Revenue & Tax - Senate

Tax will come to order. And senator Wallace you have. Okay. Senator Wallace if you would state your name for the record and have your guests to introduce themselves we'll get started yes Sir Mr chairman state senator Dave Wallace district twenty two. My name is Dave Rinehart I'm the controller with Nucor steel Arkansas. You're here to present Senate bill five sixty six as I understand it has an amendment yes you have a moment okay. The motion. Second we adopt amendment. All in favor say aye. No. Amendments adopted now you can present five sixty six or is amended. Mr members this bill addresses a problem that one of our state the new core has had do covid in two thousand seventeen we sense it the in this Arkansas program in that same year both new core mills filed and were approved for the final investments under invest or. These projects were on schedule to be completed. Before the sunset. But because of cold it. Nucor proces projects until they knew the economic impact and by doing that. Nucor was able to. Not taking state money not taking federal money cures money and they kept every employee who they call team member employed now there's very few companies in the State of Arkansas that could say that they did all those accomplishments. But it left this. Running out of time we only need twenty four months to finish these projects. It in the port part about this is that no credits will be claimed until this work is complete and none before twenty twenty four. Another important item is that before any credits earned can be used. ADC less file with a positive impact. And there's proof of positive impact on the state of Arkansas. This is a positive for the state regardless of what. The fiscal impact may say this cut is pay roughly fifty seven million dollars in sales tax since two thousand seventeen which is the same year. These projects were approved. And with that Sir David has a statement he would like to make. Thank you senator Wallace my name is Dave Rinehart I'm the controller at Nucor steel Arkansas in Hickman Arkansas thank you chairman call well in the committee on behalf of our two thousand Arkansas teammates we would like to thank senator Wallace for sponsoring Senate bill five sixty six and I appreciate the opportunity to testify in support. Nucor corporation is the largest steel producer in Arkansas and the United States. With more than twenty billion in annual sales and more than twenty six thousand teammates Nucor is proud of our more than thirty years of making steel and nearly four billion dollars we have invested in Arkansas. R. two steelmaking facilities in northeast Arkansas. We're still Arkansas and Nucor Yamato steel are a major reason why Mississippi County is now the number two steel producing county in the United States. Nucor takes great pride in our teammates in more than five decades of steel making including our thirty years in Arkansas. Newport has never laid off a teammate at one of our steel mills and we maintained our no lay off practice during the pandemic even as unemployment reached nearly fifteen percent nationwide. We're very proud of this commitment and the COVID pandemic has only steeled our resolve to support our team during good times and bad. What we remain committed to the more than half a billion dollars in capital projects that we have recently undertaken at Arkansas facilities like many businesses Nucor has been and continues to be impacted by the pandemic. Major projects that were pending or under way at Arkansas mills when the pandemic hit have been disrupted and delayed. To protect the health and safety of our teammates during the pandemic we have limited travel and access to our steel mills by outside vendors and contractors. We also implement physical distancing at our facilities. In addition to the impact of these changes supply chains for critical materials have been severely impacted during the pandemic. Which delayed the delivery of products needed to complete projects that are Mills. Despite our best efforts the pandemic continues to prevent projects from being completed on schedule. Additionally while we may not take any state why we did not take any state or federal aid made available for businesses. Maintaining our commitment to our teammates and their families well being forced us to make adjustments that further slowed and delayed work on important investments. Not only did we not lay off any teammates during the crisis we also implemented a compensation floor to ensure our teammates pay and also make changes to our sick pay policy to address teammates who contracted COVID or we're taking care of family members. Senate bill five sixty six will assist us in similarly situated companies to address these impacts we have faced by extending the investor program program project deadline by twenty four months. As you know the investor program has provided a sales tax credit for major construction expansion and modernization projects in excess of five million dollars for manufacturers and other qualifying businesses. Investar was sunset as part of the consolidated incentives act of twenty seventeen. No projects have been accepted since June of twenty seven twenty seventeen and all projects must be completed within the first six months of this year. We have a qualifying projects that were approved prior to June twenty seventeens cut off date but because of the above referenced reasons we cannot meet the four year deadline. This bill would provide qualifying projects that were submitted prior to the twenty seventeen deadline an additional twenty four months to complete these investments in Arkansas and still realize the tax credits associated with the sizeable investments in Arkansas these credits have already been approved but because of the pandemic we need some additional time to finish these projects. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of this bill and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. The members of the questions. Senator Johnson. Thank you very much Mr chairman thank you senator Wallace and Ryan are Would it be fair to say that we got a deal. With new core way the state have a deal with new core. You can separate incentives to do this expansion and but for COVID it would probably already be over with and you wouldn't be sitting here is that a fair statement. Correct Senator the the the projects were scheduled to be completed on time before the deadline and we we had probably leased a nine month delay because of the codependent make for for numerous reasons Nucor had a choice senator they had a choice between the employees again this projects done and they stayed with the Arkansans kept everyone of their employees working Sir at a time for review the company's debt Senator Wallace that is a. Interesting statistic to say the least and and Mr on our statement about that being a nation wide thing that they've never let anyone officer is a is a very compelling argument not that I would support this anyway but I'm I'm thank you for bringing that up because if you're gonna put the good corporate citizens of the state on the list I know new core be very very close to the top so thank you so much and thank you senator Wallace for bringing this bill to help this company that has really helped Arkansas thank you senator thank you senator Senator Teague your question. Thank you Mr chairman Davis it fair to say that you've done one very similar this already this section yes Sir for big river steel but it different category right but but saying very similar very very similar and we did one very similar to the wood pellet. For that so would make sense not to help these guys but not sure thank you thank you. Thank you Senator Hickey yes Sir I'm a lawyer of in this either Senator Wallace or service could be you my main things I just wanna make sure I fully understand the language is being used on the amendment. Also on the amendment. It says that return will. The city there the financial incentive agreement will generate returns. Return to who are you to let the state to the state. Is that what remaining yes Sir yes under okay and we coordinate that with but if in a in with economic development okay do we think we have to have the word likely in there says will likely. Are we did set on that were. Or we want to say that it I would that we that it would generate a. I think we're okay with with generate. But our understanding Senator was that we would have to prove economic benefit to the state to qualify yes Sir right. Yes. So let me let me ask you this so what you're what you're saying is is that that you believe that ABC that they would have to prove that it was a dollar for dollar. For you to get that leave me the ones approving whether there is an economic benefit under the under the bill it in without the approved so we would not be given when I receive these tax credits. Okay I guess that were likely just to make it look like to me that we could do it without it being that so. Thank you for the money back guarantee hi. Thank you Sir yes Sir Senator Johnson you have another question yes Sir thank you Mr chairman of. Please correct me if I'm wrong Sir Wallace but this language in the amendment is is is amending the statutory thing about the actual credit authorization which is requiring the Director of ADC to make these determinations and he's looking Prost Bective lay and that so the likely return it will be likely equal to greater is a is is the language used by ADC to look forward and say yes this looks like a good project is that kind of what that language is as opposed to you know it may or may not I I appreciate Senator Hickey who's very good proofreader and catches things like this but is that where that particular area is in the code that would it has to do with the qualifications of a I have a project in its proposal stages yes my understanding is we had we actually have to show proof that we have. Made a positive impact of review of the state before we are in at the end but this is a language dealing with that the front so basically so it would make sense if the site likely or probably or or this looks like a good project but ultimately the benefit does accrue to the company until they look back and say this was done in my reading it correctly I thank you Watson Johnson okay thank you Sir thank you Sir thank you Mr. Senator Hickey. But there's not any call backs in place and in the event that it does is that correct. We want to. Sure there's not there's not a clawback but until we don't receive the criticism to at the end in the we will not receive them unless the ETC's said. It's good to go okay thank you yes Sir. Seeing no other questions Mr digital code for these. Would you jump. Warning Mr chair members of the committee Paul hearing DFA. Go ahead. Thank you Mr chair I. D. if they had previously issued a fiscal