House Convenes

I DO check one audio check one. Check one two. Three. For. Five. One two. Three. For. Five. I'm by the member staff press and guests in the galleries to stand to be led in prayer by the house chaplain Dr rex one retired pastor Emmanuel Baptist church in Little Rock and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance to be led by representative Lane Jean. Let's pray together. Following the challenges of the day we remember those who've gone before. Even a man like the apostle Paul who wrote from prison rejoice in the lord always. The lord we just thank you for every blessing of life. We pray that as the women and men of this house began to look toward the end of the session that you continue to bless them. Help them help us all lord to look upward. The to seek your will to look around this. See what good we can do for all Arkansans and the look within the always examine our own conscience and our own motives and we pray that you'll find this Buren on the right track. Thank you for these are willing to serve. In challenging times and bless them and their families and their communities is my prayer in Jesus name amen. Members please indicate your presence by pushing yellow present button prepare the machine Mr Clerk. They're ninety nine members present the chair sees a quorum are there any request for leave. Represent Bragg for what purpose leave. Leave a representative Holcomb is leave granted for RepresentativeHouse ocal. noted. Represent Fredrick Love moves we dispense with the reading of the previous day's Journal without objection so ordered are the reports and select committees are the Reports from standing committees read reports Mister Clark Mister Speaker we are committee on public health to whom was referred house bill fifteen twenty one beg leave to report that we had the same under consideration here the term the same recognition to do pass a concurrence and member number one respectfully submitted Jack Ladyman chair Mr Speaker we're Committee on Public Health to whom was referred senate bill four ten beg leave to report we had the same under consideration here with trying the same the recognition that do pass respectfully submitted Jack Ladyman chair. Is there any unfinished business are there any Executive communications. Read the letters from the government to Clark. March twenty third twenty twenty one to the Speaker of the house dear Mister Speaker this is to inform you that on March twenty third twenty twenty one I reviewed and approved the following measures from the regular session of the ninety third General Assembly house bill thirteen forty three ACT four fifteen House bill fifteen twenty two ACT four sixteen house bill fourteen forty eight ACT four seventeen house bill thirteen fifteen ACT four eighteen house bill fifteen twelve ACT four nineteen house bill sixteen forty five ACT four twenty house bill fifteen sixty eight ACT four twenty one house of fourteen seventy six four twenty two house bill fourteen forty nine is at four twenty three house bill fourteen twenty fourth at four twenty four house bill twelve ninety nine ACT four twenty five house bill twelve seventy six ACT four twenty six house bill twelve thirty five ACT four twenty seven house bill twelve oh four ACT four twenty eight House Bill one thousand four ACT four twenty nine sincerely Asa Hutchinson March twenty four twenty twenty one to the Speaker of the house do Mr Speaker this is to inform you that on March twenty fourth twenty twenty one I reviewed and approved as to form the following measures from the regular session of the ninety third General Assembly house concurrent resolution ten fifteen sincerely Asa Hutchinson March twenty four twenty twenty one to the Speaker of the house. Dear Mister Speaker this is to inform you that on March twenty fourth twenty twenty one I report reviewed and approved the following measures in the regular session of the ninety third General Assembly house bill twelve twenty nine is at four forty seven house bill thirteen thirty two was at four forty eight house bill eleven ninety eight ACT four forty nine house before two thirty seven ACT four fifty Haskell sixteen seventy four ACT four fifty one half of sixteen thirty four that for fifty two. Sixty no for that for fifty three House of fifteen fifty is at four fifty four house bill fourteen forty two was at four fifty five sincerely Asa Hutchinson. March twenty fifth twenty twenty one to the Speaker of the house you Mr Speaker this is to inform you that on March twenty fifth twenty twenty one I've reviewed and approved the following measures from the regular session of the ninety third General Assembly house bill ten eighty three is at four fifty six house bill ten eighty six ACT four fifty seven house bill eleven eighty two ACT four fifty eight house bill twelve ninety one is at four fifty nine apple thirteen tennis ACT four sixty sincerely Asa Hutchinson. Morning hour ascended. Represent Dotson Rick recommends we concur in Senate Amendment number one to House Bill thirteen fifty five Mister Clark please read Senate Amendment everyone Senate Amendment one to House Bill thirteen fifty five. President Dotson you're recognized explain the amendment. Thank you Mr Speaker I will be brief since there's a long agenda today house bill thirteen fifty five was a you got a little Senate amendment on the other side that clarified the automotive technology education fund the grant process and putting it under the Arkansas motor vehicle commission more happen try to answer any questions. I appreciate a good vote. President Dotson is explain the amendment would anyone like to speak against the amendment. Would anyone like to speak for the amendment represent Dotson is closed for the amendment the question before the House is concurrence was Senate Amendment number one to House Bill thirteen fifty five prepared machine Mr Clerk. Everyone voted. Is everyone voted. Asked about Mr Clark. By a vote of ninety five Yeas zero nine one present. You've concurred in Senate amendment for one to House Bill thirteen fifty five. semi column recommends we concurrent Senate Amendment over one to House Bill fifteen twenty one Mister Clark please read Senate Amendment over one Senate Amendment over one to House Bill fifteen twenty one. Ferguson Gonzales you're recognized explain a member number one. Thank you this is a. One of the governors direct as a we're we're kind of find that the Senate that an amendment to this all agreed upon take any questions. C. nine percent good vote purpose of Gonzales is explain the amendment would anyone like to speak against the amendment. Would anyone like to speak for the amendment. Represent Gonzales is closed for the amendment question before the House concurrence with Senate Amendment number one to House Bill fifteen twenty one prepare the machine Mr Clark. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety one Yeas one eight zero president you've concurred in Senate Amendment number one to House Bill fifteen to. Mr Clark please read house bill fifteen seventy five House Bill fifteen seventy five I representive Eubanks to amend the law related to the disposal of foul carcasses. President Eubanks you're recognized to explain the bill thank you Mr Speaker this bill barely strike some out that outdated language appreciate a good vote. Represent Eubanks explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. We would like to speak for the bill. Represent Eubanks is close for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill fifteen seventy five prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of ninety six yeas one nine zero present the bill is passed. Members were to pass over house bill fifteen sixty three Mr Clark please read house bill twelve thirty seven house bill twelve thirty seven by representative Lowery to amend the school start date to allow public school district board of directors to elect to implement an alternative or an alternate school calendar into amended the definition of a school day. Lowery you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. Members this is a I'll try to. Dispensed from giving you a long history of how this bill came about. But just suffice it to say that I started looking at some of our industries and state of Arkansas and how they've been impacted by a certain state regulations and one of the things that I observed couple terms back was that to by all metrics we agree everyone agrees that tourism hospitality and tourism is the number two industry in the state of Arkansas. But it's been affected dramatically through the years as school starts. Pushes further and further into the month of August and checking with tourism folks with the things they've told me. Is that that is a month the days in that month there are days that they cannot replace with the with any other schedule August is a critical time for them to be able to make. Make their income for the year. So well. Two years ago. The educational administrators group came to me with a suggestion or a of a one way for us to be able to affect having a later school start date by saying that the state of Missouri had actually implemented transitioning from minimum classroom days to minimum classroom hours. And so we're working with the department of education and I want to give thanks to Secretary key and his staff also want to thank secretary Hurst with the parks and tourism for their testimony in committee what we've been able to do is come up with a bill that modifies the school calendar so that it is not. A hundred and seventy eight minimum classroom days but instead we've transitioned to one thousand sixty eight hours throughout the bill there is flexibility that really balance to local control in that each school district has the flexibility of how they want to use that change one way that they can do it is that they can have a longer school day they could go with for instance half hour longer in they could cut fourteen days out of the calendar or they could just go fifteen minutes longer in cut half of that seven point calendar days or they can just go ahead and continue to have the same link day within add this one week that we're starting a little bit later of one week later in the school start in the month of August and what is the impact for the state of Arkansas with the impact is that it research is shown that the tourism industry has lost per year a hundred million dollars in revenue. That's all of our hotels are. Parks venues anything in the State of Arkansas that is affected by travel they lose a hundred million a year and that this into a loss of ten million dollars in state tax revenues and at the local level three point six million dollars in local state or skews me local revenues so this is a great impact for our economy but it's also something that in working with this longer classroom day we're able to still be able to have the classroom instruction that is necessary that is why the Department of Education worked with me. On making sure that school funding is not affected that was one of the concerns to years ago is that we possibly had not found every section of code that would make that transition from days to hours and that it would have affected school funding we've found all of those sections of code and we've adjusted accordingly and that was why the Secretary key was willing to come to the end of the table and actually speak in favor of this I know there's probably some some questions out I'll try not to get too deep in the weeds but if you do have questions I would be glad to answer them. President Ferguson for what purpose question you're recognized for a question yes ma'am Marian a school district is planning to go to a hybrid your ram program in July it would this prevent that. It would not affect that in a representative Ferguson understood stand that you might have sent me a message and I'm sorry if I missed that but I have heard that you'd ask that question and it would not affect that if if the school wanted to go year round they have that flexibility if they want to cut days out of their calendar they have that flexibility as well and and I'm not to mention also that this would not be implemented into the twenty two twenty three school year so there's plenty of time to make adjustments in the calendar can I ask a follow up you're recognized they plan to begin the year in July is that still they would begin the year in July the hybrid schedule with this bill not prevent that it would not prevent that okay thank you. I appreciate your support for the bill thank you. Representative Lowery has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Represent college you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker thank you members I have two concerns with this bill number one is yes it would push tourism and give tourism a week later in the in the year but you're also if you stay is a school district on a hundred seventy eight a calendar where you presently in your school year prior to Memorial Day this would push you past Memorial Day so you're gaining a week in August but you're losing a tour of a week of tourism in right there at memorial day in the week after Memorial Day so I don't see where this is going to improve tourism for school districts that stay on a hundred and seventy eight day calendar the second concern I have with this and and I can't emphasize this enough is that we are coming off in education we are coming off a learning loss due to the pandemic the decision that you're making here that you're voting on today is to lessen two gives each school district the ability to lessen. Their school calendar so instead of kids being in school for a hundred and seventy eight days. They can drop it to four day weeks they can lessen it is many is thirty something days out of their calendar I really don't see how that's good for the nearly four hundred and eighty thousand students that we serve and so I just don't see where this bill is necessarily good for tourism because where you're gaining in August you're also losing around Memorial Day and a lot of our parents especially parents of my school district like to not only go stay the weekend of Memorial Day but the whole week at the lake. They would then have to come back to that Tuesday after Memorial Day for the majority of schools that are going to stay on that hundred seventy day a day calendar and then again like I said you're allowing school districts to remove certain school days so for those reasons I'm going to be against it I hope you voting no is. Representative colleges spoke against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representive Cozart you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I know this is shocking represent Lowery I will speak for one of his bills because we usually back and forth a lot of them but ladies gentleman this is this is good for your to reserve you have to resume your town which we do in my town I've had everybody in my town call that has anything to do with convention center to tourism or prospering big lakes lakes all around this is really good for tourism and it will help us out and and I'm sure Northwest Arkansas and other places like that that have that same thing going on it would be good for you I appreciate a yes vote. President Cozart has vote for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Representative Larry recognized to close for your bill. Thank you Mr Speaker let me just address a couple of things representive told that brought up as I mentioned even if if a school district did choose to attack the week on to the in the tourism industry is not affected as much by losing a week in the month of June as they are in August August is relieved they're real critical time to be able to make the money that they that they need to an another important part of that is many venues have to shut down not just because the number of visitors has decreased but they have to shut down because they lose a lot of their summer employment students who are earning during the summer in some cases I remember when I sponsor the bill a couple years ago that would allow sixteen year olds to work a lot of the students are earning to help their families and so that would be a week that would be cut out of that schedule some of our other benefits that are there is that you're not cooling the school buildings during that one of the hottest weeks during the year that's one of the reasons why the Department embrace this bill is because they saw a lot of residual and tangential benefits including we've already passed the bill in here that it just the testing calendar so that students will have more time to prepare for the test rather than taking the test in early April and then having several weeks where there's not any instruction taking place so for all these reasons I ask that you would give a good vote on this bill appreciate your support. Representative Larry's close for the bill question before the House is the passage of house bill twelve thirty seven prepare the machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Cast a ballot Mr Clerk sixty four yeas twenty three days report presents the bills pass. We're skipping over your house bill fifteen twenty Mr Clark read house bill seventeen seventy five house bill seventeen seventy five by representative gene to amend the law concerning the identification by the state for certain actions. Senate gene recognized explained bill. Good evening. Thank you Mr Speaker calling what this does seventeen seventy five changes one word to direct supervision right now for cedar county of has the state he could just radio to the radio of there may be a crisis at the police