House Convenes
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (51)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SJR15
· 5 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “Joint Resolution number 15. Senate Joint Resolution 15 by Representative Beatty, a constitutional amendment concer…”
|
A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL … | J. Dismang | Approved by the Governor. |
|
HR1115
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HR1115 Wooldridge TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGEN…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES IN THIS STATE AND TO COMMEND THEIR … | Wooldridge | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
HCR5
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “resolution. Thank you, Speaker. Um, House concurrent resolution 5 is regarding the American Cancer Society. The society estim…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR11
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “Madam Clerk, please read House resolution 11:15”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HR1114
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…this week, I came before you and, and ask you to pass. Um, House Resolution 1114, that basically authorized, uh,”
|
REQUESTING THAT SENATOR DISMANG BE AUTHORIZED TO PURSUE THE CONSIDERATION OF SJR 15 AS A … | Beaty Jr. | READ AND ADOPTED. |
|
HB1131
Act 959
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1131 #1,2 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1131 is now Act 959 |
|
HB1186
Act 960
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1186 #1 Vaught TO CREATE THE PAIN RELIEF PARITY ACT; AND TO REQU…”
|
TO CREATE THE PAIN RELIEF PARITY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE PAIN RELIEF PARITY IN THE … | Vaught | Notification that HB1186 is now Act 960 |
|
HB1295
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTION…”
|
TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT. | L. Johnson | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1606
Act 922
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1606 #1 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPE…”
|
TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON … | Steimel | Notification that HB1606 is now Act 922 |
|
HB1685
Act 1008
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1685 #1,2 Underwood TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AME…”
|
TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND … | Underwood | Notification that HB1685 is now Act 1008 |
|
HB1762
Act 1009
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1762 #1 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL…”
|
TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL … | Hall | Notification that HB1762 is now Act 1009 |
|
HB1801
Act 961
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1801 #1 K. Moore TO AUTHORIZE AN OUTSOURCING FACILITY OF LEGEND…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE AN OUTSOURCING FACILITY OF LEGEND DRUGS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES THAT COMPOUNDS A PRODUCT … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1801 is now Act 961 |
|
HB1841
Act 1021
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1841 #1 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS REVENUE INVESTMENT IN…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS REVENUE INVESTMENT IN VITAL EMS SYSTEMS (ARRIVES) ACT; AND TO CREATE … | L. Johnson | Notification that HB1841 is now Act 1021 |
|
HB1845
Act 926
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1845 #1 Holcomb TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUME…”
|
TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF MOTOR VEHICLES; TO … | Holcomb | Notification that HB1845 is now Act 926 |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1865 #1,2 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFEN…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1877 #1 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESS…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1897
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1897 Painter TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TOWING AND RECOVERY REFORM A…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TOWING AND RECOVERY REFORM AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND … | Painter | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1963
Act 963
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1963 #1 Gonzales TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED…”
|
TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE WHO PRESCRIBES A STIMULANT MAY SUBSTITUTE A … | Gonzales | Notification that HB1963 is now Act 963 |
|
SB121
Act 968
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB121 C. Penzo Long TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB121 is now Act 968 |
|
SB122
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB122 C. Penzo Long TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE…”
|
TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL … | C. Penzo | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB149
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB149 J. English Brooks TO AMEND PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING AMOUNTS UN…”
|
TO AMEND PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING AMOUNTS UNDER THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING ACT OF 2003. | J. English | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB217
Act 969
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB217 C. Penzo Bentley TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICE…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A WAIVER TO EXCLUDE CANDY AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB217 is now Act 969 |
|
SB262
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB262 C. Penzo Pilkington TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDI…”
|
TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRINE; AND TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL … | C. Penzo | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB325
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB325 A. Clark Brooks TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB326 A. Clark Brooks TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB347
Act 1025
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB347 C. Penzo Mayberry TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM…”
|
TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREASE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR CERTAIN DENTAL SERVICES AND … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB347 is now Act 1025 |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB355 J. Bryant Underwood TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRU…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB362
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB362 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - DIVISION OF ELEMEN…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION YOUTH … | K. Hammer | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB437
Act 945
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB437 Hester Hall TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT. | Hester | Notification that SB437 is now Act 945 |
|
SB441
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB441 Hester Pilkington TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB444
Act 970
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB444 K. Hammer L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERS…”
|
TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT. | K. Hammer | Notification that SB444 is now Act 970 |
|
SB459
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB459 G. Leding Hudson TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJU…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB486
Act 955
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB486 B. Johnson Bentley CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN…”
|
CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB486 is now Act 955 |
|
SB491
Act 956
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB491 K. Hammer Achor TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE…”
|
TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR … | K. Hammer | Notification that SB491 is now Act 956 |
|
SB538
Act 782
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB538 Gilmore Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW.”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW. | Gilmore | Notification that SB538 is now Act 782 |
|
SB54
Act 1015
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB54 AN ACT FOR THE AUDITOR OF STATE - DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORN…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE AUDITOR OF STATE - DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025-2026 … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB54 is now Act 1015 |
|
SB554
Act 1022
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB554 C. Tucker Wooldridge TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN F…”
|
TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB554 is now Act 1022 |
|
SB569
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB569 M. Johnson Ray AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CO…”
|
AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE … | M. Johnson | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB585
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB585 G. Leding Gonzales Worthen TO REQUIRE CERTAIN RECORDS BE PR…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN RECORDS BE PROVIDED TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS A MINOR. | G. Leding | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB591
Act 973
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB591 C. Penzo K. Brown TO PROHIBIT RACE-SELECTION ABORTION IN TH…”
|
TO PROHIBIT RACE-SELECTION ABORTION IN THIS STATE; AND TO CREATE THE RACE DISCRIMINATION BY ABORTION … | C. Penzo | Notification that SB591 is now Act 973 |
|
SB596
Act 940
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB596 M. McKee McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ESTABLISH A STATE ENERGY POLICY; TO REGULATE RETIREMENT … | M. McKee | Notification that SB596 is now Act 940 |
|
SB601
Act 971
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB601 Hester L. Johnson TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A F…”
|
TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BE LICENSED … | Hester | Notification that SB601 is now Act 971 |
|
SB621
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB621 Irvin L. Johnson TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST…”
|
TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST A HEALTHCARE INSURER; TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY TO A HEALTHCARE CONTRACT … | Irvin | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB625
Act 920
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB625 B. Davis Brooks TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CO…”
|
TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM; … | B. Davis | Notification that SB625 is now Act 920 |
|
SB636
Act 1017
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB636 AN ACT TO TRANSFER FUNDS; DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE…”
|
AN ACT TO TRANSFER FUNDS; DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RESTRICTED RESERVE … | J. Dismang | Notification that SB636 is now Act 1017 |
|
SB637
Act 1018
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB637 TO AMEND THE REVENUE STABILIZATION LAW; AND TO DECLARE AN E…”
|
TO AMEND THE REVENUE STABILIZATION LAW; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | J. Dismang | Notification that SB637 is now Act 1018 |
|
SB638
Act 1019
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB638 J. Boyd L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAX ON THE SALE … | J. Boyd | Notification that SB638 is now Act 1019 |
|
SB67
Act 1016
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB67 AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION APPROPRI…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR. | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB67 is now Act 1016 |
|
SCR5
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SCR5 Irvin Barker TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATION…”
|
TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE DESIGNATION BY THE WINTHROP P. … | Irvin | Approved by the Governor. |
|
SCR7
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SCR7 J. Scott Ennett TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES H…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES HIGH SCHOOL COMETS BOYS' BASKETBALL TEAM AS THE CLASS … | J. Scott | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SCR8
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SCR8 J. Scott Ennett TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES H…”
|
TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES HIGH SCHOOL LADY COMETS BASKETBALL TEAM AS THE CLASS … | J. Scott | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unknown speaker
3:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
14:31
I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer this morning by Pastor Justin Haley, Associate Pastor of Outreach and Young Adults, Faith Baptist Church of Cabot, and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Representative Lane Jean. Let's pray. Father God, I just
Speaker 9
14:50
want to thank you so much for who you are, and Father, I thank you for the opportunity to pray for everyone under the sound of my voice. Father, I thank you so much for their selfless and sacrificial service that they have offered throughout the year.
Father, thank you so much for the countless hours that they have put in, just the tireless work that they have done. Father, I pray that you help them finish the course well today. Father, thank you so much once again for everything that they have done. Help them be encouraged and remember that their labor has not been in vain. Father, I pray that everything that comes forward today, that righteousness prevails. Father, and I pray that in all of the conversations and all of the decisions that we do unto others as they would have done unto themselves.
Father, I pray that you just help them in everything that they need. Father, for their families, I pray that you continue to bless them and just help them remember that their sacrifices don't go unnoticed either. Father, and even though session is over after this morning, I know that they have numerous tasks, many other things awaiting them. And, Father, I pray that you help them remain encouraged, remain steadfast in all of the responsibilities that they have to carry out in their position for this great state.
Father, I just thank you so much once again for everything that you have done. I pray that you bless this day. I
Speaker 2
16:17
pray it all in Jesus' name. Amen. Amen. I believe to do the life of the United States of America and to the republic for which we stand, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and
Chair
Unverified
16:34
justice for all. Members, please indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
17:14
cast up the ballot with 98
members present the chair sees a quorum are there any requests for leave
Speaker 21
17:28
representative magruder for what purpose leave leave for representative Glenn Barnes
Chair
Unverified
17:32
is leave granted for representative Glenn Barnes so ordered representative Mike Holcomb for
Speaker 24
17:40
what purpose leave leave for representative Wardlaw is leave granted for representative ward law so ordered
Chair
Unverified
17:50
representative matthew shepherd moves that we dispense of the reading of the previous day's journal no objection so ordered madam clerk do you have reports from select committees any reports from standing committees any unfinished business executive communications thank you madam clerk
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
18:16
Members, if you would, I would ask you to join me and please rise, direct your attention
Chair
Unverified
18:21
to the back of the chamber, and I want to recognize this morning our Arkansas State Troopers, Sergeant Chuck Lewis of the Wellness Unit and Corporal Trey Keller of the Highway Patrol Administration. They have labored here with us all session. Gentlemen, thank you for your work for the state of Arkansas and for the Arkansas House of Representatives. Members also
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
18:52
in the back of the chamber this morning, we have with us Dr. Jason Lofton.
Chair
Unverified
18:56
He is a family medicine physician from Dequeen, representative Deanne Vaught's district. Dr. Lofton, thank you for being here with us this morning. also amazing service that we've had this session and so grateful for the work that she has put in to help us our nurse Miss Lee Fazio. Miss Lee thank you.
Madam Clerk please read Senate concurrent resolution number five. Senate
concurrent resolution five by Representative Barker to continue to encourage the pursuit of National Cancer Institute designation by the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute at the University of Arkansas
for Medical Sciences. Representative McElhinney, you're recognized to explain
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
19:53
the resolution. Thank you, Speaker. House Concurrent Resolution 5 is regarding the American Cancer Society. The Society estimates that 19,700 Americans will be
diagnosed with cancer. Our state's cancer-related deaths has increased 9 percent over the last 28 years, while the national rate has decreased by 5%. Currently, Arkansas lacks a National Cancer Institute designation Cancer Center, forcing many patients to seek advanced treatments outside of the state. Designating the Winthrop Rockefeller Cancer Institute as an NCI center would expand access to cutting-edge treatment, clinical trials, and research funding. It would also support our health care providers and institutions statewide, fostering innovation and improving patient outcomes. By passing SCR5, we affirm
our commitment to combating cancer and enhancing health care for all Arkansans. And with that, would you ask the clerk to read the resolution in
Speaker 45
20:46
title only, please? Madam Clerk, please read the resolution
Chair
Unverified
20:49
by title. To continue to encourage the pursuit of National Cancer Institute designation by the Winthrop P. Rockefeller Cancer Institute at the University of
Arkansas for Medical Sciences. Representative McElindon has explained the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the
resolution? For the resolution, Representative McElhinden is closed for the resolution.
The question before the House is the
passage, adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 5. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Congratulations, Representative McElhinden. The resolution is adopted. Madam
Chair
Unverified
21:36
Clerk, please read House Resolution 1115. House Resolution 1115
by Representative Woodridge to recognize the impact of community action
agencies in the state and to commend their dedication to improving their lives of Arkansas, Arkansans. Representative
Woodridge, you are recognized to explain your resolution. Thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
21:53
you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. I wanted to come forward this morning and recognize the community action agencies that serve the great state of Arkansas. I'm blessed to work in that field. What I love about Community Action is it's not a Republican or Democrat issue, it's a people issue, and these agencies and these Arkansans that serve in them work hard every day to make sure that they are giving back and creating opportunities for every Arkansan
to be the best version of themselves. With that, I know we have members of the network that are here today. They were the ones that served breakfast for us across the street. I'll ask them if they will rise, please, in the gallery, and if you will, help me welcome them to the Arkansas House of Representatives mr. speaker
Speaker 45
22:46
if you will have the clerk read the resolution and title madam clerk
please read the resolution by title
Chair
Unverified
22:52
to recognize the impact of community action agencies in this state and to commend their dedication to
improving the lives of Arkansans. Representative Woodridge has explained the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution for the resolution? Representative Woodridge is closed for the resolution.
The question before the house is the adoption of House Resolution 1115. All those in favor say aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. Congratulations Representative Woodridge. Your resolution has been adopted.
Chair
Unverified
23:27
Members, at the request of Representative Ennett, we will pass over Senate Concurrent Resolution No.
7 and Senate Current Resolution No. 8.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
23:46
Madam Clerk, please read Senate Joint Resolution No. 15. Senate
Chair
Unverified
23:54
Joint Resolution 15 by Representative Beatty, a constitutional amendment concerning
economic development in the state of Arkansas
Speaker 47
24:00
and authorizing the General Assembly to provide for the creation of economic development
Chair
Unverified
24:06
districts to promote economic development. Representative Beatty,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
24:13
you're recognized to explain the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, to present Senate Joint Resolution 15 for a constitutional amendment concerning economic development in the state of Arkansas and to authorize the General Assembly to provide for the creation of economic development districts to promote economic development.
Members earlier in this week I came before you and asked you to pass House Resolution 1114
that basically authorized All right.
Maybe I'll just stand right here. Are
we still here? It's always good to have a little technical difficulty, I need to take the mic cover off. So earlier in the session we had asked for you to approve authorizing Senator Dismaine to allow SJR 15 as the third constitutional amendment. You granted that. Senator Dismaine presented that in the Senate. It was overwhelmingly supported in the Senate and then passed the Senate, came back to the
floor ask you to send it to committee it went to committee last night we were able to debate that and and got the motion to get this here today and basically what I'm doing today is asking you as a body to let's send this to the voters of Arkansas and get their support on this resolution you should have all had the talking points for those of you that were in committee as to why this is important and what we're trying to do and basically what we're trying to do is
level the playing field with our neighboring states. Right now Texas, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee all have economic development potentials with TIF districts and what we're proposing in this bill. So what this bill would do is it's going to level the playing field. It's going to allow us for economic development districts to be created. It's going to allow direct local incentives to be made for retail, potentially for retail, for housing, to clean up blight in your communities.
It's going to have the ability for local control where your local communities can decide what's important to them and make the decision to create jobs and improvement in those communities. We've talked about this a lot, so I think I'll just entertain questions
and see if there are concerns from the members and the body that I
Speaker 71
27:16
can address. Representative Richmond, for what purpose? Question. You're
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
27:21
recognized. Representative Beatty, you've probably seen a lot of the same information coming
over different media and stuff about this, calling it corporate welfare, calling it this and that. Why are they referring to it as corporate welfare? And don't get me wrong, corporate welfare is my favorite welfare. But the thing is that, again, it has that stigma. So can you explain that a little bit as to why and why
Speaker 76
27:45
it's not? Well, first, I would completely and totally disagree
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
27:49
that this is corporate welfare. I mean, because a lot of this bill is going to impact your small businessmen and women
in your communities, those that have been there that have chosen to invest in your market with maybe a potential expansion. It's not just limited to corporate America. This is true community development. Instead of just economic development and manufacturing jobs, this opens it up for retail businesses in your districts. This is for what your community wants. If there's something, goods and services, why should people in a community have to drive an hour, two hours away for goods and services that they can get in their community if we just had the tool to entice those folks to locate in our
market? It's all controlled by your local people and what they choose. It's not a mandate that you have to participate in this program. It's a tool that's missing from Arkansas's economic development toolbox and it's important that we get it in there and I don't know that
I answered your question but I attempted so I
Speaker 77
28:49
hope it gave some insight representative Joey Carr for what purpose
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
28:53
question you're recognized representative Beatty for example we have the Great River Economic Development Group in Mississippi County will this work along beside this or will that make that obsolete
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
29:03
representative Carr I would be disappointed if I if I had to stand up here and tell you that this would compete or harm your economic development group one thing your group should have been advocating for this because it's going to
give them the tools to attract business and industry into your community it's going to be something now when
folks contact us and say first thing to ask what's your incentives what can you offer you know what the answer is if it's retail and it's not manufacturing
jobs i'm sorry we don't have anything this is going to let that answer change to something that's going to attract investment
Speaker 84
29:34
and get their attention thank you sir representative duke for what
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
29:42
purpose question you're recognized thank you mr speaker um representative baity could you explain to me why this needs to be put in the constitution as an amendment what is it that raises it to that bar that we need to have it put into our state constitution as an
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
29:58
amendment representative duke that's an excellent question Part of the TIF districts were created, and the voters actually approved TIF districts, which is what this bill does.
But there was a legal issue that came up. I think it dealt maybe with some school districts that had an issue or concern about the taxing that was taken away from their institutions. And so that was, through court, it created a problem. So now there's a restriction on creation of these TIF districts. We have a few in Arkansas. If you wander across the river, some of the development that we have over here, TIF District Opportunity Zone. So it is in there, but the language in the Constitution needs to be amended,
and the issues and the roadblocks that were brought up
in that lawsuit need to be addressed. And this is
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
30:49
what this legislation does. Follow-up? You're recognized. Is this the only solution available to the people of Arkansas through the legislative body and through this process? This is the absolute only
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
31:00
way that this could be addressed. Representative Duke, again, a perfect question. The
only way right now, this is restricted based on the court ruling from pursuing this in Arkansas. Until we adjust the Constitution and amend it, this is not allowed.
So this is the only way. The Constitution is our governing document, and without an amendment that allows this, we
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
31:25
can't pursue it. Representative Rye, for what purpose? Question, sir. You're
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
31:29
recognized. Representative Howard, and it's got a broad range to it. I mean, we saw some, like with Nucor, what Joey was talking about, maybe cost you $9 million, but millions and millions and millions of jobs and money coming into that area. And then we saw one yesterday where it was only $14,000,
but it's going to contribute about $1.2 or $3 million. So, I mean, without things like this right here, you've got no spur. This has to be, and I appreciate you. Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
32:01
Ryan, again, you raise a very valid point. Sitting in this room, we all
represent diverse segments of Arkansas. Each of our districts, there may be similarities, but there's differences of what the needs in our community are. This bill had to be broad so that we can address all those concerns
in your community, in Representative Duke's community, in my community. So thank you for that question. Representative Richardson,
Speaker 100
32:28
for what purpose? Question? You're recognized. Thank you,
Speaker 101
32:31
Mr. Speaker. Representative Beatty, I appreciate you bringing this
Speaker 103
32:34
issue. How do you address the question that a lot of my constituents have that this is going to unfairly advantage new business over existing businesses that have been there for a significant period of time?
