Public Health, Welfare and Labor Committee- House

Session here in maxi web to meetings on Thursday. going forward after today all referred bills to the public health committee will go automatically to the agenda. So all bills that have been that are referred to us will automatically go to the agenda so all bills will be on the agenda bills that have been run one time will go to the bottom of the agenda. You can run that run those bills a second time. If you have bills that need to go to deferred or are withdrawn. Please let me know. Because we need to pair this agenda down if if we can to try to get everybody's bills through the committee. If you have an item on the agenda they can be moved to the consent agenda. Let me know text me talk to me what we're going to do is run some items on the consent agenda is first. How many depends on how many is on there and we're we're at on the agenda. But for it to be a consent item has take less than five minutes to run no known objections. And no outside out of state witnesses so if you have a bill falls in that category let me know we'll put on the consent agenda and you will move up in the list. Yes. You're recognized our. Push it yeah I got I think I'm on a house bill seventeen ninety four could be moved to the consent agenda. One minute seventeen ninety four. Well I won't do it today okay that's fine if we don't for Thursday okay. We may get to it today. All right. So we're going to start out with a concurrent management then we'll go to consent and then we'll go to regular agenda. So first item is H. B. Levin eighty eight. And who was going to run that. The representative Eubanks you're already there you're recognized. Push the button on the side there. That push it again. Thank you Mr chair members this is a bill that the representative makes brought the committee several weeks ago there was some questions on and and he agreed to amended on the Senate in which he did and I believe the amendment is in front of you it that bit the address is the definition of the products addressed and it also dealt with the criminal backgrounds. The yellow sheet on your table and got that. And I will try to answer any questions. Any questions from committee. Seeing none I make a motion to adopt in the concur in the Senate amendment I have a motion to concur on the Senate amendment any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay motion carries congratulations your amendment is concurred. Okay we're gonna move down to the consent. Agenda S. B. five oh five representative Johnson you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker I mean Mister Speaker in the house too long Mister chairman thank you and thank you a committee members house bill or Senate bill five oh five is a bill the support archetype battle against the opioid epidemic disability requires co prescribing of opioid antagonist under certain scenarios it would it would say that if the health care providers is prescribing more than fifty one female equivalence of opioid per day they would have to write a code prescription for an opioid antagonist at the same time additionally if they have a history of opiate abuse or misuse in the past they would have to ride for a prescription for opioid agonist or if the writing a prescription for a bins over there to be receiving a benzodiazepine which is another kind of sedating medicine and then they would require the healthcare provider to cope prescribed an opioid antagonist it does provide an outlet if it you know if there is still the freedom for the healthcare provider to say look I don't think it's appropriate for this patient to have an opioid antagonist in that scenario they would be required to document why they're not giving the opiate antagonist it says it it you know it provides also for the pharmacy and the medical board work together to put some rules out and and to let the providers know that this is going to be coming down the pipeline it's a good tool in the toolbox of fighting is hereby prohibited making with the best things we have is preventing opioid deaths is the opioid antagonise lag like nor can we provide these patients is a is a bill that special save lives good bill and I'd be happy to answer questions also today have Director lane with this if anybody has any questions be happy to come to the table and answer those well. Right thank you representative representative Wardlaw you're recognized. Prop. I right any questions from committee. Seeing none anyone here to speak against the. The Bill. Anyone here to speak for the bill. Seeing none you a close for your bill yes Mr chan because the bill thank you represent Wardlaw you're recognized. I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. As I have a motion the Bill pass is a graduate share percent. Okay we'll go back to the top of the agenda the regular agenda. We're going to pass over H. B. seventeen fifty nine and H. B. seventeen sixty. H. B. seventeen sixty four is being moved to deferred. So we're down to HB eleven ninety two representative gray you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr chair and I do have an amendment on this one. Okay the amendments coming around to give members a few missile again. This amendment essentially strikes this Legislative intent in the bill that's all it does. Any questions from committee. Representative Ferguson you're recognized. Which the side button. Is pushing them. Hi I guess I'm just trying to understand it just taking out this section for intent doesn't seem to really changed the bill significantly I was told that there was some issue with the intent and so I'm just taking the tent out because it does not change the bill. Yeah but I mean that it didn't really change the purpose of the bill then. DO not really changes the argument a little bit okay. Any other questions. Yep motion a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay moshing carries your amendment has been adopted you're recognized run your bill as amended thank you Mr chair and we had started down this path it is the third time we start down this path but so essentially all I'm doing is striking language that gives an exclusion from the definition of employment within the workforce services law If this secretary of health care believes that they are following state and federal law as is which has been stated multiple times then I don't see an exclusion to grant them any extra Essentially access I think it's a pleasantly of a workers bill workers rights bill so what what we've got to the table where where I'm at and where I to what I don't think it's fair and I ran this originally last session for a constituent who called me the first time I heard about it. The one to be reimbursed for mileage for going out to a patient's home and was told that she couldn't get reimbursed for mileage because she was a ten ninety nine employee she didn't understand the difference what was going on and so we've got some operators across the state to essentially pay their employees is ten ninety nine they can pay rates a little bit higher than those that pay their employees is W. Tate but then they don't get reimbursed for mileage or a lot of other expenses they also don't have. The the option to have insurance workers comp paid on their behalf or any other benefits and so what my intent last session was and I have I left my I had the legislative intent last session we made it through the house with it and it did not make it through the Senate I didn't believe that these workers fit the definition of independent contractor. They say they do and some say well if you say they meet the definition of independent contractor that you don't need exemption from all that's all I'm saying now this point of taking out the legislative intent if they meet the definition of independent contractor you don't need an exemption. That's literally what this bill does. Any questions from committee. Seeing none we do have two people signed up to speak against the bill. Lawrence Williams if you would go to the table and introduce yourself and who you represent. That push the button on the side a little button there now and then push your Mike button. The nature but on top no the. Thank you. Please enter the airman Committee members my name is Lawrence Williams thank you for allowing me to speak in opposition to house bill eleven ninety two. to represent small businesses and the clients we serve. The issue before us is the ability to provide quality and affordable care to our clients in need. My wife Victoria Williams is the owner and founder of pentacle in home care she's a registered nurse and she is built our business around choices and understanding the value of the client and care giver relationship within our industry because of that we've won best of the best in Northwest Arkansas in in home care agency for the last two years we are not a staffing agency the care giver has a choice whether to work for a company like ours or home care staffing agency that tells them where to go and when to go the number one question we received from clients is how many care givers will be coming into my home. We share responsibility with the clients in the care givers in our community for choice and how they're cared for. Our clients want to age in place they want to be at home they don't want to go to a nursing home if they'll this bill passes they lose that choice. What if one of your parents or loved one needed assistance throughout the day well you and your spouse where work your kids were an extracurricular activities in the afternoon. And you needed a care giver for them what would you want that to look like would you want one care for care giver in the home or do what multiple people in their home. Even if you have an eight in the morning to six o'clock at night so they can get up in the morning get their breakfast get their lights have helped throughout the day getting ready for bed that night if you do that Monday through Friday that's fifty hours a week. If we lose this exemption that all said we automatically have to put in care to care givers in the home that's not what the client wants the client wants somebody in their home that they have a relationship with. We're still in a COVID crisis there is