ambulance fire to get to it right now says that this US Attorney General will have to defend the city under the supervision this is added to direct supervision of the words state police officer or somebody on the state would have to be on the ground directly supervise and the actions of a city or county government this just helps us with our community any questions. Create a good vote on the bill. Representative Janice explained Bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Representative gene is closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen seventy five the machine Mr Clerk. Everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of ninety seven U. A. zero nine zero president. The bill is passed. Mr Clark please read house bill twelve sixty four House Bill twelve sixty four by representative Pilkington to create the small town Economic Development Act. Represent Pilkington you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I today I bring what I like to call the small town Economic Development Act I don't know if your like me but after session you go home you're talking about all the great things just dead and then someone says you would be a great law in the into a two years ago run that loss of for the next two years you hear about it nonstop well this is one of those bills my American on development a person for Clarksville very passion about this bill so let me explain what it does and what's happened and and while we're here today so currently right now the law says that you have a building of a hundred thousand dollars. You need to go get an architect to sign off on it well what's happened is people go small businesses special in small towns we'll find buildings especially in downtown areas to renovate or renew and then they go and next thing you know the project goes over a hundred thousand the next thing you know they they call an architect but then comes up and says actually you need to do X. Y. Z. and other projects going to be three times what you thought I was going to be an enforcing what it's done is it's pushed out a lot of development that was hopefully going into the cities into some other areas. And so what we've done is we looked back and saw well or what was this number but at a hundred thousand well that's what it was of the time and so we thought well we look at what the rate of inflation is it would put it to two hundred fifty thousand today we are to keep things constant and so that's how we ended up on this number. And so what we've also done so we put a sunset on this as well because we want to the architects and they said well you know would really like some changes would like this to be different and it ended up being one of those things where the more you peel back. The Orange the crazier a guide to the you know what let's do this we can all agree that a hundred thousand is an arbitrary number let's put at two fifty and then we've now got a timeline or we need to get our act together seven two years we come back we can come with a more comprehensive reform to the architect bill and and both sides were okay with that so that's how we've got the bill or it is the day but you know I think it's important thing about real life examples and so we had one where we had a ability in our downtown we're trying to renovate and. Had a you know I think we bought it for less than her thousand dollars we added some more to it now the project hit over that mark we call the architect with the architects and the redo one bathroom is going to cost is over two hundred thousand dollars and Hey by the way we get seven percent of that. That made them not the automatically Rosetta abandon that projects abandon that redevelopment that small that part of our downtown so I think this is a good bill my my mayor and economic development team really support it they say that they feel like this is something that would benefit all small towns in Arkansas and I know I've gone on and on and I just said has for good vote on this. Representive Pilkington is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. President Pilkington is closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill twelve sixty four prepared machine Mr Clerk. Is everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of ninety yeas to nays and one present the bill is passed. Members. Our doctor the days Dr Jeffrey P. Kirsch of Conway and our nurse of the days Mr Bernard. And our Arkansas state troopers with this this week are tripper market Simpson of troop B. of Newport and trooper Irvin clunky of troop J. of Clarksville. Mr Clark please read house bill seventeen seventeen house bill seventeen seventeen by representative Lowery to amend the law concerning sick leave from municipal police officers. Represent Lowery you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. Members this bill came three. City county local it was brought to me by the mayor in the city attorney and Maumelle if it relates to accrued sick leave apparently in the city in Maumelle and maybe even some other communities of the the law says that it's accrued sick leave is capped at sixty days well that's problematic if you have police officers who actually worked twelve hour days as opposed to eight hour days so we put it's a very simple bill we've put in permissive language that if a city council or city wants to grant more than sixty accrued hours they can do so by ordinance it's not mandatory it's a may rather than it shall it just gives them the flexibility to be able to do that in my mail in any other community that might want to do so there was no opposition after we put in some permissive language that that the Municipal League in the chiefs of police wanted so I appreciate a good vote thank. President Lowery is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Represent Lowery is closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen seventeen prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark Bibel ninety two yeah zero nine zero president. The bill is passed Mr Clark please read house bill sixteen forty two. House Bill sixteen forty two by representive Underwood to promote successful families in public housing. Representive Underwood you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker hi fewer than one in four single parent families on food stamps in Arkansas receive any amount of child support so this bill tries to address some of that this bill requires child support cooperation in order to qualify for public housing and also requires public housing authorities to require to be required to consider this as a factor in property prioritizing people on wait lists that's receive housing benefits not passing this bill will help increase child support which also helps reduce poverty and break the cycle dependency single parents who did not receive any child support have significantly lower incomes and the more likely being in poverty a single parent families enrolled in welfare programs also require less government assistance when they receive child support Arkansas has already taken similar steps in twenty nineteen how we implement a requirement that parents would cooperate with office of child support enforcement as a condition to eligibility to participate in food stamps. Arkansas also requires child support to cooperate in cash filled welfare programs and so I think this bill be very beneficial to the Arkansas in our state I appreciate a good vote thank you. Representive Underwood has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representive Underwood is close for the bill the question before the House is passed house bill sixteen forty two per machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark by a vote of seventy six yeas twenty nine zero present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read house bill sixteen oh two. Healthful sixteen oh two by representative Beatty to amend the law concerning references in the Arkansas code of federal law concerning relocation assistance by the State Highway Commission. Representative Beatty recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker this is a clean up bill provided for by are not an act to amend the law concerning references in the Arkansas code to the federal law concerning relocation assistance by the State Highway Commission basically the relocation assistance law deals with federal projects within the state. The this amendment just clearly identifies the specific federal code as it's been amended over the last fifty years as opposed to the nineteen sixty eight ACT and regulations and with that I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Beatty's explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representative Beatty is close for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill sixteen oh two per machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety five Yeas one nine zero present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read house bill seventeen oh two. House bill seventy two by representative McCall to amend the law concerning bicycle safety and clarify the rights and duties of a person operating a bicycle. President Michel you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker as Arkansas natural state cycling roads paths and trails continue to become more more of a draw for tourism economic growth quality of life and health all over our state our laws need to be updated to follow best practices and further set up Arkansas's a bike friendly state this particular bill addresses crosswalks and bicycles current law states that a person must get off his or her bike and walking across a crosswalk this bill amends the statute to say the cyclists may stay in the saddle but must yield the right of way to pedestrians given audible signal before overtaking and passing a pedestrian. and the cyclist will have all the rights and duties applicables to pedestrians using the crosswalk and also a cyclist must use a reasonable speed when operating on a sidewalk path trail across the driveway or upon a crosswalk I have a letter of support for this bill from the Arkansas governor's Advisory Council on cycling and other than that I have no no no opposition and happy to take questions if there are any. I appreciate a good vote. President Michel has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. semicolons close for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen oh two prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety one Yeas five nays and zero present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read house bill seventeen ten. House bill seventeen ten by representative McCollum to amend the uniform act regulating traffic on highways in Arkansas to amend the law regarding overtaking a bicycle. Semicolon you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker again cycling tourism to bring a lot of money into this state we want to continue to encourage and protect native our Kansans and those that come from out of state to make sure they have a safe and fun experience this bill addresses a motorist overtaking a bicycle in Arkansas we have the three foot rule whereby vehicle must be at a safe distance of not less than three feet when overtaking a cyclist currently if you violate the three foot rule the punishment stays the same you'll be subjected to a fine not to exceed a hundred dollars this bill leads to subsections. If the driver of a motor vehicle violates the three foot rule and the result is a collision causing serious physical injury to the person on the overtaken by circle the driver upon conviction is guilty of a Class es misdemeanor. The second subsection that's added as the driver who purposely violates the three foot rule and causes serious physical injury to the person on the over taken bicycle shall upon conviction be guilty of a Class D. felony there are some motorists to by cyclists and come very close to them we've had cyclist hit by car mirrors and things like that. also received a letter of support from for this bill from the Arkansas governor's Advisory Council on cycling and as far as I know there's no known opposition I'll take any questions on this one. Represent profit for what purpose question you're recognized for a question it's a good bill except I think making a Class D. felony so little over reaching and I say that because I've been driving when a bicycle will be here in front of me and if you can't stop in the bicycle and you don't have a video and the person on the bikes is it your fault I just think that's a little too far okay thank you for the question and I'll I will disagree with you that we have cyclists the don't don't always do what they're supposed to also but I also think that that is the case of your word against theirs or their word against yours and once again you have to purposely do this and I still think that that you would necessarily be convicted of that if there was no intent. Seeing no other questions appreciate a good vote. Represent because explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Represent a cult. Is closed for the bill question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen ten prepare the machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Cass about Mr Clark. Thirty five days forty three nascent and present a bit bills failed. Mr Clark read house bill sixteen seventy one House Bill sixteen seventy one by representative Shepherd to establish the Arkansas student athlete publicity Rights Act. Because Shepherd you're recognized explained the bill. Thank you Mr chairman. Member's house bill sixteen seventy one is the bill to establish the Arkansas student athlete publicity rights act and there's been a lot written a lot of publicity surrounding this bill actually but a couple things that I would like to point out number one this bill does not create a situation where student athletes are gonna be paid by the institution to compete or to play on the on those teams they already have scholarships and and grants and aid that the take care of us supporting our student athletes but what this bill would do is simply allow the opportunity for our student athletes to enter into agreements with third parties to be able to use their name their image and their likeness to promote certain certain products or services you know in a perfect world we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion but the fact of the matter is that this is a issue that is been a long time in coming it is something that I know that I've had conversations with the University of Arkansas for the better part of last year to two years just keeping track of what's going on in this area I think most were hopeful that Congress would act in the Congress would actually pass legislation that would cover the waterfront would take care of providing a uniform uniform parameters across the fifty states to provide for the use of name image and likeness but unfortunately Congress has not acted to this point and so what is happened is states are beginning to enact legislation of their own Florida has enacted a name image and likeness law that becomes effective on July first of this year six states have already enacted legislation twenty three states have legislation that is pending in thirty seven states have been looking at this type of legislation in some form or fashion it's so quite honestly the ship is sailing on this issue and it does become a matter of competitiveness for our institutions of higher education this bill comes to is. with working contributions from the University of Arkansas from Arkansas state university from the university of central Arkansas and from a host of other institutions of higher education here in the state of Arkansas and so what would this bill do this bill would allow student athletes to be able to engage with third party in order for the student athletes to be compensated for the use of their name image and likeness it would protect student athletes from the standpoint of allowing them to. Retain representation to assist them in that area it also provides for disclosure the student athlete would have to disclose that to their institution and indeed I think we heard a committee that the University of Arkansas already has has hired somebody in the athletic department that deals with these types of issues not just for the University but potentially could be looking at these types of issues for the benefit of the student athletes and it also preserves the university's ability or those institutions of higher education to preserve their own standards of conduct for their own teams for their own student athletes and it also provides promotes compliance I mean between what we've already passed and I think we we passed the student athlete or the agent act I think that was our first or second term for those that came in with me and it provides that if an agent knowingly violates the law that it can be anywhere from a misdemeanor to a felony and so we're just building upon what we already have in place I think it's something that it's time is come and given the fact that we. If we fail to act at this point it may be two years before we have this opportunity again and I think for the sake of our student athletes here in the state and for institutions of higher education the time is now for Arkansas to go ahead and act this legislation I would mention there's number of you that have signed on as co sponsors I anticipate putting an amendment on the city and add more co sponsor so if if you not only want to vote for this bill that you want to co sponsor it you can let me know after we hopefully have a favorable vote here on the house in I'll be glad to answer