Judiciary Committee- House

President of Arkansas Bar Association here if you'd like to bring Mr Keith forward at this time you may. Sure we can do that or we can just have him speak and thank you or VOL one come up okay we'll just be here I'll reintroduce the bill just briefly and then Paul will be here for questions so as you may remember from before lunch but I feel like it was a long time ago this is the bill that would require disclosure of information regarding people who are participating in our judicial elections right now some of that money is coming in without the normal disclosures that you have for money that's spent on candidates or pacs or independent expenditures and so because we don't know anything about it or who it is or where they come from or what they want that's called dark money just a couple other things as we wrapped up I just wanna make sure I I mention here you know with something like this we always want to make sure that we are constitutionally sound I believe it's it's pretty clear that we are constitutionally sound on this the Williams Yulee versus Florida bar case from two thousand fifteen says that the state has a compelling interest in making sure the judiciary is fair because it's narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest and that is exactly what this bill is drafted to do the Bar Association took that charge very seriously and and making sure that we narrowly tailored to these appellate judicial races the other thing I just wanna make sure you all know is that there are voter guides and other things that we've excluded from the non candidate expenditures and I learned today I thought that they had not taken a position on the Council has now taking one and they're neutral on the bill so that was good news just wanna let you all know about that basically that is the the gist of it we can help I have more integrity in our elections when we know who is doing this spending we have an issue. The huge amount of outside money pouring into our state in these and we just wanna have some sunshine on it so with that I'm happy to take questions and I guess can introduce himself and take questions as well representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I just have a real quick question representative Collins are there other states that have similar legislation that does this it helps kind of control the dark money in races. All up off of them yes Sir Mr king if you will press the button there and identify yourself up for a record it will be recognized. German doll the vice chairman Smith thank you for allowing us to come and visit with you about this bill and I'll respond to that question in just a moment if I might I am Paul Keith I'm the president of the Arkansas Bar Association which is a voluntary association of about five thousand lawyers in the state of Arkansas we are dedicated to preserving the integrity of the judiciary and that is why we work so hard on H. B. eighteen ninety nine and we're certainly thankful to representative Collins for sponsoring this very important piece of legislation in two thousand ten. The survey found that seventy percent of Republicans and seventy percent of Democrats believe that campaign contributions have an impact on courtroom behavior and rulings by judges and whether this be true or not it is a perception and as we know very often perception is a sometimes the reality that we live with and as representative Collins said earlier the judiciary relies for its power. On the trust that is proposed in it and the confidence that is proposed in it and in that. Williams Yulee bar decision that representative Collins quoted from earlier just now Chief Justice Roberts wrote that process public perception of judicial integrity is a state interest of the highest order. And that's pretty pretty sobering words for for me and it's pretty important that we believe to protect public confidence in the judiciary in response to the question yes there are other states that have similar dark money provisions and in fact forty nine states have some measure of independent expenditure reporting Arkansas this. As you heard earlier today we have an independent expenditure measure but it leaves out a large measure of the expenditures that are unreported and we've all seen those ads some of them are ugly some of them are misleading. but the and some of them refer to candidates in an unfair light. And they stopped short of saying to elect or not elect As a judicial candidates. As a you've heard already today H. B. eighteen nine eighteen ninety nine does that answer your question ma'am. Represent Cavenaugh. Yes okay sorry I kind of just flew over that hi and thank you for that very important question because it is important that we be aware of what other states are doing as. As representative of Collins told you earlier today this bill defines nine candidate expenditures as those that are made within a hundred and twenty days of an election only for two kinds of offices for the Supreme Court and for the court of appeals and we believe that it's important to note it's also important to note that those to the courts that I often have the final say. And that's why it's important that the cut that the public have the utmost confidence in the integrity of the elections for those positions. And that's been noted and the in previous election cycles dark money groups have outspent the candidates. Three to one. And when I say out so that the candidates I'm really saying that out spent the people of Arkansas willing to put their name down and say I've supported a judicial candidates. I think that's important to note three two one. And that you've heard what dark money are not accounted expenditures have their defined and you've heard the exceptions but I think it's is important to talk about what Senate our I'm sorry. A House bill eighteen ninety nine doesn't do. As well as what it does what it does do is it doesn't regulate the content of the speech. It doesn't say that the speech even has to be truthful and it doesn't regulate the amount that can be spent on nine candidate expenditures. And it doesn't required disclosures of contributions that are made for purposes other than nine candidates expenditures I think it's important for us to pause and take a look at the bill with respect to that last point specifically on page five and lines fourteen through seventeen. Page five lines fourteen through seventeen. There is a provision that says is a if a person makes a contribution. For a purpose other than a nine candidate expended here to an organization that contributed to the non candidate expended here the name and address of that person is not required to be reported. This is important this this particular provision was added after we conferred with the right to life of Arkansas because they had concerns about the disclosure of their contributors and rightfully so so this is added so that if you if I am a contributor to whatever organization it is that if it's not for purposes of making these kind of disclosures then I don't have to worry about my name appearing on a list somewhere it's very important also along those same lines on page eight lines fourteen through nineteen we added to cover this is well that a nine candidate expanded to your committee that makes an expenditure pertaining to candidate for office of judge of the court of appeals the Supreme Court. Shall maintain the funds contributed for purposes of the nine candidates expenditure. In a segregated account so those funds don't get mixed in with the organization's other activities and they're segregated in the reported separately again the idea is that we're focusing simply on non candidate expenditures I would I had a wonderful top prepared for you all he gave it this morning so I'm not going to repeat it I would ask you to favor me with any questions that you have concerning the Bill and concerning its effects and would ask as the as I've heard many times in this house for a good vote so thank you representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair can you just cover again because we've heard the concern that they were going to have to give up their donation the list of their donation donators can you just be sure to go back over and explained to me how that's going to be prohibited I'd be pleased to representative Cavenaugh we have space for those those groups that are concerned about the privacy of their members if they're making contributions to those groups for things other than nine candidate expenditures which are the subject of this bill those people do not need to be disclosed and Specifically if we go over the page five. Lines fourteen through seventeen if a person makes a contribution for purposes other than a nine candidate expanded here to an organization. That contributed to a nine candidate expenditure committee and that's not candidate expended committee is specifically to that defined in the act the name and address of that person who made the contribution is not required to be reported. Sullivan chair you're recognized for a follow up so basically this organization whatever it is or individual could actually just if someone