State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

Which is basically a voice on behalf of the legislature calling on Congress to help us to encourage the census bureau to get their job done and get us the numbers as soon as possible several States regaining race or voice on that so with nothing further I'd like to start with the S. B. one eighty three I believe Senator Tucker is going to run that on behalf Senator Ingram you're recognized you please state your name and for the record and we'll get started Sir. Thank you Mr chairman Clarke Tucker senator for district thirty two you may remember this bill from Senator Ingram which required candidates to pay ethics commission violations using personal money rather than campaign money there was a an amendment on the house and that that may help some of the concerns that you raise Senator Ballenger but the amendment does is it restricts this so that you can still use campaign funds to pay ethics commission finds unless you're violation was that you took the campaign money and used it for personal income in that case you have to pay the fine out of personal money and not a campaign money that's really what the amendment does Mister Jeremy glad to answer any questions all right members any questions on that. Seeing no questions on that are you close for you bill Sir yes Sir now moved to concur in the amendment all right I have a motion and second were really I was going to see if you're anybody will speak for against I don't see any money so I have a motion for that Senator Tucker second for Senator English all those in favor say aye opposed no. Bill passes thank you senator Tucker. Senator English would you like to do one sixty three. you know for the probably for decorum purposes will go will keep going down I do that myself so thank you. Thank you this is a bill is a military affairs bill and it had a an amendment to it they changed of pine bluff arsenal from white hall to pine bluff at six and of the amendment. Right. Centers any questions for Senator English. The Bill. Singers very by or like speak for against the bill. CNN center you closed I'm closed all right I have a motion. Do pass have a motion to pastor Senator English as second Senator Hester roles of favour say aye. No thank you senator. Bill passes. And we're going to skip over two fifty two for senator garner and Senator Teague told me that he was indisposed as well so we'll skip over that at this time and that brings us I believe to Senate bill four eleven Senator Wallace. If you're ready Sir if. Thank you Mr chair center Dave Wallace to shoot twenty two and I have a witness with me. All right thank you. In Austin do some the chief of staff to the CFO for the Arkansas department of Veterans Affairs all right thank you Austin the search goes Eureka social one side you got marine on the other so. We're travel route eighteen we got Ballenger right over there at S.. Sure we've members were running a little trouble financing our. Arkansas BA with our cemeteries were losing money there and when they have a proposal is two fold. Once the feeding increase for the veterans depended the interment. currently is at three hundred dollars. And then they like to raise that to. Eight hundred seven dollars I believe. Yes that's correct. Then the other part of that is. What now out in the civilian world cost about seven hundred and eighty dollars to fifteen hundred. The open and close to the grave ranges from six or fifty dollars a sim two hundred ninety five dollars and once again we wanted to pick that Two I believe eight hundred seven dollars and I'll let our chief of staff speak will. Right thank you senator Wallace like she described as bills to fold it basically takes the fee that were allowed to collect from eligible dependents when they're entered at our state veterans cemetery it takes that fee that were allowed to collect to the the to the allowance that we received to enter a better and from the federal VA so we're really just trying to establish parity and our revenue stream the other part of this is about one to five times a year the agency is requested to do eight a disinterment of that's normally when a family chooses to move their loved one from one cemetery to another those are incredibly complicated for us and we would like to statutory authority to collect a fee for those disinterment as well we did an analysis before we crafted this legislation and we basically wanted to ensure that we were not only going to increase our potential revenue stream but we were also going to continue to provide a substantial benefit to veterans and to their families whenever we compared the be the benefit that we offer with other cemeteries and funeral homes within central Arkansas area it. It's kind of hard to compare apples to apples because there's so much different pricing structure amongst these private companies but it it it it was very clear to us that it's easy for a for a family to to get to twenty five hundred sometimes even five thousand dollars in expenses to compare both for what we do so we thought that taking the fee for a spouse or dependent and interment to the VA ray was very reasonable. Senator English a question. The VA right injured what is it right now I know that you've got three hundred dollars that's what you've been charging what's the a right the V. eight rate right now it's eight hundred seven eight hundred said they change it periodically they injured for inflation every fiscal year ma'am so this would cover next year raising that rate just as well okay thanks. Any other questions members. So as I understand it just clearly it's stating you're going to whatever is is allowed for the U. S. Code. Yes that's correct in do you happen to know how often they change that they change every fiscal year Sir. Okay. Of. Any concerns about changing that to a point that would be uncomfortable for you. Well. Whenever we undertook this effort we made sure that the language granted the authority to add funds to charge up to the VA rate of we did not drafted to to say that we shall charge the allowance for a spousal interment question we have an ask how much does it cost what do you think the actual cost is for so when you're when you're having the work done what is the actual cost is something we really not covering the cost worship over and above the cost what what would that be our cost her and interment averages about one thousand seven hundred dollars. So you're saying it's a loss then. Yes that's correct okay all right. Members any other questions. Senator Wallace anything else you'd like say on it sure the Arkansas VA's done a tremendous job with their cemeteries they're they're trying to play a little catch up and cut into the losses they do a great job for a veterans and with that I'll closed Preciado what you do anyone like to speak for against this bill. Seeing none senator Wallace is closed for building I have a motion. I have a motion to pastor Senator Ballinger second from Senator Hester all those of favour say aye. All opposed no thank you senator Wallace thank you Austin. All right members of. I believe Senator Irvin this year. Senator room would you like to present Senate bill three fifty two. You senator if you would just state your name for the record and you'll be recognized thank you I'm Senator Missy Irvin district eighteen and members before you with a Senate bill three fifty two this I bring to you on behalf of the Department of Parks heritage and tourism. What this bill does is a committee of C. capital zoning district commission within the division of Arkansas heritage is a structural move as an independent state agency as a unit within the division of Arkansas heritage Arkansas historic preservation program section this also with this move does this provides greater access to historic preservation expertise in programming aligning under a single agency within the department also creates a more streamlined opportunity for additional financial support from our division of Arkansas heritage resources the modify appeared the section that modifies the appeals of the capital's owning district commission action it changes the current process and the seal of the Cup capitals any district commission goes to the cabinet secretary of the department eliminates the secretary's review from the process and provides appeals that may be made to the Pulaski County circuit court and currently the secretary's review is very limited resulting in most appeals ending up in circuit court said the appeals will follow the provisions set forth in the administrative procedures act to provide consistency them with what we currently have. And we do have Secretary her steer and others from the Department I can answer any questions Morant. Of just run in you stated it is pretty