Judiciary Committee- House

We could be meeting Thursday morning. So kind of keep that hopefully we won't go into Thursday afternoon but that's gonna be the kind of the last raw members this morning will be jumping around a little bit on the agenda the first bill that we're going to take drop down on the agenda to Senate bill five fifty three representive Lundstrum is already at the table ready to go representative lunch from your work recognized president Senate bill five three fifty three good morning colleagues and I believe you have an amendment on your desk. Yes there is an amendment or it's coming to you. Sorry on your desk. Several pages represent Lundstrum you're recognized to present your amendment. This amendment clears up some confusion on this bill basically the amendment in the bill go hand in hand it's just cleans up some issues the Amendment is the bill basically we have an Arkansas a very discombobulated for lack of a great technical term but when you go into prison everyone your fines and fees and victim restitution every county has a different system and so when that inmate is processed out it is very difficult for them to catch up on their fines and fees in victim restitution they tend to pile up for years and years some of them have thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars and they're never able to pay it off when they do go to pay off their fines fees and victim restitution they'll often have to leave work for a day drive from Washington County to Craighead county or actually county or all over the state and as you can imagine that's quite cumbersome even if they want to pay them off it would be nice if we had a system where they can log on a computer I system where they could log on and pay those fines and fees this was basically a study to try to set this up it's going to take quite a run way to do that just a minute let's get your amendment adopt this amendment helps clean up that bill makes a little more clear with that I'd appreciate a do pass on the amendment members have a motion to adopt the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye any opposed minutes Dr you may proceed thank you I'd like to close by saying I want to thank Solomon graves and Lindsey Wallace and all the folks that helped with this and I would ask for a do pass let's get these folks prepared to pay off and go back to living a good life. Per se because you're recognized for a question. Thank you I appreciate to ring the bill so just looking here on page three the Amendment sixteen ninety fifteen oh five right before the do not codify section it says this subchapter does not limit a court's I'm sorry Rev before that the court is also encouraged to refrain from finding a person and instead sentenced the person to a period of incarceration only I think I understand what the purposes is if someone's already incarcerated you're encouraging them to sentence them to a period of incarceration at a run concurrently rather than adding a fine the first well is that the purpose and second of all is it. With the way that it's in code are we doing that or we having broader and application of this to all defendants now what we're trying to do is put this into a state of figure out what the best way to help them pay their fines and fees when someone's in jail they're also missing their court dates and is there a way we can help them zoom into their court dates is there a way we can help keep them from having accumulated fees because they're missing all that in and it's such a. A messed up situation these folks are having a hard time I'm not we're not letting go of fines and fees and things that they but if it keeps accumulating on one side and they're missing things it's just a very uncoordinated system so we need to find a way to help the courts we need to find a way to help the inmates so the Courts encouraged to refrain from finding a person instead of a sentence or or work with the sentence we've got to find a way to coordinate and I'm not answering that very well and I apologize because again it's not coordinated. And I apologize for not being able to answer that well no that's okay and just quick follow up maybe I can clarify when I'm trying to as to I just wanna make sure that we're not Encouraging courts to sentence people to incarceration and move a fine generally speaking I understand what you're saying and yet I think we're doing that now I doubt that. At. It's it's really gonna be up to the court to decide. What what they're doing I can't answer for what a court would do. Okay thanks representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so I just wanna make sure I understand you're just asking to create a task force to study this yes follow up madam chair you're recognized. You know how we all feel about task force so in the same way hello how much is this going to cost the state there's no way to know because it's some it's I'm would be completely cleaning up the computer system and some counties literally keep this on a paper system so the formerly incarcerated comes into that county they pull out a log they they take. I understand me how much is the task force committee are they getting paid to mate no ma'am okay there's no money involved in the task force okay thank you and if I could add to what you're talking about this thing is we don't know the cost we've got to find out before we even suggest of what will make a suggestion of what we're going to do thank you. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question. I'm just motion at the proper time. Per se Lundstrum is this the bill that you're wanting to put into interim study. Yes ma'am are you requesting the committee to put it in the interim study yes ma'am without objection members will be putting this bill in the interim study thank you thank you. Repose Senator Ballinger you're recognized to present Senate bill five seventy three. And chairman Dalby I have one question for an excuse I certainly am once this passes it goes back to the Senate for concurrence correct with the change to the amendment and then the Senate will have it. We'll House Intel's Michelle let the house know that we've adopted the amendment and then let them get it engrossed or whatever but will let him know that it it's been adopted in that it's going in the interim study if it has to go back to the Senate then they'll send it back over Allen make sure I'm not making a technical move there in I'm being adopted your amendment and then we placed it all into interim study so Allison let them know that to make sure it all gets done the right way okay all right thank you. Another question yes ma'am I may need to correct that and and make an actual bill because she's going to make it a task force it may not be an interim study it may be that that's the task force stays some menu to ask for a vote. I'm sorry. I see in the temporary legislation to create the criminal justice task force on offender court cost in collections so with that yes members it appears we do need a a motion to adopt a motion to do pass on this bill to create that task force not the bill itself yes sorry I misspoke as amended representative Crawford has a motion on the floor to adopt is amended to create the task force any questions any discussion all in favor please say aye. Any opposing the motion carries thank you colleagues thank you for them to clear up that confusion I would hate to have addressed Senator Irvin and have messed that up. Members we have a man meant on Senate bill five seventy three. Remember five seventy three I think that the only thing that it does different than the bill in fact I don't think I think it just rearranges the furniture just makes a cleaner so I'd appreciate a good vote if there's no questions on the amendment. We'll get that passed out and then we can. That's already on your desk okay good do we have a motion to adopt the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye all right any post a note the amendment is adopted you're recognized for C.. Okay thank you with this amendment we're able to to get the chair and so the thing that to start with this like an old debate so this is dealing with the enhanced Kerry what happened is there was basically a loophole and enhance care that allowed public buildings to post a sign of prohibit the carrying which wasn't the intent of the enhanced carry when when we passed it so these people are people of distal training and background checks all that stuff and so what this does is it's basically tries to take out the loophole the concern that the counties had with was with the jails sheriff's office a county court the separate provision that provides for their ability to regulate those this should have no impact on that but what it does is the other buildings that don't aren't particularly sensitive that if you have went through this additional background check that you've done this additional training that you should have ability Kerry I move that the principal the ideas that that gun free zones great great soft targets as a disability have these people who have additional training to be able to go into these areas If the I am happy to answer any questions I want to belabor the point but the I think the real debate over the enhanced care we would have that not that we don't have the ability to debate all the time but in this case what we want to do is really just kind of clean up and fix up the amendment also provides for an exemption of the place is licensed to sell alcohol and so there are some event then use that we're concerned about that that takes that takes care of their concerns as well. Happy to answer any questions represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Senator Ballinger can you clarify for me so you just mentioned courthouses but I'm looking at five seventy three three twenty two or sorry five seven three one twenty two and I'm seeing that this. Accepts court rooms would you be able to ban guns from the entire courthouse there only a court room yes a bit of five seventy three three oh six okay in a form five they are with the provisions of okay thank you. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you ma'am sure so right now the county is have the right to make a gun free zone but they also don't have to when you're saying that they would basically have to allow the ants carrying in their buildings so that we're kind of taking away their option well it's so so they only have that right because we allowed for posting which was intended for private businesses or private businesses or residents or whatever but private establishments and they're using the that posting requirement in order to be able to to prohibit the carrying of these public buildings so we actually had all this debate the intent was to make it where they can carry and all these public buildings that didn't have some specific sensitivity and carve out and so that's what we're what we're doing by this however there's also a separate provision allows the county through or dense to establish their own safety provisions there are language cards out jails there's language that carves out prisons in other sensitive areas but but basically what we are very intensely removing the loophole that was was put there basically in a bird. Well quick quick follow up to do the cities and the counties want this bill is disability support or that no no I mean that the the city's or the county's one it the counties are okay with that the city's don't like it because of specifically removes a loophole that there currently utilizing so I I would guess I haven't talked to the minister the it is fully and a bit but I guess they're still posted. Per se Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I just want to clarify the carve out because I've had my share of reach out to me to make sure it doesn't it does not allow them to enhance Kerry in jails certainly not okay I just wanted to make sure that's on the record because that's what I you know I keep getting hammered by my share as I just wanna make sure no that's that's specifically prohibited thank you. Members any other questions. We do have an individual who signed up to speak against the bill Mr Ron brown you comport Mr brown the recognized represent flowers for represent flowers has a question. Just a quick question thank you madam chair Senator Ballinger I'm. But. I know that there are several. Folks in my community and my city in my district who have a concealed carry. And at the same time my city is one of the cities that doesn't want this. It how how are we want wide why. Push this on a city or municipality that might have issues on dealing with gun violence like we do in pine bluff like why put this on that city and require them to do something like this rather than. Have the option of not doing it. Since the individual still maintain the right to carry in and a concealed carry out and get an enhanced if they wish. Yeah so. They answer that is that when we debated this back in two thousand seventeen with the ants carry. What what we what we decided as a body is a we believe that gun free zones actually create soft targets we believe that people have a fundamental right to protect themselves which includes caring and so we created a mechanism for people who are willing to go through the that the additional training that is required background background check all that stuff to have a mechanism to be able to protect themselves and frankly others in some of these places that were previously were gun free zones and that and I don't like the fact that the