one make a donation like it's a basically it's going to this particular item if you're doing it to go to this particular race they can have a designated when they're doing a donation yes exactly that is correct that I use I use the Methodist church because I happen to go to the Methodist church if the Methodist Church somehow got into this business of these nine candidates expenditures if I didn't want to be part of that effort I can tell the church and they could. Not include the funds I give them on these nine candidates expenditure efforts. Some of the and then again the requirement for segregating the funds kind of backs that up and gives a mechanism for if you want to get into this business of making nine candidates expenditures you gonna have to keep a separate account for those. Members any other questions representive Underwood you're recognized for a question. I was just curious does this also apply the five oh one C. for education campaigns as well actually I education campaigns are exempt. Thank you for that question one of the things that we did when we were drafting this. Drafting this bill we consulted with well I'll tell you with the with the family counsel about the bill and they were concerned about their educational efforts the things that where they send a survey to candidates in getting candidates positions on certain issues then they send that out to their members we have specifically exempted are excluded those educational efforts last and I direct your attention. Two page Three of the bill. Beginning on line fourteen and was the predicate languages over on the previous page where it says that a nine candidates expenditure does not include and then we skip down to be three. Thank you a communication between two or more members of an organization. And in formation or gad two candidates disseminated in print form or on the internet that does not ask a voter to contact the candidate about the actions other than the candidates lack of response or communicate an opinion on the specific candidate so I think we can all see how that plays out and I'm running for the Arkansas Supreme Court and and I respond to the Methodist I'll use the Methodist church again to their questionnaire hi they can send out a gad says my response on issue a what's. that I'm for whatever it may be counted against whatever it may be and so it that safeguards that then we wanted to be sure that we met that concern and I think that is why that that I represented Collins was able to report to you just now that the family counsel is neutral. On this bill. And and we appreciate them and helping us to craft this in speaking of crafting it earlier today I saw Mr Sloan here from the ethics commission. We worked extensively with the Arkansas ethics commission informing and getting this bill and to a form that they were comfortable with and so they're neutral on that they're not objecting to it they are you know and that's about as far as they can go being I think being a government agency if there was something wrong with it I I expect Mr Sloan to be right where I'm sitting and telling you that. So thank you. Represent Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. So given what you've just. Kind of run through. What if you have a community action group. Maybe it's loosely organized but they want to send mailers out. Two. Constituents in a specific district or city or county calling attention to a voting record they're not telling people to vote for or against but they're just calling to attention of voting record how would this bill impact that ad hoc community action group and their donor list sure well what you've described is. At passes the threshold test of what is a non candidate expenditure because it doesn't say vote for hi Ashley Hudson for the Supreme Court or vote against Ashley Hudson for the Supreme Court but it gives information about her and So it's a classic nine candidates expenditure and if the other requirements are met for example it is directed to more than a thousand people. And it's paid for by this group then they would need to report who gave money in excess of I believe it's two hundred and fifty dollars yes and I thought I could just add if it's for court of appeals or Supreme Court phone right okay now we've we would try to be very specific because that's where we have all observed an issue. Is in those two court costs and all races. You're recognized for follow me follow up with one more so. If those mailers or letters are educational in nature that places. Them in a whole different category for. donations and believe me I have I would love to receive donations and of the amount of more than two hundred fifty dollars but that that doesn't always happen but the does that place them in a different category if it's educational and they're just saying. A call representative Smith or call someone so and talk to them about their record. If it's a candidate for the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas court of appeals. It gets into the category of nine candidates expenditures and the idea is that if I'm going to try to influence the race you know they're one way I can do it is I can make a contribution to the can't. And everybody knows if I gave more than fifty dollars that I gave more than fifty dollars we've actually got a higher threat so here but it would be a non candidate expenditure that could be subject to the reporting requirements okay thank you. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no other questions I think Mister Speaker the only individual who signed up to speak on this bill so representative Collins returns you for you to close for your bill thank you I'm close for the bill moved to pass. Members represent Collins is closed for the bill and has made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you Mr Keith is good to see you thank you may I be excused his navy and have a safe trip. I may not leave but I won't I'd like the option to. More than welcome to stay. Members let's turn our attention to House Bill nineteen oh five representative Gonzalez you're recognized come table sit your bill. The manager committee. House bill nineteen oh five answer to a few people and correct that's about their bill. It's not it's maybe an alternative one but this basically just says that if you expose yourself and appropriately. The it It is crime indecent exposure is already already a crime and were. I guess making it a little easier to convict of that by changing the online. Twenty nine Page one line twenty nine if a person no I'm sorry let me go back up. Online twenty seven. Be under circumstances which a person knows or changing that to could reasonably believe somebody that's that's a little bit lower standard there exposes yourself or if you knowingly expose yourself to someone of the opposite sex you can be convicted of indecent exposure This is not the bathroom bill and it has nothing to do with trans gender because I don't care if you're exposing your god given equipment or man made equipment it's still indecent exposure. That's it. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so just to be clear representative Gonzalez if the transfers and we're just changing in a locker room I mean not walking around even but just sort of getting changed in the process of getting changed somebody who identifies as a woman who is a transgender woman but may still have male sex organs if they if they just expose those in the process of getting changed that would count as indecent exposure under this bill. So if you look on the starting line thirty two under circumstances when in which a person could reasonably believe the conduct is likely to cause affront or alarm that then they could so it would be up to the courts to decide if that person should reasonably believe that that that would cause alarm okay thank you. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you manager. Gonzales. My question is just why do we make it of the opposite sex because when someone's doing indecent exposure they're not always doing it to the opposite sex they could also be doing it of the same sex with the same reasoning that they're doing it to the opposite sex so why we specifically say opposite sex. Well I think that would probably be covered under section one That if the same sex I believe that most most of those cases will be covered under section one of the bill follow up manager. Recognized for follow up then I guess I'm confused why we need to the and that's what I'm asking is if it so. If they're doing it for this one reason and we say to the opposite biological sex if it's indecent exposure it's indecent exposure I don't care if you're male male female female male and female female male it's indecent exposure and especially when you're dealing with children. So I guess that's my question is because a lot of times it's not just. Opposite sex that are doing this indecent exposure and staffed to children in particular so yeah well I I'm in so nature questions about why the different sections section one is dealing with with what purpose you're doing it for other surrounds gratify a sexual desire of himself or herself or any other person so that there is a difference there And I would be comfortable with removing that if you have the committee thought that you know we need that to get support of the bill but I'm I'm comfortable with the way it is as well I think you could call it meant here for me that makes more sense because from someone who works with children that are abused it done just come from different sexes that comes a lot of times it can be a male and female male on male and especially sometimes when you're dealing with with smaller children. And it you know if you're dealing with children I think you will get into a completely different criminal code and and not that would be far and above index indecent exposure chargement I would think that you'll be looking at and there's more attorneys and here that I'm not an attorney and don't don't know criminal code that will but I would think that you will be dealing with more of a sexual assault charge in a case like that. Thank you mentor. Represent college you're recognized for a question thank god I'm sure so represent Gonzales would you be willing to and then the bill in such a way that would make it so that it doesn't appear to be a bathroom bill because I think for many of us you know we see that it's the opposite biological sex takes out the ski and I don't know how to pronounce that properly but that the knowing masks and also takes out the requirement that it be for sexual desire so it kind of it it it walks and talks like a bathroom bill but if you're saying it's not I mean there could be some pretty easy changes to make that would make it so it isn't would you be open to those are not really so. Yeah I possibly would and if you will for we want to get this out here and and talk about changes we possibly make that you'll get more people on board with that I'm okay I'm okay with that you know the the whole indecent exposure part you know I just had a conversation before Committee I'm I'm to the point where I don't. Really mind if a woman walks into the bathroom beside me And we're yet and I never know it you know I think it's so that a man standing there up can't say it may not have happened before in the past your separate stalls never know anything what what we're trying to head off is the. All who are doing it with the purpose of of shock and also or sexual gratification of course so yeah we can talk represent Gonzalez would you like to thank you for your debt bill down and visit with maybe represent Collins and representative Cavenaugh and then we'll we'll take it up first thing Tuesday morning and then it'll be out in to the house for them to hit you know do it by noon and then you could probably get it out if the committee would allow an ambitious task you passes out you know I would be willing to talk and possibly amend this on on the Senate and I know it's hard to get in and out of the committee's right now we're coming down to the end I would I would like to ask it out here and move on with that if. Committee would allow. Members are there any other questions. We have no more questions and we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill represent Gonzales because for thank you represent Gonzalez's close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee represents yes. Motion to do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any post a note. The ayes have it motion carries and I would encourage you represent Gonzalez to visit with some individuals because you made me to resist I'm. Okay hang on. Representative Smith. Yes representive Underwood. Yes representative Hudson. No representative McCullough. No representative Collins No representative Richardson No representative Cooper. Representative Cooper. Representative Clowney No representative Slape. Representative Slape. Representative Scott. No representative Crawford. Yes representative berry yes representative Gazaway. Yes representative Cavenaugh Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh. Representative Richmond yes representive Nicks. No. Representive flowers. Representative flowers representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson. The bill is failed. Members let's screw up just real quick to House Bill eighteen ninety six representive Lowery. Representative Lowery. Members in full disclosure representative Lowery texted me and said he would be really quick so let's see if this definition of quick a. Representative Smith says it means nothing so what's proving wrong. Representative Larry you're recognized to present the House ninety yes I've heard that a time to in my committee as well this would be a quick one and then our later of that but this actually is a quick one of it I guess the thing is going to take the most time is just being astounded of that there might be a need for this I think this is the ultimate. bill to deal with what we know as no means no the young lady that I know a friend of a friend had a situation where a boyfriend kept molesting her while she was asleep she'd wake up she would tell him do not do that I don't I don't I don't like that I don't want you to do that. He does did it several more times and she's so she went to the local officials she went to the police went to the prosecutor The prosecutor in her council said well sorry we hear about this a lot but there is no statute in Arkansas that someone can be convicted of a sexual assault. While the the person the victim is a sleep. Now federal law actually does specify a sleep but Arkansas law does not and if you say if you look at the bill itself it talks about several other conditions of a physically helpless means a person is unconscious but that is not considered to be asleep we've added the word or a sleep of the other conditions physically unable to communicate a lack of consent or rendered unaware that a sexual act is occurring and again that you know this may be a case of a prosecutor who just did not want to pursue this but this certainly would protect the next the young lady who feels like she is being of assaulted that she is being taken advantage of that we've closed this loophole so to speak with a very simple change of that it would be considered sexual assault if you are assaulted while you're asleep and so I'll try my best to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Larry you're recognized close for your bill I am close for the bill and I appreciate a do pass members representing flowering his clothes first bill what are the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you very much thank you. Members we're turning our attention now to House Bill nineteen oh six representative Pilkington. Represent Pilkington recognized indemnify yourself you may proceed. Thank you chairwoman Dalby I'm representative Aaron Pilkington representative district sixty nine Johnson in Polk County today present to you in nineteen oh six this is a act to repeal an immense or provisions of the law concerning grounds for divorce essentially what I am doing is repealing the part that says the spouse been living separately apart to usually without reconciliation for a period of two years and then of course there's also some other stipulations as well I have a constituent reach out to me when they're pretty messy divorce and worked with representative Joe clout to draft this legislation but of course I'm a rapid she asked me and I've always see made it pretty well known my feelings divorce and so this was something we decided that we wanted to to change I and I understand it's it's pretty contentious but it's pretty straightforward just repealing as part of a law is a not a because our our or a reason to dissolve the marriage and so that's it. Members are there any questions or representative Phil king to. Representative Patrick you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair what is the need for this I know that you are personally opposed to divorce we've talked about that but what what need are we are we solving here what problem are we fixing I think the. What we're trying to do here is is. You know do what we can to keep marriages together as as long as possible and and and not allowing somebody just merely separated from their spouse for two years or more to be able to solve the marriage obviously keeping families together is helpful to society and help the children and so that that isn't the need here follows madam chair you're recognized for a follow up. But the statute as written talks about husband and wife living separate and apart these are not people who are living together anymore they are not together they're not staying together for the children they are living separate and apart so what purpose does it serve for us to tell them they have to live separate and apart longer in order to be legally. Of course. The real quick I think again This confuse with sixteen oh eight which is the extension for two years to seven that's another bill I have okay this is that completely removal okay I that's all that it but either I mean but the point is so by way of anecdotal evidence look at this yeah. My husband's parents stay together till he in this brother went to college yeah he tells me growing up that he doesn't remember a single