House Convenes

I am by the member staff press and guests in the galleries to stand to be led in prayer by representative Fredrick Love. And remain standing for the pledge of allegiance be let let by representative Lane Jean. You should decide that back row when you say a friend levels on price. Everyone has been added to the prayer. Heavenly father we first come just thank you for waking us this morning heavenly father thank you for blessing us with this day that we were not promise heavenly father we pray that. We just take your wisdom have a father in applied to all decisions that we're making today. We pray that should keep his or pray that you would deliver us back home safely and we pray that we find our homes and our families in safe condition this surprise Jesus name amen. One. You. For all. Members please indicate your presence by pushing yellow present button prepared machine Mr Clerk. Cast about Mr Clark. With with ninety five members present chair sees a quorum of the request for leave represent McNair for what purpose. Leave representative Cozart leave grant represent Cozart. So noted represent balance what purpose leave a represent Barker is leave grant represent Barker D. so noted represent Gazaway for what purpose you're recognized Leeper representative Mayberry leave granted represent Mayberry. So noted represent McCullough for what purpose leave you're recognized leave for representative Denise Garner is leave granted for representatives Garner the Senator representing poke on for what purpose leave you're recognized leave for representative Bragg is leave grant represent brac. So noted. Represent Fredrick Love mostly dispensed the ring of previous day's Journal without objection so ordered R. their Reports from select committees. Are there Reports from standing committees read reports Mr Clark. The Speaker we're committee on public health welfare or welfare and labor to was referred Senate bill seven thirty nine thank leave to report that we have the same under consideration here they're trying to say with the recognition that do pass reckless with a Jack Ladyman chair. Is there any unfinished business. Are there any executive communications. Morning hour scented representative Kinsey for what purpose point of clarification let's hear your point I've questions about the ruling of the chair regarding SB seven thirty being Declared I believe entered improperly. Represent McKenzie. S. B. seven thirty was passed by the Senate yesterday and was transmitted to the house. Upon rate read in the bill across the desk as is our normal practice yesterday evening after my review of the bill I determined that the bill did not meet the requirements of the resolution in the proclamation by which we're convene specifically and consistent with my past interpretation of the resolution SP seven thirty makes no mention while it does refer to COVID nineteen it makes no mention of COVID nineteen a relief fund specifically the American rescue plan and just as I did with representative Bryant's bill I determined it was improperly introduced before I reached out to Rep I rip I reached out to represent Garner before I made that determination I tricked him to to read to contact him by telephone and also texted him so that he would be aware of that obviously I understand he disagrees with my interpretation but that is is my interpretation of the resolution and that is the reason why rule that it was improperly introduced. Thank you Mr Speaker I would like to object to that ruling at this time. All right members so as I understand the motion the motion is to appeal the ruling of the chair that SP seven thirty was improperly introduced. And therefore was not assigned to a Committee. That is a proper motion it is debatable. Okay the parliamentarian has advised me that given the nature of the motion that I can explain my ruling in the represent McKenzie would be allowed to to explain her motion and then we would have normal debate as is our normal practice. To the as further explanation members I would call your attention to house concurrent resolution ten fifteen. Which this was introduced by myself and Senator Hickey was passed by the house this is the resolution that allowed us to go into extended recess. The pride the most relevant portions of house concurrent resolution ten fifteen and similarly the proclamation by which myself and Senator Hickey reconvene the house is over on page five this subsection G. it says that the president pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the house of representatives may by joint proclamation reconvene the General Assembly at any time for the purpose of a considering vetoes be correcting errors and oversights C. completing its work on congressional redistricting D. considering legislation related to the COVID nineteen public health emergency and distribution of COVID nineteen relief funds and easy considering the need for further extension the regular session the ninety third General Assembly or to adjourn sine die the regular session the ninety third General Assembly and then it goes on to conclude the resolution. Members as I study that resolution obviously it at the time the resolution was introduced who we probably who would have known that. That the language but would become so hotly debated but it might work review of it was that. as you look at considering vetoes considering errors and oversights completing its work on redistricting considering legislation laid COVID nineteen emergency in distribution and considering the need for further extension there isn't and between between D. and E.. My interpretation of that was that therefore when we reconvene that we had to reconvene for all of those purposes and that's I then you might think what what does this have to do with my ruling I interpret it and to mean all of those there actually was an argument that Senator Hickey and myself could have reconvene the House strictly for redistricting but I did not believe that was consistent with the plain language of the resolution I'm telling you this because severally under subsection D. it says considering legislation related to Kobe nineteen public health emergency and distribution of COVID nineteen relief funds and consistent with my decision that I had that we had to reconvene for all those purposes for the same reason I interpreted that and to likewise be inclusive of both COVID nineteen public health emergency and the distribution of coping nineteen relief funds the resolution the only funds that the resolution refers to are the I believe it's referred to as the American rescue. American rescue plan act of twenty twenty one and you committee of hertz Senator Hickey many times in the past say that the intention of this resolution was to allow us flexibility to deal with those funds because when we went into recess guidance had not been promulgated back yet by the federal government and so Senator Hickey is viewed as a very is and narrow view of that but I can tell you that that certainly was his intention at the time I have interpreted it based on the plain language of the resolution and therefore for the same reason that I felt that I had to reconvene for all of those purposes it is the same reason I believe that any bill to be filed in this house or in the Senate for consideration by the house if it relates to COVID nineteen it must also relate to the American rescue plan act and that was my decision and that's why relied ruled it was improperly introduced just as I did representative Bryant's bill early in the session and so obviously if I've done that for the by rule that way with respect to a House member I would certainly can attempt to rule the same way for a member of the Senate. Your respective of my personal opinions on any of these bills I would hope that the body would know that I'm in guided by the rules of the house the statutes and constitution the state of Arkansas and the plain language of resolutions that this house passes and therefore I made my decision this was improperly introduced represent mackenzie you may explain your motion. Thank you Mr Speaker a couple of things with regard to represent Bryant's bill if you recall I did standup injected object to that as well if I recall correctly I think