House Convenes

And by the member staff press and guests in the gallery sustained to be led in prayer by represent Lane Jean and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to be led by representative Lane Jean. Right. About seventy father were thankful for all the blessings is Dave with thankful as this body for able to come together and do the business of the state we ask your blessings and favor be on us today. General we ask that you watch over the first responders of this state and this nation the military personnel the protection every day we pray that your guidance your love in your care will be on them the role we just ask that you be we just today as we. Do the business of the state that we do it in a. Cadden Christian like manner. Let us not lose our. Sense of love for one another. Give us wire centers shortcomings in Christ's name we pray amen. Let. Members please indicate your presence by pushing yellow present button prepared machine Mr Clerk. Cast out Mr Clark. By the with the ninety members present chair sees a quorum are there any request for leave. President Brooks for purpose leave you're recognized leaf representative Perry is Lee Brandt represent Perry. So noted represent Coleman for what purpose or leave you're recognized leave for representative LOL is leave grant represent hollow well. So noted representative gray for what purpose. You're recognized leave for representative Eubanks is leave granted for represent Eubanks. So noted represent clout for what purpose leave you're recognized leave a representative Barker is leave granted for represent Arkansas. So noted represent Gazaway for purpose leave you're recognized leave a representative Mayberry granted for RepresentativeHouse. So noted represent wing for what purpose leave for representative Warren is leave grant represent Warren. So noted representative back for what purpose leave the representative Miller is leave granted represent Miller. So noted represent Vaught for purpose late you're recognized leave for a representative Cavenaugh is leave granted represent Canaveral. But it. The million for what purpose leave a representative right represent of rye is leap ran for president Brij. noted. Represent Fredrick Love moves we dispense the reading of the previous day's Journal without objections so ordered are there Reports from select committees are their portion standing committees are there any is there any unfinished business are there any Executive communications. Mr Clark please read Senate bill seven thirty one. Senate bill seven thirty one by representative Brian to status right of privacy concerning current affairs twenty nineteen that's nation status to establish a grant program for coming ninety really funds or. Or American rescue plan active duty twenty one funds into declared emergency. President Wardlaw for what purpose action. Let's hear your objection object to the Germaneness of this bill that was a ruling of the Speaker when the bill was read yesterday. Some Wardlaw elaborate on your objection. Yesterday committee we heard testimony from the FNA. That the A. R. P. funds cannot be used in this bill therefore on his face value. It had the sentence in the bill but cannot be used means is not germane to the call of this extended regular session. Resolution. Represent Wardlaw I've already ruled on the Germaneness when the bill came to the house yesterday I've reviewed the bill and determined that on the reading of the bill that it was germane given that it did reference the American rescue plan act. Object to your ruling. You asking to appeal the decision does appeal to the decision of your rule. The appeal is noted and is referred to the rules committee. The House stand in recess for five minutes. The House come back to order. Representative eaves recognized for announcmenet of rules committee will meet in fifteen minutes nine thirty in room one fifty one. Represent Lowery for what purpose. One of inquiry you're recognized. Could you clarify as to why on a previous appeal the decision the chair that it was a vote of the body but this one is being sent to rules committee on the previous appealing of the chair that was appealed when the bill came across the desk in the only information that was available was the bill itself in this case as I understand represent Wardlaw is appeal he is appealing it based on testimony and information is presented in a House committee that testimony information there's not a outside of There's no real way in which the House could consider that testimony without sending it to a committee the rules committee will meet and I've been advised by the parliamentarian they would make a recommendation as to the Germaneness of the bill specifically asked my ruling that ruling will be that decision the rules committee will be reported back to the house and then the house will have the opportunity to vote on that on whether to. Which that is still likely to term in the exact wording because it gets kind of tricky but but basically there will be an opportunity for the house to vote on that so the difference is now this is after a committee action with testimony and to allow test may be taken thank you for clarification represent Dotson for what purpose any query you're recognized Should the ruling of the House Committee come back what would the vote threshold for approving that be. In. President Dotson what I'd like to do is take that up when we come back to make sure that I don't miss state anything because there is there is we wanna make sure the question is correct as to what the vote actually is whether it's a vote in favor of the decision that I made or a vote in favor of what the rules committee may or may not do so if I will when we come back we will we will deal with that. Representative Kinsey for what purpose question you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker and that was part of my question I also I did not catch what meeting what room is the and will be online yes in the public one fifty one and it will be online thank you president Gazaway for purpose point of inquiry you're recognized is there a time period to appeal the decision of the chair. Because my understanding of how this process has worked was that an objection was made. The decision a decision on that objection was made the bill was sent to committee the bill has passed committee the bill is ready for presentation on the floor. And then and the appeal is made and is there so my question is is there a time period within which an appeal must be made. Or can we just do this at any point. Is it still the will and decision of the body. Represent clout for what purpose. Certification you're recognized representative Wardlaw stated what happened Committee as far as testimony from DF and a and I just like for to be on the record that we received the members of the committee received a handout from the F. in a that said they had saw Council and outside body had said that those funds may not be used they did not say those funds shall not be used so I ask for clarification on that so may not be used meant that the final ruling has not taken place yet those funds may be used just wanted to go on record okay thank you represent clout and that and that would be information that could be provided to the rules committee. Represent Payton for what purpose I request let's hear your request we have a committee members who have signed payors on voting on the bill they have had no opportunity to sign players are present pairs for this type of vote that may or may not happen on the house floor so I would request that we have a minimum of three hours for those members to get here to cast their vote. It represent Payton that would be that would essentially have to be made as a motion to delay action right now there is no action that's a motion that could be made. When we come back. Or it. So at this point there's no action to be taken at the point in time there is action be taken we could take a motion to postpone action until a date to a time certain. Thank you Mr Mister Speaker I don't want to disenfranchise those members who thought they'd be able to vote on this so will you take that motion at the proper time. Sure thank you. Once from for what purpose parliament injured inquiry to inquiry. This bill has been vetted for the Senate it's going to the Senate public health it's going through the Senate floor it's gone through the House Public Health and now we're sending it back to rules. I'm wondering why are we setting a new precedent because we object to a bill and want to kill it that we're sending it to a different committee and during this process. In my view it's similar to when we have an objection on a fiscal impact I know that that's occurred at least once in my time as Speaker where we send it to rules for a determination and it came back to the floor I believe is a I believe it was a request for a fiscal impact where we recess and went rules so I think it's similar to that. Thank you. Any other questions. Represent Bryant for what purpose parliamentary inquiry you're recognized is it. We able to appeal the ruling of the chair to Senate the rules and keep here in the body. Sure. The motion. Payton. All right. Represent right let's hear your motion motion the ruling of the chair since the rules. That's proper motion it is debatable. My understanding is present we I get to explain my decision first and then you get to present your motion. So with this subject with this objection. the question has been brought up as to the propriety of. The reference to the American rescue plan funding. Which has always been a concern I've stated to the House that in my view the bill had to contain both any bill on COVID nineteen had to contain both information error provisions as to COVID nineteen but then also had to contain a funding reference to the American rescue plan. On its face it apparently did that now the concern I think is always been and actually they're bills that have come through that I had some concern on that is do it basically can someone just insert that language into the bill in order to make it your main. In my view the bill satisfied those requirements now based on the testimony yesterday and what happened in the rules committee I receipt of received a number of requests from a number of members on both sides of the aisle as to this issue. Clearly there was something stated in in committee testimony that was stated in committee information that has been presented that calls into question whether the whether the bill as it is presently presented. Actually can provide American rescue plan funding in light of the fact that that if those objections arise from the testimony and information was presented I believe that it would be best to send it to rules to allow rules to take that testimony understanding that whatever happens there will come back to the house floor and the membership will be able to vote on that. And so that's that's my reasoning for sending it there for the rules committee to consider that type of information and why I believe that's most appropriate as