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
32:49
Another good question. Let me point out, this is open to any business.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
32:54
So if you have a business in your community that's there and they choose to expand or they want to open another branch or they want to bring on new employees or maybe even a new building, this opportunity is open to them should the community decide to do it. You can incentivize growth in your community. Most of it's going to be organic growth right out of your district. People that have invested, that know that market, that are looking for a reason to expand and just a little bit of help. This bill, if we pass this and it's passed by the voters of Arkansas, it will incentivize and motivate folks in your community, maybe expand their business.
So it's not just for new business coming into your community. This helps
Speaker 26
33:39
everyone in your community. Representative Torres, for what purpose? Question.
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
33:42
You're recognized. Representative Beatty, you mentioned that other states have this tool in their toolbox. Is there an example of a
community in our state that can be served as an example of us not having one versus someone
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
33:57
that does? Representative Torres, I would say and challenge anyone that
travels the interstate and goes through Texarkana, Arkansas.
When you cross that state line, what do you notice? You notice the development, all the investment that's being made on the Texas side of the line. The reason that's happening is because of this program in Texas. And the foresight and the tools that they have in Texas, you see that. This will change the landscape of our border communities. This is important. The same thing in Carr's district, where you look at Memphis, West Memphis, Helena, those areas.
This will be a game changer for these communities, not just with job development, but if there's a blighted area of the community and there's community revitalization, this will help
Speaker 111
34:49
that as well. Representative McKenzie, for what purpose? Question. You're
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
34:52
recognized. Representative Beatty, no one ever wants to prepare for a worst-case scenario, but through reading
the bill and watching testimony last night, it wasn't really asked or understood what happens in the event of a tiffed bond failure. What political subdivision is next responsible for picking up the slack in the event that
one of the bonds or one of the incentive packages that goes out isn't collateralized or isn't taken care of by
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
35:17
those who request that bond? Well, I think all those would go back to the authority of the local municipality that is approving that. A lot of these are going to be so stringently underwritten that I think we'll be protected on that side. These are not things that we're going to kick out right off the door and be willy-nilly about what we do. And someone did ask me to say willy-nilly, so I thought I'd throw that in there.
But I think these are going to be well-vetted, and you're going to have some of the best folks working
Speaker 119
35:52
on these projects. Representative Long, for what purpose?
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
35:55
Question. You're recognized. Representative Beatty, of course, we're all for economic development, and I think most of us in here always voted for the tax cuts because it helps everybody in the state. With this being basically limited to smaller geographic areas, I'm wondering, after sitting
through a lot of these audit committees dealing with municipalities and counties, can you help me to feel better about the oversight, because I think you said last night they're not going to be subject to legislative audit? Representative Long, that's another valid point.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
36:32
Part of the enabling legislation that will
come after, if this is approved by voters, will be the guardrails and the rules that are set up on these districts. Senator Dismay and I both made note that audit's a very important
part of the project. Anytime local tax dollars are involved, there needs to be an audit requirement in here. So we're going to make certain that that enabling document has external audit that's going to provide some security and reassurance to folks in that community. Again, these are things that are going to be set up by your governing body and the folks in your local community to
Speaker 124
37:12
oversee these issues. So there's nothing that—follow up? You're
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
37:16
recognized for a follow-up. So there's nothing in the amendment that would prevent us from requiring a legislative audit
to be involved in it rather than them hiring someone else.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
37:29
I don't think there's anything in this amendment that would prevent that. The governing document with the guardrails is going to be introduced and sent as an interim study. And I think during that process, we can all have a little insight and a little attention on that document to help establish those guardrails. And everyone's input is welcome. Thank you
Chair
Unverified
37:49
for your answers. Representative Henley, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized.
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
37:55
Representative Beatty, can you say without a doubt that this will certainly bring jobs to the state of Arkansas? What
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
38:03
I can tell you is if we don't do this, these neighboring states are going to continue to kick our tail. They're going to get that investment, and we're not even going to see the opportunity. So I can't tell you without a doubt that communities are going to embrace this. But what I can tell you, if this tool is out there, you're going to have a lot of
them that will. And I do think this will stimulate economic development, community development in Arkansas.
Members, I appreciate your attention. Thank you for the questions. I think this
Speaker 24
38:41
helps. Representative Beatty has explained the resolution. Would anyone like
to speak against the resolution? Representative Blundstrom, you're recognized to speak against the resolution. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
39:02
you, Mr. Speaker. I realize we want business to come to Arkansas, I'm not arguing that.
What I am concerned about is page two, line one, it says loans and grants of public money. That's our taxpayer dollars at risk. The taxpayer is who this will roll down the hill upon if it should fail. I think this particular idea needs more vetting and more time. Representative Eves, when he ran the energy bill, one of the things that he did that was very helpful is we had quiet meetings over and over and over to dig into it and to understand
that bill. This is much more intricate than that. This actually creates a system of politically connected tax breaks, taxpayer-backed bonds, giving them an unfair advantage over other businesses. We need to take care of the businesses that are in Arkansas right now. And the way we do that as a government is by getting out of the way, by removing barriers such as the city permit process. The cities can do this right now. They can make it easier for businesses to come to their city by working with them on
permit process. This is one more barrier. Yes, it's a good idea. Yes, we want people to come to Arkansas, but it's not up to us. Representative Beatty mentioned opportunity zones. You know what's great about opportunity zones? It doesn't cost the taxpayer a single dime. Opportunity zones, what they are is your local investors investing in your communities and they take all the risk. if that business person fails they pay for it not the taxpayer line one loans and grants of public
money we need the businesses to step up and they are in these opportunity zones and you know what happens every single stick every single spade of dirt those taxes come into the state and we have absolutely no risk that's the beauty of opportunity zones and we already have that in arkansas and it's successful we need to take this is just a little bit of help is what representative Beatty said if it's a good project it will happen on its own and those cities can get behind it and make those that happen this puts the
taxpayer on the hook and with that I would ask
Chair
Unverified
41:29
for a no vote representative Lundstrom has spoke against the
resolution would anyone like speak for the resolution representative Dalby you're recognized to speak
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
41:48
for the Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Probably out of all 100 of us, I sit in a unique spot that no
one else in this chamber sits in. I literally can go across the street to another state. I worked for Bowie County, Texas, as their county attorney for 27 years, and in my position with Bowie County, Texas, I had the opportunity to draft documents for these types of projects that Representative Beatty is bringing to us through this amendment.
And I can tell you, the guardrails are there, a city and a county, I did it for the county, Sometimes there would be tax rebates, sometimes it would be maybe a break on their real property. It would be very different ways to fit that particular job or that particular opportunity for Texarkana, Texas and Bowie County, Texas.
Representative Beatty is exactly right. You come through Texarkana, you cross that state line and you see the economic development that happens in Texas. It's not for the lack of trying of Texarkana, Arkansas or Miller County, Arkansas. I guarantee you we fight constantly to get things into our district. And here's what we hear all of the time. I can go across the state line and I can get a better deal.
And they have gone across the state line and we have sat there and we have watched it, and we have watched it, and we have watched it. This will give our state the opportunity to fight for those projects that should be in our state, should be for our people. I know that there are some questions about, well, it's just going to affect business. No. I saw an Opportunity Zone go down, obviously in Texarkana we have Arkansas Boulevard,
we have Texas Boulevard. Texas Boulevard is a mixed-use street in which there are businesses and homes on it, and they entered into one of these agreements and it transformed that section of Texas Boulevard. I would urge you to vote for this. I've seen the real the real results of what happens when we're giving the opportunity to develop
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
44:35
Question. You're recognized. Representative Dalby, with your experience with doing this stuff, it was brought up at committee last night about the housing portion of this and about how we can give rebates to developers and things of that nature. In Texas, when you dealt with this, was there ever anything as far as the housing aspect? Because when I look at the bill, I hear about businesses, right? And I agree that we want to bring businesses in. But when I see the aspect about putting affordable housing in and things like that, that's helping a few people.
That's helping a few investors. How is that helping businesses? Did Texas do something
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:15
like that to allow for the rebates for housing? I can't speak for the whole state of Texas, obviously. But there have been situations in which developers wanting to develop land, maybe what the county did was relax the requirements for a road. They will do things like that.
These are things, these types of agreements can be tailored to the project. And it's not always taking taxpayer dollars. It may be an incentive to lessen the tax load for five years or ten years or something like that. They may reduce it. But with all of that being said, this, I think, really is, and I hate to use the word game changer, but for those of us who live on border cities and we see that in other states, it will make a difference.
It'll make a difference in the middle of our state. It'll make a difference for South Arkansas, Southeast Arkansas, Northwest, Northeast, all areas. And I would urge you to vote for this. I've seen it, I have seen what it can do, and I know what it can do for the state of Arkansas. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
46:36
Dalby has spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like
to speak against the resolution for the resolution? Representative McClure, you're recognized to speak for the resolution.
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
46:46
Thank you, Representative Beatty, for working on this. I know that's been a point of conversation between us for a long time. Thank you, Representative Dalby. I agree with both of you very much. Just quickly, I think most of you know this, but I've been involved in economic development in Arkansas now for 15 years, before that in Texas, five to ten years. There are traumatic differences, and it's too long a discussion to get in here.
But here, very simply, what this will do, think about local control versus central control. Our state is extremely diverse. Our AEDC does a great job. They work hard. They work very, very hard. But most of the time, they are put in a responsive mode, just dealing with things that are coming in to areas that are already blooming. And sometimes they'll pick a rural area that somebody's coming in. What this does is give the control back out to the local officials, the smaller regions, the smaller need.
What's needed in Texarkana is greatly different than what is needed in Crossit. What is needed in Crossit is much different than what is needed in Bentonville. And the list goes on and on and on. This allows great flexibility. Let me remind you, under our current system, we still have over 50 counties that are declining in population. Our large businesses are going to ADC, they do great. I think this is really going to home in on smaller businesses. As far as the TIF, listen, the TIF program has worked in Texarkana, it's worked in Jonesboro.
That goes back to the bond issuer and what's going to be backed up there. If we don't do something, we're going to be talking about this issue every session we come back. I think local control is the best issue on it. People are worried about the money. Well, this doesn't give a blank card. There is all different types of layers of things it has to go through. Let me address the opportunity zone. Last check, opportunity zones are being used very, very rarely
because they have to hold the capital for 10 years. A lot of investors don't want to hold the capital for 10 years. The new market tax credits are used a little bit more. Now, we do not know what the feds are going to do in these type of incentive programs. We'll just have to wait and see. But if you can combine, if somebody wants the Opportunity Zone, the New Market Tax Credit with local issues where they know their property, know what best fits, they know their infrastructure and what best fits, they know what their need are, and they're working at ground zero, I think we will start making a great stride forward.
Listen, I've heard about the taxpayer. This is the taxpayer money. What about the taxpayer money in the small towns? This is their money too. Why don't we let the small towns and small counties, as well as the bigger ones, have some say-so on where it goes. I stood here, and I would do it again, promoted everything that has gone on with our steel industry. I was glad to say it was the largest project I'd ever even have seen. But why don't we do that across the state?
Let the people in the area that know their area of the state best, those people that are on ground zero, that are getting some of the phone calls, let them go to work. And I'd encourage you to vote
Chair
Unverified
50:16
yes. Representative McClure has spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? For the resolution. Representative Whitaker, you're recognized to speak for the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues.
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
50:41
I'll be brief, and you know I don't come down here a lot. This problem, I'm one-stop this time. But I've got to tell you, in my time here, and it's been a while now, I have never seen such broad support for an issue across the state, and not only bipartisan, but I'd say nonpartisan. We've got folks talking from east to west, north to south. And I don't want you to think that because we have a lot of good things already going on in northwest Arkansas that there's not an appetite for this reform.
So I'm going to ask you to please vote yes. And when we go forth from here, please work with your communities to get this thing passed.
Chair
Unverified
51:22
Thank you. Representative Whitaker has spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? For the resolution. Representative Rye, Representative Wooten, Representative Rye is ahead of you. Representative Rye, you're recognized to speak for the resolution.
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
51:45
Representative Howard, this way it ought to be. We're talking about it and we're going to send this back to people. We need to let the people of this state make a move, and it comes from here, and we let them vote on it you know i've heard different things about this is costing certain kind of money you give it no no you're just given a tool you're given a tool to bring something in it costs money a little money to make money and that's what this project is
and without this we don't have every lane every time we come down here it costs a little bit more money, okay? We cannot continue on the road to spending extra money that's needed unless we have money coming in. And this is what it's all about. If you don't have jobs, you don't have income taxes. We need it. We need to be serious about this and we need to send this to our people, letting them know a strong
yes we are for this and
Chair
Unverified
52:57
I appreciate it. Representative Reyes spoke for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the
resolution? For the resolution Representative Wooten you're recognized to
speak for the resolution. Colleagues I'd like to approach this from two entirely different points. One concerned the public schools have had or have expressed about this is the fact that it may
reduce and cost them money but over the long run if the people are permitted to vote on this and they approve it it's going to increase value of property which will make up to the public schools what they may think they're going to lose but the overriding issue here is to create opportunity to address the major problem facing our state is poverty until we overcome poverty
till we address that problem we're going to continue to have problems in other areas And this will give the local authorities an opportunity and a way to increase the tools that they have to work with to deal with the problem of poverty. If we give our people an opportunity to have a decent way and to earn a decent way to be
able to afford a home, to be able to afford groceries and address the problem of food insecurity, this is another tool that the local authorities can have to work with. So I encourage you, and plus the fact this is my senator that's recommending this proposal. And I would appreciate it. Yes, both. Thank you. Representative Wooten has spoke
Chair
Unverified
55:03
for the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution?
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
55:08
Representative Duke, you're recognized to speak against the resolution. you Mr. Speaker. The reason why I came down here is I feel like I need to be a voice for the people back in District 12. It was reference to how this would be good for people in my district. What I know about my people in the district is I haven't heard from them on this and I haven't had them say hey we need this. What I hear from the people in District 12 largely is we just need y'all to
leave us alone and let us do our job, our things, our way. Their answer is not having the government get involved. I mean wasn't it Ronald Reagan that said like the scariest thing you hear is I'm from the government and I'm here to help you and I appreciate the idea and the concept behind it. I kind of kind of see where this is going but this has not been something that my people have asked for. I think that they want us to to stop having the government get involved and putting their finger on the scale and stop amending the Constitution and so
I'm going to be voting against this bill, and again, I border two states, Missouri and Oklahoma, and this has not been something that I've been, a lot I've
been begged for. Mostly, it's just leave us alone. So, with that, I'm going to be
Chair
Unverified
56:29
voting no. Representative Duke has spoke against the resolution. Would anyone like to speak for the resolution? Representative
Steele, you're recognized to speak for the resolution.
Speaker 24
56:43
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be very brief. A long time ago, I think I
was serving with your dad, Representative Wilberts, there was a major industry that was looking closely at Arkansas. That industry is called Nissan, and it came down, Representative Rye, you remember that, it came down to Mississippi and Arkansas. Nissan is in Mississippi, and every time I go to visit my son in New Orleans,
and sometimes I'll take a shortcut through Mississippi, and I have to pass that Nissan plant. And I can remember one time my son was with me and he would ask me, "What is that huge facility over there?" And I told him it was the Nissan plant. And I can remember one time he asked me, "Why is that not in Arkansas?" Thousands of jobs, economic development. I can't help but to think if Arkansas would have had a tool to use such as this, that
we may have not only the Nissan plant in Arkansas but actually in the Arkansas Delta region. I'd appreciate a good vote on this resolution. Representative Steele has spoke for the
Chair
Unverified
58:06
resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? For the resolution, Representative Woodridge, you're recognized to speak for the resolution. Thank you,
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
58:18
Mr. Speaker. Thank you colleagues, and like my colleague, Representative Steele, I'll be brief. I spoke about this in
committee last night, and I think that there are valid points on both sides of the issue. But what I see from this is I see this as a companion and a tool that can be used alongside of what we're already doing at AEDC. We've got a mechanism in place that brings industry to Arkansas. I think that everyone in this chamber would agree that has served the state of Arkansas well over the last several years. This creates a tool that can go alongside of that hand in glove, as Representative Dalvey mentioned, that will allow communities the opportunity to choose
whether they want to engage in this process or not. I've got a diverse legislative district. I've got Greene County, which has the city of Paragol, a large city, and then I've got Clay County and Randolph County, which have smaller cities in them. The difference in what those cities are able to accomplish is very drastic and I think that these type of things and these economic development centers allow smaller communities the opportunity to come together and say we want to band together as a group and we want to try to invest in our community to create jobs and create opportunities people
industry will come to your community Corning Arkansas is the perfect example through the AEDC rebates and other incentives we were able to get a manufacture it according in the last year it's an extreme shot in the arm for that community but where they're struggling is workforce we've got to have a tool like this where we can put a community development program together we can improve the quality of life we can cause people to want to move to a rural parts of the state I live in the rural part of the state I choose to live there I love to live there and I said this in committee last night and it's
sincere with me I am here to make sure that my kids have an opportunity to live in a rural part of Arkansas and raise my grandkids I hope someday close to me if they choose to live somewhere else that's one thing but if they're forced to live somewhere else that's something that I can't live with that's why I serve in the legislature other than that I would be home with them right now and at a job that I love but I am here to try to make decisions for the future that will impact them like I said in committee last night a wise man says you
plant trees under which the shade you will never enjoy none of us may be in In the legislature, when we see this program come to fruition, that is our job. Our job is to plant seeds and watch them grow and cause the state to be better as we move forward. I commend Representative Beatty and Senator Disming for bringing this legislation, just like I mentioned in committee last night. I think that this is something that as we move and progress forward as a state, we're going to see great benefit from. This kind of replicates what we've done as a state that's caused us to get to this point.
migration. We're the number one state in the nation. People want to move to Arkansas because of tax-friendly policy, because of other decisions that we're making, because of cost of living. All of the things that make Arkansas great, people want to live here. This is just taking what has been so successful for the state and it's replicating it at the local level. And the beauty of it is we're just referring this out for the people to decide. If the people of Arkansas say this is not what we think is best for our state, they get to rejected at the ballot measure. And in two years, we get to come back to the drawing board and we
get to collectively decide what can we do to benefit our state and start the process over. I would ask you for a yes vote. I think this
is forward thinking. I think it's good for the state of Arkansas. And I would appreciate your
Speaker 71
1:01:53
support. Representative Wateridge has spoke for the resolution. Anyone
Chair
Unverified
1:01:56
want to speak against the resolution? Representative Beatty, you're recognized and closed for the resolution.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:02:10
It kind of says it all right there. Dream big.