clear it is just changing this is taking out the appeal directly to the Secretary going straight to court is that right. So it and I believe that's correct yes yes that's correct. Is it do you happen to know why that. They wanted to no longer have that right as a secretary. I let them speak about that shall have them come up you know with the with all the stuff we've had to deal with and plaster county. Courts I just wonder why we wanted to have a right. I let them speak. I thank it's kind of like Forrest Gump's like a box of chocolates you never know what you'll get when you go there are several signature Hearst I'd just be interested you know why you didn't want to have that that appeal or if there was a legal reason why you couldn't do it yes Sir I'm Stacy her secretary the Arkansas department of parks heritage and tourism in the the appeal process was actually changed and I and I believe it is twenty sixteen perhaps and prior to that if someone wanted to appeal a decision of the capital sounding district commission it be appealed it to the Pulaski County circuit court it was changed so that someone could appeal to the Director of the Department of Arkansas heritage but the standard that must be met is a legal standard called clearly around yes which is a very high standard so it's it's never been met I've never overturned a decision capital zoning district commission they have and Attorney General liaison there that is guiding them and so it is very unlikely that they would do something that would be considered clearly erroneous so what sort of an empty staff and then if they disagree with my decision then they go and appeal it to circuit court anyway so what this does is it returns it to how it was originally drafted before the change was made. Okay well thank you for for the explanation do you have any questions at all for Senator Irvin your secretary hers. I don't see any anything further. That would just again I appreciate being able to work with other departments and create that their recognition of this legal standard and that process to streamline that I think it's really important but also moving this allows for those extra opportunities financially to bring in to the state and so I just think it's good good government policy thank you yeah all right. Seeing no questions is there anyone that would like to speak for against the bill. Saying nine I thank your clothes for the bill senator to have a motion from committee Senator Tucker I make a motion seconded by Senator Ballenger all those in favor say aye opposed no bill passes thank you senator urban sector Hurst thank you members of. Senator Beckham were you on deck here Sir I can see there. He right Senator Beckham are you gonna do to bills okay certainly recognize referred senate bill four fifteen if you would please state your name for the record senator Charles Beckham stay senate district twelve. Senate bill four fifteen to clean a bill for our diet just corrects citations to federal code for relocation. Two members any questions on this bill for Senator back on. This is not a sneak attack provision what's in that coat. I've got to second thing that it references the code the code which. Man I could be anything so. I'm glad I asked the question actually see what the what is going what code is. Does anybody that I thought I would wanna answer. I just wonder what the what the code with the code isn't. It's just. What you come to the table so people can hear you. Thank you senator Beckham. There's a longstanding legislative issue that's incorporation by reference. What happens is that if we have code that suddenly gets injured another level and we never have a chance to review it. Then our law changes not known it so that's why I was asking this question relieve them yes the statute before The Amendment or the change that we're talking about today simply refers to the uniformly location and assistance act of nineteen seventy it does not talk about where the citation for that act is and it is changed a number of times since nineteen seventy so in order to clarify specifically that we're talking about the whole thing as it exists as amended since nineteen seventy we just asked and put the call reference in an apologize I don't think you state your name for the record I apologize that you'll Rogers with the Arkansas department of transportation. You said something key I want to make sure that that just fly past over years that act you said is changed many times to seventy right that's correct okay and so how how long is it been referenced in this Act. I have I couldn't tell you it's McAleese probably since the session after it was passed in Congress. that is exempt exactly my reference of we've dealt with this in our tax laws and we've dealt with this in our insurance laws in the state. And so really what happens there's litigation in many states because these things do get changed it in the federal level or the cases sometimes of on the insurance side if the N. A. I. see which references model lacks the in A. I. see is passed but the legislature never gets any review or any discussion about the fact that the reference made in the code got changed is so is your department going to ensure that in the future that when those acts get change that there's notice to the legislature that the laws actually change that we referenced in our statute absolutely and and and if it it can be pulled down and have the language that says as it existed on January first twenty twenty one if you'd like so that there's no I don't see reason hold up now okay but but I do know I'm just mentioning that because it has become an issue it's ended up in litigation in many different statutes out there and and so I just ask ask the simple question and but it did stumble on the fact that yes this is passed and seventy and has been changed several times so We really should have in the interim have a committee that discusses this issue the tax committee handles it very regularly we've actually handle that often and in the insurance committee as well so thanks for for suffered me a little opportunity to hear you hear on that because it is an issue out there that that actually can change the law and in the legislators never even had an opportunity to speak up on a completely understand all right thank you Sir members any other questions at all. Seeing no questions anyone speak for against the bill saying nine to have motion and emotion by Senator Bledsoe do pass second by Senator Ballinger all's favor say aye opposed no thank you Sir and I think you're gonna be here for twelve fourteen or I sent back all right. You're recognized for house bill twelve forty house house bill twelve fourteen was a at the cleanable just from. yeah mercy management office merging management anyway the eighty Adam centers clean a bill I apologize. Basically it's taking it is increasing some funding but is this combining several different pots of money they receive several different ways the funding comes in so that gives them more flexibility on what projects they work on I believe agencies Gerry's here gears yes if he can better explain it but The current structure of the governor's disaster response fund give specific line items on which amounts are designated for which types of response. And this combined them all into one line item to give more flexibility on how it's been. Any questions or. What director you're elected same thing on the bill. He's not shaking his head to. Senator Davis you're recognized for a question thank you and I would like a little more explanation to it because it's this looks like it's fun within the office of the governor. I think you're very welcome. Good afternoon AJ Gary Director of the Arkansas division of emergency management. Thank you could you M. just explain this open a little more detail how that works how this works means it's quite a large amount to go for an I guess two million to over ten million yeah I actually did it's it's currently broken up and two million for response five million for recovery three million two hundred fifty thousand for catastrophic and three million for mitigation now over over the years actually for as long as the biker member response recovery catastrophic we move those funds around yep if the response if a disaster response goes over the two million we pull up from one of the other areas speaking with Parma finance administration over the last year or so they recommended that if we open this bill up to kind of change that so that the response recovery and and the catastrophic is is more clearly in one area so it's more clearly as we move it around so that's one piece of the bill and the other pieces were adding three million to medication so currently there's three million for mitigation where adding another