Judiciary Committee- House

Senate Amendment so representative Lundstrum you're recognized to come in percent The Amendment. Thank you chairman Dalby. I'm colleagues this is on the grooming bill we made three changes on the Senate side that I'm bringing back to you I'm glad to report this made a good bill much better what we're doing is actually defining future sex trafficking so there's no confusion and defining traveling that helped and we the Romeo and Juliet because we made it three years instead of two and I do have to say it did make the bill better and I'm I'm glad for that with that I would appreciate a good vote members are there any questions. Seeing no questions what is the will of the committee. Motion to concur. I see a motion to Kerr we have one on the floor is there any discussion the motion concur in the Senate amendment. All in favor say aye All opposed say no the ayes have it we have concurred thank you colleagues I appreciate your time. Representative Gazaway you're recognized in house bill thirteen twenty three. We have some Senate amendments. You're recognized. Thank you madam chair committee house bill thirteen twenty three you may recall was the in life photograph ACT four homicide victims and their families it when the bill was in the Senate course passed overwhelmingly to the House when the bill was in the Senate it was pointed out that one of the part of the wording in that bill was is that the deceased person had a right and it was pointed out that deceased people can't have rights and which is a point well taken and so in a criminal prosecution it's really the State of Arkansas that would be proposing to offer this evidence and so we changed it to be in a homicide case the state has a right which I think is more accurate and that's what the amendment does and. I would make a motion do pass as amended appreciate a good vote. Members we have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment is there any discussion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the motion carries we have concurred members let's go to House Bill sixteen oh five which is another's Senate Amendment represent Gazaway you're recognized thank you madam chair. House Bill sixteen oh five concerned the payment for court reporters when they had to when they were entitled to payment. Is exempted payment if the request was made for the transcript by the circuit judge who presided over the case that's what the bill does originally there was some concern brought up we got the bill to the Senate about substitute court reporters and how they're paid because they're not paid a salary like a judge's regular court reporter is and so if if yours is a substitute court reporter had to prepare the transcript they should be entitled to some additional payment and that made sense they requested the amendment we have the amendment in the Senate that's what this amendment does and it's all agreed to by the court reporters judicial council no opposition I'm aware of so make a motion to pass and appreciate a good vote. Members we have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment is there any discussion all in favor please say aye any oppose ayes have it we have concurred thank you represent gathers manager committee members were now moving to our regular agenda. I promised representative flowers that she would be up first this morning we have the fiscal impact statement it should be on your desk so let's turn to House Bill nineteen fourteen house bill nineteen fourteen representative flowers you're recognized. Good morning committee. I believe that Everyone is here who was here for of the witnesses who spoke for and against my bill and What I wanted to do was. Go back and touch on some of the things that you might have heard and I know you all slept since then so I hope that I can adequately address any concerns. You we're told that. The current law already addresses. this issue and it doesn't but not to the extent that we would certainly the law addresses those who have intellectual disabilities and in some cases you might hear when here circumstances around which people We've not guilty by reason of insanity or there might be a case to of make so that someone is not executed while they are disabled but in many instances people who are defined of Incapable of understanding are still given treatment and medication and then still sentenced to death if they are in fact Convicted of a capital crime so what this bill seeks to do is a little bit different. This goes beyond someone with an intellectual disability this recognizes. The diagnosis of a physician prior to and subsequent to a capital crime and one thing that distinguishes this from the existing law is this would not seek to keep someone convicted of a copy of a capital crime who is mentally ill from serving a sentence and paying for that crime and protecting society from that person that person would still be convicted and sentenced to a capital crime and serve life in prison without parole. What this bill does though. Is addresses issues around capital punishment that I think many people I'll bet most people in this room I believe is wrong. Or what it prevents. It's something that I think most of us believe is wrong and that is sentencing and executing someone who when they committed the crime. We're incapable of understanding. Their actions. And I'm like you and me. Did not have control of their actions when they committed the crime that does that mean that they shouldn't be punished at that says I mean they should be let back into sight society absolutely not. Two out of every three people Americans in this country. Believe. That people who are mentally seriously mentally ill should not be convicted by by the state to death. And so I would ask you to think about a couple of things most people who. Are supportive of and believe that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for someone who is a big commitment committed a capital crime. Are very focused and deeply rooted in a religious conviction. About the victim. But our religious convictions I think for many people. Perhaps for. Every faith. Would recognized two things. First of all. If you are incapable of understanding what you're doing. If you are incapable of controlling your actions. Is that the same as someone who is. And secondly for someone who is deeply convicted in his or her faith. How is it the role of the state how is it just for the state. To take away someone's opportunity for grace. To take away someone's opportunity for their soul to be safe. So I think. Whether we look at this from a legal perspective whether we look at this from a mental health perspective whether we look at this from a faith perciform moral perspective. There is no room for the state to take the life of someone who was seriously mentally ill. And I would remind you that Ohio just passed this law. Which is actually more of which is broader than this law. I'll remind you that this law will likely be passed in Florida. And this particular bill. Was taken from. A Republican senator out of Indiana so this is not a partisan perspective. It is an American perspective. And it's a perspective I think that's consistent with anyone who believes. That life is given by god. And that grace should be given to those who are seriously mentally ill with that I will. Complete my closing remarks and thank you madam chair and ask for it to pass. Members representing flowers is closed for a bill there is a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye aye All opposed say no no no the nose haven't bills failed. Our next bill members this house bill nineteen forty three is there anyone here to run representative Hodges bill nineteen forty. Well okay we'll pass over senator garner you're up next Senate bill six twelve. Representative I mean Senator Garner college eyes you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair members committee currently law we allow vulnerable victims of certain crimes children to give their testimony remotely on a closed circuit caption system this is for very narrow situations where being in the same room with the defendant could cause emotional distress dear duty COVID nineteen and some of them change we had to make there I had a constituent reach out who's in this field as follows extend that to remote viewing and things we have become normalized to to last year and basically just takes that park section law expanded to like zoom other remote viewing options and allows that if the judge in and allows it if it's in the right criteria to be able to do that testimony in a very narrow circumstance without take any questions committee. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we do have an individual who signed up to speak against this bill Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized. Jeffersons Y. Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers. Part of the bill that senator garner just referred to as non controversial of the of the if there are other technologies sites closed circuit such as zoom in Microsoft teams and things like that but there's language in the bill of that will will cause a problem if it passes. There's a this statute is based upon the Supreme Court decision in Maryland versus Craig which said I was a five four decision over a hot dissent by justice Scalia that the that in certain very limited circumstances the conference of the confrontation clause would be satisfied by. A of a closed circuit type of situation if there were specific it would if it would be traumatic to the child and that the trauma came from being in the presence of the defendant Arkansas this legislature passed a law that the law that senator garner seeks to amend that does not meet the criteria of Maryland versus Craig right now anyway because it does not require trauma but merely harm harmful or detrimental and and also that it does not require that it be the defendant causing the the presence of the defendant causing the problem this would make this would would put another defect in the statute by inserting the terms testified comfortably as the standard which is clearly not sufficient under of Maryland versus Craig so I I think if that testify comfortably were enacted the statute would almost certainly be held unconstitutional under correct I suggested to the Senate went no where of course that they that they substitute the word traumatic which is what's in Maryland versus Craig for the language testify comfortably without I'm happy to answer any questions. Representative Hudson you're recognized thank you madam chair of Mr Rosenzweig with regard to the term testify comfortably can you are there any other areas in the Arkansas code that referred to a witness it being quite uncomfortable I'm for the purpose of testimony of. I can answer that one way or the other I know the court has of course a lot of power to two of regulate the circumstances of of testimony and that happens all the time in civil cases of course criminal cases because they're subject to the confrontation clause or different and there's of of you know normally speaking the under Corey versus Iowa because the confrontation clause means that the defendant and the witness have to be in the same room where they are essentially able to look each other in the eye whether they in fact do obtain eye contact or not Craig. Has that sit at has that exception to it in the case of small children with the with the trauma it's center and and so insertion of the words testifying comfortably which obviously is a much lesser standard then the trauma that Craig requires we're I think because the statute to be found unconstitutional. Follow up and ensure you're recognized so in the opinion in Maryland versus correct and was there any discussion about the public interest public policy and and you know caring for children and and ensuring their safety and comfort I gas or or a person to trauma verses the policy in favor of the confrontation clause well you know they they what they held was that the special. Condition of children with special circumstances of children were such that it to that it essentially over road all the all the other concerns if but if they had to meet the criteria of trauma Act causes as a result of the defendant of this civil there this by the way that the The Amendment has the same language with regard to civil or administrative and there there would be no constitutional problem there the constitutional problem. Is just in the park that amends the. I Smith would remain the criminal The criminal testimony. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one else who signed up thank you Mr Rosenzweig your testimony senator garner you're recognized close for your bill yes ma'am I just want only disagree with Mr Rosenzweig honest you look above we fleshed out all the elements were they actually could get this order above that for the Cody mentions the comfortably testify in my opinion was put in there so you could be a situation when that child actually testifying like I'm sitting as chair it's comfortable for them in that situation I think the elements above lay out you have to have dramatic spirits for the life of the family all of that for you can you can get to the point where you get to that comfortable language and then once that happens up being that's just the person who wish testify gets put a comfortable situation that's what the intent was and that's my reading of it but that I'm close thank you madam chair. Member center Garner his close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. Is haven't you've passed your bill member since we have senator garner as a captured audience right now it's coming down to his next bill Senate bill six thirty three yes memory pass over that we couldn't reach an agreement between the parties I promised them that we can by this point I would not pull it out pull downs is one pass at I do have one more if you were to get the best year members let's move down to Senate bill six six eight Senate bill six six eight Senator Garner you're recognized thank you madam chair this body. Past a very very good intent a law that I know some people is committee have a personal experience with. They pass a law because there is a loophole that basically allowed it was more beneficial and hit run situation for the person to drive away and not be held accountable because everyone really a law to capture that for real punishment very very good intending law though she's one error in my opinion. We didn't put an actual mental element on the hit run situation so what that means is the way it's written now we have a strict liability crime for a class B. felony up to twenty years in jail I'm explain you why that's important. What that means is if you hit somebody for whatever reason and you have zero idea that you hit the. Everyone is room must be real if you hit somebody will pull over by news from what I would let's imagine a scenario where you absolutely did not you know you did it if that person is seriously hurt or death occurs you are guilty you can offer a good defense there's no mental state say I didn't know that it was ringing in our ears of parade I didn't see that there's no there's nothing on my car you're guilty of a Class B. felony as soon as that happens you don't meet the elements of what you need to do is pull over return to the scene for a reasonable amount of time. If you don't do that you're guilty the only thing we put in here of this new law is a mental element to purposely or recklessly drive away after the fact that is mean you get away Scot free that that look evidence will show I mean. There was a case up in North Dakota where the Attorney General actually hit somebody they don't have a law like this so it is a misdemeanor and he said although the deer I did not realize I hit somebody with a person hits glasses were actually inside the vehicle. In that scenario I think you can clearly show purpose that you knew you had somebody insurer pulled over we have some in this room who had a very traumatic experience. And I understand and I think the intent of the law was very very very very very good that's why supported it I think this is a small change make sure those very rare situations where it's legitimately on known you can at least explain that and and have a day in court now that you'll be getting off automatically Scot free but you lease have your day in court I think it's a good legal standard get those protection to everybody without taking questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator garner you're recognized close for your bill yes ma'am I'm closed thank you so much member center garner's close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it you have passed your bill I think we're done with you for the session. Maybe. Representative Hodges. You're recognized to present house bill nineteen forty three. And we have an amendment member so hang on with that. There's also a fiscal impact statement that's being passed out to you. Members whether passing that out one other housekeeping items if you have a bill that you're wanting to put into interim study. Let Martha J. Rowe no let Martha no giving it to us we let her know to watch for it but you personally need to let Martha no so make that mental note if you have something did you want it interim study. All right I believe that we have. The Amendment and the fiscal impact statement passed out representative Hodges you're recognized present your amendment thank you madam thank you in. Can you hear me. Okay