any questions. Representative Kenji for what purpose question you're recognized for a question thank you Mr Speaker just wanna have a court clarification for constituency of asked me this over the weekend and I didn't really give them adequate answer I don't think so what they're wondering is okay the NC double a private entity they can make their or are they can they make their own rules and minimum state law comes into conflict with the NC double a how does that work out so that's a good question I think that in this area I think the institutions of probably knowledge this the NCAA is really failed to act in this area there are some Capulets in the legislation that if it does create an issue with either the institution the conference or the NCAA or any similar type organization there is the ability for the institution to step in there's the opportunity for the student athlete actually to terminate that relationship so there's some safeguards that are built into that and we're very cognizant of that and so I think it does the right job of balancing those needs but also understanding that we do have to operate within the confines of our institutions of higher education but also with the NCAA thank you. Representative Brian for what purpose. You're recognized for a question with with the athletes that are there to play on scholarships was there any discussion where an athlete that meets the requirements and is getting compensated for the use of likeness to offset those scholarship costs back to the colleges to be able to afford avenues for other individuals there's been there's been no discussion about that now that I would say that That the instead this is this just with regard to institutions of higher education and it's the an individual or student athlete who maybe has an agreement to user name image and likeness that doesn't give them the right to to utilize the university or the institution's name or their logos or their marks there's been and there has been read committee discussion about using that to offset to offset any of the scholarship costs that are already in place I think that that there still are the parameters where the instance this is this would be deals with third party individuals or entities as opposed to the relationship between the student athlete in the university because the institution still obviously is going to market its teams in its own way and promoted and and in a way that it sees fit this is focused on those arrangements between a student athlete in a third party that's not part of the inst of the University. Representative rye for purposes of questions you're recognized for a question. Speaker Matt just one question here If. if of if a student athlete actually makes money are they going to are they actually don't make money in this state if they are would that not put them in a professional categories or. Potentially they could make money that's that's certainly a possibility and I would say that that I think most anticipate that this is this is not gonna be a widespread it's not gonna be every student athlete that has an opportunity there may be a handful of student athletes who have that opportunity but they do have the opportunity under this legislation to make money but you know if you talk to the institutions of higher education students in other areas of those institutions are able to make money and be compensated related to their work whether you're an engineering student maybe has worked in a certain area they can be compensated for their use you know there are some things that I learned in working on this bill that are really surprising to the extent that that individuals do have that opportunity and what worked what what we basically I think the athletic director the University of Arkansas Hendren your check it shared that this it's already creating a an issue for student athletes that I think you sure there was a track athlete have the opportunity to have. A name image and likeness deal with a third party that was going to pay six figures but if he if he or she entered into that then they would give up their amateur status with the university and they made the choice to forego their eligibility to go ahead and enter into that arrangement under this legislation they would have the ability but they would not be paid would not be paid for their for their competition as part of a team on behalf of the university. Thank you. Speaker Shepherd is explained bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Representative Murdock you're recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker of thank you to Speaker for bringing this to something I've been involved with for many years and discuss discussions along this line. There's a lot of things that could happen with this but in the committee I was able to ask a lot of questions and I think they've done the best that they can do to this point to try to prevent any widespread of. chaos they can come from something like this there are things to be concerned about but I think it Arkansas's puts foot Ford is gonna lead the charge of making sure we put up some fences to make this as best as possible so I appreciate a good vote and appreciate to speak for bringing this. Represent Murdock spoke for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Speaker Shepherd are you close for the bill Speaker separates close for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill sixteen seventy one where the machine Mr Clerk. Is everyone voted. I guess it the ballot Mr Clark. Ninety seven Yeas one nine zero present the bill is passed. Mr Clark read house bill fourteen forty six House Bill fourteen forty six by representative ray to make children of members of the uniformed services eligible to receive a scholarship under the succeed scholarship program. Representative ray recognized explained bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues house bill fourteen forty six would amend the Arkansas succeed scholarship program to allow for the children of military families to be eligible for the scholarship. The bill would ensure that priority will be given to students who are currently eligible those being student with an IEP and I ask the or those that are in foster care of course if funds remaining after those eligible students are awarded a scholarship then the children of military families would be eligible. This bill does not add any funding to the program in there for the fiscal impact is zero as you know the succeed scholarship program was passed in two thousand fifteen and since its launch in twenty sixteen it's been incredibly successful program with parent satisfaction rate of ninety seven percent. Eighty seven percent of parents report seeing an improvement in their child's grades after participating. Ninety two percent of parents report and improvement in their child's social development as a result of the program. And when I came up with the idea for this bill you know one of the things that cap bugging me is that especially for the active duty members of our military they don't really get much of a say in where they're stationed in there for where they live in as an extension of that where they get to send their kids to school. And over the past several years Arkansas's done an extraordinary job of making our state as welcoming as possible to the men and women who serve in our armed forces we've exempted both active duty and military retirement pay from our state income tax we've created a tuition benefit assistance program for members of our National Guard and we pass legislation to help with occupational licensing reciprocity for our military spouses so I view this bill is a natural extension of those efforts as we continue to try and make Arkansas the number one absolute most welcoming place for the men and women of our armed services to call home. That. I appreciate a good vote. Representative ray is explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Represent polit you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. I want to commend the represent a rave for the intent of this bill just give you a little history of the succeed scholarship C. seeds scholarship was put in place for students with disabilities in foster care students since then it is pretty much been maxed out every single year to accommodate the special needs of the students while I applaud the tent in an definitely the service of our veterans I don't see where this would be beneficial to the also the population of our special needs In moving forward with this we are looking at expanding educational options to all Arkansas students and I would ask that we we put this in the new legislation instead attaching it to the succeed scholarship that's why I'll be voting no and I appreciate a no vote as well thank you. Representative Collins spoke against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill. Against the bill. Representative that rate you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you colleagues I would just point out that the bill takes a great pains to ensure that the eligibility of those who are currently eligible for the bill is protected that language is in line Page three line to deprive which says an eligible student who is a child of a member of the uniformed services may receive a scholarship under this subchapter only if funds remain after all eligible students as described in subdivisions of this section have received a scholarship under this subchapter so just wanna make sure everyone is comfortable in knowing that that those who are currently eligible will be prioritized under this program and with that I appreciate your attention I would appreciate a good vote. Representative race close for the bill question before the House is passage of house bill fourteen forty six the machine Mr Clark. As everyone voted. Yes it the ballot Mr Clark sixty five Yeas twenty two Nays and three present the bill is passed. Mr Clark read house bill seventeen oh seven house bill seventeen oh seven by representative boy to abolish the allocation of enrollment positions at the university of Arkansas college of medicine based on congressional district in Arkansas residency. President Boyd you're recognized explained bill. Thank you Mr Speaker thank you colleagues since good opportunity to be here to talk about this bill you M. S. college of medicine is the only medical school in our entire country we're legislature mandates enrollment by congressional district this bill abolishes that requirement and allows the admissions committee to admit students with a nationally accepted holistic model which takes into account if someone lives in a rural area as well as many other factors please vote yes to allow better competition among students and remove this legislative relic which causes unnecessary bureaucracy not cans it is an R. Cantin regardless of congressional district and deserves to compete based on other merits I appreciate a good vote. Thing no questions again I'd appreciate a good vote thank you. Representative boys explained Bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Representative Ferguson you're recognized to speak against the bill. A I hate to do this dozens by free and we usually vote together but he ran this bill last time somebody runs this bill every time since the inception of this program in nineteen ninety nine and I wanted I had to I didn't know he was running it needs so because with their education was not a committee side to quickly gather some information from you A. M. S. U. M. S. doesn't have a position on this bill and I can tell you that congressional aide me it has been one of the biggest reasons that we have in any way address mail distribution in the state what happens of. The the rule is that it not ever the congressional district admit is twenty seven people from each congressional district get admitted the first second third and fourth of the hundred and eight of a hundred and eight of the hundred seventy five applicants so everything over the hundred eight anyone can get admitted in that group and buy down it made anyone that is not did not qualified I mean they have it in CAD in a grade point everything in every way that qualifies them but what it does we're the first imports District particularly if you're from there there's no way you should vote for this bill because it will dramatically reduce the number of applicants that you get accepted to medical school but let me tell you why it's important if you're from the second or the third district to vote for it because you want a distribution of doctors in the state I continue in my hometown every single doctor either was from my county or their wife was for Clark County so it and there's good evidence I've had them pull the figures the of the of the initially made of the hundred and eight there's twenty seven from each congressional district but last year after they added the additional let me at slot there were sixty seven from the second congressional district in forty five from the third so almost I mean all of the additional slots are being taken up by people from the second and third district so they didn't get in on the original congratulate me yet in those districts are getting their quota met with the additional students that are admitted because it's only seventy percent thank god of congressional match also I can just take a had them pull the numbers of the people that continue to practice in Arkansas. Saw the first conditional district it's sixty eight point three percent stake in Arkansas of the second it's fifty seven point nine of the third at sixty and Alaska numbers on the fourth but but you can say the first and the fourth have actually have more doctors that Phoenician stay in Arkansas so it's March for us it's been great to help them out distribution and help people that are not from Little Rock for northwest Arkansas to get a medical school and like I said there qualified it's not like they're not qualified they have good education good scores but there may be a few people in the second third district on that initial let me at that have a little bit better scores than the people who got in but it's also helping us with the distribution throughout the state and I might add the third district you already have the osteopath school in you have the Alice Walton is building a medical school there to help address of your admit so I just encourage you to continue the program it's been successful it's helped us get medical students from all over the state sort of given the opportunity to do that. Represent Ferguson spoken against building would like to speak for the bill president cloud you're recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker members of don't really disagree with a lot that representative Ferguson had to say as far as the distribution and the numbers but I would ask you to consider this when you go to a position you want the best and the brightest I would think and UAMS has the program in place where those applicants for are all vetted and it doesn't matter which part of the state you come through you go through the same vetting process she mentioned that we've got the osteopathic schools Fort Smith and Jones borough so what that means is the competition is going to be increasing two hundred twenty or so graduates this year from those two osteopathic schools I don't think that we should hamstring UAMS to the number of applicants they can take from any part of the state because again the competition is just going to go up and up and up the the main thing are areas need to do to get positions in their. Is to make it attractive for those positions to come we need to increase our residency programs we don't have near enough residency spots in our state right now to take care of the osteopathic in medical school graduates we have so a lot of those graduates regardless of which school they go to are going to leave the state to go into the residency program and that's where they can be groomed to stay in that area so I support this bill thank you. Percent cloud has spoken for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill represent baby you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I before I came to session today I was meeting with for CEOs rule hospitals in south Arkansas I'll tell you if this bill passes it's going to be virtually impossible to attract physicians and doctors and rules out the Arkansas local local students who attend Maddox medical school or are more prone to come back and locate in our market and operating practices in in in the communities that grew up in if this bill passes their concerns from you AM and other educational facilities that will be virtually impossible it's going to further handicap a process that is already difficult so I'm asking you all to vote no. President bay is spoken against the building would like to speak for the bill represent Pilkington you're recognized speak for the bit. Thank you Mr Speaker I'm probably only one here who. Has a master's in healthcare administration hand is pretty well versed in this issue There's a lot of good points and other classmates in the best ones where you're gonna end up practicing is primarily on where the your residency is about seventy five percent of residents in a practicing within a ninety mile radius of their. Residency not where they go to medical school something that's really important is a two separate things that we're talking about and while yes these people go to school you a mess they are qualified I think once again we should make sure that our programs are top programs in the state that were making sure that the best and brightest go there