impact statement for Senate bill five sixty six and as you might recall the revenue impact was approximately nine point eight million to state sales tax and six point one two million to general revenue of course we have worked with senator Wallace on some proposed language for this amendment based upon the amendment that has been adopted into this bill we do not see that there will be a fiscal impact for FY twenty two or for FY twenty three and the original dollar figure that we had in our first a fiscal impact statement for this bill it would be reduced significantly we will be issuing a fiscal impact statement based upon the amendment and we will have that ready within the next twenty four hours for the committee so you will have the new impact statement for us by. When C. right yes Sir will will have that before and before the next committee meeting okay your. Or other questions from Mr. Sitting. Thank you Mr. Senator Wallace yes Sir. Members just reminder. Since two thousand seventeen Nucor. Has contributed fifty seven million dollars in sales tax to the state of Arkansas where the two thousand members or employees. At either Yamada you course steel or Nucor Castro. Roughly two point seven billion dollars new core businesses eighteen ninety seven nineteen eighty seven. Two thousand full time employees never lay off. We've created roughly two hundred thirty full time jobs since two thousand seventeen. And over three point five billion dollars to pay roll since nineteen eighty seven. In a hundred and thirty seven million a total taxes paid since nineteen purchased two thousand seventeen as we said no physical impact during the session on this we said it must have a positive fiscal impact. As proved by ADC. In members we got a chance. Just a couple times. It will get dollars back return. And with that I ask for a good vote. Thank you Mr Wallace. Members to continue with a policy. Of not taking a vote on a bill that has a physical impact with white to win state you will get the final impact on this for you might. What's your question. Of as we did with the previous bill that that senator Wallace brought forth once we have the fiscal impact from Mr gearing then we would be able to take a vote on this matter at times and that's what I was trying to salute for you interrupt I'm sorry Mr chairman thank you I know you're mine was going the right direction thank you Sir thank you. Thank you Mr close. Your. House bill ten thirty four Mr by the the. Thank you Mr. You don't care will have a. Powering come sit with me. Is run is value I'm not trying to be a. This is Mister baileys bill if you don't care all that Mister Kerry explained it. If you would at least give us a bill number I'm sorry I'm sorry. Is bill the house bill ten thirty four House Bill ten thirty four and so Mr thank you Mr chair Paul Goehring department of finance administration house bill ten thirty four is a part of DFA's agency legislation and it pertains to the confidentiality protections of taxpayer records that are kept by DFA. It makes a number of different changes. to Arkansas Code twenty six eighteen three oh three under the rules of civil procedure attorneys can issue subpoenas and this bill will clarify that DFA will only disclose tax information if DFA receives a court order from a court to release tax information. Also this bill will clean up some language in the statute with which pertains to the release of taxpayer information to prosecuting attorneys into the Attorney General. It will also allow DFA to disclose information when necessary in judicial proceedings for the collection of tax delinquencies. Also as a result of a different form of unemployment compensation that resulted from the pandemic it would off authorized DFA to share with the Department vision of work for services taxpayer information for purposes of pandemic unemployment assistance and also currently under our law we don't have an official custodian of records for the office of motor vehicle and driver services this bill would designate the Secretary of defacing official custodian so whenever we receive a question on who should a subpoena be served upon for motor vehicle or driver services records this bill will designate the secretary DFA to be the person that needs to be served with that subpoena. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the bill. Members of the questions. Senator Ingram. Give us a typical scenario Paul of of the regarding just the prosecutor The DFA disclose and records and sort of step by step what what we're really shocking about in real time here sure and what you have a Senator Ingram in the current code under twenty six eighteen three oh three. you have to provisions that relate to releasing taxpayer records to the Attorney General or to the prosecutor there is a a general provision which is under the fifteen of that color code to that we can release taxpayer information to a state or federal prosecutor or grand jury or other state entity or federal entity with subpoena power that's what we're wanting to leave that code in place and not disturb there are and earlier in that statute there is a provision where we can release information upon receipt of a subpoena from the Attorney General or or prosecutor. whether or not it is before charges have been filed or not we don't think that that provision is necessary we think that just the one catch all under B. fifteen is all that we really need the