Senate Convenes

Senate will come to order my secretary please call Ballinger Beckham. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis Dismang Eads Elliott English Flippo. Loures Garner Gilmore Hammer Hendren Hester Hickey Hill Ingram Irvin Blake Johnson Mark Johnson Leding Pitsch Rapert Rice sample Stubblefield Sturch Sullivan Teague Tucker Wallace. One please stand gluing those in the gallery Senator Flippo will lease and work for members put please rise join in prayer. Your heavenly father we come to you today with humble and grateful hearts. Humble for the task before us grateful for the opportunity to serve your people we ask that you be with us today as we take on the work that you have test us with and let's not forget the things we do we do for you and for your glory your honor in his name I pray amen. To the. Of the United States of America. Which is. One. In the. With the justice for all. Before we get started I was informed by Senator Ballinger that we're gonna pass over S. B. seven thirty one today S. the seven thirty one we're gonna pass over. We get to this in one bill on the calendar any items at the desk before we move into the business agenda madam secretary Nassar. Okay you senator garner or. Thank you is not okay. We'll get senator garner and we're going to. Go to Senator Hammer. Amendment three to Senate bill seven thirty nine. Senator hammer on a S. P. seven thirty nine amendments. Thank you Mr president my bill my amendment I'd also like to ask the Amendment wanted to be withdrawn from further consideration and then I have a motion after the sections taken care of members wanted to or withdrawal without objection which brings us now to amendment three his bill is amendment any questions. Comment all those in favor say aye. Those eyes have it virgin the amendment is adopted merge the calls it has emerged called centering grossing you're recognized for the motion which I can anticipate what it is thank you Mr president like to make a motion that when the bill comes back from grocery need the added to today's calendar. You heard the motion the questions. Service my has a question. When I realized that we just passed over you know discussion on the amendments but I want to make sure that I under. The day he left well. Yeah I'm sorry but I do want to make sure that I understand amendment seven trying to come through this this morning in in I mean I I again I realize that we just kind of passed over the part we can discuss this The Amendment you can get to give us an over line or a you know a overview of what it is we're talking about changing so that we know what to anticipate when this comes back from grossing especially for you you're asking us to vote on each day yes Sir be glad to maybe before I say answer questions present madrick question to you I think did I make a motion to suspend the rules for the purpose of adding it to the counter today you didn't use those words but yes it's going to I was good restated before the vote which by the way requires twenty four votes okay thank you to the questions Senator Dismang some of the points that it demands in the language is that it. Get my cheat sheet here. It change the term of treatment to vaccination or immunization just wanna clarification to make sure that we know exactly what we're talking about it the the two big a key components is it takes out the language about the unemployment because of the bill passes they build warded or for the the same opportunities as anybody else that would be applied for unemployment and based on what the Parma commerce said there's no reason to have that language in there because we go through the normal processes it would also substitute and I'll read specifically proof of immunity for the virus that causes the COVID nineteen or experience including without limitation the presence of antibodies T. cells response or proof or positive COVID nineteen or experience test on the basis of two times per year not to exceed once every six months so it would allow or it clarified the ability to use a test that would determine if you have the antibodies built up in your system not to exceed the greater than six months or twice a year and then it clarified the cost of the testing would be covered through any state or federal funding made available including without limitation the COVID nineteen really funds distributed from the rescue act if the employee's health benefit plan does not cover the cost of testing and in the event that the cost of testing under this subdivision is not available costs of testing shall be covered by the employee so the unemployment issue is addressed the cost of the test was addressed and also clarification of the antibodies tests that could be used those are the three big components of the of the bill question. in so there there is a part of this is that on page two we delete lines twenty three or twenty five through twenty seven if I'm reading that right that's the portion that it employees been exposed that you can have testing this more regular than once a week M. and I misunderstood are we striking that language out and you can walk me through why we would strike that out or what we're doing there sure up the the the. Explanation is that if a person has been exposed to somebody they're gonna be quarantine removed from the job site anyway if they've been exposed to it. Okay thank you thank you. Are your questions of answers Senator Dismang. Senator Tucker you're good Senator Tucker I question. Thank you thank you governor Senator so what for this is on the motion if we add this to today's calendars I mean we're going to vote on it essentially right now hours or another time later this afternoon we'll come back I'm just curious about the logistics of that. The motion would be go head start go to the bottom of the counter which would be so we're here we'll hear SB seven thirty two and then we'll hear the engrossed version of seven thirty nine is that what you are saying. Okay thank you. Any other questions. Any other questions about Senator hill as a question is on the motion to suspend the rules. Okay my my question on this senator is the the House had to approve I I asked back when we were doing the study about that in the employee pain in the **** wanted to take the House having to instead of doing as a body. I'm sorry one more time allowed when the SPS only on the employee paying a portion of it we discussed it several times it was putting out of it want to take the house due to decide to put that in there for you all decide to agree on that because we're trying to get to a working arrangement and it's just the dialogue that occurred between the House enough and also when I presented in the Senate committee that's the result of what came out of it that I think would be a pathway forward thank you think about each of you to put that in a row one day three weeks ago thank you Sir my apologies to you Sir. Any other questions. Mr Masterson yeah in response centers question. It was it was actually I think originally in there but as a result of some input from an entity they wanted clarified clear and this language makes it clear but yes your ideas was the original idea it was suggested to me that we and what the from the house side came from somebody else that we put in there to clarify very clearly that where the Buck stops because we had it in a certain arrangement and sold this brought clarity to it so I'll give you credit for that publicly Senator Hendren then Senator Stubblefield center had. Thank you Mr president so we're going to have been engrossed copy before we vote on this correct it'll go to engrossing comebacks will be able to see the bill engrossed to set after I sort through these amendments. Come back fully engrossed with the amendment Senate and and then my intent would be just to stand here walk through it right down the line of the bill to answer any questions that may be may be asked thank if it gets a lot be added to the calendar today thanks thank you Sir Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman. Senator Hammer is there anyone who has a religious are our medical objection to taking the vaccine or or Justin will take the vaccine is there anyone that this bill will not. Helped. In my opinion it'll help those. Who maybe have had their religious or medical exemptions denied this is a safeguard to help this will help all of those. Who's who've had their objections denied yes Sir. Okay all right any other questions. Sir Chesterfield insanity. thank you Mr chairman thank you senator Hammer taking my question as we look at unemployment benefits. Who pays those it is that from the state and federal level only the state. Well believe it to be. I'll clarify that before I come back president but I believe it's going to they would be treated just like any other individual that would file for unemployment so would be to stay the fed's I will clarify that for get back up to the will thank you so much and address that question. Senate take. Warren center good morning do you know how many people in Arkansas have lost their have been denied or religious or whose religious objection are medical objections have been denied. I mean is that a huge number or three people what what's the number I do not have a way to determine the number I could tell you based on emails and you know that I've received directly from people not cookie cutter emails of people there that are about to lose their job that have expressed that would have been turned down and so there is there's no other option for them and that's what this would do is create that option interesting NO one was from a medical doctor of twenty plus years has been treating COVID patients who's not going to take the vaccine is entity is going to fire him if he doesn't take the vaccine so to that kind of individual of which I cannot substantiated number it would be beneficial. Thank you thank you any other questions Senator Chesterfield Elliott. And when I thought and that takes me a minute even wound up Right to work and we on the part of the constitution or use it in state statute. Well I believe it's in state statute I'll clarify that but we have specifically written into this that this does not threaten our right to work status as a state or more the law as it currently fees or if it's a part of the constitution. Are you in the constitution. This will help me understand better because for a long time this state has been a right to work state yes ma'am follows implies we are fully. And so it would be helpful to know are you amending of state or you amending what is in the constitution I believe or amending statute not what's in the constitution that's what we for clarity purposes and to address that issue we have it written into the bill that it does not threaten our status as a right to work state thank you thank you senator Elliots. This is this is for you I was wondering rather than making a motion if when we come back with this bill engrossed if you would entertain just giving us our five ten minute recess so we can just read the engrossed bill that might attack thing and end up thank you for that Senator and the the Clerk is said that she will put a copy of the engrossed bill on everybody's desk okay and will make sure these issues are too important to rush for this so we'll be happy to do that of let's. Anything else on that right now it's any other questions on this motion. Remember my hearing is not the best in this this is required when I'm alleged finish this requires twenty four votes so if it's even you look you're lost okay so just for that go ahead. Thank you thank you Mr president for pre determination my my intent is just to make sure that it keeps moving but my intent is not for you to feel like something's been rushed past you so whatever the body will understand this even though I preach to an empty chamber yesterday I will not be carry a hard feelings at eight o'clock this morning thanks to enter key I just I want you to have a comfort level about this bill and if the body determines not but ever since we started the theme has been let's get out here and and if you feel that you need that all the time you need in order to absorb it get your questions answered I'll stay in the chamber to answer your questions before I get back down in this podium you do whatever your comfort level is I'll live with it and be fine with that so I can have this bill out of here with you having the opportunity to have full discussion I probably speak against ball motion but I'd rather do that and you feel good that the process has been here and that is been transparent then for check for a cloud to be over this bill and with that we should good vote you're not speaking to get your motion is not debatable. Okay so this is a motion to suspend the rules to put Senator Hammer is amended bill at the bottom of the calendar okay all those of favour say aye. I don't know what twenty four audible votes looks like that sounds like the motion carried and so we put at the bottom of the county. Get senator garner or. Amendment one Senate bill seven thirty. This is an emergency clause has for a good vote. Adding an emergency clause any questions. All those of favour say aye. Close. The the nose I haven't The Amendment was not adopted. Okay five hands. Okay I'm secretary please call the roll. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Chesterfield. All. Okay Caldwell. Clark. Davis. DISMANG. Aids. Elliott. English. English. Flippo. Flowers. Flowers Garner yes Gilmore. Hammer. Hendren. Hester Hickey. Health. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson. Mark Johnson. Leding. Page. Rapert Rice. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan. Teague. He was not Tucker. Wallace. Senator English is by anyone else. Cast up the ballot twenty three age eleven nights amendment is adopted. Senator gross a motion from time. Senator is recognized for motion motion to suspend the rules to add Senate bill seven thirty to the end of the agenda after as engrossed okay any questions on a motion to suspend the rules. Okay all those of favour say aye. Close. Is have it the rules are suspended or be put at the bottom of the. Calendar. Yes so we'll pass it just to clarify what we are so we're going to pass over Senator Ballinger SP seven thirty one per his request all the amendments are done. We still have jobs yeah so what we'll do is we'll go ahead and handle Senator Johnson's bill. And then we'll take a recess of that works for you all we have time to get over by the text. Okay so we'll just go to Senator Johnson's and so while the other bills for engrossed Senate bill seven thirty two by Senator Blake Johnson to prohibit conversion of persons to receive the vaccine or immunization for a covered nineteen and declare an emergency Sir John. Members substantively this bill is the same as what was before with two amendments the amendments the get rid of the possible positive incentives and allows a possible in positive and centers and also includes any other federal funds that may become available to pay for this. Any questions Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr president so I did I do see that you address the issue that we've been told these funds under the rescue plan are not available for unemployment benefits correct address that by saying other federal funds those risky funds I think run through twenty twenty three and they'll be they they maybe possibilities use those funds at a later date but any other funds that we can use federal it also so. And what if there are no federal funds that are authorized for this use what do you tell the people who left their employment thinking they were gonna get on. What does the state cover. Well. It says what it says it's it's if it's not available it's not available there's all kinds of bills filed down here this never appropriated funds. There's things created I mean it still gives those exemptions for the people. But to be clear there is no mechanism where anybody will receive any funds from the state budget under your bill this the only funds that they would be utilized our funds of the federal government chooses to say are authorized for this purpose. And that's a possibility after the mid term elections or if if funds that we can use for work for sure other funds that we can use for this purpose. But again I'm just trying to get to the heart and have it on the record but we're not gonna use state funds for this program yes okay not you state funds yes. Sir let under this. Thank you president Senator you and I talked briefly before earlier this morning and you touched on it just now remarks but just to clarify for people back home they've all right now is offering anybody who lives in the city works in the city a one time one hundred dollar. Benefit if they get vaccinated against COVID nineteen and should as be seven thirty to become law the way the minute now that would not in such a positive reinforcement can no thank you. US senator Dismang and senator. Thank you just on this it and I I guess my question goes back to. Man if you're poor years forcing you to do something that you do not want to do the set backs Zayn just based on principle. Are you allowed to leave your place of employment with go find another job absolutely. Okay and I guess my question is. If you have a fundamental disagreement with your employer. As it relates to the vaccine. Are you prevented from then Leding. Now okay so if an individual wants to make the choice. That they do not want to work for an employer that believes that the vaccine should be mandated by the employer they're not required to do that are they. Okay thank you Sir Tucker. Thank you governor Senator There's a term that using the bill philosophical beliefs could you just it's it's not defined in the bill and I just was curious could you flesh that out for me your well I mean there are folks that don't have religious beliefs that this covers under the first amendment and philosophical belief would be internal believe that is not defined by religion so. Those are outside of the religious round and Okay is there any. Limitation on that are constrained or just if you have a philosophical belief not to get the vaccine that's it in the store as individuals I mean that as covered under education law now vaccine immunization okay thank you. Any other. Anyone to seek the death. Senate is my is recognized. Anybody after that. Senate is mine thank you members. We've all had jobs we all take jobs we all have agreements or disagreements with our employers some of us are employers. At the end of the day we all have the right to choose whether or not we work somewhere in if our beliefs agree with those of our employer. If we don't. Then we lease. We find another job. With this bill is saying is that if the employer who owns the property who owns the business is put up the capital. If they have a disagreement. The employee's ride trump's that. To me that's where you draw the line. I was against mandates and I think you all know this we started mandating what businesses did back in the beginning. I thought it was too early thought it was punitive certain businesses that anyone to providing the benefit that was needed. I was