and with that I ask for a good vote I think this is very good alcohol I'm from the fourth congressional district I know a lot of people who are cheesy nineteen to apply to you a mass and just going to some the other schools and I think this helps open it up thanks. Percent Pilkington is spoken for the building would like to speak against the bill represent Wardlaw you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. I don't know a lot about this subject my college is being called me all morning from south Arkansas in one of their biggest concerns is out of state students and they're worried that by doing away with this rule we end up or more out of state students at UAMS with the current structure and it's been there for decades. In this bill comes up every session almost the written it requires those seventy percent students to be even distributed around the state and by doing away with that you're going allow more out of state students to be in competition with our home grown folks which probably means those people will go back to wrestling programs and back to practice in another state that's our biggest problem is getting doctors in our state in keeping on so with that I would encourage you to vote no. President Wardlaw spoken against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. President Boyd you're recognized close for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I want to help the debate here and so I want to address a couple things let me start with out of state students UAMS college of medicine can already allow out of state students and if you go back to two thousand ten actually two thousand seven there was a high of twenty six but that number's been treated trending down to two thousand twenty there were only eight out of state students and so this in no way it's going to impact their decision the other thing regarding a mess and admissions I'm just going to suggest that ultimately this body votes on their appropriation so they're always going to have. Interest in what this body thinks about things so what this bill does is it doesn't mean that we're not gonna have anybody from rule Arkansas admitted to medical school it's going to allow the admissions committee to make a better choice on what that criteria is not this arbitrary congressional district so That said I would very much appreciate a good vote thank you. Represent Boyd has closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen oh seven prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Has everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of forty seven Yeas forty five days and to present the bill is failed Mr Clark please read house bill fifteen ninety one. House Bill fifteen ninety one by representative Gazaway allowing a school district superintendent to inform school resource officer of the suspension of a teacher or a recommendation for the termination of a teacher president Gazaway you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues this bill makes a an exception to the feet teacher fair dismissal act to allow a superintendent does not require but allow a superintendent to inform a school resource officer at the appropriate campus the teacher has been dismissed whether that's terminated or suspended why is that important because sometimes when the teachers terminated has to do with student safety sometimes a particular student they've been terminated they may be disgruntled and the state the school resource officer needs to know if there on the campus that they may be trying to contact a student our third disgruntled and whether or not they're supposed to be there or not it again it it uses very narrow exception to say that when the superintendent I am forms a school resource officer they're supposed to do it in the least restrictive way as possible as far as disclosing details there's supposed to disclose as little as possible and so I think it's a very narrow exception that will protect students safety and campus security with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Sing out appreciate a good vote thank you. Representive Gazaway is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Gazaway is closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill fifteen ninety one prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety two yeah zero nine one present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read house bill seventeen twenty eight. House bill seventy twenty eight by representative Godfrey to amend the law related to campaign finance to allow campaign funds to be to pay child care expenses and to amend portions of initiated act one of nineteen nineteen initiated act one of nineteen ninety six representante FOR you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker thank you colleagues house bill seventeen twenty eight allows candidates for elected office to use campaign funds for child care expenses if they are incurred by the candidate is engaging in campaign activity it also allows elected officials to use carryover funds for camp for child care expenses incurred while the elected official is performing her responsibilities as an elected official there is already a provision in code that any commitment obligation or expense that would exist regardless of the candidate's campaign shall be considered personal income so this bill would not cover existing or full time childcare commitments or expenses these expenses would only be allowable if the candidate or elected official is actively engaged in campaign activity or in her official capacity as elected officials as with the candidate and elected official myself who has young kids I've been fortunate to have friends and family help out caring for my kiddos while I had camping offense knocked on doors made fundraising phone calls or traveled from Springdale to Little Rock during session or for committee meetings however for some parents who may find themselves without reliable volunteer childcare it can be limiting enough to not be able to run for office or to serve their communities as an elected official several states are moving toward these allowable child care expenses candidates are using campaign funds for childcare in twenty two states either through legislation or an ethics committee ruling at least thirteen others have introduced or currently introducing legislation for this issue in twenty eighteen the Arkansas ethics commission ruled in favor of the candidate who requested to use campaign funds for childcare and the ethics commission testified with me in committee last week affirming that this legislation comports with the advisory opinion in that case however the ruling was particular to that individual case so this bill would allow all candidates to move forward in the spirit of that positive ruling and be able to use the funds for child care expenses without having to get approval from at the. Commission on a case by case basis. This bill received a unanimous do pass from the rules committee and Senator Breanne Davis as the Senate sponsor showing that child care is a bipartisan or even non partisan issue happy to answer any questions representive ray for what purpose. You're recognized representative Godfrey my question is about Page two beginning on line nineteen it says and the source of the reimbursement shall be authorized under the rules of the house of representatives or the Senate and used to reimburse the carryover account. Can you explain what that means. Yes when the product right here. Thank you looking over just a second. You know that specific wording was was drafted for me by BLR and. Upon consultation with the ethics commission they said that that comported with their ruling and they didn't request any members on that particular section so I'm I'm not exactly sure but I I am happy to follow up and and get you some clarification on that part okay follow up Mister Speaker. It. I'm a little bit confused by the wording but on the face of it it looks to me as if that section. Might allow for. House of representatives funds to reimburse the carryover account which is leftover campaign money is that the way. You read that. That's the way I intended the bill to be dropped is not the way I have. Kind of receive clarification on the allowable expenses through this bill I'm again I'm happy to follow up with you in and receive clarification thank you. Any questions. Represent Charlene Fite for what purpose question you're recognized thank you I was just wondering some of us care for disabled family members are for elderly family members. Is there any provision for those or is on the I know this one is just child care but was that also considered that's a great question it actually wasn't considering I had focused on child care just for kind of. Experiences that other candidates had specifically and in alignment with the ethics commission ruling but that's certainly something that I think we can look at as well I know that that could be a limitation I'm in the same way that child care challenges can't be I think that's a good point. President Fortner for purpose question you're recognized. But representative you made several references to her. It would this be I'm serious. Should this say his or her but that's it I could be child care to absolutely those are just my own personal remarks absolutely there are male co sponsors on the bill this certainly would include fathers as well as mothers that the her was just in my own remarks I would certainly include his in her and and know that child care is an issue for months and absolutely point well taken. Represent Miller for purpose. You're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker of represent Godfrey. Some of us here have employees some of my employees I feel like are my children. Is this bill going to allow me to get someone to watch them while I'm. Down here. My business or whatever I think that's fair as a former elementary school teacher I can say a minute charges may seem like children as well but notice that only be for your your children at the parent thank you thank you represent the Kinsey for purpose question you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker. Thangals Amendment ninety four thank you I don't think that the number right the famous John what's amendment to establish term limits that I think left a bitter taste a lot of folks mounts because it didn't do that I believe that someone also more than doubled our salaries and I think also addressed then you know the give and take is less officeholder expenses here did we have any language in there that said he voter you vote for this later on down the road we're gonna come back up here and chip away at it piece by piece. Any language in the bill in any amendment that people know Hey we can still come to this later on. I'm not sure I understand your question representative. Do you mean in my particular bill or the original amendment the amendment back in when we established it did a lot of things and if established term limits so to speak really shortened on but people thought they were getting term limits it also provided a commission that's going to address the salaries and try the give and take was we'll give up a lot of this officeholder expense but the Commission our salaries for more than doubled so people voted for thinking they're gonna lot of different things I'm asking do you know if there was any language in it that let people know all right when you pass this in our salaries get doubled and continue continue going up what a like you know that later on down the road we may go ahead and come back up here and and start adding some more places we reckon being reimbursed for those officeholder expenses sure I appreciate the clarification I think in this case you know this while it is kind of adding additional language to me it's just clarifying what the ethics commission if art is is allowing in current law that there are things that candidate than an elected officials are able to use with their campaign funds this is just spelling out. Those allowable expenses specific to child care so it's not. It's not totally new language in that it hasn't been approved before in that there are provisions in code already to stay at this is something that that a candidate could come into play for this is just to clarify these are allowable expenses we are saying indeed candidates may use these the sons for their child care this. Representative Deborah Ferguson for purpose question you're recognized and any may have answered it but I have my understanding and rules when ethics came and testified that this is already the practice of approving these child care expenses in certain circumstances this statute just clarifies it for because they constantly have to get that question is that that's right the ethics commission ruled like I said in twenty eighteen that a candidate could use childcare expenses based on the existing law this law would just say candidates may move forward in the spirit of the positive ruling to say this is allowable and they don't need to comment apply for permission every time we're just kind of establishing the expectation that yes candidates may use the funds as at the commission ruled and and agreed to. Represent Lundstrum for what purpose. Question you're recognized representative Godfrey when people donate to my campaign or do your campaign or any of our campaigns do you think their intention is to give us free childcare because this won't be taxed I don't think it's free childcare I think it's a legitimate campaign expense you know if if we ask candidates want to hire staff were able to do that there's a provision in code to hire individuals to work for a campaign to me this is just an extension to say if I'm having a campaign events and I've got young kids and I can pay the individual just like I could pay the individual to work on my campaign to cover those child care expenses that are incurred during the campaign activity not to provide free childcare but to say this is a legitimate campaign expense follow up. but we are paying taxes on this and this isn't donated money so we are getting a benefit that not everybody in the real world Agence so it's laws for the and not for me wouldn't you agree I understand the concern again I think it's it's so similar in the intent to paying child are paying campaign workers this is just another way that you can use those funds to pay the individuals to do campaign related activity which in this case the structure thank you represent Payton for what purpose question you're recognized thank you Mr Speaker representive god for you referred several times to the ethics commission ruling and your bill addresses to circumstances one where Canada suffers an expense for child care and another where after you're elected serving getting a paycheck. It covers childcare did their ruling cover both of those are just one in that instance it was just a candidate paying for child care but again and and their review of the bill they saw there so. And another section that talks about carryover funds and kind of connect them as you can use permissible and. Campaign fund expenses in the same way that you can use carryover funds so that's why we we kind of near that is a lot like sentences while well I appreciate that I think section two is what I have the most problem with because you know once you are when you're campaigning and you're asking for the job you know what it pays and whether you if you will get a job anywhere you would have to cover your child care expenses but Kankan court representative Miller was talking about you know I have to hire help to fill in at my businesses when I'm down here and yeah there's no in the list of things that we could cover under incurred expenses so I appreciate your answers thank you Mr Speaker represent flowers for what purpose question you're recognized just I think representative Payton's question I just want to get clarification because I think you raise a good point or question. And I recall hearing you say earlier that whether a candidate or a member this is not an expense that. Someone could be reimbursed for if it's a regular expense that you already pay for childcare and have child care because your kids are in school may have after care you can't come back and then say I'm a member of the candidate so I want to be reimbursed for that it sounds like and please correct me if I'm wrong. Even after a member many of us get requested to come and speak at an event are we are requested to do things in conjunction with serving that is not an everyday occurrence is that what something like this would cover verses your everyday childcare expense yes that's exactly right now happy to read this section of code that I think really is the sticking point a lot of people about questions about this I know members of the rules committee did too but then when I saw this provision code that says a candidate who uses campaign funds to fulfill any commitment obligation or expense that would exist regardless of the candidate's campaign shall be deemed to have taken campaign funds as personal income and that kind of that that near code about carryover funds says carryover funds maybe expense at any time for any purpose not prohibited by this chapter and may use campaign funds for seeking any public office however the candidate shall not take funds as personal income or as income for his or her to it just depends House so that's kind of the parallel and there that that and if the you know the child care would exist regardless of the campaign are regardless of and that elected officials serving that it would not be permissible with these lines. Represent