there was some confusion but I think you also stood up and let us know that he was pulling that went down so I didn't see the point two to further this discussion with regard to the ruling of the Speaker. If you take a look at that that resolution that we passed ten fifteen. First of all my understanding is of judicial review that the courts look at the plain language of the bill of the legislation of the resolution if it is not ambiguous. That's where it ends we don't go on to attend discussion at that point and that is fair to our citizens that makes sense no citizen should have to see what laws we pass up here take a look at and say all right I understand what that means but wait I better call the sponsor and see what they were thinking. That is that is the principle behind to judicial review concept that we look at the plain meaning of the bill and if it's not ambiguous we stop with the legislative intent. I don't believe that this is ambiguous that can be open for discussion but even if this were ambiguous if you take a look at the beginning of this resolution you'll see whereas whereas enumerated individually. We are we see who whereas we have an issue with redistricting we don't have the census figures whereas the next enumerated. Whereas we are in a state of emergency in a recognized both state of emergencies the Arkansas state of emergency sixty days and the federal state of emergency still on going. And next to numerator. It dealt with whereas we have these COVID nineteen really funds that we must tend to. So even if there is ambiguity we've got a problem and that our own resolution sets out above those entities those three different things the two different COVID matters individually not together. This resolution also. References the only case is really close to being on point and its and its intent to to be structured within those guidelines. Thought went into this resolution. If the intent. Which again only matters if this is an ambiguous language if the intent with was that those two that it was the only reference the COVID nineteen really funds why. Why would we throw confusion there. And mention. COVID nineteen emergency. Now in typical fashion for me I'm not even sure I support this bill. I've got some concerns about it. But I think we need to be consistent I think we do have some guidelines here for judicial review. And we're also aware that the Senate came to a different conclusion. But primarily I go back to the standard for judicial review. This language. I believe was clear. If it wasn't clear we pretty much. Reference star intent. In the resolution itself. Thank you. President McKenzie is explain The motion when you would like to speak against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion. Represent Lowery for purpose. You're recognized speak for the motion. Thank you Mr Speaker. I certainly. I respect the speakers counsel that he's been given by our parliamentarian that the word and as a connector. Tip typically would say that you have to do both things but and is really many times in English writing is just used to create a more fluid sentence that it is not that one section is not conditional upon the other the most important point that I want to make is that you know we really of or stab wishing I think a very harmful precedent one that might even come back to bite us during this session and it is that the Senate did deem this bill is to remain. I know that that was a that was a ruling by the presiding officer. The lieutenant governor. It had lengthy debate by the members of the Senate when there was an attempt to appeal that decision and the Senate up held his decision that the bill is germane I think we really create a crisis or a tension between the house and Senate that goes beyond our typical tension that we know exist but it could be very problematic when it comes to some of the other bills that are yet to get to go between the house and the Senate could even could even affect the redistricting I just would object to of. The the argument that and is a conditional connector that you have to operate there has to be operational a connection between the two and in this case just to basically points to the same general area of discussion for those reasons I would ask that you would vote for a the appeal of the decision of the chair. Represent Lowery spoken for the motion we would like to speak against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion. Represent your the only one. Represent fight for what purpose just a question could you clarify before the vote what the for and against means yes I will clarify before we vote represent McKenzie close for the resolution referred the motion represent miss Perkins is close for the motion the parliamentarian's advice that I have the opportunity to rebut the motion and as to the arguments that president and perhaps I wasn't clear the only reason I offered up intent was to demonstrate we are not even acting consistent with what has been stated was the intent. The intent Senator Hickey is stated was to only deal with COVID nineteen relief funds I've said that that was his intent but I'm telling you that I've interpreted it consistent with the plain language of the resolution and representative Lowry's point that is true sometimes there is that use but then later on the resolution we use the term or. So if we're gonna if we would be rendering the term or meaningless if now we're gonna say and is not inclusive of all those in and finally. It's what is the point of adding COVID nineteen relief funds. If it doesn't have to connect back to the COVID nineteen emergency in other words you would have just said COVID nineteen emergency because that includes the relief funds and includes the mask includes quarantine it includes everything so why did we specify that and to be clear my view is that it is not as narrow as discovery team relief funds but that I believe any bill that's introduced must not only touch on the COVID nineteen emergency it must touch on the COVID nineteen relief funds which specifically are the American rescue plan and then finally. Now the argument is that somehow this will do damage to our relationship with the Senate so now are we going to be beholden to the Senate's interpretation I can I will tell you this I doubt there is anybody in the great state of Arkansas that is spent more time reading this resolution relating at the law this is not based on strictly the parliamentarian's advice is based on the advice after consultation with multiple attorneys in my reading of it because irrespective of personal opinions it is important as we've all as we all can understand is important that we apply the resolution consistently and I am absolutely confident that we are applying it consistently. And and based upon the plain language of the resolution to allow a resolutely a motion to move forward that does not touch on the American rescue plan funds not only throws wide open this resolution and largely. Causes it to be meaningless I think it would jeopardize most at most the other work that we're going to do. Represent Lowery for what purpose question you're recognized wanted to ask you in terms of your explanation you reference a list of things related to Covin one of them are is quarantines is there a COVID relief funds connection to quarantines is there a cost to quarantines. They would all depend on the language of the bill. Follow up I mean there are other bills have been filed that I think could be questionable but I did not I'm trying to be consistent if it was referencing the American rescue plan that I've we've allowed those to go forward. Follow you're recognized for your your clarification is that any of the other bills that may be coming to us if there is not a a provision that talks about relief funds they also would be in your term protection would not be germane that's my view but the I would reserve the right to look at the language of the bill I mean I'm I've tried to not make it based on you know just got feeling or what what I personally thank I want to read the bill but that's that's been my view and that's been could that's been I've been consistent on that all along even though that differs from Senator Hickey. Represent flowers for purpose. You're