opposed to just merely taking it and allowing the house to vote at this point in time. I mean that's that would be the other option would be the house vote right now on my decision in this in this instance were able to take testimony through the rules committee again I believe this is similar to what has happened I believe with fiscal impact statements in the past but don't hold me to that but I believe that's what's happened in the past and so it seems to be the the best way to handle this again the house will ultimately get to weigh in on that issue. That's my explanation represent bright you're recognized to explain your motion. Thank you Mr Speaker thank you members I'm I'm not gonna make any assumption of of what's gonna happen if it goes to rules committee I think we all even me in the first term no. There's there's several things that happen and it is what it is is part of the process of sausage being made that being said I think this body today right now should make this decision this is important vision affects thousands of our Kansans. Additionally you and concerned with what representive cloud said you know different a statement of may there's been no ruling on this there's been no understanding and how our proponents were just like any other funds that are given to the state the state creates basically the rules and I got a follow a broad set of rules of the federal government gives you broad almost brother bay. Then we create a narrow down those rules and then we're subject to audit so all the funds we got have broad federal rules narrow state rules subject to audit so I know there's there's probably states right now violating these laws violating their their own our proposals but they don't know that because the rules are so broad so once the federal government comes in the audit. That's one and no so I appreciate a vote to sustain the ruling of the of the chair and keep this open house. To the point of clarification the motion the motion as I understand it is to is to over rule. I let the parliamentarian. Clarify. Thank you Mr Speaker. The question before the House. When this debate concludes will be to sustain the ruling of the chair. The and the ruling to sustain is his decision to send it to rules. That that will be the question. So when affirmative vote on that would support the decision to send the ruling I may send the the question to rules committee a negative vote would keep the the debate on the appeal here on the house floor. Representative Brian is explained the. A motion we would like to speak against the motion represent Wardlaw you're recognized speak against the motion. Thank you Mr chair it's funny he mentioned some of those other states are not abiding by the rules and they'll fill in on it let me remind you guys about a year ago are we hired a company C. R. N. Haggerty and I'm for not pronouncing that correctly to watch our cares Act money. We moved that contract over in council to also watch R. A. R. P. funds. That consulted has sent a letter to me if an a on this bill to say whether you can or you can't use this money they testified a very minute part in the committee yesterday that you cannot use this money for that. They're willing to testify in rules today to clarify their testimony. Since when do we not want to hear testimony from experts are the public on a bill since when did we become the body that we make the decisions for the people we work for without their opinions that's that's that's not what we're about people it's not what I'm about I'm about listening to the people that I work for and listening to the experts and make an educated decision so with that I'd appreciate a yes vote on this motion on to sustain rule the chair absent Dotson for what purpose. Let's hearing correct I've been here almost ten years and I haven't seen this done before so I and I haven't bill funded in the rules. So what is the vote threshold on this motion to sustain the ruling of the chair to send it to rules and also if it goes to rules and the body wishes to object to the ruling of rules or whatever comes out what is the vote threshold to overturn the ruling of rules. Both both scenarios you're asking the same question what's the threshold to sustain the ruling of the chair. The threshold is that a motor a majority OR a time. To overturn the ruling of the chair is is a a majority in the negative. To overturn a ruling of the chair is a majority in the negative is a majority of no votes. Of people voting of a quorum it's not it's not of the of of of the membership if the is have the quorum. So. The it. The ruling of the subcommittee rules subcommittee. If this goes to rules and the. It comes back out with whatever decision is made. How much is it to to affirm that report or how much is it to overturn that report. Other to is it just a simple majority for each. I thank the report of the rules committee will be a recommendation to the House and then the house will take that in the end they asked us what is will be the the basis for the the vote to sustain the ruling of the chair. Also then there would be a separate vote to sustain the ruling the chair based off of what the. what whatever rules committee decides or recommends yes thank you. Right represent Wardlaw has spoken against the motion we would like to speak for the motion represent Ladyman you're recognized speak for the motion. Thank you Mr Speaker I think I'm speaking for the motion. It's a confusing but. We need to vote on this in here. Yesterday we hired over two hours of debate the FNA was there they brought the form that said this may. Representive cloud is exactly right the form said this may not be usable. But it also may be usable. the FNA want to the end of the table they passed out the form without even coming to the chairman asked them. It was just passed out he said now he went over his form zero questions. One question this question was not raised in committee. The committee that is looking at this particular bill. So why didn't I wasn't brought up yesterday. If that was an issue. Same people that are. Oppose this now we're in the committee they were on the committee. And they're on the losing side of the committee. Now let me move on to one of the things. If we're going to debate this we all represent thirty thousand people we don't need to send this to a committee of seven or eight or whatever how many people and let them debate It let's debate right here in the public we all can have input on where this is going the experts. Third party who was hired by the person that presented. The the information to us they've already had their opportunity to speak in a committee so we need to make the bank this appear on the floor so I would ask you to vote for this motion. President Ladyman has. For the motion just point of clarification again I remind the membership regardless of what the rules committee does it comes back to the floor for a vote one way the other so I just just to make sure everybody's clear on that representive Ladyman has spoken in. Favor of the motion like speak against the motion represent great you're recognized speak against the motion. Thank you Mr Speaker and I was a committee yesterday and I did vote no additional transparency but as we're talking about what the FNA said or didn't say so I've got that the fiscal impact pulled up and it does say may not be able to use a R. P. A. funds to provide restitution but it also says a RPA does not authorize the use of A. R. P. A. funds to reimburse an employee for economic losses due to failure to comply with an employer's job requirements so if one says that they said may they did say may but then they also says it does not allow so I think it should go we should let the if and they come before us and say is may correct or does not allow correct let them come tell us which one it is so I will be voting against this motion thank you representive gray is spoken against the motion we would like to speak for the motion represent Payton you're recognized speak for the motion. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues. I'd like to say this is a veiled attempt but is not even a veiled attempt to kill this bill I'm asking that you vote in favor this motion and then we'll move on to vote on whether to uphold the ruling of the Speaker when he originally ruled that it's germane you just heard from the parliamentarian the difference in those two vote is one. And at high. Would go against the bill. But it takes a majority to go in favor of the bill and that's trying to simplify it as much as I can based on what he just said you've seen a lot of vote. In this house in this body hinge on one vote that that's changing the threshold if you're in favor or against this bill. We have a lot of members of our body. In our caucus. That would be disenfranchised on both vote they don't have pairs for these vote. To one vote could make a huge difference in what whether this bill survives or fails. So don't think that you're just vote on procedure. The bill says that those funds may be available maybe use. Originally it was decided that the ark of funds could not be used for PP and could not be used for testing. And that changed. Regardless of whether today's article rules authorize this usage. Those that can change the federal government can change their rules on how the ark of funds will be used. So this bill is perfectly germane. And it has language in it that allows the use of those funds should they could become available. So let's not try to convince the public. They were voting on procedure here we're voting on the bill on everyone of these vote and I think we've all heard from our constituents and you've got to ask yourself for you were represent the federal government are you will represent your people I appreciate your vote an affirmative on this motion. Representive Payton has spoken in favor motion we would like to speak against the motion represent flowers for what purpose. Question what's your question and I was gonna ask represent pain but I can ask you. Just for clarity because I've heard a couple of references about this bill being killed. If. If we vote. To affirm your decision to send it to rules when it gets to House rules can the house rules committee kill the Bill. No thank you. Representive Payton is spoken in favor the motion we would like to speak against motion represent Pilkington you're recognized speak against the motion. I know a lot of people speaking in favor of the motion were voting no I voted yes in Committee lakes rivers and flowers stated in like the Speaker stated we can send this to the rules and we're still gonna have to come back of our mind you know we're supposed to be here for three days and it's been quite a long time and I would rather not Russian porn decision like this that has large ramifications that's what we spent two hours taking testimony and not limited debate like we did like we do in the past because we have created artificial deadlines for itself here we can take a lecture time I know there's people who are probably thought this is gonna be pretty normal day and. Apply now the know that they need to get in their car and come back down here to to vote on this so I don't want to disenfranchise anyone like representative Payton said I'd rather send this to the rules committee hearing the testimony give people time to get back down here thank you. President Pilkington is spoken against the motion represent all and for what purpose. Motion to your motion motion for immediate consideration of the motion. That that is a proper motion it's not debatable representative would occur for what purpose of clarification let's we now have back and forth at least a dozen times and nobody knows what the precise question is going to be could you state what the question the house will be considering thank you. The question B. shall the. The parliamentarians telling me we need to take up this motion and then I can clarify what the next. If the motion is successful. All right. The motion is for immediate consideration of representative Bryant's motion. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. All right so Department Terry can correct me if I'm wrong represent Bryant made a motion to sensually to overrule my decision to send the question to the rules committee. Parliamentarian is advised me though that when that is actually pose to the House the question is shall the decision of the chair standards the judgment of the House. The S. a yes vote is in favor of my decision to send the bill to rules. A no vote is to keep that question here and not send it to rules and then it would be left for the house to make a decision on the Germaneness of the bill so a yes. Sustains my decision since the bill the rules I know. Is against my decision is in favor it I know is in favor of representative rights position. And the bill states here. Any questions. Yes since it's rules no keeps it here the threshold. A majority in the negative keeps it up go from going to rules so it's of those voting. Therefore a tie goes to the chair. Clear enough. Yes to rules no keeps it here. All in favor say aye hi. Those opposed. So the nose have. I see five hands. Again the question before the House. Question before the House sends the bill to roll it is to sustain the decision the chair to stand as a judge on the house a yes is in favor of sending the bill to rules and no keep the Bill here on the floor prepare the machine Mr Clark. Has everyone voted. Has everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of fifty one yeas thirty six nays. Zero present the jet the the decision the chair stands is the judgment of the House. Rules committee will meet right now. Room one fifty one. The House will stand in recess until adjournment of the rules committee. Take a seat. We've got a parliamentarian here there's any questions. All right members we're here to consider representative Wardlaw the motion to appeal the ruling of the Speaker on the Germaneness of I believe Senate bill seven forty one representative Wardlaw you're recognized to present your motion. Thank you Mr. Yesterday and public health committee Allen McVeigh came B. committee and he testified with a financial impact that he didn't think funds could be used for this purpose on the floor today we heard the word may I pass Allen to come today to provide testimony on the committee to clarify those terms that were used in public health yesterday if you following me to second page of the bill to line twelve it almost looks like they inserted this paragraph in the bill just to make it to remain on the face value which is what the Speaker has to make his ruling on it says the department of finance may establish a grant program which means they may or may not establish a grant program for cover relief funds to be received on the American rescue plan acted to end to provide restitution. Any time we provide restitution and I'm not a lawyer but I'm sure we have plenty amend room that we're going to talk to this but any time you provide restitution is normally a criminal act this whole bill sets up a civil action not a criminal action so if you look at that paragraph there's multiple things there that do not play in to the resolution in which we're here we're here to take up cover relief funds we are here to take a redistricting which we have handled. And that is my point of my motion at this bill is not germane the Senate's was talking here solely to get it through the process and it does not in any way ever intend to spend any cover relief funds with that I'll turn it over to Allen with your indulgence to clarify those terms thank you representatives Sir if you would just go and introduce yourself for the record and then you can begin your testimony thank you Mr chairman I'm element that I am represent department finance administration as chief of staff we were asked to review the Senate bill seven thirty one and we have our had a consultant in place for some time we hired with the support of the legislature C. T. H. N. Haggerty consulting's two other provided an extremely valuable service to us the state with respect to the cares Act we've continued that relationship contract for C. T. H. N. Haggerty to also review the American rescue plan act so it is it and based on the review of C. T. H. and Haggerty of the Department finance administration has determined that it is not an eligible activity to use American rescue plan funds for this purpose. Thank you Sir would be glad to take any questions are a committee Mister members you have any questions of either representative Wardlaw Mr McVeigh. All right seeing no questions thank you for your customer we do have several people signed up to speak for and against this motion first on the list is. I can't read the last name Laura or laying on from family and Arkansas for the bill. Yep yep yep yep. Ma'am you're recognized to go and speak. Yeah you have to speak on the motion. About the Germaneness of the of the month in this yeah okay and not to the the we're not debating the bill we're just debating the motion the motion is that we're appealing the speaker's ruling that the bill was germane to the resolution that we passed early on so if you keep your remarks based on the Germaneness or lack there of of this particular item yes Sir yesterday in the House Committee he was very clearly test testified by multiple people that the reason it was germane was the fact that you have more many people being put out of work currently and that the fund was being set up to. Hopefully only partially put them in a situation of home is not full fullness like not to to pay all their mortgage not to to like a full unemployment like. Like a cap on top of their employment or any of those things in. May or may not like you all are stuck on the may. And I understand consultants were hired and one of the things that were discussed in the committee as well as and cancel the been wrong time and time again. For you all annual of hired them fire them hire new ones because you didn't like the outcomes were they were wrong in their interpretation the morning. So. Very clearly the ward may also means may not it means it can be used. based on. Based on the Arkansas fines and the law so as long as the law is written correctly. Then it's not in conflict with the arpa funds and therefore would be germane. So I'm not sure how you all can say would not be germane and I I mean I really truly would like you to to ask me. And and I would. Or clarify how would not be germane and because that's. As families and friends that I know that are losing their jobs I'm not sure how. Their livelihoods are not germane with this bill and we're not we're not here to discuss whether their livelihood is germane that's not the issue our issue is can the American rescue plan funds be used for this purpose at the FNA that is the question of what. But but it's based on the board may. And therefore you're saying may means only may not. That's what your consultant is saying. That you guys said you hired to consult with the gentleman sitting here the gentleman sitting here said that he. That he had read the article funding rules and said that it may not be use that's the way that they interpreted. The ward may does not just automatically assume not. You can you can't just. Insert another word that's not how the language works that's on the English the English language doesn't just insert a new work. So thank you can't just in certain not in there to fit. Someone's once just because they don't agree with the way laws written they can just decide that it doesn't work. Yes. Would you take questions yes of course representative gray you're recognized thank you Mr chairman and that city I went to the will and testify because they were two different wordings in the language here but do you not agree that if they decide at the end of the table and said that it could not be used that's that's my argument they said it could not be used based on their consultants. And they're saying they're saying based on the word may they're interpreting it to mean may not. I disagree with that is what the testimony was at the end of the table the may if I could Mr tears on daltons that may was in the wording of the FAA's fiscal impact and the may I believe was used to say it may not but in the matter what the wording was at the end of the day if whatever consultant says which is what what will follow for us what's the point even hired a consultant for not gonna follow the recommendations you know they do this nationwide for lots of our clients Then they said at the end of the table and say it is not allowed. I think we're just worried upon on words of a statement they put out yesterday. That thank you Mr chairman so what I would what I would say in in return that is once again how many times have has Arkansas or even these other states fired consultants based on the fact that they were wrong in their interpretation and hired someone else based on even other states findings to align with the way it was supposed to be interpreted. That just because you don't like the wording of something because you don't want to findings to be used that way doesn't make their interpretation correct. Even a doesn't want it being used. For this right for the for this for this for this use so they're choosing to interpret that way. Thank you represented by your question you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. So I I agree with representative Grady their wording it's a wording issue so if my child I ask for ice cream for breakfast and I say you may not have it does it still mean that they may have it may not actually when when I have eight children if I am absolutely about my answer I say you cannot have ice cream for breakfast I don't say you may not have ice cream for breakfast it is absolute no you cannot have ice cream for breakfast that is a ridiculous I ask you can't have yogurt with your granola that is great but for dessert you can't have a parfait and that can be used with ice cream so if I say may not my child can still go to the refrigerator and get it because I didn't say can't know what they can do is say for clear mom since you said may. No I have eight