Miller for what purpose question you're recognized for a question thank you represent Godfrey possibly you or are some of the other experts that we have in the room could could answer this what exactly does it feel like to have enough campaign funds to pay anything other voluntary I think that's a great question I am certainly not wanting to use this pressure campaign funds on anything other than a legitimate campaign expense and I think that that's definitely definitely something that I can emphasize that again I think these are just at both the ethics commission ruling in and the intent of this bill is to say for those instances where a candidate needs I need child care because of campaign activity I then this would be an opportunity to to use those funds to report them you know to have the oversight of the ethics commission to report and any instance of a miss used to have a complaint and at so I think that they're not part both in place that we can say at this is something that we agree candidate should have access to that I appreciate a good vote. Represent Godfrey's explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill represent rate you're recognized. Thank you Mr Speaker college before I was elected I spent about a decade managing congressional and statewide campaign so I have some familiarity with campaign finance rules I'm also familiar with the experience of running for office with small children I have a three year old daughter and a one year old son and when we. During my primary which was in March of twenty twenty my son was actually born on January sixth so I sympathize with the plight of people with small children running for office I certainly do. The problem with this bill is that it's extremely broad and it goes far beyond what the Arkansas ethics commission said in their twenty eighteen opinion was permissible. And in doing so it I I think the bill really blurs the line between what is a campaign expenditure and what is a personal expenditure. that's problematic for for a couple of reasons what are ethics commission has said is permissible is basically sort of a two prong test if the expense is a result of your status as a candidate. And you would have that expense and you would not have that expense regardless of your status as a candidate. Then it would be permissible the Federal Election Commission has said something pretty similar they call it the irrespective test so say for example you have small children that need to be watched you have to give an evening speech local civic club because you're running for office in that instance it's probably permissible under our the our ethics commission ruling to pay for your for your child care. And if all this bill did was codified what the ethics commission is set is permissible then it would probably not be objectionable however there's two major areas of concern here one is that this bill does not contain any limiting language such as regardless or or the irrespective test that the FCC has so that's problematic because it would open the door for people to be able to shift campaign expenses over to their personal expenses that would certainly be unethical and under our current law that would be illegal. The second main problem is this bill allows for carryover funds which are campaign funds their leftover campaign funds to be used for child care resulting from someone's official responsibilities so the four months January through April that we're here in session plus all of the committee meetings that we attend and a host of other various responsibilities would fall under here. The reason that that is a bad idea is because it fails the regardless test. Presumably if the someone was not here doing their duty as a legislator they would be working a job somewhere else and so that child care expense would exist regardless of whether they're working here in the legislature or whether they were working in a factory somewhere so it fails the year regardless test and and lastly that the what I pointed out of my question that language on page two from line nineteen through twenty one I'm not even sure what this portion of the bill means it sounds to me like that portion of the bill could require that the campaign accounts the expenses that are used for child care expenses be refunded by the by the legislature I've certainly hope that's not the intent because I think that I would be totally against that I think ninety nine percent of our voters would be as well so I think this bill probably need some fine tuning needs to go back to committee and needs to be much more narrowly tailored than the very broad bill that that we have before us today side of encouraging of a. President Reagan spoke against the bill what we would like to speak for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. Represent god for you're recognized close for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I thank you colleagues I understand the need to look at that closely when we talk about ethics rules I think and the scrutiny is warranted but just to close I'm representative rate thank you for following up I could put eleven on the spot there but I just at that section you had asked about to me that's just saying that if we are allowing I'm carryover funds to be used for these expenses that there will be a house and four Senate rule regarding the the reimbursement details around that and then and I understand the the need to kind of take it up after committee on Tuesday that the commission did say you know there there's a a way that we can add some regardless language that that could kind of tying it up and kind of near that section and co that I read earlier but to kind of put that in these particular sections adding that the terminology and that the child care expenses would not exist in the absence of the campaign and inspection to adding and the child care expenses would not exist in the absence of the elected officials holding office that's an amendment that's been requested by the ethics commission I've I've spoken to senator Davis she's happy to add that on her and if we're able to get it off the floor today because you know I again my intent is to be inclusive and expand access to be able to run for office and for for families who have the child care and challenges but I also certainly want to make sure that all of the and. That there's as as minimal opportunity for for misuse as possible and so I'm I'm I'm happy to take your concerns with me again at Senator Davis that that should be happy to kind of tighten it up on her into for successful today and with that I would appreciate a good vote. President Godfrey has closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of house bill seventeen twenty eight prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Is everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of thirty two yeas fifty nine days in five present the bill is failed Mr Clark please read house bill seventeen oh six. House bill seventeen oh six by representative Wardlaw to create the logging and wood fiber transportation job creation incentive act and to create the Arkansas would energy products and force maintenance income tax credit. Wardlaw you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. This bill brings a timber industry where we should've brought on years and years ago when we put the steel mills in northeast Arkansas we form the recycle tax credits and all this bill does And it was drafted by the FNA and ADC is makes timbers industry eligible for those recycle tax credits so when they put in a pellet mill has been the subject of this whole bill for the whole session they'll building receive those tax credits up to a five million dollar cap on all the equipment they bought to build that steel mill and they will only be able to receive that tax credit once the meal is up and running so that means we don't put anything in up front we were collecting taxes on by that time so it's not a hit to the state budget us reason it came through the awesome Revenue and Tax Committee with the great chairman Jett is because it doesn't hit the budget it is it is one hundred percent a plus for the state to do this for demonstration and I appreciate a good vote thank you. President Wardlaw has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Represent Wardlaw is closed for the bill the question before the House is passed house bill seventeen oh six prepared machine. Is everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. I voted ninety one Yeas one day and one present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read senate bill eighteen. Senate bill eighteen by representative Gazaway term in law concerning child custody and visitation. Ferguson Gazaway you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues that bring you senate bill eighteen. Which I believe is one of the more important bills that you will consider this session. This is a bill that came out of the Senate Judiciary Committee but by a vote of seven to one. The bill that passed the Senate with thirty one votes and it's a bill that came through the aging children and youth committee with a nearly unanimous support. Siberry simply what the bill does it creates in divorce actions and paternity actions a rebuttable presumption in favour joint custody. So one of things I want to do is you know clear up one misconception right off the bat this does not mandate joint custody in divorce or paternity case it simply says joint custody will be the starting point. The research is clear and I'm not gonna side all of the studies for you many of that many of you have probably receive this and information that you received from. Yes people and organizations that joint custody others amount of research that joint custody is by far better for children than a single family home and you know from academic perspective from criminal justice perspective from all the measures and indicators that we look at for success of children and their well being. Children as joint custody situation have almost just as good of outcomes of children in a traditional parent home two parent home As opposed to children who are in a household with just one parent and so again the research is clear and I'm not gonna go over all of that for you but the system and not I am going to go over this I'm gonna spend a little time on the history because I think this is important this the legal system that currently exist does not work for the best interests of the children is outdated it comes from the from the past in an era that is long since gone and it is not in the best interest of the children today basically for decades in Arkansas the case law said that joint custody was dis favor okay so for decades if you went to court in Arkansas in a contested custody action somebody was going to get custody somebody was going to get visitation but there would be no joint custody and visitation let me just tell you what visitation is because me the court still have standard orders for visitation for the parent that doesn't receive custody a parent that receives visitation has every other weekend for two days they get six weeks in the summer that so every other weekend for two days is about forty eight days a year. Six weeks in the summer is about forty seven days it's a little over ninety days plus throw in some holidays. That the parent that doesn't get custody gets with that child and I'm telling you this system that we have today has excluded good parents decent parents loving parents who wanted to care for their children and pass on knowledge and wisdom to on we have been unable to do it because of the system that we have in place how long has that system existed well let me tell you when I started practicing law in two thousand six so that was about fifteen years ago not an eternity ago but fifteen years ago if I took a divorce case and it went to court again somebody was getting custody and somebody was getting visitation but there would be no joint custody. And what has that meant for the children of Arkansas. It means that good parents have been excluded from the lives of their children and the children have suffered so I'm gonna give you some statistics here. Children raised in single parent homes spec count for sixty three percent of teen suicides seventy percent of juveniles and state operated institutions seventy one percent of high school dropouts seventy five percent of children and chemical abuse centers eighty five percent of those in prison eighty five percent of children who exhibit behavioral disorders and ninety percent of homeless or runaway children I didn't say that the US centers for disease control US department of justice in the US census bureau gathered the statistics it is vitally important that children have to active and involved parents in their life to the extent that they can now let me say. Joint custody is not appropriate every case and I'm not trying to sit here and tell you that it is there are many cases that are not appropriate for joint custody and if we pass this law those parents will still not get joint custody who am I talking about I'm talking about parents who are drug addicted parents are alcoholics parents or physical abusers parents are sexual abusers we see all of these things and if this bill passes those people will still not be getting joint custody so I know that there have been I think some misconceptions there been some rumors if this bill passes it will allow that it's absolutely not true. So. Now I want to talk about what the bill actually does it just kind of go through the the specifics of it again this bill says that in an action concerning an original child custody determination in a divorce or paternity proceeding that there will be a rebuttable presumption of joint custody that means the starting point in those cases are we're going to assume that joint custody is best for children. If there is clear and convincing evidence that it's not in the best interest of children in the court doesn't have to work joint custody now that's one of the things that I expect if if there are people to testify against this bill and we certainly heard in committee the people that are opponents of this bill are concerned about the clear and convincing evidence standard and they want to act like that that is some overwhelming burden and that its way too high and so I think that deserves a little bit of explanation because I want to clear that up. In the law we have burdens of proof. And three of the major burdens of proof that you'll see if you ever step into a court room our number one the preponderance of the evidence that's the standard that we use now on these types of cases that's the kind of standard that we use in a car wreck case what is a preponderance of the evidence preponderance of the evidence simply means the greater weight of the evidence what is that that's fifty percent plus anything some people describe it as fifty percent plus a feather some people say if you have the scales of justice in their equal it's tilting the scales ever so slightly one direction or the other that's the current burden of proof that we have in these cases and what does that mean and impracticality it means that judges can do what ever they want in these types of cases they have on but basically unbounded discretion to do whatever they want because they're the burden of proof in these cases is simply this. Ever so slightly. And what we propose in order to ensure that joint custody is actually the starting place and that this is meaningful is that the burden of proof in these cases ought to be by clear and convincing evidence and so what is that clear and convincing evidence means is the type of evidence that leaves you with a firm conviction. That you've made the right decision. And so it's not beyond a reasonable doubt and so that is the third one that I want to explain and that's the highest burden of proof that we recognize in Arkansas law beyond a reasonable doubt if you're involved in a criminal case that's the burden of proof the state has or the prosecution has in a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is not required in this this is an intermediate level of proof clear and convincing evidence now. Again there are some people who will tell you that expected or people that speak against the bill to try to tell you that this is way too high a burden let me tell you where else you see this bird. If there is a case of defamation by a public official who tries to claim that they've been defined by a member of the public they have to prove that by clear and convincing evidence why because we protect the public in their first amendment rights to speak out against public officials. If in a in a civil case you want to award punitive damages against the company against an individual to punish that individual you have to prove those punitive damages are necessary by clear and convincing evidence why because before we punish someone we want to make sure that there's sufficient level of proof if you want to change the terms of a written instrument like a wheel you have to prove that those terms should be changed by clear and convincing evidence why again because we want to protect people when they make out the written instruments like like their wheels. Last two other things if there's an order of protection people fill out these orders of protection to domestic cases routinely if there's an order of protection case when it goes to court you have to show that domestic abuse was committed by clear and convincing evidence why because fundamental rights are at stake if an order protections grand against you for instance you