code we think that the the provisions because they were striking is a completely unnecessary for to be in there as well relate we what they're really only be one provision in the statute about releasing information to law enforcement prosecutors and that's we want to keep. Senator Johnson you have questions thank you Mr chairman of Mr Gerry. You are aware I know of the. I'm also a problem is probably the understatement where we were all getting many of us were getting letters from work for services to verify our request for unemployment when wasn't even our name it was that my I got at least three different names of people my address someone told me that there was one file in northeast northwest Arkansas for somebody named Aissa Hutchinson and I'm I've extended my frustration to Dr Childress does this help that is aimed at maybe opening up tax records so doctor children her staff can help ferret out fraud and things like that related to the pandemic unemployment center Johnson this bill does not specifically address that problem and I and I was one mile myself my wife also had that their information somehow was made available to. lawbreakers that were wanting to file unemployment claims. we currently have in this code section the ability to share withholding information to the division of workforce services and those are your traditional workers that get a paycheck from their employer the and then for some reason or the other they have I'm had separated from their job and and they filed an unemployment claim and then D. if they can share their withholding information with the Division work for services to verify that the earnings that they reported on their unemployment claim the problem that came up is in with COVID the federal government created the pandemic unemployment program for your self employed workers and there was no provision in our law that said DFA can share any confidential information with Division work for services and in order for that person's information to be verified so what we had to fashion as a replacement was a consent to release information this addresses the ability if a person that has is self employed. And files a pandemic unemployment claim this will authorize DFA to be able to share their schedule see information there income tax information with the division so they can verify their their income but this doesn't specifically address. How those individuals came across all of our confidential data in order to file those those fraudulent claims so that is a problem I know the division and DFA of it worked on with law enforcement but this doesn't particularly address that how does criminals came across that information to file unemployment claims I understand thank you Mr thank you Mr. Are there other questions. Seeing. In. The only person we have to speak will be Mr hearing. What's will of the committee. The motion to press. Second. Senator Johnson second by Senator Rapert is during discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye opposed no graduations your bill passed. Okay. Yes Sir Mr chairman at the next bills house bill ten thirty nine. Your term present ten thirty nine also I'm yes Sir yes Sir it is it is mass. you don't care I'll have Mr hearing set here with me okay ten thirty nine of the Arkansas employers must deduct and withhold income tax from their employees wages this bill would amend the definition from four to require employees out of state employer whose employees perform services for the employer in Arkansas to deduct without income tax for the employees Arkansas employees under this bill out of state employees employers would employ workers in the Arkansas would have to follow the same withholding requirements as Arkansas employers so there's there's no revenue impact on this bill Missouri already does this in Louisiana our neighboring states that they do the same you know and. Mr grain can can answer any committee we've talked and. They're not holding the tax will you live in Arkansas you subject income tax there haven't figured yourself well if they don't pay and they get later than behind this is just taking care of Arkansas citizen and their income tax situation so they don't get a bill or get behind and keeps all the record straight. Senator Dismang you have a question. What. I certainly and and thank you out I can. By some additional information I think with the issue that we're trying to address is within this bill is that you've got Arkansas residents that work for an out of state employer and there's no requirement for that out of state employer that has no business operations within the state of Arkansas there's no requirement for the employer to withhold Arkansas income tax on behalf of that employee and send it into the state for purposes of when that Arkansas resident files there Arkansas return what that Arkansas resident has to do is is make quarterly estimates and filed a quarterly report as opposed to that employee just getting a paycheck with their Arkansas with holdings on their paycheck we did have a look at all the states there are thirty one states and as represent million mention Missouri and Louisiana would currently follow track are currently tracking with this bill would do Oklahoma and Mississippi have not yet adopted this of course Tennessee does not have a an income tax or not or just taxes but certainly we want to make the ability for employees that work here in Arkansas that