children you don't think I deal with this on a regular basis I deal with this on a regular basis. What. The question of the parent and then don't expect me to read them this focus on what we're talking about here but she posited a question based on parenting so I'm I'm I'm just responding and so. It is but is based on morning as a parent so if yes ma'am it is if they ask questions and they and they ask questions even when I taught in school if the student asked that question may they and they had asked for clarification I would say when they could and when they could not because it's all based on clarification not based on absolute eight can and cannot is absolutely a may and may not is based on clarification. Got a question. Thank you Mr chair and I've already said that if in a doesn't want to use the A. R. P. A. funds for this I don't disagree with that they didn't want to use the A. R. P. A. funds for representative Josh Bryant's bill either but they didn't come back in the fiscal statement and say that it was not allowed so I think you know your point saying that they're going to find a way to not pay for it if they don't want to Hey they didn't do that on the bill that I voted yes for earlier in the week can you explain why you think they would find a way to not pay forty one instance when they said it was allowed in another instance. We have to pull that bill up in front of me again I mean I've been here all week like you all have so it's been a very long exhausting week I won't deny that so I would have to look at exactly without wording was definitely differences But he could barely be based operating I mean morning matters we we can also do an agree on that I mean if it if it had the word may in there once again may is a clarification based word. So I mean that's and that's all I'm saying is every single time you use that word you're basing on clarification. Members any other questions. Ma'am I if I'm not mistaken and and we're certainly trying to keep on track here but whether or not this is germane but. The the federal guidelines say the funds may not be used for this purpose that is specifically spelled out in this bill that's what we're trying to figure out whether or not the bill is your main based on that language in the language of the federal guidelines have you read the federal guidelines I have the federal guidelines says that they cannot be used if they get fired for refusing the vaccination if I remember correctly that they would be being fired for not being vaccinated in this bill this bill is written for a right to privacy which means you just can't pass if you can't ask there if you then you just cannot ask so there there's no being fired. Or being hired or anything based on COVID nineteen vaccination status. Thank you members any other questions. Thank you for coming down thank you for your testimony thank you Sir. the next on the list against Israeli women friends of Arkansas. Sturch yes Sir thank you. we have Thank you Jackie Martin. Jackie one you're with convention of states you can begin your testimony once you get seated make sure but of course. Thank you my name is Jackie Martin I am state director for a convention of states and as I've testified last week and this week my testimony hasn't changed now as to the Germaneness. Not only am I a state director of the Commission states but I'm elected official as a J. P. in Cleburne County I deal with language quite often in our ordinances. If you use the word shall. I interpret that to mean you will do it may is more open ended if we can talk about language here. That's my interpretation of how you use specific words when you're saying are directing a agency or department to do specific things. The Germaneness issue here is obviously on words for the questions I've already heard from members of the committee. However I would like to say this also. It is rather disturbing to set among other legislators in the audience and with members of employees of the state. I make comments like. And I'd rather be somewhere else like on the lake then here. When people's lives are in the balance. Know whether that statement is germane or not. I'll leave that up to your interpretation thank you but you ask us to have decorum. I ask you to have to call him as well because we're not playing games here. And the Germaneness. Is on the language obviously so. May to meet leads that wide open as to interpretation as to whether or not. The SNA is directed to create a grant program for restitution of someone who's been discriminated against by their employer. By choosing to ask whether or not. They've had the vaccine. All right thank you ma'am members any questions. Thank you ma'am we have next on the list Allen make baby and they did you want to come back up or have you already. You're okay. Tanya yielding. And you would just please introduce yourself for the record and then you can begin your testimony I'm just here on my behalf. This is ridiculous what's going on here what I have witnessed all this football plan it's like watching some. Bullies on the elementary playground and I do not mean that disrespectfully and I certainly think that you all can agree. But the Germaneness of this issue is. It's obvious as my friendly vinous said the word may can be used in many different ways coming. And I'm very very stressed I'm sure you can say that I'm sure we all. But you guys make people's lives are on the line here something has to be done someone has to take that football and make that call. And I just ask that you. That you listen to god we all sat in their prayed and I hope that he touches your heart deeper than he ever has before. The representative may what's your point. My point is that we are not she's not discussing the Germaneness of the bill and that is what we're here for today thank you would just keep your remarks based solely on whether or not we're talking about the Germaneness of the bill. And it is germane. It is absolutely. And if the funds need to go where they need to go then they will go there. You know it and I noticed by the fact the federal guidelines say they may not be used specifically for this purpose we're trying to get it right I promise you no one's playing games no one's trying to spike the football we're all tired we're as frustrated as you are I probably should have we just want to make sure that we get it right that's what our job is and and that's what we're here to do. The right thing to do would be to pass this bill thank you for your testimony yes. Representative slave you're recognized by your safety. Okay member that is the last person signed up to speak for or against the motion. Senate by. Okay thank god we do another sign in sheet this whole conversation. Thank you represented by. Beach. Meet your you're going introduce yourself for the record and you're recognized to begin your test. Hi my image. I can almost forensic engineer and also I served as an expert witness and consultant. And I know that this thing we have one consultant has made an opinion and I have you ever been in a quorum both sides always have their own consultants and they have their own opinions. And I've seen this happen a lot. If we're deciding whether this is germane or not. I wonder how come we don't have the other side. Opinions and consult. Rather than just one side. This is this is a. I thank tell you just like the redistricting stuff this is all going to go to court. Whether it you for or against it's too long ago court. So I would recommend that you probably get another opinion from another perspective and have them defend it and look at those documents networking. Are you just wait and just let court panel and just go ahead and pass this bill it's all about perception. Are you going to represent the people. We go represent an entity assistance system one of the things that I hear about companies. Companies are actually entities they're not individuals Mr PH please keep your remarks based on whether or not this will remain a major to get off topic I understand I'm sorry that's okay I understand I think you Germaneness of it is that we really need to have another opinion. To look at this look the wording is thank if they both agree. Well no no problem. I said that's all I have thank you members any questions of Mr beach thank you Mister beach from down. And the last unless representative Bryant. Senator Rapert you're recognized thank you Mister chair. Committee I I know we kind of. Got to watch a roller coaster last last week on these issues I like to remind those that we're paying attention to the Senate Senate in when they're addressing the same issue as far as the Germaneness of of all their bills in relation to redistricting and I recall that that the Senator Hickey came in kind of last minute women a stack of papers saying that we we hired a consultant consumption is made the the the interim firefighter rules for the treasury department on our funds are just they're gonna be they're gonna be thank so we hire consultants tell us we're wrong one or right so he came in with this the with the paper and said. We can't use these funds for testing. They may not be used for testing so even these bills that look at our good. And then a few days later D. if a statement shows up on the Senate bills I like to read the bottom of that page. The state of Arkansas retained consultant CT H. Haggerty to advise the state on the use of the distribution operations the council has advised that the use of our funds to cover cover testing for employee is required by Senate bill seven thirty nine but not covered by the employees would be an eligible use of the funds. So I'm not gonna say would put Senator Hickey held his hands was was it I don't know the intent but he said Arkansas is that they may not be used and then the if a statement comes out says they can be used. You're not talking about this this particular bill all right. You're not talking about Senate bill seven forty one. One seven or seven thirty nine I think the intent of the Speaker was to was to say that in accordance with the concurrent resolution ten fifteen. We. The funds are available and we hired a consultant and a consultant as does my administration can be wrong we're we're moving at a really fast pace so I would like it to see that the concurrence of the speaker's decision be upheld. Thank you. Members any questions. Members with no one else signed up to represent will hang on just one second we have a question. Representative Ferguson thank you Mr chair after question representative right he left. Representative right are you talking about the Bill. That you introduced today. That Senate Bill are you saying that what you are reading at the you have taught my that no Sir no Sir Tom another beer okay but I didn't want to be here thank you thank. Thank represent I members no one else signed up to speak for against the bill representative or law you're recognized to close for your motion rather. Thank you Mr. Committee yesterday in committee the sponsor to Senate sponsor this bill said he inserted that sentence because he thought it made it germane