opposed into the mandates. I know personally businesses that did not survive the mandates. But we're going to mandate today we're gonna mandate again because on this particular situation because back in the beginning we all were you know there are a vast majority is for against mandates we knew better then on mandates now we know better again on mandates. I mean I guess my request would be. Let that contract exists between the employee and employer in of ones not happy with the other than they have the full right to move on to find another job and better the lives and not work for someone that they philosophically disagree with. With that thank you. Or. Senator Ingram questions Senator Dismang. Senator if you own the business that of let's say they were in an outside of households of you're a plumber or your electricians or you in the pesticide Business of and because your employee is ten out of houses with the potential because they're not vaccinated to pass the COVID virus. Wouldn't it make sense that your company is now liable if they should pass that up COVID virus owner that household and it's proven when I think the employer should have the right to be able to weigh that liability with their own beliefs. I mean there's a consequence right I mean it I don't wanna get in the weeds on vaccinations. It doesn't do any good I mean it's very hard and fast I mean there's a few folks in the middle but for the most part people either believe they work don't work at the from the devil that there you know whatever it may be. And you get to make that market decision as an employer that were you know where does it live over to my customer base lie what do they want from me how much liability in my bill willing to take we're taking that option away from the employer or risking their business. Or maybe we're not again that's not our decision to make that's the employer's decision to make just like it's the employee's decision to make whether or not they stay in that employment or not. Thank you. Question senator garner. Would you describe the same philosophy two other protected class created by legislation such as African Americans and age discrimination or medical history discrimination such as those are HIV positive can't determine terminated because of that status would you prescribe that same status being in our law for fifty plus years to the same principle you just described. With that is what I strive this same principle well any and you're wanting me to get into the decision of whether or not that you know COVID is even transmissible. A lot of people believe it is some people believe it's not I've got plenty of emails in Texas morning that that that code is in real. Right and and again what I'm saying is. That employer should be able to have that right to make that call to know what's best for their business just as though the employee has the right to make that call to know what's best for themselves and I mean at the end of the day why would you want to work for someone. That you have such a disagreement with. I wouldn't can you prescribe those same principles to say after America was far because the right there Collins can somebody who had aids that cannot be fired because that that same principle that if they want to go work somewhere else and employee I don't think someone's color make someone's. Questions or would you describe the same belief systems and that as well. Do I think this. African American people should be fired or the employer should have the right to fire them because of the color of their skin. No that's not the same I believe that it's apples and oranges I believe it protect class thank you Sir. Okay Sleepy your mom the senator has left the well so who anyone wish to speak in favor of the bill. Speaking against the bill Senator Hendren is recognized against the bill. I'm doing the. I won't take long and we're we're going to have three or four Bills today and I think the arguments are the same for all of our. But I do think it's important for somebody has been been down here while to tell you what you just heard from Senator Dismang was the conservative position. Which is the government the need to get in the middle of every decision that businesses may. How does government have a role to play and workplace safety and fair playing field of course it does and to senator grant garner's question to complain it could compare right now now there are some legislation and may change that the right now vaccination status is not a protected class like race is and to compare those two makes no sense. Let me just say why I'm opposed to this and the other bills we're going to have an first we've already fleshed out so I'm not gonna spend a lot of time on it but I think this entire. Effort to open this session up. Is unconstitutional and contrary to the tradition has been set by the General Assembly for the ninety three of the General symbols with Pat we are supposed to be here to serve any die and do anything that we were unable to do because of circumstances beyond our control like redistricting. You heard from the pro tem that was his intent with this resolution we've gone way outside of this or or. And I am speaking against the bill. We've gone way outside of that and we're addressing one second so give your senate Y. latitude speak against the bill these are some of the reasons he's against the bill. It has wide latitude for the well to express yeah and I use that while ninety two to say that I'm against all bills I believe are patently unconstitutional as we left out yesterday I think this one is and again we had fifteen members who agreed the rest you either agree or you disagree what I hope is you don't agree and you're voting for because it's politically expedient it is a serious thing to pass legislation that you know's contrary to the intent of the constitution and I hope we don't do that. Let me just say as an employer it's clear that these this bill and others violate federal law and will likely violate OSHA regulation. You're putting employers in a position where they're going to have to decide do I follow what the federal government tells me under federal law and under state regulation governed by OSHA. Or do I follow up to state legislatures told me to do in Arkansas because and we all know has gone in the court's going to make that decision they're going to say that the federal government translate spring C.. But that doesn't change the fact that in the meantime we put all of these businesses who do business in all parts of the country in a horrible position because we're passing law contrary to what the OSHA regulations say we know we're going to say. We are talked about the funding issue this I think one of the coolest things we can do is give people this idea that they're going to get taken care of if they make the decision under this legislation to leave their job. And we know full well that there's no federal funds can be are allocated for that and likely will be allocated for that. And that's why I want to be clear is don't tell the state in that we're going to come back in and pick up the difference because he's made promises that you know or and keep the bill which is what this legislation does. And then finally on this on this saying closing again on all these pieces of legislation. We tend to get hung up with the a lot of things other than the reality. The reality is seven hundred thousand Americans are dead and over seven thousand R. Kansas and employers are trying to do the best they can to stop that from ravaging their workforce not just for profit but because they care about their people. I'm a center this means that the conservative position is I'm not for mandates the government shouldn't tell me I have to vaccinate everybody in my work I'm opposed to what the bite administration did with that route. But I'm also not for the legislature tell me what to do with regard to vaccinate my work force which is what we're doing. I had twenty two percent vaccination rate at my company we're over ninety percent and I did it with a solution that was unique to my company and my P.. I didn't need the General Assembly or the federal government telling me how to do how to do that. Why are we so determined to impose what we think is our willingness right. I'm private businesses that's just not the conservative position that's not been the position of this legislature over the past and I and I hope that we will defeat this any other piece of legislation well Sir take questions yeah okay so Senator Hammer Senator Stubblefield anybody else last okay remember Senator Stubblefield Senator Elliot Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr president thanks for taking questions Senator Hendren did you just say that ninety percent of your work for ninety percent of your workforce is vaccinated yes. Does that mean you're going to let the other ten percent go or how are you going to handle addressing the concerns of the ten percent. That are not vaccinated I have taken steps to continue to encourage the other ten percent I had a thirty minute conversation with one of them just last week and I will continue and in the meantime I've taken steps to give them more protection than the others who were vaccinated in the in the industry I have found a solution that has worked for us and I'll tell you this. I considered mandating an. And just and just the threat of that available mandate was a tool that I use to get to the place I needed to be with my people because the fact is they appreciated that I did and they realize that I was not doing this for that reason just to punish them I was doing it because I cared about a work force and I cared about them and their families. Thank you. Senator Stubblefield in Senator Elliot thank you thank you governor Senator Hendren of you mention the constitution a number of times can you tell me where the constitution gives ocean the authority to deal in healthcare matter. They do it all the time the federal government I don't know I will tell you that we're listed in the constitution. Where is it in the constitution or the constitution actually gives ocean the authority or the power to deal in people's health issues I mean. Senator Stubblefield. I don't have the U. S. constitution hearing from me but I think let me answer I think all of us know that the federal government has roles and responsibilities to play with interstate commerce and workplace safety they've established under that constitutional the right to life the right of. To to to have fair workplaces Davis technician organization agency to do that and that's what she does and I mean if you think that we can just tell the employers they can't nor OSHA. You don't understand how it works. The government was given seventeen enumerated powers both of which all of that with foreign affairs none of those debt with ocean having authority over health care matters and as far as as far as a mandate to affected businesses and individuals let's look at the hospital in New York we're all the doctors quit had to close down a complete pediatric unit. Because no doctors or nurses would take the vaccine they all quit so the mandates are affecting businesses they're putting businesses out of business and before this is over. Other state you're gonna be hiring thousands of substitute teachers to take the place of teachers because of these mandates. That is going to do a lot of heart or education what's already been on the last two years as you will note Sir so if you want to speak against for the bill you can. Let's try to keep it moving on questions you have another question okay Senator Elliott this is question to the senator speaking against the bill. Thank you senator Hendren I just wanted to amplify and be sure I advise something you said from the well that about the questions from senator garner about the protected classes Would you agree with me that as far as we know by science that COVID nineteen is a contagious disease. The B. an African American is not a contagious disease. That's a really big distinction is it not. Absolutely that's why I made the point is I've I've seen some false equivalencies in my day but that was that was absolutely one of the worst is we have protected classes for reasons because there's been some classes that have been abused over the years. Whether not somebody takes a vaccination to compete compare that with somebody skin color I think is ridiculous I do we not already have laws governing the actions of people who have aids for example if you knowingly transmit aids for one person that's against the law is it not actually yeah and and also. I think another distinction that we have is Transference of the aids virus is not a matter of just be an Arab Warren if it has to happen as a result of people it in into that situation as opposed to walking walk into a room and have a conversation with you if I have of the corona virus and I can transmit it is that the distinction yeah and it is in them and the response of the business community shows that I mean. You haven't tried to get through the challenges of. Business until you've lived through two three quarantines because of the transmissibility of this virus nobody's experience that with a so again it's to not a comparison even relative thank you senator Bledsoe has a question. You want to entertain it all right thank you so much Senator I think you answered this question in your remarks but let me be sure What is the difference in the State of Arkansas telling private businesses they can't mandate vaccines for their employees and the federal government telling private business they have to do that yeah again as I said I think that the the the position that many of had. In a bipartisan way in Arkansas has traditionally been we don't over regulate businesses and to require that a business man and man a vaccinate their employees is a strong regulation to require an mandate that they cannot again is a regulation and is contrary to the conservative nature of my politics and traditional Arkansas politics. Thank you. Sir Clark. Senator Hendren of you talk about constitutional to law considers the bill brought this up and you seem to upon the two thought that. The. Of residence order using ocean of on the vaccine mandates was constitutional are you not aware that. General cross the country I'm I'm having trouble hearing you are you not aware that attorneys general across the country are waiting to get the exact rules that they just the office of the constitutional they're just waiting for the rules of the falsely. The constitutionality issues that I raised was that we are not supposed to be doing anything except sine die adjournment which takes about thirty minutes and doing redistricting that's the constitutionality issue that you away this into the idea but without the federal government has authorities to regulate health and safety in the workplace and in society. I mean we can go there I think it's it's absent whether we agree with or not you think that she's going to be done away with and private companies are going to have to deal with them showing up for inspections in the and the consequences of not being in compliance. I mean I think that's one approach is not very realistic. But the do not raised more than one issue that that we shouldn't deal with the issue because of the federal mandate. No I the constitutionality issue that we debated for two hours here and we had two hours presentation from BLR was whether or not we can come together when our when our stated intent is we've adjourned come back for assigning die official adjournment. We have gone completely off the rails and I think that all of that it is already been challenged in the courts have already ruled you know we had a close voting here and the the body Matus blowing snow but I that doesn't change my opinion that I don't think we have the authority to come down here and open this session up after we've adjourned so we heard objection with with not doing this because of the confusion with the federal mandates that we miss our. Thank you for that. I guess I don't understand your question is it what you know the it was asked the other day is will conditions have changed. That doesn't give us the right to have another session because the conditions of change would be the federal mandate or not federal mandates we now there's a you all put in a pro a public there is a proposal gonna be on the ballot which would give us that authority under the constitution to call ourselves back into session. But we can't just start with the situations change so we're going to this state come back in session. It's outside the bounds of the constitution has never been done before so. What you said the word understated so if there was any point made that we shouldn't do this because of the federal mandates that we should ignore that. I didn't make that point I said I didn't agree with the federal mental so what I did not agree to federal mandate I don't agree with this man thank you. Senator Hammer has a question at the center will entertain. Thank you thanks for taking the questions Senator Hendren. Back on and I'm asking this maybe for the sponsor the bill to follow up on if you don't know the answer to the question but if I'm if I'm understanding right we already have an existing law that requires that a religious and medical exemption be offered to an employee who has an objection and this is going to add a third component to it set aside the debate about constitutionality and funding and words can be paid for with. What are the main objections you have to adding a third component to an already existing requirement on businesses are you talking about the requirements for other vaccinations that we currently have with the law requires exceptions be made in certain cases. Because I agree with that is current law and it is also current law that the event of an outbreak I have the ability to to change that and to respond accordingly and we never had an outbreak seen in my lifetime like we're having right now it in this state so yeah we I'm not to I I I don't necessarily have so much wrong with the debate about whether we should whether we shouldn't add exceptions and how we do it but here's the problem as I said I I continue to have whether we like it or not. The federal government calls the shots on this they're sending the money down and they are going to tell employers of over a hundred and size. What they're gonna do and how they're going to do it and you're putting employers I I mentioned airlines yesterday because three more major airlines just said they're going to mandate knew many of those employees work here in Little Rock and in northwest Arkansas regional and now you're going to have American Airlines in the position where the state law prevents us from doing what they have chosen and been mandated to do by the federal government and the point I'm making those Senator Hammer again is I don't agree with the federal mandate I got to where I needed to be without being told by the federal government how to do it but I don't agree with the state legislature mandate that I can't use all tools at my disposal. Thank you. This. A that's all the questions for Senator Hendren