That's what this resolution does. I want to address a couple of the
issues that were raised while we were here. The housing issue raised by Representative Hawk. This bill will definitely help in that issue. And if you've got housing issues or concerns, an economic development district that has incentives that are tailor-made to grow housing in your community, this will affect that.
I want to talk about what Representative Lundstrom said about the tax implications. This has zero risk to state taxes. In fact, it will only increase state revenue and it will help achieve statewide tax reforms, which is something we have all leaned into and embraced. I want to say, I respect every member in this body and the people you represent, and I would just ask that you take into consideration, you vote your district, you vote what you think
your people would want you to do, but along the same lines, think about the rest of us in the room that this could benefit and be beneficial and have an open mind related to this policy. All we're asking for here is to give the voters of Arkansas a voice if this is something they want or not. It may not pass, but I'm telling you, the folks in my district in South Arkansas and many areas in this state, they have been demanding this, and that's what they want. This is not something that just popped up on the radar during these three or four months that we've been
here in session. This has been a project since Representative McClure raised the issue about what are we going to do for rural Arkansas? What are we going to do for retail? We've sat through my time in the legislature in city county local. We've heard communities come in and talk about, hey, we've got a tractor supplier. We've got a small business coming. Siloam Springs, one of the communities that said, hey, there's nothing we can do for retail investment. This opens the door for that. So I'm going to say, think about your communities. Think about what this does. This
This will let your local people make the decisions that is right for their community. It's time to level the playing field and unlock the full potential for growth and prosperity in this state. This resolution offers a comprehensive solution that addresses the shortcomings in our current economic development toolbox. We can't afford to let these transformative projects slip through our fingers and go to neighboring states and investments outside this state. Let's seize the
opportunity today to drive sustainable growth, create jobs, and revitalize our communities where we live and raise our families. Together let's support the adoption of this resolution, let's send it to the
voters, and I please ask you to vote for this resolution. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
1:05:07
Representative Beatty is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the adoption of Senate
Speaker 119
1:05:12
joint Resolution number 15, prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:05:23
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. The
vote of 74 yeas, 21 nays, and two present. Resolution has been adopted. Members,
Chair
Unverified
1:05:41
I'm going to go now over to we'll take up first the regular senate bills without objection i'm going to take some of these out
of order see no objection madam clerk please read senate bill 459
senate bill 459 by representative hudson to amend the minimum age necessary to adjudicate a juvenile
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:06:15
delinquent The request of Representative Hudson, we will pass over that. Members, if you'll turn
Chair
Unverified
1:06:25
the page, go about halfway down, we'll take up Senate Bill 625.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:06:37
Representative McCollum, for what purpose? Uh, parliamentary inquiry, please. You're recognized. So I'm looking at
rule 38T, and I'm just going to read the first part because my question is going to be, um, about the rule. Any time before a bill requiring expenditure of public funds or otherwise imposing a new or increased cost obligation, uh, where am I? Is read for the third time in the House of Representatives.
member of the house may request and the speaker shall direct that a fiscal impact statement for the bill be prepared and placed on the desk so on so forth so my question around that is if there is a bill that currently has a fiscal impact statement attached to it but it has since been amended so therefore there's no fiscal impact on the bill as amended if a member wants to request fiscal impact on that bill shall they be granted that right
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:07:50
in reviewing your request at this time the rule simply states their fiscal impact that would be provided and looking quickly it appears that there is is one but your concern is that the bill has been amended right so the bill in front of us has been amended
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:08:12
the amendment had maybe four or five pages of amendments so i guess the uh concern or question is would that be applied to that logic
the fact that there is a fiscal impact would that be applied with the bill as
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
1:08:38
amended on the rule that would that would be the rule the rule of the chair the chair would have to rule in that situation
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:08:50
on on the amendment okay thank you madam clerk please read senate bill
Chair
Unverified
1:08:54
625 bill 625 by representative briggs to amend provision of the arkansas code concerning
the Arkansas Children's Educational Freedom Account Program and to declare an
emergency. Representative Brooks, you're recognized to explain
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:09:05
your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I bring you Senate Bill 625. First, and this may be a little bit unique in terms of bill presentations, I want to begin with what this bill does not do. Senate Bill 625 does not take any funds away from any EFA family. That's Education Freedom Account. Those funds are still set, as in LEARN statute, to 90% of foundation funding.
That represents over $6,800 per student in the 25-26 school year and increases proportionately 5% in the 26-27 year because of the foundation funding bill we just passed. This bill does not tell anyone how or what they have to teach. To earn a degree in the state of Arkansas, all students, no matter the learning setting, must have math, English language arts, science, and history. However, the curriculum and the methods that are used purposely are allowed to vary based on the student's specific needs.
Finally, this bill has been intentionally mislabeled as targeting particular groups. In reality, there are no groups in education freedom accounts. The EFA program, which I authored and passed as a part of LEARNS in 2023, does not have private school students or homeschool students or micro school students. It has students. This is a universal program in which all students in the state of Arkansas qualify. That has been my commitment from the day that I stepped into this body. I even drafted a bill in 2021, which I never failed, articulated in a universal ESA before any state had actually adopted the idea of a universal ESA.
My goal then remains my goal now. The money follows a student to put their specific needs first and foremost. Senate Bill 625 continues with that commitment and does nothing to hinder or attack education freedom in the state of Arkansas. In reality, it strengthens it for the almost 40,000 students that will benefit this upcoming school year and in the years to come. And I want to thank Governor Sanders for her support of this bill and helping us move this to the finish line. Here's what Senate Bill 625 actually does.
It supports the long-term sustainability of the LEARN's education freedom accounts. It allows for reasonable costs to be reimbursed for the education needs of students related to co-curricular courses in fine arts, music, and STEM if those are offered at a school somewhere in the state of Arkansas. Does your student want to learn piano, guitar, cello, theater, dance? All those fall under this subsection of reasonable costs. That's intentionally broad-based. It also allows for educational services in non-traditional settings.
For instance, let's say that hypotherapy is a benefit to your student as a speech-language pathologist helps with phonetical formation to improve student literacy. That is covered under the reasonable costs of a LEARNS EFA. It still allows, as LEARNS did two years ago, for technological devices which meet a student's learning needs. For instance, a laptop, a printer, or an internet connectivity device. Senate Bill 625 still allows for student costs relative to transportation. There's a requirement that those costs do not exceed 25% of the total EFA amount,
which in the coming year is a little bit over $1,700 per student, and in the following school year moves to almost $1,800 per student. Senate Bill 625 also still allows to help meet the students' extracurricular needs, such as gym, PE, or field trips. The same requirements of a maximum of 25% of the total EFA amount exists here as well. Here in Little Rock, that amount would equate to a full year membership at D1 sports training for a student who would have unlimited visits. If you're like former Rep. Andy Davis, you could go to classes three days a week.
Or if you take your family for an amazing trip to the lodge at Mount Magazine, you could learn about the natural beauty in the great state of Arkansas. This allows for that. Senate Bill 625 gives an initial application period of February 1 to June 1 for consistency with our public school choice deadlines, but it also allows for the department to accept applications after that initial date. Finally, the bill clarifies for the department the ability to pursue remedies if there's evidence of intentional misuse of funds to ensure that the EFA funds allocated on behalf of the student
are in fact used for the student to maximize their individual education. And with that, I'll be happy to answer questions. Representative
Speaker 84
1:13:32
McElhinden, for what purpose? Question? You're recognized. So right now,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:13:36
as I understand it, any student, but homeschool students, can use some of these funds in order if they need occupational therapy or physical therapy as well. Does this impact that
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:13:46
at all? As I said, there is zero limit on how they can utilize those types of funds. If there's an educational therapy setting or just a therapy setting,
let's say that a student is involved in speech-language pathology, and again, as I mentioned there, and they need that for their literacy needs, There is no limit on the funds that can be used. They can be used up to the maximum allowed under the learns, which is coming to school year
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:14:12
68-54. Okay, follow-up? Recognized. Thank you. So all you're doing is you are putting a limit on the amount of
those funds that a homeschooler can use for visit or extracurricular, those kinds of things. Is that correct? I
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:14:23
want to clarify. This is not directed at a homeschooler.
A homeschool appears nowhere in this bill. This is an EFA student. That can be anyone. There's a school in South Arkansas that their tuition is roughly $3,000 per year for their school. And so it would apply to those students as well who are still going to a full-time private school, but they would have the additional opportunity to utilize additional funds within the reasonable limits that are applied within this bill. So again, that's the only place where you see any type of a percentage. And again, it's not directed at any particular type of student. It is the full EFA program.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
1:14:56
Okay, but it is a 25% cap for
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:14:58
those types of activities. The 25% maximum cap is for transportation costs, which, again, roughly equates to $1,713 per student this upcoming year. That's about $150 a month in gas. If you want to think about it that way, you get reimbursed $0.52 a mile, you get to spend $150 a month in gas. So it does that. Also, the cap remains there for extracurricular activities, which, again, would be, you know, think about tennis lessons, field trips, again, D1 memberships. It's been used for that.
So it's very broad-based and does not hinder the opportunity for the student to be educated in any way. Thank you. With that,
Chair
Unverified
1:15:35
I appreciate a good vote. Representative Brooks has explained the bill. Would anyone like
to speak against the bill? Representative McCollum, you're recognized to
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
1:15:48
speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
colleagues. It was actually just a question, Representative Brooks. Maybe someone can pass this question on to Representative Brooks.
The question I was going to ask instead of speaking against is, in your testimony you made the statement that this bill will help with the long-term sustainability of EFAs. I guess I didn't hear how that would, how your bill will help for the long-term sustainability of the EFA program. Can you let us know perhaps in your closing how your bill actually helps that? - Thanks. - Representative McCollum has spoke against the bill. Would
Chair
Unverified
1:16:29
anyone like to speak for the bill?
Representative Wayne, you're recognized to speak for the
bill. - I first wanna just thank Representative Brooks for being a champion for education here in the state of Arkansas. I
want to express my support for this bill and also say there has been some misinformation about this bill that's kind of sad, and he hasn't had an opportunity to correct that.
In fact, some of the groups that had been opposed to this bill have already backed off of the bill, or backed off of the opposition to the bill, and that's a credit to Representative Brooks and his explanation of the bill. This establishes some very good and reasonable guardrails to
help ensure the long-term sustainability of our education policy here in the state of Arkansas and I would encourage you to vote yes on this bill. Representative Wing has spoke
Chair
Unverified
1:17:28
for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? For
the bill? Representative Wooten, are you speaking for the bill? Yes, no? Are you speaking
for the bill? You're speaking for the bill.
You're recognized. I know that confuses a lot of you, it confuses me, but the one point about it is, for the first time, if I understand it correctly, Representative Brooks, you're putting a limitation on extracurricular activities of 25 percent, is that contained, that's correct.
So actually, the reason I'm supporting the bill is the fact that for the first time we put a limitation on Freedom Account money, and I want you to keep that in mind whenever I run my other bills again in regard to testing, but also I want to make the point, with the speaker's permission to the fact that we put $90 million into the Freedom
Accounts in a normal budget and we put $90 million out of the surplus into so that's $180 million. The $400 increase per student that we're giving to public schools is only $150 million. So we're putting $30 million more into the private schools than we are the public schools. And with that, I'll sit down.
Chair
Unverified
1:19:29
Thank you. Representative Wooten has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against
the bill for the bill? Representative Brooks, you're recognized to close for the
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:19:44
bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker and to represent McCollum I appreciate the question and it makes you want to address that so just in terms of long-term sustainability of this program I think that long-term sustainability of anything we do is relative to our fiscal responsibility to taxpayers in the state of Arkansas and so if we can continue to ensure that our
commitment is kept for EFA families which is very strong and it continues to be very strong, as well as to make sure that, frankly, that money is not wasted. I'm not going to say that it has been wasted, but to ensure that long-term that money is not wasted within this program, I think that does the benefit of the student more than anything else. We went from 2015, the first time any type of program such as this was passed in the state of Arkansas called the Succeed Scholarship Program. We had 23 students that first year who benefited from that. We took a break for six years up to 2021.
In 2021, Representative Ken Bragg ran House Bill 1371, which would have benefited about 500 students. Those 500 students had to be at 200% of federal poverty level or below. That bill failed by about seven votes. Later on that session ran Senate Bill 680, which benefited 250 students in the state of Arkansas. Still the limitations of 200% of federal poverty level. In 2023, we were able to turn the education freedom world on its head, and we were able to support students more than 5,000 year one, tripled in year two,
and now we have a universal program that this year is going to support almost 40,000 students. In the state of Arkansas, our commitment to education freedom and to the good of the student is unwavering. This bill does nothing to impact that in any way, and I would appreciate Representative Wooten highlighting the fact that this year, we are going to push $270-plus million in education freedom accounts. To me, that is the support of the student more than anything else, and that highlights our commitment as a state to make sure that education freedom continues to reign strong here in the state of Arkansas.
Chair
Unverified
1:21:41
And with that, I'm closed, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Brooks is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 625.
Speaker 177
1:21:59
Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. As everyone voted, members, you are voting on the bill and the emergency clause. As everyone voted,
Chair
Unverified
1:22:09
cast out the ballot, the vote of 74 yeas, 9 nay, and 12 present.
You have passed the bill and the emergency clause. Madam Clerk, please transmit Senate Bill 625 to the
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:22:23
Senate immediately. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 437. Senate
Chair
Unverified
1:22:28
Bill 437 by Representative Hall to create the Arkansas Wind Energy Development Act. Representative
Hall, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you,
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:22:42
Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Today I bring you before Senate Bill 437.
This bill creates a regulatory process for which the wind industry must abide by. Currently there are no regulations on the wind industry in the state of Arkansas. There are only two states across the country who have yet to place regulations on this type of industry. These states are Arkansas and Louisiana. These regulations mimic other regulations that have been found in other states such as Texas, Iowa, and Oklahoma. Currently there are projects whom have already started construction
and will be grandfathered in. I am as far away from a regulation individual as you can get. Normally, the least amount of regulation on a farm or business, the better. But this is why I am standing before you today. As a lot of you know, a large portion of these wind energy companies are foreign-owned. The majority of their profits come from being subsidized by the federal government with your hard-earned tax money. The electric industry, as well as the oil and gas industries, are highly regulated.
I don't believe that it is fair for this industry, a lot of them foreign-owned, should be allowed to come in and carve up our state like a Thanksgiving turkey. Because you see, colleagues, if we do not act today, then that is what is going to happen. We cannot wait another two years after all the land leases are signed and they are grandfathered in. If we pass this legislation today, there is going to be an interim study by Jeremy.
done on the wind energy development across the state. After this study is completed, we might find, you know, areas of the state that work out better using this type of energy. These bills we pass in this chamber are amended and altered every day. That's our job. This bill allows us to be proactive for once instead of reactive. And I was sent a letter last night, and it says, Good afternoon, Representative Hall. My name is Mike Ackerman, and I am the Department of Defense Regional Coordinator for Arkansas
and the states that surround it within Federal Region 6. I wanted to provide some DOD input for consideration on Arkansas SB 437 regarding the Wind Energy Development Act in case there is a chance to include language for this coordination with the military in the future. I apologize for the late timeframe for this input, realizing the bill is in its final stages. We appreciate your consideration of language to ensure coordination occurs to avoid loss
of low-level flight routes or radar interference generated by wind turbines. We hope to avoid future impacts to military operations in Arkansas, which have several key air bases included including Little Rock Air Force Base and now Ebbing Field with its F-35 Allied Pilot Training missions and that's why this
vote today and the interim study is so important. Any questions? Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:26:01
Ray for what purpose? You're recognized. Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
1:26:04
Hall you mentioned that this puts sort of a regulatory framework on wind turbines can you can you just describe generally I just it's a 21 page bill you describe generally what the regulatory framework looks like and how it compares
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:26:20
with other states a lot of it is just putting it into the Public Service Commission under their under their rule you have also got setbacks where the towers that are being built in Northwest Arkansas are some of the largest that's ever been built. And so the setbacks from the
other property lines have to be two and a half times the size of the windmill. And also, you've also got the limits from the cities. You know, you've got to be a mile from churches and a mile from schools. And that's, believe it or not, that is from the ice throws that come off those. I know that's probably hard to believe, but that's, you know, that was pretty interesting. So, anyway, that's... If you have no other questions, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Speaker 24
1:27:08
Representative Hall has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against
the bill? Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to speak
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:27:23
against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I hate to come down here and speak this strongly against this
bill, but this is a moratorium on a segment of the energy business, and I think you all know that I'm
all of the above. We need to give the opportunity to every fuel that produces energy in our state. We don't need to cut out coal on one end of the segment or wind. If wind is a bad idea, it will fail on its own. You know, it's not our job to kill a segment of an industry, but let me just talk about a few things that was mentioned in the previous presentation.
Someone asked, "Does this copy one of the other states' bills?" And Texas and Iowa was mentioned. I have worked in Texas and Iowa in the wind industry. I have worked with the governments there. This bill does not match either one of those state bills. I actually have a bill that I filed or I will file today to work on this in the interim to look at Texas because I think Texas has a good bill, a good regulation.
what this bill is is a consortium of five or six states. They took all the regulations from multiple states and put it in one bill. It's 20 pages of regulation. This is government overreach. One of the things in this bill, if you're going to put a wind farm, you've got to study all the water sources five miles from the site. I mean, why are you doing that? would kill any wind project in Arkansas. Let me talk about foreign companies. I work for
a foreign wind company, but there is a U.S. company that is the second largest wind turbine producer in the world. It's a company I worked for for 30 years. GE employs thousands and thousands of people in the wind industry. They are the second largest producer of wind turbines in the world. The other thing, private property. This bill would not
allow any farmer or rancher in the state to allow wind farm on their land if they want to do that. They wouldn't be able to do that. You know, I know people that are third-generation farmers. My roommate in college lives up in Clay County. He's a third-generation farmer, and he has thousands of acres. If he wants to put a wind farm on one of his acres, part of his acreage, he should have the opportunity to do that. It
might be an economic thing that he needs to do to protect that family farm. We have what we call, I think it's called heritage, farmers, who have farms that have been there for a hundred years. A hundred years. Blood, sweat, and tear in that land that they own, their fathers own, their grandfathers own. And we're going to tell them, you don't have the right to do this. Even if it's good for your family economically, we're not going to allow you to make this decision
to put these turbines on your land. The other thing in South Arkansas, most of the people that worked on this bill, I believe, are from Northwest Arkansas. South Arkansas, we had some of the forestry people talk to us in committee, and they have opportunity to put these wind farms in their areas down there where they process trees, and they can do that within the forest. This would not allow them to do that. One of the guys said they had, I think, seven projects that they could do in the forest area well that's not close to a
lot of people that's out in the outback but they wouldn't be allowed to do that if this bill passes I filed a bill I'm gonna work on it for the next two years to get a good regulation bill and we need regulations as representative Hall said we do need regulations but we don't need to kill the industry we don't need over-regulate and that's what this bill does and I would ask you to vote no representative long for what purpose question you're recognized for a
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
1:32:02
question you mentioned several times like the farmer friend the forestry you said they would not be able to do it could you give some examples of why
they would not be able to do it you
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:32:17
don't think they can meet the setbacks or what well there's
so many regulations in this bill they can't be close to a city They can't be close to a church. The ice throw, let me mention that. Ice throw off of these turbines, it does happen, but these wind farms shut down.