still a care giver shortage our industry cannot compete with hospitals nursing homes assisted livings and re halves with larger budgets the care givers are in high demand industry care givers want the flexibility that we offer as independent contractors so they can pick the schedule that works best for them and their families. Without the exemption we're at the mercy of the political climate we cannot see into the future. The exemption protects our business not only today but in the future. This is not the time to be hurting small businesses we're all trying to recover from the impact of the COVID crisis and I encourage everyone to vote against house bill eleven ninety two. One of the points she brought up is mileage is not reimbursed to ten ninety nine. How many people that go to an office to go to work get reimbursed for their mileage. Most of our clients and caregivers living in close proximity to each other we match them up they're going to work just like anybody else would go to work if you have an office at the bank you drive to the bank where the you live in the next town or you live down the street you don't get reimbursed for that mileage that's not something that's done in every industry whether it's home health home care or anyone that's not a good example again we've been to workforce services audits had three of them so far in the last few months and every single time they have looked at our model and said you treat them as independent contractors now it's not the time to be hurting small businesses we're all trying to recover from what's going on for the last year again I'm for you to vote against house bill eleven ninety two thank you. Committee any questions. Seeing none thank you for your comments. to speak against the bill. Sonya bowling please come to the table and this yourself and who you represent. Hi I'm Sonya bowling with all care home care out of Johns for Arkansas we are also a small business working with the same business model I'm not gonna get appear and not tell you all the same points that he's pointed out what I am gonna say though is that representative gray and myself we're not on the same page but we have the same goal and our goal is to help the people that we work for so I admire her for sticking to her guns and bringing this up time and time again to help the people that she feels like she's working for that's what I'm here for that's what I do what I'm gonna say is don't punish a business model that has worked for years. up because of one constituent that didn't go to the right agency there agencies like myself there agencies like this one that do the right thing and all they had to do was go to the right one so the next time you have a constituent that has an issue please send them to me I can assure you that they will be treated with the utmost respect and I will understand the difference between contractor and employee and that's all they have to do is try another agency because it's like what he said you can go to any industry and you're gonna get a bad apple you always have bad apples in every industry so what I would like to do is work with this committee work with miss gray and try to come up with a plan that's going to fix this issue so that she can feel good that she's helped her constituents and that we can still work is a good business model. There are bad players and that's what we need to discover is who those bad players are how can we best fix them how can we best. Make this right for our clients for care givers and for our constituents that's what we want to do and I believe that if we put our heads together we can come up with a better solution than cutting out a business model that's been in place for years and limiting people's rights. Thank you. Any questions from committee representative Gonzalez you're recognized for a question they Mr chairman so do you believe that that your business model meets the federal guidelines for contract. Labor for and been contractors yes I do okay so I'm the one. Who asked about having the DO not qualify legislative intent language removed because it did make it. Where we were saying you know the legislature was saying that these are employees of the business but by removing that and just striking the exemption if you still meet the federal definition of independent contractor how does this really affect what you do it's going to it will then puts the burden of proof on the department of labor okay they already come in and do the audits on on people that have had constituents the have complained and I I'm not above that I've had those that have complained but we have the things that are in place that show we've done the right things we treat people right you're not going to make everybody happy all day every day somebody's always going to be upset and think they can get one and if you remove that out of that bill then that puts the burden of proof on the department of labor. Any other questions from committee. Seeing none thank you for your comments. is there anyone else here to speak for the bill. Against the bill. Representative Payton. For for services here can we bring to the table for a question you've got a question one of the. If you come up and introduce yourself in the represent. Jim Dotson department commerce adopted children under the weather today so I'm subbing for but I feel the question. Okay representative paid you're recognized thank you Mr chair and this is kind of a two fold question. Looking for the I'm in the same answer answer both sides of it but no words. If state law differs from federal definition of of what would be a contract employee do we have examples of that anywhere else we're we're. We have state law that conflicts with federal definition and so Arkansas department workforce services does not honor the the ten ninety nine but the federal government does. It will on this particular one what we're talking about is the definition point and completely for purposes of unemployment insurance and they're a lot of definitions of the R. issues for different programs withholding would be one example but for engine for unemployment insurance there's a specific state statute that we have in place now it says they are they are not to be considered or scratches and they are to be considered. Not because our employee what that did was just reverse a finding that the unemployment the division had made a couple years before and what this does I believe it's just restore previous law that's my understanding of it. I guess I need to follow the fine figure I'd ask if you're recognized. So by changing this are those employees going to definitely be employees and no longer be eligible to be ten ninety nine self employed no that's not my understanding of the legislation is is that each employee what to demonstrate like each committee Mr on their own whether or not that employee makes the quote common law test of whether not the twenty factors the IRS sets out for weather out there an employee so there's no specific categorical exemption anymore it's all facts and circumstances based upon individual cases okay thank you thank you Mr. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question that I have a question because I was the one who passed this law in twenty thirteen along with senator ingrown because there was some discrepancy in the law and. I my question is if we get rid of this what we go back to that very gray area for these employers where. It's and it's no longer a definitive that they can hire these people as contract labor. Well it will certainly be greater than what it is presently but I think any time that we have new legislation that gets passed there may be a period of transition where there is little bit of confusion but then you do that in the end up developing a body of law in employers begin to understand the what the guidelines are in the adapter that such things review for season transition I think we end up working through it. Well I mean at when we passed the law of the because there was some confusion we had some personal care people that we're hiring people as contract labor and because of that the because of the discrepancy between the agencies the IRS was going to come back and make them pay millions of dollars in back taxes I mean I could see that happening again at this passes do you not think that's possible with the IRS all things are possible so I hate to speculate on that too much. Any other questions from committee. Can I ask a question. All right seeing none. Representative gray you're recognized thank you know it's kind of odd but just a quick question for you last session it seems like I remember Austin representive McCollum passed a bill that essentially now state law that the twenty ten at twenty criteria test now mimics premieres the federal state the federal guidelines do not know the questions for me it again on the ticker built it yes is neutral on that we you know we can we can live with the bill and we can live with current law as well. All right seeing no further questions. Thank you for your comments thank you Sir. All right of saying no one here to speak for against the bill you very close yes thank you Mr chair and so I thought I remember those odds of trying to see if he could remember that thought we passed the bill Austin McCollum last session where he took the federal contractor statute essentially mirrored it for state law so that they would both match and and. It's a lot more I won't couple things here I know that to Lawrence Mr Williams said that they're not a staffing agency in a operation that they're not a staffing agency awaited for dealing with people's health here I would render to say if they're not a staffing agency and these are truly independent contractors and they should be registered with the state of Arkansas the Medicaid programs Medicaid providers I think that's a great area that if they are to remain as independent contractors that they should be essentially licensed through the state of Arkansas and you know and for them to say that the industry can't compete and to use COVID as a kind of a cop out for this the industry does compete on a daily basis a majority of these companies in Arkansas pay their employees as W. two employees