who speak against thank you for Senator Garner. Thank you governor I've read this bill a few times last night today and respectfully to Senator Dismang and Senator Hendren. I don't see any mandate for an employer in this particular bill. If you can find one I would be happy to be pointed out would you keep speaking on the contents of. This bill which has nothing to do with it. As far as I understand this bill is simply this that if employer makes that choice to terminate somebody. Then they have the ability to call receive lost wages to a federal program if that money is available. That doesn't put any mandate on employer making business decisions it doesn't have any punitive actions to miss four as I can see it simply wouldn't argue these mandates and that and my bill about the run to in a minute you probably have a better argument against because unemployment insurance does affect private businesses I will openly admit that but the bill we have before us. Really isn't relevant any arguments that Senator Dismang or Senator Hendren just made to be quite what the fundamental question is if somebody is terminated because they choose not to get vaccinated and if the federal funds are available we allow that person to make up their lost wages and that seems to be the crux of this bill you can agree or disagree with that idea does not interject things at or in the black letter report of the law that's currently in front of us once again if I'm incorrect about that please correct me I know Senator Hammer bill deals with mandates my bill deals with unemployment I think we should respect Senator Johnson up to actually look at his bill discussed the merits a it rather than bringing in other thank. Service speak for anyone wish to speak against the bill. For the bill Senator Rapert. Thank you Mr president. Members. The. When I think about this debate we're we're all or at the claims of this is conservative or not I think we need to come up with a new term during this pandemic that is COVID mania Code psychosis. Because we've absolutely seems like people is just going over the edge. We already you're saying the current surge begin to go down. Even with the over over what I would say over reaction the first occurred where the risk mandates that were shutting down businesses do you not remember all that. And then all of a sudden for the first time that I know of I can't I can't find any other time in the history of the country. We're individual people were being told that they're going to be fired if they don't take any vaccine. At all if you can find it I'd be happy for you to bring it to my attention. I believe in private business private enterprise. But I also know that in this country. There are a lot of things you cannot ask somebody when you're hiring them. Have you thought about that lately. When you Now certainly believe that you have the right to interjections self interfere with somebody's philosophical or their religious objection to taking a shot injected into their body would you for testimony from our cans is that if talked about their own children. Who took one shot in two shots then had blood clots and had my kind artists and things that are going on. These are doctors and nurses in our own state that are talking about the fact that they have seen these people in the emergency rooms. This is what it would be wholly different frankly for all of us if this was some sort of of each shot injection that had little to no side effects and had no deaths reported with. But it is that's what we're dealing with so I'm I wanna hear looked to answer sent back to some of the senators is been quoting employment law here's a questions employers aren't allowed to ask you. You can ask you this but can I ask how old you are. They can ask are you married. They can even ask if your U. S. citizen they can ask you do you have any disabilities that's all to do with health it says you can't even ask them if they take drugs smoke or drink. Says you can't even ask them what religion they practice what your race or are you pregnant. My goodness just thank you for the supplanted the argument today. For pregnant women. You can't do that. It goes on and on and here there's thirty interview questions right here you cannot ask so don't tell me that there is no protections for individual liberty in this country they cannot be afforded. Because there's plenty out here that affords protection for individual privacy rights and personal rights. I sought counsel from from a legal source liberty counsel which many of people have got up in this well and you've quoted opinions from liberty counsel which is a large religious liberty farm in our country says the existence of COVID nineteen does not justify the numerous violations of fundamental individual economic and religious liberties these include the rights of personal autonomy and bodily integrity and the right to accept or reject the various covert vaccines based on religious beliefs or other grounds. There's a whole section in this opinion is says covert vaccines cannot be mandatory under title seven. Of the Civil Rights Act. Says in general employee vaccine religious exemption request must be accommodated for reasonable accommodation exist without undue hardship to the employer under title seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four. I'm not going to read it all to you and I encourage you to go look it up we're going to be debating other bills that are coming up it's unlawful for employers is quoting to force vaccinations on staff and employees holding religious convictions against a vaccine and to refuse a reasonable accommodation this goes for healthcare industry employers in twenty eighteen and you need to listen to this. In twenty eighteen one hospital paid eighty nine thousand dollars to settle the suit after refusing to accommodate and firing employees who declined flu vaccinations based on their religious beliefs. That was oh **** involved in that is well the U. S. department of justice on comp compensatory damages on behalf of a nursing home employee against whom Ozaukee county Wisconsin discriminated. Last thing the occupational safety and health administration is also recognized that there is not evidence that COVID nineteen vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from person to person. I'm just telling you we have seen so much misinformation so much backtracking on this information and here's where I leave you today. You've gotten emails from people that are in the military in our state. You've probably gotten voicemails from people doctors and nurses. They want to continue working I'm not going to be part of violating a document in here that's older than any of body serving in here in its older than anything that I read to you today the declaration of independence and we're down with our creator with certain unalienable rights of which are life. And liberty. We have never never ever. Violated the sanctity of that god given individual right I'm not going to be a part of a society that holds people down and forces them to take vaccinations like this. It's wrong. If people have an objection justice senator Johnson has eloquently frankly and profoundly frankly taken one body that already gives these protections just said we want online here. In this situation. You don't want to wake up in six months from now when they change all the parameters again in regret. That we have forced people out of their jobs let me tell you something these people that are losing their jobs. And I'm talking to military people that feel like they have absolutely been forced when they got family members that have that issues and you're forcing them to do this do you understand what we're doing here. Yes I speak from experience you know I was hospitalized with this stuff I preach my grandfather's funeral months after I got out of the hospital my dad's just getting out of rehab it is dangerous we need to do what we can but turning against each other's not the answer. Threatening people's livelihoods is not the answer it's about helping people. Nobody that was un vaccinated killed my grandfather. They didn't do that. It's a disease. We need to care about each other and stop violating fundamental principles in our country especially when it comes to liberty. Sir we take questions. The questions Senator hunter has a question. Thank you Mr president Senator Rapert used the phrase a couple time forcing people to take a vaccination there is no not even under the mandates that we have now there is no government entity forcing anybody to take a vaccination correct. That's right you have the president of the United states's ACT says he is mandating that in military personnel here in the State of Arkansas that are working we've already had this discussion robustly you were part of that discussion they have an order that they are to take the vaccination. Or they will be dishonorably discharged or court martial is that not true Senator Hendren no it's not true well excuse me I object for the record I mean actually the department of defense we can we can pull out the information I'll be happy to provide those to you because it's from the DOD I just had this provided to me I was asked Forton somebody thankfully had the courage to give it to me it says that you are ordered in this state I'm told here in a couple of weeks they're having a meeting there's going to be a discussion and they already been advised three hundred of you are lining up and you're taking the shot. Okay if you don't take the shot you'll be court martialed or you'll be dishonorably discharged now that servers in writing. Okay I have a little bit of experience in this area and I will tell you again as we talked about in hearing with regard to the military culture and the testimony before your committee the Jack and late chief legal adviser of the National Guard said the likelihood that somebody would get an other than honorable or dishonorable discharge court marshals just ludicrous to think that somebody would be court martialed but even in that situation that's not me finish that's not. I've got it in writing Sir so let the center finish okay and even in the military. Nobody is going to be tied down and vaccinate they're gonna be said there are two serious career ramifications because when used when you signed up. You signed up when you you sacrifice some of the liberties that we all take so dear I didn't say that Sir but nobody under military or under private mandate or anybody else this is what I'm trying to get to the question I asked originally is nobody in this country is being forcefully vaccinated. You you can believe what you want to believe by the way I didn't say that the military was forcefully doing that I was told what was stated from an airman in the Air National Guard the told me straight up what was being told him and he said under under the compulsion that is been placed upon him. He ended up succumbing to it and he said I took it though I did not want to it's against my will and please share with me shared with me the orders these are orders. These are orders they said you're going to take this. So I'm just telling you. When you tell someone that you're going to take away the ability for them to take care of their family. Do you not think that's for sure. Of course that's force you know that it is forcing people to do something because you're taking away the ability for them to buy food for their families. To make payments on their houses. This is something we should not do Senator I believe in the long run we are at the end of this thing because here's the thing people are being forced to take a vaccine I guarantee you in the next few months or a year they're not even going to be using the same vaccine. Thirty now done you got to get a third shot because it doesn't provide you enough immunity for long enough. I don't want to be the guy that sitting here knowing that we destroyed some family forced him into bankruptcy when the vaccine that were forcing them to take doesn't even work anymore it's ludicrous. Sir Hammer we take questions Senator Rapert sure Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr president thank you Senator Rapert taking questions this is how I see it we are a body that is actively in discussion we are in session of course make sure this is a question others simply because you can get up and. Got it got it we are we are in a position right now to make the decision while we wait for the federal government to figure out what they're going to do what the rules are going to come down do you think would be better for us to go ahead and take action now even under the threat that we may find that this is unconstitutional and at least let our citizens of the State of Arkansas that we represent know where we stand on this issue instead of waiting for the federal government to pass down rules that we don't know when for sure the coming. Senator I believe that the outcry in this state is probably at the level that we have not seen on many other issues. People want protection. You know I I grew up every every morning when I my grandfather passed away he would pick me up many mornings for school when I was in elementary school and we would go to Maynard Arkansas we would listen to Paul Harvey. And one of those mornings Pahari said if I were the devil this is what I would do. If I were trying to play the devil in this argument I would continue to bring up these poison pill arguments this this is unconstitutional that this is unconstitutional it's all an effort to knock down the bill. And the fact is the people of Arkansas all the people in this country they want protections they want the truth. And I wish we put as much effort into trying to get them actual treatment. Then we would forcing them to take a vaccine that people it is not as effective as they said they said we could go back to taking off for masks and go back to life as normal if we just took this particular vaccine and guess what now we've got people that have died that is that the vaccine. In the vaccine says it they said that they would not you would be able to prevent the spread but then we now find the people to have the vaccine or spreading it. My heart on this matter my mind on this matter is stop with the overreactions that are occurring. And what's happened is that I've got checks even during this debate thank you the federal government's going to force this on us. We have to stand up for liberty. If not now when. Thank you Mr president Senator Garner you have a question did not any other questions Senator Irvin as a question just quick question because I'm getting emails and and text messages as well and I I just wanna make sure there's some clarification this law would not prevent like the federal government from mandating federal employees. Do you or the military. I just wanna make sure we're clear that we don't give any military I'm asking that question with your information would any law that we have prudence the military from doing what is going to do. Or will the I mean do you interpret it that way or I just wanna make sure there's no clear there's no false expectations senator from my perspective we should we should apps if it were my my personal will we would protect all these folks but the federal government that is in charge of federal employees yes there mandating it and people are going to forget it right in the eye and the OSHA rule that is still we're still waiting right are they actually going to do that here here we don't know what's happening. The president actually made the statement. So that he could get in big business to do what he didn't want to want to pull the trigger on immediately because that was a political decision for them and here's the thing and I just want to say this I think it is an absolute travesty and I think there will be litigation aplenty. For one of the companies in this state to be putting out a letter to their people they get an exemption for religious exemption and their accommodation is to put them only for one year that's immoral it's wrong. I was thank you. In about the clarification on the military and federal employees just like Medicare we can't dictate and Medicare cuts federal so that was your perspective on the legislation and how it was written. Okay any other questions Senator Rapert Senator Rapert has spoken in favor anybody wants to speak against anybody wants the. Sir Clark. Is in favor Sabrina or. This bill has a. This bill has a philosophical exemption. Actually an exemption. The same thing that's. With our vaccines in Education. It's an opt out. One of the striking things to me. In the vaccine mandate debate. Is the lack of compassion for others for years especially as we talk about compassion. Let's say that there was not an abnormal amount of adverse reactions to the coat cold with vaccines extremely abnormal amount. Let's say the code back scenes have been tested for years and this exciting technology had not failed early in trials every other time it had been tried as a vexing. Let's say that none of us were immune to covid because we had had the virus and according to on the best studies in the world. We're safer than the vaccinated. Let's ignore that the highest percentage of folks who won't get the vaccine educational wise or PhD use. Or that many of the people who won't get the vaccine work directly with COVID and the vaccines let's just say. Ignoring all that that some of our fellow travelers. Just have a real albeit your rational fear to the backs of the vaccine. So we say to them either over home your for your. Or lose your job. Let me change it just a little bit. Let's change. That dynamic. You have to bungee jump over a half mile the gorge. Or lose your job. I'm in. What do you do you have to tell me that I'd lose my job if I didn't do it. Sounds like fun to me and some of those I mean some people is roll up their sleeves you know you got a shot I wanted. What other peopling. Going to jump off that platform for anything in the world. But come on it's perfectly safe. The safety record is almost a hundred percent in fact it several times safer than the vaccine. Not a fair comparison sure it is. We're acting like this is happening in a vacuum we're acting like some businesses are just deciding to have a vaccine mandates and that's not what's happening. This is an organized effort. That is government and business combined. If it were just. Business is deciding on their own Senator Dismang I'd be with you and I do Senator Hammer that's where I started. I appreciate the argument but that's not what's happening. The letter that went out to Blue Cross blue shield employees. This past week. Noted. That Walmart and Tyson. For their biggest customers. The note any conversations that may have been add. Between those executives. About what they might do with their insurance but there are certainly been in conversations with smaller employers about what might happen. If they don't get their employees vaccinated. Any business can regulate business government can certainly regulate business. Especially when it comes to stand up for the little guy. Because. We have. We also act like people can just go anywhere they want to get a job. And baby a classy county and they've been Garland County. That's true but there are parts of the state. Or just like in the old timber days and the company store that's not so true. When you're given a mandate you really are given a choice of feeding your family or not and you're certainly given a choice of whether to have a good job. Or not. So coming to the defense of the Arkansas worker in saying your to at least be able to say. I'm a new. Your dailies payable to say. Forget all these other things I'm to scared. I don't know yet. How this would affect a future child. And as far as constitutionality. I don't know for sure. But I have talked to the appropriate attorneys as I usually do. And many of you have and they have told me that we are in very safe grounds everybody always says the same thing we never know what judges will do. But we feel like you're good. So we can call go on and on and on but this being unconstitutional but the tourney's are gonna offenders think we're good. So no I'm not standing down here thank you saying I'm doing it is unconstitutional I think it's constitutional if I got the other argument for mark Carney's I said well this is what I would like to do but we have to try to do something else. But I think we're very good Graham. So I hope you'll vote for this bill. Agence four Senator traded closed. Thank you members in and this is a very patient issue. Especially for workers in the state of Arkansas. I've been called. Rando a man called Iraq we extremist. Being called less than conservative I guess today is. Something new. But the. You know. I've been criticized for being part of the farm program because. The same things and. That's not free market whenever government manipulates the production of agriculture not and I agree with that fundamental. I can work in a free market in American worker can mark work in a free market. Without manipulation. But in the farming industry other nations manipulate their currency they on the ground. They for somebody in the pharmacy that's that's what goes into the market is less than mine in a free market. Whenever the market is manipulated is not free anymore it's not fair. In this. What's going on with the US is demanding a hundred percent compliance. Not seventy percent. It's a hundred percent. Are you are gone. So. You can call me whatever you want to but I'm going to protect. Workers around the state. Those guys who work for tasks and. That might be growing chickens. And the next the next job that would be compatible is fifty miles away. So. I don't care what you call me. Whatever I did I'd appreciate a good vote thank you Sir is closed madam secretary please call the roll. Ballinger. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis. Davis. Dismaying. Eight. Elliott. English. Flippo. Flowers. Flowers. Garner. Gilmore. Gilmore. Hammer yeah. Hendren. Hester yeah. Hickey. Hello. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson Mark Johnson. Leding. Page. Rapert. Rice. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan Teague. T.. Tucker. Wallace. You wish to vote or change their vote. Cast. Senator Ballinger is I'd casts up the Sir Gilmore aye hi cast up about about we already had okay. Seventy eight fifteen days of the bill. Sales that's not majority of those voting that requires eighteen the bill fails. One order please. One. Emergency calls failed Senate are yes Sir in order procedure I know we discussed going in recess five to ten minutes to hear assent hammers bills secreted while some gross as of now I don't have a copy of that email and I'm working on that okay I was just my question can we hear my bill in the meantime to allow people time to read that or we recess and important in your going to. We're going to. Yes you have a question answer motion okay so we need to read across the desk okay I need to do that and then we need to distribute the copies we were going to the plan was to distribute copies of both of the bills because they were both just amended I don't think it makes sense to do one not the other but. Your shoes off and the red warning to Clark break into that and take a recess that's the plan. Yes Sir I I guess my for me would be that while people are getting a copy of his or hammers bill which has some of the changes we can be debating my bill which was only emergency calls and kind of reduce the amount of time when chamber I'm good either way I just a thought process I had if the body's good with that I would do that if not by. Sir generator. I have a motion to expunge the vote by which Senate bill seven thirty two failed. You for the motion all those of favour say aye aye those. Still again all those in favor say aye hi. The proposed. The eyes have it. I like to make a motion motion to put the bill back on the calendar at the end of the day. Okay just to be clear the expunged by requires twenty four how you have a motion to put it back on the counter to suspend the rules yeah sure this is a a motion to suspend the rules the questions. All those in favor say aye opposed. Noes have it. We have five one two three we do have five lands. This is on a motion to suspend the rules put it on the bill on the calendar. It takes twenty four vote by the secretary please call the roll. Reading. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Bledsoe. She's not. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis. Hi DISMANG. DISMANG. Eads. Elliott. English. English. Flippo. Flowers. Flowers. Garner. Gilmore yes. Hammer. If. Hendren. Hester yeah. Hickey. Hello. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson. Mark Johnson. Leding. Pitsch Rapert. Bryce. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan. T.. Teague. Tucker. Wallace. Twenty four. K. anyone wish to vote or change their vote. Senator Bledsoe as always. So does mine no Sir Hendren jawing. Well as I said it is my job sorry Senator Hickey is I. Senator English design anybody else Senator Hendren July. Anybody else. Cashed up the ballot twenty nine eight five nays the motion carries the rules are suspended the bill will go back on the calendar at the end of the calendar okay. There any items at the desk yes Sir will your committee on engrossed bills to whom was referred Senate bill seven thirty by senator garner compare the engrossed copy with the original find same correctly engrossed. Where your committee on engrossed bills to whom was referred Senate bill seven thirty nine by Senator Hammer the engrossed copy with the original find same correctly engrossed. The past. We are in research research. Annery service subject to the call of the chair for at least fifteen minutes at least fifteen minutes subject to call the juror. centers I have a couple questions about the whole. Casting up the ballot in getting your vote in and wins the caught all for what Courtemanche syllable this is the thing because people here here's the deal so when I say cast all in I'm about I'm saying cast a vote that the magic two words for spring of the hit the bus which shuts down any. Any any voting any additional vote. So are. I'm just not. Open it back up after I say a couple so full I do that just because I see people trying to vote I'm trying to get as many people as possible but at some point she hit that button. And if the. Stop myself it may be too late so you just have to know that that that's a possibility if you're waiting to the last minute you may not you may not get your vote in and that's not my fault. It is really it's really your fault but I mean that's cool what would you know no one's trying to pick and choose who gets their vote Senator you know that's. That's what's happening she said but then I can't do anything about okay all right Any items at the desk. We're good okay center of. Sir Clark Johnson wishes to be recognized for point of personal privilege. Thank you Mr president over the weekend I was informed by colleagues that some individuals on social media mis heard a statement that I made during debate on Thursday I just wanna make it clear that did not make the statement that some folks miss heard and I truly appreciate my colleagues pointing this out to me and I will try to keep my country Arkansas accent control and speak more clearly in the future thank you Mr president. We have to make a seven thirty sevens or. Okay it's B. seven thirty nine senator Hammer the bill as amended. Senate bill seven thirty nine by Senator Hammer to provide employee exemptions from federal mandates employer mandates related to covet nineteen and declare an emergency. Senator Hammer. Thank you Mr president what. Thank. Thank you Mr president would like to just simply go through the bills for pages I will hit the high points me glad to answer any questions first of all to a couple questions that were asked earlier regarding and comments that were made about constitutionality as one person told me in a position that we seek guidance from its constitutional til its proven not to be in court so with regards the argument I just like to put that out on the table for you to consider and the second thing is that we are proposing to pass legislation as a state in the absence of a federal government who is forced upon us a mandate with the expectation that rules would be forthcoming in the future maybe you have more confidence in the federal government that I do with regards to that but in chill or with the absence of those rules this would stand I think to be constitutional set aside the question of whether it aligns with the resolution or not on page one section one is a do not codified section and it states we of the General Assembly find and gives for specific points in essence none of us really want to be here to be having this discussion in the first place so who is it that has put us in a position to have to have this discussion in the first place it is our federal government under the current administration that has forced this issue and as a result we as legislators are stepping up to help give our citizens both guidance input and also in some cases is allowed in this bill protection the General Assembly and I have put in there the intent that it intends to protect employees in Arkansas from any pending termination due to vaccine mandates in order second page it creates the ability for funding to be available to assist employees in Arkansas with the costs associated with the testing further on in the bill you'll find that there's a key phrase and that is if available so with regards to the question of whether or not the current funding can or can. Not be used that would be determined based upon whether it is available or not all acknowledge it the consultant has been sold or has has been consulted and has rendered opinion that that money in their opinion could not be used I understand we hire consultants to give us guidance also want to remind you that on several occasions we have fired consultants have been giving us guidance such as things like tax policies because we determine that what they were giving us was not good advice I just wanna give that out for historical perspective that consultants are exactly that the consultants but they are not the court and they are not the legislature there individuals we hire to give us an opinion moving down section to. It says that employer that requires or is mandated understand this this piece of legislation was actually presented to me in thought and in concept from a business who has less than a hundred employees that's where this idea was born out of we stand here and we talk on the floor like every employer every employer wants to mandate or has been forced to mandate their employees to get vaccines I've been approached by several businesses in my district one which employs over six hundred one that employs less than one hundred and the message they communicated to me is this we don't want to be forced to do anything as a government we don't or by the government we don't want to be forced to do anything by the federal government but what else can we do. What else can we do if you're a business that doesn't want to force people to be vaccinated the question from some of the businesses I get it and and let's be very transparent let's go and be very open there are some organizations that present themselves as representing the state wide isn't Industrier represent everybody in the state that has a business well I will tell you some of the businesses that approaching me have said give us an out provide us a way forward to where we can provide to our employees that don't want to be vaccinated coverage so that we can give them the exception and that's what this is proposed to be is the exception I understand whether it is conceptual or whether is reality that there are businesses that may or may not have colluded with the government in order to force vaccinations upon their employees I don't know. I was in in the board room I wasn't on the phone call I don't know okay but what I do know is that I have heard from some my businesses that have said you got to help us out and that's part of what this is you know if your business that wants to mandate it that's your decision I understand that but what about if you're the business that doesn't want to mandate what we doing for them and how are we helping them that's part of what this is intended to do so an employer that requires or is mandated to require vaccinations. The employees shall be provided on line fourteen a page to a specific exemption process we are saying that if you're an employee deployer shoes me that either by your own decision chooses to mandate or you have been made to mandate by the federal government or even the state government you have to include an exemption process and here's what that process and the specifics are. A negative antigen detection test result and and that's on line seventeen through nineteen one time a week one of the questions that was asked earlier on the floor what is the question of this so if you are an environment and you are not vaccinated you would be required. To take a test. In order to provide to the employer and to those you're working around the assurance that you're not a carrier of the axing of the of the of the virus second thing is proof of immunity for the virus that causes the COVID nineteen and this and and much of this this part right here was actually contributed by a fellow senator as far as making sure that that's in there because of studies that have been done around the world some in state or some in the country some out of the country and the viability that this is a good option to those that don't want to be vaccinated it was kind of ironic or I want to read to you from the CDC website the CDC website. US bound refugees are not required to receive vaccinations before arriving in the United States you skip on down to the fourth point checking for laboratory evidence of immunity I E. antibody levels is an acceptable alternative to vaccinations when previous vaccination or disease exposure are likely full transparency on region the rest of the comment however the clinician should be familiar with the efficiency and the interpretation of bail of available blood test when relying on test as proof of immunity CDC guidelines that's what they said someone to use the CDC to hide behind and someone to use the CDC in order to be able to defend it just matters on your perception or your perspective on the situation I'm just telling you that's what the CDC guidelines said I can go into a political statement which I won't regarding those that are coming in from out of the country do not have to receive the vaccine but we're going to force it on our own police to have to get the vaccine why we allow an escape clause for those that are not yet legal citizens of our country. When you go on and you for go down further in the bill on page two the employee may choose which test to take end debate last week in public health of which I'm glad that we have that opportunity to debate a medical doctor sat at the table one individual representing another entity set the test would cost a hundred dollars the medical doctor says we get those tests every day in our office for seven dollars it is affordable is affordable sometimes I think it depends on which narrative you're pushing whether you say a hundred dollars be scared or seven dollars it's affordable. As you read on down. And so the employee but thanks to the contribution of another senator in the chamber we actually said it can't be a voodoo doctor test that you're going to take it's got to be one that has passed the hurdles it's got to be one that is approved so that we can make sure that the tests that you are providing actually is acceptable and with regards to the testing. The test would be paid for either four could be let me I think that be a better way to stated the test could be paid for by the employee's health insurance plot program if it is allowable it could be provided by funding if made available but the bottom line is into the much disagreement of some that have been on social media the employee would be responsible for the test now the panel which person you want to listen to some are grateful to have the opportunity they're willing to pay for the seven dollar test in order to keep their job of twenty years not lose our pension. Others think that the employer ought to pay for it if it's mandated we will agree to disagree this is a pathway forward. When you turn over to page three. In the event the cost of testing under subdivision of this section is not available now to those of you that are concerned about whether the money that we have passed down by the federal government allows for to be used or not that key phrase right there online for on page three it says is section is not available the cost of the testing shall be covered by employee shall if the if the court sure whoever decides that that federal money is not available if there's no state money that is put toward this to help the the few the minority of those that don't want to get that the vaccination then it falls on the burden of the employee. when it comes down to line let's see. Okay line ten if an employee complies with the requirements of the specific exemption process related to the virus as required by this section the the employee shall not be terminated for mandates related to the COVID nineteen thank you terminate for everything else you got a bad employee you got somebody that needs to be removed because of other things. It does interfere with that at all it is specific to just this one thing now here's one important section and I think Senator Chesterfield raises questions this morning when you get to thirteen through fifteen nothing is section should be interpreted to modify any other agreement between the employer employee or to amend or affect the employment at will doctrine whether written or otherwise we've inserted that purposely to make sure that we do not lose our employee employment at will doctrine status as a state as a safeguard. Department financed is being directed to establish by rule which means it's coming by us if funds are made available what that would look like I put in there three main key components so that we would not surrender authority over to the other branch and just