We have monitors on these blades and shut them down when it gets to the point where it's going to throw ice. That's not only to protect the people around. These things cost a million dollars a piece, and that ice would damage the turbine. So that's not really a problem there. Talking about planes. These turbines can be shut down if someone's spraying around that farm.
There's so many regulations in this bill, I can't remember all of them, but there was a map that was given to us in committee that showed where you could build these things and there was
hardly any place in the state that you could build one that complied with all the
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
1:33:29
regulations representative duffield for what purpose question you're recognized representative ladyman when
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:33:33
we were out of session we had a committee meeting that i attended that was just on the particularly on this topic and i found it quite informative there were some
out-of-state legislators there they they came in on a zoom call and they had done some research that they presented to us and from my understanding when it came to this industry arkansas does not have we just simply don't have the wind for this to work in arkansas is that is that accurate is that an is that what but thank
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:34:05
you for that question that's a very good question uh in the past that was true but these turbines like any other industry they've improved
those they made a more efficient so they can operate on lower wind speeds when I was a plant engineer to plant there in Jonesboro I looked into building a wind turbine at that factory we used a lot of power that would have helped us financially and at that point this is about 20 years ago it was not could not work there it was not economical to do that because based on what the Memphis weather report was our sustainable winds were 11 mile per hour and we only had
those for like 25 percent of the time so that was not an economical thing to do back then now these turbines can operate on lower wind speeds and they are a little bit taller I think it was mentioned that these are the tallest in the world well these things are all basically the same height they're all 300 320 feet tall now if you add the blade on there yeah it is quite a bit taller but they're all basically the same size but they've improved the efficiencies of them so that they can operate in lower wind areas
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:35:24
like arkansas can i have one more you're recognized thank you mr speaker representative I appreciate your effort on this topic. I guess my next question is you referenced just now that in a couple years you had a bill to regulate this industry. I guess my concern would be is for this industry to go on the next two years entirely unregulated. That's a concern I have. Could you address that? Well, if
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
1:35:51
you put in this moratorium, there won't be any wind turbines for four years.
The actual scientific study that you have to do before you put up a wind turbine is about two years. The construction time, depending on the size of the wind farm might take a year and a half. So you're talking a long time before these farms actually come online. And none of these that we're talking about in wind or around that area are operational yet. There may be 50% completed. So I don't think we're at a critical time.
I think we have time to write good regulations to control this industry. So with
that, I would appreciate a low vote.
Chair
Unverified
1:36:39
Representative Ladyman has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the
bill? the more you recognize speak for the
bill. - Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues.
Anytime you have an emerging industry, you will have disruption in both the marketplace and the communities in which these industries are placed. There are currently eight wind development projects to my knowledge that are planned for Arkansas, and these range from the Ozarks to the Delta, And these projects will be grandfathered in under the existing regulation framework, which is nothing. One project in particular, in my district, has 200 695 foot tall wind turbines
going down the White River for about 20 miles, dotting the landscape in one of the greatest waterfowl flyways in the country. 695 feet is pretty tall. So, for your reference, the Statue of Liberty is 305 feet tall. Simmons Tower, just that direction, is 547 feet tall. So you add about 150 feet more to the Simmons Tower and you have a wind turbine. If we take a back seat with no regulation whatsoever, there will be thousands of these turbines littering our state border to border, and the effects will be quite disastrous.
This will affect tourism in a negative way, this will affect migratory waterfowl in a negative way, and this will affect agriculture in a negative way. Now, I represent Stuttgart, which we proclaim is the rice and duck hunting capital of the world, and let me tell you about rice farmers. You cannot raise a rice crop without aerial application of chemicals and fertilizer. You can't do it because when that rice farm is underwater, flooded for the production of rice,
you can't use a ground rig or a ground sprayer to grow that rice. You have to use aerial application. If these wind turbines exist, the first thought in your mind would be like, well, they're just not going to be able to grow rice in that particular field. That's fine. That's that landowner's decision. But what's not fine is the turbulence caused by these wind farms downstream. Turbulence, as much as up to a mile or more, will cause chemical drift from these ag pilots spraying,
and they will not be able to do that job responsibly. So when we talk about setbacks, when we talk about property rights and affecting your neighbor's property rights, this bill protects that. Because if I've got a rice field just next door to somebody that has a bean field, that has a wind farm on it, I still want to be able to grow rice in my rice field. Wind turbines will be the next crypto mine debacle. You all remember that.
If we don't pass this bill, the wind turbines are coming to your district, I feel quite sure. and if we do nothing today on this issue our constituents will wonder why so with that i ask for a good vote thank you representative moore has
Chair
Unverified
1:40:14
spoke for the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill before the bill representative hall you are recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
1:40:28
As Representative Moore just said, you know, whose property rights are we going for anyway? You know, I mean, it's a complex problem, but we want a common sense solution. And we can always take out some of these regulations if we have to, you know, if the study says so and we'd appreciate your input you know representative ladyman but uh anyway i urge you to pass this legislation today because we just can't wait another two years so we got we wait two years they're gonna be all over us and they'll be signing land leases and and they'll be
grandfathered in and there's nothing we can do about it so i appreciate a good
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:41:07
vote representative hall is closed for the bill the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 437. Prepare the machine, Madam
Chair
Unverified
1:41:26
Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:41:31
up the ballot. The vote of 73 yeas, 11 nays, and 13 present.
The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please transmit Senate Bill 437 the Senate immediately. Madam Clerk please read Senate Bill 491. Senate Bill 491 by Representative Acre
Chair
Unverified
1:41:49
to require a vendor that contracts with the Employee Benefits Division to submit data for verification
by an independent audit to impose a civil penalty on a vendor that provides inaccurate data and to declare an emergency. Representative Acre
you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:42:05
you Mr. Speaker, colleagues. I'm excited to present this bill today. This was amended in conjunction with comments from EBD, and we've come to what I believe is a great bill. What it does is simply states that if a vendor for EBD is going to be submitting data that's going to be used for fiscal impacts, that they have to agree for that to be actuarially reviewed, and if they are found to submit fraudulent data on a regular basis, they can be fined, and then on a third-time basis, they will be removed from contracting with DVD. With that, I welcome the questions. Thank you none, I appreciate a good vote. Thank
Chair
Unverified
1:42:41
you. Representative Acre has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Speaker 119
1:42:49
Representative Acre is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 491. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill
Chair
Unverified
1:43:01
and the emergency clause. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:43:11
Cast up the ballot. By a vote of 96 yay, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have passed the bill
and the emergency clause. Please transmit those two bills to
Speaker 19
1:43:29
the Senate immediately. Members, we'll go down now to Senate Bill 601.
Chair
Unverified
1:43:49
Senate Bill 601 by Representative Johnson, to create a pathway for a graduate of a foreign medical school to be licensed in the state if he or she is offered full-time employment as a physician from a
health care provider. Representative Johnson, you're recognized to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:44:04
explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a bill meant to try to address some of the workforce shortages we have with physicians across the state by removing a requirement that an international medical graduate complete a residency in the United States. residency is our apprenticeship program as physicians. It's where we train. Currently
in Arkansas, they have to come to Arkansas and do some post-medical graduate training, even if they've completed a residency in cardiology in the United Kingdom, Germany, and in a reputable country. It still has the requirement that they pass all the same exams that I have to pass. They also have to obtain a certificate from the Educational Commission on Foreign Graduates, which has a requirement that their residency be substantially the same as the ones we complete here. This is a bill we worked on with the Medical Society, the Medical Board of the Department of Health, and came to a language we could all agree on
that was safe and would help the state, and I'd be
Chair
Unverified
1:44:56
happy to answer any questions. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Johnson has explained the
bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? For the bill, Representative Johnson is
Speaker 119
1:45:06
closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 601. Prepare the machine,
Chair
Unverified
1:45:18
Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:45:24
Cast up the ballot. The vote of 97 yeas, 1 nay, and 0 present, the bill is passed. Members, if you'll turn the page on the red
calendar to the top. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 347. Senate Bill 347 by Representative
Chair
Unverified
1:45:42
Mayberry to require the Arkansas Medicaid program to increase reimbursement rates for certain dental services and to send an annual reimbursement cap for adult dental services.
Representative Mayberry, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:46:00
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this morning when I got in my car to drive here, you
know what I saw flash up on my engine? said on my dashboard it said oil change needed. Yeah we've been busy right and I haven't had a chance to do that and as I told the speaker the other day I'm pretty cheap and I don't like to spend money I don't have to but I'm gonna have to spend the 50 to 70 dollars or so to change that oil in my vehicle because if
I don't my engines gonna fall apart burn up and I'm gonna have a much greater expense in the long run. I might even be stranded along the side of the road and not be able to make it to work or not be able to get my kids to class. That's kind of what we're dealing with right here. We have dentists around the state who are having to make a decision that they don't want to do, but
economically they cannot continue to be charity they are choosing now to not carry Medicaid which means that we have children around the state and adults with special needs that cannot get dental care when they can't get dental care you know where they go? Because their teeth hurt and they could have an infection. They
go to the ER. In 2019, we know that there were 5,000 who went to the ER instead of to their dentist. And if you think paying for a little expense of a checkup is a lot of money, that ER visit is a whole lot more and it doesn't solve the problem because that child probably just gets maybe an antibiotic, which doesn't solve the problem, and they're back a few weeks later because they still have the same problem. They
need that tooth extracted, and we don't have dentists in the ER. What this bill is going to do is going to raise the rates that have not been raised in 18 years for Medicaid, not for everybody. Again, this is only for adults with special needs and for our children, our pediatrics. It
doesn't even raise it as high as it needs to be.
We added an amendment that just puts into place what we wanted in year one, and what that is is imagine across the country an average. All we're asking for is 60% of that average. Not even the average across the country, just 60% of that average. Yes, there is a fiscal impact of $6.9 million.
I promise you, if we don't spend that, we are going to be spending a whole lot more as folks go to the ER and have even more complicated medical care that's needed. We need to do something to help our dentists around the state, but more than anything, we need to do something to help our children and our adults with special needs get the care that they desperately need.
I'll be happy to take questions. Seeing none,
Chair
Unverified
1:49:53
I appreciate a good vote. Representative Mayberry has explained the bill. Would anyone like to
speak against the bill? For the bill? Representative Carr,
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
1:50:05
you're recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my research on this, I have found out that clinics will no longer be able to serve those dental patients. They're struggling right now. Eldorado, Hot Springs, Fayetteville, Jonesboro, Fort Smith, Conway, Little Rock, and Pine Bluff.
That's the ones that I know of. So we need to take care of
this. That way these kids and their dental needs are being served. Thank you, and
Chair
Unverified
1:50:31
I appreciate a good vote. Representative Carr has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak
against the bill? For the bill? Representative Mayberry, Representative Garner, you're recognized to speak for the
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
1:50:47
bill. Colleagues, thank you. I don't come down here very often, as you know, and so it's really important when I do.
My first patient as a nurse practitioner in the ENT department was a patient who came in from rural Arkansas, didn't have access to a dentist, with two abscessed teeth. He died of sepsis, and he was eight years old. That's the true cost if we don't do this, if we don't take care of this issue now. So I just appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Garner has
Chair
Unverified
1:51:22
spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
For the bill, Representative Torres, you're recognized to speak for
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
1:51:34
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, House members. You know, when this bill came on, I'm never
about expanding Medicaid. I mean, that's just one of my rules. But I did recently, actually last week, had a dentist come into my bank to talk to me about just a lot of different things. And he said, do you realize that none of the dentists in our community are taking Medicaid for treating children in our dental clinics?
None of us are. We just can't afford to do it anymore. So because of that, I'm going to be a
Speaker 104
1:52:11
yes vote. Rep. Torres has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? For
Chair
Unverified
1:52:18
the bill? Rep. Mayberry, you are closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 347. Rep. the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:52:40
everyone voted. Cast up the ballot. The vote of 82 yeas, 6 nay, and 6
present. The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please transmit those last two bills to the Senate immediately. Members,
Speaker 24
1:53:06
we're going to go back to the top of the regular Senate bills.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:53:13
Representative Brooks. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 325. Senate Bill 325
Chair
Unverified
1:53:18
by Representative Brooks to amend the Arkansas Juvenile Code of 1989 to amend the Child Maltreatment Act, to amend the law regarding reinstatement of
parental rights, and to amend the law regarding the Child Maltreatment Central
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:53:32
Registry. Representative Brooks, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. colleagues. Senate Bill 325 come to us from Senator Clark on the other side. These couple bills that are up next have been supported by several folks within the juvenile justice
world here in the state of Arkansas, places like Restore Hope, Arkansas Baptist Family Members and Child Advocacy and Senators. SB 325 decreases the time to reinstate parental rights from three years to two years for children who have not achieved and are still sitting the foster care it also reforms the central registry criteria to keep only neglect on the registry when the alleged offenders perpetrated the neglect during the course of their employment working with vulnerable positions or the child was placed in foster care as a result of neglect
Chair
Unverified
1:54:14
and with that appreciate a good vote representative brooks has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:54:28
clowning you're recognized to speak against the bill thank you mr speaker representative brooks maybe you can address this if you close um but i just wanted to ask this bill removes abandonment from the things that are on the list on the child maltreatment registry abandonment of a child and i'm curious why in the world that is a change arkansas law would would want to make um but that's my question uh if i don't get an answer
that's why i will be a no on this and i would appreciate you all joining me
Chair
Unverified
1:54:53
thank you representative Clowney has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Against the bill? Representative Brooks, you're recognized. Closed for the bill. Representative Brooks is closed for the bill.
The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 325. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 177
1:55:19
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:55:27
the ballot. The vote of six yays, 72 nays, and nine present. The bill has failed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate bill
Chair
Unverified
1:55:37
326. Senate bill 326 by Representative Brooks to amend
the Arkansas Juvenile Code of 1989 and the Child Maltreatment Act to modify guidelines for a judgment made in the best interest of a child and to amend procedures around reporting child maltreatment. Representative Brooks, you're
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
1:55:53
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That was amazing. Colleagues, Senate bill 326, it emphasizes the importance of family integrity and preservation. It requires a child abuse hotline to use a standardized tool to ensure accuracy of screening decisions. When a report is made, it also broadens the threshold to accept a report. It also does not allow children and youth to be directly ordered into foster care during an offense or delinquency case. Rather, it allows a judge to order a 72-hour hold so the DCFS can assess the child's safety. Finally, it prevents the children from coming into
foster care for poverty-related issues unless there's an immediate risk to the harm of the child. I appreciate a good
Chair
Unverified
1:56:30
vote. Representative Brooks has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? for the bill. Representative Brooks is closed for the bill. Question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 326. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot with a vote of 15 yeas, 51 nays 14
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
1:57:04
present the bill has failed madam clerk please read senate bill 638 senate
Chair
Unverified
1:57:18
bill 638 by representative johnson to amend the law concerning the collection of sales taxing sales and use tax on the sale of a new or used motorboat and to provide for the direct payment
Speaker 47
1:57:28
of sales and use tax on a motorboat sold
Chair
Unverified
1:57:33
by a motorboat dealer. Representative Johnson you are recognized to
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:57:36
explain your bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members what we're doing with this bill is trying to create some parity with how we collect sales tax on boats to make it comparable with how we collect sales tax on motor vehicles. So right now when you buy a new or used motorboat from a motorboat dealer the dealer has to collect that tax at the point of sale. What we're trying to do is make it the same as when you buy a car where they would be able to collect the tax when they got their tags for their boat it does not create a new tax it doesn't cut any taxes so
there's no fiscal impact to dfna and i'd be happy to answer questions
Speaker 288
1:58:08
representative hawk for what purpose question you're recognized representative johnson don't
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:58:13
we currently have a problem with the collection of taxes from on these cars that we're not getting during the last session or during the interim we dfna came and said that the state was losing almost a hundred million dollars and unpaid taxes when they've got a vehicle. Don't you see that could be a problem now? I mean, we've already got a ton of temporary tags on vehicles that aren't being – taxes aren't being paid on.
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:58:37
Wouldn't this cause the same problem for boats? So what DF&A testified to in the Senate is that they did not think this would be the same problem with boats. Boats get a certificate that's a little different than a tag, and it's something they have to do when they put it on the water. Almost all boats are trailered, and there's tags on
Speaker 80
1:58:55
the trailer. And so what they testified in committee was that
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
1:58:59
they did not think this would be the same impact. Thank you. Representative Perry, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative, so kind of to piggyback off of Representative Hawks, a boat is one of the largest purchases you'll make.
An average wakeboard boat now being 100 to 150, I've actually seen them in $250,000 price range. So if a person doesn't collect that at the point of sale at the dealer and now they're going to postpone that, We're going to see a lot of boats that they're going to be on the water, unregistered, uninsured, and there's not a way to really govern it. The Game and Fish or the Coast Guard will not have an ability to really monitor that or enforce that to an avenue.
So how would you see this would benefit the consumers having a lot of people unregistered, unlicensed, uninsured run around on the water? But first of all,
Speaker 296
1:59:50
I don't think that's going to happen. I mean, first of all, I don't think people are going to buy a
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
1:59:56
$250,000 boat and not insure it. Second of all, I think that there already is a process in place on our waters that we navigate. I've been out on the lakes many times in Arkansas, and I've seen the boat patrols, and they're looking at the boats and looking at how they register, so I think they're going to be able to enforce this with no problem. The other thing I'll say is when we talk about dodging taxes,
what you can do currently is you can drive across the state border to Louisiana, to Missouri, to Tennessee, to Texas, to Oklahoma, and you can buy a new boat from that dealer. And because you're an Arkansas resident, you're not required to pay sales tax on that boat at the dealer. So you're coming back to Arkansas with no real process to collect that tax. This will give us the opportunity when those people go to get their registration for the boat to collect that tax. So anyway, I appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Johnson has explained the bill.
Chair
Unverified
2:00:46
Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Before the bill, Representative Johnson is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate
Speaker 17
2:00:56
Bill 638. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone
Chair
Unverified
2:01:13
voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. By a vote of 58 yeas, 23 nays, and 10 present, the bill is passed.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:01:22
Members, at the request, Representative Lee Johnson will pass over Senate Bill 621. That will take us down now to Senate Bill 441. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 441. Senate Bill 441
Chair
Unverified
2:01:40
by Representative Pilkington to create the Junk Lawsuit Prevention Act of 2025. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized
to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:01:52
Senate bill 441 is an important bill that protects Arkansas consumers, restores integrity to our courts, and puts an end to opportunistic and predatory lawsuits that are more about enriching out-of-state firms than delivering justice to Arkansans. At its core this bill is essentially about reforming an outdated and misused section of Arkansas law and code. The statute was designed to consumers a pathway to take legal action when they when they've been harmed by unfair or deceptive business trade practices, a good law. But instead of
helping Arkansans, it's been exploited and perverted by an out-of-state firms who are using our courts to file a suit without showing any actual injury to a single resident of the state. Let's take the real-world example of the lawsuit that inspired the bill that filed this against GoodRx. The plaintiff in that case, based in Arkansas, has suffered zero, no damages. In fact, they didn't even own or use a GoodRx cart, yet they filed suit anyways with the help of a notorious out-of-state firm that has
made a business out of suing Arkansas companies like Walmart, Tyson, and Simmons Banks. These lawsuits are not rooted in justice. They are designed to pursue business. They are legal fishing expeditions designed to pressure businesses into settlements. Senate Bill 441 makes three critical changes. First, it ensures that only those that have actually been harmed can file a lawsuit under this law if there's no injury. There should be no case.