they have all the full benefits that a that an employee has you know I've heard what we're gonna go out of business for this or that nobody else in the state has that's how the majority of the operators in the state work is their diabetes. I'm not and I guess I'll leave it with that you know mileage to to patients homes they may go to two or three homes in the day what happens in Jonesborough and I'd love to see in my constituency Jones were but a live almost two hours away so I can't send them to her agency right but multiple homes and I live in a rural county where it's you know forty miles to a home and back and you're going to three different homes that you're not get reimbursed for mileage yeah you're getting paid a little bit more but you're not getting thing up. You're not getting treated as a as a regular employee with all the benefits with that said all I'm saying is I just get ready exemption they all say they're following federal and state guidelines for independent contractors and I'm saying if you're following that then you don't need an exemption it's simple as that so with that I'd appreciate a good vote. I guess I make a motion of do pass as amended. All right. the motion on the floor is do pass as amended any discussion on the motion. Representive Eubanks did you have a discussion. Thanks. You're recognized. I should ask the question before she got the closing but these individuals have a choice as to whether to work as. Whether to go to work for one of these companies so that are that and I guess. Well I. That speak to the motion but I guess I need more information so I know a colleague suggested to Department labor might be the best people to ask these questions to an eye with the eyes I don't suppose that they were here because they didn't come up to the table so I guess because I need to feel like I need more information I'll I'll have to vote no. Any other discussion. Representative Ferguson you're recognized I mean obviously I'm vested in this since I passed the original bill to clear up the confusion I mean the only reason you should vote for this bill is if you want to get rid of contract labour and I think it's important for these personal care agencies particularly if they want to just hire people to work on the weekend you're gonna significantly reduce the number of personal care people in this state if you pass this and create this confusion where they have to go back to pay and Debbie to split. Any other discussion representative Payton you're recognized. Thank you Mr the best I can remember I've oppose this bill to pass because I really support the idea of contract labour in and I think it's kind of a first step Dr partnership but. The bottom line is there's loads of contract labour in the state Arkansas that does not enjoy an exemption spelled out in Arkansas Code you know I've got businesses we have some contract labor that we have to meet the guidelines and I it's not like what this bill does in its current form. Outlaws contract labor so you've won me over I will vote for this time thank you thank you Mr chair. Any other discussion. Seeing none motion on the floor is do pass as amended all in favor signify by saying aye All opposed nay. Say the line seven. A roll call. Sir to the. Representative Wardlaw. Representive Wardlaw. Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubanks. No. Representative Mickey. Yes NO sorry. Representative Dotson yes yes. Representative Miller. Representative Miller. Representative Payton. Representative Bentley. The representative Bentley. Representive gray. Representative Gonzales yes. Representative Boyd yes. Representive Allen. Representative Alan. Representive Coleman of. Representative Pilkington. Representive Pilkington. Representative when yes. Representative Penzo. Representative Penzo. Representative Perry. Yes no no. Davis. What was yes yes okay. Representive clown yes. Vice chair Ferguson. Yes no. Okay. President of light even. One two three four six. Representative gray your bill is fail. All right we'll move on to. Looks like representation Pilkington is not here H. B. fourteen forty. The ones who run that bill I don't think so we'll pass over that. Representative Miller is not here. He will be back okay. read the H. B. sixteen eighty one is being moved to deferred. H. B. fifteen forty seven representative Lundstrum is in another committee she said she would be here later. Representative McCollum has asked me to pass over H. B. sixteen seventy six. A representative will consent is still not here HB twelve sixty three. H. B. eighteen thirty five representative Payton you're waiting on Amendment. Six correct. Is it here okay. We're going. Okay give members just a few minutes look at the amendment. The pain you're recognized to present your amendment thank you Mr chair and I really wish we had a lot of the code surrounding this paragraph for people to look at but I'll I'll tell you exactly what is doing there's no known opposition by the way. So anyway a contractor that does work. Has the means by which they can put a lien on that work if they're not paid and that's the statute we're dealing with so in order for them to have the the ability to put the lean on they have to you get a disclosure document on the front end. They inform the customer that if he doesn't pay they can put a lien on it and the customer has to sign that document and I'm not changing any of that with this bill except for the way the law is currently written it includes this paragraph that says if you don't get the lien notice signed on the front end not only can you not attach the lien but eliminates your right to any other remedies under law so they don't pay it you didn't get assigned you can't even sue in good judgment for the fact that they didn't pay you so what we're trying to do is we're trying to preserve the other remedies and not change the fact that if you're going to do the contractors lien you still have to provide notice on the front end you still have to get it signed on the front in. But if you don't do that and you've just done a an agreement and you fix somebody's house or whatever had a contract maybe has a verbal contract and then they didn't pay you could still go to court to improve that they didn't pay it and get a judgment okay and this paragraph eliminates that right of the contractor to do that so originally the Bill. Struck the whole paragraph this amendment is preserving enough of the paragraph to ensure. That were not messing with the. Lane that that I'm talking about that the contractor can place by striking the whole paragraph there were some concerns that we might. insinuates. The that the contractors lien goes away and so we're preserving that but we're clarifying in that last sentence. Well the licenses what clarifies that we're not doing away with contractors mean forward striking the part that says you're barred from bringing an action either at law or in equity because I mean you can't just. Take away all their ability to prove that you alone for the job so with that move that we adopt the amendment and then we can move to questions. Okay any questions. On the motion. Okay most on the floors to adopt the amendment all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay Motian carries your members pass you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you and the amendment is the bill now so that's what we're doing is we're trying to. Clarify that if you don't get the notice done you still can't. Attach the contractors lane but you still have other remedies in the law that you can pursue. Representan Allen you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chairman and and thank you represent paying I have the be a contractor and many contractors out there Don't feel give a calling sign on the front end and they go out and they provide to work most of most small businesses when they provide the work. If they don't have a remedy to collect the money and they don't know about this on the front end. Many of those contractors are going to go bank wrote in going out of business and who have no way of feeding their families and if you look at the supplier site that supplies the supply room under. If they don't get this sign in front of me. Many of those businesses. Will lose thousands and thousands of dollars because they didn't get a sign on the front end so while armed support what you trying to do. But I think this bill really has some unintended consequences for people that's not aware of what you're trying to do with this bill for example the following here today I would I would know a thing about it and when laws like this a changed it makes it very difficult for people to do work in the community sometimes people will not sign a lean waiver because they do work for may we're offering in our family member and they don't get that sign on the front in the they don't have they don't have any recourse so armor what you're trying to do but it's it's going to make it very challenging but some of us to do business very talented actually I think we're on the same page I may have misspoke or misrepresented in some way that confused you. It's already law about the disclosure the signature and all that on the front end. What people don't know right now about the law is that if they don't get that done on the front and they lose all their remedies so that what you're talking about not being able to get paid and going out of business and and going broke not being able to pay your suppliers that's what we're trying to remedy here so what happened was a contractor who done work and the customer just said I'm not going to pay a. He didn't have it signed on the front end and he went to an attorney that happens to be my attorney and he said I want to soon because they owe me for this work my attorney went to the law and said you can't fool. You have no remedy because this paragraph that's in the law says if you didn't get that sign on the front end at which means if they refused to sign it then you have no remedy and so what we're trying to do is we're trying to take out that portion of code that takes away all your remedies it we're not messing with the lean and the disclosure on the front end we're just saying that if somebody