recognized question you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker I just want to clarify so this is what this vote would do is overturn your decision and interpretation. To allow us to consider a Senate bill that you're saying doesn't fall within the language of the call the motion is an appeal the chair's ruling if that motion is successful then. So the motion is shall the decision the chair standards the judgment house if that motion successful then my understanding is that then I can either refer that to the rules committee or I could refer it to the full house for consideration so yes would be to for your decision to stand or to overturn it. Correction this is this is a vote a neck a negative vote would overturn my decision. Okay no okay. So if I say yes one of my saying yes to your agree. You're just you're sustaining my decision you're agreeing with me and and follow up Sir you're recognized. It. Could could the sponsor of the bill in question. Amend his bill to reflect whatever concerns that the house has based upon its consistency with the call that could happen but the bill would have to be recalled to the Senate okay thank you so much. Represent Lowery for purpose. Parliamentary inquiry. Recognized my understanding that the motion on the floor is appealing the decision of the chair so a yes vote would sustain that appeal and would overturn your ruling. Is not collect parliamentarian answer. Thanks for the question representative Lowery the the question that will be before the houses shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House. Shall the decision of this chair stand as a judgement of the House all right I think question is to sustain the Speaker is not to overturn the Speaker it's a it's a positive action okay thank you. If what purpose. A parliamentary inquiry you're recognized is the vote threshold for this measure a majority or is it of a majority of those voting. Thank you representative right. The vote threshold is that is this a majority vote in the negative overturns the decision of the chair. A majority vote or a tie vote sustains the decision of the chair. And the threshold is of those voting. Any any other any other questions. All right members just as a reminder. The ruling of the chair has been appealed. The question before the House is shall the decision the chair standards of judgment the House a majority vote in the negative overturns the decision of the chair a no vote is against the decision of the chair a majority vote or a tie vote for the motion sustains a decision so a yes vote agrees with my decision. Any questions. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. Mr Clark please read house bill nineteen seventy two. Also ninety thirty two by representative right to address mandates really related to coronavirus twenty nineteen to provide exemptions for employees from mandates related to coronavirus twenty nineteen it is clear emergency okay represent branded by C. wants to pass over nineteen seventy two Mr Clark please read house bill nineteen seventy seven. That's what I did to resume a representative right to provide employee exemptions from federal mandates and employer mandates related to coronavirus twenty nineteen declare an emergency represent bright you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. After that activity and five days being here I wish we could leave it right there but. We're not there yet. Also apologize for having ninety seventy two on the calendar so long with the way that we don't know when the session is going to end I was advised by a better keep in case I got a was gonna hit the hammer on it so so I would draw nine seventy two because nineteen seventy seven is the more agreed upon bill to add a little more time because redistricting office is taking a bit longer that we're able to iron out the best we could some issues of nineteen seventy two so we got nineteen seventy seven before us today. What I'd like to do is go through a few of the specifics of the bill and and maybe as a state missiles and comments and then towards the end just address a few of the issues that have are brought forward by the colleagues of of the house to see if we can get to a conclusion to see what's best for the needs of our of our Kansans. So section one of the bill gives our Legislative findings and intent obviously not codified it I have yet to find any member in here that isn't concerned with the federal government mandating vaccines over our Kansans if if you do feel like that's that's a good thing sorry I didn't get to yet but my immediate survey says we have a problem with that so but do we have a problem with with our Kansans mandating vaccines and that is that is a hard issue because it conservatives say we're for business but we're also for personal liberty so as I said in in committee these two issues are going head to head right now. So then you just have to figure out you know which side of the fence so I step on based on the information in the science that I believe that I interpret that is given to me. So. What this bill does says vaccination mandates or overreach of authority many employers will also if they're not already mandating internally is their decision which is work on the road is they will be mandated to by OSHA or by another federal entity. And so the intent of this bill is to protect employees from that overreach and then also create a mechanism of potential funding for those that wish to use a different route rather than be forced acts need. So if if an employer mandates a vaccine this bill doesn't mandate that they do it it just says if an employer chooses the mandate of axing. and to to go off course that what we're seeing is a lot of employers believe in in the vaccine they want to do that but then they give basically a decree to all subsidiary businesses of theirs but just do business there contractor through this negotiation that they too are also going to mandated even if that business says I don't want to do that for my employees so we're we're we're giving of employers basically the thorny the state to start pushing their over reach into other businesses. So if if. An employer chooses the mandated or if they're told they're going to mandated by the federal government. The. What this bill does is say you know we're not getting rid of title seven exemptions federal also has title seven exemptions however most employees that are concerned with these mandates are saying look I've got a title seven exemption I was medically exempt from getting this vaccine or I was religiously example getting this vaccine and the response that the employer is giving them is. Great we're gonna put you on unpaid leave for twelve months. If you change your mind call us back to put you on the line. And that's just I don't think that was the intent of title seven exemptions it was to work with the employee to keep an employee while they work through this. So. What this bill does is says it if that's the case. The employer must offer in addition to other things if they want to offer to you know through wear a mask to eat outside for lunch the change their hours of work. If they choose to do that in addition to that they're going to give two different pass to prove. That they are safe with against other employees or other consumers or other a jury parts of the business and to do that they can test weekly. Now what do you say your test weekly I think there's the date will you know what if they're exposed more than one third supposedly have ability tests I think most reasonable our Kansans will work with their employer to do that but I also like to note that even federal guidelines that are coming down with through OSHA. Hendren please or more that's the same requirement they get vaccinate or test weekly so I believe there's some. Some evidence that says weekly testing will will get us to a point where we're actually trying to combat the virus. The other option is an antibody test. Now. As I said a committee there numerous studies peer reviewed and government studies that say natural immunity is a valid. reason to basically not vaccinate so the CDC has always given that guidelines in fact I want to send my kids to school I can go get them and about a test in lieu of the