That's basic fairness. Two, it removes the automatic recovery of attorney's fees for plaintiff. This provision has been used as a weapon to generate quick payouts for these out-of-state firms rather than pursue real justice for Arkansans. And three, it establishes a 30-day notice and cure period, giving businesses the opportunity to fix an issue before litigation is initiated. We should be encouraging resolutions and compliance, not creative incentives for lawsuits. I know some of the lobbyists against this bill have handed out a sheet saying that all they have to do is say they're sorry and you can't
no longer sue. That is factually inaccurate and not true. I'm sorry that you were given that bad information. Now I want to be clear, this should not be a partisan or divisive bill. In fact, the Arkansas Trial Attorneys Association, who typically weighs in on these legal reforms, is neutral on this legislation. They sent an email last night about it. Even those who practice plaintiff-side litigation recognize that this bill is fair and reasonable. And while some have raised questions about the retroactive application of the bill, let me remind this body that this is not unprecedented.
We've done this many times before, and we find it is within the purview of the legislature to do this. And it was a lot longer. We actually shortened it on the Senate end to where it was only to 2021, so it's not as far as it was in the original bill. So I know there's some misinformation about that going on as well. Finally, I want to highlight the support and involvement of the Arkansas Attorney General's Office, which played a constructive role in shaping this legislation, and their position is threefold. The underlying statute needs to be amended, and this bill does that, and they are fully prepared to defend this bill in court, and they work directly with us to ensure the AGU retains full authority to bring enforcement action on behalf of Arkansas's consumers in the name of consumer protection.
So let's be clear, this bill doesn't take away the state's power to protect the people, it strengthens that power while stopping out-of-state, private, legal abuse. This bill is about keeping our courtrooms focused on real harm, not headlines. It's about protecting Arkansas jobs and businesses from being dragged into lawsuits that have no merit. It's about fixing a broken system before it gets worse, and I urge you to vote yes on this bill. Thank you. Representative
Chair
Unverified
2:05:46
Pelkington has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Representative Meeks, you are recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
2:06:02
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I hate coming down and speaking against one of my colleagues because I have the utmost respect and appreciate the intent of what's trying to be done here, but I'm afraid that the way it goes about this sets a very dangerous precedent. So first off, it requires that if I'm going to sue a company for damages, that I have to give that company 30 days notice.
So what that allows is during that 30 days is it gives that company the opportunity to harass the bully to try to get me to stand down from my law from that lawsuit I'm afraid that could be abused to no end by bad actors second is the retroactivity concern if someone files a lawsuit against someone that has a very strong lobbying firm are we gonna set the precedent that all they got to do is come down here find a lawmaker who can retroactively change that law to say that a past General Assembly got it wrong and so we're gonna come and say no
And then my third concern is probably my biggest concern here is that it's going to encourage bad actors. Because what this says is that if a company runs afoul of these laws and the consumer does the 30-day notice that that company has 30 days to fix the problem. And so he's right. They do have to fix the problem. But what that's going to encourage a company to do is say, we can violate these laws all day long. And as long as nobody cries foul, we're good. And if somebody cries foul, we've got 30 days to fix the problem.
So it's going to encourage bad behavior because they can get away with it, right? And then let's say they fix the problem. What's going to stop them from two months later going back to the bad behavior? Nothing. They can go back to the bad behavior because they know that if someone calls them on it again, they've got 30 days to fix it. And then after that 30 days, they fixed it. A month later, they can go back to the bad behavior. And so in a lot of ways, like I said, I respect what he's trying to do, and I think that's a good thing. I just think this sets a very dangerous precedent on how we're trying to do it.
Chair
Unverified
2:08:02
With that, I'd appreciate a no vote. Representative Meeks has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Beatty, you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
2:08:20
recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I think if you were on judiciary, you're
probably, and probably most of this body was lobbied one way or the other on this bill. I guess the reason that, and I changed my position from the original position, something
I seldom do, usually I make my mind up and I stick with that decision from the facts that I've been given. There are some concerns with the bill, but primarily, I think the focus of this bill is to focus on frivolous lawsuits that are coming in. I think what won me over was that they couldn't prove any harm to any Arkansans. We started this session off with phantom damages that this body passed. Here we are now dealing with frivolous lawsuits in the state. So I think this bill would restore fairness.
It stops these legal fishing expeditions and it keeps our courts and our folks focused on real harm to Arkansans. So with that, I'd encourage you to vote yes on this. Representative Beatty has spoke
Chair
Unverified
2:09:19
for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Mr. Brown, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:09:38
This bill would exempt prescription drug card companies from the consumer protections of our health care discount code, which has been around, I think, for 25 some odd years, so long as they didn't charge the consumer for that card. or not that's a good idea or a bad idea i leave that for you all to determine i would suggest though that the saying goes if you're not the one paying for the product you're the product being sold maybe that's when we really do need to make sure these people are protected but i'm a no vote on this bill and i was in committee for three reasons the first reason has been touched upon
the represent pilgrims and mix is the retroactivity clause last page of the bill it says it's retroactive 2021 and it's all agreed that it's specifically intended to target some lawsuit that's pending i think it was pope county now i don't know any details about that lawsuit to be quite frank i was a little bit late to committee when it was talked about i'm not quite sure who the plaintiffs are i don't know what the claims are being made but i can tell you this if there are truly no damages in that lawsuit that has been alleged at some point in the process that lawsuit will go away because one of the things you have to have in order to be able to maintain a lawsuit in this state in every state of this country is you have to have been damaged in some fashion you can't
just go to court for fun and it may very well take it to appeal to get it knocked out but it will eventually be knocked out as many of y'all know i had a bill that had the perception that it might have might impact a pending litigation and it died a spectacular death to say it put it bluntly this bill is specifically intended to affect a pending lawsuit let that process play out we shouldn't get into their business just like we don't like it when the judges legislate from the bench and get into our business the other reason against this bill the second reason is the third aid cure period. On paper, this cure period seems imminently reasonable. It provides
that, hey, if we've done something wrong before you can sue us, let us know, give us a chance to make it right, and if we make it right, then there's no lawsuit. If we don't make it right, then you can sue. What could be more American than that? Give people a chance to fix the problem. But here's what this clause actually does on Planet Real World. We have class action lawsuits in this country, and they are intended to address those situations where many, many people are damaged in some manner, but just by a little bit,
such that no one person could ever justify going to court to sue over something. But when you multiply that out by all the people affected, we start talking about real money. So what's an example? Let's say you have a mega corporation that has a million customers that they charge them $10 a month for some service. Well, let's say that they are overcharging them by a dollar, just a dollar a month times a million people, a million bucks a month extra profit. Well, if you figure out what they did, you're not going to be able to go to court and sue them for a dollar a month. You know, what, $12 for a year? I mean, you'd be stupid to do so.
Class actions are there to take care of situations like that where a plaintiff can file an action on behalf of everyone affected. It goes to court. It's litigated. When it's determined that they're correct, hey, we're being overcharged. all right here's the refund to all the people that were overcharged and the company going forward has to fix its practices and not do that going forward so how does this clause affect a class action well if i've been over figure i've been charged or done wrong by these companies i want to file class action first thing i have to do is give them notice hey you short charge
you short changed me on the card by a dollar a month for the past two years they then have 30 days to say, oh yeah, our bad, here's your check for $24, thank you. But what happens to the 999,000 other people in the class? They can keep on trucking and they don't have to make any change to the other people in that class unless and until every single one of them people says, hey, you shortchanged me, oh, here's your check. This bill would completely eviscerate the ability of consumers to go after these companies if they're being bad actors to have them comply with the
statute and do what's right. The third reason I'm against this bill is that this bill would create a unicorn in our code, in my opinion. I've practiced law for 18 years now, I think it's been. Worked in the legal profession before that for several years. I'm not aware of any other industry, and none could be identified in committee, but I'm not aware of any other industry in our state code, in our 15 to 20,000 pages of code, that gets the same kind of protection. That, hey, before you're sued, you have to be notified in writing and you have to be given a chance to fix the problem.
I'm sure that banking, healthcare, automobile dealers, insurance companies would love to have similar protections, but we don't give it to them. So why is this one industry being singled out to be given such preferential treatment to be put on such a pedestal in our law when I would mention that the code, this code section, already only gives them a two-year statute of limitations, which in and of itself is pretty unusual because the default statute of limitations for about 80% of everything else in Arkansas is three years, not two years.
Speaker 315
2:14:28
It has been said in this chamber many many times that we should
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
2:14:32
not be in the business of picking winners and losers. In my opinion this bill not only literally picks a winner in this lawsuit but it also gives an entire industry a get-out-of-jail-free card and for that reason
Chair
Unverified
2:14:49
I'm a no. Representative Brown has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill, against the bill. Representative Mark Perry, you're
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
2:15:01
recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, besides the fact that this bill will interfere with
an ongoing lawsuit, I know earlier this session, 89 of us, or actually 89 members, voted to clamped down on PBMs. With my experience of over 39 years in the insurance business, I can tell you no one is more in bed with PBMs than GoodRx, which is a company that wants this bill to pass. If you're concerned about PBMs and their operations, I urge you to vote no for this.
Chair
Unverified
2:15:41
Thank you. Representative Perry has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like
to speak for the bill? Representative Eubanks,
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:15:58
you are recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I was on the judiciary also so I
got to listen to a lot of the testimony that we heard. Like Representative Howard Beatty, I was I
started out against this bill and then after hearing more and more not only the testimony in the committee but information from various sources I I changed that position part of the the reason for the lawsuit that was said in in the committee was that the card didn't have in bold that this was not an insurance program and you know I hate with all due respect all the attorneys
in in the chamber I think this is the sort of thing that gives attorneys a bad name that here we are we have a firm that's out of state that is looking for some sort of technicality to bring a class-action lawsuit representative Brown said you know it this thing this may only affect individuals you know, an immaterial amount, but when you take it all together, it's a lot of money. Well, I guess my question is, it's a lot of money for who?
I think it's a lot of money for the firm that's bringing the lawsuit. I don't—it was also brought out that there was nobody in Arkansas that was harmed by this, and so I don't know. So I'm sorry, I ran the phantom damages bill against, I guess attorneys in general, but, you know, frivolous lawsuits. And I feel like this is a frivolous lawsuit. So I would hope, oh, and by the way, in 2017, many of the people in this chamber voted for a bill that also had retroactivity in it.
So I think there is some precedent that we have, the legislature has gotten engaged in this issue. So I'd appreciate a yes vote. Representative Eubanks has
Chair
Unverified
2:18:02
spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
Representative Duffield, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Representative
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:18:20
Pilkington, I appreciate all your hard work this session. You know, you've really busted your ear, and I respect that, but I have some issues with this bill that I'll lay out.
To me, there are three red flags that come with this bill. The first and most obvious to me is the end of session, and I think that we've heard this entire time to always look at the title of a bill. One of my colleagues in the Senate refers to it as a snake bite bill. And if you look at the title of the bill, it says to create the Junk Lawsuit Prevention Act. Well, in my view, that could be a little bit misleading, and I think it puts pressure on us as a body to vote for the bill, so that's one point.
The second point I'd like to make is, in my view, we were elected here to represent the will of the people, and we are elected to pass policy that helps Arkansans. In my view, this bill gets involved with a lawsuit, and I don't think that it's good policy when it has a direct effect on any lawsuit, irregardless what it may or may not be. So that would be the second one.
The third point is this is a fairly lengthy bill. know that many of my colleagues have spoken to me about concerns they have there's some things that you're unclear of I would ask you today if you have any uncertainty in regards to this bill even if you don't feel comfortable voting like no vote no like I plan to I would ask that you vote present or just abstain from voting for this bill at the end of session to prevent any undue consequences I appreciate the time. Representative Duffield has spoke
Chair
Unverified
2:20:11
against the bill. Would anyone like to
speak for the bill? Against the bill? Representative Pilkington you're
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:20:25
recognized at close for your bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Appreciate those comments. Representative Duffield about me busting my butt all session. That's very kind of
you. But I just want to address a few issues. This is a misleading headline. These are junk lawsuits. If you could name me one person
here in Arkansas who was affected by this, I would love that name because there's not a single Arkansas resident who's affected by this. What it is is an Alisade socialist activist law firm that has come in here and trying to basically fleece Arkansas businesses like they have in the passed. Now, on Representative Brown's point about being able to sue with damages, he's generally right, but in this specific statute, it authorizes suits without damages. That's why it's just to
this. On the retroactive part, I appreciate Representative Eubanks bringing up the point that we have voted on retroactive clauses many times before I've passed out of this body. This is nothing new. We've done it tons of times before. And then, of course, the pending litigation. We've also passed bills. We just passed D's bill out of here the other day that affects
pending legislation. I'm tongue-tied litigation. These are false flags. They're ways to get you to vote no.
Worry about the boogeyman. Uncertain consequences, all these things. Here's the reality. There's not a single Arkansan here in the state that's against this bill unless they're on the payroll of this law firm that it affects. you're going to walk out of that door right there after this vote, whether it fails or loses, and not a single Arkansan is going to say, thank you for defeating this bill, because guess what? It's not going to affect anyone, because there's no plaintiff. There's no damages.
We're just stopping junk lawsuits, and that's the reason why the trial lawyers are not against this bill. Trust me, if they thought this was somehow destroying the legal system and destroying your ability to sue companies and bring class action lawsuits, trust me, they would be burning me in effigy out there. But they're not. Because even they know this gives, what these out-of-state firms are doing is actually giving them a bad name. Because guess what? Sometimes you do need to bring class action lawsuits. Sometimes there is a need for that. And I think it's actually better that we fix the fringes of our legal system so that it's
better and it's tight so it protects consumers and it protects our businesses because otherwise we'll end up taking a sledgehammer to the issue and then people might actually really get hurt. So don't freak out about this small statute change, okay? It's going to be fine and I'll tell you your people will be happy because if this doesn't pass, they'll read about it when this goes and they'll go, why do we allow
our legal system to be perverted and corrupted by people who don't even live here? Thank you. Appreciate a good vote.
Chair
Unverified
2:23:29
Representative Pilkington is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 441. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. has
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:23:53
everyone voted has everyone voted cast up the ballot the vote of 28 yeas 62 nays and for president the bill has failed madam clerk please read Senate
Chair
Unverified
2:24:02
bill 355 Senate bill 355 by representative Underwood to amend the criminal offense of obstructing governmental operations representative
Underwood you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you
Speaker 328
2:24:16
Mr. Speaker. Thank you colleagues. Looks like it's a good day to present a bill on the house floor today. This bill adds a provision to obstructing governmental operations for an
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
2:24:25
individual who receives a subpoena in a criminal trial trial and they knowingly fail to appear. This was brought by a district judge and this is
really a goal to streamline the process so that way they can clear their dockets. The senator that worked on this bill also worked with the public defenders. They suggested some changes, and he accepted those changes, so they were neutral on the bill. And I think it really just helps both the prosecution and the court and the defenders in helping them move these trials along. And I'm happy to take any questions. Seeing none, I appreciate
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:24:59
a good vote. Representative Underwood has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Representative Underwood is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 355. Prepare
Chair
Unverified
2:25:23
the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:25:28
the ballot. The vote of 98 yea, 0 nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate
Chair
Unverified
2:25:35
Bill 444. Senate Bill 444 by Representative Johnson to amend the Medical Ethics and Diversity Act.
Representative Johnson, you're recognized to explain your bill. Members, this is amending a bill. We
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
2:25:44
passed a few sessions ago around the ability for a health care provider to, due to medical conscious reasons, refuse to provide a certain health care service. All we're doing is changing the health care service definition to include research. We're outlining some more things in clarity of what they could refuse to do. And then we're still requiring them, of course, to take care of patients in any case of emergency, regardless of conscience. Happy to answer any questions. Seeing none, I appreciate a good vote. Thank you.
Chair
Unverified
2:26:11
Representative Johnson has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill,
for the bill? Representative Johnson is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 444. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. is everyone voted is everyone
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:26:39
voted cast up the ballot the vote of 82 yeas 13
nay and two present the bill is passed madam clerk please read Senate bill 554 Senate
Chair
Unverified
2:26:51
bill 554 by representative Woodridge to create the behavioral health loan forgiveness program representative
Woodridge you are recognized to explain your bill thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
2:27:00
you mr. speaker and thank you colleagues this bill is a bill that just creates a mechanism by which the Department of Human Services can start the process to look at a loan forgiveness program for behavioral health providers there is zero state dollars going into
this there's no appropriation there's no request there's no angle for state dollars this just allows the state of Arkansas to raise money privately or have contributions given through the behavioral health association however we can look to start to create private dollars to incentivize behavioral health providers to work with those in our state who suffer from the most severe mental illness currently this body before I became a part of it enacted legislation that rolled back the requirement of behavioral health
agencies which allowed all providers to go out and hang their own shingle that's a great thing I support that and I appreciate the effort that this body made prior to me being involved. However, it has created an issue that has caused a lot of providers to work under their own private practice where they don't deal with the severe mental issues such as schizophrenia, bipolar, all of these other issues that a lot of Arkansans face. The intent of this legislation, again, is just to create the framework. DHS supports
this, the Secretary of DHS and others will look at a program like there is at the federal level that would steer folks into working with these Arkansans that have the most severe mental illness. What it would do is it would create a benefit for them that they would sign up to work for so many years in this field with this population for a return to a loan forgiveness program. And
with that, I'll answer any questions. Seeing none, I would appreciate a good vote
Chair
Unverified
2:28:53
representative waldridge has explained the bill would anyone like
to be against the bill for the bill representative waldridge
Speaker 119
2:29:00
is closed for the bill question before the house is the passage of senate bill 554 repair the machine madam clerk is everyone voted
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:29:19
it's everyone voted cast up the ballot the vote of 76 yay 15 nay and five present the bill is passed
madam clerk please read senate bill 121
Chair
Unverified
2:29:36
bill 121 by representative long to amend the automatic occupational licensure for out-of-state licensure act to apply the automatic occupational licensure for out-of-state licensure act to
physician assistants representative long you're recognized to
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:29:49
explain your bill thank you mr speaker we've had several bills creating compacts this year and to try to help with our problem with getting qualified medical people into the state
this bill sb 121 is basically to go and help expedite people that maybe lives in a state that's not part of the compact that we'd like to move here and basically just expedite the process of them getting their license here which would be great help to all of our claims arkansans i appreciate a good vote representative long has explained the bill would
Chair
Unverified
2:30:23
anyone like to speak against the bill for the bill
representative long is closed for the bill question before the house
Speaker 119
2:30:33
is the passage of senate bill 121 prepare the machine madam clerk
Chair
Unverified
2:30:46
Is everyone voted? Is everyone voted? Cast up the
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:30:53
ballot. The vote of 86 yea, 2 nay, and 5 present, the bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill
Chair
Unverified
2:30:59
122. Senate Bill 122 by Representative Long to amend the Automatic Occupational Licensure for Out-of-State Licensure Act to apply for the Automatic Occupational Licensure for Out-of-State Licensure Act to physicians.