cities are are not happy with that I'd I'd just as soon leave that up to them but when cities are actually passing ordinances or laws or rules are posting that infringe on the rights of the citizens I feel like as a legislator it's my obligation to try to do what I can to protect those rights and and it's a difference of opinion and you are probably never going to agree on that the firm of from up legislative standpoint this body passed that believing that it actually provided those protections for people who wanted to carry in those places and yet because of the way we handled the posting it It left room for them to to utilize that. Following manager you're recognized for follow up. So then Senator what why not just address. And and amend the postings component rather than completely take away you know local control. It It is the it so what we've done is and there's probably a way to to amend the posting requirement to make it just there's two different ways to skin the cat I guess but it basically does the the same thing so what we've done in this provision that provides that it's clear that they are there exempted out of the out of the ability to to post because they are a government owned building so so I think maybe we got to the same point of view if we would remove their ability to to pose they would be in the same state. Thank you. Represent Richardson you're recognized thank you madam chair just what is the law enforcement saying to if you get any feedback from those guys the the only law enforcement that we went in a so so please she's Association was opposed to it I don't know if they're they're still officially opposed to it I think they they probably are but they're they're working on behalf of the municipalities municipalities are right now enjoying what this loophole some and so I don't expect them to to to be supportive of it obviously sheriffs were opposed to it and I think now sheriffs are neutral on it so generally I'd say it it kind of depends on what law enforcement branch and what law enforcement officer you're talking about okay so she simply she said were against it shares are neutral anything from state. A state police support this that okay they see this as a clean up okay thank you yeah. All right Mr brown we're now ready for you yes ma'am manager mind run around the falcons. Some of us are old we got to have the microphone so we can hear you that's me thank you. If you push the button and then you can identify yourself and you may begin we're ready manager I'm property sheriff Ron brown I'm representing the Arkansas serves subsection we were initially opposed to this SP five seventy three but and the amendments but now that a Senator Ballenger aye clear this up and gave his verbal assurance that this does not affect what's currently plays for county jails a sheriff's offices and county courthouses we were changing our position from opposed to neutral. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mister brown for being here today thank you. Ballinger you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair at the US on side of chair brown is one of my sheriffs and and is extremely well thought of their respective guy in the committee good man also a good friend I'm but I'm happy and I appreciate the the you all listening you all thinking you know in the end of this really is just just a clean up and I with the appreciate the support of the community the the Committee and if my co sponsor has anything to add a. I would just add make a motion to do pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor. All of all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Is have. We have a roll call. Representative Smith. Yes representive Underwood yes representative McCollum. No representative Hudson No representative Collins No representative Richardson No representative Cooper. Yes representive Clowney No representative Slape yes representative Scott. Representative Scott. Thank you representative Crawford. Yes representative berry. Representive bearing representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway representative Cavenaugh. Yes representative Richard Richmond. Yes representative Nicks No representative flowers No representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson. The Bill failed. Members let's go to Senate bill two eighty four senator garner. Senate bill two eighty four. There anyone here to run Senate bill two eighty four. Senate bill five forty four. Okay. Representative Richmond you're recognized come the table present Senate bill. Five forty bowls. Members we have amendments on Senate bill five forty four. My initial. Madam chair there was somebody representative from corrections I don't know if they went out back or not but if possible if they're still here I'd like for them to join me at the table there may be a couple of questions that they can answer that I cannot. They'll be fine I don't see him signed up do you know who it is. I'm not sure who is secretary great right to. Members we have the amendment now is before you two Senate bill five forty four represent Richmond you're recognized to present the amendment. The Amendment that we have before us what it does is it it adds another entity who if there's outstanding fees court costs. Or other restitution it adds them to the bill as well and I appreciate a good vote. In a do pass are you moving to adopt the amendment I am moving to drop the amendment we have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye any opposed amendments adopted you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you madam chair colleagues we are we got got almost through this bill last Tuesday if you recall it's the same one. And then unfortunately there was a procedural error that they came up which required us to postpone it and then here we are again a week later what this bill does if they're stimulus money or other money that comes from the federal government to an inmate. And they have outstanding fees court costs restitution anything associated with their journey to the to the present system then that money can be used to go ahead and pay those fees and things if they don't have any of that money. Our committee those costs that the on this thing then that money will then go into a to funds possibly be split with two funds that would actually benefit all of the inmates at the prison. Then if there's no way detract that money or anything to associate it with federal dollars then course it will go into the inmate's account that he has there so it's just an attempt to make sure that the family is not the one to get stuck paying the fees and and other things that may come out of the court and it also that it this money that comes from the federal government the stimulus money can be used for all the inmates and benefit everybody that that happens to be there there was a question last week about child support if there is a court order that child support is paid. So that's already in the system and so this would not affect that one way or the other. And I'm open for any questions that we might have members are there any questions. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank manager so I feel like I'm with you on the stimulus part of this but this does say federal relief and I just don't know how that's defined is that defined anywhere and are we talking about I mean because people get federal relief money or which could cause they're really funny for all kinds of things housing vouchers and you know Medicaid and you know who will who all knows what else is it do we have a definition on this. I don't see the definition in this bill concerning that and that I know that the intent of the of the Senate sponsor was the focus on the money that was actually coming as part of the stimulus. And and really that's what it was limited to was the stimulus and then the you know. Extra money I don't know what the cause the COVID relief money that come in but I know it wasn't his intent to to try to get anything that comes normally. To the spokes and stuff and and I don't really know what they would be eligible for in prison the other family members would be eligible for something possibly even with them in prison that money would not be touched it has to come to the inmate so quick quality only intent is to cover those direct payments coming out of the interest that's a special election okay thank you. Rep represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair actually that was my question the thank you. Members any other questions representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I'm literally asking this is if you can remind me did we not just pass a bill that said that the state could take stimulus payments to pay overdue taxes. And if so how would this play and how how would the order run. I I'm sorry I don't recall a bill but I missed part of yesterday's session it's all running together. I'm sorry I don't recall that that that particular bill but I really don't recall them so okay okay now I made it I made during that that's why it was a legitimate. thank you. Members any other questions. I see no other questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill what a representative Richmond you're recognized close for your bill I'm close madam chair and I make a motion to pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it graduations you've passed your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Senator garner you're recognized. Members let's go back up to Senate bill two eighty four senator garner you're recognized to speak to Senate bill two eighty four. Thank you madam chair you'll have an amendment for this that they were still sentence over thank represents units coming Cozart Senate and signatures. Thank you. Members there's also an impact assessment on Senate bill two eighty four it should be on your desk green she will take a look at that. I believe everyone has a copy of the amendment and they have a copy of the impact assessment Senator Garner you're recognized to present the amendment yes ma'am the amendment is basically the new changes we made I think a president this bill for so I listen to the testimony of Mister Parrish and some of the concerns the committee had kind of a very narrowly scope this so if you change were made from last time is now there's no threat of injury there's actually got to require a serious physical injury so instead of just having a threat like we did before they're actually has to be certifiable Chauvel proof of a serious injury that occurred during the sexual actor sex sexual deviant act which is basically sex without penetration of a certain sex organs the second element it could happen this is committing you know terrorism kidnapping and you commit this crime at the same time and then we've taken the age from fourteen below to ten years we're the reason why is that Mr Parris wrote that. There are a large amount of unfortunately a large amount of girls to become pregnant around twelve thirteen years old I picked ten years because seem like a good medium between. Except for probably just ringing the rare cases would there be a girl who would be able to conceive a child eighteen years old versus not have it too young so we missed some of those people that should be protected so that's kinda happy medium sure there's rare cases where a girl can conceive a child of that round at age I think I'd be extremely rare the kind of custom out of that we cut out the couple other elements to near this is well I'm trying to member which exactly ones roughed up I bet we cut out If you are P. defender because there's also we can be repeat offender but not actually call physical injury I want to make that one the key elements and I believe that's the last major change we made and we kind of cleaned up the code to reflect that with that I'll take any questions on the amendment. See no questions amendment that we have a motion to adopt the amendment. In a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. MediaPost I know the amendments been adopted you're recognized. Finish up with your bill yes ma'am there's no other amendment like said made the manger substitute changes if you have any questions about the bill or the amendment since that I'll be more happy to take questions. Members any questions. Representative had said you're recognized for a question thank you senator garner that thank you for kind of going through and revising this set so significantly how do you think this plays with the existing Supreme Court precedent and I know we talked about that quite a bit but you've made some big changes so I wanted to give you the opportunity to address that yeah I think it the nature and scope part helps out constitutionally I'm we still face the reality that the president right now by a narrow decision is that this is Blakely unconstitutional because of any kind of death penalty that is not directly caused the death of life now I would argue that treason is still a death penalty capital offense in that does not require loss of life so I do think there's an argument you can make that within our constitutional right now there is a system where you could capital punishment somebody before a life lost but reality is that's kind of the holding that case I'm I'm not gonna run from it this makes a play more likely to stand up this constitutional scrutiny but I don't want to give a false impression of that this will this will are supersede the oppressed and that's something we have to. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we do have a couple of individuals who signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized them speak against the bill. Jefferson's one Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers as senator garner I I understand correctly admitted of this bill is unconstitutional under current US Supreme Court precedent Kennedy versus Louisiana which specifically held that the death penalty was not available for a rape case even of a child we're no where you know death occurred and there's no indication that the US Supreme Court is gonna going to change its mind. The narrowing it narrowed it some but still didn't solve the problem of the absence of physical evidence if you look on page two. One of the three formulations is while using or threatening to use a deadly weapon he or she engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person under Arkansas law you don't need any corroboration on a NO fifty nine there's no physical corroboration needed on a on a rape case you can take the a person's word if the jury takes the person's word for it so the circumstances of Kennedy Book versus Louisiana rivers grievous physical injury and which you would also have been number of number one you're not going to have a number three and maybe not in maybe not a number to either so all if if a child can be coaxed into claiming that there was uh section that there was a gun involved or some other or worse or a knife involved whether or not a knife is ever found or anything else like that you're going to you're going to face this problem again the cost of and this is what great parents talk about me he is in another situation right now he may not be able to get here and but the costs are still going to be enormous because anytime there is a claim that Of a charge is brought then immediately the public defender commission is going to have to appoint two lawyers oppose the whole panoply of investigators mitigation specialists the cost is really on noble at this time uh but it still is going to be significant and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Represent Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair eight it in we all know about the Louisiana case we discuss that and senator garner and I talked about it just now that I've given the fact that it was a five four decision and I know that the court assessed the facts in that case and determined it sort of a two step analysis of whether or not capital it was appropriate for and to charge at with the death penalty something that could result in death and that given what we know about that case and given what we know about current make up of the Supreme Court you see any any reason to think that the Supreme Court would revisit its assessment and analysis on capitol is obviously they would have the power to do so now for for our the Supreme Court has never two to this point in leased backtracked on a finding that a particular situation was marred by the eighth amendment in there was an allegation that that's what happened in the death penalty area in the seventies that's not what happened what happened of the Supreme Court and firm and did not set aside did not hold the death penalty was unconstitutional what the what the Supreme Court held was the death penalty is then procedurally apply was unconstitutional and invited the states to to rehabilitate their statutes and of four years later in a series of cases the Supreme Court held that those of several of those were were constitutional S. as they've continued to hold but no one but the Supreme Court has never backtracked on the underlying is this is this a cruel winter and or unusual punish. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Mr Rosenzweig I guess you know when I think about this bill up and trying to think through how it works in practice you know I think about. When I was prosecutor and I tried several child rape cases both to juries in handloom platinum And there's there's nothing more gregis heartbreaking violating of a crime and the rape of a child. So I certainly understand where senator garner is coming from. When you think about how this would play out in practice and you tell me if I'm correct I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. There is no statute of limitations on rape in Arkansas is that correct that's the of the legislature so so world ordain that number of years ago that's correct I think for six years ago. Okay follow up you're recognized and with no statutory limitations and. My recollection of the law when I prosecuted was that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim alone. With no corroborating evidence. If believed by a jury is sufficient to sustain a conviction. So essentially and you tell me if this is correct and I'd like to hear in your explanation of it someone could come forward thirty forty. Fifty years after the fact say that something happened when they were child. And someone would potentially be put to death. Over there statement. If believe with absolutely no corroborating evidence would that be a possibility that we that and ending up that definitely would be that's the point I was trying to make it with terms back to there's not even any structure in here for any corroboration in a murder case you have a dad bought you don't have that he there's no requirement for any physical manifestation whatever. Okay thank you. Seeing no other questions thank you Mr rose. Greg parish you're recognized him for. Great parish Arkansas public defender commission thank you madam chair I think Mr Rosenzweig is adequately addressed what I would address other than what I told you the last time I spoke against this bill and if you have any questions I'm available for those questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr perish. Members we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill senator garner you're recognized close for your bill yes three points first let's look at the composition of the corpus decision was made the only justice left who voted for the affirmative for the majority opinion was prior. Every single other person has either switched out or was an original dissent in that case which means they were likely support and overturning out he's right sometimes the court may vote one way the not like to overturn president later but I think it's a good indicator this current court would go a different way secondly the calls thing I'm I'm just going to be blunt about it I've near this down significantly so that specific issue would be addressed I put it so was very narrowly focused on who actually would be required to have a capital a rape defense out of the concerns listed by Mr Parrish and now I'm here still here in this magical number could come up that it could cost X. amount dollars think that's a a tactic to. Get descend in this opinion without really being the reality what's going to happen finally to Resent Gazaway is point we had this in Arkansas for a long time and the concerns that were brought up during that time that you seem to think that this idea they can go on forever just simply did not happen I don't think that you're six years down the road you will be able to get a capital rape conviction in any jurisdiction based on just solely got testimony of the person at that time I just think that's a physical impossibility don't think there's a jury in Arkansas who would do that without significant. Evidence physical or otherwise that collaborate collaborate that statement so I just I know as lawyers we like to think of things that could happen in theory but in practice I just don't see any kind of practical reality that happens to dress that directly with that madam chair on closing would ask for a good vote. Member center garner's closer's bill what are the wishes of the committee. As amended I have a motion to do pass as amended on the force or any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. So those have it thank you. Bills what senator garner we have you down there let's turn to Senate bill four sixty seven. Members turned of Senate bill four sixty seven. They're Garner you're recognized. To present your bill yes ma'am thank you. In pine bluff we had a terrible incident where two EMTs were called out to a scene where a victim was being abused by a person the M. tease interjected and the person calls the abuse for our weapons start firing actually I think it both EMTs and I believe killed the victim I'm I'm sorry I didn't look at the case right before I came here fortunately one The in teachers carrying concealed carry gun port out was able to to engage with that person would shoot animals they've all day probably able save their lives in the other EMT live when this happened okay I'm kind of the issue is can EMTs legally carry while on the job and became issue of is employer going to allow it or not allow it how would that work so we put a structure kind in place based on a couple of factors one that they have to have some law enforcement training in order to do that and we L. liability for the EMT the first responders companies that would allow them to have the people carry without being overly responsible if they do something with that weapon are not supposed to kind of a good measure between the the ability to carry given some kind of training with also and liability so that the the the company's walau them to carry if they so please try to make animal like a law enforcement light even though they don't have the same role was law enforcement but give them a legal Avenue to carry if they so choose an obviously this is this optional for the EMT paramedic or anybody wants to carry a weapon this if the decision of the I'm trying to do it and then the company will can feel comfortable allowed him do it because of the liability protection that'll take any questions members are there any questions. Representative picture recognized for a question thank you senator garner what will they be allowed or will they have to have additional train other than just the concealed carry training yes Sir it's required they get I'm trying to get the exact language basically have to get a standard done by law enforcement up Jamie cope with the leaders sent me what that sting would be significantly more than what you have to do for a concealed carry permit so they have a I said I don't wanna make complete officer because EMTs role is different in a lot of scenarios but still require some training so that they can feel comfortable to that weapon efficiently safely as possible all right. Will this be annually will just a one time deal I believe it's just a one time deal they get it and then if they had to come up later to get renewed for that training they could do it later on but it would be though I know would be the one time I'm not a hundred percent sure if it be annually not I do not think it would. Represent college recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Sir representatives would start senate as we've been expanding this over the sessions the argument that's always made us is that you have a law enforcement officer that detention facility employee prosecutor deputy prosecutor whoever is uniquely at risk for you no need to defend themselves do you believe that argument extends to EMTs yes Sir because this situation where they show up on the scene will law enforcement force and either isn't cold out or isn't there on the scene and why it's rare I think that that does call situation when they put their threat their lives in danger and that having a concealed carry as the situation public may be difference between life and death so I do believe the sex with an answer for jump off is every twelve months I found the section where they have to get renewed every twelve months ago thank you Sir and and just a quick follow up a kind of a different note so. You know most of these other ones are typically public employees into yet I think as often and as not probably more commonly is private employee do you see any difference there that we need to consider. No because typically they're separate serving that public function of having to show up whenever a injury or situation call so when you call nine one one you call your local fire department these are the men and women who are showing up on the scene to respond to that I think that puts them in that kind of role of a public official a public function while they may be employed by private entities and that's what the concern was for the private entity because a lot of more have their all the people carry the reality is a lot of do carry now but it's kind of do I carry in potentially lose my job and if there is a situation on trouble verses be able to protect myself because I get pretty hairy situations this kind of give them all on board to kind of do what they want to do if they want to up to the employee and the employer. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Senator Garner my question was actually related to representative Colin so I'm thinking more in terms of liability is is there to be some sort of training in terms of liability for these entities if they do find themselves in a situation where they have to discharge a firearm and is that part of the training how does that work how we make sure that we protect them while giving them this option well that you get some of that training both in the concealed carry and the law enforcement part I can't talk to the extent of it but I'm just going back to me whenever I got my so caring hands care there was this whole section about where you can carry how it works what your liability is and that and to be similar type of training for the empties can't speak the specifics of it but it be by understanding they will get some very based knowledge now you can argue whether that's extensive enough I would make that argument but I think their goalies coverage yes yes ma'am thank you. Represent flowers you're recognized thank you madam chair from senator garner does this and I'm. I guess asking because I didn't see it and I was looking for it does this bill afford the EMTs the same immunity if there's a mistake made or somebody gets accidentally shot or something like that did they get the same immunity that police officers during a no ma'am that would not I don't think we have the same kind of qualified immunity that police office to that's a whole set sept different subsection of the road and I don't it should not qualify them as well if if they are currently qualify which I believe they are not this will not change okay okay great thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator garner you're recognized close for your bill I'm close manager and ask for a good vote member center garner's close first bill representative Gazaway you're recognized right we have a motion to do pass. On the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any post say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill. Members let's move to Senate bill three hundred Senate bill three hundred you do have an impact assessment. On that bill represent you swipe your recognized to present Senate bill three hundred. Thank you madam chair thank you colleagues manager would be okay if I brought the experts on this matter to the table please. Sure yes of the former US attorney hope Cody Hiland unsure flowsheet woods. Khalis is like you're recognized thank you ma'am. Colleagues is the bill is designed to stop some of violent crime that we have and I don't know if you hang on just hang on we just freeze seventy seven in the. Sorry about that okay. Amendments can be passed out it will take just a second we will get it adopted and then we'll go forward that way will be in the right. In order. Yes ma'am we don't build Richmond rail. It's always dangerous to follow representative Richmond moved out. Members all this Amendment is doing is telling representative Clowney as a co sponsored. What's being passed out there is an impact assessment for Senate bill three hundred that's a blue sheet it should be on your desk I believe it's blue. President of our thank you. And you also have an impact assessment for Senate bill three hundred. All right we have the amendment before as. You want to move to adopt the amendment representative. Yes ma'am sure other moved to adopt the amendment members we have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye any opposed say no The Amendment has been adopted now. You may proceed thank you thank you madam chair. As a. The violent crimes that is descriptive up specially in the use of a firearm has dramatically gone up in the last few years in the state every day you open up papers were somebody's being killed being a child at a park or something a lot of those times they are with the of felons who were convicted earlier of of the of a violent crime and this is one way to help subdue all of that is with this bill. And the. When I was sheriff of many times I would ask the US attorney to pick up the case because the third or fourth time with filling with firearm and they they still didn't get it that I would ask them because federal side a lot stringent. Of penalty on it and with that I'd like to ask of you former US attorney Cody Hiland to. Recognized that sure how and if you will Jennifer yourself you'll be recognized to speak just push the button right there on the when it turns red you're ready yeah good morning madam chair my name is Cody Holland a former elected prosecuting attorney and former United States Attorney as of December thirty first of last year. Private citizen today. madam chair that when we when we talk about public safety Yes there is no silver bullet there is no well one size fits all you know when we talk about juvenile justice you know we have to talk about rehabilitation and helping those children that are are in really bad situations try to reach a point where they can become productive members of society when we talk about your first time offenders yeah we we we want to talk about bringing them back into society making them productive members of society that's what we embrace things like probation and suspended imposition of sentence and drug courts and veterans courts and sentencing pursuant to act three forty six which allows a felony to go off the record after one year in all sorts of the diversionary programs at but then you have a in this is again broad generalizations but then you have the last category which or a violent repeat offenders. And I will tell you that violent repeat offenders are the bane of law enforcement's existence it it is especially in Arkansas because of the way that our parole system set up and we're gonna we're gonna talk about this in terms of just a Class B. felony possession but one of the things that that we have to do as a society when it comes to people who repeatedly violate the social compact is it's a really important that we set a hard edge related to those folks so that they're no longer out of being toxic in our communities and shooting people and and breaking things that are important to us as citizens and so one of the ways we do this you know Ronald Reagan used to have a setting is a release of foreign policy and it was peace through strength. And I'm a firm believer the peace through strength is not just a policy applies to foreign policy in distant lands it applies to public safety here home when it comes to violent repeat offenders is so one of the things that happen to thousand seventeen when I was appointed to the US attorney was the that you know Little Rock had a significant violent crime problem and it was on fire we have the power ultra lounge shooting where twenty two people were shot twenty five people were shot miraculously nobody was killed at that time but but that wasn't the only incident that year it was a very violent time in Little Rock is so when you become United States Attorney especially after having been a prosecutor you try to find ways to come along side your local law enforcement state law enforcement and try to help them you don't want to cherry pick cases you want to make you want to make yourself a resource for that and so one of the best things that we could do in that ram was to roll up our sleeves and take a lot of the gun crimes related to people who had you know criminal histories as long as you're for our and so that's what we did is we work with Larry Jack Lee's office in particular in little rock in little rock police department the Pulaski County sheriff's department in North Little Rock police department and so we started we were indicated a willingness to adopt federally those gun cases and they were pretty simple cases there fell in possession cases and basically the federal level all we had to have was the fact that it was a felon they were in possession of the weapon and that weapon crossed interstate commerce that will those are the three things we were generally had to prove of. The thing that made us a unique partner in that was that we don't have parole at the federal level. at the state level they do related to these crimes in so that's why we were able to to come alongside Larry and and really have an effective program in fact our first year our case load one up eighty two percent. And most of that was related to taking felon in possession cases now it's one thing to have stats right related to that but how does it impact the community. Well that next year Little Rock had a reduction in homicide by twenty four percent no that's not just the US attorney's office that US attorney's office working in conjunction with local of law enforcement local prosecutor's office to set a hard edge for these folks and so what we started doing we put up billboards it said gun chronicles that time we went on radio we called our shot we will know was coming in so what we wanted to do was to get the streets talking and they did eight months into our program former chief Buckner called or texted me and said please keep your foot on the gas were rolled up behind people that we know our our game bangers people that we know we're carrying weapons and they're they're telling us we're not ride height we don't want that time now there's nothing special about the feds related to that it with the one exception and that is we didn't have parole so if they got five years of the federal it for federal penalty they were gonna sap of serve for the most part five years ten years fifteen years and it's amazing how much that sure punishment of a change behavior in the first two years now last year we were doing this you know our court system you would do to COVID court system shut down the the Pulaski County circuit court system shut down and so we start adding another another increase it's important from a law enforcement perspective to keep a consistent pressure on these type of folks and that's what we did is so one of the things that this bill does it takes it from the federal level and we're essentially moving it to the state prosecutor so they have this tool in their toolbox is taking a class B. felony not a Class D. so if you're a felon and you are caught with a weapon. You can be charged with a Class D. felony which means zero six years potentially this does not just apply that it applies to the Class B. felon in possession which is if you're a felon and your prior felony was a violent felony then you're subject to a class B. felony. If you're a felon and you commit a crime with a gun then you're subject to a Class B. felony if your convicted of a felony get caught with a gun and you get convicted on felony possession the second time and then you get caught with a gun and of the third time so third time felon with a gun it applies a Class B. felony applies into so we're basically doing is we're taking the sentencing ranges five twenty years on. And so we're saying is if you get caught with a weapon and your a violent felon or felon that has committed a crime with a gun or this is your third time with a gun and you get caught then at that point there's no parole related to the five a twenty year sentence and so that's essentially what this this bill does it was incredibly effective I think if you talk to your community leaders folks in Little Rock Alice books was lieutenant to assistant chief at little rock at the time she'll tell you your your local law enforcement your sheriff's your police chiefs the prosecuting attorney's association to assist the police chiefs association is backing this the sheriff's association is backing this and they're doing that because it gives them a tool to combat the most violent repeat offenders that we have in our state and that's what's important again is not a one size fits all we have are diversionary programs we have our our rehabilitation programs and they fit the area that they should be fed we have got to start doing something related to violent repeat offenders so that we set a hard edge for them when they come out and they start pulling the trigger in our communities because that's what's happening. I had a the there was a lady our first year one of the reasons we started doing this she was a grandmother issues raising three kids on our own here in Little Rock and her son was killed in violent crime in Little Rock she was taking those three kids and drop them off at twelve street library in the middle of the day in February and in Little Rock Arkansas and she pulled out a library of bullet slammed through her windshield twelve inches from her face. A grandmother who's already grieving her son because of gang violence and violent crime and now she's doing her best to raise her three grand kids is being subject to bullets flying through her windshield these are the people we're talking about the people who are trigger pullers in our state the people who are selling in the dopant and their toxic in their carrying weapons when they do it these are the folks that we have got to as a as a state policy from a state policy perspective we've got to say enough is enough we've got to start giving the benefit of the doubt when it comes to these things to our people the people who are desperately trying to get through life every day without having to worry about bullets flying through the windshield. And so whether it's pine bluff whether it is Helena West Helena whether it is rule Van Buren County a rule Polk County where we had the the the huge white supremacist bus all of those things involved Class B. level against federal level gun crimes that we were able to take and put really bad people away and so that's all we're asking we're not asking to change the law substantively we're not asking to change the range a penalty we're just asking that the penalty that a jury or a judge gives them be served in if we do that I think you're going to find that is not perfect and it's going to depend on how it's used by the local prosecutor you're gonna find that at some point in that in that time period you're gonna find the worst of the worst the people that law enforcement knows to be a detriment to our community being put behind bars for certain period of time that they know it so at some point they're going to stop carrying weapons is is they're out and about in doing the