page online and. Page two. Item. G.. S. part of your bill kind of building or what represent Dalby I mention your bill excludes people that are currently receiving unemployment compensation correct. Right well if they would right yes of the lady say that correctly okay so if if they're already receiving unemployment compensation and it wouldn't be applicable that the concern over whether or not we would be in compliance yes that's correct as long as they're compliance with that program. Thank you. Okay seeing number was giving her representative Burch you're recognized thank you Mr chairman representive Underwood might understand that nobody from DWS workforce services contacted you about the report that was just referenced earlier to my knowledge that I did speak with about another bill that did not raise issues with this bill okay thank you. Okay see no more questions. Of. We have a in the audience we have speak for against the bill of speaking against the bill is Lara Callum's. If you would please come by yourself for the record and who you represent. Is Mike on yes. Good morning Mr chairman members of the committee on Lara Callum's I'm with Arkansas advocates for children and families we have worked since nineteen seventy seven on public policy in particular to make Arkansas a better place for children to grow up at we impose house bill eleven ninety six based in part on our state's previous experience with work reporting requirements but also on the abundant research that exists regarding policies like this we already know that from our own experience that work requirements don't actually improve employment outcomes or raise people out of poverty they're based on the false notion that people who benefit from public assistance don't have an incentive to work without a requirement like this they will require the state to create additional red tape for participants to navigate and our own states experience with requirements on Medicaid shows that many people who qualify actually would be incorrectly kicked off the program and in this case become homeless in twenty eighteen what are some of you all it's before yours time in the legislature but we had more than eighteen thousand our Kansans lose their healthcare coverage even though ninety seven percent of the population were either meeting the necessary hours worked or qualified for an exemption and exemptions of this a proposal in this work requirement it's much more narrow than those were and the comparable work requirements are already on our snack program for example the other current worker Carmen on snap applies to able bodied adults without dependents and that means that adults with dependent children are exempt but house bill eleven ninety six would exempt adults with dependents four months or younger as you heard at during the questions earlier and are work requirements on Arkansas works which was the Medicaid program at the time exempted older adults over fifty. This legislation would apply work requirements to participants as old as sixty four so if we had that much trouble and red tape and kicking people off who are qualifying with up with even stricter rules on this one we would see even more people who qualify to be kicked off we know it's easier for people to get and maintain stable employment if they first have stable housing so we maintain that we shouldn't take it away from those who have trouble getting back on their feet thank you Mr chairman members of the committee I'd be happy to answer any questions you have but with the caveat that I'm filling in for our resident policy expert who can get to the capitals today. We have a question in the mind take your questions okay. Representative ray you're recognized thank you Mr chair and thank you for your testimony it sounded to me and I don't want to correct me if I'm mistaken but it's it sounds like you were sort of portraying a work requirement as being punitive in some in some sense cool why why is why is it bad that someone work NO. We definitely I take pride in my work we definitely understand the importance of work it's the way that programs like this are implemented that they end up people who are working and up caught in the red tape that's what we saw with Medicaid a definitely not against working definitely want families to have work in to rise up through our employment system the research just shows the requirements like this don't actually accomplish that so you don't think the participants will be able to comply. It's the it's the way that we have implemented them with Medicaid ninety seven percent of the people actually were working or were exempted but they were but those eighteen thousand people are still kicked off because it was so hard to work through the bureaucratic system to show that they were working for N. training. We definitely want people to be working in and to get trained for better jobs but often times to protect the the requirements like this create the red tape that actually kicks off the folks who are trying so the process of you're what you're saying is the process of reporting. Their volunteerism or their training or their work it's it's. It's so difficult to report that the people can't they can't possibly comply with it so if you're saying it definitely happened with Medicaid folks who were who were working and who were who were complying it was very difficult for them to work that system okay thank you Sir. Thank you see no other questions we appreciate your testimony thank you. UP next speak against the bill is Kendall Lou Allen. Please identify yourself for the record please press the button in front of you. Are you gonna. Good morning chair and other members of the committee my name is Kendall Llewellyn I'm here representing the center for Arkansas legal services we're a nonprofit law firm we serve low income our Kansans in civil or non criminal cases much of my work there is devoted to landlord tenant issues and public housing and other federally funded housing programs. Safe affordable housing is incredibly scarce and those who are lucky enough to access it through public housing and other programs will go to great lengths to keep it. Reasonable people may disagree about whether the work requirements contemplated under this bill are a good idea so I'm here to discuss whether they are legal the short answer is that they are not because they are preempted by federal law. Public housing is funded by the US department of housing and urban development or HUD and this money comes with a lot of streams some of those strings take the form of federal regulations in statutes about how public housing is run. When there's a conflict between state and federal law the federal law controls under the supremacy clause to the US constitution and this bill directly conflicts with federal law