Christmas a single Easter a single birthday where they were all in the same room together and they were happy. I was raised by parents who divorced when I was two both of them remarried both of them stayed married to their second spouse very happily and I grew up with for people who love to me and who supported me and in that I know that when you spoke against my no fault on the floor one of the things that was discussed was that kids who come from divorced homes have all of the social problems me and my step brother and my stepsisters all went to college and I went to the top twenty five schools that it myself sister she's a doctor I'm a lawyer and. I'm reason for kids of my own I'm still married to my husband first one was the charm so explain to me what what what societal ill are we fixing by forcing people to remain together like my husband's parents who were miserable. Katja and. Thank goodness the points you know I'm I'm also a child of divorce as well my parents divorce And so I I definitely you know I I I understand it people who are children who come reports are not always a you know. Do not have all the societal problem that I think is mentioned in the well and I I think if you recall the comments I made was my religious beliefs in the sacrament of marriage And so they're about points which you make I think you know there's there's different other causes to in marriage and so we just don't I'm just trying to limit this one that's just because you're living separately it is somehow grounds to terminate the marriage because one spouse decides to abandon their families so they can get an easy fall or get out of and essentially measures and live and live with them for two years I've abandon that family so just let's dissolve easily and so that I think is is kind of the genesis and and and the reason why you know my constituent thought that it was important to to bring this legislation for. Members are there any other questions. We do have some individuals who signed up to speak against the bill we have a judge Blatt. Judge it in black if you come forward. That will. You'll state your name will be recognized and go right ahead thank you good afternoon I'm judge jambalaya I am from Sebastian County and I hear domestic relations cases very regularly and in my private practice before that time I also heard handle domestic relations cases and I have a few short points I'd like to make today I think removing grounds of separation from a divorce is going to cause. A couple of things to happen one I think people who want to move forward on that ground of separation by a certain amount of time they're going to make up grounds they may allege abuse that didn't happen they may allege adultery that didn't happen and they're gonna ultimately be giving perjured testimony without grounds of time of separation. People who are married that want to divorce that don't want us each badly about the other party are going to be forced to do so and I think that's some people don't want to disparaging other person and want to wait out the eighteen months or whatever the time period as I think it's going to cost people in a divorce action to be forced to say something negative about someone. That they otherwise wouldn't do I think. Another concern that I have is I'm worried about kids like you said representative Hudson. We were having to live with parents that don't want or need to be married. To stay together and sometimes unfortunately divorce is better for children and children have better lives when their parents are fighting at home. I think we're also going to have a long term problem of children. Being born. In other relationships where parties are living separate and apart and living separate lives. And one of those complications that I see is with the child support issue and getting Children supported and if you have a child as you all know born and to of a married couple they are present to be the parents of that child and the child support office until they DISESTABLISHMENT permittee of the married couple cannot move on to collect support or do DNA testing on a person that everyone may agree is the actual biological parents. So you're gonna end up with kids that are on food stamps on snap benefits Hannah and other federally and state funded programs and it's gonna take. Twice as long to find out who the parent is. And I think it's just a complicated problem. I thank the no fault idea was a really good idea because I think it allows people to. Not have to say bad things about each other that I understand that didn't pass M. but I think having I've had people that have come in and they're in a terrible relationship and I want to help but they don't want to bad mouth mom or they don't want to bad mouth dad and they don't want their kids to read that no pleading when they're grown. And without a length of time for separation the kids are going to have to read something bad about their parents. Thank you. Members are there any questions or just want. Seeing no questions thank you for coming thank you for your time. Members we have Lauren Hoover. It was signed up to speak against the bill is to review a common identify yourself and you may begin. Thank you madam chair my name is Lauren Hoover my family law attorney I watched Representative Pilkington statements on the floor on March thirty first of this year as it relates to the no fault bill and I understand that that's not what we're here on in particular it we're talking only about nineteen oh six so as it relates to House Bill nineteen oh six I want to. As someone up when we talk about the kids if anyone is interested the negative effects. Of high conflict divorce on children likewise exist in high conflict intact families. I think we can all understand that I agree with represent representative Pilkington that marriage is a sacrament that that is a valid that is made in front of god I am also a Catholic but I'm also a limited government conservative my covenant on my marriage is with god. It is not with the state now if I choose to have a covenant marriage that's an affirmative choice that the laws of the state of Arkansas have allowed an afforded me an opportunity to do so but the reality is that most people that come into my office they don't understand that they have one. And so when would you if the ones that currently exist right now when they checked that box with the circuit Clerk is not allowed to give them legal advice on what the impact of a covenant marriage is on their ability to get divorced those folks right now that currently have covenant marriages they checked that box in reliance on the fact that it would not required the commission of a felony or other infamous crime that it would not require adultery and it would not require the abuse of one spouse or child of one of the spouses in order to get divorced that they would have the opportunity to do a judicial separation for either a period of two and a half years if they had children or two years without children and so to remove those grounds here today is holy and fair and to use a phrase that I think we all understand. Some things are not like wine they don't get better with time. And so so having people not have the separation period number one I agree that section one I agree with representative Bill Clinton section when I think this whole thing should be repealed but that's not what we're here on but. I have folks come in and I've literally told them unless you want to be separated for two years or two and a half years then someone just needs to go have an affair. I know that sounds gross and as a Catholic I'm conflicted but that's the only way to get out and if we have someone that has in a situation of abuse they don't they don't they don't want to talk about or confront their abuser I've seen lots of talk here in this session about reviving statue limitations and things like that as it relates domestic abuse that person at the time of the divorce is not going to sit there and have that big fight about abuse in order to get out of that marriage but they would quietly probably be separated for two years and six months if they have children and lastly Churches in this state. Like the Catholic Church I'm a divorced person when I remarried in order for the Catholic Church to accept my marriage and my covenant with god in my new marriage I had to seek an annulment within the Catholic Church. That's that's totally appropriate and totally acceptable and that relates to my personal relationship with Christ this bill removing separation and saying that somehow these marriages we at we all want marriages we don't want divorces we we don't want all these things I got to tell you I understand we want to do what we can do to keep marriages together but we live in a fallen world and we have to respect that some people need to get a divorce and you were gonna force good people that don't want to to go out and commit adultery or Q. someone of a felony or an infamous crime and I don't think that's what representative Pilkington truly intense but that's what would happen if this bill passes. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you miss to refer your testimony we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Pilkington you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you chairwoman Dalby I think a lot of points are made thank my opening I mean my point pretty clear just trying to to make it easier or make it harder for for these marriage to be dissolved simply by separating yourself from your partner for only two years and with that I'm close. Members represented Pilkington is close for his bill what are the wishes. We have a motion to do pass on the floor any discussion on the motion all favor the motion say aye. All opposed say no. Motion fails your bill has failed. Members let's turn to a House bill nineteen oh eight since have representative Pilkington here we don't wanna lose. This is kind of like a worm on hot rocks someday so let's keep in here members which turned a house bill nineteen oh eight representative Pilkington you're recognized I can keep this very short this is a ton of the exact same section section of law since we decided we're all gonna keep that section a law just now it changes it from two years to seven years this was done because in most states to create a common law marriage you have to be together for seven years and so we thought if you're going to dissolve America due to separation that it should be the same length of time and that's that's the that's the reasoning behind it. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions judge what you also signed up for house bill nineteen oh eight. Okay if you come forward a recognized you. Speak against the bill. Well yes for the record please thank you I'm judge and I'm black from Sebastian County and I'm not gonna waste your time but my comments would be the same as they were on the previous bill and I think it even extending that time from tier two years and six months to seven years would be a bad idea thank you. Members are there any questions of judge flat. Seeing no questions thank you again for coming. The next individual is signed up to speak against the bill is Warren Hoover Mr roof you'll come to the table please. That press the button there you go thank you lord Hoover of regarding house bill nineteen oh eight I'm I'm not going to repeat the comments that I just testified to as a related to house bill nineteen oh six though I would ask the committee to keep in mind the fine line who does that if two years as already pretty rough seven years your the thing about two nineteen year old kids that get married and check that box for covenant marriage if you require seven your separation you are effectively denying one of those parents the ability to be able to have children with the with the benefit of marriage with that with any spouse so that's problematic but section two of the bill so page two it appears that you have offered a proposal that for in traditional marriages under nine twelve three oh one B. five that would reduce the separation requirements for eighteen months separation to seven continuous months without cohabitation I think that's an excellent idea and I would join in representative helpful to Pilkington's efforts to have that done thank you. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you miss Hoover. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against representative Pilkington you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you chairwoman Dalby what's gonna said this is pretty simple the part of the section echo that we all decided to keep in the previous votes we're just extending that from two to seven which I think is an easy change like I said just put that in in line with what a common laws and other other areas and then like she had mentioned there's a part where we actually are reducing the amount of these months and a traditional non covenant marriage and with and with that I ask for a good vote. Representative bill Clinton's close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. On the nose have it your bill has failed members let's move back on the agenda because once again we have a captured person at the end of the table representative Pilkington let's move to House Bill eighteen seventy House Bill eighteen seventy members fantastic you're recognized thank you chairwoman Dalby hopefully this one goes a little better I know this Committee loves to beat up on the side science all right I will say that is that this is an interesting bill that when I filed I got members from the left and right text me saying that they they thought this was a good idea so I'm I don't know many of you had seen in the news recently you talk pass the bill this is modeled off of which was the first of its kind and it was to basically we were requiring that the males pay for half of the prenatal care so I think the way to say it is The law requires biological fathers pay fifty percent of pregnant woman's out of pocket medical costs including health insurance premiums and hospital birth you know. Thank you for who was talking today about this it's this that possession but I was talking in the you know the reason what really inspired me to do this bill was a recent has been you know I had my first child and arrears to the morning I was sitting up with him rocking him to sleep my wife Emily was in a bad having just undergone a sea section and was exhausted tired. And it broke my heart when I thought about the single mothers who have to do this all by themselves and I just thought you know it was I was so happy I could be there for Emily because it was so stressful and terrible and while there's nothing I can do to require that the that the fathers be there I think at least we can do is required that they're financially can be responsible I mean we we seen such a rise in and out of wedlock births I I think to be really important to kinda have them take on a financial responsibility because so much of it just really relies falls on the women you know recently prenatal care I think on average expense rose from about three thousand dollars in two thousand eight up to almost six thousand dollars in two thousand fifteen I don't know the latest numbers have been in the last six years but those costs arising arising and fortunate that only falls on the woman with no way for her to somehow be able to to receive support from the man who Who impregnated her and so I think this is a good step into into a kind of making our our men responsible for those who who do impregnate women and so with that The I'm I'm open to questions but that's the gist of the bill just try to make things a little will easier on on these mothers. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so of representative Pilkington just in terms of. Sort of what the bill would do and I'm I guess I am aware that right now. Fathers are accountable financially either through if the. Either through you know a willingness to be proactive or child support in you know if they're around and then for women who are not married and single and low income there's Medicaid for for during the time they're pregnant and if they are not low income you know presumably they have some sort of You know private insurance and if not then that's you know they present to some responsibility through a child support so what gaps would this be feeling so prenatal care things that are are covered you know a lot of that what you mention it is gonna after the child is born yet their child support but you know unfortunately you're not able to get child support right the beginning and so as you Mr president is low income people have like Medicaid things like that if if for some reason they have no out of pocket expense which hi you know there's always an expense and out of Arkansas Missouri where that that's what they're paying at fifty percent for is that out of pocket expense so let's say someone just has like a Cadillac insurance plan everything's paid for they don't pay a single dime out of pocket I mean yeah technically this one one really apply to them but as we now I mean people have really good insurance and walking away with you know birthing hospital bills you know in the thousands and so weird you know unfortunately for like a single mother that's all on her and to which we're trying to trying to make you know I mean that baby would be there for us or for that other genetic material and so we just wanna make them part of you know are to be responsible for that quick follow up you're recognized so what we're talking about is like copays yet yet yet remain vitamins you know those things that are not necessarily on the list of hospital expenses pre birth yes copays like I like I mentioned in my opening day would be a be required to pay for half of those copays that okay thank you. Represent Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I love the bill I just wanna make sure that maybe. Once we put this in the law mmhm do you think. Medicaid or someone come back and say okay we're not paying half of the bill because the law says that the. Father has to pay half I just wanna make sure we're not doing some unintended consequences yes yes I agree I mean that what that has to be a policy change from DHS to reduce Medicaid reimbursement our our our. There I guess they're eligibility but you know I I highly doubt that we would come back in two years if we were to pass this law and then all this and say we're gonna we're gonna we're gonna cut that for those low income people that we're going to make them pay more because we think the father's going to pay more and sometimes unfortunate there are situations you know some these people Medicaid you know there. The you know the the father of the child I mean may also be low income and and maybe I'll medicate themselves and so you know like that the only out of pocket expense that we're we're targeting are one of the things and so you know it's kind of like if we did that then you know we're just being a hardship on someone else who may even go further down the hole so we're we're not trying to do that so I I highly doubt that would reduce our Medicaid spend on these on these babies and mothers. Okay thank you. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and you know from our conversation that that I like this bill to I do want to make sure though and to ask you so you can you can explain to the committee how does this differ from the existing code section at nine ten one ten which is the paternity action or judgment online and expenses because I just want you to be able to kind of explain to the committee the differences between the coverage of the two your bill and the existing statute. Per your microphone on if you can please sorry chairman Dalby could you repeat that I was sure yes so nine ten section nine ten one ten in the paternity Code is judgment for lying in expenses mmhm and and so I just wanted if you wondered if you could differentiate between the expenses that are covered in your bill versus the ones that are there and and explain kind of how those two sections will harmonize. You know I'll be I'll be honest I'm not a lawyer I may need to come back to that okay but you know I. If that's an amendment if if we need to take this off line to discuss that I never run out of time if you think any take down so we can work on it this weekend bringing back Tuesday I'm willing to do that so. Let me think on that okay but I mean I'll I'll tell you before you have to close but let me. I I appreciate the courtesy. Are you three represents a yes thank you sorry. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Represent Pilkington on insurance premiums I just wanna make sure I understand so we want the father to pay fifty percent of the insurance premiums what the mother becomes pregnant correct yes how do you determine how much of that insurance premium goes to pregnancy because it all done it's not all because of pregnancy. I mean it could be other issues I mean she's going to have insurance premium whether she's pregnant or not correct how do we determine. What what what is pregnancy related and what's it we're gonna be equitable had away. Yes that's you know it's hard to do but Representative Cavenaugh. I mean pregnancy complicates everything When you you know with your body and so I was a you know it's only for this time of period of time of premium so it's it's not you know not even a full year premiums that they're paying fifty percent of so eight sure it it may they may be paying a little more that premium because only so much as of their health insurance is really going to pregnancy at that point But I would say after witnessing childbirth I think it's okay maybe they did pay a little more. Second question Mister manager you're recognized on I just wanna make sure understand Ballinger I'm supportive of the bill I just wanna make sure I understand yeah because as soon as I tell my son that I voted for that they're gonna bring up the insurance for the just saying okay. Not that I hope they do this but just saying you know I got a lot of kids so this really doesn't create it really just basically creates a way for the mother to go after the father for the cost of these things because the father is not build from the provider correct okay yes correct that is correct okay thank you. Per se Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I like the concept representative Pilkington but. Just a couple things out there that that I got some concern about one is Here again I'm I've been out of this pregnancy business for a long time so I don't know what technology may may advance to but the somebody who disputes that they're the father in the couple's not married. Can I mean can you determine fatherhood before the child is born is that something that is capable of doing now. I yes I believe so that you can while the child in the womb have occurred do a paternity test but I'm not sure what stage you can do it I'm not familiar with that but I know you can do it before the child was born okay thank you. Members any other questions. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. I'm not aware of that technology about DNA test in in Europe I've heard that but maybe you're have regardless of you know some of the questions that I have or if you're going to reimburse for the expenses of are you talking about you know amount that the insurance paid the amount that was billed I'm sure you specify all of this in your bill and then how long of a period of time I can this go on we made entry price Best Buy this near bills well but how long the period time can this go on and someone claim expenses I mean if a DNA test is done when a child's eighteen you know who keeps the receipts and and how do you come back after all these years and try to make someone responsible for these expenses. That's a very good question representative Gazaway you know it it it never occurred to me that someone eighteen years later are fifteen years or even ten years later what would go after someone for these expenses I mean my understand would be this would be when it was happening in the media time You know I to be honest I mean I guess that they could if they kept those receipts go after them but. To be honest I. But I think that may be a little hard to eighteen years later to go and find all those receipts and things like that but if that's maybe an amendment we need to make on the Senate in that it has to a certain time frame to make you feel better I mean I'm I'm open to that discussion to I this is you know this is very new kind of legislation so I'm I'm pressed and I'm very open to working with everyone on this because I think I think we ought to have a general thing will feel pretty good about it which will make your doing the right thing. Represent college recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I thought that they represent representative Cavenaugh as question was initially really concerning to me about the health insurance premiums but I do see that here in a in section one you do say that the court can subtracting amount and equitable amount basically do equity to make sure that you know it if for example the person part of what has a really high health insurance premium for whatever reason that can be adjusted so that that gives me some comfort and I feel okay about that would you agree. I would agree thank you for bringing that point I've I've I've got this bill bought a while ago and I guess that is Canarian the session trying to keep everything straight ahead what's in what is so hard to appreciate you look body that forming. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions representative Pilkington you're recognized to close for your bill we have no one who signed up to speak for against thank you I chairman Dalby on clothes from a bill and and I hope we get a motion to do pass representive Underwood. It it appears that you've also agreed to make some amendments if you get a motion to do pass is that correct yes yes. Members representing Pilkington his clothes for your bill what are the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass or any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The us have it you've passed your bill. Members next bill that we're going to take up this house bill nineteen twenty one represent Penzo you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you chair but I have a J. P. trouble come up to the table with me. He has signed in to speak for the bill yes you can but let's go ahead and use present the bill that's what they've asked the jurors to have people do okay house bill nineteen twenty one make some technical corrections and when JP comes up to speak for the bill he can explain it a little bit better. Your please identify yourself for the record you may begin thank you madam chair my name is John trouble I mean adoption attorney in little rock. So this bill it is essentially a cleanup bill it is concerning Arkansas code annotated nine nine two oh nine. It's designed to clean up contiguous language in the current law that's risen over the course of several amendments to the original language of the bill. Going to run through the history of the very brief and all this it's basically a technically matter. This sensually this bill is taking the last sentence of. The current subsection B. one in the law as it stands which is the strike through beginning on page one line thirty six continuing on page two lines one and three. Those are