if you look back you filed a previous bill Senate bill seven nineteen and on that bill same paragraph says the department of finance administration may establish a grant program to distribute COVID nineteen relief funds doesn't even refer her to the a a RP for money. He went back he sticks a RP money in there so he gets it through on face value the Speaker and president pro tem have to make the decision on face value meaning of the words are in there they have to let it go the FNA is our guidance on all of our funding given a came to committee they said you may not use he came here today and clarify that statement said you could not use this bill was filed with this sentence in there so that we could hear it on face value it cannot be germane because it cannot be used so with that I appreciate a good vote thank you Mr. All right members of we're gonna take a vote now on representative Wardlaw motion. Is there any discussion on the motion. Yes so representative Wardlaw take the motor would you mind restating your motion and and we'll get to what a yes vote means what a no vote means. What we would do it out buddy the motion is whether this bill is germane or not so if you vote yes the affirmative vote would be that the bill is germane if you vote no you're voting did you agree the bill is not germane. Thank you Mr. Representative Dali do you have a okay. Okay represent one more time what a yes vote means what a noble man so we're all clear what we're doing a yes vote is that the bill is germane a no vote is the bill is not germane. Right and that's because the Speaker had declared the bill to be germane. Are all in favor of representative or laws motion signify by saying aye. All those opposing by saying no. The notes have it we were take this report to the house take it up there we are joined. House will come to order. Representatives you're recognized for a report from the rules committee. Thank you Mr Speaker members the rules committee met just a few minutes ago we heard testimony from the FNA about the language in the bill as relates to the Germaneness we heard testimony from many citizens and the rules committee agreed that the bill was not germane so in this case the rules committee disagreed with the speaker's ruling thank you. All right members will now will now proceed with the Question of shall the decision the chair standards the judgment of the House. Represent Payton for what purpose. President McKenzie for what purpose. Question procedural we're not gonna have discussion on the motion yes. But will proceed to discussion on the motion again it's shall the decision the chair standards the judgment the House. This is another one of those that a yes vote is in favor of my decision and it was germane and that would allow the bill to proceed to to be voted on in the house a no vote would. I disagree with over role overruled my decision and would agree with the rules committee and the bill would not proceed forward. Given that this is once again a objection to the decision of the chair parliamentarian advises that I have an opportunity explain my decision again I would just reiterate what I said earlier which was I made a decision based on the bill that was before me when it came over yesterday I believe came over yesterday while we were here on the house floor I looked at it on its face before any testimony or other information was taken on the house and and based on that I made the decision that was germane. At this point. We would proceed with would anyone like to speak against. Against my decision. Against the staying the chair. President Wardlaw you're recognized to speak against the decision of the chair. Thank you Mr chairman we rang Committee DF and a came and testified that it was not a may it was a could not be used for this. For this purpose if you look back there is a has Senate bill filed Senate bill seven nineteen that was filed with our A. R. P. language in the bill that is exactly the same bill sponsor went back and filed it and plug this in and solely to be germane on face value so it is our job as a body to make sure these things stay on the line and stated they are germane this bill on its face value looks germane when you look at the reasons it's using the funds it is not germane so with that I appreciate a no vote. Person can see for what purpose question okay you're recognized for a question and I'm looking for clarity here because your last. Statement just now confused me more because I thought that the ruling from the chair was it was germane are you and yet your last statement I thought you said that you've after looking at it you rule that it was not germane so you rolling your ruling is. This bill is germane. Yes yes yes I made that ruling yesterday when the bill came from the Senate and I signed it to committee I determined it was germane based on reading the bill itself thank you. Represent Dotson for what purpose parliamentary inquiry. thank you if you could referred refresh our memory on what the vote threshold is on this is that a simple majority of the body the quorum and what a tight does. Thank you your Speaker thank you Miss dots for that question The vote threshold is that a a majority or a tie will sustain the speaker's ruling. A majority in the negative would overturn the speaker's ruling. And and if it's the majority it's it's the vote of a quorum it's not fifty one it it's. In president would count in that determination. All right I think it represent Payton. Okay represent Wardlaw has spoken against the the ruling as against the staying the ruling of the chair would anyone like to speak in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair represent Payton you're recognized to speak in favor of staying the ruling of the chair. Thank you Mr Speaker members. I agree that this is germane and I've listened to the arguments into committees about why it may not be germane because as even if you concede that currently the interpretation of the guidance on arpa. Would not allow the funds to be used for this. It's quite possible as happened in the past that the guidance on what those funds can be used for can change. It can change it already has changed so for us to trying to argue whether or not this bill is to remain. Based on what the guidance is today. It's just a false front to disenfranchise those that have paired. And that's what it comes down to you know we have a lot of members who support this bill that are not here because they paired the vote. And somebody stayed up late last night proctor not given credit for being smarter net they probably didn't have stayed up late last night. And figured out a way. To disenfranchise our colleagues. We were trying to take advantage of a procedure that we've used many times impairing their vote. So if you're against this bill vote against the bill. But don't use procedure try to disenfranchise your colleagues and I appreciate you voting in the affirmative hold the ruling of the chair this bill is germane. President Payton has spoken in favor of staying the ruling of the chair when you would like to speak against the standing the ruling of the chair. Would anyone like to speak in favor assisting the ruling of the chair represent Lehman you're recognized speaking favor assisting the ruling a check. Thank you Mr Speaker up colleagues I think we're debating the wrong thing here I I think we need to go back to the basics so I went back and read the proclamation and I agree with the speakers interpretation because if you go back and read this. the motion that the about it being germane or not is not about whether COVID nineteen funds may or may not be used for this purpose. It's about. Whether this bill is related to. COVID nineteen funding so if you go back and look at the proclamation as it was written and approved by us. It says we will we will reconvene to conduct business related only to the following there are five things listed there if you look down and item D. the fourth thing that is listed here's what it says. Considering legislation related to. Number one the COVID nineteen public health emergency. And number two. Distribution of COVID nineteen relief funds you cannot say that this bill does not relate to distribution of the funds that's what it says it does not stay with you can use it or not. But is the bill written related to funding. May or may not is not in there anywhere. So. I'm under the opinion that that we should. Let people know we should vote on this bill what's wrong with voting on a bill. I don't mind going home and telling my people I voted this way because this is what I believe you all want and this is what I believe we should do. Well that's vote on the bill. There's no reason. Not to vote on the bill. We're just mincing words and I mean it's black and white right here. Mayor may not is not in the proclamation. Related is in the proclamation so I would ask for a good vote. Person if tallit for what purpose. Let's hear motion motion for immediate consideration on the motion. That's a proper motion is not debatable the question before the House is the immediate consideration on. The question of shall the decision the chair stand is the judgment of the House this is a vote for immediate consideration all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. All right. Just to be clear members the question before the House is shall the decision of the state that decision of the chair stand is the judgment of the House. A yes vote sustains my decision as to the bill. And the bill. Would then if the if there are. Equal or more votes in the affirmative the bill would stay on the calendar for consideration. A no vote. Over is in favor of over overruling my decision. It would be consistent with the recommendation the rules committee. And if the no votes are in excess. Reiter number of of knows no votes and president votes than there are you a votes then the bill would be determined to be not germane and it would know it would have no further action would be taken in the House on that bill. To be clear. Yes. Is in favor of hearing the bill. Determining it to be germane no. Is it is in favor of it not being germane and the bill would no longer move forward. Any questions. We do have one pair on on the desk. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes representative gray votes no. Witnessed by representative all represented gray is the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote hearing nine please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Again to be clear yes is to sustain and keep the peer the bill no it's to overrule and not hear the bill. The machine Mr Clark. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Asked about Mr Clark. By a vote of forty eight yeas thirty one days and to present the H. decision the chair is sustained. Represent love what purpose inquiry. Let's hear inquiry what was the quorum. It fifty one is the quorum. But in we were time out the the number of of people here so it would have to be one hundred people being present for to be a quorum. Now. The quorum on that that was eighty three. Yeah there were forty nine yeas thirty two nays and to present. The there were more votes in the affirmative to sustain. Mr Clark read Senate bill seven forty three. May seven thirty one. Senate bill seven thirty one by representative Brian just tell us a right of privacy concern concerning current affairs twenty nineteen vaccination status to establish a program from COVID nineteen really funds or made or American rescue plan act of twenty twenty one funds and to declare an emergency. Person right you're recognized explain the bill thank you Mr Speaker thank you colleagues for for going through that exercise to make sure that we do this correctly. What you have before you is a bill that I imagine none of you thought you'd see today I'm honestly myself didn't think I'd see it we had a good compromise bill this chamber I feel. Worked great together to get that out to get it over back to the Senate for the Senate did not pass the Emergency Clause on that bill in indigo associations have is on that side that are affecting us today since the Emergency Clause went through the sponsors of this bill decided that this bill needs to go through in order to give the state of Arkansas the ability a tool to push back against federal mandates would they admit that the bill is perfect I doubt it. But our any of our bills perfect they all have their own issues however with this tool does is allows the state to push back on the mandates are coming and like to read a quote that I read from the Associated Press last night. Forcing people to do something they do not want to do is rarely a winning political strategy. Yeah with industry on his side Biden has emerged as the unlikely advocate of browbeating tactics to drive vaccinations. So most I read is he's very disappointed with all the religious and medical exemptions afforded to these individuals that have true fears about an untested gene therapy being forced upon them in order to stay employed. True fears now this was something that was normal a normal vaccine that has years of testing years of understanding years of application. Or if it was something to have liability liability against the employer requiring it liability against the manufacture causing these injuries. And I know the the argument is will millions of doses of been given. Millions of people have had the vaccine without reaction. What I am I am elated that those injuries that occur before the seven hundred fifty thousand people that are recording voluntarily in the system that hardly gets any activity the recording voluntarily that they're having problems with this. And and nobody's pointed back nobody's going back. Only one of these gene therapy drugs is approved by the federal minister for drug administration the other two are not approved yet. And there's asking for emergency use to give to five to eleven year olds. So what's next is Department educations come down mandate vaccines. Now we have a religious bills sale philosophical and medical exemptions sure but could they say you're not going to get this funding. Unless you allow this I think built will say they have that power OSHA saying they have that power. So what this bill does is give a tool. Two are turning general to say Hey our Kansans have spoken they have said no. You're not gonna ask. Our vaccination status if the state wants to do that they can I believe this is the state's right. How does it the argument goes to the other bill sure there's arguments that employer has rights to. But when you have a employers that collude together. The form a corporate only Garki that reaches out to the extent of their supply chain to the extent of their support suppliers producing goods for them to where they have to make the decision that they didn't wanna be forced to make this bill is a relief to them. That was the bill we previously passed to do our job good sure is a great bill. With with the governor vetoed I don't know we veto this likely. We pushing over the next week to ensure if he does that is that is not gonna be embarrassed probably. But at the same time. This bill pushes the will of the people. My people my thirty thousand constituents now to some probably disagree with Mr but that's both have consequences issue I'm elected to represent them and they have spoken to me and said. But they're actually disappointed with the previous bill that I negotiated through the house with the help of many of you that hate this bill and I get it I wasn't planning on standing up here today. But here I am. So I would urge my colleagues when you look at this bill take away the pressures of this pressure cooker of this place ignore the Senate just listen to your constituents. And make a good vote thank you Mr. Senate Beatty question. Represent Bryant has left the well. Payton for purpose. Motion let's hear motion I moved for immediate consideration. Represent Payton. My practices generally been on the when a bill is been brought up for the first time is to hold off on motions for immediate consideration until some debate can take place so at this point I'm not going to accept that motion could I give a reason. Sure. The Senate is anxious to adjourn and I don't know how this would not be affected but I think it's good that we get our business over with. I'm not gonna accept that motion at this time. Represent right is explained bill anyone like to speak against the bill. Represent rate you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I guess I'll just go first so I can get get my part over with Colleagues I voted for. My friend representative Brian's bill house bill nineteen seventy seven even though I had some reservations about it and he and I discussed the bill at length. I voted for it because he worked hard to iron out some of the areas of contention. And like many of you I know people who are likely to be terminated by their employer for refusal to take the vaccine. And representative Bryant's bill afforded them another option. And even though I had reservations about it I wanted to afford. Those folks another option do it testing regimen. If they choose to do that. Because we are living in extraordinary times. However this bill isn't entirely different and I think it goes much further. And has several problems. So first of all I think this bill directly conflicts with house bill nineteen seventy seven the one we passed the other day that bill afford to testing regimen. If folks don't want to take the vaccine but inherent in that supposition is that your employer know whether you're vaccinated or not because how or how are they going to know if you qualify for the testing. So. I don't think these bills these two bills or even compatible. Secondly. This bill is going to be a bonanza for trial lawyers. If you look around and think you know we just really our our society is just really not litigious enough then. You know this bill is for you. we heard. Yesterday in the committee from an attorney with the Friday firm. That this bill is going to jeopardize the COVID liability protections that we passed earlier in the session for businesses because as part of those COVID liability protections. You have to be substantially complying with CDC guidance if you can't if you're forbidden by law from even enquiring. About an employee's vaccination status then that's going to jeopardize all of the important work we did earlier in the session. this bill doesn't contain any type of exemption for medical providers which are fundamentally different in my opinion for most types of businesses. I don't know about you but god forbid I had to put one of my loved ones in a nursing home. I would like to have some level of confidence that the workers in that nursing home were vaccinated if I had the choice. Likewise if I had to hire an in home health aide for an aging parent. In my own home I would at least want to be able to have the ability to ask them. If they're vaccinated. This bill would make that illegal. And that's in your own home. It's been talked about in the committee about how this bill undermines at will employment I think somebody else is probably gonna talk about that so I'm not gonna go into a lot of detail but I think it's important to mention that the Senate did not adopt an emergency clause on this bill. So. The the good intentions of this bill to help folks who are facing a potential termination. This bill is not going to protect those people that are currently facing the prospect of termination because it's not going to become law for ninety days and we all know about the law of unintended consequences I fear that this is going to have the opposite effect that's intended because employers are now going to know if this law that if this bill passes that the rules of the game or going to change ninety days from now. And so that's going to influence their decision you know I've I've had people call me and say please help me by time. I'm afraid this bill is going to shorten the amount of time that folks have if they're currently facing this is the situation with their employer. Your back during the session we debated I hate crimes bill and I heard from a lot of my colleagues that you know we don't need to create more protected classes I happen to agree with that. And so I was against that bill. But that's what we're doing with this bill is we're creating a new protected class. A couple years ago we all got mad at the government for telling a business what kind of cake they had the bacon who they had to bake it for. And I thought that was inappropriate. And now we're gonna tell employers you can't even ask someone. Even if they have an outbreak. In their business for the purposes of contact tracing so that more people don't become infected. I'm afraid this bill is gonna lead to job losses. We're already we're gonna make it illegal for federal contractors to comply with federal rules that already exist today not talking about the mandate rules that are already in place today. Want to close by saying. I voted for the bill. That prohibited the state from mandating of the vaccine. I feel good about that but. And I want to be clear nobody is strapping anybody to a Gurney to make them take the vaccine I'm a hundred percent opposed to president Biden's unconstitutional undemocratic mandate that he declared by fiat because he couldn't win the support of the house and the Senate they are controlled by his own party. And yes I think that a lot of what businesses are doing with related with related to the vaccine is overly aggressive. But we have passed a law just days ago that provides exemptions through testing regime. Regiment and that goes above and beyond religious exemptions and health exemptions. In summary I just wanna say I think this bill helps solve one problem albeit in a very inefficient manner. But in doing so. It creates eight or nine or ten more problems we all know about the law of unintended consequences and what the road with good intentions is paved with and I think that's where we're heading with this bill that's why I can't support it. President ray has spoken against the building would like to speak for the bill represent