three million to that for making a total of six million for mitigation and what this is for is for cities and counties that have projects as part of mitigation and emergency management we know from all the studies nationally that for every dollar that's spent on mitigation that we save about six to seven dollars of taxpayer money on the disaster itself so it's it's basically the preventive phase of of the disaster so we can mitigate situations in we can keep. Flooding from happening in areas and and we can reduce the cost of the disaster. So it really doesn't give us any more thorny just cleans up the language again this was a request from the department of finance and administration. Senator Davis thank you so and but it doesn't increase funding it looks like a little over it gives additional money than what was allocated before yes in the mitigation park from three million to two six million so that the three million increase in the medication or the rest of it is the same it's just rearranged differently. Thank you yes right. Your honor thank you have a question come up initially when asked by the figures that you're up there and I had one by your response right now we have this fun and we can only spend those dollars specifically to the specific purposes two million three million and we're gonna do is take that remove all those restrictions give. Sure carwash the governor decide how this money goes. not not really Senator that currently it's it's broken up in the bill but it doesn't it doesn't prevent us from moving those rats House or discussing the question interruption because sure how are you grabbing funds from those other accounts if the law says you can only use two million for X. purpose you just admitted that you'll find other ways to come around this that's what when you responded to my incorrect about that yeah I wouldn't I wouldn't say find other ways it's it's it's always been you know if if the response phase went over it doesn't prohibit us from doing that and department of finance administration and you don't have to have you know approved allowed it said it was okay thank you said that if we open the bill up that to make it more clear that that can be moved from from recovery to response that we might wanna re word that so that's why we went ahead and we we we open it up for the mitigation we change that wording Senate over there to them for approval so currently you're just. You're saying you've always done it that way and the other thing I told you to do something counter to Lowell. Now I wouldn't say that either I mean if. For my understanding in in reading the law and everything it's it's it's fine the way we're doing it but they just they just recommending that to make it you know so that there's no doubt to go ahead and put the response and recovery center have a separate to put him in the same thing along with the catastrophic so it still has to be approved to be spent just like just like it is now it still has to go through the same procedures so you know we would have to request those findings those funds for say a response yeah. Thank you Mr chair so it like take the disaster recovery fund shall be in the amount of five million then has two million three million one Jews for individual assistance ones usually for public assistance I don't know distinction between those two imagine you do you're saying like say the individual system in over two million right now you just grab the money from that three million and use it from the PS yep yeah it's public assistance to individuals is of public assistance say aye I like infrastructure and then individual assistance as like homes property owned by the homes and we have to hit certain criteria to for the disaster funding for kicking out so a tornado hits is because there's a tornado just because of the flood it has to retail space I understand that I just it's interesting you know just doing something unless I'm just there some other part of the code see the counter I guess is good we're trying to log into a child doing so. All right. President Senator but have Senator Ballinger you're recognized Thank you Mr the only question I I mean you you said that there's certain thresholds they have to be met and and I'm sure I'm just missing it but one of the threshold that used to have to be met is there to be a a federal the disaster declared right Page two we used to be ten a star one twenty two your taking that out and I don't see that anywhere else. So so what is so what what has to occur before these funds can be used to destroy this is our our state of Arkansas disaster fund so when an incident happens if it if it goes above that that impact goes above what the locals can handle then we can declare a disaster that is guaranteed for okay at this is our state programs there are federal disaster programs for public assistance individual assistance response and recovery this is our state one so we don't have to have a federal disaster declared we would have to have a state does you have to have a total disaster declared under current law you have to that was ten a correct. It looks like that there is a trigger that whoever put it in there put it in there with the intent to probably make it where the funds were not so so easily spent unless there is a federal disaster. I'm not sure where were you reading because it has nothing to with federal disaster yeah so strictly state does that look on paid Page two line twenty two ten expenditures from the catastrophic loss and may only be made in the event of a federally declared disaster as well as disaster defined as it so maybe that's where the that is to go to it so so twelve thirty five one of three is that it is that state disaster. Yes you're right now because of a so so the catastrophic piece of that is yeah yeah. This is far as I can understand better explain What would be a large disaster. Which a federally declared disaster yes. You think first Senator Ballinger. The well I mean honestly I think I want to know what and twelve thirty five one of three is. And I apologize I don't know that all state and. Check it here. So act I don't I mean there is this is a definition section I'm not sure I like the way it was written before. But maybe you could say that the definition section also includes disaster. Wells disaster as defined in so essentially could be any one of these so if a tornado storm flood highwater earthquake so I think it just. It basically gives flexibility of any kind of weather events. Right if it's if it's the state declared disaster so not just the B. at but the state declared disaster in and yes I think your point that that would allow us to utilize that catastrophic funds for a state declared disaster okay. And again we're not increasing the the response recovery than catastrophic things on a form only the mitigation okay so that the my question I'm sorry Mr but it so so you're taking this indicator out either a federally declared disaster is that is this. How do you define disaster. Okay so when when an event occurs at a tornado your earthquake flood when it occurs a we have a lot of those in the state that the damage does not reach to the to the level of the state declared disaster so it's handled by the city by the county when it gets beyond that right the the amount of damages higher then they could the county can declared disaster reach out to the state if we will do the assessment on damages if it reaches the threshold for a a state declaration. Then these funds can kick you and we can help with the response to the recovery actually the response phase could be is a state of emergency like we know the winter storms coming in the governor can declare state of emergency that that releases those response finds that if needed we can pull from there we have to call out additional resources to help the locals if that disaster reaches above the threshold for the state and we can request a federal declaration of the president which brings in federal funds. So it to to to better respond to your original question yes that takes that out so that those catastrophic funds yes. If we had a state declared disaster and that response or that recovery phase went over those separated announcmenet then we could utilize that three million two hundred and fifty thousand for the response in the recovery sites for a state disaster. Senator Garner yes Sir. So I think Senator Ballinger had a good point right now under law we have these distinctions like mutual of for awhile ago the catastrophic is a separate account. Up to three million dollars of only three two five zero but you can only use that if you have a matching federal declaration and as well as one of the defining events and you have a proclamation the governor seems like a troppo reproach of both having the