thank you madam chair created stay within Monte Hodges District eighty five first time ever being before Judiciary Committee so anyway that. The first amendment we're adding to disclose sponsors to I whipped exceed two members will get and co sponsors to bill and we're adding rather than the center Clark he is. Enter sponsor on the Senate in and he needs to be added three change in it had it had Senator Elliot we're changing it from Elliott to Senator Clark and the the Senate sponsor. And in them or adding Representative the Jay Richardson to the bill of the co sponsors well. Where were you for membership for the explanation. I have without the amendment have been passed out hang on. Our staff and I got tied up in Senate Judiciary this morning so I non folks let's get the amendment out. Right as everyone have the amendment now before a. Represent Cavenaugh you have the amendment well you're in okay members the first amendment is presented to us was to add representative Richardson is a co sponsor delete server Elliott as a co sponsored ads Senators Clark in Elliott as cosponsors bill do I have a motion to adopt. I have a motion to adopt is there any discussion on that motion all in favor please say aye. Amendment number one has been adopted Amendment number two you're now recognized president Amendment number two to your bill okay. The Amendment number two. Would that be to delete section two in its entirety yes yeah I'm sorry I'm sorry okay yes delete section two in its entirety and then of reenable sections. The number of this section of the bill okay members you've heard the explanation as to delete section two of house bill nineteen forty three in its entirety into appropriately renumber the sections of the bill is there any discussion or any questions I'm sorry do I have a motion I see a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion all in favor please say aye. The Amendment has been adopted you are now recognized to present your bill as amended. Yeah. Or thank you Committee I have with me if you don't mind a semester Smith with me and he'll he'll kind of talk about the bill but the bill would into in a study last session and just brought back it's I appreciate you guys allow me to bring it last minute actually of going through my voted and realized that that we've had in a study that's awful that I just I just a couple that a couple weeks ago it is the best and I got back on it again but you know I was extremely amazed when I ran for office my first term when a campus and I spoke to particular young men how many had fell and felony charges you know when I talk to him and ask for the vote no that may like you know I'm a felon and I was like wow it's really an issue in this state the number of of of folks that have felonies on their records and so Services with brought to my attention last session and you know this is an actual Walden books that we need to really look at a chain you know some misdemeanors that are really minuscule and I think I'll I just believe the punishment should fit the crime you know we're not trying to be a state the soft on crime but you know we we our state that that at one point with incarceration you know when the fast growing cars rations states in the union and we realized that the problem and we're trying to cut down recidivism we're trying to do things to to navigate these young men and women out of of president so they become productive citizens in society representative what does that Dalby the representative My mind is one blank it's just past the bill the other day to do a study for a employer Robin Lundstrum two two four employees from one place to look at hiring needs in may so we we want to see these young man one succeeds so so I thought this would be a great start on reducing some of the the felony charges to misdemeanors and from that all that Services mistake hang on before he. Testifies let's see if we have any questions or committee. We always like to question the bill sponsor so wait for the grilling in judicial I know right Judiciary that about that's why we don't have a lot of people voluntarily come in here I think representative Smith I'm just glad we made on this committee. Representative Smith you're recognized for a question Hey it's good to have you here representative Hodges let me ask you a question is this bill connected to futures for felons and brother related be there and challenge burrows this party your reason for running it absolutely you know that that that thank you and I've worked with a group right and all and so it actually you know I talked to the young man that was over it during the last session but that this is something that we're definitely gonna put in a stadium bring back this session and he was really excited about that he works really diligently a feature felony to to to advocate for balance and so most definitely well I appreciate that thank you thank you. Members any other questions of the bill sponsor. Seeing no other questions Mr Smith will recognize you for a restatement of thank thank you madam chair my name is Sylvester Smith a local attorney good to see you again this the last time I by the the session and so. In talking to other attorneys across the state just looking at issues where there felony charges that are really low level crimes the people of god and trapped in and really had challenges compromising the future these are the I guess now to items there felonies that we look that and section one of the first part talks about fraudulent identification park cards a state ID's I think it's really important to that you pay attention to the fact that someone who's mass distributing these things for money that would still be a crime but if you look over to page two of the new section be if some college student changes a picture or a date on their own ID that would be a misdemeanor as long as it's something that could be it for themselves and believe it or not there have been college students I could name a couple cases if you a fait it bill if there any you a favor bill loans where people got caught up in this and I know of one instance where a person was actually charged with a felony and so something like that really ought to be a misdemeanor I special we know that you for calling students sometimes make these mistakes and they should be put off track with being able to matriculated section three deals with an individual who are falsely adulterated a temporary tag or uses someone else's temporary tags on their own personal vehicle right now doing that is a first offense is a felony I personally had a case where because student Clark County his temporary tag expired he found a temporary tag in it literally in a drainage ditch stuck it on his car for a week and got pulled over and charged with a felony I am totally was about to decimate his life first generation college student first person ever go to college in his family I was at risk of losing his college financial aid and other things that nature and so we really ought to look at these things that. really a low level offenses and finally I know the revenue impact says it's none I believe that's an accurate anytime you plead guilty to a felony you are likely to at least have some former probation there's a probation officer assigned to you and you have to be managed to that system and so maybe the revenue impact is not because these crimes are being charged that often but when they are there would be a positive revenue impact because we wouldn't have to use utilizes probation officers and with that I'd be happy to take any questions anyone has. Represent Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I think that probably those people that you were thinking of the University of Arkansas would prefer that you don't name nickname names right now on their fake ID's do you have any idea of how other states are treating these types of crimes with a generally considered misdemeanors are they more and in that felony category. That's a great question is always represent has and I will be very transparent I'm not done extensive research so I can't name states but I know I looked at three or four of them and they were misdemeanors but I I and that's been two years ago when we first did this and so frankly I could name the states for you now but I from the research I've found in surrounding states I believe these crimes are misdemeanors. Members any other questions. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Representative Hodges Mr Smith if you look at section two if that's the lead out. Does that delete out the current law can you can you look at section two there and tell me how that affects current law I really appreciate the question because frankly I was surprised that that was a minute out but no one voted for me so it's not my Biel so lead removing section two would leave current law as is but when it comes to this issue I've done extensive research and this and federal law failure to file or Emily pay taxes misdemeanor here in Arkansas it's a felony and really it's a poorly defined felony because you can see what's there it doesn't say for example for you to file ten years of tax returns and so is left to the prosecutor a first fortunately prosecutors have been a very hesitant they don't abuse this but if we have the wrong person they could and if you were What's behind of value taxes you could be charged with a felony that's why I hope that in the future you guys will take a look at this to make it consistent with the federal statute. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Hodges you're recognized close for your bill and a limit the prosecuting attorneys are at a neutral on this on this particular bill and we help moving forward that we can definitely add more This semester Smith said you can add more to this piece of legislation and and and critic and all these young men and women with these felonies but with that being said I appreciate a Good vote on this. Members representative Hodges is because we're still order the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it you've passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you Committee. I'm sorry the motion was as amended. We got it okay the. Members the next bill we have a Senate bill six forty one. Senate bill six forty one I don't are you representive Underwood or your. Resenting Senate bill six forty one. Okay you're recognized come to the table. All right you're recognized to present the bill thank you chair at this bill is really just cleanup language for the bail bondsmen licensing board this that basically just those three things first your moves the requirement for a municipal or circuit judge and an elected judge the reason for this changes at their currently is not a judge on the board because the Supreme Court has ruled that to be unconstitutional secondly it changes the language so that each congressional congressional district will be represented by at least one member on the board and third allows for formal municipal police chief or formal former council chief allowing for a current or former reasonable police chief or sheriff to be eligible for the board and the reason for this is the office holders or appointed positions may change during the board appointed time prior to turning out currently this does this won't change any membership on the board that's currently how they're they're doing it so that's why I mentioned it was clean up language as far as I'm aware there isn't any opposition to this bill. Having tried to question. Represent. The first representative Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you managers I'm just kind of curious since or so I mean I understand that the alleged judge couldn't be on the board but that does mean that there's no representation from you know the judicial branch here and this is something is available or itself seems like it would be relevant do you know if the judicial council has a position on the bill or you talk to them about it and would there be a scenario where you could put someone who is not necessarily an elected judge but someone who represents the judicial branch on the board today has representation that's a question I'm not they haven't spoken to me about this so I'm not aware of that pick this up from center on Senate side so I don't know that that that came up at all the only the only real answer happy and is that on that issue is that because of I think the case was time reverses artist Harper that's for the the reason for that change so I wish I better answer for you thanks. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized to close for your bill thank you committee appreciate your time and I'm close that make a motion to pass. Members representive Underwood is closed bill in his motion do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it motion carries the bill has passed. Members let's turn to Senate bill six ninety eight representative Richmond you're recognized president Senate bill six ninety eight. Thank you madam chair. All right. Was surprised this morning to find out that actually had a bill. It was even more surprising that I was sponsor of that bill. But the that's okay of. Thank you maybe somebody talk to me about this I take you stayed up all night. Working on this bill actually found out this morning SO you know IT I've given it's about thirty seconds actually time but apparently what this bill does. Is that. It requires in and as I understand it this rule there's a rule right now that requires the bail bondsmen to be present. But that's not sufficient so they're trying to go ahead put that statue it's a regulatory thing to correct this situation the reason why they want him present is to be sure that he is in fact you know giving a thumbs up to the the execution release of the defendant without the. you know any further information or anything that needs to be done that he's their presence so you can't rely on email you can't rely on some other stuff because anybody could do that and and that's why the rule is is in effect has been in fact but they just I don't know who somebody said it needs to be put in statute and that's what we have here and that's why it's here and I apologize that's all I know about this thing. Members I'm looking for a lot of questions. and we have one representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you madam chair representative Richmond I'm gonna read this and you tell me. What it does. If the on page and to. One twenty four it says ten permit I bail bond to be executed to the effect of the release of the defendant without the bondsman B. and physically present I would refer you to go up on page one. Line. Eighteen and nineteen. And it's the prohibitions okay this is the prohibition. On that which is why when the first time I read it I had the same thought that you did okay if we're saying he has to be there what is this language basically look to say that he doesn't. But when you go back and look at it and you read it it's a prohibition that you cannot do such a thing as what the line says down twenty four I think it is. Or Page two line twenty four thank you. Represent Richmond Richardson you're recognized for a question. Hey representative Richardson how are you today I'm like look in the mirror. Hey and I'm and I'm asking you this and I don't know if you can you know or not so. This is an ongoing problem I mean that's why we're writing this into the statute I bet if we didn't have to do cash bail we probably would need bill bondsmen but in the event where we are. It I have no idea if this is something that's an ongoing problem like I said I mean I gave it is you know thirty seconds before went state agency went okay I think I know what this bill and I apologize that I don't know any more than that about this. Represent college you're recognized for a question thank you. Thank you madam chair up but again and I think you said this at the beginning this is already the practice under rule and then we'll just move it statute is that correct that is correct I yeah in my panic phone call. About this because I got a text message this morning saying Hey could you know you've got this and I'm like what are you talking about so I called them and they said it's already rule and that this is moving at this section acts. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question I'm just motion at the proper time. All members we have no other questions no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Richmond you're recognized close for your bill I am closed and I move do pass. Members we have a representative Richmond is close for his bill and has a motion of do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye all right any opposed say no the ayes have it you have passed your bill. Thank you madam chairman and thank you committee for your enthusiastic Because the vote on that. Representative council you're recognized to present Senate bill six. Senate bill six fifty two. Thank you madam chair thank you committee so This Is Senator lettings bill it's a pretty simple many of y'all may remember back in two thousand seventeen Senator Irvin and former representative Rebecca Petty and Senator Leding who was then a representative passed a bill ending of life without parole for juvenile offenders there was a retroactivity part of that. Statute the B. in the you know that bill that became act and there has been a little bit of confusion about whether that retroactivity clause applies to both homicide and non homicide cases courts have found that the statutes very clear that it was meant to retroactively applied homicide cases this all this bill does is just clarifies the original Legislative intent that that retroactively applied to both homicide and non homicide cases for drug offences so um that's. That was the original intent of the bill this bill makes it extra glaringly clear I'm happy to try to answer any questions about it. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized to close for the bill closed and I make a motion to pass members representing Clowney has close bill it has made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it you pass the bill thank you Committee. Represent Gazaway you're recognized to present Senate bill six seventy six. Represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair the Committee Senate bill six seventy six I is a bill that will. Seek to enable us to have justice for. Those who have been the victim of sexual abuse as a child. Essentially what the bill does is allows for the statute of limitations to be extended in civil actions. from what it currently is which is the age of majority plus three years to the age of fifty five. And there's a lot of science behind this and I can get into that and explain all that. again about the statistics and why we need this law but I have a witness here and with the chairs permission I would ask that he be allowed to join me at the table. I'll be fine Mr William Stevens. Mr Stevens come on down and have. And you'll be recognized upon identifying yourself. Press the look let's press the but there you go now you're on my name is William Stevens. Mr Stephen you're recognized to present your testimony today represent Gazaway madam chair before a Mr Stephens testifies I would like to give a little more explanation of what the bill does. again this bill is known as the justice for vulnerable victims of sexual abuse act. And what it will do number one is it defines the type of victims that are particularly vulnerable of for whom we should extend the statute of limitations and those vulnerable victims of sexual abuse include victims who are disabled. And we divide that in the bill as a person who is legally disabled or determine medically disabled by medical or mental health provider at the time of the alleged wrongful conduct occurred and that the person was unable to give legal consent. Secondly the sexual abuse that we're talking about in this bill includes rape sexual assault in the first degree sexual assault in the second degree engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium transportation of minors for prohibited sexual conduct use of children in sexual performances unlawful sexual contact. and unlocked unlawful sexually explicit conduct. And then those terms are also defined. And then what the bill does again as it extends the statute of limitations in a civil matter until the victim reaches the age of fifty five years. And. Arkansas would not be the first state to do this I want to make that clear a committee other states are doing this and this is the trend around the country currently in legislative sessions there nineteen of bills similar to this pending in other states. And again several other even some of our neighboring states I have passed bills such as this Oklahoma for instance I currently has a bill of this clear the house is pending in the Senate. Kentucky has already passed similar legislation to this that was signed into law on March of this year. Arizona Sims similar legislation was signed into law mark in March of this year that completely eliminates the statute of limitations in these cases a Georgia has a bill pending very similar to this that's cleared the house in Georgian is currently in the Senate. Kansas Florida Colorado for instance is completely eliminated the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse of that bill this this session are pass both chambers is awaiting the signature of the governor and Louisiana has a bill pending that would extend the age of fifty three so if we do this we're not going to be we certainly would not be out of the ordinary to do this and I will say if you look at the statute of limitations for the offenses that I mentioned which this bill would apply to the civil context in a criminal context there is no statute of limitations for rape sexual assault incest many of the committee of the types of conduct we mention this bill in a criminal context there is no statute of limitations for. And so again if you look at what this does is statistics say. It's shocking to me one in five girls according to the statistics will be a victim of sexual abuse before they reach the age of eighteen and one in thirteen boys will be a victim of sexual assault before they reach their eighteenth birthday of these victims are. very hesitant to come forward I've seen that in my own experience as a criminal prosecutor I prosecuted cases where it was not until adulthood that. The victim she showed up and was actually able to relate the abuse I prosecuted one case on never forget. we had. Probably. Well in excess of five maybe maybe close to ten family members who were all molested by one individual who are all family members of this particular individual and many of these family members didn't come forward they may have told someone in their family but they never came forward to the authorities and they never came forward publicly until much later in life one of the things that we know is the dramatic effect that sexual abuse has on its victims many victims of sexual abuse. As a committee. Some except victims of sexual abuse don't make it to adulthood they suffer from depression the risk of suicide are dramatically increased for victims of sexual abuse are they suffer all kinds of negative effects from the abuse that last well into adulthood and again many do not report and until adulthood that they suffered this type of traumatic abuse and so there is a need for this bill many other states are doing this and I think this would be a good approach for a stake in Arkansas with that I'd ask with yours Commission that Mister Stevens be allowed to offer his testimony. Well we have a question first you represent Gazaway so represent properties you're recognized for your question thank you representative Gazaway. As my phone rings I guess my question would be why stop at fifty five what's the science behind the. My understanding is is and I don't have the the study with me in front of me but my understanding is is that. If a person is going to disclose they typically disclosed by the age of fifty five. And so that's what you've seen now it can I think you make a good point there are some states that have completely eliminated the statute of limitations for this type of conduct in a criminal context for instance there is no statutory limitations for rape and so I think you make a good point we could have completely eliminated it but you know in order to preserve some argument that there must be This is some. Our recognition of a statute of limitations on the ability to bring a claim based on the science fifty five is a good number but I don't have that specific study in front of me to quote thank you. Representative had said you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I know that when we've discussed Bills like this throughout the session that there's always a concern about about the proof of the evidence that will be available if you allow that statute to be extended for a longer period of time and I assume that I'm correct that the the standard would still remain the same as it would be for any other case that you'd still have to be able to bring in enough evidence you know so that the preponderance demonstrates and that this the allegations were likely to not occurred correct. That's an excellent point and yes that is correct These cases are difficult and I will tell you as a prosecutor they were exceptionally difficult because the burden of proof in a criminal prosecution of courses beyond a reasonable doubt and the longer that these allegations go before the reported the more difficult it makes it to win on a case like this certainly in a criminal context but even in civil context. no again the evidence becomes aged witnesses memories fade and it just becomes harder. But we shouldn't close the door on those victims from being able to come forward and to try to get some measure of justice and so that's what this bill seeks to do of course but to your point yes it is a much more difficult as the as the years pass. Seeing no other questions Mr Stephen you're recognized. Representatives first offense thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you today. My name is William Eric Stephens. And I want to thank the committee members for allowing me to speak I am a native of Arkansas