have an employer at a state in the employer has no business operations within Arkansas to have that employer withholding come tax on half the employee. So. As you already know I mean this is an issue that I think it's more than just this bill so in a way you know if we pass this and we don't also address the taxation in Arkansas is imposing on residents that live out of the state that are employed by Arkansas companies then we've we've only handle about half of it in that have is just the pure benefit of the state I mean I think we've got to have a conversation about it so just so the members know there was a ruling was it based on a ruling or was it just a statement or a guidance put out by DFA that essentially if you're an out of state employee but your employer's base instead of Arkansas you Arkansas income taxes on those wages again even though you did live in the states at a fair. It is fairly accurate yes there there we had a legal opinion that we issued yeah prior to the pandemic it did not death but that employee was not situated in the State of Arkansas they were not in Arkansas they were residing within the state of Arkansas they if they were prior resident and they started doing their job in a different state but it was still the same job but the but it was over so you know then that creates a more over reaching argument even though maybe that particular situations different. And then the you know to restate what is that I won't do it again but I mean I'm afraid if we do this again it's a hundred percent to the benefit of the state we're not doing it anything to address this bigger concept which I think does apply siliceous take that individual that is working for a company in Arkansas out of state we think that you pay Arkansas income taxes I don't disagree with that the question is how does Arkansas then treat employees that are working out of the state that employed by Arkansas company we say they're taxable to and there's some net and all kinds of weird things happening depending on if that state charges income tax or doesn't so if they're in Texas they're gonna owe income tax on representative there in Arkansas wages because there's no taxes to offset that in again so I'm I'm a little bit again I understand the bill I'm afraid of what happens when we don't. Look at this in a bigger context because we're being a little bit We're we're taking all of it right we're taking the best position all the way around we're going to say we're going to tax you out of state and we're gonna tax you in state we're going tax shall over the place just to the pure benefit and it's inconsistent in my opinion I mean we do have a bill out there to address that you know there's a huge kind of unknown revenue impact associated with that because that ruling is fairly or not ruling that that you know finding or whatever was is is fairly new so we're just sitting you know we don't know exactly what's going on so again that that's my only apprehension with this bill is I think we need to look at it in a bigger context and I apologize would you agree. A man common center is being and I I certainly agree that there is a need in our law for greater guidance for individuals that are not living within Arkansas but they are performing a job with it for an employer within the state of Arkansas this is a different bill altogether this is for people that are residing in the state of Arkansas they're deriving income they have an obligation to pay income tax within the state of Arkansas the problem is there's not a mechanism for their employer to be required to withhold on behalf of the employee they still are paying tax but they have to they have to budget themselves they have to withhold a certain amount of money out of their paycheck insanity on a quarterly basis using quarterly estimates so I'd I agree when a president Senator Dismang our law that relates to employers and employees in the obligation to withhold all these laws were were written and many many decades ago before we had the the concept of of remote work and but this bill does this only speaks to those individuals that are actually working within our borders of our state there Arkansas residents and I I certainly agree are a law would benefit from from greater for clarification to reflect what our current economy looks like but this bill only those that this will not raise taxes on anybody these are taxes that are already owed the employee just doesn't have an opportunity have their employer withhold on their behalf they can if their employer will voluntarily withhold they will do that but if here the employer would have to make sure to withhold. Sure. And so then I mean I said the the problem there then is is if we adopt that policy. If we with we adopt both policies I mean what what happens when another state I mean they meet with like either were marrying or not marrying whether the state you're doing I think Missouri and some of the states that we've mentioned have clarified some of the positions in regards these out of state employers a kind of in the direction that I'm talking about again we're not taking that step in and the only thing I would say is is we it might be a little money to have their conversation about what we're doing before this past this out because I think Senate bill. Four eighty four I can member my number now kind of tries to address this clarifies for the state of Arkansas that withholding could take