vaccine if I think they've had it and that's an acceptable practice in the CDC and in our local governments AS in lieu of vaccination. Additionally natural immunity in lieu of vaccine. As a proven by the N. I. H. which is national institutes of health was obviously gets a lot of contracts from the FDA and the CDC to do the study so it's a government study they are determined through their studies that natural immunity can last six to eight months. That's that's about the time that they're level start to break down a little bit is it dropped below immunity levels there say for for a. Public it doesn't as you saying that's when they're seen it drops below. So those those are the two Avenue south employer is going to to pave a road that the vaccines what we're asking for is to Disneyland's from police to go back and forth. in addition to that we worry about funding so what this bill does is it directs the FNA tested Sabbath rules to use our pipelines to potentially pay for that testing. So that I go through the normal process in our plans have already been already been appropriated. We we being the sponsor the bill or anybody as a member these chambers can directs an expenditure out of those funds will go to the steering committee steering committee can approve it the night change the amounts if it if once it goes beyond the steering committee does the rules same thing prove it changes. And it goes stale C. for a vote now if no funds are available. Then the employee can ask for insurance company most insurance companies provide one weekly test. can go through the drive through and you know it's a local mall give your insurance card to get that test if your employer or I'll see if the if the option is not available the cost of the test will be bore by the employee. We want them to make sure that they have skin in the game as well because as you know if employer has you know thirteen employees that I want to do it they can start getting costly on the employer so employee will have some responsibility if they can't in other sense of funding. And that ultimately is the essence of the bill. some questions get asked me is is are we are we dictating to employees their employee I'm sorry dictator employers employee or employer relationship and I answer is kind of in the essences is to remind people that we did that with ACT five sixteen last year wasn't the representative Meeks of the bill about injecting microchips and employees this body voted overwhelmingly we didn't want that we want to do not want employers mandating that they can put a microchip and employees and some might say what's different this is public safety for the body of evidence is growing that could speed some of those public safety we know is that are we gonna require booster shots every six eight months but the essence of five sixteen was we're going to inject legislation in between the relationship between employees and employers. So then then we pass on to let's just free market. As alluded to earlier free market is businesses compete with businesses so but what happens when businesses collude. And a lock out a profession. Is that we just going to say Hey you need to leave our state and go to a different state or we did not collude allow businesses to collude and lock you out because that's what's happening I've got several several constituents that are looking at moving to Nebraska to Florida that have basically allow these exemptions to pass and they have included with insider industry. And lastly if it was truly free market. We would have given out hundreds of millions of dollars to these businesses to survive they would truly have to be part of their own free market so we're gonna give them our funds just like when we take money from the federal government we might like not like all the ropes with it we're tethered. It's just the fact of it so when businesses start taking our money to survive they have to do with the regulations which are numerous talk to one of representative yesterday this is per HR said there's thirty different questions I can ask employees because regulations won't let me so it's not new presidents to to be involved in point correlation in this case we're just adding additional avenues for employees to take and several employees are are elated with this bill because they feel like they're getting pushed down from there. The people that are paying their contracts because they got no other option to take so this gives them options to say look I can you these options and you still need to be acceptable so that we don't have the lease or contracts. In the last one that just just to address briefly is CMS and OSHA guidelines so she's already come out with their basically their intense but no loss or no rules have been made we don't know when that's going to be. So if we added and CMS the same thing they they if the nursing homes are going to do it but we still have any rules on that as well so we don't know when we're gonna get this isn't isn't likely yes it is and me personally I'm not I think that the federal government as a servant of the state so I don't know Mr put language in bills that say I'm waiting on the federal government to tell us what to do then we'll do something different now if the federal government does come down which likely they will then the supremacy clause takes in the facts and I ask these questions to several smart lawyers and they agree that is a summons the purpose of cloth issue now I want to be argued that it doesn't necessarily match what if one says DO a the other one says do be. Well the answer they give is they take whichever one is more stringent. The same thing that that they're gonna suffer between CMS rules OSHA rules ocean's gonna give one direction for a hundred more employees and CMS is gonna give never rules for all employees. So what hospitals will do is they'll take the more stringent of the to which will likely be the CMS rules. So. With that I would like to the. Let it be open for debate I know several of you want to speak and have you know additional concerns the bill I'm a step out of the well represent Murdock you're recognized. President Brian S. left the well representing. President Brian is explain the building would like to speak against the bill. Semicolon you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I had a few questions but I'll try to just address in general what those would have been I don't really agree with the slippery slope argument regarding personal liberties businesses have the right to drug tested and ask and require a lot of qualifications out of its work force there's still a lot of unanswered questions and confusion. Some say businesses and government are trying to control people I say they're trying to protect. It's what public health policy is for. People have choices of where they work I have found that out personally in my life. This bill like many others that we file might be unconstitutional and we'll have to emerge the more money defending that. And finally it just seems counterproductive to me for us to work so hard in Arkansas to bring our numbers of infections in our desk down and then oppose options to get us out of this pandemic so I respectfully ask for a no vote. Person because spoken against the bill we would like to speak for the bill represent Crawford you're recognized before the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. Hello friends. Let's get back to the basics. We're a free people. In a constitutional Republic. In an economic system of capitalism it's a wonderful thing. As Vince Lombardi said. To this talented team of football players. We need to start with the basics. Any held up a football and he said this is a football. I stand up for you talented legislators today. And say we need to get back to the basics. This is the declaration of independence. This is the constitution with the bill of rights. The declaration of independence and the constitution of the United States are two of the most important and enduring documents in our nation's history. It has been said that the declaration of independence was a promise and the constitution was the fulfillment. The declaration of independence in the second paragraph says we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights among these are life. Liberty. And the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it. And to institute new government laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form as to them shall most likely to effect their safety and their happiness. As a legislative body we are not the end. We are merely the boys for those who elected us. The corporations in Arkansas are part of free enterprise economic freedom and personal liberty. And we are grateful for them. And they're part of making Arkansas a great place to work. But we are elected to be the voice of the people. We are Republic a Republic is a government which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote. In is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them for governing. But we're seeing Tyra nine. Tyerman is unjust or oppressive governmental power. A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. We're seeing that edicts passed down from Washington DC today we're watching it every day. Mandates in lockdown or a tool a tire in a. We are in a pandemic and we been for our countrymen which we have done for the past eighteen months. But we don't lay down and we don't give our freedoms away. We're learning more about the virus we're learning about therapeutics that will heal before you're sick enough to enter a hospital. We're learning that back scenes are not foolproof against the virus we're learning that in some cases the shot is causing adverse effects in people. And it seems no one wants to tell us what's in the vaccine. People have a right to know what is being injected in their bodies. The last time this was done on such a large scale was to the Jewish people when they were used as Guinea pigs. Arkansas is a right to work state. You can be fired without representation. In this case of medical freedom. We are the people's representation. Socialism has a choice the same as a right to work state does it provides needs for each person in exchange for the contributions of that person. This is what is happening in our country today. You take the shot will let you continue to work. We're setting a dangerous precedent by allowing mandated vaccines that have only been tested for six months we're not even sure if there are long term side effects associated with this new vaccine. At some point freedom must override fear. Instead of coming against the people. Let us come together in legislation that works for all people. If you want to be vaccinated you have the right to do so. If you don't want to be vaccinated you have the right to say no. I ask you today to vote on the side of freedom for the people as laid out in our constitution thank you. Percent Crawford spoken for the building would like to speak against the bill represent County you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues I'll be quick I just when I'm my main concern about this bill has to do with Medicare and Medicaid funding and I just wanna address something the representative Bryant said in his presentation and presentation he said that if CMS regulations come down and say hospitals that don't have vaccine means that do not have that same mandates will forfeit their Medicare and Medicaid funding he said that if the if those regulations come down that's just the privacy clause issue that goes to the federal courts the courts will say federal law overrides state law and it will be taking care of that's not actually how it would work as a permittee clause comes into play when to laws of federal and state laws are in direct conflict with one another if we pass this bill into law today in the CMS regulations come down as we expect they will it's a vaccine must be mandated in hospitals or else those hospitals lose their funding those two laws actually are in conflict they are in conflict with each other that's in a conflict that the federal courts would then have to decide that the conflict that every hospital would have to decide that the privacy clause doesn't govern that that puts Arkansas hospitals in the position of having to choose between following state law. Or forfeiting those Medicare and Medicaid funds no I think we all are assuming that they would choose to just break the state law but I would argue that that's a really bad and dangerous way to make policy and I would just ask you all to consider that and vote no thank you. To a clearly spoken against the bill we would like to speak for the bill represent Bentley recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Speaker. Colleagues in the midst of these unprecedented times I think it's important we sometimes periodically step back. Climb out of the weeds and remember just or here for I had the opportunity last month to do just that when I took a trip down the freedom trail in Boston I stopped the side the Boston massacre in the north church and actually walked the Paul revere's home. As a touch the walls of Paul revere's house. I couldn't help but wonder what what our founding fathers say about where we are right now what they say about the times that were in. I'm sure that they would want to continue to fight for the individual liberty and the freedoms that they gave absolutely everything for. I also have the opportunity after I left Boston to go to Plymouth and look at the national monument that stands out over the Plymouth harbor. Is a monument to our national founders eighty one feet tall the tallest monument in our nation if you haven't seen and I certainly wish you take the time to go do so this granted. And trying to the values of our nation's founding on faith in almighty god morality based on his words laws based on justice and mercy and education based on the word of god. It's true that true that are education based on the word and also liberty over tyranny. Today we see forces of tyranny like never before in my life trained under over run individual liberties. What our constituents face with the council on their constitutional rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness is up to us this body to defend those rights. I was very thankful this body during the session pass HB fifteen forty seven stop in the state for mandating a covert vaccine. I'm not sure about you but I have received countless thank yous from teachers of said thank you so much for not mandating the vaccine over and over and I I get thank yous from people that work in the public sector. I had hoped that would pass the same protection for constituents that work for private enterprise but unfortunately we did not have the votes to do so. Today before you we have a compromise bill. This bill does not stop a private company from implementing a vaccine mandate but it does provide some very common sense provisions to allow Arkansas agents who have already had COVID and developed a natural immunity to present a positive image in test in lieu of vaccine and for those who have not had COVID to be routinely tested to show their negative for the COVID virus. I would much rather see a stop on mandates but I'm definitely willing to support this compromise in the meantime. All of us want to see this Bentele beaten some of us feel the only way that we can do that is to get everyone vaccinated. But I think that we have to stop and have an honest debate about the facts about the truth is out there this vaccine is not one hundred percent effective it is not one hundred percent safe. It is not one hundred percent effective it is not one hundred percent safe and we need to look at those I know but I know about you but it's a hard time finding the truth out there there's so much information everywhere we certainly can't trust the mainstream media the sold out to the left long ago it's hard for us to find truth myself I found myself listening to senator Ron Johnson from Wisconsin on the Senate floor amended reason and I just really have listened to him because sometimes I want to find someone that I know and your constituents feel that way but we feel if you percent something on the floor you better have your facts straight to some is going to come back and just prove you wrong so I'm just I have found myself listening to him this past week senator Ron Johnson show a technical brief is from England not from America sometimes we have a hard time in the