I'm a combat veteran of the Arkansas Army National Guard in the United States Air Force. I'm a father and my husband and I'm a certified HR professional here in central Arkansas. I am also a childhood victim and survivor of sexual abuse. I grew up in hot springs Arkansas and as a child I always wanted joined the organization of the Boy Scouts of America. Scouting I thought offered me a chance of adventure and to do all the things I ever wanted to do as a child. Starting in nineteen seventy eight until nineteen eighty I and several other young boys in the hot springs Arkansas area were sexually abused by a scout leader name Sam what's. When the abuse finally came to light it was covered up by the local council. And we were sworn to secrecy. By having to recite the scout of. Since the day we were silenced I have a P. ly heard the voice of a ten year old version of myself. Asking when I ever mattered. To the people in the organizations that cover up this type of abuse in Arkansas the answer is pretty clang clang right now so that we never did. In two thousand sixteen as part of a. Homework assignment while I was attending seminary. In an effort to reach some type of closure I found the provision filed with the scouts kept on Sam months. He'd only been allowed to come to Arkansas. After it was discovered that he abused children and scouts in Georgia in less than thirty days later was able to re locate here and joins County. Sam what's known peta filed in sexual predator was allowed to come to this state and continued to sexually abused children. In June of two thousand eighteen I finally had the courage to come forward and publicly speak about the abuse and the cover up in December of that year I another scouting victims attempted to hold scouting accountable for their actions their lawyer. Who freely admitted and did not even attempt to contest the fact that we had been abused. Claim that the statute of limitations had expired. And once again they affirm that in their eyes we never matter. And the judge because the current laws. I had to agree. For me that day was one of the hardest days of my life. I felt I'd been raped all over again. But this time by the laws of Arkansas. Today I come to you as a fifty two year old man. To speak up for the ten year old version of myself but no one else had the courage to do so many years ago. And for the three other victims that I knew of when I started this journey. One who committed suicide at the age of twenty one in front of his wife in their bedroom. The other who died in prison at the age of thirty. And the last one. Who died twelve years ago. After dropping out of high school in the eighth grade. And spending a life doing drugs and alcohol and was trying to get himself sober and had a heart attack when his mother's yard. I ask each of you to finally have the courage. To do what is right. For the forgotten children in this state who have been abused and to let the predators. And the organizations that protect them finally know that the youth of Arkansas. No longer being worthy of justice and they're unwilling prey. And I ask each of you. One of my story was a story from your own children and grandchildren. Because I like so many others. And the child. And a grandchild of Arkansas. I ask you to finally let us know. That we matter. Thank you representatives. Mr Stevens thank you for coming before our committee today insuring your painful story we appreciate your testimony. We have no questions we appreciate you being here to. Represent Gazaway would you like Mr Gillespie to come forward now. Yes Mr Gillespie you're recognized come forward. If you press the button right there in. You're recognized good morning representatives. To go to representative Crawford's earlier question the average age of disclosure. is believed to be around fifty two. Male child. sex abuse victims. these are injuries that are. Different. Than other types of of of injuries and in the civil justice system and and that's why we're asking to be treated differently because. It takes an enormous amount of courage Which I believe we all just witnessed here Mr Stevens to come to terms with. What happened. Tell anybody much less. Come forward to authorities or civil authorities or or file a lawsuit. This is something that that. Is right and just. And I'm happy to answer any specific questions that any of you have Concerning the. The the reasons that this is the right thing to do or or about the science. But I believe Mr Stevens said it better than I could ever say. We do have a question representative Crawford you're recognized for. Yes it makes me angry. And. Thank you for coming forth but my question is once we approve this bill today which I believe it will pass can we come back again and maybe at that age to sixty is that possible absolutely thank you. I see no other questions thank you Mr press before coming before the committee today we appreciate your testimony thank you very much members we do have one individual who signed up to speak against this bill Mr president is way. Jefferson tried Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers whatever one may think of the policy behind this proposal I need to alert the committee to a problem with it that of under least under current law the bill if you look at page two starting it of and page nine line nineteen it purports to revive expired statutes of limitations of starting with the period six months from enactment and going on for a period of time of S. the as your I'm aware from previous bills that have come before here the US Supreme Court has prohibited at a revival of the of an expired statute in criminal cases this case called starter of versus California the Supreme Court has said in the context of civil cases that there is no federal due process issue other than with regard to property rights however the Arkansas Supreme Court has held in several cases in the past several decades that is a matter of state law. the you cannot revive an expired statute of limitations there been other instances where the legislature has attempted to do that of those cases include Johnson versus lily which is three oh eight Ark two oh one hall versus some contractors three fifty six R. six oh nine these cases by my research have not been over rule so assuming the Arkansas Supreme Court sticks with the prior decisions of this case on this issue if they are a highly I would think they would be highly unlikely to approve this that portion of the bill that purports to revive expired statutes of limitations of and then of course you have the question of severability of the act and whether you're not whether this would knock out the entire the entire think of we have a we have a statute right now that of with regard to sexual of abuse of civil sexual abuse that it's three years from discovery and discovery is defined in that statute aye aye aye when you find out the effects of the abuse not not the discovering that your abuse but what the effects of the abuse of our so I just wanted to make sure that the committee was aware of the problem those two cases I cited did not deal with sexual abuse statutes are sexual abuse allegations but it wasn't limited to that it was a an axe a position that the Supreme Court and taken with regard to revive. Hours in general there is no legal problem with extending an unexpired statute but with the well within Arkansas there is there is case law on the with regard to reviving an expired statute and I think you need to be aware of that before you head down this road match I'm happy to answer any questions. Represent Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you Mr Rosenzweig would you agree that science continually changes an asset changes in case law construct yes science does change and gives gives more insight of the there's of course the reason for a statute of limitations is that at a certain point a case does. is regarded as too hard to prosecute to hard to defend that witnesses died moved away and make it impossible to defend and these are the size of a a statute of limitations. Is a is a policy decision that's in entrusted to legislatures and courts the problem with the the the specific problem here is that Arkansas law has been. If a after a certain period of time you are entitled to go about your business you can throw away records et cetera et cetera you can rely on the fact that something's not going to come up And that's the that is the basis for the the Arkansas or a basis for the Arkansas Supreme Court's decision that a an expired statute cannot be revived as opposed to an ex extending one that has not been expired obviously you can pass whatever you want I'm I'm just here to alert you that you're I think you're going to a passage of this bill as is is going to legislate you into