specifically hud regulations that I will discuss there's actually already a work requirement in public housing under federal law and it's quite different from the one considered under this bill tenants in public housing have to volunteer eight hours a month unless they fall under some sort of exemption such as working and. Other exemptions are if they're sixty two years of age or older blinder disabled things of that nature similar to this bill after tenet fails to do this the Housing Authority can choose not to renew that person's lease when it expires however these regulations expressly for bed Housing Authority from evicting that person in the middle of a lease term which seems to be a requirement under this bill of housing authorities these are just a couple examples examples of conflicts between federal law in this bill. Simply put state legislature should not be involved in these kinds of public housing issues for for this reason and I think this law is fairly likely to be struck down by the courts if it's enacted and I'm also concerned about the liability it could create for housing authorities or perhaps our cities and counties as they are forced to try to comply with conflicting state and federal law. And with that I'd like to thank the committee for their time and answer any questions that they may have. We do have a question here representative bunker you're recognized thank you chairman thank you for your testimony I have a question about you said under federal law there's already a work requirement under hood. Yes there is. Follow. Yes go ahead I at one time held more her doubters in garland county hot springs in anybody else I've never heard about a work requirement I have many of those I'm in favor of this bill because it also. The way the head doctors were were done in so I understand them is they figured that individual's income and when it fell short then hood cover the rest of the rent so if they do work and have more income and actually save taxpayers a lot of money. Correct. And I guess the one of the questions was if that is a law why is it not being communicated to some of the biggest landlords the covers of the raptors on why should not be in being used in Arkansas. I'll try to answer those questions separately the the main issue that I see is that in federally funded housing there are different kinds of programs in that world you call them different kinds of subsidies and a section eight voucher or housing choice voucher like representative McGrew is discussing is a different program from public housing and it is governed by a different set of federal regulations and actually I'm not sure if there is a work requirement for housing choice vouchers which would be why local landlords are aware of that requirement that requirement may not exist for housing choice vouchers however it does exist for public housing and it's it twenty four CFR nine sixty point six oh three as to the question about whether it's safe taxpayer's money if. Public housing residents were to work Presumably. The. Public housing is incredibly scarce these units go quickly so someone will live in them You know if someone is. I I don't believe that it would change the amount of money that I don't think that that affected taxpayers in any direct way to answer questions all right. Is the yes go ahead if the and I'm pretty familiar with the matter they were figured on for instance they would take the the tenets income and would only take thirty percent of it so they would take thirty percent that income. And then pay the rest of the rent so I don't understand you say it wouldn't if they're figuring it on income of thirty percent of their income increases then that would take a bigger portion of the rent. That the tenant would pay proportion rate it has to save the taxpayers money. Well I'm not sure if it would directly save the taxpayer money because any money that save would go back into programs for the Housing Authority so that money would be spent either way I don't think that it would directly save the taxpayers any money but you're correct it would change you know as as attendance income changes the amount of rent that the tenant pays does change as well. Thank you. Representative ray you're recognized thank you Mr chair so I'm reading on page three of the bill toward the end on line seventeen it says. To the extent necessary to carry out this section under federal law each public Housing Authority shall request federal approval from the US department of housing and urban development by January one twenty twenty five. If federal approval is denied each public Housing Authority shall submit a request for for approval within twenty four months of each now so it's it sounds like the concerns that people have expressed regarding whether this is allowed under federal law it seems to me that section of the bill would work itself out as is am I wrong in. My conclusion there I think that's a fair point representative ray and my concern is that I think the language is still ambiguous and I'm concerned that some Housing authorities may just go ahead and implement this bill you know at the risk of losing their charter which would be disastrous for them and the people they serve It could perhaps be reworded so that the housing authorities have to request in advance permission from hide and I think that that would put them in a much better position. K. Singh no other questions we appreciate your testimony thank you. Okay representive Underwood you ready to close. Well I'm I'm sorry of you're recognized the. Representative Dalby but not for a question but just for some clarification because I didn't always want to be accurate. In the interim time since the questioning has begun the workforce services attorney has just received just a few moments ago eight letter from the department of labor saying that at this time with this particular bill they're not identifying any conformity issue so I wanted to make sure we were clear on that. So that the. Yes I just they just got that and send it to me so I didn't want to miss only to anybody that they just got that someone to make sure I think that cleared up any questions I had no I greatly appreciate that and I was just I guess also this is my closing I was just taking a circular has a center Senate since once on this and we reached out to the governor's office they have not expressed any concerns the department of labor have success stated they have not reached out to the sponsors and they would have they would have concerns so so the doctor said that clarification and all I know you've heard a lot they saw disclosed saying again I think this is good policy I think work requirements help individuals it helps taxpayers thank this is helps us provide services to those who truly need services I'm closed Richey