true facts of America but this health England report technical brief number twenty three was put out in England on September the seventeenth twenty twenty one. And it showed a seven month period in England that they had seventy seven hundred fifty thousand new code cases eighty percent of those where the Delta variant. Of the city and that was six hundred thousand. Folks in England of the six hundred thousand cases forty three percent of those were unvaccinated twenty seven percent were vaccinated and thirty percent or partially vaccinated of the six hundred thousand folks in England two thousand five hundred forty two of them died. All that two thousand five hundred forty two. People in England that died sixty three percent of them were fully vaccinated one thousand and thirteen let me read that again. Of those people that died from covid. Two thousand five and forty to them sixty three percent of them were fully vaccinated twenty seven percent were unvaccinated. So as the Delta parent really a pandemic of unvaccinated. I'm not sure we cannot fully get to good public health decisions if we don't get the facts out there we don't only debate them. So we see is not present fictive against delta now let's look at the safety factor. In the past ten months. The following has been submitted to the vaccine adverse event reporting system. Seven hundred and fifty thousand adverse reactions including sixty six thousand hospitalizations seven thousand heart attacks six thousand six hundred ports of myocarditis myocarditis and fifteen thousand deaths. And five thousand of those deaths when the first three days after the vaccine was given. Yes this have not been verified but they have not not been verified. It is important to note that the Harvard study came out before the pandemic even start the set only one percent of vaccine adverse effects were even reported let me repeat that a Harvard study before the pandemic's came out stated that only one percent of vaccine adverse reactions reported. We've had testimony Markert artist right now committee here over mac Kay I've talked with nurses across the state in my own constituency have shared their reports of adverse reactions. When the vaccine given this data. About adverse reactions and the safety This back team and the fact that working age adults in Arkansas I have a ninety nine point nine five percent to ninety nine point nine nine percent chance of defeating covid it should be there individual decision and their right to choose whether they want to receive the vaccine or not not their employers isn't very weighty decision that they should make they should take the risks and the benefits those that are sixty five and older those I have health conditions that we should look at that and weigh out the risks and the benefits and make their own decision. This bill does not put anyone's co workers AT rex multiple studies have recently shown that the natural god designed immunities gain from overcoming covid R. thirteen to twenty seven times stronger and they last longer than any the vaccines that we have if an employee can show positive negative answers your report or recent negative COVID test there is no reason for them to have to have the vaccine as well. We all want this pandemic to and. Not a day goes by that I don't think about my precious constituents who have died due to code and that is why I have fought like a tyrant to get early COVID treatment effective early cover treatment in this state I think it's criminal that we don't have it I have been fighting like crazy is to get it because I am tired of seeing constituents and that and this is certainly. We have got to have honest open debate so that we can get good public policy. We're not going to defeat this without honest and open debate fear have truce will not get us there. We must return to where we started where I started this whole talk about we must return to the troops that were based on to pass laws that are based on truth mercy and justice protecting our constituents individual liberty and freedom and and with that I hope that all of you have read a letter that are Attorney General signed because she and other Attorney General said the second but oceans rules to put out there they are ready to fight so we're not at liberty we're not honoring we have attorney General's twenty four across the nation ready to fight against ocean against this tyranny we receive from this by the administration I'm tired of being silent. We have to change we're Republicans we are Republicans we represent our constituents and it's time for the truth to be out there this is a simple simple compromise bill and if we can't pass this bill. With the mass majority of Republicans god help us I would be happy to take any questions from constituents represent Collins for what purpose question you're recognized thank you a representative Bentley I think that all credible sources are pretty clear that this vaccine all three or very very safe really no serious argument about the safety there is a question I just read if I can finish my question I'm not going to. House come to order represent Bentley fill out represent const asks questions I will I apologize thank you are you aware that the the Veirs database is does not show anything about causation all it does is it is a place where adverse events are reported whether or not they're caused by the vaccine they just have to have happened and reported whether or not they actually happen is not even necessary it just has to be reported to the system and then it shows up in the system so these deaths heart attacks all these things are not necessarily caused by the vaccines are you aware of this I'm I do feel list and I said what I said in my report was they have not been verified but they also have not been unverified also to talk to nurses across the state who will tell you that there is actually no system in their hospital on where to report the adverse reactions to that they don't have time to report adverse reactions because they're too busy trying to keep our constituents are family members alive there is nowhere for them to report so that's why I gave you the Harvard report this is only one percent one percent on average as reported so there could be multiple more I have cases threaten to destroy the people that have adverse reactions and I don't think that my constituents are lying to me or the nurses that I've talked to I will take their word for it because I'm at their heroes everyday fighting for us to keep our constituents alive represent Lowery for what purpose question you're recognized yes representative Bentley I know that you've been involved in health related issues through the years I mean I've heard your testimony many times so I trust your viewpoint are there not already limitations on private employers to the state of Arkansas of what questions or what information they can get from an employee for instance they they can't ask the woman that they are going to hire if she is currently pregnant or if someone has aids is that. Correct Esther I've been a small business owner for the past twenty years as a multitude of things that I cannot ask my employees multitude of things and for someone to say that by not passing this bill we're going to be a bastion of freedom for business in Arkansas is a joke and I can list you two thousand. Regulations I have to abide by by man my little small business without even thinking twice about it so no this is not going to enforce undue penalties on businesses in Arkansas resume or not for what purpose question you're recognized for a question representative Bentley are you aware of the possible ramifications that will leave that this bill if passed could leave our hospitals who care for your constituencies you are limiting that you care about so much and they're dying they end up in the hospital and they get very sick this bill possibly could leave those are hospitals in Arkansas in a very precarious position it was testimony by from the hospital association to the fact that CMS if the federal government. Mandates with a mandate and we do something different how your decision our decision as a body here will affect does that become very sick and we know a lot of people have become sick from this