federal delegate the Federal Emergency code didn't have an inner definitions and then have a proclamation by the governor in order to use those three million dollars are you all doing that and if not we're going to do instead is just allow the governor to declare an emergency you can use all three million dollars I'm not saying it's right or wrong right but we are changing that definition. My instinct would be that three million is there for whenever I even the federal government steps in and says this is bad enough and we spend those funds do we really want to take it to a more broader definition I don't really care but I'm just saying that's what I think the definition of it is yeah I'm not incorrect in my my thought process no I think I think you're you're I think you're correct I think what what this allows us to do is you know. For the response in the recovery you know phase of that it does give money available for like a new manager type of the yes or no do you want to take out a federal delegation are a federal proclamation or do you just Fund Chester now yes we've got a recognize all wanna thank you. All right Senators. Senator Ballinger yet one more question yes thank you Mr chairman I'm sorry for for delivering this. You mention that but if in the state of a where you have an emergency this coming like the winter weather event and honestly at I want you to be able to to respond to that type of thing did did the governor the governor declared disaster prior to that and were you able to respond and if it if it isn't then did you didn't really have access to these funds without there being a state of disaster declared right that's a state of emergency. A declaration. Get saw a state emergency declaration is for the response phase that the disaster declaration for ya you know the recovery phase of that okay we'll come once we we we do the assessment so we have those damages and they meet that threshold. So so it looks like them on one's gonna page two line eleven what's as expenditures from the emergency response recovery fund you're taking that out and changing it to disaster. Right disaster response and recovery yeah. That's a problem I'm I'm probably okay. Okay. Members any other questions on this this particular bill. Thank you. Director Gerry for your comments and for answering the questions I do appreciate it and I appreciate what you all do in the number of times we've talked over the years absolutely appreciate what you and your team do state thank you very much thank you any other questions. Anyone that would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none to have a motion on this bill have a motion to pass from Senator English as a second for Senator Tucker all those in favor say aye all those opposed bill passes thank you appreciate it. Thank you senator Beckham. If welcome you back to the gauntlet anytime. You did a great job Sir thank you okay members actually have since de um this back in the room Senator Teague would you like to come and present ten three fifty five Sir. All right. Yes. Two Jett. If the government have. Is there anything here you. Okay is this on this bill. You get a little bit of opposition here yeah okay all right Senator Teague appreciate you being here would you please state your name for the record per body he. Need to push your mac there senator. There you go the better yes Sir. Senator Teague from national you said right okay country art you're recognized for presentation Senate bill three fifty five Sir thank you senator so members I tried this bill last session represents your bill got on it and kind of. Anyway we we didn't. I didn't mean that disrespectful but sure. It sure came out that way I apologize for that GM so this bill. This is my theory is if I think a woman won a billion dollars roughly a week a month ago or two months ago and if you want that money it looks to me like you would have to immediately put somebody watching your grandbabies in your family so that nobody came and got on for a. Reporter arrangement rent to my guess would be turned so I got to thinking about that not so you know we want to make this a given more time and I think at a two years ago there were six states that were already doing that more of more working on it as we speak I don't know if there's those numbers have changed so this bill simply says if you win more than half a million dollars. That you can take up to three years to report it. and if you're a. If you're a politician then I think it's more than five hundred thousand. Senator. I should read it. Yes. Thank you. So that pretty much says it serious if you win a big one you're gonna need some time to get your act together the the law currently allows you not to collect it for six months but that's not the same as having anonymity so you could wait six months ago and but I don't think that's enough time if you want a big one so anyway I'll be happy to answer your question Sir. During the Senator Garner. This is simply for for your right this doesn't preclude any individual who has this amount from either put it out socially on social media going into an ad being out there saying anything being newspaper is purely if the individual doesn't want to be expose you can't for you that information and put it out there to a public means correct agreed thank you. All right. If you have any questions on this. Centers anyone opposed to to this I I think these FOR folks don't preach and okay and that's right I did say you do have some against after so if you want to say anything else on the bill or preparing everyone has a question I haven't seen any hands I'd like to reserve right to close but I'm obviously you we given that right let's go ahead moved to those form against. Sure. Looks like we have for people with snow three people signed up for three fifty five so have Aaron Sadler Council keying in Luke's story and chair relaxed call Aaron Sadler to testify first. and I have none signed up for it all three of the signed up against it. In. Mr Shelar if you just please state your name and who you represent for the record and we'll hear your comments yes Sir my name is Aaron Sadler I'm with the Arkansas press association of the press association in the four year coalition we're opposed this bill two years ago we're opposed to a now the for the task force which is a legislatively appointed body also voted not to recommend this bill to this council or to the Senate we have multiple reasons why we oppose this the first is that I'm not and I am immunity can lead to corruption. One wonders are anonymous it raises the possibility that construction can go undetected in twenty fifteen the chairman or I'm sorry the I. T. director of the multi state lottery in Iowa colluded with his own brother to read drawings in five different states these criminals took more than two million dollars from lottery organizations here in Arkansas if you remember in twenty thirteen the deputy director of the Arkansas lottery was accused of stealing lottery tickets that he cast himself so with with with this bill. We would never know whether a family member or the best friend of a lottery employee had hit the jackpot there wouldn't be any red flags that would give us a signal to pursue any investigations second anonymity would take away the mechanism for accountability creditors in the state right now here in the Senate you're discussing SB two ninety five which would allow for information sharing between agencies to determine Medicaid eligibility under this law such an agreement would be a violation of the four year and a criminal misdemeanor likewise private creditors would be unaware that their debtors as literally hit the jackpot. It would make it a whole lot easier for it'd be dad spent his millions before is deserving kids ever knew what did happen. also lotteries marketing strategy has always involved publicising real lottery winners to advertise their products we've even seen the display on the front of the lottery building with this is winning where winners are supposed to stand with the I in this is winning that strategy is important because it shows that friends and neighbors are actually winning if people see their bodies can win the jackpot they might die ticket to. Without putting real faces on lottery people could lose interest sales could lack and scholarships could be impacted as a result and finally there's already way to mitigate potential problems as Senator Teague mission lottery winners have a significant amount of time to get their affairs in order before they ever claim their prize. And it seems that the lottery already gives winners the opportunity not to have their full names published just last month the two million dollar winner in Craighead county was referred to a news release only by her first name so that seems like the right safeguards already the water is proactive announcements can be limited at the winter requested but the public should still be able to access that information in the interest of accountability and transparency and the spirit of freedom of information act that's what we oppose this bill right. Origine questions wrister Sadler. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr you made the comment that the public will never know but you know it didn't mean that right because it is not it is not a complete an exemption for eternity it is a three year exemption right that's correct and may never know after three years as as we all do things tend to slip our minds so if if we have an interest in finding out someone in a local community who has won two million dollars we have a suspicion that I might be again like that deadbeat dad that I mentioned we might have that suspicion and twenty twenty by twenty twenty three will not be in the middle of another pandemic so that's why I'm in my maintenance yeah but there was nothing the preclude if somebody just you know was good governance and they wanted to make sure that they they did some investigative reporting on who's who's getting it is it's not like that type of thing could stay hidden forever with the way the bills drafted right now right my understanding is this bill in three years they could find and information correct yep in it the other thing is we talked about how the the real winners are are utilizing advertising there never utilized without their permission right. Correct no not requiring them to do it that. Well so so I mean you would agree that they shouldn't be required to do that correct my understanding is that they are required now than what I referenced earlier was that they use the first name of the individual not the full name they're doing that already right I I don't know what the specific policy of the lottery is right now okay but I mean I I'll take them from a public policy standpoint you would want to force somebody to be involved in an advertising if they didn't want to be involved after. Write me in this with this is not going to change that if they want to participate they'd still be able to if this law goes into effect correct that that's my understanding and I think that's a fair compromise to from our position this is about accountability more than it is even advertising it's about the opportunity to say we we understand that that someone name Ballenger one wanted jackpot so we have the opportunity now and we as a people not just reporters have the opportunity now to to get that information under this bill we never be able to get that information until six months down the road yeah yeah you have not never it's you know it and open the period down the road but so I mean it you know it may require somebody to you know put a note on the calendar Hey look we need to we need to check that at some point whatever be will more diligent about paying attention to to to those public records but the fact that they will become public makes it where there's the there is some interest in making sure that your it still takes the same interests to avoid that type of scrutiny. But but you know I and the only reason why I brought up the issue about the the advertising is that you brought up the issue about the advertising so so I don't think that this would change if it does change anything in advertising it makes where some people don't want to be involved in advertising after but we would all agree that we prefer not to force people to be involved in advertising they don't want. So I would think so and and and if I may go back to your original your previous question you're you're correct in using the example of someone in Ballenger winning the lottery we find out six months later a lot of money can be spent in that six months or something improper going on and and and so to your last question about advertising my point more there was that. People right when they recognize people that are paying a lot playing the lottery that their friends and neighbors whether whether or not they're compelled to be in an ad or not if if people that when the water you're willing to be in an ad that obviously is going to be sales because you're going to say Billy down the street won the lottery I can't to and that this takes that away but it didn't take that away if they want to be involved in the in the advertising they still can't write this bill doesn't prohibit that I see your point yes they can they can do that just like to serve on the engine you know posting on their Facebook they do whatever they want so they can still get engaged in and that maybe they can't be compelled to but I I would say hopefully most of us the lease in this room would say we want to compel citizens forced them to getting it to to be involved in advertising so I think that aspect of it does it seems like that should be a non issue I get the accountability concerned that that is there but I'm less concerned about it since our does eventually come open but I I appreciate your patience thank you Sir. J. members any other questions for Mr Sadler. Thank you Mr thank you for your time Sir. Sure would like to call Kyle king. Mr Chandler Mister Speaker what Mr. Chairman of the committee I thank my understanding that they collect of back taxes and child support before they pay. On on these issues so I don't think that's a real issue okay you'll be able to close here too as well senator for surging cover everything. Mr king if you would please state your name and who you represent for the record you're recognized Sir yes Kyle can let you take a seat so they be able to. All right Kyle king with K. R. K. enough fox sixteen television here in Little Rock remained you're recognized okay so I guess our challenge is one that's been stated over again but the transparency with this public funds. is the area that to we think needs to be present obviously we come down on a lot of these situations when it comes to daily life but this in particular one that NO we are supported by advertising that's what leads to our ability to cover the news to cover the community cover the story so for us the transparency as the critical issue so. All right members you have any questions for Mr king. We appreciate your comments Sir for coming and making statements anything further that I think that's it thank you Sir. The last on the list there they've taken it away from me. There did I move it I move the Luke's story. If you would please state your name and who you represent the record you're recognized Mr chairman committee members my name is Luke story and I represent Arkansas broadcasters association thank you all for welcoming and welcoming me into this committee to offer some remarks in allowing me to speak on the bill. Most of my remarks will near a lot of what you have already heard but I will start by saying that I think it's fair to say that there's really no fear to participate in the lottery. if you don't play the lottery. It if you don't have to if you you don't have to play the lottery it is a personal choice and if you choose to play the lottery you abide by the long standing establish rules that in certain place to participate in the state's lottery. I know Senator Teague made a point about this but I would request some further clarification on this but I would ask that you allow me to ask that what is the procedure if someone who wins the lottery is on public assistance of any time. How do those that are ministering public assistance programs for the state how do they know how do they find out and you know god forbid the children that are that are there having to live their lives with with limited to no child support and if there in three years time a lottery winnings could disappear evaporate real quickly in that poor child is still living with very limited resources. and I just don't know how we could answer for keeping that for keeping the identity of those wonders a secret. I think we can all agree that government is best run and sunshine watering down for years to bestest best serve a handful of people. Is not what laws are intended for. And not passing this bill will have zero impact on the lottery. I would I'd back to ask if there's been a a flood of calls into the lottery of our cans in saying that if their identity was kept a secret that they would they would participate more actively in the state lottery I have a I I have to believe that that is not happening. At lottery winners as as my as my counterpart in the press association indicated lottery winners currently have a hundred and eighty days that's six months to claim their winnings we feel like that's ample time to get your affairs in order Let me one million dollars. And I will show you how quickly I can get my affairs in order from if I had a million dollars in my pocket I assure you that. in closing I was. I ask that you please just join myself for the pro the broadcaster's association of press association of the state four year coalition the Legislative governor appointed for the task force and many other attendance and an opposing this bill I really don't see that there is a need for it I think it's more of a solution that is seeking out a problem that really doesn't exist. So in that I will close and I thank you all for the time the opportunity to speak to this bill and I'll gladly take any questions. All right members any questions for Mr story. Seeing no questions I'm sorry sorry yes Sir I did see your hand center you're recognized. Yeah I did a quick search and it appears that there is a mechanism in Arkansas all right now that the lottery winnings to have to be collected and factors case in two thousand fifteen were grandmother site one thousand dollars but her son who owed ballot back child support actually signed it so legally they remitted those thousand dollars to the state are to the back support the child support or to be paid so there is a mechanism in Arkansas law to recoup those funds I think should put a nail in that coffin of that discussion. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions. Know the questions thank you Mr story appreciate your presentation today. Senator Teague. I do have one question for you Senator and if you said it I may have missed that you know we're getting all kinds of feedback going after we're trying to listen so um. What what prompted you to even want to do this was an example of somebody at hunting or something that happened I think it was two years ago somebody one a big one and they had some issues and I don't recall even but they had some issues and I thought man if I won you know five hundred million dollars I'm going to have time to get my act together and I doubt you could do it in six months if you're going to have your your the financial a person but that's why I'm here I just think it makes sense to give people time it doesn't say they have to wait three years and it may be that after year you want to after you've moved somewhere probably of to avoid income tax but anyway okay that's all I got and I appreciate a good vote yes Senator Teague says he's close for the bill we per discussion on the bill the members have anything further what's the pleasure of the Committee. Have a motion for senator garner do pass every second for Senator Ballinger all those in favor say aye. All opposed no. One note is noted Senator Teague youth pastor bill. All right members We're down to the is anybody going to pick up. representative Tosh is building you have that noted. I'm not gonna do it form I will well this list say that is keep going here senator garner if you will. Take position I think you're going to do are you a are you gonna run these for Senator Flippo as well yes Sir unless we if we can't let's start off with the as B. two fifty two and then we won the Senate work at less less controversial all right. You're recognized for Senate bill two fifty sure yes Sir someone resume discussion before I'm a believer to point I still think this is a fundamental issue where we need to address our relationship with China and shooting an office that does not already exist as a small and real step to take that I will know since the story come out of had when I first read as I should say I've had multiple people reach out to me in the most compelling when her was a robotics teacher who actually went to China and as part of that program she reached out to this office as it was there to try to see if you can get systems and help. He reached out she reached out she reached out and I never got back to her. So my argument is if we have this office there and is not helping normal everyday people who really need help over there who's really serving not to mention all the other issues are brought up before with that I'll take any questions committee thank you for time committee you have any questions for senator garner on this bill. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr just as a bill changed at all no Sir not a ward of the. You. Any other questions. On this bill we do have someone sent up to speak against the bill I I do wanna make mention Senator Garner you know I've continued to see news developments that continue to come out one that I saw what I would like to ask you about I'm not sure that if you look at it but it probably has a ring to it or a theme to it for you I just saw this from CNN first independent report indigene Jiang Jean aside allegations claims evidence of Beijing's intent to destroy the way we work people. And this is the folks that they have been in slaving that it's emotional minority groups within China and obviously we can go into great detail but would you say that that with China Act continuing to engage in activities that is now being classified on the world scene is genocide that that should be of concern not only the American people but people in the state of Arkansas absolutely the continuing genocide of minority populations in China has been a ongoing problem touch different things you look at the relationship with Taiwan and some distinctions there if you look at their aggressive form policy whether legally building islands Nord is established military position one day strike the United States you look at other human rights violations you look at the onslaught of stealing our intellectual property did and use against us if you look at how they've done accepted warfare both cyber lead otherwise to hurt us this is only going generational says geopolitical threat unlike anything else we face and I'm not even saying we need to address it aggressively I wish we would this is the simplest step we can take this in a small but clear message that we need to change our relationship with them thank you Sir. I think it's very important and even our federal delegation is taken steps to highlight the concerns and the atrocities being carried out of the hands of the communist Chinese government which is in no way relation to the Chinese people themselves yes members any other questions for senator garner before we hear discussion on the bill. Seeing none senator garner if you're finished I want to take the one person just wants to speak in opposition yes Sir Mr right the chair because Mr jim Hudson. Mister ed Senate you make your way as is normal you've already been to the committee when you get here just state your name and who you represent for the record. And you are recognized Sir. Thank you Mr chairman jim Hudson deputy director of ABC and I do really want to recognize I think the heartfelt sincere concerns that you expressed I think concerning China and concerning just the things are happening there also Senator garner's well our position is that this bill does nothing to really hurt China doesn't ending set China back in doesn't address the concerns I think that have been spoken of about China Committee but what we'll do is we'll hinder the ability of our Kansans to do business in China and All responsibility the the software we have eighty C. is to advise you a device policy makers on what the impact is of the decisions that are made here in terms of economic development in Arkansas and there's nothing about this bill that actually what Vance because of economic development so as secretary Preston mentioned last time we were very concerned about the bill we do think it will hinder the ability to export to China with that I'll take any questions the committee may have. Any questions for members for Mr Hansen. Mr Hansen do you not think that it is somewhat important. For any of us the state of Arkansas included to decide that you will not do business with people. That are enslaving minority populations in their country are killing them in that are being called on the carpet by the United Nations even and stations and and around the world and concerns over genocide does that not seem to be of importance to you and that it wouldn't be in the interests of the people of Arkansas that we might pull back from saying that we're going to put funds state funds in taxpayer funds into an office in in some way show that we disagree hi Senator Rapert I think you know one the the individual who supports the activities in China in terms of helping with export he is based in the United States and so that money is not going to China is going to an individual who is a citizen of the United States but he will travel to China and he will have extended stays in China. And so your concerns about the behavior of China you know I'm not here to defend China some of the concerns have been expressed I would share at