owes you you can still Sullivan prove that they owe you and get that have the time on the framing it right is that what you will do yes okay well we're on the same page yes Sir I think so but we thank you all for I'm sorry most terms are represent pay now and we this is been under the contractors board and some lawyers okay so they on board with yes okay representative Coleman you're recognized for a question. Thank you. A little bit left brain Amish of decision may not availing mischief of the benefits of the of the lien and provided in this section. So that's what I'm saying I wish they'd included more code so this section a code is dealing with the contractors lane that they can automatically attached if they have the disclosure and the customer signed it. So when you automatically attacks that lane and as a contractor you say they didn't pay me it kind of puts the burden of proof over on the customer to prove that they don't know your or that they did pay you. That's this section a coat what we're saying is just because you didn't. Do what was necessary to avail yourself of that advantage. Doesn't mean that you don't you lose all of your other remedies so if you did not get the notice signed then you can not take advantage of this section a code which gives you the automatic clean but. You still have other means of pursuing a judgment. We're trying to preserve that. You're recognized for follow up medicine so you can show you is it. Your Avenue would be to go to court and and follow different rather than just file a construction lien on it this takes away if you don't get it signed up front this takes away the construction lane but it doesn't take away the other. Shall elections are current code takes away the construction lane if you did not get the signed up front I'm not changing that if you do not get signed up front you do not have the right to do the construction lien under current code but it also current code also takes away your right to go to court and so on and I'm trying to get that back in there to where you do have the right to go to court and sue for judgment. Okay thank you. And any other questions. Seeing none anyone here to speak against the bill for the bill. Seeing none ready clothes for your bill from close down moved to pass thank you have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none of. As amended thank you as amended by S. S. as amended. Any discussion on the motion saying none all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. Motion carries resolution bills passed. Okay. Representative gray has asked that we pass over HB sixteen eighty five. And eighty six. Until Thursday. Representative Grady is she here. No. Okay we'll pass over HB seventeen ninety nine. We're down to H. B. seventeen ninety four representative on are you ready to present your bill. You're recognized. Members H. B. seventeen ninety four. Thank you Mr chair so there's no opposition to this bill that we know of and earned so. Since I before I was elected I've always thought it would be a great idea for us to start kids in the pathway in which they want to go. We know that we have a nursing shortage in our state so we thought we'd give it a great idea to start those kids in the ninth grade headed down that pathway to get their CNA and it's being done in Missouri and Kentucky right now I want to say there's another state but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head but this will just get all the players to the table so we can figure out if this is something that Arkansas can do and do feasibly to help our students get in the direction that they want to go so that's what the bill does. And you have emergency clause yes Sir we do have an emergency clause I'm sorry about that. All right any questions representative Allen you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman of represent vault will this bill help eliminate eliminate nurses shortest we hope that it will so we know that we're gonna have to have a course that will help students realize that they want to go into that field we know that will be a prerequisite and we hope that we'll get more people that want to go into that field they'll find interest in it and that it will help us essentially get a help or nursing shortage thank you. Any other questions. Seeing none. On the. Said. Okay have have no one signed up to speak on the bill is there anyone here who would like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Seeing none. Representative Wardlaw you're recognized. I'd like a motion motion do pass and discussion at your discretion Mr. I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none the motion on floors do pass. As far. I'll let you discuss if you want to I just want to. I just want to expect expressed support nurses shortages real across the state and its became worse because insurance companies have hired up a lot of nurses Medicaid sired up a lot of nurses with case management and trying to guide the guide. Patients to the right centers to keep my eye out of the R. and I just want to do anything we can do is legislators to help with the storage and make sure the people of Arkansas have a chance for good quality jobs in nurses is one of those places that is a good high paying quality jobs so anything I can do is state representative I want to do it to help the shortage. Any other discussion. Seeing none the motion is do pass all in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay moshing carries can chairman thank you maybe. K. A. T. H. B. seventeen ninety six representative Wardlaw. That's because ours billion appoint. Members is HB seventeen ninety six. Thank you Mr real simple bill just moved removed or permanent throughout the code and adds in regardless of the date of the conviction on the date on which the permit probation our incarceration ends in less waiver is granted under subsection so what that does allows all the boards and commissions have discretion and we'll look at those convictions. It goes back to the bill representative Alan ran this is in my opinion no more friendlier way to look at it it doesn't just give them that exception to get the license that lets the boards and commissions look at those convictions and make sure those people are are doing right and going forward in the right direction so with that I'd. We should devote answer any questions. Any questions from committee. Representative Ferguson you're recognized I like the concept but will every well every board then have to write rules to comply with this saying what they will accept is exceptions. I don't I don't think the doctor right rules acts I ask representative Cozart that a few minutes ago and he thought the language was pretty explicit in the way it's written here so he's he thinks that they'll just be able to follow those guidelines and we'll make those decisions as a board or commission. Allen did you have a question yes thank you Mr chairman you're recognized representative Cozart and I talked about this in his bill kind of parallels with one idea yesterday so is really two separate bills so We did have a discussion on. Any other questions. C.. Does anyone here to speak. Against the bill that I is that already. For the bill so I get distracted there anywhere speak for the bill saying that you're a close your bill I'm because I make a motion to pass I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all in favor signify by saying aye All opposed nay moshing carries your bill is passed. Okay next item on the agenda is HB eighteen hundred representative Lowery. Who is not in the room. Next item is HB seventeen fifty seven representative Penzo. Who is not in the room. When I have. Yeah. Yes representative Lundstrum. Okay committee members go back up the agenda The H. B. fifteen forty seven representative Lundstrum bill. Representative Lundstrum are you ready or did you need a little more time. Okay. You're recognized. Thank you colleagues and thank you for your patience in waiting on me. COVID nineteen is no secret to any of us we've all lived through this together we've all lived through this Petri dish of an experiment together. This bill simply asked that we not make the vaccine mandatory once the FDA approves this vaccine and gives us a straight vaccine that we can all go out and take and we know exactly which one that will be. At that time it would be FDA plus two years while it's under an emergency route use it would not be mandatory and then once it's FDA approved plus two years then it would be mandatory I want to state clearly up front I think vaccines of something that has saved more lives than probably any other drugs besides antibiotics I think it's and clearly incumbent upon us to take advantage of those vaccines sadly though I think with this process we have pushed and pushed and pushed our scientists to the limit and they have rushed and had to do so much we need to be thankful that they've done as much as they have but once you put something into millions of arms you'll find out what the problems are and I think if we mandate this vaccine will have a push back from the American people and they won't want to use it and this is something that's going to save lives the more people that take it the better but mandating it will be a problem I can argue both sides of this issue and believe me I have we've made a lot of compromises on this bill so that would be acceptable to a lot of different groups including adding incentives into the bill and with that I would take any questions. Any questions from committee representative Payton you're recognized for a question thank you Mr so in the absence of this bill becoming law. Can they mandated by rule or how would be mandated it would be mandated simply by us requiring it for employment. With that take a bill or law to pass or would that be by rule and some events in Dubai and Floyer is requiring it and this will say no you cannot require it for employment okay thank you thank you Mr president of Wardlaw you're recognized for a question thank you Mr so if I remember right and I'm trying to get it pulled up but it's internet slow. Your amendment basically says that if you require for employment and that person don't take it they go to unemployment