same that's what we saw the federal level that's one of these we hope to see if the state. Per se Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair just looking I I don't care who answers this there to table just some clarification on the fiscal impact of this. Right now I know that so. The application of this law by the feds the feds pay for but it but what if we do this it's going to end up being over ten year period projected to be about two and fifty three million dollars cost to the state and I'm just curious about how we come up with the annual increase of population on twenty one it's zero but then in twenty thirty one goes up to two thousand four hundred thirteen inmates is that a worst case scenario. Wars it does not take into any consideration about the possibility that this will help reduce those type of crimes that represent Richmond I can't speak for the entity that conducted the projection I can tell you that the department of justice did a nine year study on recidivism occur around the nation and in that study they found that over a nine year period there was an eighty two percent recidivism rate eighty two within the first year was there was a fifty five percent risk of recidivism rate after your three there was a seventy percent recidivism rate and so a lot of the folks that go down on some of these crimes are immediately coming back out you know you know in Arkansas. The if you're if you're if you're convicted of a Class B. felony you get five years that's one six parole eligibility which means you're serving nine point six months if you get ten years you're gonna have to serve one point five years there is no fear of the system when it comes to this because of the parole eligibility and so a lot of the people they're coming back out or ones that were heavy it's a catch and release we're having to take those same people I have no idea if that that projection takes that into account or not but I can tell you you know I've always complained that we always talk about the cost of the the criminal just the cost to the corrections department the cost of housing criminals nobody ever talks about the cost to our society for these people be out here committing crimes and it turns out somebody did the National Institute of health in two thousand eight did a study believe it or not thank you for what it's worth but they applied tangible cost and I looked at aggravated assaults robberies and homicides and I compared it to the two thousand seventeen a crime statistics Arkansas state of Arkansas. In in in two thousand seventeen this is what it would cost the state of Arkansas sixteen hundred and seventy six robberies in the State of Arkansas according to the National Institute of health in two thousand eight dollars mind you okay the tangible cost per victim was three thousand two hundred ninety nine dollars tangible cost Arkansas victims was five point five million dollars aggravated assault there were nine thousand thirty six aggravated assault in two thousand seventeen in Arkansas tangible cost of the victim for the National Institute of health eighty seven hundred dollars tangible cost Arkansas victim told seventy eight million dollars let's get to the homicides there were a hundred ninety five homicides in two thousand seventy in two thousand seventeen the tangible I'm not talking about intangible costs okay tangible cost to victims nine hundred thirty seven hundred thirty seven thousand dollars that's a hundred and forty three million dollars and tangible cost two Arkansas families that nobody talks about that's three categories three. And so we're not even talking about the crimes that are never even reported to law enforcement we're not talking about the crimes are reported to law enforcement in or never cleared by arrest did you know that only eighteen percent of property crimes reported to law enforcement ever cleared by arrest only forty percent of of of violent crimes for ever cleared by arrest that means of the eighteen percent were able to get on property crimes of forty percent on violent crimes the ones we actually sent to prison are the ones we're talking about keeping their so that they serve their sentence because the cost to the communities we serve and say that we put public safety first they're the ones suffering the cost of the community matters it should matter. But I have no idea if the projection includes because the recidivism rate I'm not sure follow up manager you're recognized. You mentioned a little bit in your testimony about the impact that at the federal level This had on homicides. reducing it over a certain period of time could you expand on that just a little bit as far as homicides maybe some of the other crime things if you have any yeah I want to do by a violent crime in every category but rate went down significantly so homicides went down twenty four percent of nonfatal shootings which you drive by shootings went down fifty five percent. Fifty five percent now again that's not just the attorney's office that's the US attorneys you know eighty percent of law enforcement a state local and so you have to partner with those folks to be successful and so we partner with little rock police department northrock police department Pulaski County sheriff's office the FBI the DEA ATF and we all approach this is a is a team as opposed to everyone else and when we did that especially the the drive bys because again they work carrying weapon because they were afraid that if they were carrying the weapon and they got caught they were going to do real time and so most of the time our folks are getting between five ten fifteen years that's what they were looking at but the the idea that they had to serve the entire amount scared to death that's what would Chief butter texted that's what he was talking about they're they're not taking the risk of riding hot because they don't want to be caught with a weapon and again we're not talking about second amendment issue these are repeat violent offenders who have repeatedly violated the social compact it's a very limited number of people and the sheriff's that are hearing the police chiefs that are here they'll tell you we have really a finite number of people in our communities are committing the most ballot that crimes and so you everybody else we have diversionary programs we have probation all those things these are the worst of the worst these are the the trigger pullers these are the ones that we have got to to do something about it I know we did this in Little Rock our first year and continued on that we moved to West Memphis in our West Memphis numbers or are even better and we were working our third year to go into pine bluff and then COVID hit and courts were shut down in grand juries were shut down and it became a mess and I can tell you that the. one of our mayors and our East Arkansas area came to me after Little Rock success any security if I thought it would help I would get on my knees and beg you to bring this program to my city. Literally said I would get on my knees and beg you to bring this program to my city because we're dying. We're literally dying because if you don't have public safety education economic development never has the opportunity to flourish why would we do that to our communities what you know. Share from Jefferson County I'll let you speak for himself but Mr with mayor Charlie Washington she was baking us. Begging us to come to palm Love to help them. It's about making sure that our people at a minimal have the ability to go about their lives without having bullets whiz by their hands. And that's all this is about. Thank you Sir thank you Mr president because you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I appreciate you Mr highlight I think you may have made the case for a good PR order math campaign but let's just say that it's the you've made the case that that more punishment is strong returns why would we be able to accomplish that was a fifty percent of your sentence rather than the full thing. Thank you we can also of course have less of fiscal impact list of all the other kind of impacts that more president has I thought over gonna come in amended maybe down to fifty or eighty or something like that why do we have to do the whole thing why is only the whole thing to be a factor well I can't speak to only the whole thing you know that's it's a it represents because it's a big question I I don't know why you have to do the whole thing I tell you that right now the the penalty ranges a Class B. felony in so if you do too much less than is not a deterrent and so right now I would say that in again this is This spit balling I have no idea what a jury's going to do but very rarely I would think with a Max to meditate wanting I think you're if if the federal level we were between probably seven and fifteen years on most of our sentencing on that stuff and so anything less than than five years and you're probably looking at less of a deterrent effect and so you know however we get to that number again this doesn't change the rates right it doesn't change the five to the Class B. is still five to twenty and so you could do something to increase it to a classe felony and you know lesson the the percentage eligibility and you get this you get the same thing the important thing is that the people that are involved in this fear it. There has to be some level of fear of it and so when you say a hundred percent I mean there's some level of fear for that and again the deterrent effect doesn't work if the if the criminals who study this stuff by the way that they know they know what you're they're looking at and that's why you know it's some point they start getting educator what was going on federal level in the state change behavior the idea is that we're trying to change behavior on the front it and so you know I don't know what the magic number is represented Collins I don't I just know that it has to be significant it has to be sure enough well if I may interject also a representative calls a lot of times when the president you're crammed full in the jails are backed up we have to do emergency releases which some of those are given out even more earlier than what they thought that is going to get and this would be something that says no you're not you've already had your chance you but you're out on parole and we're not going to put up with a gun violence anymore. Represent Richardson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of and I appreciate you guys and and the data that you just gave of what was pretty staggering what I was wondering is do you have that broken down because the bill the way in which you guys describe it is only attaching it to this handful of people so out of the data you just gave how many of those incidents were result of those handful of people do you know that by any chance no I don't reductions riches and I I can tell you that did it this is up. Trying to remedy one problem there are there other there other crimes that we can apply this to but you know to be fair you know there are a lot of expertise involved in this and to be fair the to the just a system I don't know we have the capacity right now to to apply it in a way that needs to be applied to be truly effective and to truly in good faith honor and work for our communities and so there's a big bigger conversation we had there but to answer your question specifically I don't I just know that. The trigger pullers that that we're talking about are involved in aggravated assaults are involved in robberies they're involved in homicides in responsible for many of those this just keeps them from feeling comfortable carrying a weapon is they go about their daily life after having proven themselves in state court in being convicted multiple times of to be able to to carry a weapon without feeling like I'm putting myself at risk for doing so I think that's where the again not not a not a panacea not a not a perfect thing but it's certainly one that is targeted at they they can catch up a lot of are a lot of our back as follows manager you're recognized for a follow up in in and I think it would be important for me I don't know about anybody else I'd be anxious to hear of what this impact of this bill would be on the department of corrections maybe we can have Secretary grace come up at some point of until then though representive Slape do you have any idea of the number of repeat repeat offenders that come through in the and and I'm I'm sure I'm asking something is crazy to give numbers to be get any idea of I do not represent Richardson but just from my county that I had they were as numerous times matter fact a lot of them would come to me and to well I'm going to accept this bullying of why are you accepting this plea on this is your second third time he says will first I want to get one six the time six year that's one year on one to nine months in your jail wait for bed to open up that means three months ago when process and get probation get out thank you represent Rison there were four hundred thirty four people that were convicted under Class B. felony felon in possession last year thank you. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of Mr Hyland maybe. Let me begin by saying that I think you made out fine case here today for why we need to do this excellent job on your presentation I kind of see this is a truth in sentencing bill and so what I'd like you to do speak to that these cases go to a jury trial I'm guessing in the I guess this is part of my question the jury's going to receive an instruction when there are deliberating on the sentence that if you Senate whatever term of imprisonment you sentence this person to they're going to receive a hundred percent of it so the jury if it's a it's a jury case what would know that ahead of time I'm I'm guessing is that correct well you know I'm not sure about the instructions I can tell you from my experience and you when we prosecute given the LAX LAX nature of the parole eligibility when we go you know so so a trial is is bifurcated you have the guilt phase then you have the sentencing phase and in the sentencing phase we would always you know to put a note pad up and we would do the numbers and say if you give them twenty years you know if it's if it's a sexual assault to they're gonna do one fourth of that if you maximum out you know it's so five years if you give them five years on of a felon in possession they're gonna do one six of that so nine months so we would do that for them but the truth is as it relates to this specific crime represented Gazaway in and I know you know this in your experience most of the time a felon in possession charge will be negotiated off it'll be no process dismissed pursuant to some other charges so very rarely would a prosecutor take just a felon in possession case so you got somebody sebagai you stop when they have a weapon that's all they have. Very rarely would a prosecutor prosecuted just that because again if you Max them out S. L. Class D. you're looking at a maximum of five years and then nine nine months is what they're going to serve and so judicial economy says you don't you don't mess with that is so this enables them to be able to to do that and feel like they're they're some level of benefit to the system and to the community. Follow up you're recognized thank you madam chair and that was gonna be my next question is how you see this affecting plea negotiations because I think this will would certainly help prosecutors in plea negotiations all right the defendant knows that they're looking at a hundred percent of their time if they go before a jury on a particular charges can you address that it I think it would that's not the goal the goal is to you know to provide some level of certainty to them the weather has ancillary benefits to a plea I mean you know I would be less than intellectually honest but so do that that wasn't the case I think that will be the case of but at the end of the day our goal is to provide a deterrent effect for them I'll tell you one things we saw at the federal level two is when there is skin in the game where there is a fear of going to prison and staying there they would then give us information on their you know their their their their their compadres because again I mean it's one of those things that they're facing nine months and prosecutors not gonna pursuit anyway there there's no there's no level of fear there there's no so there's no incentive for them to talk and so it from an Intel perspective it's critical and I and I know this if we stop them from carrying weapons just as a matter of course because they're not afraid not afraid of it I know you talk to some of the sheriff's. You know it used to be that the criminals would throw their guns out out the windows when they're being chased right they don't want to be caught with a weapon because there was some level of fear of additional charge they don't do that anymore. They don't do that anymore and so now you've got officers being shot at in in a much more dangerous situation because people are carrying weapons with them because they're not afraid to do that. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I'm I'm wondering How this would impact the. Or really how the laws in the state and local level work with regard to the official offenders and how this would impact the tools that now exist for our parole board to you know have played a role in offender behavior risks and recidivism in terms of re entry like what is. How it why isn't that working and how would those things be affected if we did this. A representative flowers at. I'm not sure I fully fully understand the question is raised to the parole board really the the parole board never come into play in this particular case because it's a hundred percent want the government out of age we haven't re ask the question and I'm sorry I wasn't clear so. Right now we have laws when we talk about fear and deterrence we do have laws that would place greater penalties on repeat offenders in terms of our visual offender laws the that increases the penalties except for. And then on the back end of that we have if someone is eligible for parole but you have those dynamics at play you have a parole board that might that's likely to say no you're not ready you're not you know I mean that does happen. So why aren't those things working now and what would happen if we impose something like this where there isn't a tool there isn't a tool to say Hey if you take these classes and you know you change you that don't make cause any problems in the prison and you do what you're supposed to do to get out like how. What are we what are we doing to those tools. Well I think this is more of a supplement to rather than something that would detract from those tools I think that that that's appropriate in in given certain crimes I think what we're saying here is in again this is a thank it at it there were four hundred thirty four people that were convicted on this last year so it's a pretty limited number of of folks again we're not talking about class the felonies the felony positions this is the again the violent offender that the person has a violent crime the Committee crime with a gun that was already a felon and then the third time felon in possession and so I think this is I think this would would strengthen that'd be a compliment to it as opposed to detract from the current system is it is it exist today that it that would be my position on that. follow madam chair you're recognized. At the. It seems like it would be a replacement of and you kind of said it earlier when you said it wouldn't come into play and and so there's that I mean I think that that that would be a replacement of it and I'm not sure why the official offender laws and the tools that exist now don't work but I guess I would also pose to all of you You know speaking to us today. What about investing two hundred and fifty million dollars in prevention to address the root causes so as not to wait until a crime happens and people get murdered and whatever I mean we know that there are root causes to crime because we've seen the escalation we seen the decline as a matter of fact right now in Jefferson County we are experiencing some level of decline and when you look at other states that are making those investments in addition to utilizing the tools you see some similar statistics like what you have described and I'll give a couple of examples and then ask for your feedback. In the state of New York there's a program called give where you've got components like the street outreach group violence intervention crime prevention through environmental design and hot spots policing. And in New York in I want to say it was from thirteen to seventeen he. Twenty seventeen the numbers went down forty one percent specifically in areas utilizing the give program the results indicated there still compiling results but for example after launching given twenty fourteen nonfatal shootings are down more than eighty percent in Newburgh and firearm related violent crimes have fallen more than sixty five percent so my question is if we're willing to spend two hundred and fifty million dollars even though it may be a worst case scenario not knowing by the way how that's going to fit with our state budget and we're we get those dollars from. Where is their money for prevention. And why are we looking at how we can invest and prevent the crimes because. When we talk about because there's nobody talking about cost to families and children of those who were incarcerated involved in these environments in this life of crime who are innocent. So I ask you all to speak to that please. Well I'll just tell you represent flowers at there's there's been a substantial increase in violent crime across the nation I'm not sure I trust your study I'm not suggesting that I just know that Chicago New York in in and a lot of areas violent crime is up significantly of I know that as a result of us shutting down grand juries and the plus County sheriff's or the plastic County courthouse being shut down there's there's an increase this year in crime in little rock and so I can't speak to to the other and you talk about the the cost to the crime that the criminal defendants families that you know when I became a prosecutors were the things that I never thought about I'll be honest with you always thought about the victim's family but there is you know to see the families go through that you know when we went in the case it's not a time to spike the ball because it's whether you win or whatever I mean lives are being destroyed and it's a very sober moment in those people see their their their family members lap being destroyed in front of them however. Yes I will say that that our job is to protect the community and forced first and foremost our job is public safety and we hear it said all the time among elected officials public safety is our number one responsibility and it is but our policies have to endure to that they have to been to that and this this is not a system that is set up for there not to be some level of pain involved for the people that have to go through it and I I understand that and I've seen it you know firsthand and it's something where your heart goes out to them but I think at the end of the day we have to get the benefit of the doubt to the people who are obeying our laws and are just trying to make it through the day just trying to to keep a job and and work for their family and by groceries and and get the children educated without having to worry about the drug dealer on the corner the bullet slamming through windshield when you drop them off at the library and I I think you know there again there's no perfect solution but I think there there has to be benefit the doubt given to law abiding citizens. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair first of all I guess I'll just say that I am excited about the knowledge meant that The creating legislation around guns does in fact serve as a deterrent to their abuse so I'm I'm happy to hear that I'm I'm looking at the code and I'm wondering discreet a scenario that were somebody could end up in prison on a gun charge for something like twenty years where is an offender I don't know of first degree murder and that in prison for ten years and if so can you talk about kind of that policy decision and why that makes sense. Well how. The you know of first degree murder on a ten year sentence as be you in in the court system on that with the judge prosecutor and jury only not have seeds what you know we can throw out all kinds of scenarios but that one's kind of stretching and little bit represent client but you know the the main emphasis on this is if at first you first degree murder as first time we're talking about someone who is used a firearm and other offenses is being violent who has was out on parole who's because of committed it again and apparently didn't get the first time or second time it's time to us to stop the violent action used by using this law. Members are there any other questions. We're seeing no other questions we do have someone who signed up to speak against the bill. Mr it represents like did you. I was gonna ask you for a while my witness was here if he could interject on certainly if you identify yourself for the record. Sure Lafayette was junior Jefferson County sheriff's office. Just wanna add a few comments madam chair and members of the committee. I got hard in your stash of solving to the for starting uniform patrol division or my way above me to the right of sheriff and being elected two thousand nine eighteen taking office in two thousand nineteen. During my previous years come to the ranks I specific my time and talking to task force which operating Jeff's only can Arkansas counties responsible for investigating disrupting these mounting Law truck tractor organization Opry house counties. Subsequent to that extent from two thousand five two thousand eight I was in the signs the US drug enforcement operations will rock disk office End task really would want to same thing on a federal level but liminal federal resources to my agency in my community and I can tell you during that time For use during highlands spoke about the impact of programs such as project safe neighborhood and I can tell you that. we did some very significant spike in violent crimes as it relates to individual repeat offenders specifically weapons committing heinous crimes in our community. Even murders and I can tell you I think Senator flowers shares my sentiments on that it was one time. And to some is still is the case that you know Jefferson County Palm Love has become synonymous for. How vital crimes in the beginning more so than other areas. Of its size and so I can tell you that during my time working in our Connick's Testify for a grand juries. The impact the program for community pay dividends we target a certain group those who were repeat offenders so as not. A bill that's targeted targeting individuals they carry weapons it's not just rules about I just tell