leave that **** nilly I put in there at least three of the minimum requirements to force the issue that the rules by which the funds would be dispensed would be brought before us as a legislative branch and the department shall report to the Legislative Council on a monthly basis so we can stay up to date on it. Then thirty two thirty two. If the employee's terminated due to employees written or the employer's violation of this section the employee and I want you to know is the key phrase may be not shell but may be eligible for unemployment benefits in addition to any other remedy available to the employee. So would be treated just like any other situation where an employee is terminated wants to file for unemployment and they would be given due consideration but also the employer would be able to have opportunity to debate to your question this morning senator Chesterfield my understanding is it be tree like anything else in the absence of any federal funding the state. Unemployment would be the would be the Avenue of recourse for those that would that that would be terminated and seek unemployment okay. And then one key thing I want you to notices this. We are in on certain times. And so I did not want this to be a law that would go on indefinitely and so I have put on there a sunset clause at the suggestion one of my fellow senators of which I want to and I won't name the all but there are several senators that have contributed to this obviously Senator Hill revealed this morning his contribution to it in his comments there are several that a country is I mean everybody likes it I'm not saying that I'm just saying that many senators have contributed to this one of the things that was contributed is let's put a sunset clause on this saying because when we come back in general session in twenty twenty three those of us that are here will be able to have this matter before us to decide and if we don't it goes away. My personal preference prayer is it all goes away because the virus goes away but the reality is that may not happen but this puts in place a safe gap now there is an emergency clause in conclusion there is an emergency clause in the reason I put the emergency clause on there is because there are dates that are coming quickly and we're all getting emails and we're all hearing discussion that some employees are going to lose their job if they are forced to pick between keeping their job or getting the vaccine. And the reason for the emergency clause in there is because of this does not go through with the emergency clause and it's ninety days out a lot of people are going to lose your job which means a lot of people are going to lose our pension they're gonna lose a lot of things in some companies that they have worked there for twenty years and reason know that is because I'm getting some of the emails you're getting not in a cookie cutter fashion but from people whose lives are personally being touch do I wish we were where we are as far as having to walk that balance beam of between employer and employee I wish we weren't there but the reality is where there I hope this bill threads the needle to where it can help in the future and I'll be glad to answer any questions. take. Senator Hammer last Friday during the public health committee meeting. I'm in response to a question that Senator Hester asked and one of the witnesses who is a law professor he gave at I thought and articulate responses Senator Hester questions about threading the needle and that he preferred your bill over the others because it didn't mess necessarily with the contractual basis of that's in other parts of contractual law with employees and employers do you mind just re I would say if you can just rephrase or summarize that person's testimony because I thought it was very good testimony I'll do my best to help fill in the blanks to another question What he sat down and said was basically this is as close as you can get without going over the line that this provides that pathway forward doesn't interfere with that contractual arrangement I think they would probably we could argue some precedence where we as legislators have passed laws where we have inserted into the employer employee work environment certain laws to make sure that there is that balance you know somebody mentioned awhile ago about how that we regulate overtime and the you know the the the details of other things this is just one more that's in there here's the good thing at the end the day one discussions all done this single go away in July of twenty three if there's no further action required and so I think maybe to the attorney and I'm I'm just saying what he said you go back watch tape you know he professed not to be a solid conservative but he said this is a good pathway forward based on his understanding as a constitutional attorney. That it threaded the needle. Well. Arkansas thank you Mr president. Kim you said state employment it in reality you're spending the employers might have. If there's no federal dollars for unemployment and it goes back usage data yes you for your money the employer to pay an the unemployment because we conceded in today it's employer that is contributing into the unemployment trust fund of which there as I understand it also maybe a layer you know for for the. Unforeseen thanks for lack of better term but years to question yes thank you Senator Solomon of the center does minded Senator English. You know. By the employer however with this in place they don't have to terminate the employee. So that doesn't have to be of a penalty of such that that's what they're referencing there's not necessarily a penalty if one doesn't fire the employee and allows these accommodations is that correct that's correct and I think that's why the phrases in there it without me looking back and find think will may be you know it it creates. That the debate would occur just like any other time an employee is terminated as well for the employee to present their case employer present their case yes so the the. Point is being made that this is a penalty on this so it's only a penalty on business if the business chooses not to allow accommodations that is not doesn't have any impact at all correct yes and we are providing those combinations to avoid that situation thank you thank you for this one. It is so when my questions you know we're still waiting as we talked about and there are still folks Attorney General's that are fighting this new federal mandate even though we don't have the rules they've planned you know it's their incentive they're going to fight these mandates so two parses question number one what if they are successful and we have this on our books here in the state of Arkansas for two cents for waiting on the rules and when I'm understanding a large part of this bill nears what we anticipate the feds to allow so number one that they're going to allow for certain exemptions number to that they're going to pay for the testing you know with that goal that for those that choose not to become vaccinated and so my concern would be again to circle back what if it's over you know what if what if this rule is overturned that it's a federal over reach as many believe it is I believe that it is in the number two what if the feds are more lenient on the exceptions process than we even or being here in this bill sure thank you for that couple thoughts number one you for always going away for the federal government. Then either a we need to and this is kind of extreme but yes in response to questions before let the federal government always dictate the rules then there's no reason for us passing legislation let's just wait for the federal government you at all we'll just say thank you very much we'll do what you want to do number one number two I would say that you've almost proved my point for what this is a good bill and that is you said the expectation is that the federal role will mirror a lot of what's in here so should remove the potential of somebody's fearful of what the federal government's going to do that these things are going to be in place number three what if there is a difference well there's always potential for difference of opinion between what we as a state do what the federal government proposes and that's why I think we have that ability is a state to step up and say this is what we thank because of those rules are still being drafted I would think that somebody's probably watch what's going on here and maybe they'll draft those rules in accommodation to what I think is a good common sense to addressing it but if not we've got a special session coming down the line we can fix it then because the rules the rules we've been told are supposed to be out this month now we believe that or not I'm just going on what it's been said we can always come back and fix this like we've had come back and fix other things as well or go to court and hopefully will win. Senator or any. One of the things that are kind of concerns me with this is that. The maybe unrealistic expectation of somebody who can't. Is forced to. Their job. And that that there will be unemployment benefits I just don't I don't know what the I don't know if the federal law dictates what we do here at the state if there's an overarching thing and whether that I just wanna make sure that we are setting up unrealistic expectations other somebody leaves the reality is they don't get twenty six weeks if that wasn't all possible they don't would it be to renew their life and did not pay all the mortgages and and things like that so sort of I want to make sure that people don't get this feeling that their life is going to be whole once they quit their job and they have the opportunity to apply and that's just it up opportunity to apply for unemployment benefits that the world's gonna be just fine There's a Mike my concerns that thanks to raise the question let me address that thank you Senator English number one nobody should get the expectation that if they are terminated they automatically get unemployment because right now I got an email or somebody still trying to get employment from seventeen weeks ago when they filed because our system is so bungled up so there should be the expectation that if your eight if you are an employee and this bill goes into place and an employer now has to include this process there there's gonna be some lag time but don't assume automatically that you will qualify for unemployment but here's the one thing I want everybody to understand at least there's a pathway forward for to be considered because right now if you're terminated you got opportunity of zip at least that provides the opportunity for the discussion to take place in my opinion I think that it would be better to create that opportunity for that discussion to happen then for individuals to be terminated without that opportunity being present so to your point. It's not automatic guarantee that you're going to be able to draw unemployment but at least you got a better chance of the lease having that opportunity to present your case through the passage of this bill. Senator Hendren at. Thank you governor so couple questions. Senator Hammer first off I want to tell you I appreciate the transparency in the way that you handle this bill Senate backed committee time for engrossed meant I appreciate that because clearly you're you're trying to make sure that there's no shenanigans with regard to this and I appreciate that so a couple things one of the things that to whether it be an employee who's going to provide a positive incentive or a mandate type incentive that is necessary is their ability to know the vaccination status of their employees and new hires is there anything in this bill that changes the ability of an employer to know the vaccination and to to basically insist on verification of that status. No effect I was reached out to buy one employer Who was trying to decide whether lobby for against this bill he checked with and it's it's a big firm okay it's not the names of the two they've been called out here on the floor today but it is a large firm that employs a lot of people and they have a pretty ingenious incentive to try to get people to vaccinate. So no it would not it would not interfere with that at all I would like to say this on that point Now take it for what it's worth because just take it for what it's worth it would appear that people were voluntarily moving along with the idea of being vaccinated until such time the federal government got involved and started mandating it and people started blowing up to it and so I think that what this actually does is created incentive opportunity for employers to encourage people to continue to get vaccinated but give those those those employees the assurance that if you don't we provide a pathway for. And as an employer would I still be able to have a policy that I am only hiring vaccinated new members or with that automatically make them eligible for unemployment because I rejected a higher I would stand to be corrected by anybody would come behind me but I don't think it's going if you're with that I would go back to Senator Rapert argument while ago what you can or cannot ask I'm not really an expert in that area my intent I'll tell you that my intent is not to prohibit the employer from being able to ask that I'm not sure how that would align with what Senator Rapert presented on the floor earlier okay and I do see that to on page three you put in the at will doctrine. And it's a little bit I I would guess I would say confusing to me because you change the at will doctrine with this bill of the state we're not changing it will doctor because the fact is as an employer now if somebody refuses to follow the policies of the company whether it be uniform whether it be requirements for masking certain situations whether it be the time of the ships or whatever that's in the will state that's grounds for termination but you you change that here to basically say we're going to change that will doctrine you're not following the policies set forth by the company but now that's grounds for to that is not grounds for termination right. I would say that's a difference of opinion because that's the reason we put it in there is to bring clarity with regards to the overall at will doctrine and I think Senator Chesterfield or somebody mention that this morning about at will Dr we change in the constitution or changing the statute thanks for changing the statute and this is more just for point of clarification to be of a point in the bill and say it was not our intent to change that will status but it is our chance to expect employers to be able to include this in there like we do other things as well. Okay and then finally I guess You know the. There are certain businesses nursing homes health care at home as Senator Ingram talked about you have a business that goes into people's homes where the inability to say all of our staff is vaccinated is going to have a detrimental impact on their ability to be ongoing entity moving forward and converting to put him out of business if you if you are competing against somebody who's going to go to home repair or in House visits against somebody who says don't have to worry about our people there how to present all vaccinated. Under this bill that type of employer that wants to have that approach could not have that correct. One respond to questions this way we're not even certain that the vaccination now is a hundred percent effective and I think that would be misrepresentation the fact because our people that are fully vaccinated there come down with vice granted it's a different mutation I understand that granted they're working on the booster I understand that but from where we are right now and that's part of the reason why put the sunset clause in there is because there there it is this is such a changing landscape. That there's a lot of uncertainty so with regards to the the effectiveness of the argument that you're making on the basis that the vaccine is a hundred percent effective I thank I think that is that is not a that's a point I respectfully disagree the other thing is we're not saying to those and we're not saying to those employers we're just opened up to where you have unsafe expectation because as I read awhile ago from the CDC guidelines the things that are represented in this bill are determined to be safe alternatives to vaccinations and so I think by this passage of legislation we're introducing to those employers who want that opportunity safe alternative measures other than the vaccination with respect I think he kind of geared off on the vaccination debate that's not what I'm talking about I'm talking about a business decision for instance if we are to airlines flying into Little Rock one of them says come flying American Airlines every no worry about vaccinations now again I'm not arguing whether to Hudson fictive or not but I'm sent as a business strategy of the company says if I come to your home the fly on our planes. We believe it will be better for our bottom line for our employees if we have a that ability to have that policy this bill removes that and makes it where no company can say we are we can assure you that everybody whether you agree with facts nations or not but if the business chooses that's the approach I want to take from marketing to my clientele this bill makes an impossible right. No I disagree the reason I would is because what this bill is doing is creating the ability for you as an employer to say we have complied with state law these are accepted guidelines by the CDC and the vaccination we have opened it up to make sure that all the avenues provide a safe environment if you as an employer say that that's your choice as an employer what probably would happen is that other airline is going to be a higher weight your employees to the same token for a take that argument that you're presenting that everybody gets on that plane needs to show a vaccination card to make sure that those people they're getting on the plane are not potentially infecting your employees I mean again with respect you're not answering the question if it's not about whether it's smart whether it's medically proven it's about as a private company if I want to take the approach to say that I have vaccinated all of my staff everybody that works for me is a hundred percent vaccinated because I may be coming into your homes or because I may be in a situation that regards I'm not talking about with that sound policy or not I'm just saying that that's a marketing approach that I want to take this bill makes it illegal correct. I want to say correct but it does not also preclude the fact that you have an opportunity to be just as confident an offering to the public that you're marketing to we have safe methods as approved by the CDC guidelines thank thank you Sir Chesterfield. Thank you and thank you senator Hammer for responding to the previous questions I certainly appreciate that have a two more. Does this bill preclude employers from instituting long term suspensions for those who do not take the backs and. Because all the deals with this termination. I thank you for