lose your right to keep and possess a firearm for a year and so we make that burden in those cases clear and convincing evidence and lastly in a DHS case in order to terminate parental rights in the DHS case it has to be proven by clear and convincing evidence. And what I would say to you is are these cases. Not as important. Where a child will live for maybe eighteen years or fourteen years or ten years or the next eight years the amount of contact that they're going to be able to have with the parent who wants to provide love and attention and and wisdom and guidance for that child are these cases not as important as a car wreck. I think they are. And that's why that burden is so important. Because without it if the standards it is a preponderance of the evidence if it's fifty percent plus anything. It's meaningless judges will simply make their order and there will be no guarantee or not and not a guarantee that there will be no. Clear way to tourists have joint custody and this will help in that regard. Secondly you know the the presumption can be overcome if the parties reach an agreement on all issues the presumption can be overcome if one parent doesn't want joint custody and the party the presumption can be overcome and this is important because one of the things that I've heard is that this bill would allow rapists to get joint custody absolutely not true. If someone comes up here and says that absolutely not true so there to existing presumptions in the law number one is that it's not in the best interest of the child that custody be awarded to a sex offender and number two that custody not be awarded to a person who is engaged in a pattern of domestic abuse those are existing presumptions in the law and so what we've said and this bill is if those presumptions are proven by a preponderance of the evidence that overcomes the rebuttable presumption for joint custody okay. And so there are people who are trying to make that argument this is not allow rapists to get joint custody again not true. Secondly the in this section one the circuit court may enter an order to reduce conflict. Which they should section two says that the circuit court shall consider joint custody right now the law says that the circuit court in these kinds of cases may consider joint custody we say that in these types of cases the circuit court shall consider joint custody because judges should be in every one of these cases considering having as an option on the table joint custody. Section three the court shall consider the best interest of the child that's the case now that will remain the case the parent who is not granted sole primary joint custody is entitled to reasonable parenting time. Unless that would endanger the physical mental or emotional health of the child. At a party request a written order a party can get a written order and then and the the last section section for the judge the court is supposed to make written findings of fact and conclusions of law. About their decision and they're supposed to enter an order to the extent possible so long as it's consistent with the best interest of the child that would maximize parenting time with the parent who is not awarded custody. And so what I would tell you is this is a good bill that will help children by enabling them to have meaningful if frequent contact with both parents which the evidence is clear. When it's appropriate is by far in the best interest of children. And with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Representative Cavenaugh for what purpose question. Representa Gazaway will give an example and you tell me if this is going to affect a joint custody. We have a lady who has been physically abused children been physically abused she leaves the home out of fear for her life. And she goes and she files for divorce. Is she going to have to then encourage usually expenses and she currently would now not to let the abuser to see her or the children. Okay that's a good question. And my and my response to that is no currently in the law there is a presumption that it is not in the best interest of the child the joint custody be awarded to a person who engages in a pattern of domestic abuse secondly if there is solid evidence that that abuse was happening I can't imagine a judge in this state that would likely award joint custody to someone who has been physically abusive to their spouse or to their children again you know judges have a lot of discretion they can do whatever they want but I just don't see that happening based on my experience And and the second the fact that you laid out follow up Mister Speaker. My concern is this is that most of the time it's the women who have the last monetary of availability to fight some of these cases and a lot of times it's domestic abuse survivors because they have been isolated they don't work they don't have the resources that might be their abusers have and so for me that's a big sticking point is I want to make sure that these people and children that are suffering from this abuse aren't forced into an automatic situation where they have to see the abuser and that's a big concern for me and that's why I was asking the question if you could just clarify that sure I think that's a great point you know that is one of the things that was brought out in committee is well how does this affect people that have different very very levels of resources one party that has a lot of resources persons a party to say doesn't have a lot of resources the issue is is that exist in the way the law is now and we can't stop you can't prevent people who have a lot of resources from using on to attempt to get their way in any given legal situation unfortunately that's the case now I actually think if this law passes it's going to help because in order to overcome that presumption that joint custody is best they're going to have to have some real evidence that is not now. In that case again domestic abuse if there's proof of that if the children have seen it may testify to it if she testifies to it if their photos of bruises for instance or you know other physical evidence that there's been physical harm or injury to her I expect that would be introduced into evidence and I expect that a judge would likely not award joint custody in that situation I wish that we could make the system better and I say this with for again for people who have resources versus people that don't but that has been the case in the legal system for as long as I know it's not right it's not fair and and I would challenge the Bar Association and others you know to the extent that they can combat that to do it because it is it is a reality. Represent flowers for what purpose question. Thank you Mr Speaker resent Gazaway just now you talked about the you gave us a really strong R. wants a strong at the expansive explanation about clear and convincing evidence of evidence and and just now you mentioned that you would have to have really strong evidence that you talk you mentioned that in the case of domestic violence you know evidence of bruising could be used and the children could testify. And I guess my question is in light of the fact that so many of these cases of domestic violence are not called into the police for a lot of reasons for financial reasons for family reasons they just aren't there typically escalating it sounds like what you're saying is that it could also that you believe that the best. Circumstances. Two. Deal with this. Is to put the children in the position of choosing the parents. That's right now that's not necessarily the case. So how how would that work if there is no real clear and convincing evidence. And then you we get to a system where we're relying we're relying on children to testify in situations like that against one parent or the other. Well I I would just tell you that's what we rely on now and that's how the system operates now you know if a judge believes in all of these cases the judge is the sole determiner of the credibility of the witnesses and so you know with respect to the right argument for instance or abuse argument the Supreme Court has found in rape cases and I know because I've tried on typically the only evidence that you'll have in a rape case and particularly with the child is that the child's word the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim if believed by the jury or the judge is sufficient evidence in a criminal case to sustain that case beyond a reasonable doubt and to state sustained the conviction and so again you know that we say that's the type of evidence that we have now that's the type of evidence I would expect that we would see you know in the future in these types of cases and I don't have any doubt in my mind that that would not be sufficient evidence for the judge to overcome the presumption and not award joint custody if this law passes I'm very comfortable in saying that. Follow up. I'm wondering if you can enlighten us on. How this wouldn't. Require more litigation more hiring of attorneys and is this not. How and and and under those circumstances how do we deal with the issue of right now this being an issue about judges not following through with their orders and judges not necessarily follow the law as it exists right now how would that change under this law. It's a great question and actually even in this this came out in committee I think that if this bill passes it will reduce litigation in these in child custody cases and the reason being is if parents start out with the idea and again I'm not talking about situations where there's really bad evidence we know situations where there's domestic abuse whether sexual abuse where there's those types of evidence that's a different category of cases that should go to court and I fully expect that there will be evidence to prove those just as there are now those cases go to court but in the vast majority of cases this will reduce litigation because the parents will come in and meet with an attorney who will say in Arkansas there's a rebuttable presumption of joint custody and unless you've got some strong evidence that this person should have custody and for example there physical abuse or other sexual abuser their drug abuse or other alcoholic whatever it may be unless you've got some of that really strong evidence if the best thing you have our petty complaints against the the parent. Then the judge is likely to a war joint custody and when a bill very similar to this past in the state of Kentucky in twenty seventeen in the two years after that from twenty seventeen to twenty nineteen there's a ten percent decrease in litigation in child custody cases in that two year period of time so I actually think this will work to reduce the conflict it will work to reduce the litigation and which ultimately will be in the best interest of the children. Represent brown for what purpose you're recognized. Representative Gazaway I just want to confirm something my question is will this impact any current child custody cases I mean existing all the ones that have already been determined. That's a that's a good question so in the original bill that passed the Senate the standard would apply to modifications in other words cases where there's already been a final order which would allow people to open up old cases that was debated in the house that was not a good idea that was one of the suggestions of the Bar Association made is that the standards should not apply to modifications in other words of people that went through long and protracted litigation and they've got a final settled order that we shouldn't allow this law passed them to open up and kind of go back and re litigate all of those things I in in modifications of custody so it would not apply in a modification of custody situation and that was one of the things that the Bar Association said that they wanted to see. Thank you very much. Represent flowers for purpose question. You're recognized for another question thank you and I know we just went over the aspects about evidence can you give us an example of what quote unquote strong evidence might be in that would meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence in the case of say sexual or or physical abuse. Well again I think if it's a. And then if there's a a child the testifies for instance that's believed by the judge and that'll be enough it's certainly enough to sustain a rape conviction beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case I believe that it would be enough to make clear and convincing in a case like this you know again if there were witnesses to anything that happened those witnesses who offer a first hand eyewitness testimony would be enough someone can be convicted of murder based off eye witness testimony there's not eye witness testimony but they're things like pictures and things that someone can make a circumstantial case where that's very strong you can prove the can't criminal case with circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt if that circumstantial evidence is strong enough and so I certainly believe just like in the in that context in the criminal courts for the burden is even more stringent than this people would be able to even offer circumstantial evidence to meet that burden but again it's and it can't just be little petty complaints. Follow up. You're recognized and then can you give us the idea of what the average cost is for a retainer for an attorney and divorce attorney or family law attorney. I think it just buries I think transaction and maybe around yeah I mean it I think you'd be hard pressed to find any attorney that would take a. Untested divorce case for an initial retainer less than twenty five hundred dollars but you know depending on the attorney you hire it can they can run in the tens of thousands of dollars thank you. Represent of rye for what purpose yes Sir question Sir you're recognized representative jim. We went through a whole lot of situations here. But when you get right down to it there's a lot of divorces that there's some good man and there's some good ways but there's some friction that occurs at times we say that. But basically representative Jimmy are you not trying to get us into a place to where there's two good folks and a lot of cases and we want to break this thing up in a fifty fifty ways so that they get mama and Daddy to. When it's appropriate yes. Saying no further questions I'd appreciate a good vote the president Gazaway is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. President hockey recognized speak for the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker I have three minutes and most of this comes from a group of parents and might districts and from those that are here in the gallery this morning this afternoon. This law givers needed imperative to children for the opportunity to be loved and supported by both fits capable and loving parents. Are we suggesting it should be an easy task to rob a child of one of their parents no. Do we feel the burden of proof should be lowered to sever one of the two most important relationships the child seems to have in life. No it should be as tall of order as we can make it. It's common sense that if a child can't help for both parents together under the same roof the next best thing is to give that child both parents as much time as possible we know this and yet over the past five decades fifty years family courts across the state have decided that seventeen to twenty percent of parenting time with that is enough. That's like saying you have seven hours to do your forty hour job the work of being a father just doesn't get done. There are seventy six men and twenty four women and this body. We are talking about our rights to raise our sons and daughters our children's right to have each of us in their life first full the next stand as possible is fair to both the mother and father and in the best interest of the child. Parents who are divorcing divorcing each other not their children they will always be one hundred percent father and one hundred percent mother. In closing parenting is the hardest and most rewarding job any of us could ever have the honor of doing. S. B. eighteen creates an updated piece of legislation that reflects what's best for starting in custody for the children in our state who are in need of both their father and their mother having joint custody this bill creates avenues when needed to ensure that proper parental rights are given and based on clear and convincing evidence to determine that joint custody may not be the best. The value of both parents should always be capped in the front of judicial decisions as opposed to an antiquated law or precedence that do not. I ask for a do pass on S. B. eighteen for children everywhere that deserved to be with both parents equally Senator divorce be necessary. As a family oriented state that should be our priority give kids the opportunity to be loved and supported equally by both fit capable and loving parents and I thank you for a good vote. Purpose of hockey spoken for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone represent flowers you're recognized speak against the bill. Colleagues. I'm gonna get a little bit personal. And in a really good way. I was born to two parents who plan to me. They're still married. I had a wonderful childhood. I loving parents they make sure I got a good education. And I grew up wanting five kids. Specifically five. I want to have three. And I wanted to adopt to and I still may adopt. But. I made a decision. Not to have kids. Because I wanted to have children. With a father like I had a father. And because