you that in my career a specific my time talking to. Commit committing crimes were heinous and wreaking havoc on our communities and I can tell you that I respect for myself. Because it was no person on the job and so individual and I. Your term is often Eastern District during that time has since the start to come out of prison. And I've been job on seventeen years now I can tell you. I've had those images come to me out of prison and thank me for the enforcement efforts of our community. Because that time sitting down thinking about. Loss of family loss of birthdays all the things that you would only see our databases. They missed it you can get those years back. And so we're not talking about. You know forty two thousand people and Pablo we're talking about a group individuals that are. Seemingly born to essentially re having communities like pine bluff Jefferson County. This bill. On the passage of it introduction of it. Yes this us in ways I can't even begin to explain to you where the quality that for Mister how has just done and I'll tell you that I wish you consider the passage of this bill because it truly helps out I just wanna make a comment to represent flowers in terms of questions about what we do on prevention operate two facilities in my my jurisdiction adult jail and also juvenile jail. And we have had a significant spike in crime and because of juveniles. With you being led by adults because they know the penalties in which the state if they get caught with a gun. And having already been convicted for felony and so with that prevention lies we do have a partnership we have created a steering committee. To move forward applying for grant and we've done this program initiative called group gain reduction initial Pablo if an enhanced re components he has the suppression in which is the enforcement side of the initiative prevention would also intervention. Are we are still in early stages of that the funding has not It's not coming it but the Grand Prix has not opened and so as relates to prevention those are things I want to do but I think this bill allows us to be able to send a strong message as we did the one the is this is a project safe neighborhood that if you get caught with the weapon your repeat violent offender. If you gonna do the time you have to sit there and I think that needs to be the focus and not that we're somehow trying to keep individuals from the families these are not just you know individual these individual committing heinous crimes and wreaking havoc on our communities and with that are you back. Thank you sheriff of members the internet is down if you have a question you need to raise your hand representative Richard. Richard said before the internet went down you've pressed and you have a question. Let's hang on just a moment are there any other questions represent Crawford. Now that's an improper motion at this point. Any questions of these individuals. Seeing no questions we do have one individual who's signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig. Jefferson so I Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers my friend Mr Hyland says accurately that this bill will our reach violent offenders but it will reach a number of other people who are not violent offenders as well of what the this applies to any Class B. felony and possession charge there are three ways you can get one is if you have a violent a prior violent felony conviction. That's what I assume that they were we're talking about people who have a history of violence it does matter how far back to be thirty or forty years but B. this is another way you can credit the person's current possession of a firearm involved in the commission of another crime at any other crime not even a felony it could be a misdemeanor shoplifting it can be it can be the fact that the gun was stolen there's no requirement for violence and if there's no requirement that even be a felony it just says crime so you have you end up with someone who has a gun and he's and Juan Martin's. commits a five dollar shoplifting he's a B. felony and that would that would cause the hundred percent parole here or the person has been previously convicted under this section or a similar provision from another jurisdiction of I heard and I may have missed heard by heard Mr highland to say that this would be for third time felon in possession it's not the second time felon in possession the first time it's just any felony can be hot check or whatever and and and so this would be for a second offense felon in possession again have you commit felon in possession you don't have to have it in your hand it can be found in the car when there's a traffic stop so you are you are catching a bunch of people who I don't think they're meaning to catch he wants to get the violent people and by the way if you commit a violent offense with a gun why you're failing you're going to be convicted of a violent offense presumably you know if you shoot someone commit battery or you kill someone or whatever of then there's some there's some other of. Issues too he says you you do all your time you would do all your time here but you all you do all your time in federal prison that's not exactly accurate you get good time in federal prison fifty four days I believe in a federal prison this would have no good time whatever so there's there would be no incentive to behave secondly B. felonies five to twenty if you're a a so called small **** which five to thirty if you are a so called big habitual five to forty no requirement violence on any of this as up to four years the yep under current law you are eligible to be considered for parole but that's not a guarantee you're going to get parole and the more retired policeman the governor puts on the parole board it's the more difficult it is to get parole of so this bill needs to be refined to catch the people that of the sponsors want to catch and not catch a bunch of people who presumably don't fit the criteria of the drive by shooters and that type thing I'm happy to answer any questions. I see no questions thank you Mr. Represent slight you're recognized close for your bill we have no other individual signed up to speak for against thank you madam chair. Colleagues this is one of the bills that the truly does have a major impact Mr Rosenzweig said this day of if their own per will be a hundred percent they have no incentive to behave whether imprisoned without this law we don't have them and have an incentive to behave while they're in our society freely moving around of the as you can see your own. Page one line thirty six any person who commits a violent felony offense or sexual of fence is what this is saying that it is shown that it would and I'll also challenge this study on the upward trajectory after it's been out if this bill becomes law after it's been now while you will see a downward trajectory on what's going on because there's three fast forms of communication in that world it's telegraph hill telephone until Congress acted in the the messages we're going tell him we're not putting up with following offenses anymore you've had your opportunity you've come in you paroled out and you've messed up though that's the only way we can see it and with that a move do pass. As amended as amended yes members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion. Represent Collins you're recognized I can't push a button so. You'll have to talk loud we have nothing on our screen to be able to. Underground last time I I really thought that you all would amend it to have something that is a stronger amount of time you have to serve the council having to turn impact but going from the status code one hundred is a huge job and we've seen it both in the fiscal impact here and also I believe that Sullivan recommends that we have to build another prison for this even I I I think represents like you were talking about some of the things we have to do for some people out because we've overcrowded jails and prisons this is going to do more of that so I think I'd support something that increase the amount of time I have to serve but I can't sports that makes it a hundred percent so I'm in a thank you. Represent flowers you're recognized. Arifin one of my favorite people came I feel compelled to make a statement that I've I would agree with represent Collins and like what represents like was trying to do we do need programming that a for deterrence and some tools to deal very specifically with a visual violent crime. Like what we heard Mister Allen described my concern is about exactly what just got testify to and that's a whole bunch of other folks getting swept up in this and I'm especially sensitive not only because of the violence that takes correct place you know in my district and in my city and county but I'm also extremely sensitive about the fact that the hot spots where we see a majority of the crime taking place is happening you know in my district at the same time we we look in our prison system a great deal of any and disturbingly high percentage of people in prison are black and brown men in particular for things that I think we can be more proactive on I'm afraid that this would sweep more people in the system than what's target and for that reason I can't support it but I would given some of the changes that represent Collins mention thank you. Represent Gazaway actually can push your button there you go you can speak into the microphone I just don't have that control you're recognized okay we're on I just wanna say briefly that at some concerns with this bill the last time that it was here particularly some of the things that have been mentioned Dave about the cost two hundred fifty million dollars over ten years potentially a new prison those are things from a policy perspective that we have to think about but I do want to say that I think that Mr Hyland made a compelling case today about why we need this law we're we're trying to take out the the really violent offenders in our community that are wreaking havoc all over the state and communities all over the state the trigger pullers as he called on I think he's exactly right this is maybe the only way that we can get a handle on this problem I support this bill I think you representative Slape and Mr Holland for being here and and speaking so forcefully about it I think you made a again really compelling case and thank you both I'll be supporting this bill thank. Members any other discussion. Seeing no other discussion we have a motion on the floor to pass as amended all in favor say aye opposed say no. The eyes have it. Thank you madam chair thank you colleagues. Members it is my intention let me check with represent flowers represent flowers is there will there be a problem if we take your bill up first after we come back from adjournment I know you have some people here. We're because we're kind of running short on time we can begin it and then finishes up can we do that that'll be fine we can do that members. As representative flowers comes forward to present house bill nineteen fourteen. Is there anyone here this to present Senate bill five sixty. There anyone here to present Senate bill five thirteen. Okay. We'll take that one up the first one after we come back from adjournment represent Collins that'll be number one on the agenda. Well we may have to finish representative flowers. The Senate bill six twenty six this bill passed off the house floor yesterday under house bill. Anybody here one of we'll pass over it. Since it's already past floor. Representing Miller came to me yesterday he's going to be presenting house bill nineteen thirty four this afternoon. Then represent Clowney is indicated that house bill nineteen thirty six removing that to deferred. House bill nineteen forty represent guess what you're going to be presenting this section is that still correct. And then house bill eighteen eighty five same announcmenet it's my understanding that house bill nineteen oh five not going to run this afternoon so we shall see all right representative flowers you're recognized president house bill nineteen fourteen and I will let you know that once we get to twelve o'clock we're going to stop simply because okay I think the committee wants to go eat lunch before they go the House for madam chair so if I if I could get a little latitude when we return to fully present but I'm just going to hit a couple of points and beside a couple stats and then allow those who are here who can't stay all day to. Yeah that'll be fine with that I'll be fine will will will allow that because I had promised you the first thing this morning yes things got out of whack okay okay. Thank you so much colleagues I am pleased to present this bill this morning it is house bill nineteen fourteen an act concerning the imposition of the death penalty on the defendant with a serious mental illness this bill has been perceived as controversy it is not a death penalty bill because the death penalty would remain in place in the state of Arkansas what it is is a mental health bill and it is a criminal justice bill to rethink who should be this should apply to. There are health science perspectives cost perspectives certainly public opinion and moral perspectives as well as criminal justice reform and then of course religious perspectives particularly as it relates to the value of life and what is fair and just. I'm just going to touch on a few things that I want to share with you and then ask that those who are here today to speak for the bill be allowed to speak to speak and