without any questions asked is that correct yes we alter the bill significantly because originally we had it all much more stringent and that was probably an oversight an over reach on my part and I've listened to some very wise counsel and pull that back this actually has a divorce decree already and it for the employer and the employee basically if they can't come to a compromise that allows that employee to leave excuse me the employee to leave. Follow and apply for unemployment I'm sorry yeah you're recognized for fall so so it allows them to file for unemployment. We'll I mean everybody knows here that I'm in medical equipment business and delivered to people's houses. And I didn't have any employees that did not take the vaccine just for full disclosure but. The point was is that if we're going into your house we have to know we're not transmitting we have to know that I'm not we're not liable for. For that death sentence our our potential death sentence put it that way. But what you're saying here is that if if the those if any of those people did what it did not it they would went straight on employment one of my missions a legislators always been for jobs not to send people to unemployment so I guess I'm I've got a real problem with senator Martha MacLeish on employment. Well but I would bill I would argue that it's also your business and you can decide but also that's their body and they also have an opportunity not to put an experimental it's not approved yet and it's been rushed and we need to let. The process catch up and I think at some point very shortly we're going to have an amazing vaccine that everybody's going to want to take it's not. My mother's taken at my father in law but they're both in their eighties And I think time and science are going to catch up and we're gonna have something that people are going to be standing in line as they already have but we're starting to see a drop off because people are either I'm sure they want to take it or if we they push people to mandate it you're gonna have a backlash Americans get their back up they're not going to want to take something they don't want to be mandated start to seep states come up with faxing passports I think that's a huge mistake I think a little bit of time and this is going to be something that we're gonna be pretty proud of I already am it's pretty fascinating. President Ferguson recognized for a question. I think you know what I'll ask because I've talked to privately but I guess I'm just trying to understand why this bill is necessary because there's already a federal law that says you cannot mandate an emergency use authorization back saying you're only mandated back saying that has been fully approved by the FDA and then under Arkansas law you cannot mandate for philosophical religious or of medical reasons so why do we need this bill okay that's a fair question first of all you're exactly exactly correct and the emergency rule and that's not in this bill. When we were made that was my oversight on my part. So that's been removed You can have the religious exemption. The problem is you're gonna have people come up and say representive third Ferguson take it or walk. Do you want to say well I have a religious exemption even though maybe it's not a religious exemption. So I'm basically asking people to lie. Well of a philosophical but it's there's three exemptions in Arkansas there are religious bills off the land medical ID so does your bill just cover after it's got FDA approval after it's got FDA approval plus two years and when I asked Dr Romero he's been a great he's not endorsing the bill anyway shall perform on a Speaker correctly there but I ask him to review the bill and he made some great suggestions and help me make some corrections and when I ask about the sunset because my sense that was an over reach he said I would have done FDA plus one year instead of fifty eight plus two I did not realize how close we were just let the science and people come together when you mandate something put a hard and fast stamp on it. People are not going to want to take something that you push. Resented Allen you're recognized for a question thank you Mr chairman. Just for the record every time we introduce a bill that's a mandate every time a bill is passed that's a mandate that we pass mandates off time but I I have a couple questions you mentioned that the vaccine was on the climb according to my information and and faxes that there's a there's a average of four million people A day for many people a month four million people a day this can vaccine so there is also an increase not of the client. It's been increase not of the client four million miles of me four million is an increase not the client of a first come first point in the second point was that if a person refuses to get the vaccine I don't know if that person qualify for unemployment. What if I could make to two things yes there are people that want to take the vaccine but we also have vaccines that are going to waste which I think it's a shame you have call lists at the end of the day were pharmacist will call people we have that people that didn't show up for their appointments and you have people that don't want to take it because they're uncomfortable with it they don't they feel uncomfortable at work because they feel like they're under pressure to take a vaccine that they're not comfortable with yet they want to wait the B. they want to have children what started this whole process and started this whole bill we're nurses that came to me and called and said we're being told we're going to have to take this vaccine next week on Wednesday morning at this time or we don't get our COVID bonus and I was shocked by that and then I started getting another phone call another phone call another phone call and I did what all of you do the first phone call you're kinda odd this that's something you're not. Thinking could actually happen then another one comes in another one comes and and these are nurses that are under thirty that want to have children and people that are showing up to work and took care of COVID patients so and and wanted to take a vaccine but wanted to wait so I I do agree there are people that want to take the vaccine but they're also people that don't and then the second part of your question was dealing with unemployment unemployment And I forgot I don't think you can go draw unemployment because she refused to go back soon. I don't think you can. All this will give them that option well. It gives them that option so if. So if you refuse to go to work. And you have a job and they require you to do that they're not going to give them a plot. There's no way they're gonna give represented Alan yes if you're an employer and you cannot provide adequate employment for an employee within their limitations. And you approve the unemployment and they can draw. For somebody if more for surveillance that questions from where you want to come forward that can answer that question. You can tell me whether I'm right or wrong and then. Please introduce yourself any representative jim that's an apartment commerce once again for the benefit of the committee I'm seven for Dr Childress today so you're you're getting the a second string on this so your codifying in the bill a specific provision that would grant good calls to a claimant to be able to receive unemployment benefits you we all get to make the rules on employment and so if the bill passes in front of circumstances that are numerator in the bill somebody has a good faith belief that would preclude them from receiving the vaccine they end up separating employment and they go in the file a claim then you know alternative yes would pay that claim if the bill passes under current law we would not we would not prove that all. This is this bill of encouraging people to draw unemployment with this encourage people to go draw unemployment isn't working. And you know we always talk about people working in and not drawing unemployment and not being Productive citizens so tell me what what are we doing here I just wanna know because seventy nine cents yeah would you again not not our bill so I think as I look at it the circumstances are fairly narrowly drawn up on all that would encourage I think it be about just somebody doesn't want to get the vaccine but again the position of the administration is you know we believe in the vaccine we believe employers all bill make their decisions about who gets vaccinated who they encourage in the work force to receive access. Thank you. Representative boy you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr chair representative Lundstrum mob Paula doesn't miss the beginning or test of money our presentation so clarify me this prevents a business for mandating the vaccine once it's FDA approved once it's FDA approved plus two years after that they could mandated because by then they will have had time for the FDA and everyone to get any of the Kinks worked out with the vaccine once we put it in this many arms were all in this Petri dish together will know what the king sir will know what the process are will be we'll know what the problems are with the vaccine and it'll have time to work out those problems. That's that's all I'm saying we'll know what the problems are. Vaught followup Mr chair just one quick follow up yes you have follow up and just to clarify it's only for covert vaccine only for Kobe vaccine we need vaccines I am not anti vaccine at all I'm saying we're putting this vaccine into millions of arms will find out what the problems are we'll be able to work out those Kinks and move on this is going to become a normal part of life within a few years will be like the flu shot but until then. Let's not make it mandatory. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question. Well you made me think of something in this situation you talked about where the nurses did not want to take the vaccine. But they would not get their bonus. That doesn't seem like a mandate that seems like an incentive would they be eligible for unemployment if they didn't take it and didn't get the incentive but didn't get fired. They were told. Today you do not get your bonus into your bonus someone told you don't get your insurance. Some were told you don't get to keep your job we kept the incentives in here because businesses need to keep those incentives businesses want to offer incentives to encourage the vaccine right just like representive Wardlaw was saying he's got people that he needs to send into homes he needs he needs is for his business so we kept that in here are we added in yeah I I guess I'm just thinking that the bonus would be and more of an incentive than a mandate but. And if you've been working on your with COVID patients as a pretty healthy bonus to walk away from or to be told. You have to have this you know your arm behind your back that's a pretty scary thing to have to look at some of them chose to do it some chose not to and they went and looked for other employment which is kind of sad. Okay any other questions from committee representative Payton you're recognized thank you Mr so. I'm I've always been in the camp that says the proof's in the pudding and I appreciate the fact that this has a pause to make sure that. Bill it's proven over the next couple of years but after that time frame and after approval does this bill actually revert to a mandate now this comes off and also the reason for two years as a legislature will be back in session if we see that everything's going great we can come back and say everything's going great let's pull this back I I think my first reaction was overshoot it and I am glad that we've held off running this bill to to pull it back and I'm glad I listened to some wise counsel and made some changes in the bill I think sometimes it's good to slow down and and listen to others thank you thank you Mr. A any any other questions. Seeing none we do have two people signed up to speak against the bill. Mike Moore if you would go to the table and it is yourself and who you represent. Thank you Mr chair Mike Moore I'm here on behalf of the. I'm an attorney here in Little Rock on behalf of the state chamber and and I have most times workers representative Lundstrum very closely over here and this time we're we're not on the same side and and and she did consult with me from the original bill and we talked about this amendment and. While all this is much better than the first one there still some significant problems first of all this is this doesn't have anything to do with the mandated vaccine. This has to do with the mandate to employers that they can't require their employees to take the vaccine. Last day be at risk for pay and unemployment for all those people. The there there are a number of problems with that not to mention not the least of which is every public health official. Is telling everybody get vaccinated the whole at every every arm of government is is trying to get people to get vaccinated and now. What this does is tell an employer you can't tell an employee with the conditions of their employment or employers get to set health health standards safety standards work rules standards for all of their employees but this bill says if you do that we're gonna carve out one unemployment X. exemption there say it say I don't want to take the vaccine then they get unemployment. They have the ability every employee has the ability not every employee every employee for an employer of nine or more has the ability to say I have a sincerely held religious belief against exemption or I have a disability from getting a vaccination. That would be for example somebody with a proven peanut allergy would be would be exempt from getting I believe the maternal vaccination because it's been shown to have an adverse reaction with people with those allergies they could then say I don't have to do in the employer then can't make them. Where it brings us is where I can as an employer require my employees to get vaccinated when within the next thirty to forty five days OSHA is going to require me to do that. The federal occupational safety and health administration has already. M. M. enacted rules and guidance promoting that the centers for disease control promote that. The governors the executive order immunity for employers requires employers to follow the CDC guidelines. This bill would prohibit employers from following those very CDC guidelines which say vaccinate your employees. The really really strange thing about this is that recently the Arkansas court of appeals decided that there was a number of a woman that work for a car dealership that was entitled to unemployment. She quit her employment because she said that her employer was not taking COVID proper cautioned was not required mass was not required social distancing and so she quit and the court of appeals said that was good call for quitting because her employer was not did not prove that they were following CDC guidelines. So we're sitting in a position where this bill passes then we've got a group of employees are going to say I don't want to get vaccinated I quit. And they get their unemployment or the employer does not require vaccination and we've got a group of employees who say you're not required vaccination that's against CDC recommendations I quit and then they get unemployment. I'm not sure that's that's the the the the path we want to go down as far as. Getting completely in the middle of an employer's business all answering questions I have a whole bunch of questions about your presentation I don't know we'll record member mall. You say that you will be fined by OSHA you don't require your employees to wear a mask to get it back Singh not right now there is guidance promoting vaccination the should that that. Everything I read is that they are going to. A situation where in order to to comply with the general duty clause of OSHA an employer has to route requirement but. Eking is someone that's paid in the ocean fine that's guidance that's not it is now thank god I don't want to misrepresent that but right now I don't see that but I promise you that that will be more than guidance long before this bill would would go out of affect will you get your own opinion but another question the person that would not take the vaccine because of a religious belief can that person draw unemployment. The. I think so thanks to so these other easier exemptions if the employer could not if the employer could not accommodate that. There there are there are all sorts of permutations of this of this fact scenario playing out I think it's going to be so we're going to be in a position where if we're not requiring vaccinations. That I'm going to have a group of employees that are gonna say I'm not going to come to work if you don't if you don't have a vaccinated work force and I want to work from home what I see most employers want to do is get their employees back to work because it's just better not working remotely. But theoretically if an employee is terminated because they could not get their religious. accommodation may they could be entitled unemployment. So we and I think was in another committee but we had a an employer who had a number of businesses in Arkansas and quite a lot of people he was a witness I don't remember what bill but but he was asked the question about he said he would require all as employees to be vaccinated someone asking the question what what what your employees think about that what if they don't want to be vaccinated and his answer was well then go work somewhere else. True so that person is just out the not with the unemployment rate we have right now will always somebody else ask questions any other questions. Seeing the market basket this section of. No I I really have a problem with the way you're presenting this I really do because I believe there's a lot of people out there that are just afraid of this vaccine because this new they've heard all kinds of stories about it they just simply don't want take the vaccine but they don't wanna lose their job now it as it's been said I'm sure there will be people that take advantage of that and maybe get unemployment because they don't want to work there's always a percentage to do that But don't you believe that a person I mean. What is wrong with adding a fourth exemption that we already have three of forty that was mentioned earlier that you could get unemployment for of religious reasons or whatever so another exemption that says you don't have to take the vaccine so you're exempt you can get not upon what's wrong with that in that. Well. Because it is based upon a subjective. Fear not supported by science not supported by religion not supported by medicine but the others actually to exemptions the religious exemption and the disability exemption are supported by religion or four sides from a doctor where I have an employee who says I need to be exempt because I have a disability that I say is an employer will then we need to hear from your doctor what that is. Okay and that's how we analyze that the with the the problem we're having now is we're telling an employer you can't do this well unless you want to get penalized. And and the flip side of it is is that they're getting penalized if they don't do it they're not it if an employer does not require Does not mandate vaccinations then that's going to be against the CDC guidelines which provide compliance with CDC guidelines then provide them with the community. All right any other questions. Seeing none thank you for your comments. Okay a man Gilmore speak against the bill introduce yourself and who you represent. Backed your departmental. Thank you. And thank you reference Lundstrum firm working with the US and make some changes I appreciate that and you have is with doctor Maryland others and trying to make the bill better I think our general position is that it limits businesses from decisions they might wanna make I know she's made some except some changes there. But that is still concerning to us and I think there's some issues with possibly schools in the future they're still language in there that requires them to be exempted out the also I know it's not a as a representative lunches that anti vaccine bill but it does we're afraid this is a message that about the vaccine safety and the purpose of the vaccine you know the FDA the ACIP have been very thoroughly