your or decide that this individual creates a health hazard in my business I want to put them on long term suspension without termination there's nothing that deals with this in this bill I don't think it does that's probably more to I'm on a speculate to senator Johnson's bill but again say it it doesn't address that issue. Does it preclude an employer from or an insurance company I'm not is is well versed in the insurance business as others are to provide a writer that would increase the cost. To the employee does not get that same probably know more than the person that goes out lives an alternate lifestyle or anything else that may drive up those employee health employee cost as well or any other any other choice but to your point of the I'd like to make this observation and that is if I can find quickly If. If the insurance policy covers the cost of testing I mean it could be that the I mean full disclaimer could be that it could be that the insurance company that's that's carrying a health insurance policy would put that in there we're not going to cover Jesse which I think is probably out there the majority of them already majority of us have gotten a case for three. heading sponsor testing sites across the poorest areas those tested been given for free if you have insurance fine if you don't but the necessity of the chest we have found that does not create a cost if that person does not have insurance so what I'm saying to you asking you is I have seen I've heard of writers being attesting sure is policies that let me increase the cost of insurance for the unvaccinated are you aware of some of those methods that are being used. The first hand all right thank you thank you. Senator Beckham I'm gonna get you will listen to you gonna lead you at the bottom of the list. Thank you. The several. Several members of brought up the concern about the at will doctor being challenge even though it's specifically says it will not do you think the whistleblower act ballots that will Dr. I mean you're asking me questions wasn't even my thought processes on the ask the question again let me process real quick. DO you could always have different way do you compare this similar to the whistleblower act. As far as violations of the at will doctrine. To prevent employee for. I'm on a I would take shall. The the second question I had was committee members brought up the unemployment insurance being funded by employers I believe it was last year we put a hundred sixty five million. Into the fund to shore up as a correct keep it solvent is a significant amount and I have to check the balance lately last time I checked balance of which was north of seven or fifty million but that's been a couple months ago thank you thank you. Senator Rapert. The senator I want to ask questions of the day on the unemployment insurance just to to make it really clear here why this protections need to be there when asked work service workforce services actually responded when we asked them specifically. Would someone be able to draw on employment. He said only if they filed for religious exemption or medical exemption would they even be considered is that correct that's correct thank you. Senator Teague and then Senator Blake Johnson or to. Senator I know you're tired of being that I'll be quick so I have a couple text messages that indicate that as well. For TV TV insurance I have three boys track and tracking and testing and that passing would be a big deal for taking take interest three people not hard to keep up with. I don't have many people so the bigger companies have working farm. but a bunch so I assume the cost. Related to tracking all that and keep it up with that so we'll take care of the. Employee but we're not going to take care. is that right. I don't know I would agree with your interpretation that because as soon as you were saying that I was thinking back to pre vaccination there are they were having to do that anyway and some are happy to do that now that cost was already in posed upon the employer's by the federal government with three with regards to the to the tracking given the fact and I'm going to use an example ninety percent of the employees were already vaccinated we're talking about not a great number of individuals to be able to give that test. To the employer thank you I just want to raise that point thank you and. It back to right to work or what we call it will require. If She. If if I'm an employee who chooses not to be vaccinated. if you're to me that the employer can fire me for I have a machine type. Am I wrong in that. I would say those laws there's not a state law saying that they can do that. All. So I appreciate it thank you Mr president thank you. Senator Blake Johnson senator. I have a question a follow up but the okay CDC position on transmission. If vaccinated there far is their position that you can transmit even if you have vaccinated yes Sir. Okay how valid is the argument. One hundred percent. Vaccination. If those folks can transmit just like the backs. I would subscribe to the idea that it's not something that you need to be offering is a hundred percent conventional evidence. Thank you senator thank you. So recorded questions. Sir Clark question. I don't believe this was as of the end Senator hammer you have the answer to this of. The Senator hunter was asking about properties you're wanting to advertise market that all the employees or. Thanks. Can we do. Of. Can we will are always medical of information are marketing. I have a good point I would say. I would say no that's kinda like you can't go into a a precinct if you have less than five because you're going to identify who who who potentially could voted what place of subscribing to that same thought process if you said a hundred percent of your ploys you may have just violated HIPAA guidelines will. Thank you for that. Any other questions. Senate is recognized to speak again. Insulin first I want to say thank you I mean I know that you worked worked hard on this you work through it there were lots of conversations are lots adjustments I think should have been made that were made and and and and real quick what I want to say also is I'm not down here talk about tax nations if they work if they don't work it it doesn't even really matter as far as this conversation goes my biggest issue with this particular bill is that it it does impact those employers with less than a hundred employees many were truly just combating I read a news story said this is to combat the federal law for the federal rule that we still haven't seen yet. Then it would be just for those employee employers with more than unemployed it doesn't do that it goes well beyond that. No I think there was an original version the hand that I could been supported because I could have said we were fighting the federal mandate or the coming federal mandate. You know there are employers that don't want these mandates in place. And here's the thing about mandates a special specifically as they relate to covid what I've seen time and time and time again is that the mandates have unintended consequences we don't get the results that we want with these right now we're talking about passing a bill that's going to put this in process in place and right now there are conversations in every office in the state small business owners these are the big corporations we keep trying to talk about they're trying to decide what's best to do for their own business. The other on the fence should we do being a required vaccinations would not have my employees to say we do have that so we don't we just gave them an out if your whole goal. Is to not mandate vaccines this is the wrong bill. We tell you what you gave them an out. They're going to now be able to mandate back scenes and they're gonna be able to get the testing paid for one employer is not going to do that. We're taking all the risk out for them. If your goal is to not require vaccinations I think this is wrong headed it's very very much like all the mandates that we put on businesses both state and federal life I wanted Walmart the other day there were more people without a mask mandate wearing a mask there were during the mass mandate mandates have unintended consequences and as it relates to code it over and over again get you the wrong response. The thing that's lacked in all of this conversation as we talk about COVID is consistency. You know there's consistency in the CDC will cite this they're not doing here but the doing it somewhere else I agree a hundred percent it drives me absolutely nuts every day I read the paper there's something that contradicts what was in the paper the day before we all should be for a frustrated with that. But for me as it relates to mandates I will be consistent. I oppose the mandates early on in fact Senator Solomon had a bill that you know there are mandates in place the required fines right. I made a vote that doesn't mean it's never been placing those fine should be returned because I'm consistent. And I'm down here right now because we are injecting yet another mandate in between the employer and employee and I'm going to oppose it because I'm consistent I am against both state and federal mandates give me a bill that only deals with federal mandate not be the first one vote yes. That's not what this bill does. This seeks to inject itself in between it could be a business of two. You can have a high risk of someone who just came out of king or whatever it may be that's the employer and they can't tell the employee to go get a vaccine. That's what they believe not saying the right or wrong I'm seized with they believe. We are mobile we have options we talk about liberty. I've got the liberty to work for who and where I want. That's my liberty if I don't like what my employer does I've got the ability to say you know what we don't agree. I'm gonna move on I'm going to do something different. Mandates a wrong headed. I don't think you're going to get the outcome we pass this bill today that you thank you thank you are may be wrong. But I again tired of the inconsistencies that are out there will be consistent my vote and I will oppose the state and federal mandates. Yes. Well I don't particularly like that we're going to demand testing. But they're having an alternative. I frankly think that there should be no mandate whatsoever period. I do like the fact that there is an opportunity for people in there that have antibodies that can be proven great so my question is given what you stated. What would you vote for to protect the people of Arkansas on their individual liberty would you want to make an amendment where there is no testing require. What I wanted to do if I were to do something where make it address specifically the federal federal rules which by the way we haven't seen. But that's what I think that we should have done if you're asking me and then in the sponsors where that. And this is final question on that but we're in a position yeah no you're absolutely right if you're asking me I'm asking to remove I wouldn't vote for any of it because I think it's an employee employer relationship. I think that interjecting any of this is a mandate so if you're asking me if I would do a testing absolutely because I wouldn't run the bill. Well let me ask it another try again because I'm listening to you. So what would you propose to protect the individual liberty of the people of Arkansas. If you do not like this bill. Well number one again people have liberty to move and change jobs in like their employer not like to employers so I will not interfere with that I will never make an employee stay with an employer if they don't like each other they don't get along philosophically I mean I guarantee you knowing you that there's probably certain people in their belief that you would not want to work for one of your entities right. You have that ability to your the employer. What I would say is I want those discussions to play out in the work force amongst the employee and employer in the free market and free market conservatives I think most of us are. This is a free market. And then Senator Solomon if you'll take questions. Thank you ever so Senator Dismang and. To to the example use a small office with somebody who's immunocompromised or whatever is the employer is very concerned about that person's health. And and the challenge to the problem I have with this legislation particular is if you look on page two it says shall provide a specific exemption process and it shall include we in the legislature sit here and tell that small company how they deal with that specific situation I mean wouldn't you agree that the situation at a person of a company to three people may demand a better and more effective solution the one of the company of fifty or seventy five and that's why a conservative approach would be let's stay out of it and let the companies address the issue in a way that's more suited for their specific circumstance. Right again it's a conversation that should happen between it's happening right now everywhere in the state of Arkansas the vast majority of businesses have had this discussion or having this discussion and the vast majority don't want to mandate back scenes and will not mandate axons. That may be more I mean every day when you wake up in your business owners about risk and reward is one with the other and again here and we're we're dictating in my opinion what the employer is willing to employers willing to take on as risk we can debate all day long in this room whether effective not effective it doesn't even really matter. I mean there's personally held beliefs on this at this point most emerged opinions. Thank. Thank you Mr president for the rest referenced a few times the federal mandate there is not. There is not one yet that's correct so you when you reference when you say you would support one that Dealt with the federal mandate we don't know what that is and everything that you're saying is conjecture exactly and the state's authorized a federal government we're the ones that created the federal government. Not the other way around so is it not in our best interest to take a proactive approach with the sunset to the bill that this tax because we are in a critical situation with people who don't have the ability right now to find a new job as has been suggested so do not think of this is a good idea to for us to create guidance the federal government which is really unusual that states take that position is that not a good idea given we sunset this yeah but I also would want to be able to respond in real time to what that rule in Reagan's going to look like which we don't know at this point and again disability circle all the way back. This is not about the federal mandate this bill goes well beyond the federal mandate in trying to cure whatever issue may arise for company of hundred more people which is what the the federal rule will be we do know that part. For those below we're telling them how it's going to be and what they're going to do in the workplace and then that part for me again that's a new mandate that's on the federal mandate governing you know federal government mandating something it's the state government mandating how business is going to operate and they're going to we're going to the ones the arbiter of what is risk and how much risk we willing to take. Thank you. Senator garner to speak in favor. Thank you governor struggle with this thought process that is a free market conservative could I support a bill like this. So I started my examination of how we operate a business in the state of Arkansas our store looking for net lands is cannot support some like this that generally I would. First thing is what I mention the sentencing earlier is that we had protected classes all the time at the federal government the Civil Rights Act added multiple protections for age for sex for race the eighty a added protections for those who may have disabilities center back and mention the whistleblower act you're not allowed to fire somebody if they religion we whistle blow against a company does start looking accommodations similar to that all these testing will happen hell to the ADA even if you have a two person business like Senator Hendren scribe you must put it will transfer it wheelchair ramp to be accessible underneath the current law we have we have multiple other regulations that we put on our businesses whether it's minimum wage law was protection levels so I didn't think it violated some foreign client principal generally I've published two one support this if it wasn't for the eighteen months that we had before. Senate is my message consistency. Now look what this body is responded to in the last eighteen months I wonder if those free market principles still hold true. Now this isn't me prescribing more judgment any decision we made as a body or any business that may want to take in the benefits we got we got to really look and see for Arkansas we've been operating like a free market. Conservative. We have authorize millions of dollars to businesses across the states from PP equipment to personal loans to other things the last time give you the best example of this I can see is that right now we for many people in the healthcare industry testify how they're going to lose their jobs. And it's heartbreaking these were last year's hero Superman Wonder Woman men and women who went on the front lines every single day and now they're faced with a personal medical choice to lose their job careers they've had for years and we say that's a free market principle allowed him to be fired. This body gave a hundred and forty five million dollars to hospitals. Specifically for the purpose of staffing retention and recruitment. Now you wanna market free market if they were to fire somebody they were run into these ironclad principles like retention haven't re train somebody lose that experience having the market place try to suck up that workers be competitor. But this body has interjected itself in that decision making process think about it you're now subsidize to fire that person and have millions of dollars to retrain re hire because the federal government the state government has given you the taxpayer's dollars. That's not a free market principles. We shut down businesses restricted how they can operate during this pandemic that's not a free market principles. Again I'm not ascribing moral judgment on those decisions I would support most of them in the moment maybe quibbles here and there. We need to save our businesses with PPP loans which I got from the federal government we need to help them out. But it's we stand here today and now we say no no no no what is going to affect the employee is that the employer we need to stay out of. Can I just have to go back to this point the federal government is coming down is more than the hundred forty senators may. If you take Medicare Medicaid and you have under a hundred four Jeff do it if you're a federal contractor which in my district is huge I got a text today to say that they are now going to mandate for air jet and all those couple who stated that for somebody defense contractors companies be clear my specific