disease so how. Do you justify making a decision this somewhat subjective in terms of what you do know don't know verified and of course to word you use is unverified. How do you make the decision to possibly leave our hospitals in Paris. Where they can not take care of the sick because of the rulings that will come down from CMS. What's the thinking there. That I really appreciate your question is you know what I know that you love you constituents as much as I do mine and we're all in this together we really are but I think in answer to that I'm going to read with the attorney general's letter that are Attorney General signed on to about vaccine mandates because I think we need to look what's going on in New York are you understand what's going on in the state of New York right now would have fired seventy thousand healthcare workers in there happen to bring their National Guard just to keep their hospitals afloat and labor and delivery units have shut down so let me read in response to your question because this is what a trade journals have said about mandates coming down from the federal government which should be CMS or sure any those someone read this of this okay very short statement. They said these under these federal mandates vaccine mandates represent not only a threat to individual liberty but a public health disaster that will place of vulnerable workers and exasperated national hospital staffing crisis with severe consequences for all Americans. Okay so what we're saying is with out this right now we're having hospital to have a shut down into your for they've already instituted this mandate any organs in Massachusetts thankfully we in Arkansas particular public workers but in those states they did not the Ernestine massive prices with hospitals shutting down because they don't have a full ease there to cover our constituents. So I think that there's ample opportunity for our Attorney General and other lawyers to get up in which they've already said they will fight against these federal edicts coming down from Washington represent got free for what purpose. Recognized for a question thank you Mr Speaker represent billion not sure you're quite answered representative mark question which was about the Medicaid and Medicare funding I understand your concern about the strain on the healthcare system with with professional leaving because they don't wanna be vaccinated I just want to hear do you think it's more of a threat that healthcare providers are requiring vaccines for their health care providers or more of a threat to our health care system that we lose all of this vital funding I would say that mark white when he was a committee that they didn't even have bullet points of what the CMA funding as I'm not gonna answer things based on threats or hearsay or whatever because we do have nothing in writing and associates in writing we can respond to it but at this point there's nothing in writing and that was from mark what is my there's not even a bullet points on the CMS might look like I'm gonna in my my comment sir thank you all for your time we're all in this fight together and this is a great time for freedom. Representive Bentley is spoken for the building would like to speak against the bill represent flowers you're recognized speak against the bill. Colleagues. Many of us in this body have had the experience of this virus in different ways. Whether it's our family members protecting our family members several of us have had the virus. Some of us have almost died from the virus. Almost eight thousand our Kansans have died from this virus. Almost five hundred thousand people have contracted the virus. And we know based upon our own medical authorities are only scientific authorities not politicians not policy makers. Science. Has driven the policies. As a matter of fact. If we go back to addressing the policies you know I've heard people come in the well and talk about. How decisions should be made because we're Republicans. We are our Kansans. And we're supposed to be making the best decisions especially around this pandemic for our constituents. As a matter of fact. It is Republicans and Democrats in Washington. Who have driven the policies that have allowed this country to use our wealth our extreme wealth and spend eighteen billion dollars. Through operation warp speed that was a policy of president trump's. And if I remind all of you president trump got the virus I mean got the vaccine and the virus. Many of us have the vaccine. And so when we talk about security. What is the role. An oppressive government or authority. Vaccine mandates is not. As a matter of fact we have mandates throughout our schools and when we travel. To protect us from mom's Rebello measles and the flu. So that's not consistent. We've heard arguments in this chamber and others. Likening this to having something to do with it aligning this with racial discrimination the Holocaust John this is about public health. This is about protecting lives that's it. And if we really want to look at the impact to our small businesses. What about restaurants. What about the private ownership of a restaurateur. Who is already suffered financially. already can't find employees to come work. In this state where. Tourism is our second largest industry. What a person wants to say Hey I want to assure people who come to Arkansas or come to my restaurant that my employees are safe and they make a decision. Because they are free Americans. And because they are small business operating in the economy that we have why in the world we go against science. And CDC policies and guidelines. To craft a law that operates against federal laws providing the Freedom of small businesses and our corporations to keep their employees safe. And their customers say. I ask you to not vote as a Republican. Or conservative or left this or Democrat or progressive I ask you to base your vote on that have a leader that has been elected as an R. Kansan to operate in the best interest of our Kansans. And with that I ask you to vote no thank you. Represent flowers a spoken against the bill we would like to speak for the bill represent Haak you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker thank you colleagues I just wanted to affirm the principles that I believe we all agree on. We all want health we all want safety we all want to protect the health and welfare of every individual. We want to help businesses protect workers we want to help the economy stays strong with a healthy workforce providing needed goods and services whether health care employee factory worker large or small business we want them all to prosper physically and financially. During the call of a pandemic states have taken quite drastic varying approaches to dealing with COVID. For instance governor Hutchinson just cited yesterday the strong state economy with sales tax revenue outpacing forecasts by a huge margin because our state did not shut down completely. Vereen states chose different ways to combat the COVID pandemic. As has been stated twenty four states attorneys general and our governor have responded. That are against vaccine mandates by the federal government's. I want read one of the quotes that I was going to read my colleague read earlier. But this is from signed by twenty four states attorneys general in response to federal mandates that have been proposed going through OSHA. All of these provisions are most naturally focused on dangers occurring at work because of one's work. Those are current OSHA regulations as opposed to dangers occurring and society generally including at work so covid is everywhere in the grocery store in the restaurant in your workplace for OSHA to regulate something that is in every aspect of our lives is a whole new Avenue for OSHA to address allowing ocean to mandate vaccines this is a quote to protect against a virus that is endemic in society generally would vastly alter the constitutional balance of power. Millions of Americans work for private companies subject to OSHA rules thus reading the statute as empowering the department of labor to regulate employees responses to illnesses existing and society at large would entail reading it to regulate the health and well being of millions