a problem and wanna make sure you're aware of that before you but one way or the other. Thank you Mr Rosenzweig we don't have any other questions representative Gazaway you're recognized thanks for your bill Ballinger before I close can adverse bond or and and also have certainly it and I think that Mr Gillespie has an arc as the legal argument in response to Mr Rosenzweig if the chair would allow the committee to hear that. They'll be fine thank you manager. Representatives I fundamentally disagree with with Mr resins wags theory on that side I would say that there is. very little to no chance that the Arkansas Supreme Court finds any problem. With this bill and I'll make three points here. Number one without the retroactivity clause there is no relief for Mister Stevens who you are. You today. Of the delay discovery law that Mr Rosenzweig alluded to was passed in nineteen ninety three and it is not retroactive and it. Affords no relief to anybody who's abuse occurred before that. so most of. The Boy Scouts victims in Arkansas and most of the clergy Catholic clergy abuse victims in Arkansas are going to be and. It's rare to find and younger than than. Forty five in fact I don't think I've ever had a client. That yeah typically my clients are in their fifties and sixties and their abuse occurred in the nineteen sixties. In particular the nineteen seventies and the nineteen eighties. So. The segment of the population that we're trying to help here. Require that retroactive clause and the beauty of it is the United States Supreme Court has. Unequivocally stated that it is not unconstitutional on the site you to a the case that is the law of the land chase securities corporation verses Donaldson. The United States Supreme Court case and. I found it really interesting reading and reading about statute of limitations and. Statutes of limitations are not constitutional rights in fact they're not even. Creations of the judiciary they are made by you legislators and they are by definition arbitrary and. Their insurance of public policy I always have been. In. The chase securities case. Which involved the fraudulent sale of securities the stock's I believe Plaintiff was wanting to. was was making claim for I believe breach of contract and fraud in seeking monetary damages from this this person would fraudulently sold the securities and. during the course of the litigation the statue meditations in Minnesota Minnesota legislature change the statue limitations extended it for this type of of This type of action and. The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled that that does apply retroactive retroactively to this plaintiff. and went before the United States United States Supreme Court and may have held it but here's what they say and it and it's really. It's really the the. The jest of of why what we're trying to do here is absolutely constitutional. United States Supreme Court says that where lapse of time has not invested a party with title to real or personal property a state legislature consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment may repeal or extend a statue limitations even after. Right of action is barred there by. And restored to the plaintiff his remedy and divest the defendant of the statutory bar. so. The Arkansas Supreme Court. Well they chose not to do so in the Johnson B. Lilly case which was thirty years ago and I believe the last time the Arkansas Supreme Court has addressed this. They chose not to do that in Johnson B. Lilly but Johnson B. Lilly involved something much more can to a vested. Right title to to property had to do with the child support arrears is and Situation where somebody expected that they were gonna O. S. blank amount the law is changed and now they're gonna owe more than that so and there this spring our spring court said okay yeah we're not gonna do that here but they did not say when we can never do this under any circumstances So this is a very different situation and the. My thinking is that the Johnson B. Lilly cases is very much in keeping with the precedent set by the United States Supreme Court couple other The important things to know about the the chase case the US Supreme Court case. The court explains that statutes limitations finder justification in the subsidy and convenience rather than in logic they have come in the law not through the judicial process but through legislation they represent a public policy about the privilege to litigate. Their shelter has never been regarded as what is now called a fundamental right again there is no constitutional provision in our state constitution or the United States constitution regarding statute of limitations there something that you as legislators. Create control you can pretty much do within whatever you see fit. For the people of the state and without all take any questions. Thank you Mr Gillespie seeing no questions represent guess what you're recognized close for your bill our. Thank you madam chair committee. This is a policy decision and we are legislators and I think just as you heard we decide statutes of limitations and how those will apply again while I respect Mr Rosenzweig and his opinion I respectfully disagree. the this just spring court is very clearly said that statutes of limitations can be extended and even revived the with the only exception being the cases where they involve a vested property right. Yeah and that's not the type of policy the or or consideration that we have before us today we're talking about victims of child sexual abuse and while there you know is a case to be made that defendants have the right to due process those can be overridden by compelling public policy interest that the state funds and there is a compelling public policy interest and that's what we what we will find if we pass this legislation as the legislature. A statement that there is a compelling public policy interest to extend the statute of limitations to revive the statute of limitations to allow victims who under current law are unable to the Chief Justice to have a measure of justice and that is a policy decision that we make and that I firmly believe the Arkansas Supreme Court will hold not only that but I I want to make one of the remark before I could close. The courage that it takes that you saw on display today. I would Mr Stevens. Is what this bill is about I don't know that there's anything that I've ever seen more courageous in my life than a victim of sexual abuse who has the courage to face their abuser in court to come before a legislative body and reveal what happened to them many years ago when they were child. That is true courage and. We need to ensure that those types of victims who injured. That's kind of traumatic abuse can achieve justice that's apologist policy decision and that's what we're here for and I'm asking you to approve this bill and with that I'll make a motion to pass close for the bill thank you. Members represent Gazaway is closer bill and has made a motion to do pass discussion representative Hudson you're recognized thank you madam chair and and thank you represented Gazaway for bringing this bill and our practice with my dad for several years before I went over to what he affectionately calls the dark side and ended two thousand nine one of the most difficult. Cases we ever had was one in which our client whole bar arrived on our doorstep with the story much like the one you heard today from Mister Stevens that he had been sexually assaulted raped and molested by his scout leader for years and had only discovered or Rick recalled those memories through trip through therapy had a breakthrough and all of that came through and my father and I tried that case and we ended up and losing it on a motion to dismiss due to the statute one of the things that was notable about the evidence in that case was that the scout leader Mr Hoffman in depositions admitted to molesting ten other ways but not our clients. I'm not of those boys were able to obtain justice because of the statute of limitations in back in two thousand nine the criminal statute hadn't been changed as well and we took this case to the Arkansas Supreme Court who reluctantly agreed with the dismissal and leaving our clients and his ten fellow Boy Scouts with no remedy and this this is been a long time in coming I and I was devastated for our client at that time I was glad when the General Assembly got rid of the statute of limitations on the criminal side now it's time to do it on the civil and I'll be a do pass. Members any other discussion. Seeing no other discussion we have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it the bill has passed. Thank you madam chair thank you. Members is there anyone here to run Senate bill six eighty five. Our you're right