are gonna have to get the vaccination. So it's more than just as hundred people employees. And I guess it hinges on this question do you trust Joe Biden the whole today hundred people. Joe Biden six months ago said he cannot mandate employee vaccinations in And we finish with this point we talk about the Supremes the clause has already. Do you understand it. First a call says that federal laws or superior in the lands and I agreed that prince one thank the most court cases support as long as the federal government has access to those states through some other means Commerce Clause or anything else they can be this peer law the land. I don't remember law being passed on this of the federal government you. I think it's exactly for which I've tried to read on the federal registry saying that this is coming down but I don't know was owner get. He's taking a government agency and expanding the power in ways that are frankly. Disrespectful in comprehensive. And disaster so the concept of federalism. And he's doing it. In saying I dare you to do something. Now federal law does trump executive orders regulations from agencies there's multiple cases where state governments local trucks that. If we don't pass something today we're out of the fight you're forfeiting before you take the first step to fight the federal government. J. DISMANG major court cases yes the Attorney General suing on multiple fronts I think this will be unconstitutional on multiple fronts but we as legislators don't have a say in that we really don't let your private citizen suits you don't you know we have a say in create a conflict between state law in a executive order that the same person issued it said it wasn't allowed just a few months ago. We rate this date we create the ability to have that Blake at a different level the court we had the ability to add that protection for people. I don't know about you I to come up here not to fight for that I did come up here to let Joe Biden push me around I came up here to fight for the people of Arkansas and the thousands of them that will be heard and disenfranchised and not have jobs not have funding once we do this because that's the reality. We have a shortage right now and you're talking about reducing our nurses in New York seventy percent of their nurses were fired what does that do to our health care and I ask you situation. What always try going to your local deli and try to get some meat so how that works out we're going to kill that even more. At some point we have to stand up and stand up for them all the principles that make conservative and to me stand up for people and their ability to work is the most important thing we can do it this time thank you. Senator Garner. In Arkansas if the will anyone speak against the bill senator spoke for Senator Elliot you're recognized speak against the. My comments are. As much for people as probably more so than that against this bill. Because everything we have talked about during the session it's been about the people who have not and do not want to get the vaccination. I just feel compelled. To say something on behalf of the people. Who have set up to try to maintain the social contract we used to have with each other. The social contract that said there was something about the common good. And the real reality that just as surely as the people who are not getting the vaccination are concerned about what might happen to them. There are million of us who are going to work and doing what we should do. And. There are people within that group who are concerned that they might go to work and catch covid because of the people who do not get vaccinated that's a real thing for people. It may be the parents who have kids at home who can't get vaccinated because we don't have it available to them or kids who are compromised and I want to go to work I'm maybe that single mother. To show up at work because I to have to take care of my kids. There's a real good possibility. But I might be taking care of my kids I'm bringing something home to them from work because of people who did not get vaccinated. They're just two sides of this this is not a one sided thing I don't consider them equivalent. But there are two. I want to say something on behalf of the person who has to go to the doctor has to go to the hospital and you have to be treated by some doctors some nursing whoever who's chosen not to be vaccinated. Those people matter to. No that's not going to change the outcome of this bill I get that. But I do not want the millions who are sitting out there thinking we don't see them to. What happens to their kids to matters to what happens to somebody who is compromised and has to walk into the grocery store. And be exposed to people who work there. He won't get back to native. I might have called it. The person like me. You might have. Just one Kitty. If something happens to one of those because I have to go somewhere and I do. I have to do transactions just like everybody in here. My chance. I'm getting covid from somebody who's not vaccinated are great. I don't get options so. About getting another kidney. And they're not people lined up to say here take mine. In the name of. Our freedoms. People should have the freedom to be safe. Their families should have the freedom to be say and we're not going to come to to agree on this. But I do want to make sure that people out there know. They've done the right thing they matter to. Dave matter to and the social contract matters. I was not allowed to go into a school historically. History that has been forgotten. I had to prove. But I did not have tuberculosis. Now do you think of my test had proven to be positive. That somebody was going to let me come back come into to a school and teach their kids. Not. It was my turn to go and do that so that's because we did things for one another. The social compact. It is on life support I get that. But I just want to say to people who have taken the vaccine thank you. You did it for yourself and you did for others. People on the other side. Whatever happens with this bill happens but it looks as if you're going to get to be the ones who are going to dictate what happens in this body today. I'm really sorry about that. I wish there was a better way. I wish we just all do everything we can to help each other thanks. Really the spoken against the bill anyone speak for Senator Rapert recognized before the bill. Thank you Mr president first of all on the on the bill itself not talk with senator Hammer about this. One thing it's important for me on this bill is that if an employer chooses not to actually. Mandate vaccines in their business. Then according to what I see that they are under no obligation also to require the testing as well so that's that's a good thing because I can see how that the testing could be onerous I will say. Let me say before I respond a couple things it and and make three brief points. Ben Franklin said any society that would give up a little liberty. To gain temporary security. We deserve neither and will lose both. This is a time when they face pandemics. This is a time when they face diseases. This is at the time also when they knew exactly what it was like to live under despots and people to demand things that were unnecessary. I think what I want to say in response to some of the comments here. Is what about the people I wonder that went out to get the vaccine. And they were trying to do the right thing. And then they got sick anyway. And then also we know that by the data and the science that they're now telling this that those same people who took the vaccine can also spread that. So when is when it is uttered from the the well thank you to those that got the vaccine what what about us that didn't even have a chance for the vaccine and got sick before vaccine was ever available to us. Who was wearing the masks on the Senate floor in sitting behind these barriers and in in its distancing from people haven't been able to help my grandmother. For months. Thanks to us that did all of these things. Oh by the way when I was hospitalized let's think about the science then. At that time Hydroxychloroquine do destino at inhalers was the only option that we saw that was working guess what when I went into the hospital asked for it when they finally told me that I had it by the way I had a negative test that's reason I sat at home we got sicker and sicker and develop COVID pneumonia was hospitalised. They said no Senator you're going to take room disappear you don't even hear people bringing up for M. disappear hardly anymore. You don't even hear this because the science is changed. That's what I keep trying to proclaim out here's this thing is changing its movie so why don't we spend all the time caring for people trying to help those that are sick instead of blaming it is it is absolutely. Wrong. Trying to blame somebody over here for this pandemic. There's too much to go into about it so I'm not going to go further on that but I say I reject the notion it is not the fault of my neighbor or my friend and an employer somewhere that somebody got sick. No more than it is if they get the flu no more than it is if they get pneumonia or anything else. And to be clear the same medical experts who are demanding government and employer mandates be used to force vaccinations right now let me see these are the same voices but also urged churches to be closed said we couldn't saying in our churches businesses to be close and once told us not to wear masks do you remember that. I thought you said don't wear masks it's not needed over any prohibited now this is the same voices they also happen to be just in case any of us forget about these voices that care so much for us these are the same voices that say that it's perfectly humane and okay to kill an innocent baby in the mother's womb. Yeah same voice is the same forces that told us a few months ago that you could turn a little boy sexually injured little boy into a little girl even though that's completely impossible all the same voices. I don't like this debate. But doing right nothing right now it's capitulating to Joe Biden camallo here as and doctor found G. and even our own Arkansas version of doctor felt she's that are out here. As for liberty. In the understanding of it. I'll take Ben Franklin in our founding fathers over Joe Biden and camallo Harrison doctor found G. any day I'm going to stand here today and I want to vote to protect individual liberty liberty now liberty today and liberty for ever. Senator Rapert spoken for the bill is there anyone else who wish to speak for against the bill. Anyone else to speak for against the bill Senator Hammer you're recognized close previous. Thank you thank pretty much everything that need to be said has been said or been addressed I just want to close with this comment based on some that were made today the comment was made about going to see your doctor and about their concerns about other people might be in there a couple things that I picked up on that point is I want you to remember this I've got a letter which I won't read for Lync because of the length of time it would take to read it but a doctor who's going to be terminated because he won't receive the vaccination even though he's been on the front line of this ordeal since it was the beginning and now this doctor if he doesn't take the vaccine is gonna be terminated so with regards to be concerned good luck finding a medical provider we're already a state that doesn't have enough medical providers and now we're about to take out a whole nother layer of medical providers and the ironic point of that is not only good luck finding a doctor or a provider but also if you're visiting a doctor that hasn't taken the vaccine. That I to tell you something. That I to tell you something right there please not from the gallery thank you to but that that I to tell you something right there. Somebody said it's not it's the base not about the vaccine it is about the vaccine it is about the virus or we wouldn't be here having this discussion this is providing a reasonable common sense balance beam to approach to dealing with the situation and remember there is an emergency clause there there is an emergency clause that if not passed people are gone to lose their jobs. It's are hard enough to find employees why you want to get rid of the ones are well to work thank about that thank you. Senator Hammer is close for his bill not take up Senate bill seven thirty nine in its emergency clause madam secretary please call the roll. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis. DISMANG. He. Elliott. English. English. Flippo. Flowers flowers Garner yes. Gilmore yes Hammer Hendren Hester. Hickey. Hello. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson Mark Johnson. Leding. Pitsch Rapert Rice. A sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan. Teague. Teague Tucker. Wallace. Cast up the ballot. I don't know if you. Got her or not it's I don't think so Senator English. Siringo said I bet you already thank you collected. What. Just make sure second forming of this **** already cast center in which twenty one days twelve days the Bill passed the emergency clause fails. Like to make a motion that we expunge the vote by which the emergency clause they are not the bill in my procedurally correct. I'd like to make a motion to expunge the vote by which the emergency portion of the bill failed please you've heard the motion any questions all those in favor say aye. Those. Is have it is the motion the fell motion The vote the vote is expunged. Thank you I thought you'd be back yeah thank you like to make a motion to revoke emergency calls. You for motion motion is to revote the emergency call or those of favour say aye hi. The eyes have it. Please call the roll the emergency calls Ballinger. That. Bledsoe. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield Clark. Davis Dismang. Eight. Elliott. English. English Flippo. Flowers flowers Garner. Gilmore hammer Hendren. Hester Hickey. Health. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson Mark Johnson. Leding. Page. Rapert. Rice sample. Stubblefield Sturch. Sullivan. Teague. T.. Tucker. Wallace. Change their vote Senator Teague given by Senator English is aye anyone else. Cast a ballot twenty three ACT eleven days the emergency clause fails misprision. Let's make a motion to expunge vote by which emergency bill or claws failed but I'm not bring it back up today but I'd like to make a motion to expunge a vote. Your The motion to expunge the vote by which emergency calls thank you all those of favour say aye aye. Twenty four. The these twenty four notice haven't. Oh oh oh five hands please call the roll. This is on the expungement of the emergency clause a second vote. Requires twenty four. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis Dismang. DISMANG. Eads Elliott. English. English. Flippo. Flowers flowers Garner Gilmore. Hammer Hendren. Hester Hickey Hill. Ingram Irvin. Blake Johnson Mark Johnson Leding. Page. Rapert. Rice. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan. Teague. Teague. Tucker. Wallace. In which the voter change their vote. Senator English by Senator Dismang no cast up the ballot twenty three age ten days the motion to expunge the second field vote on the emerge on the emergency clause. Fails. Senator garner bill number two out of three SP seven thirty as amended and engrossed. Senate bill seven thirty by senator garner to amend the division of workforce services law to authorize unemployment benefits for an individual who is terminated solely due to refusal to be vaccinated against covered nineteen and clear an emergency Sir Clark thank you this is very simple clean bill one thing it does is that exemption which we have multiple exemptions within our employment law as such and if your fire simply for COVID nineteen refusal of vaccination but you'll be covered on the traditional unemployment doesn't access any federal funds it works as we have worked under the system since nineteen thirty five in the state of Arkansas for unemployment and allows that if somebody tries to play game to say some misconduct or something as well they'll be protected so as we stated earlier this probably Fusion whether this will be allowed anyway under existing law as soon Rapert said they said if you did reply for exemption you probably could get it there's just clarifies for thousands or cans as they make that choice they can access those benefits at their labor help pay for without take any questions. Any questions regarding Senator Hendren. Thank you thank you Mr president Senator Garner this this cost is going to be borne by the employers employers and correct that they use the labor that their employees due to pay for that and the Prof they make off of that will go toward so for the companies that have more than a hundred employees that are going to likely be mandated by the federal government to implement a mandate they're going to have to do that and also have to pay unemployment for anyone who chooses not to participate so the rates of go up and it'll be. More higher rates for the entire company well if the federal government does do that then we do need an employment system in place to make sure we protect those people that would be unemployed just like we have for thousands of other issues a ply yearly with our employment system. Thank. Senator Tucker. Senator Pitsch thank you governor. Senator we've made several adjustments over the last several years either to benefits unemployment benefits for Arkansas workers were we lower than because there's not enough money in the unemployment insurance trust fund or as senator Beckham pointed out we do except a hundred sixty five million dollars or money to put into the trust fund last year it's because. There's a direct relationship between the amount of money in the trust fund how much employers pay in and and and how much how much benefits workers are eligible for and to your point which I agree with I'm not so sure that that the people would be protected under this any under the existing law without making this change but that point aside do you have any knowledge or awareness of of how this will change the number of employees who might be making a claim an unemployment claim as a result of this do we need to is there a company appropriation to put more money into the unemployment insurance trust fund are we changing benefits up or down or raising taxes in any other way to accommodate for for the difference in the financial impact on all of this well I think that it would be. Clearly. On quantitative all about how many people will be let go because of the if the federal mandate or just a general presser if for the next month and a half tumor a bill passes we don't have those taxes place so I could not qualify that what I can qualified though is I believe it will be thousands of our Kansans who I would say generally but not universally are good hard working people that worked their whole lives who played into it need them probably never access unemployment benefits before and I think that having that protection in place and not add any additional benefits something that they