Representative Long, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:31:12
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I failed to mention that first one was for physician assistance. This bill basically does the exact same thing, but it's for physicians. We appreciate a
Chair
Unverified
2:31:24
good vote. Representative Long has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative McGee, you're recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:31:39
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning, colleagues. We're about, you know, the train's coming to the end of the station here, and we're about to get off of it. And I
Speaker 342
2:31:56
found the debate this morning really interesting on a lot of bills, but a lot of bad things come on the last day, and this is one of them. If you'll notice on the last bill, I know we don't talk about difference, I voted for that bill. but I'm firmly against this one for physicians.
And the reason is, is physicians have to be properly vetted by the medical board. And I'm going to give you an example as to why I think this is bad. I had a physician prior to coming into the legislature who we were in desperate need of someone. And we advertised and we interviewed several people. And I had a physician from Oklahoma. And they came in with all the stars that you could imagine.
Trained, did their eye training at the University of LSU that I trained at. That's a big star in my book. Did a good fellowship in retinal disease, which is what I do is vitriol retinal disease. Personable, great communication skills. Everybody in the practice likes this person. Went out to dinner. We always take them out to dinner. Anyway, I asked the question, you know, you were in Oklahoma,
but you just moved back to New Jersey a year ago. What was that about? That's a valid question. Well, my father's ill, and I've just moved home. Sounds good. When we offered this person a position, based on them going through the appropriate vetting process with the state medical board, as to whether or not they were a qualified physician. We expected no problems. Well, it turns out this physician had been sanctioned by the Oklahoma Medical Board,
had been brought before them for disruptive behavior in the operating room and poor surgical judgment and poor surgical outcomes. They did not suspend this physician's license. They said, if you want to practice in Oklahoma, you have to go back to school and you have to go over to Dean McGee and do six more months of training and then come back to us, and if they certify that you're okay to go, your license will be unrestricted.
That position chose not to do that. So still had an active license in Oklahoma. It wasn't suspended. Went back to New Jersey. Her family was from New Jersey. The other positive thing was this physician's sister was a family practice doctor in Arkansas. I mean, it seemed like a great thing. We can't, as individual physicians, adequately vet people. They come to you and you get a good impression of them and it seems like they check all the boxes.
I can't call the Oklahoma Medical Board or the Tennessee Medical Board or Missouri and get any information about a physician. But our medical board can call and they will share that information. It's confidential and then our medical board will make their decision. I got a nice call from the medical board and they said, we're not gonna give this person a license in the state of Arkansas. And I said, why? And then they told me briefly that story. So this is a real patient safety issue.
Patients have to be able to trust that their doctors are vetted properly before they get to the state. This, I'm concerned, you know, This will be an open door for practitioners who may be having problems in their own states to get an automatic licensure in our state, and I urge you to vote no on this. I think it's a bad, bad precedent. Thank you. Any questions? Representative
Speaker 344
2:35:38
Ease, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Doc, are
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
2:35:41
you saying that if this passes, the Arkansas Medical Board would not have the ability
to look at someone's past behavior if they were licensed in another state or the actions they had?
Speaker 342
2:35:51
I'm saying it might shortcut the process. Okay. I'm not saying they're not going to look at it, but there's a potential that it's dumbing down the process by which these people are looked at. Okay. So that's my concern. Thank
Speaker 24
2:36:07
you. Thank you, colleagues. Representative McGee has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like
Chair
Unverified
2:36:12
to speak for the bill? Against the bill? Representative Lung, you're recognized closed for your bill.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
2:36:19
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My understanding was that this does not shortcut the process of the Medical Board basically choosing whether or not to issue a license to a new doctor. Earlier today we passed a bill to help bring folks from foreign countries in quicker without them having to repeat a lot of things. It's basically, as my understanding is, kind of do the same thing for if the board thinks this person is eligible, they can issue the license, basically just speeds things up a
bit and not have to repeat maybe classes and that type of thing but I'd a whole lot rather trust somebody coming from another state in the United States than maybe somebody coming from Indonesia or something so I think if we're going to help those folks we should help the American doctors get moved to Arkansas too. Appreciate a good
Chair
Unverified
2:37:09
vote. Representative Long is closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 122. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:37:26
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. The vote of 24 yeas, 59 nays, and 8 present. The bill has failed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate
Chair
Unverified
2:37:43
Bill 217. Senate Bill 217 by Representative Bentley to require the Department of Human Services to request a waiver to exclude candy and soft drinks from eligible foods under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program. Representative Bentley, you're recognized to explain your bill.
Speaker, colleagues, for those of you who have been here for a year or two, this is a little bit of deja vu, and I can't tell you how excited I am to present this bill today. The food stamp program started in 1939 during the Great Depression when President Johnson used surplus from farmers to get to hungry Americans. The program's purpose was to strengthen the agriculture economy by providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households. SB 17 will help us get back to the original intent of this program. Unfortunately, surveys in the past decade have shown that soft drinks were the number one items purchased with EBD cards.
Soft drinks contain zero nutritional value. Many contain increased sugar content, high calories, and carbonation, which can lead to obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, tooth decay, GI programs, and increase for dementia. As a member of the Public Health Committee and a member of this legislature, I'm sure that you guys are aware that Arkansas ranks 48th in the nation for overall health and has retained that position for a decade. We have some of the highest rates of cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure.
Because of this, our Medicaid rates have continued to rise every year with no slowdown in sight. I sat in a public health committee years ago so frustrated at what I was seeing, frustrated that Arkansas taxpayers were paying for a food stamp program, that its present form is contributing to our health problems by paying for soft drinks and candy, and then having to pay for increased Medicaid costs because of the poor health this poor nutrition is causing. Just like we did with the dental increase today, we're increasing the rates to our dentists
and we're paying for food that's causing tooth decay. This is totally wrong for the Arkansas taxpayer. Let me remind you what the original purpose of the food stamp program was, to strengthen the agriculture
economy by providing improved levels of nutrition among low-income households, Allowing food stamps to be used for soft drinks and candy does not accomplish this at all. This bill simply asks the governor to request a waiver from CMS that will exclude candy and soft drinks from eligible food items. I know many of you are saying, well, Representative Bentley, the governor just did that yesterday.
I say absolutely no reason with us as a legislator supporting what the governor is doing. And with that, I'm happy to take any questions if we have
Chair
Unverified
2:40:26
any. Seeing none, I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Bentley has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Before the bill, Representative Bentley is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 217. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
2:40:46
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. The vote of 78 yea, 17 nay, and 1 present. The
Speaker 258
2:41:01
bill is passed. madam clerk please read Senate
Chair
Unverified
2:41:04
bill 262 to amend the corporate practice of medicine doctrine and to authorize a licensed medical professional who owns a medical corporation to maintain ownership upon an initiative license
or retirement represent the Pilkington you're recognized to explain
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:41:17
your bill thank you mr. speaker this is a pretty simple bill essentially right now we
have an interesting quirk in our law that says if you're a medical doctor and and you decide that you want to retire and give up your medical license, that you also have to basically sell your practice. This is unfair, I think, to someone who has spent time their whole life building a medical practice, especially if they still want to remain in some sort of ownership role of it. In committee, I gave the example of a provider who may have a son who's in medical school but hasn't graduated yet but is wanting to take over the firm,
or maybe even a grandson that's looking to go into the field as well and be able to press on that family legacy, that family business that they've worked so hard to build. Now, when they do this, and like I said, they have to give up their medical license, but we are allowing them to remain in an administrative role. And this is something important I think that people have gotten confused on. When they do that, they can no longer dictate how to practice medicine. So I'm a clinic administrator. That's what I do outside of here. I have a master's in health care administration from UAMS.
My father and grandfather are both hospital administrators. My dad's still a hospital administrator. I'm not allowed to tell doctors how to practice. If there's someone in room four who's been waiting for a flu shot and I know they're waiting for a flu shot, I literally cannot go to a doctor and say, go give a flu shot to that. That is dictating medicine, and I'm not allowed to practice it yet. And I can go say, hey, I think patient in room four has been waiting a while. You know, have you seen them yet? You know, that's just, that's the way it is. And so essentially that provider has been turning into an administrator who is not able to dictate medicine at that point.
And so that's what the doctor is doing. So if they say, hey, listen, I want to retire, but I still want to own my practice, I still want to be involved in it, and I'm willing to give up my license, I think I should still be able to be able to own this without having to give up what I've spent my life building because I no longer have a medical license. Because, like I said, you're giving up also your ability to dictate how care is done. You are simply just going in and becoming the administrator. You're not being, or the owner, and you're not dictating how medicine is practiced at all. So that's a very key important thing to understand, and that's how people like me, who live in the world of healthcare administration,
we manage doctors, but we can't tell them how to practice. That's a very important rule. That's why it's a specialty. That's why it's its own program at UAMS and other places around the country, because there are special rules and guidelines on what we are legally and not legally able to do. And so I think there was a little confusion on that, and I just wanted to clear that up. Really simple bill, and I just think it's a good way to allow these providers who've spent their life building a practice to be able to give
up their license, retire in a way, but still maintain ownership of a practice that their name is on
and that they've built and spent their life building. Appreciate
Chair
Unverified
2:44:11
a good vote. Representative Pilkington has explained the bill. Would
anyone like to speak against the bill for the bill? Representative McGee, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you,
Speaker 340
2:44:32
Mr. Speaker. So, colleagues, this is not a simple bill. I've got a lot
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:44:37
of gray hair, and I hope I don't confuse you any on it.
Speaker 342
2:44:41
So if I do, ask questions, okay? if i get lost just kind of poke me and remind me to go on it's not a simple quirk in the law it's a it's a quirk about patient protection first of all you don't have to sell your practice when you retire there's no law that says i retired i've got to sell my medical practice you can keep it you can actively be involved in it all you have to do is be in good standing with the state medical board
probably be maintaining your malpractice if you're still seeing patients if you're not seeing patients you actually don't have to maintain your malpractice or if you're not seeing them and not charging them but you have to maintain an active medical license and and that means you know you don't have any problems with the medical board you pay your fees every couple years and you get 20 hours of continuing medical education every year i'm a retired physician i did sell my practice i have no interest in it anymore i wanted to sell it i did not want to stay and run it but but
i'm maintaining my medical license so i can do free medical care i can go out work in free clinics i can work in my own office if the people if they need some help i can come in and work deliver medical care and i'm covered by my malpractice as long as i don't charge for my services but i want to start this off with some comments about how this all came about and and sort of give you a little history many of you this morning probably got a text from someone about this is a great deal and it's a good thing for doctors that
want to retire and they just want to keep their practice and be administrators that sort of thing that person also it was discussed with them that we asked for an amendment that would allow we asked for an amendment such that the person could continue to continue to own the practice and have a medical license we asked and agreed to that we would pass an amendment that or add an
amendment that would rescind the requirement for having continuing medical education and this is this is one doctor this is not the entire state of our cause is one doctors behind this and initially that physician agreed okay I'll do that I'll keep an active license but now I don't have to do CME we go back and they decided no don't want that I want to have an inactive license that raised the first flag what kind of what's behind this what would be wrong
with that I mean it's 200 bucks a year to keep your license and not have to do any CME and the guy still could have owned his practice so that raised the flag and then another flag that was raised was in discussion it was brought up that there were two big medical groups here in Arkansas that were behind this in addition to this one physician well one of the groups I didn't talk to but one of the groups I know the doctor that owns the practice he is a big family practice primary
care physician always in my communities all over eastern arkansas has clinics everywhere and when i heard that his group was in support of this i called him and last friday thursday night after we left here i called him at 6 30 7 o'clock and he was eating pizza with his family and i told him he said we can't have that that's corporate practice of medicine so so his group in prior conversations this particular person had said that they supported it but they didn't
so now that raises another flag so what's going on what's kind of going on with all of this anyway that's kind of a background of of of how it how it transpired then when it gets to committee Their attorney, or the doctor that's wanting this bill, misled the committee. The concern with this is if you don't have an active medical license, if you're retired and you don't have an active medical license,
the medical board has no authority over it. None. Zero. Nobody has any authority over it. And her comment in committee was, well, yeah, but the health department has authority over medical practices. No, they don't. No one does. The medical board has authority over doctors and what we do. So that was a false statement. That was misleading in committees. So that kind of brought another thing to my mind. Well, why wouldn't this guy want to keep an active medical license and not have to do CME?
I know a lot of you in here might know about Stark regulations in medicine. Stark regulations state that a physician can't refer, cannot refer to a facility in which he has ownership. It's a conflict of interest and potential financial gain. You can't do that. By letting that physician retire, end his medical license, and run that practice, he's no longer under the medical board, and he's no longer under Stark laws.
There's no control over what he does. So I'm going to give you a quick example of my practice and how that might all play out. I'm an ophthalmologist. I have five physicians that work in my office. I've actually got eight. But I own the practice entirely, solely by myself. I didn't in my own practice. I sold to my partners. But let's just assume I own the practice myself. And I own my optical shop.
i own it completely 100 by myself stark law says i can't refer you as a patient you come to my office i can't refer you to my optical shop or can't coerce you to my optical shop because i'm making money on on you on the glasses so when you leave my office you walk up to the front and check out you get your glass prescription and they tell you you can go anywhere you want to go if you want to use my optical shop fine if you want to go across town use
someone else's that's fine same thing with contact lenses we give them their prescription all our care providers do that we live under those rules my optical shop you have to go out the front door and some of you have been in my office you actually have to walk out the front door and walk about a third of a block and go in another door to go in the optical shop the two don't even and connect. So, and we did that years ago, 2005, 2006 when Stark came around. So now I go sell my practice, but I keep my optical shot. I keep it. The doctors that are working in that practice, now
I've sold it. I've retired from medicine. I do not have an active medical license. I'm not under the medical board. I'm not under Stark laws anymore, but my doctors are out there working. I'm not back there telling them how to do their practice medicine. They're my employees. They don't earn any money on what gets out of the optical shop, but I do. I can coerce my employees or make it difficult for them to not refer those patients to my optical shop so I make more money, and nobody
can say a thing about it that opens the door for a lot of potential fraud a lot of potential abuse so i hope that explains from my situation why if you have if you retire as a physician and you want to have a practice and you still want to be in it just keep your darn medical license and do your cme and pay your 200 bucks a year no don't you you've got to keep your medical a lot to do that. If we pass this bill, what's the consequences of this bill? We have fought
in this floor over the last few years many times against PBMs, pharmacy benefit managers, corporate people running pharmaceutical practices. Some of us agree with that. Some of us don't agree with it. If we pass this, I won't be here. Sometimes around here you go, well, I won't be here in two years. I won't be here in four years. You know, that's the next guy's If we pass this bill, it's not going to be pharmacy benefit managers who are going to fight in four to six to eight years.
It's going to be physician benefit managers. It opens the door to the corporate practice of medicine, and that's a bad road to go down. And I ask you, please vote no on this. And I'm open for questions. Representative McKenzie, for what purpose? Question.
Chair
Unverified
2:53:47
You're recognized. Thank you, Dr. McGee. I appreciate it, because
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:53:51
I do have some questions coming in, and then you opened up a few other questions. So referral. That's an interesting one in reference to laws that I'm unfamiliar with, and I'm completely in the deep end of the pool on this.
But it seems to me that even though there are Stark laws, which I don't know much about, but you just referenced, if I walk into, and this happened during session, I walk into an emergency room, and I'm given a referral to a specialist. The referral to the specialist is within the same hospital practice. That seems to be in violation of the Stark Laws you just mentioned, but it's common practice of almost every medical doctor in
Speaker 342
2:54:31
the state of Arkansas. That's true. Now, the difference is the physician that is referring, I'm the doc, you came,
and I saw you in the emergency room, and I'm sending you to Dr. Richardson over here, who has expertise in something. I don't know what, but something. I'm sorry. I would have said Perry, but I
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
2:54:55
looked at Richardson first. I don't have any financial gain. It doesn't benefit me financially to
Speaker 342
2:55:01
refer to Dr. Perry or Dr. Richardson, Dr. Eaton, Dr. Hall, any of that. Now, if I got financial gain from that, that's a stark violation.
So when you see someone in the hospital, the physician, they're going to refer you to the best patient they think. best physician they think can take care of you based on your medical condition not on the condition of Somebody's gonna get some money on the back end. That's what Stark tries to stop. Follow up. You're
Speaker 116
2:55:28
recognized. Thank you for that. That was happened as you kept going. My initial
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:55:32
question is To your knowledge, and I'm not asking someone from the Medical Board I'm asking Dr. McGee in the well here. What's the purpose of a license? So if the Medical Board issues a license
What is that purpose for it in the oversight that is provided in issuance of and then eligibility
Speaker 342
2:55:51
for the state medical board is charged with protection of the public and As much as I hate to say it guys sometimes we have bad docs and most of them Go to the before the medical board Probably I don't know 75% of the people that appear before the medical board appear
or substance abuse problems, inappropriate behavior with patients or staff, that sort of thing. Most of the time when you go to the medical board, the medical board slaps you on the wrist, says go back to work, we're going to monitor you and make sure that you're safe for patients. They make every effort to get a, it costs a lot of money to educate a physician and it takes a lot of time to try to take a physician's license away there's reason for that so they work diligently to try to rehabilitate a
patient a physician you certainly don't want to be at the end of that table trying to defend yourself when before the medical board if you if you have some infraction so their whole role is is to protect the patient that our constituents and our patients one more follow-up please recognized I appreciate
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
2:57:07
that and I assume that was the answer
but I do have a question as to the purpose of a licensure from a board, from a medical board or otherwise, and this is a license I have no desire or wish to be in front of or obtain, what other specific business practices does the
medical board dictate onto licensees? Do they dictate the point of sale system they have to use, the color of paper? Because it seems to me as though that requirement to maintain the license is important for the protection of the public, as you just mentioned, for a doctor practicing medicine. But what it seems to be is that this is a bit of a cudgel for people that want to maintain a business as opposed to a license to care for patients. They
Speaker 342
2:57:51
don't, they, they don't dictate how you run the medical business. I mean, if, if, well, let me back up a minute. If you did
something fraudulent, you know, the medical board could call you in on it. Typically that's going to be something that occurs where some charges are brought against a physician. The medical board will then call you in and look at the case and make a decision as to whether or not to let you continue to practice. They may suspend your license or put some restrictions on it for a period of time as the case plays out. I'll give you an example. There was a
position that was accused of inappropriate sexual behavior with patients. Those were charges. I mean, they were criminal charges, and he had to defend himself. And the medical board, what they did, they don't have any authority to take your license for that. You've not been convicted of anything at this point. Now, if you were convicted, they could take your license away from you. But what they did was they made accommodations to ensure that physician
would not be alone in a room with someone of the opposite sex. They had to have a chaperone in every room with patients with him at the time as all that played out. The physician ultimately was cleared of the charges, but that's the kind of intervention they would making cases like that. Thank you. Colleagues, thank you very much. I'm getting out of the way. I've been down here too long. Appreciate a no vote. Thank you. Representative McGee has spoke against the
Chair
Unverified
2:59:31
bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Against the bill, Representative
Pilkington, you are recognized at close for your bill. that's
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
2:59:49
a whole lot um i don't know what this has to do with pbms
i mean that's just the straw man argument this is really about letting a provider who now has decided i'm old i no longer want to have to do cmes every year i no longer have to pay a fee to the medical board
I just want to be able to own the practice that I spent my life building and keep it in my family, my family name. That's what this is about. You know, all this boogeyman fear, these things are bad, and Stark violations. I mean, all those things still exist. I have to worry about Stark violations. I am not a physician. The provider who now is the owner who is no longer a provider who gives up his license will still have to worry about Stark violations. The law still applies to them.