believe and getting the approval process going in and getting the vaccines made as quickly as possible we trust that we have of confidence in that process so we support that in our feel confident that the vaccines are safe we appreciate that but You know as we're trying to get more vaccine out we feel like this might limit and great little hesitation there so just. One expressed those concerns also just stay that we are opposed to it but we think that you know that the FDA will approve it quickly but they're still a time limit there that is in the bill and even you know as you said one year doctor merece conversation there when I visit with them last even any kind of time frame is still concerning to us so when express that. We do have a couple questions representative Gonzalez you're recognized thing Mr Mr Martin thank you funded a little ironic that your first objection was to this limiting businesses when you all the health department actually came in and shut businesses down during the COVID nineteen hours I think with this bill the. The caution we have is that you know businesses. Have the right to a teller employees attract employees on what they think is best for their business in this with limitations on that as far as eleven pandemic of. You know there was different situations and scenarios there that we can address if you'd like. Sentimentally you're recognized for a question. Mr Gilmour refresh my memory but I believe early in the pandemic when I specifically asked Dr Mary we were going to mandate vaccines he specifically said to me no there be no mandating a vaccine so my member in that correct in my understanding that was the state would mandate we don't the state is not planning on managing this this is just weird. This limits businesses from doing that. So you're fine with businesses in the state mandating a vaccine I think I think the station I think it's important for business owners and despite you know that some of the schools and things like that have the freedom to you know set their guidelines of what that is is best for them sometimes like hospitals and long term care whether protecting patients I think it's important they have those safeguards in place. Thank you chairman. Any other questions. Seeing none thank you for your comments thank you. Okay we have no one else signed up to speak for against the bill is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak against the bill. For the bill. Seeing none of your clothes for your bill representative. Yes I am I have struggled with some of the same things at the chamber of commerce to struggle with I struggled in those things with this bill I'm not going to say it's a perfect bill by any stretch of the imagination I did just call Senator Bozeman and ask him about the ocean mandates because that was one of my concerns and I felt like Mr Morris questions on that were legitimate and I ask specifically in writing for information about those ocean mandates and I ask that they be called and find out would they be mandating the vaccine and his specific response was I wanted to follow up based on our conversations we've had with the committee of jurisdiction we don't believe the ocean will have a mandated vaccine it sounds however that ocean may include certain vaccine stipulations and its emergency temporary standard for the workplace there are rumors an emergency temporary standard may be forthcoming and that may include requirements for employers that must offer an employee an opportunity to receive an accident vaccine there is a precedent for this in hepatitis is hepatitis vaccine all that said they're only rumors we here at this point and nothing official. So. We we can't make decisions based on rumors we just simply don't know what we do know is that mandating vaccines at this point with the covered vaccine I think isn't decision we don't want to make I think we need to allow people some flexibility and some latitude again the reason for rolling back that sunset for FDA two years is that we can put it back in the legislature and we can make some decisions and help. I do want to say thank you to the health department they have been helpful Dr Romero has been helpful I have heard from pediatricians that specifically ask for clause in this bill that should one of the covered vaccines mutate they wanted to be able to come back to the department to the public health. Senate and house an asset children be vaccinated. And I thought that was a great suggestion we added that back in for the reason that it should come back to you all. And I think that's important that if the surgeon to excuse me if the governor. And. The department of health director Dr Romero comes back and says COVID nineteen is now mutated and it's starting to to attack children and it's a death threat to children that it could they come back to the public health committees and y'all make a recommendation I think that's important because then the public has a chance to weigh in and that is what the public needs is a chance to weigh in. So we've added those things into the bill. there's already has a Tatian on the vaccine how much more hesitation would there be if we did mandated. I want people to feel comfortable and know that science has their back this is going to become a norm just like the flu vaccine I think it just needs some time with that I will take any questions and I would appreciate a good vote. I have a motion do pass any discussion on the motion. Representative Bentley recognized representative Lundstrum thank you so much for bringing this bill I don't think I've heard more from my constituents about anything session this bill impact I just heard another text again from a constituent today begging us to pass this bill and not to mandate vaccines we know that ninety three point seven percent of the deaths in the state due to code will for people sixty five years and older I don't think she would act in my opinion which can be vexing anybody that's not sixty five and older that Sarmat I would just say on a personal note that I quit nursing. Back in two thousand because I refused for somebody to tell me I must put something in my body inject my body for flu vaccine I don't think we should be mandating forcing people to inject things other body and for in order for them to be employed I think there's a much more we could do to our again I think it's for people sixty five and older that we should encourage at this vaccine and not forcing anyone so with that I'm definitely in favor this bill will be supporting it. Representive Eubanks you're recognized. Hi I can see where in the vast majority cases that this wouldn't be necessary but I do see some businesses like nursing homes and and hospitals and that sort did I miss something in there are they exempt from this because I know you know I think I've asked not that was rhetorical. The you know I we have a responsibility to protect those individuals to and I could see if I was an operator those I wouldn't want to. Be responsible for the death of one of my my patients are And I think it would be perfectly within the rights of the employer to require vaccine because. If it was my parents in that or if it was me I would want to know that the operators were doing everything possible to keep me safe and if those the beyond the surface folks If those folks. Object to having the vaccine they have the right not to have it and and to seek employment elsewhere so I'm sorry I can't I can't support this I understand and I've struggled with some of that too. Yeah these are not questions this discussion representative Boyd you're recognized for discussion. This is a major mandate on business and we don't have a crystal ball we don't know what's going to happen we don't know if this is going to be an ongoing vaccine or not and for us as a legislature to micromanage something with businesses that we can't come back and look without you know the governor calling a special session in two years I just think that that's unnecessary in the market there's no reason to believe the markets won't work this out and I will be voting no on this bill thank you. President Payton you're recognized. Thank you Mr I've been an employee and I've been the employer and I guess the biggest thing on drive my decision is the fact that I stay up late at night I watch TV and every other commercial is one eight hundred bad drugs. Drugs that we thought were safe and that have turned out over the years to be proven unsafe and the idea that an employer would force an employee. To take against their will. Of I think is wrong we're we're not talking about a drug that is proven. In the it's not even proven to the point that the FDA's willing to endorse it so you're not I'm the I just. Can't say that we should allow. Our Kansans to force other our Kansans. To take the shot if they don't want to on voting for thank you. Well I I tend to agree with what representation just said and I have you know. I'm not given the flu shot but to a site with five hundred six or seven hundred people and we drove around given the shot to these folks we never made it mandatory that everybody had to take that shot because I'm I'm like representative pay not I don't think that's something we should mandate and those businesses with lot of employees functions and I think people are very afraid of this is some people are afraid of this faxing their free of the unknown they don't know whether it's safe there's just a lot of a lot of gray area out there that people are concerned with so I I don't feel comfortable with. Mandating that they must take a vaccine that is not fully approved and vetted so I would vote yes for this bill represented more than you're recognized thank you Mr chair. I'm reading of the bill is that this may this doesn't going to place until after the emergency use authorization is done and it actually is licensed by the FDA because right now it's my understanding I felt it was pretty clear that as long as there is in a U. S. A. you can't mandate the vaccine so if somebody else miss the understood differently I hope they'll and lightness but this is would only really matter after its licensed fully by the FDA not prior to the. Representative first you're recognized yeah I mean