are they should get as a make this transition from their job especially to come from the federal government the thought that we would allow Joe Biden to fire through a policy the House of our cans is this tell them you're out of luck I think that's a terrible policy place we have incredibly bad social economic and others strain on our system it just make sure I'm understanding correctly we don't know what the financial impact of this would be an and there's no counterpart proposal to account for that at this time is that right I think you're asking an impossibility and I don't want to speculate on something if it's a a ten thousand employees I mean your softly bigger statement eighty nine thousand as nurses were just let go Arkansas also doesn't have the same amount but if you're looking at the same time the numbers especially our nursing homes which could be shut down because of this mandate other things I think it's a real concern we have to do for Phil Arkansas and like I said the system has been in place since nineteen thirties it's I don't think anybody is worried body wants to abolish that system which is allowing those benefits to be access system. Thank you senator Hammer has a question and then center Chesterfield thank you thank you Mr president of businesses. That maybe don't want force faxing on their employees that are going to be mandated to force vaccine upon their employees are going to be. My word punish to the same level of employers that voluntarily force mandates upon their employers are not is that correct. Well I think that anybody's of fire for covert related reasons for failing to get a vaccine they'll be able to access those benefits I guess I'm just not understanding the rates increase by just don't see as a punishment. To have people access funds at their labor paid into for years I just I don't like the word of punishment associated with that when these people who just want to access basic government benefits that they help pay into for years but do employees in the State of Arkansas pay into the unemployment funders that the sole responsibility of the employer pay into the unemployment for the employers labor and what they do to generate the money that the employee fourteen employee labor generates the money that the employee or the in patient to the trust fund thank. They're just built. Thank you Mr thank you senator garner kicking. One second. All right thank you so much nine simple question is not required bombast could you tell me what. People who draw unemployment on weekly basis. That is a good question I know it was I want three around three hundred dollars but don't hold me to a number I think that's the amount they would get also this is it can we set up this way I think intentionally and smartly not to be something that you can live on long term missiles to be a supplement so you can buy basic necessities like food other things during this time. Forty five I believe so. Anyway it was just a great. Senator Solomon. Thank you how's your bill different from senator hammers bill who has an unemployment clause in it so how does this further our conflict with that yeah I've looked at it and the language is almost simply the same there's a couple exit changes one his hasn't Center interpret me if I'm wrong there's kind of a tiered system where goes to federal funds first and then state employees kind of the backdrop or bottom of that in his section I don't believe it is in the exemption section of law or the law and is under new amenity also cut out section three which had to deal with the misconduct angle within our unemployment law that is no longer his bill for my understanding this still keeps that whole so that I don't want to say the business will do that you may have example ways say well he's this person spelling give vaccination director to employ misconduct were going to fire them that's a kind of a maybe a way they could work around it this ensures that it stays in place okay comment on a different topic were you aware that in testimony DFA in committee the other day DFA made a prediction on what the cost per unemployment are for testing might be we ask for that data on how many people would qualify we ask DFA to turn in that number so you've been asked several times to estimate how many people that would be the FNA was asked for that number of the were asked for. They already had the calculation we were asked for their calculation data and they did not give that to us were you aware of that I am aware of the oven a amazingly finding a real high numbers policy I don't support in a real low number if they do support that policy thank you. Senator Hendren. Thank you governor so did I hear you correctly when you retrieve you sleep with regard to the size of this problem that seventy percent of the nurses in New York I've been fired I said sixteen percent I believe the number us all that's eighty nine thousand nurses as we number us all from a eighty nine thousand nurses have been fired because of failure to take the vaccine in New York I believe that was the number I saw sleeve mean at that's something that I saw so and other ones. I think there's clients like twenty percent some other industries and trying to think through different stats I've seen on this number. Thanks. Okay. Any other questions for the senator Senator Hill. Senator Garner. It's being unemployment bill that they were referring to here is it is going to encourage people to not work in the uses exemption in their favor with the strain workforce that we currently have already devoted to people not taking maxing out some people take advantage of this now we've seen people being off work a long time already begging him to go back to work are you not doing another incentive out for people to not go back to work I would strongly pushed back against that soon he'll as a friend that please do I wanna hear. You can always create problems in the system that a that could be abused sure. But considering how contentious issue is considering how it's such a hot button issue how many people legitimately have to go through multiple processes before they're fired I mean even reports now that are put these mandates in place usually there's a process to and fire them when I go through multiple steps the idea that people will be able to abuse that over across system I don't see fair because there's will be a process within businesses before they terminate this person assuming that Senator Hammer bill you know passes not pass we're happy with that so I just don't see the reality of this being an issue were large abuse Walker I think it's much more likely that is to be an issue of legitimate. Use of that the funds and more importantly we have multiple investigatory powers for unemployment currently in place that precludes people from the abuse on that front that's probably the distinction to this essay the P. way which was much more broader instability to give that actually no good people who sign up for unemployment for the first time who had fraud claims hit against them and had to fight that at the work for services so I don't think the system I think the system is in place that will prevent any kind of massive fraud in fact I think the system will just kind of clarify what's probably going to happen anyway. Just one more question in addition to getting three hundred a week how long can they get that three hundred it's whatever the current thing today current time when do you have for unemployment somebody text me and said the minimum is a hundred fifty one dollars maximus for fifty one don't know if that's true I trust the source and then I know it's up to two months four months I have to double check on point I want to make sure that people understand they're not going to get what they were making probably on their job because the minimum is one forty five the Max's what three forty five I had four fifty one but I think that's what we want and they are limited in how long they can get unemployment all the processes we put in place for unemployment nothing changes again I wanted to sing yes ma'am. Okay anyone wish to speak against the bill certified. Before I speak against bill just want to provide a little bit of clarification unemployment is solely paid by the employer there is no employee contribution and we can try to massage around that and talk about it's based on the labor the profits created but if I'm employer and I'm not making money and I have employees that comes out of my pocket I'll go but I'll tell you I think a note I'll do whatever I have to to make that unemployment client calling so it that is that is not an actor characterization of how that works you know in the workforce but and I would say just on this bill on his face this is going to impact all employers those that choose to implement a policy shows that used to not implement a policy whatever it may be everyone has the potential to be impacted because want to jeopardize the solvency the trust fund then then you're talking about changing either weeks that are paid the amounts paid or the total amount paid by employers encrypted contributed the funds so it has you can have the potential to impact all of those even the folks that you know again don't require vaccination will never required vaccination in just one more thing to play into the conversation. This is going to be the result or has the potential to be the result of the mandates that we're talking about placing an employer's right now the state of Arkansas yet one more unintended conflict consequence I believe of mandates with that I'd. Senator Hendren question the service one centre Spring I appreciate your comments because I believe you were here when the unemployment trust fund was upside down about seven or eight hundred million dollars and you were very hard over several years to get it solvent again and so in is that solvency declines because of additional claims driven by mandates and requirements are testing and everything else do we risk finding ourselves right back in the same situation where center chest but we made some hard decisions about length of time out of pay out and every other things to try to make that fun Sullivan are we gonna find ourselves potentially right back on the same hole I don't think any of this not about thank you definitely has the potential to do that thank. Senator Hammer. I ask you to question your answer may the sponsor can with us having just passed out seven thirty nine you know done had the Emergency Clause. At the time in the future of somebody is terminated. Because employer did not follow what seven thirty nine requires the mandate they would be eligible for unemployment. Correct. Because the it depends how this bill goes also imminently there's emergency clause in and that sort of thing so they I guess they would work together when or if I mean we are passing bills that have a relapse and similarities and I don't know how that's going to work which of course is going to take precedent which ones not that's not my United review those ways that way for you all follows Mr president. I have a memory if you were in the committee I remember but it seems like about six weeks ago we had the department of commerce city committee meeting at a maybe was in rules and the question was asked if people are terminated because of failure to take the vaccine would they be able to draw unemployment and somebody else maybe in chamber remember but it seems like I distinctly remember they said yes do you remember that or not I was not in the committee meeting thank you. Senator spoke against center or anyone wish to speak in favor Senator Rapert. Members I am in favor in favor obviously of this bill and the other bills that are protection Arkansas citizens as it relates to unemployment that statement that was made in our committee was that if the employee actually. Opted for a religious exemption. For a medical exemption they would qualify they warned everyone in that situation that if they did not request those that they would probably not qualify for unemployment so I stand in favor of supporting this bill to do whatever we can to protect individual liberty for our canteens. Senator Hammer is it your. Having been in the committee is it your understanding then if a employee requests those or let's say Senator Johnson's bill you know finishes the course and that's added to it if they request that and the employer denies them for whatever reason and then they get terminated that that would that would allow them to draw on employment is that your understanding or J. said that would allow them to do it at a case by case analysis right but they did say that if there was no exemptions that were requested they would not be able to draw unemployment is what they stated thank you yeah. Thank you. Right will take all. I think we need to be real clear people can apply it doesn't mean that they're guaranteed for anybody who wants to get unemployment for whatever reason people can apply but that does not necessarily mean after the with the process that they will be okay and there's no guarantee I just hate to mislead people out in the general public that all you have to do is go and apply and you're going to get unemployment that's just not true it doesn't happen that way I didn't say that no but that's the your election that we pushing out there is that all anybody has to do then is they lose their job they go up and and can get unemployment benefits no they have to go and apply and they may or may not. Be deemed to be able to get those things so I just don't want to mislead people. And and if it is that I agree or not I agree we don't want to mislead people are restated because it is very important because we came back in committee and made a very direct question when they were talking about the exemptions and he said if they did not actually request an exemption and they were fired they would probably not be able to draw but he said if they had made an exemption request for the religious or whether medical and then were fired subsequently then they would take it on a case by case basis to see what the facts were in the situation and I think it's very important that we we do understand that thank you for the question center. spoke of for searches feel to speak against. Thank you Mr I think I'm going to speak more on it. Senator English is made a part of my argument I do not want the people of this state to quit their jobs to make a hundred and forty five dollars a week. I want to quit their jobs because most of a make more than four hundred and fifty dollars a week. If that amount is going to be increased. Then perhaps we have a conversation worth having. But to quit your job to be poor. Makes no sense. Because people today cannot live off a hundred and forty five dollars a week. You can't have all four hundred and fifty dollars a week in most instances and so I want that to be understood if you even if you get unemployment is not a whole lot thank you. speak on anyone wish to speak. I guess for Senators ready close. Yes I'll say it again that you know business is play unemployment for insurance for people that don't have for conform so what I say is the labour of the employee that they use to pay that fits the profits they do all that so it is a symbiotic relationship even though the employees of paying that directly but we keep all of this trust fund and the money I understand it is real concern. But if we can't break in case of emergencies that trust fund right now when we have the potential of. Thousands if not tens of thousand more cancers being unemployed. Expressly if there's a mandate which makes them do that through their business then I don't understand why we have such a system in place I think this is the perfect time to do that to make sure that they have this supplemental income that allows them to transition from one job to another or to have that small financial freedom to happen during that time I don't think it's right for abuse and I think it will actually make things easier on in Arkansas and with that Mr President I'm closed I'm secretary please call. Ballinger. That. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis. Davis. DISMANG. Eight. Elliott. English. Flippo. Flowers flowers. Garner. Gilmore. Hammer. Hammer. Hendren. Hester. Hi Hickey Hill. Hello. Ingram. Irvine. Blake Johnson. Mark Johnson. Leding. Pitsch Rapert. Rice. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch. Sullivan. Teague. T.. Tucker. Wallace. Senator does Senator Davis is a law anyone else Health is. Anyone else. Sir hammers I cast up the ballot. Twenty H. thirteen days the bill is passed emergency clause is not adopted. Senate Blake Johnson revisiting the earlier bill. Senate bill seven thirty two by Senator Blake Johnson due to prohibit corrosion of people's persons to receive the vaccine or immunization for covered nineteen and clear emergency. Members this bill. Like Senator hammers with the natural immunity this bill this puts the philosophical objection in there because you're religious and your your Your medical is is already in place through federal law and that this budgeted statute in in Arkansas law like it is in education. Any questions for the senator anyone wish to speak against anyone wish to speak for centers closed centers closed madam secretary please call the roll out will remind you. This has an emergency clause. Ballinger. Ballinger. Beckham. Bledsoe. Caldwell. Chesterfield. Clark. Davis. Davis. DISMANG. J. DISMANG. Eight. Elliott. English. Flippo. Flippo. Flowers flowers Garner. Gilmore. Hammer Hendren. Hester. Hickey Hickey. Hello. Ingram. An Irving. Blake Johnson. Mark Johnson. Leding. Record Page. Rapert. Rice. Sample. Stubblefield. Sturch Sullivan. Teague. T.. Tucker. Wallace. You wish to vote or change their vote Senator Davis is I. Senator Flippo is II anybody else cast up the ballot. Twenty one the age eleven days the bill is passed emergency clause is not adopted. Any items at the desk. Yes Senate bill seven forty two by Senator English concerning the establishment of the four congressional district boundaries in Arkansas and declaring emergency Senate bill seven forty two state agencies. Any announcements Senator Pitsch did you have an announcmenet. A similar. It. If you come down here that the preferable. Thanks. Senate recognized. Thank you governor members insurance and commerce. Insurance and commerce is going to meet at one o'clock. I saw yeah let's meet at one o'clock I was gonna say we'll move it up but let's meet at one o'clock we have one resolution to hear from senator Johnson will be Else that should be brought to my attention will try to meet at one thirty we have a new bill that's been introduced Senator English at least need to have a hearing on that so unless there's any objections any conflicts would do at one thirty sample. Revenue and Tax will meet in the morning at nine o'clock in room one seventy one to discuss emerges report. Any other announcements give me one second I'm gonna figure out what time we will be. Gavel again. For I am kidding. Among the. What you still. Or not. Which I would be here more center. We looks a whole movie awards was committed. Give us to our. World tax. All right eleven AM tomorrow