of Americans that would be a sweeping intrusion on traditional state authority. And end quote takes a quotation marks and a citation the regulation of health and safety matters is primarily and historically a matter of local concern and we have fallen on that side of this issue for covid during this whole pandemic. The last quote I would like to share from this letter. Our constitution principally and trust the safety and health of the people to the politically accountable officials of the states to guard and protect your proposed plan would invert that structure and put the federal government at the forefront states have taken varying approaches to dealing with the virus and whether or not. As agreement that is how our constitutional structure is arranged. We have experienced many life altering disruptions and the last year and a half disruptions in personal health disruptions in relationships in our family and at work disruptions in business and school shutdowns and slowdowns and working and doing school from home. Material and consumer shortages and sadly death. We also help COVID negatively impacted patient care in our hospitals and care facilities and passed no patient left alone. The detrimental impact of isolation and mental health care crisis has not yet to be measured or is yet to be measured. COVID dramatically disrupted and change the landscape of all our lives. I put my name on an earlier version of the bill because of the people I met who reached out with their personal circumstances I also met with employers who are concerned about their workplace being safe for all employees. My name is on this bill for those individuals I met and those business owners as well. The individual bears the greatest risk and liability and that is their personal health and for that reason they should bill this bill should go into effect under an emergency clause and provide that protection and exemptions and cost of compliance now. This bill fulfills both sides. It is not either or. Either business or the individual in my mind it is fulfilling the goal of both sides by providing accommodations that provide physical protection for workers and the protection of individual rights H. B. nineteen seventy seven as a path forward that protects the workplace an individual worker's health and medical freedom. Thank you. Any questions. Thank you. President park a spokesman for the building when I speak against the bill. We would like to speak for the bill represent board you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues I'm gonna be as quick as I can because I know we've been here awhile so in America historically we treat individual patients there's a. Patient healthcare provider relationship. What is happening now is we're treating a population so historically the state has been able to regulate health care our federal government has gotten around that under the guise of an emergency so what this is about is this is about making sure we're helping ensure that our Kansans have that right to an individual provider patient relationship so with that said I appreciate a good vote thank you president board spoken for the building would like to speak against the bill. We would like to speak for the bill. Percent Richman you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I'll be very quick on this. These are the times that try politician souls we've realized that. Because the matter how we vote on this for or against. It's like refereeing a basketball game half the people out there going to be upset. And that goes all the way across the political spectrum. Can't be avoided. But we have a responsibility to vote. So I want to go back to the constituents. From the very beginning this whole COVID thing has been mishandled not intentionally. But it's been man had mishandled because anytime you start telling people you have to do this or you have to do that. They're gonna resist. And that's what's happening here this vaccine may very well be what exactly what we need but when you start forcing people. We have a problem. And unfortunately we look at the constituent the individual. And say what's wrong with you. Why don't you get this vaccination. We've said that it's safe. What part of the problem with that of course is that the information has been controlled and more people feel that instead of information what they're getting is propaganda. So we just haven't done a very good job really. Being honest up front saying it may do this it may do that. It may not do this it may not do that. In the constituents lot of them have distrust and rightfully so. I'll just sum it up by showing you one of the reasons why. That they do this is the information that you get if you take a tetanus shot. There's a there's a lot of stuff in this. This is what you get if you take a COVID shot. There's nothing in it it is completely blank. And that causes concern. How can you overcome it. By being honest being truthful. Letting people make up their own minds as we go along and you'll see as people see this vaccination get a little older a little more trying. People will be happy to take it if it doesn't really cost problems. We find ourselves now in a position that we don't want to be in because none of us want to tell a private business well most of us don't want to a private business what to do. It's a lose for all of us frankly and we're all going to get loser does on this no matter how we vote. It's just that's the fax. We go back. Remember your constituents are and if they want. This bill to pass I recommend that you vote for. If the majority of people in your district don't want this bill passed vote against it because that's your job to represent your constituents thank you for some Richmond spoken for the bill representive Meeks for what purpose ocean place let's hear motion I'd like to move for immediate consideration. That's a proper motion it's not debatable all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. The question before the House is the passage of house bill nineteen seventy seven we have four pairs on the desk. Representative Christiansen votes yes representative Richardson votes no. Witnessed by representative Dotson representative Richardson is the president member are there any procedural objections to this pair. Representive Bragg votes yes represent Godfrey votes no witnessed by represent Bryant. President Godfrey is the president member there any procedural objections this pair. President Barker votes yes represent Perry votes no witnessed by represent Haak represent Perry's a present member there any procedural objections to this pair. President Cozart boats yes representive Lanny Fite boats no witness by representative McNair represent Lanny Fite as president member there any procedural objections to this pair. Hearing no objections please do not vote either of these voting machines. Per the machine Mr Clerk. Has everyone voted. Is everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of sixty four Yeas sixty eighth nineteen days and six present. He's may sixty eight yeas twenty three nays and six present the bill an emergency clause. Have passed. Person makes what purpose motion place that's your motion after the announcmenet reading of the bills transferring the bill's place in the counters on the desk members amending their own bills with their own amendments members withdrawing their own bills finalizing resolutions reading communications and any remaining committee report I move that we adjourn until eleven o'clock tomorrow morning that's a proper motion it's not debatable all in favor say aye. Any opposed the motion passes are there any announcements represent Dalby for what purpose Senate you're recognized judiciary will making fifteen minutes room one forty nine percent Tosh for what purpose else but you're recognized state agency made at one thirty room one fifty one represent wing for what purpose announcmenet you're recognized we have good news Happy Birthday representative Womack. Any other announcements. Continue to monitor your email and the schedule online. If no other announcements the desk remain open as needed for the reading of the bills upon completion The Addams named in the joint resolution house to be adjourned until eleven AM tomorrow.