gas. Representative long you're recognized Mr Miller make motion do pass as amended. I have a motion do pass as amended all in favor say aye. Okay. Thanks discussion. Okay I'll go ahead I apologize I didn't see you. Thank you Mister chair I I just want to clarify something for the benefit of committee you know the department of labor question is one question but the conflict in federal and state law that is the wellness talking about as a different issues so even if the department of labor signs off that doesn't necessarily remove the conflict that sounds like a very real conflict that will lead to some serious issues for public housing also want to mention that there was I think a little bit of confusion representative group is questioning about section eight vouchers versus public housing want to be clear that those are different things what we're talking about here is public housing so if there was some sort of talking past each other on that that seems like that one that's what that may have been a those are really just the points I think everything else is been raised in this work requirements ultimately not going to be doing what we hope it's going to do it's going to create more problems and it's probably going to be thrown out it sounds like from the expert so I'm opposed thank you. Okay any other comments. Represent right thank you Mr chair I want to thank representive Underwood for bringing this bill I'm going to vote for this bill because I think it's a very good idea you know that some of the testimony it struck me that the they were characterizing the work requirement as almost punitive and that bothers me a little bit because I think that that work is a good thing I think it's beneficial to the individual and to society that it brings it promotes human for flourishing and fulfillment and this is really this is really a part time work requirement in this bill it's twenty hours a week and it's not even just work it could be training for work preparation for work it could be volunteering in your community so there's a lot of different ways to meet it I just don't think it's cruel or inhumane to ask able bodied adults people who are prime working age to to to work at least part time in exchange for for government services you know I was at a briefing with the state chamber the other day and they said that there are sixty thousand unfilled jobs in our state and I think if we did more to promote work throughout our public assistance programs we could help reduce that number of open jobs and I've been reading recently some of the work of. A political comment conoce named Nicholas ever staff with the American enterprise institute and he makes the observation that we currently have seven million able bodied prime age adult males in our country who are just not participating in the labor force and there's a lot of reasons as to why that so but I think legislation like this can help address some of those issues and that's why I'm supporting this bill. Represented representative McGrew you're recognized. Thank you chairman and also just like to speak for this job I wasn't sure I didn't understand that vouchers which are funded by the public are not part of public housing there may be different clarification that I don't understand what I do know is that public taxpayer money paid for the rent and having rented to a lot of them and have some that are actually great tenants and some there in definite need to improve I'm absolutely for those but also being in that position where a lot of them would come and ask for cash works we could be on the table so would be shown so that they didn't have to contribute more I'm just in favor of having someone pay their bills if they're physically willing and able to and with the the shortage of the on the work force I think it's a great idea and I support this bill thank you. Okay. Seeing no more questions. All in favor of the motion I mean of the order say aye. Those opposed say no. I seven. Thank you thank you may appreciate time. You have UP next is representative Cavenaugh house bill eleven eighteen. Thirteen nineteen I apologize. Please identify yourself to the record and proceed. Thank you Mr chair Frank have our representative district thirty of this is a simple bill that will allow municipalities and their utilities to actually look at the costs associated with the entire life of the project rather than the initial bid price because sometimes the initial bid price is not the lowest when you look at the life of the project currently state agencies are able to do this and this but I would just Loughman disabilities to be able to do the same thank. Okay you representative agree you're recognized question coming from the construction industry a lot of that in the over the counter the project had to do a lot with the way that is engineer so I'm I guess I'm concerned that that could be taken care of the engineering when you allow. The authority. The decision to decide for that how are they going to decide whether it's costly is going to be their opinion or who makes that decision because when you're when you're putting a price it is a public speed it seems to me like you work long time on that be it and then the the people that you're waiting to can decide whether they believe it's it's gonna be more costly in effect for House second be determined well they'll have to do their due diligence but a simple way to explain it is if I'm going real well and I have to drill it but the well will only last me thirty five years on the way it's engineered the different parts of it and then the other B. and says no that's going to last you seventy years so you're going to have a way that you're able to keep it and know that you're going to have a cost that associate it although up front the seventy year be it might be more but the thirty five is actually more expensive because you have to come back in drill again and do all the work and so that's going to allow them to look at what it is based upon currently state agencies do the same thing this is nothing that not currently being done in government this is just allowing the municipalities to be able to do the same thing state agency does. Thank you. Any other questions from committee. Turning revenue and audience signed up to speak for against this bill. Saying under. Would you like to close and close my bill and I make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. Those opposed say no resolution to bash your bill. we'll be meeting next Wednesday I'll try to get in a Jenda out. Sir. Well I. Mr bilking the Senator representative who got out I told you you had opposition your bill and I told them that you you weren't in the other day and I told him I had spoken to you that I would wait. We would not run this today I said I'd run it next week. All right.