brought down to this subsection C.. below. it's essentially cleaning up the wording and the problem is in the current law there is a conflict as a direct conflict in language. On lines on page two lines ten to thirteen. The language the language states that a person consenting to the adoption may waive the ten day period and elect to limit the time for withdrawal of consent down to five days if you compare that with the stricken language on Page one line thirty six. It states that the court may waive the ten day period for certain persons. And appellate case which was handed down in two thousand eighteen found that this language clearly means the court must wait the ten day period but only to five days the period for withdrawal applies to agencies minors who must consent to their own adoption. And biological parents of a step parent is adopting however you cannot have the court deciding to waive that period for withdrawal and a person deciding to elect to wait the period for withdrawal that makes no sense. It is really simple the original language of the bill described the period for withdrawal in the terms that ten day period for withdrawal because that's all there what is. the withdrawal period as provided for persons. Who have an emotional bond in the adoption. Which would be a biological parent or an individual person guardian who would have been in an emotional tie to the adoptee is the law stated at the time the period for withdrawal shall not apply to agencies then in two thousand five legislature amended the law to add that the ten day revocation period did not apply to minors whose consent is required. Word to biological parents if a step parent is adopting in here it made it where the court may waive the period for withdrawal of for all of these persons. So what this means when we talk about a minor whose consent is required of. Subsection subchapter two of the adoption code requires minors over the age of twelve to consent to their own adoption in open court. That's what we're referring to here when we speak about minors whose consent is required Basically the the. So. When the court wave the withdrawal period because there was only the ten day withdrawal period it did not apply when the court waved at the discretion to waive it was added because there may be cases where the withdrawal period should maybe apply when the biological parent is consenting to the stepparent adoption that is not the case in minors or with agencies. The real issue arose in two thousand nine when language was added to allow for the consenting person to elect to waive that ten day period down to a five day period to withdraw. This change led to the ambiguity because now there are two possible carries for withdrawal ten days or five but the language in this section that stated the ten day period for withdrawal may be waived for agencies minors in biological parents and step parent adoptions was left unchanged read as the word ten days should have been amended in not amendment. Leaving the original intent through the language the period for withdrawal may be waived for agencies minors. And bio parents in a stepparent adoption. What happened is that gave to parallel waiver waiver mechanisms the consenting party in the court yet the court was meant to have the power to declare that the period for withdrawal does not apply at all to an agency minor birth parent in with the period for withdrawal applies the consenting person then could wave ten to five days I know that's very confusing and I apologize but this is a very technical matter. This ambiguity led to the two thousand eighteen appellate case Kenner Day bangs the Barton in which the court of appeals found that the at least the five day period to withdraw the consent applies to everyone including agencies in DHS. So now when DHS consents to an adoption they have to file their consent they must request the court to wage the consent down to five days then they have to wait that five day period before having the final hearing. So it in following the legislative changes through time that was never the intent. The agency's do not have the same emotional attachment to children where they need to revocation period it is already the for example the age has has already nominated the adoptive parents to adopt they don't need to revocation period they don't need to reconsider that decision they've been considering it for months years. So Canaday banks the Barton is also contrary to the interpretation of Arkansas code annotated nine nine to nine by people who have practiced adoption regularly over a period of years it leads to an absurd result and I'd like to give one more example that I think well illustrates so as the law stands today. Yes a minor his consent is required must consent in open court according to the appellate case there must be at least a five day period for that minor withdrawing his consent. Arkansas Code nine nine to twelve a one states before any hearing on a petition the period in which the consent you withdrawn under nine nine two oh nine west expired. Nine nine two oh eight a one requires the consent by an individual to be adopted to be executed in the presence of the court here's what that means motion. Represent Collins let me hear your motion motion for committee consideration. All right we have no one else who signed up for against on this bill we have a motion on the floor for immediate consideration. Any discussion on the motion all in favor say aye. Any opposed the ayes have it motion represent Collins represent recognized for a motion moved to pass members motion to do pass of the floors three discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Moshing eighty opposed motion carries congratulations you passed your bill thank you madam chair may we be excused thank you yes thank you for coming. Members of. If we back up to House Bill nineteen fourteen represent the flowers is S. that we pass over that today in moved up to Tuesday. That brings us to our next bill well I to what let's back up since we have representative brown here. She was here this morning and presented her bill pulled it down with the permission of the. Committee were on house bill fifteen oh eight she has made some amendments those amendments are being will be passed out to you I remind you we have amended it and that amendment has already been adopted that we did this morning. And there is a fiscal impact on this bill and we're passing up the amendments now that she is may. Right members I believe we all have the amendment front of this. Representative brown you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you madam chair thank you committee members I have consulted people for knowledgeable than me. And what we did yes The bill text this morning under Under section three. Eight two. I had. I'll be under it which says involves the use or display of a deadly weapon. That language has been clarified in accordance with. Aggravated assault language is in code. It now has item B. involves the use of a deadly weapon a line by itself items C. involves the display of a firearm in such a manner that the display of the firearm creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person or and then. The text that follows is what it was this morning. That that one. That one line is now been broken into two items and its members you've heard the explanation of. The Amendment any discussion. I have a motion to adopt the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor please say aye The Amendment has been adopted. C. brown you may present your bill as amended and remember a committee we had a doctor did it changed injury to physical injury and now we have adopted this new amendments. Recognized. Thank you madam chair I really have no other words to add other than that I believe I've cleaned up all the things that. You've asked me to clean up and I would appreciate a good vote. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions representing brown and are you close for your bill yes chairman name chair represent Brown is close for his or her bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion. We say aye. Any opposed say no. Motion carries you have adopted your bill thank you madam chair committee freesheet you. Members let's turn our attention to house bill seventeen ninety one representive Underwood you're recognized president house bill seventeen ninety one. The manager I do have a somebody here I don't think they signed up to speak for the bill yet they are here to speak for the bill be okay I'd like to explain the bill and if there's any questions ask if if the if they come up. this statute is short but basically all this does is it repeals the language of on on judgment creek and several of the execution must be joined my understanding is the statutes have been addressed and and some time in this language is actually in consistent with our longstanding principle and case law of of joint and several liability we're one and if if there's a judgment against Joint defendants you can go after them jointly or all or any of them so the reason for passing this law or this bill would be just to make this less confusing and be more consistent with that longstanding principle and have to take questions or if there are any questions Mr Baxter probably against them and so the more accurately than I could thank you members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized close for your bill I'll close my bill and I make a motion to pass members representative under what is close for his bill is made a motion to do pass on before any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any post a note. Motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill. Thank you Jay thank you Committee. Represent guess what you're recognized to present house bill eighteen eighty six. Thank you madam chair committee before you should have House Bill eighteen eighty six this is a bill that concerns access to medical records in legal proceedings concerns the fees that are charged to access those medical records specifically when they're stored electronically. And what I will tell you generally is the purpose of this bill is to bring Arkansas into the twenty first century when it comes to requesting medical records electronically as opposed to receiving those in printed format which is a very cumbersome for patients and also for those involved in the legal process I will tell you that this bill supported by the Arkansas Bar Association to trial lawyers association I now work on this bill as well. In conjunction with the hospital association in the hospital association is not opposed to this bill. Again this bill the purpose is to make medical records more accessible more easily accessible for patients these records belong to the patients and obtaining them shouldn't be expensive or overly complicated. And so if you look at the beginning of the bill is going to go through it kind of page by page on page one we replace a long list of medical providers that includes that doctor's name those providers medical healthcare provider to long list and we replace that with a more general term medical provider which covers all of the a previously listed individually listed medical entities we say that that this allows for a person who is authorized by the patient to request those records the current statute just says an attorney may but this as any person who is authorized by the patient with a written request. may may request those records. And when we say the the medical provider will furnish the medical records under the request what we say is they'll furnish the requested records the previous statutes at all the records were you may not want all the records you may just want some specifically requested records and so whatever they were the requested records are that's what the medical provider will have to furnish on page two when we are talking about photocopies there's an existing statute which is not change the amount that a medical provider can charge for a photocopy of the medical record in those amounts do not change you'll next see a labor charge for attaining those medical records that labor charge or retrieval fee remains the same only as it applies to printed or written records again the real purpose of this bill is to try to shift this over to the electronic format of providing medical records and so what you'll see on line seventeen page two is this specifically does not apply to medical records that are electronically stored. if the you'll see a lot beginning on line twenty if those medical records are requested to be provided in electronic format the medical provider shall furnish those into like tronic format and that's going to save patients time it's going to save patients money it's much easier to provide these an electronic format you can get him on a thumb drive I'm sure many of you are familiar with that and it's a much easier way than someone willing and banker boxes full of photocopies into your office and then charging you for everyone of those photocopies. Our next you'll see that the medical provider is not required to produce these in any particular format and less later the Arkansas rules of civil procedure provide for a specific format right now that's not provided for the rules of civil procedure but in the event that it ever is then they'll have to prove to comply with that. And the medical records if the requested an electronic format this is on line twenty eight page to have to be provided within thirty days of the date of request and if the requested in the electronic format they can charge a twenty dollar fee for producing those medical records in the electronic format. And again this goes back to the point that most medical records these days the vast majority medical records already capped in electronic format this does not you'll see on line thirty five on page to prohibit an additional fee that can be charged if the request is for a narrative A medical narrative. There can be an additional fee then you'll see on page three lines five through twenty four this eliminates a section of code that currently makes it difficult for but for patients to get medically medical records and disability cases. And so we eliminate that and then we say we add in line twenty four and twenty five we don't really change anything but you can still subpoena records which is provided for under the existing law at the bottom of page three if requested if a if the request is a patient's own medical records is submitted by the patient or a person authorized to request the patient's records then the medical provider still has to comply with hippa and we say that that's at the bottom of page three in the top of page four and then we say it get on page four hippo applies regardless of who made the request whether that was the patient they're attorney their authorized representative and then the last part if the request is made by someone other than someone who's authorized so like if an insurance company of the request must be accompanied by a written authorization that states that they're entitled to request those records. That is what the bill does kind of in detail I'm happy to try to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. We have no questions and see no one who signed up to speak for against but we kind of got the cart before the horse you have an amendment before you So I have the amendment has is before you it's a dealing with Page three line thirty four represent guess we want to present that amendment a what here comes. Manager I believe I signed the amendment. And I apologize I. I actually forgot that this amendment existed. Members with the amendment is doing on Page three line thirty four has the division of corrections that should be the Department. With that represent Gazaway want to move to adopt the amendment I would moved to adopt the amendment members we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor please say aye. He opposed the amendment has been adopted. Gazaway. As to basically replace division with the department of correction and that's all the amendment dead otherwise the bill stands as I've explained it and I would make a motion I'm close for the bill I make a motion do pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it your bill. Has passed congratulations thank you manager thank you committee members that brings us to the end of our house bills and but before we close out so if there's anyone who's watching and is interested I'm going to give you a rundown of what will happen next week we have to House bills to House bills that we will take up one is representing flowers house bill nineteen fourteen representative flowers we're going to urge you to be an hour or less can you do that. Okay great of we are going so that bill will be taken up Tuesday morning first thing the second bill will be taken up representative Gonzalez is asked to run house bill nineteen oh five again so that will be the second bill that will become that will come up. Then we will pick up the next then we'll start or Senate bills so we'll just go down for our agenda that we had today will be Senate bill five forty four. Senate bill five sixty Senate bill five seventy three and Senate bill five thirteen as are there are a number others bills but those are the first ones up but there will be you will see a big list let me urge you to watch the website because the Senate or sending their bills down we will meet work trying to see if we can start at nine thirty. Just watch of the website will try to let you know if we can start at nine thirty otherwise will be at ten o'clock in this room and obviously we will be back after session because we've got to get through the Senate bills that are being sent to us anybody have any questions as to our procedure I know we have some new in. The rules are. Okay we've been informed that we can make thirty minutes upon adjournment of joint budget joint budget meets at eight thirty on Tuesday morning sometimes or through an ten minute sometimes or through in thirty minutes so if you wanna get up and get get go in thirty minutes upon adjournment that would certainly help us I think and what we're trying to get done next week so make that note watch that if I learned anything else I'll let you know I think with that thank you for your hard work and staying late today