you did tell me you were gonna do that sorry about that. Representant you're recognized. Mr welcome welcome to the house Judiciary we don't see very often thank you for having me thank you madam chair your and colleagues register Richmond I had a couple more hours in you so I had time to prepare. And bring a witness to and right that's right. what this is the this is a simple members important bill it's a bill concerns sending of of a misdemeanor offense of driving or boating while intoxicated and under this under the current law if a person got a DWI happy to be able to do to be as after five years they can petition for it to be seal their records to be sealed so what this bill will do is to extend the time that the taken in Papa petition to ten years your member in this session we passed a look back law needed B. I.'s where they can go back ten years and and what this bill is if I understand correctly is just gonna extend the five year on the W. and boating driving while intoxicated body to that ten year period. Members are there any questions for the fiscal impact that is on your desk I forgot to bring that up so if you will take a look at that Mister Wilkerson is there anything you'd like to add no ma'am like I said the wind house bill ten sixty was pastor of this year that ten ten year but back period the city turning spring got caught that the sealing of the record was only five years this just makes it consistent and so the look back period equals this the ceiling period as well. Members are there any questions representative college you're recognized for a question. I ask you just because I don't know but how does the look back period and the ceiling paired head of a interactive do we need to make it ten years look back at ten years that's good good question so when I was talking to city attorney about this his point was so if you if you didn't get a DWI after the session the second one in ten years as a DWI to but I can if if it's me on his myself with example but it's me I get a ticket derives Fayetteville at six and six years later I still that records state bills going to know that I had to do to you I conviction in ten years but Springdale won't know it because it won't show up on the A. C. I. see report so now it allows Springdale to now well it makes that ten year period consistent with one another. All right so just quick follow up so if you've got the second D. Y. after it was sealed with the capital punishment that we provided for in statutes not you couldn't have that punishment be put in place is that what you're saying I think you could I think the problem is that prosecutors would know it we know if you actually got convicted because that ceiling and I had occurred six years after the first to give you a okay thanks. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against Phil representative Nick you're recognized close for the bills from the building as for do pass members representing Nicks is closed for the bill and has made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it you pass the bill madam chairman if if I may just real quick as a citizen of Arkansas I cover this committee for the lead for three sessions before this year and today remind me how heavy your work is in this committee I suppose there's a citizen of Arkansas I appreciate you doing it for all of us as one say that before I leave so thank you very much god bless. We appreciate that thank you. Members are less whoa. Represent Ferguson has had all of the plexiglass you can take in one session. Members we have one less bill on our agenda today and it Senate bill six seventy three I've asked representive Hudson to present the bill for us. Member Senate bill six seventy three. Thank you colleagues Senate bill six seventy three is a revision and update to the statutory foreclosure Act back in two thousand eleven this act was initially revised to require strict compliance with the terms of the statute so that when the a bank is in as for closing on a property they have to identify in accordance with the statute the reasons that they are for closing so for example they can't just use a template and just try to cover the waterfront on the reasons for foreclosure and in any case since that time there was a Supreme Court case that came out last year and twenty twenty which is at Clifton B. PennyMac and there were two problems in that case one was that penny mac who is the lender did not comply with the strict for click strict compliance piece of of the foreclosure Act but more importantly that the penny mac decision in twenty twenty laid bare some confusion about the time period in which an A. eight a homeowner would bring an action against the foreclosure so in other words could could challenge the foreclosure and after that sale it happened and what happened in this case was that this all kicked off in twenty seventeen when the lenders and the homeowner a notice of default and intent to accelerate and a year later in August of twenty eighteen the lender again notify the homeowner that payments have not been made as required August twenty ninth of twenty eighteen days issued a notice of default and intent to sell November eighth the property was sold at public auction in accordance with the terms of the statutory for closure act and then on the twelfth of mortgages deed was executed in favor of PennyMac who was the successful purchaser on the twenty first of November of twenty eighteen. The homeowner filed bankruptcy and sought to have the foreclosed property listed as part of the bankruptcy estate and this is of course after the property or even sold in on January third of twenty nineteen sort out two years post the initial and notice to the lender to the homeowner and and now at least a few months after the sale anyway I filed an amended post sale motion for relief from the automatic stay in the bankruptcy case and it was only after that for the first time in the response to the request for relief from stay that the homeowner and. Asserted that he. That the foreclosure sales effective so that first notice to the bank occurred it proximately three or four months after the foreclosure sale it happened so what this ad bill does is program provides some finality to when a homeowner can bring a challenge to and that proceedings for the foreclosure sale so on page two of lines thirty through thirty three or sort of the meat of this they're so clean up language throughout but any claims or defenses for violations of this subdivision and that would be the strict compliance requirements that all of the lenders are required to follow and those those claims have to be asserted within thirty days of the foreclosure sale to ensure finality and the reason for this is cloud on title if the bank free purchases the property at the auction and then tries to market and sell that property subsequently if if the former homeowner can come back come back several months or longer and it will cause a cloud on title which will make it difficult for any subsequent purchaser of course and would make it almost impossible and to close on any subsequent sale so and that's what this intends to do it it helps create some finality to these foreclosure sales and I'll answer any questions on that. The representative called you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair have you run this bill by representative Richmond I know he had some strong opinions about it I want to make sure is question is all. I thought that was Richardson over there. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative had said you're recognized close for the bill I'm close for my bill and would make a motion to pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye aye any opposed say no the ayes have it bill this past thank you colleagues. Members that brings us to the end of our agenda and before we get to the very end we gavel out let me give you a caution even though we gavel out for the session this committee is sometimes subject to being called back in very quickly so watch emails watch the calendar we could very well be called back in on Monday. Or this afternoon I'm not anticipating it but I do want to thank each and everyone of you for your hard work on this committee is Mister Wilkerson said just a few moments ago this is a heavy lifting Committee the House lots of of items to come before said affect every our cans and in our state. And we hear from people throughout our state of how the law has worked and has not worked for them and I think we have done some excellent work this section to meet the needs of the people of the State of Arkansas I applaud you for that I appreciate the opportunity to serve as chair of your committee and like I said we will gavel out but watch out we may come back in so with that have a