place but also then clarifies that we're going to treat those employees you know folks working out of the state just as we are these ones in state so maybe we can have a bigger conversation apologize for not doing that you know prior to this morning. Senator Johnson. Thank you Mr chairman Mr hearing I'm. Like Senator Dismang I think we're maybe not taking this in full context and we need to look a little more carefully I was gonna ask you about. You're not that's not really theoretical probably it's probably a real thing we have a out of state contractors to bid on Arkansas highway projects like the thirty cross. And they bring it in I assume they bring in people who are residents of their states and I don't know per state as income tax or not but this would cause them to start withholding from that long time employee at least a proportion of their wages ostensibly earned in Arkansas I'm I reading that correctly and I'm I'm the poor I'm headed on this is. This is pretty you know the the relevant part of this bill is is three lives but I wondered if we're not open up with the can of worms it Senate is **** maybe describe a little bit much more eloquently than I have but that I'm I'm say well that this is wonder action this is a company out of state doing business in Arkansas has employees in Arkansas but are those employees. Bonafide residents of Arkansas they're here temporarily because of that project they can go home to Texas or whatever on the weekend they send their paycheck is direct deposit to their bank in Dallas or Houston or whatever I'm I'm there's some loose ends here I'm I'm really not comfortable with can you elaborate on and I'd be happy to address that Senator Johnson so if you're in your example that employer is doing business in the state of Arkansas they have a project question yeah and so they clearly have the obligation to withhold on behalf of that employee that's maybe Texas and resident and they're coming in temporarily to work on that project they clearly already under the law have an obligation to to withhold Arkansas income tax based upon that employees within Arkansas wages. Okay let me use a different scenario and it's it's it's a real scenario which is not Arkansas area of. Several years ago my daughter who is a resident of Colorado. work for. A big company. That take quarter in California and she's a Colorado resident they with Colorado tax you Page cholera tags and she was. I'll use a former representative houses definition she was detailed to go to their corporate headquarters in California and work. There for like I don't know six months something like that. she did not have to pay California tax because she was a resident of Colorado legally and is just her job assignment with this cause us to have to get into the. The details I hate to say the weeds but it makes me think the weeds on this of okay well you're you're resident this other state you actually doing this work in Arkansas so at least for that period of time we want that with hole and I'm. A I think it has to do with what is your domicile in were you taxes because of I was a consultant and I'm going to Missouri and doing what was it's you came in consulted with this company was very we want you to pay tax in Missouri I I'm I'm a little troubled by the direction we're headed in can you put my mind at ease sure yes I'd be happy to thank you Senator Johnson so if in a it's individual comes to the state of Arkansas and performs employment services within the state of Arkansas or derives income they they income tax within our state whether or not they are a resident or not a resident and they will either filing nonresident return. but certainly So I'm not certain I'm not seeing that concern it's it's a very important question but this this bill is only designed to make sure that if you have in Arkansas resident and they just happen to work for an employer that is not doing any business within the state of Arkansas that that employee will be able to have income tax withheld from their paycheck so that they don't have to make those quarterly estimated payments so this is a. Conceivably and this is some cases a a benefit to the employee who doesn't have to. Be treated like a ten ninety nine the person and the addresses of of of just the withholding being taken care of by the employer you're absolutely right I mean this is this is to allow those businesses that are out based outside of Arkansas that are not doing any business here that they will and they have residents here within the State of Arkansas that they're paying wages to that that Arkansas resident that's employed by this out of state company would not have to go through the process of doing estimated payments and filing quarterly reports they would actually be able to go to their employer and say there's been a law change I would like you to go ahead and commence withholding Arkansas income tax so when I file my return in March April of next year I will already have my withholding done through my employer as opposed to filing quarterly reports with the state we creating an additional burden on companies that might have a whole lot of employees maybe one or two from Arkansas we are. Ating requirement that for if an employer is going to operate and have employees that reside in our state for the convenience of that employee that they would be have withholding taken out of their paychecks so certainly it doesn't impact any