Bentley you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Speaker colleagues in a news release Wednesday from the western journal the family of Jessica Berg Wilson said Wilson was reluctant to get the champ relented due to a mandate at work a portion of the obituary for her read Jessica Berg Wilson thirty seven Seattle Washington passed away unexpectedly September seventh twenty twenty one from a COVID nineteen vaccine induced thrombotic thermostat opinion surrounded by her loving family Jessica was an unacceptably healthy and vibrant thirty seven year old young mother with no underlying health conditions. Represent called and asked we're the verification of death due to covert vaccine. Well there's one for you. There will be more. What do you think the occupation has the highest number resistant to the vaccine. It's health professionals please help the best health professionals across our state have called me of how many of you and said we are seeing adverse reactions this is not a normal vaccine. This vaccine is not even holding. So to say we have to know with the some of them backstage are not to protect use other employees is irrelevant it's not even holding for months. It's not holding. I am not saying. That those people that are sixty five and older and have health conditions cannot benefit from this vaccine I'm not saying that what I'm saying is that there are risks in each individual has a right to weigh those risks and benefits to themselves not forced on them by their employer. Dr Malone who was one of the scientists who helped to develop the vaccine stated that the best use for this vaccine for for those adults sixty five and older if you have health conditions that's what the backs in the best those the people that are dying. Your co workers have a ninety nine point nine five to ninety nine point nine percent chance of surviving this COVID fires we have taken this out of proportion. Dr Malone said if we push this baxeen in mass population like we are everybody get the vaccine everybody get the vaccine regardless everybody get the vaccine did you gonna push the virus to mutate. I didn't say that. That's what he said and we're not sure did but it very may well have if you look at some graphs the dock that Senator Johnson put forth just this past week and how the Delta variant skyrocket after the vaccine was given. Good public health policy comes through honest open transparent data and debate not to fear coercion and lies. We're being told that the only way to beg this virus is there a vaccine the only way we can do this mascot Begich backs and that's how we're going to be well that's not true. We're simply ignoring early aggressive treatment has worked for purchase for physicians across the state and around the world I have begged and pleaded to hear this in the public health committee that we could hear from physicians they're doing awesome job of keeping people out of the hospital keeping people from dying we can't even get that hurt and on public health committee. They're being silenced people are dying I'm mad I'm mad as hell the people that love it might district died because their families bait to get ivermectin they backed please please let's try this is working elsewhere no Sir that's not the FDA approved we can't use it. Where are we where we live in this is the United States of America and people cannot even get the treatment they ask for we're right to try to save the day coming up trying to get permission because sure lunatic. My gosh you can look at study after study after study. We're physicians are having excellent results across the world across the world this is a worldwide pandemic not just Arkansas pandemic it's worldwide indicate India Peru Washington Mexico all over the place we have an excellent results and we just ignoring that. All I can say to you today is. Thank just for a minute. Just for a minute think about your constituents back home. What do they want within the same to you because that's who are here for. I'm very thankful that we heard. That we get this bill back in were able to hear it because what happened the rules committee which should be on there was even the purview we heard that your main discussion in our health committee and we decide to hear the bill. I knowledge that it might the by demonstration mandates on everyone or have massive fines. This is what we have an attorney general for that's what we pay for all the trees that we have for to push back on federal overreach. The question today is are you for vaccine mandates are already not. That's the question thank you. Representative bill. Represent Bentley is left the well represent Bentley is spoken for the bill this or one speak against the bill. Speaker Shepherd you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you madam chair. And just for clarity for everybody out there that may think there's tricks to be played. The decision to take that objection was literally as we're walking in here. There were members ready to make motions to amend the remembers ready to object there's all kinds of things in what what may or may not be known is that every single day we come in here members will come to me right before with what they plan to do with bad decision to accept that it went to the committee you have an opportunity to weigh in all right so I just want to set the record straight actually what I spent my night doing not was not trying to figure out how to play games but was to read the bill. And work on what I would say. Because here's the deal. I echoes representative race comments. When you read this bill the Senate about vaccine mandates this is about whether you can ask if someone has had a backseat. One overall reach. By the state does not eliminate the over reach by the federal government and this is an over reach. Under the Civil Rights Act in Arkansas so making correct me if I'm wrong it only applies to employers with nine or more employees this bill does not use that definition my understanding is it applies to every employer in the state of Arkansas. And so just the other day when my ninety four year old grandmother was needing a housekeeper and my mom asked had the housekeeper had a backseat. If this bill passes and they decide not to hire that housekeeper. There's liability. I had that is that is. That's really far out there. This this does not have to do with the mandate this gut the bill that you previously passed. It really does. What's the harm in asking the question. What's the harm if the hospital doesn't have a mandate but they just want to know have you had the vaccine because if we're going to have to work in the code unit we'd like for you to have that protection because guess what my recollection is that we made COVID nineteen a compensable injury under worker's comp. Not to mention not to mention the fact. That. We tried to provide protection representative ray touched on this I believe we try to provide protection and immunity and now we're gonna say well. You can do some stuff but you can't you can ask about the vaccine. That makes no sense to me. We should not pass bills based on just the title we should read the bills and by the way for those that are all of a sudden concerned about the Senate pushing us around allegedly pushing us around. What are we doing today we should have been out here yesterday. They're trying to hold us hostage over an emergency clause. So this is broader in application than our current Arkansas Civil Rights Act. We're talking about protecting employees that's fine if you want to protect employees I am sympathetic to the to the situation that so many people around having to make a decision but this bill goes beyond current employees. This goes to the point if you're considering hiring somebody and Senator Ballinger already stated he's doing that to try and set up with a geisha. And I agree with representative Pilkington that said that this is actually going to encourage employers to implement mandates right now while they can. In the next three months. So that they can be the application of the laws that we pass in particular this bill. So if you want to do that go ahead. Representative **** said asking committee if this was our club. Federal government has a club we have a club well this is our club this club is being applied to small businesses and individual employers not just the big boys. So if you want to put in a situation where they're getting crunched by the federal government and the state government and go right ahead but I'm not going to come down here and just stand by and let that go without somebody calling it out and if people want to think there were games played today that's fine they can think games for we're being played today already told some of you that was to come here and speak against it before even the objection was entered. There's so many things that are wrong with this bill that I could go on and on and on. And you all can decide. Yeah can decide. But as for me I'm going on record against this bill if we had all the time in the world maybe we can go back and rework. But we need to vote this down and go home. And I can take the consequences of that and I know that whatever said he will be missed represented on social media. I know that. But you know what. In the words of Bobby Petrino I didn't come here just to paint. I ask for a note. Speaker Shepherd is spoken against the bill three one anyone here to speak in favor of the bill. Against the bill. Represent great you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you madam Speaker. Not sure that I'm. Should even be down here following that speech I'd like to say first of all I will try to keep this as short as possible most of what I had to say and had written down here and all my pages has been said by representative ray and now by our Speaker. Hey everyone knows that I work in healthcare and that's what I specialize in and so I will try to keep most of this to health care we did not exempt healthcare in this bill say we this is not my bill I voted on the bill and I put my name on the bill that I thought Gates businesses some protection while also protecting the employees I thought it was the best way that we can protect all of our constituents because our constituents are business owners T. M. I. voting yes and put my name on the bill that we already passed out this chamber that no longer means anything if we pass this bill today so I'll try and stick to health care. effective October first of this year. There's a system a hospital inpatient quality reporting system that all hospitals must report to you have to report for the duration of one week out of each month so in October you report for the second week of October November you're going to report for the second week of November you have to report not just the COVID nineteen vaccination status of your employees but the influenza vaccination status of your employees if you do not comply. It's a two percent cut to your Medicare reimbursements and I you know people so two percent that's not very much we'll when Medicare comprises anywhere from forty to sixty