a personal level I think the governor has expressed on previous occasions some concerns about how the Chinese government is treating some of its minority populations but yet at the same time you know we do business with China. And I think that's kind of a policy question before this committee is are we saying that we don't want to do business with China it is a it is a sentencing order says that's not what is bill says he just simply was making a small statement that by the way is terribly minimized in comparison to the over one billion dollar contract they reneged on with the state of Arkansas in Arkadelphia of magic for folks in Arkadelphia would have an opinion on that but I appreciate you for trying to answer the question members any other questions at all for restriction. Seeing then thank you for your presentation survey. Senator Garner it's back to you Sir read you have anything further on the bill and interest time I'll close my bill a measure most members have their my mind made up thanks. Okay members had presentation of the bill I have a motion to pass from Senator Ballinger. I have a second from senator garner and Senator Hester I guess I'll say that all those in favor say aye. Little posed. The Bill pass is thank you Mr garner. We'll go next to. If the bills that you want to present yes Sir please representive rise bill H. B. ten seventeen they like a men's room. This is ten seventeen. You're recognized Sir thank you Sir I hate daylight savings time change is that simple I just hate it I get emails every time it happens from people Facebook messages saying when you get rid of it and I know this is the most pressing issue we face my good friend represent a run for a few weeks now been asked me to run this bill and I thought I might do it and I know there's an opposition to it but what the bill does it didn't actually like make us adopt permanent daylight saving times it's kind of a back door way that says once the federal government recognizes that daylight saving time these go way that will monitor that and six Arkansas will dock that policy under the federal code if you look at the specifics of bill so it's it's it's not really impactful on the sat back that we're changing dramatically shifts if the pets do what will monitor it and then we'll change accordingly to that so what that'll take any questions committee. Members Senator Tucker you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman about this yesterday senator garner. It's something that is changing the clocks is a little annoying agree as I get older losing that our marshes harder and harder every year on me but I was but I just put some feelers out about this and I think the concern that people relate to me that resonated with me the most is young kids have a way for the school bus in the pitch black dark and wanted to and I just wanted to see what your take on that was. Hey I mean that's of the I mean my kids now we're coming back in the dark in the evening so it's kind of like you. What from one way to the other reality is I think daylight saving time served a purpose whenever the majority of our culture was Acker cultural and it would change based on that and you to get in the fields obviously we're not in that way now you know we do have industrial agricultural forms here so I think the main reason why we put this in place is antiquated is something we are really on the and that small. Section that could happen I could count on the other in that you know the days being shorter in the evening kind of counter decked out as well so I don't I don't think you're you pull from one point from the other in an alternate all please on the wash. The thing else Senator Tucker. All right members any other questions. Senator Bledsoe you're recognized ma'am. Senator I tend to agree with the. Senator Tucker that morning time being so dark and all of that that that that does bother me children walking to school they are catching the school bus like he's he said in a. If you know there are other reasons why that wouldn't be a very good idea tell us why you again why you want to do this. What I would. rarely MALOCH calendar that I know some states and cities have done this across the United States I haven't heard of that be an issue if there's counter evidence and you have it I'd be more happy to look at that I don't think that the issue has arisen where people there's been a public safety risk to children in those areas except you have counter information I'll be more happy here it the reason why is I being honestly this is one of those things like sitting earth shattering but when it happens I hear from literally dozens and dozens of people saying I want to change keep your word is this that I mean just the public in general likes to have that consistency in the law so I mean if you don't if you think we still need to do it I like I said we passes bill we are going to change any of your only be once the federal government underneath the specific code changes at that level and this will just allow us to join everybody else. That helps thank you yes ma'am. Right members remember to pull those Max close it gets a little hard to hear in here you have our time here masonry will not use it Senator Bledsoe is so so well spoken sometimes it I need a doctor approach a lot. It's just specially with the with Act with members are turned away from the chair sometimes I can't hear you that well so thank you for helping me to Embers any other questions first senator garner on this bill we do have one person signed up to speak against this bill so senator garner is there anything further you like to and that was that once again because timing close down here chair relaxed call Mr marks total to speak. If you still care to. And then saying yours too excited about that Mr stern. If you would please just state your name and who you represent for the record you're recognized Sir thank you Mister chairman and good afternoon to the Committee hi my name is mark startle and I'm an attorney I represent the motion picture association of America and more importantly the motion picture association represents all the major broadcasting agencies in the country NBC ABC CBS and fox and they respectfully oppose this this legislation for a variety of reasons First of all I guess it's important to kind of lay out some of the history yes the issue of daylight savings time has been around for about a hundred years in the United States and in the early twentieth century was a patchwork of different times for with different states individually deciding on when they were gonna use daylight savings time and when they were not and ultimately in nineteen sixty six the uniform time act was passed and this impose the in observance entirely across the country to set an annual time an annual ending day for daylight savings time in those starts updates of evolved over time but now they're they're firm in place the observer eight months of daylight savings time and six and four months of standard time The the this bill I think is in search of a problem that doesn't exist right now and the reason for that is is that is that first of all it will require an act of Congress to amend the uniform time act to allow this to happen and then the language in the in the in the in the bill requires that the secretary of state monitor continually the US government's desire to marry their their their passage of the bill as well as the border states of Arkansas in some way determining whether they she'll want and declaring their intention on whether they want to. I want to adopt them daylight savings time permanently and then it goes on that if if in the fact that occurs then the second the state would immediately tell the governor and the Speaker of the house of representatives the president pro tem of the Senate and the director of the bureau of legislative research within five business days to determine whether that occurred and then immediately the daylight we would change the in the law I guess we would change into daylight savings time now. This creates a variety of a variety of problems that I'd like to I'd like to address. first of all it creates a tremendous problem. With with Keeping us out of step with non bordering states in the central time zone as well as non boring states of states that are in the central time zone that border us that that would then have some impact so if you're in the western time zone you've got other states in the western time zone in the mountain time zone that would all be impacted by this the same way with the eastern time zone because it covers more than just bordering states it will require broadcasters to Change their current programming from one hour later than that what Arkansas residents of continually become used to and relying on