even if you agree with the bill about not mandating it the unemployment aspect is my biggest concern as an employer hi I do I just can't imagine how misuse that might be of the just say no I don't take the vaccine and then they can draw unemployment just use it for an excuse to. Quit work but. Wardlaw you're recognized I think representative first and I finally found something we agree on the session You know all all year in council we approve to fill in that gap on unemployment insurance we approved to pay and to fill those millions of dollars to keep the employers from having to pay more this bill is going to set us back into that for the next two to three years depending on when the FDA approves this mandate because it's going to give people right to jump straight in on employment and we're going to have to fill those gaps more so unless unless we're signing on to millions of dollars to go to the unemployment trust fund going forward are we're willing to let our employers have to pay a higher tax rate because more people are going over unemployment we really need to think through these things and think ahead with our pocketbooks and what we're willing to pay for you know I I agree people should be mandated to have a vaccine but we're not mandate and have vaccine right now if the if you don't work in home care if you don't want to work in a nursing home you don't work in a hospital because their mandate a vaccine to protect those patients. Work in a doctor's office work somewhere where they don't require that are where you don't have to be in front of a patient as I said earlier on the nursing bill Medicaid insurance companies Blue Cross all over hire nurses left and right at the moment which is one the reasons we have the shortage we have you go to work at home and you don't have to be in a patient setting so we just need to think through all aspects of this before we pass legislation that has this kind of impact on the state budget and on the the vulnerable people of Arkansas. Well represent Wardlaw you bring up a good point but there are a lot of employees who have a lot invested in their current job. And you know maybe they've got twenty five thirty years invested in the job and that benefits built up that they they don't want to just walk away we're talking about the medical industry that's important but there are other. Business segments out there that are affected by this to. And I you know I think. If I were to tell thirty your employee Hey if you don't take that shot you're going to be you get will get another job I had a big problem. Any other questions. Mr Miller representative Miller you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair this may be like one of the only times or a big bill that I've actually sat there. This law and Not be fully decided. Which is kind of crazy because normally I'm fully decided forever coming here and but and I see. All these points will open as as I say what about say aye I want. Some people the pop up real quick and tell myself. I completely agree with the intent of the bill. Represent law firms and ten I I'm in theory I'm a hundred percent on board. I'm a business owner. I'd like to think that we have rights to. And I think local entities have rights and so this is always a big conflict if we have rights as individuals. We also have to recognize others have. And the rights of other entities. To do what now we also have a right to. Go somewhere else now mock my struggle. Is I don't want anybody to be mandated take a vaccine ever. But. You know I've spent a little time in the hospital. And I have. home care givers command. And. Hello hello but. Hello I know that there. Healthy and they're not bringing me something I know it's always a risk we know that risk every year with flu and anything else is contagious but Where is the balance I'm I'm asking the committee I'm trying to make up my mind right here somebody's got some really enlightening to say please say it. Representative Johnson you're recognized for prescription. Thank you Mr chair I'd I'd say. Representative Miller but I think I find myself in similar situations you generally. Largely decided in and conceptually a. I don't wanna mandated vaccine on anyone and if this if this was more narrowly tailored to where it prohibited the government from mandating vaccines that's that's probably where I would. B. absolutely one hundred percent for not not to. Not the kind of in a pickle at the moment myself but I'm I'm struggling with that same question that you asked that you're going back and forth particularly with regards to some of the points that come up with unemployment and and the rights of businesses and individuals to. Hire folks and and so I understand where you're at and so I don't have any advice for you. Well you know. The representative Miller yeah I mean you bring up a good point it's a balancing act I I think and there's benefits on both sides but. I don't know when I look at this I I look at it well okay if you're a business. On one side you have rights and yet again individual you have rights but who has the most to lose if you're just talking about the individual first the biz for purses the business now I understand in the medical situation that's a little bit different situation but. If I look at it from a business and a person's standpoint. That person you know they can lose their livelihood and I mean they may not be able to find another job maybe it's not as good as the one they got or if they again I go back to this if they've been loyal and they worked and they've got stuff built up they're losing an awful lot because they do not feel comfortable putting this shot in their own. And I just feel like in this situation there are certain people that the additional protection from that. A representative Bentley you're recognized thank you chairman and I will again say we have totally avoided the fact that you can build your own immune system represent Miller I have done everything in my position tell me to do over again every damn day taking vitamins and different things to help my immune system build build strong this this virus is ninety nine point nine three percent you can recover from we seem to forget that fact is ninety nine point nine three percent we're going to recover from okay so I think that we have. I totally of not a talking to effect a person's individual rights we're a nation in America we we celebrate freedom and we celebrate liberty and there's so much on this vaccine that people are concerned about why we think it's okay to force an individual to have to take a vexing they have serious concerns about this point when we know that ninety nine point nine three percent of the people going to recover from this virus I think I'm serious concerns about that I'm suits concerns that we're even debating this bill that we're not going to pass so there you are people can do other things we no one wants to talk about that that but you can increase your chances to make yourself very healthy which I've done every day to protect you so there's muscle. Representative boy you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair and I'll try to make this my last comment but you know I I support a lot of government when especially when we have a baby in the womb but what we're really talking about at this moment in time our adults and at the end of the day I don't think that this legislature needs to go out and say we've got to protect all of the adults for the next two years from big bad businesses so again I just want to maintain I will be voting no if it were just limited to the government I would I'm definitely open to that discussion but protecting us you know it's a grown adults from businesses in this situation I just disagree. Representative Penzo you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair I just there's a few things said that going to trigger me to make a few comments but I worked in health care working with the geriatric population for five years and during during that time every year I got my flu shot they recommended that they didn't mandated I got my hip B. you know I gave you gotta get your TB test have had a flu shot since I got at a healthcare don't don't plan on Startin taking him to a. We get close to the geriatric population age you know both of our danger and that little but no it's one of those situations where I don't think any anybody should be mandated to take any vaccine I think you know anybody that works in health care it's you know they. It's a choice that needs to be made by the healthcare provider you know it will get to the point where most of the the the the elderly the the most of the populations that are in danger from covert or been vaccinated right now and I just I just don't think it's right to mandate anybody I have some real concerns about what could be coming down the road with vaccinations and I think we need to we can to stop it from being mandatory thank you. A representative Eubanks you're recognized. I have a motion media consideration of not debatable. Motion on the floor is do pass. All in favor signify. Yes we do thank you represent. Okay the voters for immediate consideration. All in favor signify by saying aye All opposed nay. Is haven't. The motion on the floor is do pass. All in favor signify by saying aye. All opposed nay. No seven. Sorry bills fail thank you colleagues thank you for your time. Thank of the top of the agenda here and see who we got. Represent Pilkington is not here. Representive gray. Let's see another one. Well representive. Miller did you want to pass over your bill. Okay. Pilkington representing gray and then you have a billing or similar HB seventeen ninety nine are you prepared to run then I would actually like to put that on the deferred list. Okay. Representative Penzo H. B. seventeen fifty seven are you prepared to run that. The. In run twice. Thank you rent a one time. Just for clarification you ran that bill one time is that correct yes. That for all right. For the first. All right. I appreciate your input committee very much well believe it or not we've got to the bottom of the agenda for today so. Remember all bills are going to be on the agenda next time all referred bills will be on the