percent of your total business but your total reimbursements that equates to about one percent of your overall operating. Revenue no I had their hospitals across this state that off that have much less than a one percent operating margin. As a profit this hurts them so what are we as a state saying you must choose to either violate state law or not get funding from the federal I'm I'm talking about the mandate right the mandate we think that's coming and I've heard what we don't know if it's coming we don't know what it's going to say I can tell you what they said the feds have said it's going to be a hundred percent vaccination rate with medical and religious exemptions. Okay so I can't even ask my employees Hey if they're vaccinated I'll be violating the mandate that we know is coming but also be made violating what's already here so we're already what we're knew about passing this is automatically giving hospitals roughly a one percent cut to their Medicare funding. Conditions are participation they will require that so we talked about you have to sign something all hospitals all doctors offices anybody that takes funding has to sign a conditions of participation and in that conditions of participation with CMS. We expect there to be a hundred percent vaccination status with those exemptions. Let's take a hospital with sixteen hundred employees this bill right here references the Arkansas Civil Rights Act and so when I go and I pull up the statute under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act it takes me to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages start at fifteen thousand dollars and they go all the way up to three hundred thousand dollars if you have more than five hundred employees okay. Civil Rights Act was it meant to be a class action okay but what we're doing essentially is we're going to start some kind of class action and I may be using the wrong terminology because I'm not an attorney. That cake Baker. It's one it's one cause of action for that cake Baker but as a hospital when I have to ask my sixteen hundred employees how they were vaccinated that sixteen hundred causes of action though sixteen hundred causes of action at three hundred thousand dollars apiece equate to four hundred and eighty million dollars in damages. Okay. I've got a family member whose daughter has leukemia he has five employees he's a small time contractors okay daughter has leukemia she's also under age so she's immunocompromised and she's under the age of twelve and can get the vaccine he can now no longer ask the few employees he has whether vaccinated on. Or he can get sued under this so small time doesn't make that much money five employees seventy five thousand dollars he stands to lose his daughter has leukemia this bill goes too far. Let me tell you what's included is not just a hospital anybody that takes Medicare Medicaid moneys ambulatory surgical centers dialysis centers you know people that actually need dialysis to live kidney failure. Home health hospice nursing homes doctors offices durable metal it medical equipment offices chiropractors physical therapists pediatric day clinics those that take care of the kids that have disabilities from zero to birth the five not only them but the drive the bus drivers that drive them because it's Medicaid funded non emergency transport you have someone who has Medicaid that doesn't have a vehicle they can't get a ride to their doctor's office the cardiologists their surgeon they have to get a non emergency transport guess who pays for that non emergency transport Medicaid can no longer ask them if they're vaccinated this bill is so broad that it takes in to account everyone none of these people are going to be able to comply and what we are saying is a body what I've heard before of her dress Senator Ballinger say it yesterday committee for representative brought say it let's see what the court decides since when Republicans did we ever think it was good to let the court system decide anything seriously. When did we decide so what we're saying is let's go ahead pass this bill let's hope the courts threw it out but in the meantime if you get sued and you lose and an award is handed down from a judge there's no going back I've heard from Senator Ballinger what we'll come back in a special session will come back next year fix it will take healthcare out is too late for those people that have already had a judgment handed down four hundred eighty million dollars from hospital if it were to happen it's too late I know I'm a passionate about this I can keep going and keep going I will say to you you know it kind of dawned on me last night and I'm with give my dad some props he's watching I'm sure today's he watches me every day he's eighty six at some point in the near future he's going to caregiver. I'm not gonna be able to ask the person I'm hired to come in and take care of my bad if he's vaccinated to come into our own home I will build asset Rahman violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act you tell me that's not going to for. M.. A couple more things OSHA is going to require that employees with a hundred plus employees get vaccinated or test weekly all federal contractors already they're going to have to comply with this we have according to the website to the internet which may or may not be correct we have thirteen thousand four hundred and seventy federal contractors in the state of Arkansas they would already be breaking state law okay. Head start programs and early head start programs must comply. So it I don't know what we're doing with this bill I totally understand I don't agree with the federal mandates I don't agree with forced faxing requirements but two wrongs don't make a right with that I'd appreciate a no vote thank you. Representative told for what purpose motion let's hear your motion motion for immediate consideration. That is a proper motion it is not debatable. The question before the House is immediate consideration. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Is haven't. Members questions were houses Senate bill seven thirty one we have five pairs on the desk. Representative Barker votes yes representative ray is the president is the president member and. And have a snow it's witnessed by representative talk representive raise the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. The next pair on the desk representative Hollowell will vote yes representative Bragg votes known as witnessed by representative Coleman. Representative Bragg is the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representive we have another pair on the desk representing private yes representive eleven votes Eads I'm sorry representative easements no it's witnessed by representative Cooper representative eases the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representive Miller folks yes represent the flowers votes no witness by representative Scott represent the flowers is the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representative Cavenaugh vote yes representative Scott votes no witness by representative Vaught representative Scott is the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Please do not vote either these two machines. Mr Clark prepare the machine. As everyone voting. As everyone voting. Caster. Machine Mr Clerk. We have forty one yea forty six nine the the the bill has failed and there is one present the bill has failed. Mr Clark please read House resolution ten fifty four. House house resolution two former representative Shepherd to provide for recess of the General Assembly and to provide that the ninety third General Assembly will adjourn sine die no later than October fifteenth twenty twenty one. Speaker Shepherd you're recognized to present the resolution. Thank you madam chair members this is the House resolution that would allow for us to To adjourn you can take a look at it. Basically we're going to forward the governor the time to make any necessary vetoes and handle any of those types of notifications. There is an identical resolution on the Senate in I honestly don't know what they've done today but I really don't care at this point. And so we're going to what what I'm proposing to do is recess. Today at the close of business we would recess and then at the proclamation of the Speaker of the house and the president pro tem of the Senate week by joint proclamation could reconvene at any time before twelve noon on October fifteenth to consider vetoes or and correct errors and oversights or if there's no need for that and we will be adjourned at noon on October fifteenth now I know there's been some questions about. That puts that power in the hands of myself and president pro tem this is the standard language has been used for numbers of years Senator Hickey stated yesterday that the governor vetoes any of the legislation he's committed to reconvening I likewise and committed reconvening at the governor vetoes any of the legislation and and so I'm I'm giving you that commitment Senator Hickey did the same and so I would ask hopefully you know me by now hopefully you know that if I tell him to do something from you know the Crippen I'm going to do what I say and so with that I would I would certainly appreciate a good vote that the reason why we don't just automatically come back in is it on the chance that there's no vetoes and there's no business to be conducted it seems like it's a waste of resources to bring a hundred thirty five members down just to see this bang the gavel and bang the gavel out and so I appreciate a good vote on this resolution. Speaker Shepherd his voted for has presented the resolution in favor of the resolution. Represent all that for what purpose. Let's hear your motion motion to recess for ten minutes. Just asking to elaborate what is that we could you kind of give us a reason one. Or processing pairs. You for the motion the motion is there some pairs that wish to be voted in this regard. This motion is not debatable all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The noes have it. Speaker Shepherd is spoken for the resolution to I've anyone who's against the resolution. For the resolution. Speaker Shepherd you're recognized to close your resolutions Speaker Shepherd his clothes for the resolution. The resolution with a for the House. Is. House resolution ten fifty four. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the resolution has passed. Members hold on hold on for just a minute we're just making sure we got everything in order here before we. Get out of here. Let's just hang tight for a few minutes. Also house will come to order. Represent makes for what purpose. Motion place let's hear your motion Mr Speaker in accordance with House resolution ten fifty four I move the house standards earned until such time as we are reconvene for certain purposes or until the regular session of the ninety third General Assembly is adjourned sine die. Proper motion. It's not debatable all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The motion is adopted. The house is adjourned.