then you can if the time permits maybe ask questions of them. of the twenty eight people executed in twenty fifteen twenty five percent suffered from serious mental illness and another twenty five percent suffered from serious intellectual impairment or brain injury. More than twenty percent of the two hundred and ninety people who sit on Texas death row or considered mentally ill and of the one hundred people executed prior to June twenty fourteen over half had been those diagnosed with or displayed symptoms of a severe mental illness. This is not something that is new I took this bill several years ago from a Republican senator in the state of Indiana which is we made a few tweaks to it since then. The state of Ohio pass the bill this session in the state of Florida has passed out of the house and it's more like more than likely going to pass. We are actually this bill would be a little bit stricter than the bill in Ohio and that it would not be retroactive. And I think that. We also have to bear in mind that given that. Likely anywhere from twenty five percent to fifty percent of those who are Convicted and sent to death. Are people who are not. Compet not only not competent to stand trial we have federal law and federal case law that has What I would like to address is just that from an ethics standpoint when someone can't fully comprehend what they have done then they are skews me they are they still done something objectively wrong but subjectively they are not held accountable and that can be different degrees so that would be what I would like to that. Members are there any questions. Senate questions thank you appreciate you being here today next we have care in the. Is debatable. I'm Karen the pepper I work with Catholic charities and represent the Catholic diocese of Little Rock can you hear me with my mask you're a little muffled if you can either get close or it's okay if you want to take it off since we have the. It represents flowers is good with you taking it off sitting that close to or we're good you're good all right represent powers okay you're recognized go ahead. And as it's been stated before and I think you may have all received a letter from our respect life office that does. Talk about the Catholic doctrine of capital punishment on its own. Catholic social teachings first premises the gift of life but also the dignity of life through every every stage of development. And it's not that we do not recognize victims and families. We know there are no words that can council those actions. But. Those also with severe mental illnesses are among the most vulnerable in our community. The illness itself does not excuse behavior but it does provide somewhat of an explanation. And. With the behavior there are consequences in their there needs to be accountability for the family and for justice this bill does provide that accountability it provides a humane a moral accountability. And at the same time also provides justice for the families and victims. So the Catholic Church just wants to make sure that we're on record supporting this bill is long overdue for persons who have a condition which is beyond their control. And we would appreciate your thoughtful consideration of support as well. Thank you members are there any questions seeing no questions thank you Mr president for your testimony thank you. Nicks have. This spec Kerr Elizabeth spect You're recognized to identify yourself and who you're with then you may proceed yes some doctor list the spec Kern I'm mineral psychologist in private practice I've been licensed in the state since nineteen eighty six I work with people with disabilities of various types I evaluate individuals with brain injuries with the mental illness learning disorders on a regular basis and so what I want to speak to is the fact that over the last several decades we made tremendous explosion our knowledge and awareness of mental illness and brain and understanding the brand I liked what representative flowers said about we've we've recognized that the brains of juveniles are immature and unable to be able to think in the same level as adults and so we have have stated that you cannot Execute a juvenile or put them. In. Prison for with life without parole because they are not of age to be able to. To function as as well as they can when they're older so by the same token we we do not execute people with intellectual disabilities as we recognize that those individuals are not able to think carefully and if we extend that to people with mental illnesses severe mental illness we're not talking about people with mild disorders is not a Twinkie defense it's not anything for people to just used to get off that we're talking about people who have difficulty perceiving reality as it is people who can't tell the difference between voices in their head and voices of people standing next to them people who can't bring themselves to get out of bed or to recognize their and that their anxiety is keeping them from being able to function we're talking about people who cannot hold a job who cannot perform the. Daily activities of life and if they're involved in a crime and they are not aware and are not able to think with the higher levels of their brain then they are not going to be able to be accountable in the same way and what we might do then is to protect the public from those individuals but also provide them the care that we need to not execute them for their disability. Members are there any questions. Dr thank you for coming in for your testimony today. Represent flowers that's all the individuals who signed up to speak for us or anything else you want to add before I go to the against we may be able to get to the end of your presentation Can I do that after the certain up represent slate has a question you're recognized. Actually it's for you measure instead of room is financial impact on on this bill there is not are you requesting one yes ma'am I am. Fiscal impact statement is requested we'll go ahead and in here your bill but we won't be able to vote on it we can hear the against part of it want to members ask for fiscal impact statement. That that concludes it basically but we do have some individuals who signed up to speak against and then I'll let you make your closing. To speak against the bill Matt direct. Mr McMahon you wanna come up also I guess come on you signed up with. We're sort of a do well madam chair we signed up on the same line because I kind of thought you might be yes ma'am calendar recognized. Thank you madam chairman Bob McMahon prosecutor coordinator's office representing the prosecuting attorney's association and I'm matter of Presque interning for the fourth judicial district question Madison county's. You're recognized president use thank you madam chair in and I'll go briefly with some general comments and then Mr direct gets specifics obviously them we're here to oppose the bill I know this the surprised Reserve flowers we talked about this previously we survey the prosecutors on piece of legislation that you filed in particular on this specific piece we voted to oppose this legislation we feel that the law already protects people from the conviction of any crime we are lack the fitness to proceed due to mental illness defect or lack of criminal responsibility due to a mental disease or defect we think current law already had it controls that and is in place it is adequately working in the system we do feel that there's some generalizations in this bill that lead to some vagueness I think Mr rebel specifically comment to that but that is our general statement in opposition to the bill. Yes There are a number of issues that we have with with the bill but essentially it is overly vague it's eggs extraordinarily broad it in all with all due respect to represent flowers I don't think this is a mental health bill because this does nothing there's nothing in the bill in reference to treatment of individuals nothing about the my commitment to the state hospital that nothing at all except for a prohibition against seeking the death penalty against an individual and it. What this bill is not dealing with is people who don't know right from wrong people who I can't comprehend what they've done that's already covered under the mental disease or defect defense a person who suffers from a mental disease or defect to can't conform their behavior to the to the appropriate confinement to the law they they can't assess their their defend other I'm sorry their attorney and and in the defense of of their their charge they can adequately assess their they're turning those are all covered under current law and what that does and I understand that that these are two separate things and we're looking at two different things but this is the closest correlation I can find is the the mental defense bill but in that to you have to show that because of a mental disease or defect that can't conform their conduct to the law what this bill would do is rather than it showing that a person lacks capacity or they lack the ability to conform their conduct this would. The deferred the defense would would kick in if they show the because of a mental disease or substantially impaired it It impaired their ability and what substantially impaired means I don't know because it's not defined which is an issue that we have with with with many of the things in here The the active symptoms some of them delusion and hallucination or to find but extremely disorganized thinking mania very significant disruptions of consciousness memory and perception the environment those are fine those are extremely broad those could be a number of things and and I don't know that there is any correlation between those particular things in a particular mental illness which would cause someone to commit an offense I think that a lot of people if not most people certainly have it extremely disorganized thinking that to us is not just vague but it's it's it's extremely broad. As I said earlier this is all covered under current law and both in the middle defense aspect and five four three oh three oh one it's at curb I think it's five four three one any event but it's also the law also provides for this in capital since there or in order to get a death sentence against an individual the state has to allege that there are aggravating circumstances in effect and the and the statute set out certain aggravating circumstances a defense is allowed to put on a pretty much unlimited mitigating mitigating circumstances so that means they can put on a doctor to say that they have extremely difficult disorganized thinking that suffer from from mania they have bipolar disorder but it doesn't rise to the level that would that would provide for an acquittal and in a defense case but more importantly what it does what the law does now is it provides for a jury to take this into account a jury can hear all of this information that they suffer from some mental disease that doesn't rise to the level of an acquittal but that they suffer from from some type of mental disease because unfortunately as we know there are a lot of individuals in this country who suffer from mental that from some sort of mental disease and that could be considered a mitigating factor even though it's not a legitimate defense it can be considered by the jury and that's we believe that sport it properly should be in the hands of a jury what this does is it takes it away and puts this in the hands of a judge a judge makes this decision right now a jury can hear all this evidence and may can weigh whether or not any type of mental disease whether or not that's outweighed by the aggravating circumstances by what this defendant what a particular defendant did. and so we believe that we should trust juries and continue to trust your reads to to do their job. Rather than have a judge make this determination is essentially what you have to show is that one of these common conditions impaired someone's ability to be rational and therefore they can't be sentenced to death I would say that anyone who commits murder is not exercising rational behavior and rational judgment anyone who would do something like that anyone who would murder another person is not thinking rationally doesn't have rational thought does that mean that they should not be sentenced to death if the jury thanks so if the jury makes the determination I don't believe that I don't believe that that is that is something that should be taken away from your so for all those reasons we are opposed and if anyone has any questions we would certainly be happy to answer. Seeing no questions thank you for your testimony today represent flowers manager. You're recognized go ahead and finish up with your bill with the understanding that we can't vote on it but will certainly listen to. Thank you madam chair since you can't vote on it and I have other information to share and a lot of time I'm going to close my comments and when it comes back up I'll finish then. Okay we'll let the thank you. All right members we cannot vote on this bill because the fiscal impact statement request I do have one other bill house bill nineteen oh five. No one is here to run that bill so that one will be moved to the first we're out a little bit well I tell you what representative Collins. What do you think it's gonna take you to present House Bill I mean Senate bill five thirteen. Or not ready I we're not ready they say. So. Right okay with that members we will be an adjournment until ten minutes after the House adjourned thank you.