Arkansas businesses that are doing business within the state of Arkansas they clearly already have that obligation you're treating the out of state employers just like you're treating the in state employers I'm just looking down the road see if maybe there be some kind of a **** for tat with the Arkansas companies when the shoes on the other foot well clearly there's thirty one states that have adopted this this model and then of course approximately eight or nine and in our surrounding states in Mississippi and in Oklahoma have not yet adopted but Louisiana and. Louisiana and Missouri have. So if you have a if you have the converse of you have a ms a an Arkansas business on the border of Missouri but they don't do any business within the state of Missouri but they happen to employ a Missouri resident then we currently are treating that Arkansas business differently than if the roles were reversed. Okay. Well thank you Mr thank you Mr thank you. Members of your other questions. Seeing none. This was my match I think we've got a good dialogue we understand what the bill does but I do want to I think we should have a little bit more broad conversation you know about the bill how it impacts to and you know how it relates to everyone else out of state my concern is if other states adoption of a. The similar provisions that we have which we tax it everywhere I'm not sure how that even reconciles on the with holding side so if Colorado for instance says that you know that that income tax laws of Arkansas Tax when called out he takes precedent and actually has the majority of those waiting you know or of those taxes who gets the credit offset is it Colorado is it Arkansas or is it I don't know how all that plays out but if we can maybe you know after meeting have a conversation a bigger conversation about maybe what we need to do globally. Yes your this is mine your recommendation be hold hold stay on the calendar will consider next meeting okay. I have a motion second by Senator Hickey. If any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. We'll both know thank you thank you Mr we'll keep it on the. Hello. okay center or what you've been sitting over there patiently. Or impatient or the other. What. What a gentleman thank all the chair out for me that's the state I'm senator Missy Irvin District eighteen. Representative mark berry from District eighty two. Okay in your presenting Senate bill. House Bill hi ten thirteen sixty yes Mister chair all right thank you. Thank you Mr chairman of the committee this is house bill thirteen sixteen AM here with representative berry and add that this great piece of legislation I believe that really goes to support our law enforcement families and so what this bill does is it creates a law enforcement family relief check off program so this would be a check off program that would be voluntary that people could contribute to and obviously this we go for those families I'm particularly those that have lost a loved one in the line of duty I speak very personally this is a personal issue for me I had a dear friends that actually would come here to the capital and work with me on excellent legislation sergeant Mike Stephen two was killed in the line of duty and so for me this is just a personal personal piece of legislation I was privileged and honored for mark and colonel berry represented very to bring it to me to be has Senate sponsor I know that this is part of the back the blue caucus legislation and again you know when you've lost a friend in the line of duty it is one of probably the most difficult things I think to deal with I know that several of us have done that and have dealt with that in our districts that Mike was just such a close personal friend of mine who would help me all the time on issues and again helped bring great legislation to these halls of the capitol and came here and testified so um and just that experience working with him gives me the ability to I think advocate strongly for this piece of legislation and we'd be happy to answer any questions. Members of the questions. Seeing and. Mr if you will just wave at me. If the sales are coming up police. Thank you Mr Parker with the effect of this bill house bill thirteen sixteen we did issue a fiscal impact statement there is no revenue impact with this bill. Or other question Mr. Seeing none thank you thank you. Members was will the Committee. The motion to pass by Senator Rapert. The Secretary centering of second. Any discussion on the motion. All in favor say aye. Bose NO. Thank you it took a little bit more than sixty seconds but thank you members of the committee. And the German. Senator Teague. Are you renting house bill fifteen forty three. Our reservation representative all censure sitting there just well into your your site for she's much more a she's much moodier than I am yeah I'll agree. Do you remember we heard this last Wednesday I think and we were concerned if every Every piece of. We thought every partial listed and they have a they have amended this And the anyway I'll write you questions it just requires the ACT to provide support to the Legislative Council is slated to amendment was made and engrossed members are there questions. Seeing no questions. Motion to pass motion do pass Senator Teague second by Senator Johnson. Or the discussion on the motion saying none all in favor say aye opposed no congratulations center and members we or John.