favorite news for and and and other programming the things that they like to watcher and to be adjusted because of this and so it seems to me that is just not it's just not necessary at this point in time. it would greatly disrupt viewing with for marketing of a nationwide broadcasts of the Olympics And a variety of political sporting and entertainment awards events am radio stations we have two hundred and forty broadcasting stations in Arkansas and the AM stations in particular are required to report to operated a reduced power. Or a directional signal from sunset to sunrise and if you move the clock an hour ahead of the sun as daylight savings times does it means that the switch from nighttime to daytime power internationally is delayed by an hour and that the way greatly reduces the ability of the am stations to compete for the most important part of the broadcast day that being the drive time the drive time so it is we believe that respectfully and its it's it's it's of a bill that is not necessary if in fact the Congress passes legislation that allows this to happen then we can get into it and see whether or not it's really what is necessary for the state of Arkansas. Thank you thank you wish to look at any questions for. Witness. I don't see any questions for the witness I will I will thank you for your your presentation Mr le. Thank you to be dismissed thank. senator garner do you have anything further on the bill no Sir I think our people's minds made up on any of them closed I just wanna for my own purposes make sure I'm clear because really this bill does nothing enters a federal change in all the states around us are also in lockstep. So frankly it's more it's almost a step in the was not stated it's almost like we've done many times interstate compacts when you get to a point were many states agree then we would be part of the gang so to speak is that correct yes I'm assuming that represent have a lot of time in this found those by the best way to do it without running all kind of conflicts similar to what the Germans the all right. Members saying no more questions I haven't had debate on the bill what's the pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion from senator garner with second by Senator Ballinger all those in favor say aye. All those opposed no. The bill fails. Thank you senator garner. It was that put you in position now we get three four Senator Flippo yes Sir and if I can't if we can't Amy we come up here cervical had to leave so I'm kind of pinch hitting for him on this all explain the thing should be here to answer questions that comes up. Right Sir you're recognized for three ninety nine yes Sir what's the purpose of this bill this bill removes requirements that substantial savings must be shown to purchase outside of the mandatory state contract that allows departments to purchase a commodity if to save the state any money saving must be just demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of OSP this bill removes a requirement that it must be in writing still requires state entities to maintain records that show savings if they decide to purchase outside a mandatory state contract this is this will be beneficial to the taxpayer departments can benefit from this as well the save money with that I will turn to any she has anything that. Right secretary hers or not hers for the same venture still thinking that this is a former secretary you're recognized me Fetzer transmission issue services I'm just going to add for the committee that substantial is not currently defined in the law and said there have been some Albums with that in the past it's cause problems we just want to clarify and we feel that if if we can save the state money on any purchase we want to do that. Two. Members any questions for. Secretary or senator garner on this bill. Not seeing any questions at all you have anything further on the bill close Senator closer I don't want recognized speak for against this bill. Seeing none what's the pleasure of the Committee. I have a motion from senator Byrd Hester do pass the second from Senator English all those in favor say aye opposed no the Bill pass Senate bill four hundred. Yes when you are. This bill clarifies timeline to file a protest to a procurement solicitation or ward the current language unclear as to what the pro when the process starts this language six that same poison vendors benefit because this bill provides clarity that to turn over to a director she isn't thing that thank you did a great job explaining that currently there's two events that can start a protest it's been confusing again we're just trying to clarify the law. K.. Members you have a question on this bill. Saying no questions is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against the bill. Seeing them with the pleasure of the Committee. Is there a motion Senator English motion to pass I have a second Senator Bledsoe seconds always favor say aye opposed no bill passes Senate bill four one. Service chairman this is a technical error cleanup bill the bill correct an error that sites to the wrong section of the code of lead line thirty one still correct language in NYC Walker to purchasing section of the code reflect that of the office of state procurement is now under the Department transformation shared services that alter of the Director Fletcher. Exactly what does just change the technical error okay. All right members any questions on the bill. Saying nine to have a motion motion do pass for Senator English second Senator Davis almost favor say aye hello suppose NO the Bill pass this thank you senator garner would you mind coming taking the chair for me Sir I need to run more centerfold Bills. All right. Senator we start with H. B. one two two four first five representantes or different one yes yes Sir yes and thank you Senator Rapert for the record members this is bill run by Senator chiefly representative Tosh I've just picked it up to carry this for him it's actually pretty straightforward and the what this is lying to be done is just a state crime laboratory student loan forgiveness program it is establishing the loan forgiveness program it states the parameters of the bill as well as the amounts if you look on the back the last section the amount would not excuse me if the payment to be made directly to the path ology student loan creditor should not exceed twenty five thousand per twenty four months or one hundred thousand per path ology Sturch obviously we know how important state crime is specially the work that they do there been seasons in the past office in this state where we've had back ups and we've had reports and testimony about what happens what how that impacts law enforcement in our state and so I understand what they're trying to do is find a way for us to keep good qualified students in that program and not be happy to entertain questions. If there are any. Thank you Mr chairman any questions committee. C. nine we have anybody speak against this bill for this bill centenary close repeal of of social will motion to pass by Senator English we have a second from Senator Ballinger all of their staff any opposed gradually center bills passed thank you very much members of members Russian Mr we ready for SCR eight yes Sir okay you're recognized to speak on the Senate concurrent resolution at your discretion thank you members you've heard me reference the issue this is a a joint resolution on behalf of the house and the Senate on the fact that we've had a delay in the census information and we are wanting to raise our voice with other states around the country to an objection to the position this puts us and then that the pressure that issues resulting as a result of the delays and so I would ask for a good vote on this resolution so that we can add our voice to others to the shore protest okay any questions committee. C. none we have anybody signed up against this resolution not see it signed up for against it Senator you closer close I have a motion to pass by Senator English we have a second by Senator Davis always favor say aye opposed the resolution passed Sir thank you Sir. Our members that brings us to the end we clear the decks we do have a pretty full agenda already coming Thursday members on will be reaching out to you about scheduling Constitutional amendments are committee is so small there's no need for subcommittee so we're going to set some parameters And I wanna make you aware that I'm probably going to adopt some rules of being used in the past which will hopefully allow us to hear these expeditiously and we will not take any votes on those and then ultimately allow you to rank choice into a pool of the amendments that you want to see then you can vote on them so with that committees Jr thank you. While work.