the relationships that I was and didn't happen that way I made a decision. Not to bring children into that kind of situation. The reality though in the country in the state that we live in unfortunately. Is that not everybody got my parents. Not everybody got parents like many of you have had a like many of you are. The reality is that many parents don't get a hundred percent. They don't get parents who want them who love for them. They don't get parents. Who are not addicted to substances like drugs and alcohol. They don't get parents who go their whole lives with parents who never put their hands on each other or call them out of their names. They don't give parents. Who are not. Mentally ill. Those are the kinds of issues that come before judges every day in this state. In this state that prefers joint custody already. And I'll share something with you. Because my dad was so important to me and still is that it is an honor for me to do anything I can to help him now that he's older and still vibrant. It is important to. That dads have rights. I had a friend years ago I don't even know if the the preference of joint custody was in place. Who did not have. Joint custody. He was in graduate school. And because his ex wife. I wanted to work it out and he didn't. She made a decision to get married and was moving the state and he felt like he couldn't do anything about it. We almost because we almost lost our friendship because I pressured him to fight for his daughter and he did I helped him find an attorney. And he got one he fought for his daughter in today. He and his wife ex wife co parent he's married. And they co parent so well that is what is his child the child that his wife shares with the president she married wants to go with him when he comes to pick up a sister. But at the time it was hard. At the time he said he couldn't afford it. You heard representative Gazaway explained that the minimum. Costs for an attorney is twenty five hundred dollars. The minimum cost for a contested divorce. This is an estate and a country where the average person cannot put their hands on four hundred dollars. And we're not even considering the fact. That we know that there's a wage gap. We know that women make decisions every day to stay at home with the kids. So I'm gonna ask you. To be mindful that joint custody is already preferred. To be mindful that judges every day make decisions the best interests of the children and a warrant father's custody. My friend. Got the joint custody that he wanted he was requesting. I have a cousin that I did the same to support. He has custody of his children today two children he's an awesome father and he's a single dad and he works every day to try to make sure that they have access to their mother. But she is not a mother who pays attention. Who is president who even makes a phone call. I know that those kinds of parents exist even in women. That should have the opportunity to make a decision to award custody without this law. And we can we can ensure that judges have the the the. Latitude that they need without price placing these very stringent. Evidentiary state standards on those changes. And I'll ask you to please think in these terms. Because I'm not up here I wasn't a child of divorce and I didn't have a divorce. But I've been around many people many families and had many constituents who have had to deal with that and if any of you have a daughter. If any of you have a granddaughter. Imagine that she may marry the man of her life if any of you have a son and have a grandson he may get married and marry the woman of his dreams and then things change for a lot of reasons. Where it won't be public. There won't be police records. There will best be that child who may be forced to testify against your child. Those are the circumstances that we will be impacting today there is not a need for this the real issue here is ensuring that when judges have placed an order that those orders are followed. And I know that there's a bill coming to address that and another great idea to ensure transparency. Let's pass good law with good intentions. Instead of a loss that would have unprecedented ramifications. I ask for a no vote thank you. President flowers is spoken against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill. President right you're recognized to speak for the bill. Collins I'll be very brief I just wanna make a couple of quick points one is about the the standard that has to be achieved clear and convincing. Is a higher standard but in my opinion it's an appropriately high standard we're not trying to assign blame in a fender Bender here we're dealing with the fundamental rights of parents in the lives of children. How often do we say that one of the. Primary underlining causes of so many of our societal problems. Whether it's teen suicide high school drop out drug abuse incarceration behavioral disorder how often do we say that these problems are a result of a lack of both parents in the child's life. There's a reason that there's no clear cut answer to this and it's because the divorce is messy. And the best that the state can do in a situation of trying to pick up the pieces that's why there's no perfect answer but of the available answers I believe senate bill eighteen is the best available answer so I'll be voting yes thank you. Senate race spoken for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill represent Hudson you're recognized speak against the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker. As you can imagine when you run with a bunch of attorneys to get a lot of opinions on bills that are going to affect their practice. And and I have but I've also gotten a surprising number of emails from constituents who have shared with me some truly harrowing stories about Their own battles for custody their own experiences and their concerns about how this type of bill might affect those types of battles in the future I wanted to tell you all briefly about my friend barb who is or was the wife of a marine officer they got divorced in South Carolina they had a presumption like this of joint custody they had three children she was a stay at home mom stayed home so that he could pursue his career in the military and so that she could pursue her own passion for caring for her children. He was abusing her through most of their marriage course she never reported it because it would have affected his military career would have affected their ability to get insurance for one of their children who had some medical needs that were higher than the others. When she finally was able to get away there were no police reports there was no one who knew about the breezes he always made sure that they were covered up by her close there was no one who knew how he terrorized her at night and would wake her up at all hours sometimes just to exert control over her and make sure she stayed in line. When she filed for divorce in South Carolina no one knew those things she didn't have money for experts she barely had money for an attorney and she had to borrow that from her parents who were up in Pennsylvania. Her husband her soon to be ex husband then spent the next three years continuing to terrorize her based upon the fact that this presumption in favor of joint custody allowed him to do so he overwhelmed her with the money and resources that he could use to get experts that he could get high priced lawyers that he could get people in the community to talk about what a fine upstanding member of the military her husband was. She didn't have anyone really that could speak for her because she wasn't from South Carolina. She tried desperately to get away but he was given the opportunity to go in and demand to inspect the tiny apartment that she could afford he would cancel doctor's appointments because he had the right to get into their medical records without telling her that those doctors appointments were canceled sometimes he would go to school and pick the kids up and not teller. Just so she'd spend the afternoon wondering where her children were. It took years for her to unwind what happened to her in South Carolina and it took him actually losing custody in two separate states for that nightmare to end. Years. Thankfully she's back home in Pennsylvania and her nightmare has ended but what are we doing one we're going to start that type of issue for other our Kansans now you've heard a little bit about the Kentucky law and about the Arizona law but there's some real important distinctions there the Kentucky law which as representative Gazaway mentioned does have the presumption in favor of joint custody but it uses the preponderance of evidence standard and I know that we've heard a lot about clear and convincing verses the preponderance of evidence but the fact of the matter is when we're talking about having to bring clear and convincing evidence it is going to be a war of attrition it will be who can hire the most experts who can hire the most expensive attorney which is interesting because the proponents of this bill keeps saying that the attorneys must not like it because they're not going to make as much money I can assure you that the opposite is true the Arizona law which has also been noted by the proponents has a presumption of joint legal custody or decision making ability but not equal parenting time. So that's an important distinction to. We're not talking about an apples to apples comparison and in regards to the Kentucky law of course we know that causation and correlation or not the same thing so we don't know why litigation and divorce cases has gone down since that law was put into place it could be that there are families to realize that there is an increased burden on one of the parents and so they've given up it could be that Kentucky's found the secret sauce to keep marriages together we have no idea. There's no reason why we have to be against joint custody and I'm not my parents divorced when I was two years old I'm the product of divorced parents and I'm the product of divorced parents who raised me in two separate states anyone who has seen me much outside this chamber knows that I spend a great deal of time with my father who was the non custodial parent and we have one of the best relationships I could hope to have and and I was so fortunate growing up that I had for parents who care deeply for me to step parents into birth parents who helped to raise me but this is not always the case it's not always easy and I can assure you from talking to my parents now that I'm an adult that they have also told me it's not always easy so I understand that but when we're talking about this battle of attrition when we're talking about the standard the power dynamic the fact that you may have one parent mom or dad who stayed home to take care of the kids and doesn't have money how do we reach clear and convincing evidence well there's experts friends exams obviously all of those take money I can tell you that most experts that I hire in just about any different type of case especially doctors psychiatrists and the light will start at a minimum of five thousand dollars and go up from there that five thousand dollars also is not for the course of the entire case there's also an hourly fee that they will charge you on top of that for deposition testimony and for trial testimony so there's that cost there is also going to be protracted litigation when we start taking this into a clear and convincing evidence regarding the parents that really starts to pull us away from best interests of the child in some degree because now we've made the issue more about the parents and the children. But the other thing that you have to worry about is what people will do who don't have resources and so clear and convincing evidence. One way to get it a lot more police reports a lot more orders of protection a lot of trying to use the system in a way to the smarts the other parent in order to get that type of evidence. So now we're going to see an increase in DHS workloads police calls and other criminal allegations. Finally. When we look at these it's always important to look at the laws of unintended consequences and so when we started that presumption and I agree representative Gazaway does have a point there often situations where if you're worried about a rape victim that they wouldn't be caught up in this net because there may be a prior criminal report or criminal history of the perpetrator but in the situations in which there is not in the situations in which someone like my friend barb has been dealing for years with secret abuse with things that didn't garner a police report or an order of protection we will have unintended consequences we will have parents who don't have the resources to get their experts to hire the best attorney and who will continue to be abused by the fact that they are unable by simple fiscal issues to get the type of legal help that they're wealthier spouse might this will particularly affect stay at home mothers who are often the primary care giver for their children and I would urge you to vote now so that we can make sure that we are not going to be. Creating these unintended consequences thank you. President Hudson the spoken against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill represent a clear you're recognized before the bill. Divorce is horrible. I have been through divorce my wife has been through a divorce. I'm a parent too biological kids And stepparent two sons. Since nineteen ninety four. Well over five hundred couples have come to my office. Considering divorce have been divorced. And every time. The stories we've heard today unfolding office. First of all for those. That Been hard to domestic violence mentally or physically. I should never ever happen. And we should do everything that we can to protect the child. Evidence is overwhelming. When we can get to. Emotionally healthy parent send the picture of a child. It changes the trial's chances I would submit to you it changes generations. Because one of the things we're not talking about is the kids to get cost around as a power play between parents that don't want going to can't get along with one another what is the recidivism rate when they get married and have kids. I've been doing this long enough now to see what it does they repeat what they saw their parents do too many times not all the time but to many times. A couple weeks ago I sit here and asked what about the kids I ask you again what about the kids. They're looking for love their looking for hope they're looking for stability. And and I'm thank god for lawyers. But here again the kids are caught in the middle of a volley ball match with the kid caught in the middle. In all there wanting to have is a hollow all there wanting to do this bill say and I will be the first to tell you there are parents that do not need to have access to their kids. Not until they're healthy. There are times that they don't need to be involved. And I will do everything I can to protect the kids in that respect. But there's so many times that I have seen because ours are core systems are overloaded the judges are just seeing over and over and over again. And it does it hi this computer so whoever's got the most money gets the most attorneys in the you know let's just put it this way but the judge often comes down. Two okay this is what we generally do and goes through their. And again the kids supper. All this bill does is just kind of renews and brings it back to the legal front let's start at this place and then figure out a way that it doesn't work and trust or justice to figure out instead of doing what we've been doing for the last thirty forty years. And repeating its process. So here's what I ask you to do. Stop making the kids a part of of a legal debate. And see them as a child. See them as kids whose lives are being shaped by decisions that are being made. See them as a kid that needs hole in safety. And let the judge decide that but give that judge reaffirmed to the judge I understand there's may be there's laws and know what he can already do that or she can already do that but let's reaffirm it and say this is what we're doing let's start to get the best we can for the kids then if there's reasons. But that does both parents should be in that picture then let it be I would encourage you to vote yes. Representative Cllr has spoken for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representive Gazaway. You're recognized close for the. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues quickly making of labor the point but I just want to say many of the people who spoke against the bill talk as if we pass this bill it's going to break the system what I would tell you is the system is broken now. And there have been many a good parent because of the system that we have now and children who have not had the benefit of having that good parent in their life and that is a shame and a disgrace and it's time that we change it all we're doing is saying that the starting point is going to be joint custody if there's good reasons that it shouldn't be then the judge can change that. And we as the legislature so that the public policy of the state and the public policy of this state for children should be that it is in the best interest of the children if there are two good fit and proper parents not trust the court to sort out if there's not. That joint custody is best for those children that should be the public policy of the state and that should be where we start and I appreciate a good vote thank you. President Gazaway has closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage of Senate bill eighteen prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of seventy one yeah a sixteen nays and for president the bill is passed. President Deffenbaugh for what purpose motion your motion hi Mister Speaker having voted on the prevailing side in consideration of house bill seventeen oh seven I move reconsideration represent Deffenbaugh how did you vote I vote yes. I'm sorry about. I'm new at this. I voted no I beg the pardon. That's a proper motion it is debatable represent Deffenbaugh you're recognized to explain your motion. I S. I am After confirm with Justin with representative board I realize I'm voted the wrong way as far as my district is concerned so that's why I'm asking for reconsideration. Thanks. Absent Depp boss explains motion we would like to speak against the motion. What we would like to speak for the motion. President Deffenbaugh is closed for is motion. Question before the House is the reconsideration. Of the vote by which house bill seventeen oh seven failed all in favor say aye. Those opposed. The ayes have it. Motion before the house is the house is the passage of house bill seventeen oh seven prepared machine Mr Clerk. Everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of fifty nine yeah eight thirty one days and to present the Bill pass. representative Allen moved that we re referred house bill fifteen twenty two committee that's proper motion represent Allen you're recognized to explain The motion. Thank you Mr Speaker after consulting with some of my Republican colleagues they have asked me to send the bill back to committee from motions are Fund ma'am and I appreciate a good vote on this. Reserve Alan has explained his motion would anyone like to speak against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion. Represent balance close for the motion the question before the House is the re referral house bill fifteen twenty two committee all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have. Mr Clark please read Senate bill three fifty two. Senate bill three fifty two by representative Johnson to amend the law concerning capital zoning district commission and concerning the appeal process of a capital zoning district commission action. President Johnson you're recognized to explain the bill thank you Mr Speaker colleagues this is a bill that amends the appeal process for capital zoning commission decisions it removes the sector the parts from the process currently the signature the parks as first run it appeals the only way she can overturn appeal as if she finds that the decision is completely erroneous that's a burden is too heavy for her to bear And so it's just a middle step is not necessary all these appeals now going straight to the Pulaski County circuit courts of this just takes her out of that stepped in last district the Pulaski County court. See no questions I appreciate a good vote thank you. Represent Johnson explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. President Johnson's close for the bill the question before the House is passive Senate bill three fifty to prepare the machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark by a vote of eighty seven Yeas four Nays and one present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read Senate bill thirty. Senate bill thirty the representative Dotson to amend the law concerning professional services contracts and outside vendors. Represent Dotson you're recognized explain the bill thank you Mr Speaker members this is a very simple bill that pretty short only has a couple lines on it does two things one the The. Information address sorry. Division of information systems at the word I'm looking for under transformation was moved over to the Department transformation insured services as previously under the FAA and in order to make approval of this regular salaries purchase of professional services and that sort of thing the law wasn't changed in word for the chief fiscal officer is still the one that's making those approvals this would make it the Secretary of the transformation of shared services transfer secretary of the department of transformation insured services and secondarily this would also give the Legislative little bit legislative body a little bit more oversight in that process we're before they can make those before the secretary could make the the approvals they would have to get approval of the Legislative Council or Joint Budget Committee if we're in session. We're happy to try to answer any questions. Appreciate a good vote. President Dotson is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Represent Dotson is closed for the bill the question before the House is passed to Senate bill thirty prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety four yeah zero nine zero present the bill is passed. Wardlaw for what purpose. Let's hear your motion motion to expunge vote in which seventeen twenty eight failed. That's proper motion it is debatable represent Wardlaw you're recognized a motion. This bill had a lot issues on the floor today a lot of concerns brought up about us page number and different paragraphs it came to rules committee without really any opposition so I just want to give her the ability to send it back to committee and address some of those concerns so she can get the bill out and address the twenty eighteen ruling with that I appreciate a good vote president Wardlaw is explained the motion would anyone like to speak against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion represent Wardlaw is close for the motion the question before the House is the expungement of the vote by which house bill seventeen twenty eight failed all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it resent Wardlaw for what purpose motion let's hear motion motion to send house bill seventeen twenty eight back to committee. That's a proper motion it is debatable represent Wardlaw you're recognized to explain your motion. Thank you Mr Speaker just following through on what I said. President Wardlaw has explained the motion would anyone like to speak against the motion would anyone like to speak for the motion represent got for you're recognized speak for the motion. Colleague thank you for the opportunity to send back to committee I certainly value your feedback I understand your concerns I'm willing to make amendments and hopefully try again thank you president Godfrey spoken for the motion when you would like to speak against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion. Represent Wardlaw is close for the motion the question before the House is the re referral of house bill seventeen twenty eight Committee all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. Please read Senate bill one forty nine Senate bill one forty nine by representative Maddox to amend the fair mortgage lending at. President Maddox recognized explain the bill. They were Speaker colleagues these bills were brought to me by the securities department they're all three basically clean up bills I will go over briefly what each of the bills due on that's not clean up this bill SB one forty nine will require companies to establish written cybersecurity policies and compliance policies this bill will also reduce the regulatory burden for loan officers and that is really the only thing it does differently than the rest of language is clean up so that's SB one forty nine a be glad to take any questions. Saying that I appreciated the person Maddox is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Represent Maddox is closed for the bill the question before the House is a pass to Senate bill one forty nine per machine Mr Clerk. Everyone voted. As everyone voted cast about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety one Yeas zero nine zero present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read Senate bill one fifty. Senate bill one fifty a representative Maddox to amend the uniformity Services Act. To Max recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker colleagues securities part of bill all obviously also mainly clean up it does reduce regulation on licensees that does also I add virtual currency is a licensable activity so that's really all it changes the rest is clean up I'm glad take any questions. Senate president of a person Maddox is explain the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Person Maddox is closed for the bill the question before the House the passage of Senate bill one fifty prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. As everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of ninety one Yeas zero nine zero present the bill is passed Mr Clark please read Senate bill one fifty one. One fifty one by representative Maddox to amend the Arkansas securities act. Person Maddox recognized explain the bill. Thank you last one members I'm also clean up this bill does expand protections of vulnerable adults from financial exploitation it'll make the reporting of that a little easier cleans up some of that and that's really all it does the rest is clean up language so I'd be glad to take any questions on this one also. Senate appreciate a good vote. Represent Maddox is spoken for the bill or explain the bill rather we would like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Represent Maddox is closed for the bill the question before the House is the past Senate bill one fifty one prepared machine Mr Clerk. Is everyone voted. Is everyone voted. Asked about Mr Clark by a vote of ninety three eight zero nine zero present the bill is passed members were pass over Senate bill two twenty. Senate bill two twenty nine rather Mr Clark please read senate bill four seventy. Senate bill four seventy by representative eleven to establish the online marketplace consumer inform acted to require the disclosure of information on buy online marketplaces to better inform consumers to regulate online marketplaces to stop organized retail crime. Absent eleven you're recognized explain the bill. Thank you Mr Speaker members today we have the opportunity to put Arkansas in the forefront. We have the opportunity to be the first state in the nation to pass the uniform act and set an example for consumer protection online sales enhancements and cargo theft deterrence. This bill is brought to us to the Arkansas gross is retail merchants association and I said for bipartisan support through our process and has passed through Senate committee Senate chamber in House Committee with minimal concern or opposition. So how does this bill help. First of all consumer protection this will help our constituents answer the question. When they are shopping online of who they are doing business with. Seventy percent of all online marketplace sales are from areas outside of the State of Arkansas in outside of the United States. I want to know and I believe that your constituents want to know if they are legitimately buying from a real person or if they're buying from a foreign country like China or Russia. Secondly it helps promote fairness in the marketplace. This bill will allow an enhanced the online market space of your constituents. That are sellers to have their business spotlighted as Arkansas based. In US based businesses. It will help them promote their products you will help them secure their market share against counterfeit effective and stolen goods. Thirdly it aids in the enforcement of bad players. This puts another tool in the toolbox for our Attorney General to pursue those bad players in the online market place for price gouging. Infringement for inferior or defective products in deceptive trade acts. So how does this bill work there's been a lot of questions about this I wanna make this very very simple as I can for you first of all the online marketplace facilitator will be required to collect and verify six basic pieces of information. The business name the business address business email business phone number business tax ID number and business banking number or payment processing information if they are receiving their settlements through someone like a cash app of in my or pay pal. You may think that's a little bit invasive. But did you know that to have a business in the state of Arkansas they are already providing that information to our secretary of state's office in order to get their franchise license this is not anything new your constituents back home who have these businesses already provide that information secretary of state's office. Secondly most all of your reputable facilitators will tell you that they already do this. As a matter of fact the two largest online marketplace facilitators testified last Monday in committee that they already require this information to set up the accounts. This is not red tape it's basic information at every legitimate business can easily provide. So who does this affect. If they are a high volume seller residence built out in the bill that being two hundred transactions and five thousand dollars and a twelve month period these four things would be accessible by the consumer on the seller's business page. The business name the business address a business email and the business phone what does that mean if you're shopping online and you're looking at making a purchase through one of these online marketplaces there will be a button there they'll say contact information you click that button and it will show you who you are buying from by their business name their business address their business email and their business phone that's all. Nothing personal all of your constituents privacy is still protected. Those four things that will be shown on that page are already shown on every business card in America it's not invasive and it's not red tape. Our constituents have a right to know who they're doing business with an ever reputable seller should want to promote their business in this way I know I would. Now if they're not a high volume seller less than two hundred transactions or five thousand dollars in sales over a twelve month period in only their state and country would be shall. So your constituents back home who are smaller sellers are selling few items the case the on and off when I would go to their page you would go to their page you click that contact information the only thing it would be show would be Arkansas United States. Would you like to know if you're buying from a fellow Arkansans and versus someone from overseas. So who is exempt from this this is why this does not hurt your constituents back home that really operate the small enterprises. Those exempt from it are sellers of used or re use goods such as cars clothes or furniture. So of representative McCollum. Was to do a change in her home and get rid of the furniture good good used furniture that she had she can go online sell they don't want these marketplaces she's completely example having show that information. My representative wingless clean out his closet get rid of his vast collection of times. You can do that the one of these online marketplaces and not divulge any of that information colleagues I believe this is a good consumer protection mechanism in a it's our local small businesses and entrepreneurs and helps our state through the attorney general's office tracked down the bad players in the online market place. He shared a good vote let's put Arkansas on the forefront let's not wait on anybody else to set the standard we can do that today I would appreciate a good vote. President Evans explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Percent eleven is closed for the bill the question before the House is the passage senate bill four seventy prepared machine Mr Clerk. As everyone voted. Everyone voted. Cast about Mr Clark. By a vote of sixty eight yeas fifteen days in for present the bill is passed. Represent Meeks. For what purpose motion place. Let's hear your motion after the announcmenet trading the bills transferring the bill's place of the counters on the desk members amending their own bills their own amendments members withdraw their own bills finalizing resolutions reading communications and any remaining committee reports I move we adjourn until one o'clock tomorrow afternoon. That's a proper motion. It's not debatable all in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it are there any announcements. Represent Jean for purpose management you're recognized joint budget tomorrow morning eight thirty big mac a represent Barker for what purpose announcmenet recognized thank you aging children youth military legislative affairs will eat will meet ten minutes after adjournment and big mac a. A person if Lanny Fite for purpose announcmenet you're recognized city county local will meet in fifteen minutes beg maxi. Represent Smith for what purpose announcmenet you're recognized J. some Palermo will be over in the Capitol Hill apartments at five thirty they'll be food and you're welcome to come and eat and do a little study on the book of proverbs. President wing for purpose announcmenet you're recognized it was a big weekend for four members of our house want to commend Jack Ladyman and Mark Lowery for birthdays yesterday and then on Saturday representative Lanny Fite and Johnny Reid happy birthday. President ball for what purpose announcmenet you're recognized I committee will meet in ten minutes. Any other other represent eleven for what purpose. You're recognized House education me tomorrow morning nine thirty room one fifty one. Any other announcements. The desk remain open as needed for the reading of the bills upon completion The Addams named in the joint resolution house to be adjourned until one PM tomorrow.