It's not like this is some magical get-out-of-jail-free card. It's just silly. I mean, it really is. This is an old, antiquated way of doing things. Let's bring it forward. Obviously, you have provider groups that would like to see this done so that they can maintain the businesses that they grew so they can pass it on to their children. That's what this is about. You know, I mean, that's the reality. Once again, they cannot dictate medicine. They are still governed by a whole host of federal regulations and state regulations. Those are all still in place. Nothing changes.
And so I just want to ask that for a good vote. Don't be scared off by this. It is a good bill. I appreciate the support that we have in the Senate, and I appreciate the support of the providers who brought this to me to let me know this is a way that we can help a lot of our doctors keep the business that they work so hard to grow, and so they can still be a part of it without having undue burden
Chair
Unverified
3:01:37
and regulation on them. Thank you. Representative Pilkington
Speaker 119
3:01:39
is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 262. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. The vote of 32 yeas, 45 nays,
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
3:02:08
and 13 present. The bill has failed. madam clerk please read
Chair
Unverified
3:02:11
Senate bill 585 585 by representative Gonzales to require certain records be provided to an employee who
is a minor representative Gonzales Worthen you're recognized to explain your bill
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
3:02:30
thank you chair good morning colleagues I bring you Senate bill 585 this bill amends the employment employment law and assists and benefits working youth and those are under the age of 18 by providing them with a pay stub a pay stub is proof of income. Currently, Arkansas is one of eight states where we
do not have mandatory pay stubs. Believe it or not, I found that interesting. Most employers issue pay stubs. However, it is not mandatory and we do have youth who are not receiving a pay stub. They are the most vulnerable. This law allows mandatory pay stubs for employers who have more than 10 employees and it only impacts minors. We're only
talking about minors. Having a job is a rite of passage for any young person. With that comes saving for a car getting an apartment etc but with those items proof of income often comes up how are you going to pay for this and without having that evidence then it makes it a little difficult this category of labor force participation
when we're talking about labor force participation the Division of Workforce services adws in the age group of 16 to 19 year olds who are in the workforce and that includes the 16 and 17 year olds 40 of them are in the workforce that's a large number of about 65 000 youth are in the age group of 16 to 19 that
are working for minors oftentimes they do not
know about social security medicaid deductions etc especially if they do not receive a pay stub now if they receive one oftentimes their employer will help them decipher what all of that means by having a pay stub this also protects employers in that if a minor asks about well i thought i was making this much money because I put in this much overtime they can discuss that
and that would be that that would be amenable to the employer they can they can help with that so this protects our most vulnerable population minority youth this bill ensures that our working youth all working youth are paid fairly and they'll be learning financial literacy and it's also going to help to to protect payroll errors and individuals are generally the ones that recognize payroll errors. I am available for questions. Yes. Representative Puryear for what
purpose? Question. You're recognized. Does this apply to our state employee? Does our state have
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
3:05:58
employees that are under 18? Yes. As a matter of fact we had we
did have well we had somebody from the city of Little Rock at testify on behalf of this and what she had said was that they have about 300 people because they have interns working youth working and off and they train they train them on how to read their pay stub because many of them do not this only applies to um entities that have over 10 employees and only to minors
so in a state agency if there are minors employed and and and they have over 10 employees it would apply to them
as well okay follow-up you're recognized that does include state employees why do we not have a fiscal impact statement with this what would be the fiscal impact to
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
3:06:48
the state there is no uh there is no fiscal
impact um with this with the with the pay stub there is no fiscal we were told that in in committee yes additionally there was a question asked about students with disabilities
and it does not impact them and they called dhs to check on that as well
Chair
Unverified
3:07:07
Okay. Representative Gonzalez-Werthin has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill?
For the bill, Representative Gonzalez-Werthin is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 585. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted?
has everyone voted cast up the ballot the vote of 42 yeas 34 nays 14 present the bill has failed members I
Speaker 24
3:07:52
want to pause here and go to your yellow
Chair
Unverified
3:08:02
budget calendar represented jean you're recognized present budget calendar
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:08:24
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, we've got two bills out of the Senate, Senate Bill 54, which is the auditor of the state, the deputy prosecutor's attorney, and also Senate Bill 67, the public defenders. There's been a little change on this, and I'll just kind of go over the change right quick on both of them by agreement the deputy prosecutors are getting nine
additional positions and it's gonna be an increase of 5.5 million of the public defenders are getting 51 additional positions but they're not full-time most these people these lawyers and we have trouble getting public defenders they don't want to work full-time they want to do part-time so there's a lot of these positions or they're not part-time they're probably working over 30 hours but they don't want to be they don't want to be full-time but they'll they'll
help and we have a caseload that that needs this and it's additional 3.1 million dollars on Senate bills 67 so those are the two changes my intent is to batch these two and get to the others any question on these two bills Seeing none your one vote is for Senate bill 54 and Senate bill 67 and the emergency clause Mr. Speaker the clerk read the bill for the third time. Madam clerk read the bills for the
Chair
Unverified
3:09:58
third time. Senate bill 54, Senate bill 67. Prepare the
machine Madam clerk. Members your one vote is for the bill in the emergency clause
of both bills in the batch. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast out the ballot. The vote of 98 yea, 0 nay,
0 present. You pass the bill and the emergency clause of each in the
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:10:29
batch. Representative Gene, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We'll take up Senate Bill 362. This is the Senator
Hammers bill the four million dollars for youth activities we I
think they didn't get the vote yesterday I explained it yesterday any questions about this it's not it's not funded it's four million dollars appropriation he's got to find the funding any questions seeing none your one vote is for the bill and the mercy clause Mr. Speaker at the clerk read the bill third time Madam Clerk, read the bill for the third time. Senate Bill 362. Representative Jean has
Chair
Unverified
3:11:06
explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? For
the bill? Representative Jean is closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 362. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
has everyone voted has everyone voted cast up the ballot the vote of 70 a's 16 nays and 7 present the bill has failed representative jean
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:12:02
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We'll take up the Senate version of the revenue stabilization
that we passed out. It's the identical bill that we passed out here yesterday. I went into some detail yesterday on all the changes. I won't do that today unless there are questions, and I'll entertain any questions on the Senate version of the RSA.
Seeing none, your one vote is for the bill in the mercy clause. Mr. Speaker, the Clerk, read the bill for the third time. Madam Clerk, read the bill for the third time. Senate Bill
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
3:12:47
637. Representative Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill for the bill?
Chair
Unverified
3:12:53
Representative Jean is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 637. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 119
3:13:02
members your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause has
everyone voted has everyone voted cast up the ballot the vote of 88 yeas five nays three present you have passed the
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:13:29
bill and the emergency clause representative jean Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The last bill for this session is the Senate Bill 636.
And we had our meeting yesterday morning. I guess about 20 members showed up. And I got to the chamber this morning, and I realized a lot of members did not have this sheet that was passed out. Let's go over this sheet first. In that red up
there, it says Senate Bill 633, draw a line through that. I don't want anybody getting confused. That's the prison bill we're
not dealing with at this session. And if you'll go three columns down where it says surplus bill for the prison,
this is just old working papers that we had for members, strike through that. I don't want anybody getting confused to think we're trying to fund any money for the prison. That's not going to happen. It's just for y'all to have information where we're spending the one-time money. So that's why I handed out these sheets to make sure every member had one. Senate Bill 636. Let me just start off with what is funding.
If you'll see the yellow column in the second paragraph there, it says new set-asides. that's what's in this funding bill uh the 136 million dollars is the state's property insurance that's on this building it's on our k through 12 public school buildings it's on every state building that the state owns and it's on every college campus that's what this one-time funding
as far as I pay the insurance and by the way the first payment is due July 1st for $45 million and that's where this funding is coming out of the next item is the Medicaid set aside that's new money that's the ongoing money that I showed you was not in the RSA yesterday this this pays for the Medicaid increase that the governor's asked for. The next item is the educational freedom
account. It's a set-aside of 90 million dollars. This is for the learns and by the way the ones there yesterday when you see transfer it's going directly to it. When you see set-aside just a straight set-aside that's a three-fifths vote you have to have a governor's letter to fund this and three-fifths of the legislative council and then when you come to this next one you see a majority set aside have to have a governor's
letter and just 51 of the vote to fund it in council so just to be clear when you're looking down this list you understand what that is the next item is a majority set aside 51 votes in council with the governor's letter and goes through pier this is 45.9 million dollars for additional various voting set-asides and that's the pot that people can come to and ask for money
i think the i told you yesterday that the uh senior citizen food like i told representative vault this is where that's going to be funded out of and that's by agreement but there's various other things last year we spent about 41 million on this so we're refinishing the pot and adding a little bit more for adult senior meals the next item is the educational facilities this is the part we help Bruce air conditioning schools
that have to be repaired or upgraded or built. That's 45 million. At one time that balance was over a 500 million. You see the new balance on the side will be 396 million. The Teacher Academy Scholarship is something we've been doing for the last three years. That's where if a young person gets goes to school and to be a teacher from high school in Arkansas we will pay them six thousand dollars a
year tuition and a scholarship but however many years they use it if they use it one they've got to teach school in Arkansas one year to have this forgiven if they take some five or five six years whatever the degree they're getting in teaching they have to commit to serving to teaching that long the The motor vehicle set aside, something we do every year. I think we set aside a little over six million last year.
This puts it in our car fleet, gives us a balance of 13 million. We're putting 4.7 million to buy state police, any department cars other than Game and Fish and Highway Department. They're not included in it, but every other department we buy the vehicles out of fleet. The economic stimulus program is for site infrastructure. We talked about this a lot the other day in room 130, I think.
This is to clear off-site to make them ready, available for economic development. This came from a request from the governor and the economic development team. Arkansas school, the death, that's new money. That's $35 million for fixing to build new schools over there which were badly needed. That's new money. The $9.1 million for the economic, excuse me, for the HVAC,
that's putting an air-conditioned system, ductwork, and whatever they need to do on the north side of the campus of the Capitol. And that's been agreed to by House and Senate leadership and the governor's office. The Quick Action Closing Fund, something we've been doing for years, help economic development if they're closing the deal. We've always had a pot, it's 25 million this year. And then last year we did $40 million in the historic Rehabilitation Trust Fund that
we, I know the Veterans Hospital, the Arlington, there was something else. cut that in half to 20 million dollars this year to for the restoration of old buildings and the last part of it is 25 million for the water grants for three years that's 75
Speaker 410
3:20:23
million and the money will roll out one
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:20:26
year at a time we won't put 75 million in the pot it'll be it'll be one one at a time it's been a
a lot of money. I'm not I'm not debating that point but I think it's all needs that the governor came up with. House and House got some needs that we've asked for. Senate's got some needs and I'll say this we have an emergency clause on this so we have to get 67 votes or the insurance isn't gonna be paid July 1 and and that's not a threat, I'm just telling you what it is.
And if the water project's important to you, if we don't do that, that money's gonna roll over into catastrophic reserve by the way the bill's written.
So I'm letting you know, I hate for people to vote on stuff and say, "Well, I didn't
Speaker 414
3:21:24
know that." Well, I'm telling you. But at this time, I'll take
Speaker 415
3:21:29
any questions. - Representative McElhin in for what purpose? - Jen? - You're recognized. - On the motor vehicle set aside,
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
3:21:35
You said that's something that we do every year. Why is that not then in our RSA?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:21:42
Well, it's just, I don't really have a good answer for it. I think most governors
and most people in the House try to keep the RSA low. Yeah, it's an ongoing expenditure. It probably needs to be in there, but, I mean, we've had good surpluses, But since I've been here, the fleet has been replenished with one-time money. And it may be something we need to look into.
Chair
Unverified
3:22:13
Representative Ray, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Representative
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:22:16
Gene, could you just repeat, before Representative McElundin's question, can you repeat the last thing he said about how the funds roll over? On
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:22:27
that water system? Uh-huh. The way that bill is written, and I'm leaning on our BLR staff
fiscal thing, because I ask them, if the repercussions of this not passing, do we have any problems that's going to hit us July 1? because if we don't, it'll go in act August 5th.
And the payment of the insurance was one. And the other was this bill, which is $25 million for grants for the rural water systems and sewer systems to apply for grants. It doesn't have to be rural. It could be any. If this is not enacted on July 1, that money rose into our catastrophic reserve fund. That's just the way the bill was written. I don't know why it was written that way. I didn't write the bill, so I don't know. - Representative Luton, for what purpose?
- Question. - You're recognized. - Representative Gene, I'm not questioning the numbers. I'm just questioning the 250,000 that was in 633.
- Add a couple
more zeros, million. - And the 250,000 was moved from there down to the penitentiary prisons. - You're talking about the 250 million. - That's zero now. - Yeah,
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:23:46
and what that 250 million will do,
it's gonna roll over to the general allotment and we'll have that money in there to start
the next fiscal year. So it's, and nobody can touch it and we'll get the interest off of it. -
Okay, we'll follow up. - Yes sir, go ahead. - But doesn't DFA have a discretion relative
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:24:13
to where that $250,000 ultimately goes. - Now, you may be getting two pots of money. DFA cannot touch that. We do have $330 million allocated for the prison
that has not been appropriated yet. Now, that could be done in the interim through counsel. - I would encourage us to wait till we get back in the fiscal session, but this 250 million will roll over and nobody will be able to touch it till we get back into session. - Thank you. -
Chair
Unverified
3:24:49
Representative Rose, what purpose? - Question. - You're recognized.
- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Jean, I'm sorry,
I didn't get this sheet yesterday in the meeting. - You came in late. - I did, I was in committee. And thank you for waiting around for me. But I just now am seeing this sheet. I must have missed it yesterday. So this is about the set-asides that are recouped. I just had one question. Yeah. There is the, there's four of them there, but the law enforcement stipend set-aside. Yep. And it says those funds are being recouped and that they don't expire and they return
to the restricted reserve fund. I was just curious specifically if that means
that those stipend funds are no longer going be designated at all or if there's still some law enforcement stipends that should be dispersed. Well we I think we've
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:25:40
had either three or four rounds on funding law enforcement and I think you were part of one of them somebody we missed.
But we never did get those dispersed. Okay. Which is why I'm touching on it now.
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:25:54
Well I didn't realize that but but these by law can be recouped if they're
They're not used. Some things that DHS has and education has cannot be recouped. They're just following the law. There was no rhyme or reason. But these four things that you see being
recouped were recouped. I thought we had taken care of everybody in law enforcement, but evidently we didn't. Follow-up? You're recognized. And
not to dive into that, but what you're saying is those no longer will have any designation. They're going back to restricted reserve, and that's done.
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
3:26:26
That's right. All right. Thank you. Representative McCollum, for what purpose?
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
3:26:30
Question. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Jean, is it a good idea to give $25 million to the Economic Development Incentive Quick Action Fund? And do you know what the balance is? I do not have
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:26:50
the balances. I'll get that for you. But that's something typically we've done every year. I think last year we did
$30 million, if my memory serves me right.
That's just something that economic development and the governor asked for. This is last-minute things they put together to close the deal. A lot of years, it doesn't get spent, but that's a typical thing that we've done since I've been in the legislature. Representative Long, for what purpose? You're recognized.
Speaker 119
3:27:23
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
3:27:26
Jean, you may have covered this last year and I just forgot, but is there a reason why these are
all grouped together and we can't vote on them separately?
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:27:38
It's part of the bill. I mean, we put it in the bill over joint budget. It's just like RSA. We put it all together. We don't vote it separately. It's just part of the bill, the spending bill. So
this RSA is the budget bill. This is the one-time
funding bill, and that's the way we've always done it. Could they be put one at a time? Yeah, but I mean, I think you could judge the bill big enough. If you have a problem with it, I think the time to do it is in budget.
A lot of things get cut out of budget if you
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
3:28:18
get over there and work it. Okay. Thank
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:28:21
you, sir. Yeah. Representative Lundstrom, for what purpose? Question. you're recognized line 8 3 a 8 is the economic stimulus program set aside for site infrastructure grants so this is not for the private citizen to clear their land this is for
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:28:39
cities and cities counties economic development
corporations probably could use if you have state land Fort Chaffee or Camp Robinson had something, they could do it on that. It would be publicly owned entities. Follow up? You're recognized. So
it went from 10 million to 50
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
3:28:57
million? At the request of the governor and ADC. Was there
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:29:01
a reason why? You know, we don't, they don't tell
us a lot about who they're talking to because, you know, that's private. They're trying to negotiate. Corporations
don't like information out that they're looking here, there, how much, you know, they're getting. we've always respected that we've always took the guidance of economic development to be to be private about this this was the ask and you know I'm a big proponent of economic development but but this this wasn't me asking this what the governor and the AEDC asked. All right thank you.
Chair
Unverified
3:29:40
Thank you. Representative McCollum what purpose? Question. You're recognized.
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
3:29:43
Is it a good idea for that economic development
conversation to be private when we're continuing to give money to
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
3:29:51
it? You know, I've worked in economic development. I've been on the Economic Development Commission in
prior years when the daddy of our current governor put me on there many years ago. And I do know that privacy and keeping things close to the vest is very key to a lot of these corporations, these businesses and I think once you start throwing their name out some of
them just say I'm going somewhere else and people that have worked on it probably can attest to that also. Not that you have to like it but that's that's the way businesses run. Any other questions? All right seeing none your one vote is for the bill and virtue clause. Remember it just takes 51 to pass but to get this enacted by July 1 we will need 67 votes on the emergency clause and with
that I'll ask the speaker to ask the clerk to read the bill for the third time. Madam Clerk, read the
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
3:30:59
bill for the third time. Senate bill 636. Representative Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to
Chair
Unverified
3:31:05
speak against the bill? For the bill? Representative Jean is closed for the bill. Question before the House is passage of Senate Bill 636. Repair the machine, Madam Clerk.
Speaker 24
3:31:20
Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. Has everyone voted?
Chair
Unverified
3:31:29
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot. With a vote of 86 yeas, 10 nay, and one present, you have passed the bill and the emergency clause. Thank you.
Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill
591. And members, we're going back to the red calendar for the last remaining of the Senate bills.
Chair
Unverified
3:32:39
Senate Bill 591 by Representative Brown to prohibit race selection abortion in this state and to create the Race
Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act. Representative
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:32:52
Brown, you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 591 is an act to prohibit race selection abortion in this state and to create a race discrimination abortion prohibition act. This bill seeks to prohibit race selection abortions in the state of Arkansas.
It introduces a new subchapter in Arkansas code that is very similar to the other non-discrimination abortion bans, such as the sex selection and Down syndrome ban that are already in code. It stipulates that a physician or any individual cannot perform or attempt to perform an abortion if they know that the pregnant woman is seeking the procedure solely because of the race of the unborn child. This act will only take effect if Arkansas's existing laws against abortion are struck down or repealed.
There is a trigger section in this law. Before performing an abortion, the physician must inquire about the race of the unborn child and inform the woman of the prohibition against race selection abortions. The bill also outlines criminal and civil penalties for violations categorizing knowingly performing an abortion, a prohibited abortion, as a Class A misdemeanor. Physicians who violate the law may face suspension or revocation of their medical licenses, and women who undergo such abortions without being informed of the prohibition may seek damages.
This bill ensures that women who receive or attempt to receive an abortion in violation of this chapter will not be prosecuted or held liable. As of April 1, 2025, the following states have enacted laws prohibiting abortion sought specifically due to the rights of the fetus. Arizona, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
I would appreciate a good vote, and I'd
Chair
Unverified
3:35:10
be happy to answer any questions. Representative Steele, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Representative Brown, why are
Speaker 24
3:35:17
we just distinguishing minorities? Well,
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:35:21
we're not distinguishing minorities. We are simply saying that any abortion sought strictly
on the basis of the race of the child. regardless of what race that is, is prohibited.
We currently have an abortion ban, but in some states, specifically in Missouri, that abortion ban has been struck down. Arizona's, one of Arizona's abortion ban was struck down, but they had like 37 other restrictions on abortion that still stood so that's why we want to put this in place in the event that our abortion ban is ever
struck down to maintain that protection follow-ups you're
Chair
Unverified
3:36:10
recognized isn't it true that your previous bill would
not allow or disallow any reference to a minority or race of people serving on boards and commissions and then the other ones with local municipalities you couldn't use race as a reference to anything and then why i guess now in this bill is particularly targeted toward the race of the child
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:36:42
for those of us who believe in the sanctity of life we believe in the sanctity of all life and we do not believe that it is a valid reason to receive an abortion strictly based on the race of a child regardless of whether it's a minority
Chair
Unverified
3:37:00
or not so all children all children
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:37:08
so why do we need this bill because it prohibits an abortion based solely on the brace of a child
representative Shepherd for what purpose question
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
3:37:22
you recognized thank you Representative, do we have any documented evidence of current race-selective abortions occurring in Arkansas? Additionally, what solutions does this legislation offer that is not currently found in civil rights laws, medical practices, or professional standards? With regard to your
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:37:45
first question, I was going to ask Representative Pilkington to speak.
However, he did state in the committee meeting the other day, something that I was unaware of, that there are, I believe they're called white nationalists, that are encouraging abortion of children, of black children or mixed-race children. And that is abhorrent to me. And I do not know the answer to the rest
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
3:38:14
of your question. So you don't know what solutions this legislation
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:38:19
is offering? solution there's not this so this legislation is strictly will become
active only in the situation there's a trigger portion of this bill only in the situation where our total ban on abortion is struck down except to save the life of
Speaker 468
3:38:44
the mother understood but you're recognized for a follow-up
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
3:38:48
I'm I'm sorry. The original question was, what solution does this legislation offer that's not currently found within civil rights laws, medical practices, or professional standards?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:38:59
Well, the three categories you just mentioned, I don't think they deal with abortion at all.
Speaker 466
3:39:05
Health care. Discrimination in health care. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. I would
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:39:10
appreciate a good vote. Representative Brown has explained
the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Ennett, you are recognized to speak against the bill.
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
3:39:35
This legislation is both misleading and harmful, particularly to women of color. While it claims to prevent race-based abortions, it is rooted in paternalistic notions that women of color cannot make autonomous decisions about their bodies. The hypocrisy is evident. When SB 3 was passed, it eliminated affirmative action and diversity initiatives under the guise of promoting equality.
Simultaneously, SB 591 imposes invasive requirements on women of color, suggesting that they are incapable of making informed decisions. This contradiction reveals a troubling agenda that undermines genuine efforts towards racial justice. SB-591 is not a protective measure.
It is a direct attack on the autonomy of women of color. It fails to address the real issues affecting these communities, such as high maternal mortality rights and limited access to quality health care and medical racism. Instead of empowering women, it seeks to control them under the pretense of anti-discrimination. Our body has passed out countless numbers of abortion bills already.
Why is this needed? It is barbaric, offensive, and is an evasion of one's privacy. I humbly ask you to recognize the harm of this bill and vote against it. Thank you. Representative Ennett has spoken against the bill. Would anyone
like to speak for the bill? Representative Bentley, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Thank you, Speaker. Colleagues, this affects all races, not just any one particular race, but I want to remind you guys, and I hope we never in the state ever start killing babies again, But when we were killing babies in this state, even though black Arkansans only encompassed 13% of our population, the abortions they encompassed were 43 to 48% of the abortions in our state. So nearly half of them were black Arkansans, which I found horrific. And I want to remind you guys that Planned Parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger.
And Margaret Sanger's purpose was to destroy and annihilate the black race. That was her purpose. Read what she did. Margaret Sanger, completely started Planned Parenthood, and she wanted to wipe out the black race, and that's what she did. And that's why Planned Parenthoods are put in low-income areas for their clinics to take out black Arkansans, and that's what it's for. And that's why I find the poor, and I want to protect every child in Arkansas, especially those that are black Arkansans. Thank you. Representative Bentley
has spoken in favor of the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill?
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
3:42:47
Representative Brown, would you like to close for your bill? you're recognized to do
so. Colleagues, this is in no way a racist bill. This is in no way selecting one race out of another. There's many reasons why
somebody might find it difficult to have a baby when that baby's born and they might have to face some difficult questions
because that baby doesn't look like the rest of the family regardless of the race. So this bill is strictly a bill to protect life, all life. Thank you. Representative Brown is closed for the bill. The
question before the House is is the passage of Senate Bill 591. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 63 yeas, 17 nays, and four present, the bill has passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill
Chair
Unverified
3:44:12
596. Bill 596 by Representative McElhinney to amend the law regarding energy to establish a state energy policy to regulate retirement of dispatchable electric generation facilities and to declare
an emergency. Representative McElhinney, you are recognized to
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
3:44:30
present your bill. Thank you, Speaker. Senate Bill 596 builds on the energy bill that we already passed, which was SB 307, to state a state energy policy with respect to reliability and affordability. It makes sure that, first, electric utilities have an equal or greater amount of dispatchable energy when they are retiring dispatchable energy. And so that's the reliability, so that we have energy when we need energy.
The other thing is that it gives the PSC the tools that they need to work in the best interest of rate payers. Swepco and the co-ops have no objection to the bill. We worked with Entogy to amend the bill to make sure that the policy helps ensure reliability and affordability for our rate payers. And with that, I would ask for a good vote. Representative McElindon has
explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative McElindon is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 596.
Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? You are voting on the bill and the emergency clause. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 92 yeas, 1 nay, and 0 present, the bill and the emergency clause have passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 538.
Representative David Ray
Unverified
3:45:57
Senate Bill 538 by Representative Ward Law to amend the Arkansas Procurement Law. Representative
Eaves, you are recognized to explain the bill. Thank you,
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
3:46:14
Mr. Speaker. Members, during ALC meetings last interim, we discovered there were some departments and agencies that weren't -- let me rephrase that -- that were following some different procurement procedures. So we had a consultant come in, review the procedures that we were using, and so this
bill is a result of those recommendations. It clarifies procurement law. will also require training of
Speaker 486
3:46:37
agency staff. It's that time. Just trying to get our procurement rules
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
3:46:44
and procedures in place so that all these departments and agencies are using the exact same process. With that I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Eaves has
explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak
Seek against the bill, for the bill, representative
Eves is closed for the bill. The question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 538. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 93 yeas, zero nay, and zero present, the bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill 486.
Chair
Unverified
3:47:30
Senate Bill 486 by Representative Bentley concerning safety and privacy in certain entities and concerning the designation of multi-occupancy restrooms, changing rooms, and sleeping quarters in certain entities based on an individual sex. Representative Bentley, you are recognized
to explain the bill. Thank you, Speaker. All
right, colleagues. The final bill of the session, thankfully. SB 486 provides safety and privacy for an individual using or occupying a multi-occupancy restroom.
Changing room or sleeping quarters, an entity covered under this bill, include domestic violence shelters, certain correctional and juvenile detention facilities, and public buildings owned by the state of Arkansas and its political subdivisions. This bill will require a covered entity to take reasonable steps to provide an individual with privacy a designated multi-occupy restroom changing room and sleeping ward and to prevent its use by a member of the opposite six and it lists some things that does not allow someone to come there for emergency reason or to take care of the bathroom and those kind of things this bill is
very similar for you guys remember the bill that i passed last session to help k-12 in our schools our many of our superintendents wanted to be sure we had a safe place for everyone to use the restroom and to cover some of the situations that they were dealing with at school so this bill very much uh mocks what we did with the uh privacy bill for k-12 last session like our superintendents at schools domestic violence shelters and correctional facilities need this bill this bill also follows what president trump did on the national level when he filed executive order to require that all federal buildings follow the same policy 18 other states have filed this bill
and was held up in court and uh with that i'll take any questions if anybody has any
Chair
Unverified
3:49:18
on this bill Representative McCullough, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized.
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
3:49:22
Representative Bentley, can you explain to me what the harm is if someone finds themselves in a bathroom with a person of the opposite sex or transgender person or just whoever? Can you explain what the harm is? Unfortunately, we've
seen young girls that, you know, right now in Arkansas, there is no law against exposure. So in some instances in other states,
we've had people there completely expose themselves in the bathroom. With that loophole in our law, there's nothing to arrest that person for exposing themselves. We have no law against exposure. So I don't want us young girls, like, we're fixing to have swimming season, and these young girls can go to the pool and have someone that day, and somebody exposes themselves, and the officer comes in to arrest them, like, I'm feeling like a girl today. I'm sorry, I'm identifying as a woman. There's nothing I can do to arrest them at that point. I want to make sure that our young girls are able to go to the bathroom if they need to. I want moms to be able to let their kids go to the restroom here
and feel safe that they're fine in those restrooms. So I just want to keep women safe, and that's what it's doing for. Follow-up, please. You're
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
3:50:22
recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But this bill doesn't say they have to expose themselves. They say they can bring cause for simply being
in there. If this person feels fine, if as long as a facility makes reasonable accommodations and makes sure that there's signs up to designate it, that's all it makes sure. Those facilities are designating the places for male or female, just like we've done on the federal level. Can you
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
3:50:44
tell me how do you decide what monetary value for damages that you're going to have for just simply being in a room with someone?
I'm not a lawyer. I can't answer
Speaker 498
3:50:56
that question. Sorry. Thank you. Representative Unger, for what purpose? You're
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
3:51:01
recognized. On page 10, line 30, it says the governmental entity shall take reasonable steps to stop this. Could you explain a little more what reasonable steps? That's just what I said, that you have a baffinist
designated male and female, and you also make sure we follow along with the American Disabilities Act.
So as long as we're doing that, then we're covered.
Speaker 503
3:51:22
Follow-up recognized. And I did the best.
And I'll just say that's going to have to be defined more in rules. like we did with the k-12 bill that we passed there's some rules that follow
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
3:51:36
through to make sure this is to give clear definitions for you i did the best i could to read this and i'm i'm tired so during the ice storm a number of years back people lost power for their houses and so churches and the salvation army and the national guard army opened up warming centers and put out cots
does your bill prevent men and women from sleeping in the same salvation army shelter in a open bay sleeping on cots thing if you'll read on this it provides for a threat
of a natural disaster serious threat so that's covered in this bill thank you appreciate a good vote representative bentley has explained
the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill representative hudson you're recognized to speak against the bill
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
3:52:27
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues. Before I get started on my prepared remarks, I did want to point out that we do in fact have a criminal statute against exposing yourself
in public. So for those of you concerned about that, that is a crime right now and would apply regardless of whether someone was exposing themselves in a bathroom or not. So this bill is being sold as a safety bill. And it's being sold as a way to
protect women and girls from something-- Fear? Standing next to somebody they think
is weird? I don't know. But nothing in this bill has
criminal penalties. Let me repeat that. Nothing in this bill has criminal penalties. This is a civil cause of action. So you want to talk about a bill that opens the doors to the courthouse and lets people file frivolous lawsuits? This one is it. There is no requirement for any sort of damages. And you'll recall that when Representative Brown came down here earlier, he said that is an essential element of any claim. You could walk into a bathroom and see a trans person in there going into a stall, never talk to them, never say anything to them, never encounter them in any way, and you have a cause of action under this bill.
There's no limit on the amount of damages for that cause of action. And you could go into court and ask for a trillion dollars because you watched a trans person walk into a stall. Or maybe someone you think is a trans person. Maybe it's someone that you think looks like a guy. There's nothing in here that says who's going to make this determination. So we're not talking about a public safety bill. What we're talking about is a litigation bonanza bill.
Testimony yesterday in committee talked about the fact that women and children need to feel safe in bathrooms. Well, I have great news. We passed that bill in 2023. Act 615 of 2023 made it a crime for someone to enter a
bathroom assigned to the opposite sex when they know that a minor is present if they enter that bathroom for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification.
There was testimony yesterday in committee that we don't have anything to protect women and children
in bathrooms, and we do. That is an absolute falsehood. Under Act 615, that conduct is a
Class D felony, which carries a prison sentence of up to six years and a fine of up to $10,000
for every occurrence. If that doesn't feel like protection enough, Arkansas has no less than 13 other laws already on the books that explicitly prohibit physical contact, physical assault, rape, sexual assault, and sexual violence against women, children, men, and every person in the state.
And yet, for some reason, those laws don't go far enough. The point
was made yesterday during testimony that there is not a single-person bathroom available in
this building, the People's House. And that point was made in part by an almost 80-year-old woman who came to testify and who has mobility issues.
Rather than acknowledge that there will be a cost if we're going to require all of these public buildings to retrofit and to create these single-use bathrooms,
that there will be a significant cost to the state. The response from the sponsor of this bill was they
can go up to the fourth floor. There are single-use bathrooms up there. I want to know from all of you thinking about your grandparents, what it would take for them if they have mobility issues, if they're on a scooter or a walker to get from downstairs up to the fourth floor. Where are those bathrooms? They're not even labeled. There's no sign out there that says it's a restroom. If you don't know they're there, you're not going to be able to find them. But that's the solution that was offered.
Those are the types of solutions that are apparently being offered in this bill. And those are the types of things that, in my mind, as someone who tries ADA cases, do not account as a reasonable accommodation. Now, I admit that I myself am not afraid of trans women. Not afraid of them. Never have been. never been threatened by one. But I also acknowledge that maybe y'all might think I am too woke, liberal, a leftist. And so I reached
out to a bunch of women who are practicing
attorneys all over the country, who are practicing in the federal system and state systems and private practice, big firms, little firms,
all of them. And I asked them, are you afraid of encountering trans women in bathrooms? Are you afraid of your children encountering trans women in bathrooms. And I discovered that women are afraid of a lot of things. They're afraid of straight men in bars, straight men who take don't take no for an answer, straight men
who stare too long at their children, who touch women without consent, straight men who assault women and children in bathrooms and
elsewhere, a really horrific story at one point by a woman who was assaulted in the bathroom her first year of law school. They're worried about whether their children or they themselves will one day be policed for looking to mask if they use a restroom based on someone's personal assessment of what that means. They're worried about being assaulted in parking lots, home invasions, online predators, sending their sons into men's bathrooms because they're afraid that men will sexually assault their boys because they can't go in with them. They're worried about sending their kids to sleepovers, contact
with unrelated men like coaches, teachers, uncles, stepdads, pastors, others in authority. They're afraid of the dentist. Some of them are afraid of spiders, one mentioned being afraid of running out of toilet paper, girls drinks being spiked, fentanyl, whether they're going to get fired, unsanitary public restrooms in need of cleaning, abusive spouses, discrimination against their children because they're black or biracial or Mexican or pretty much any other racial background other than white. They're afraid of going on dates with someone new
who may hurt them, going on jogs by themselves in their own neighborhoods, being abused by their partner, people showing up unexpectedly at their doorsteps, and on and on. As one woman said, why would any man bother to put on a dress to go into a woman's bathroom and assault them when they can do it in broad daylight almost anywhere and get away with it? The most common response that women said they were afraid of was sending their kids to school, or to
church, or to a concert, and not having that child come back home.
They're also worried for trans people. And they're worried about the fact that bills like these will subject trans people to more violence. And those concerns
are likely merited, since increases in violence and harassment of trans people are noted in almost every single jurisdiction when these types of laws are enacted. Finally, I've come down every session since I started in 2021 now to talk about the fact that these bills are harmful to trans people and that the incidence of suicide attempts
goes up every time one of these is
on our calendar. I've been dismissed every session as being hysterical or making
it up because my information has been largely anecdotal. Very sad to report that there is now a 2024 study, peer-reviewed, published in a peer-reviewed journal, that documents this phenomenon and reflects that every time a state legislature hears or passes one of these bills,
the trans-suicide attempts go up by up to 72%. I can't think of any other thing that we do up here that causes people to try to kill themselves. And for what? For political theater. I'm tired
of bringing trans people into this conversation to score political points. I'm tired of people's lives being used as talking points,
and I would urge you to vote no on
this bill. Representative Dalby, for what purpose? You're recognized. Representative
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
4:01:39
Hudson, if there is harm done to someone, we can already sue in civil court. Is that correct without the need for this bill? That's correct. I'd appreciate a no vote. Representative Hudson
has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Brown, you're recognized to speak for the bill.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:02:05
thank you mr. speaker a few years ago I was
traveling and I stopped at a gas station little one of those little quick stop places and that's I don't know the I'm not trying to pick on quick stops it's just you understand the kind of shop place I stopped and I went into the ladies room and I was in the ladies room with the door to the stall locked. There were three stalls in that room. I heard the
door, the main door open, and I heard what sounded to me like cowboy boots walking into that restroom. And I thought, well, you know, that could be a woman. When I opened the door to my stall, there was a tall man, cowboy hat, cowboy boots, makeup on, standing right
in front of my door as I came out. And I looked up at him, and just as habit would have it, I walked right over to the sink and washed my hands. I dried them, and I left, and I I thought, Carolyn, today would have been a perfectly good excuse not to wash your hands. You should have just gotten the heck out of there immediately. Because why in the world did he stop right in front of my door? Why was he staring me in the face as I came out?
Why? I feel very fortunate that he did not hurt me, but I was terrified and ready to get out of that town. Thank you. I would appreciate a good vote on this bill. Representative
Brown has spoken in favor of the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Clowney, you are recognized to speak against
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
4:04:10
the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I noted yesterday in committee, I genuinely believe that the intent of this bill is to protect people.
I genuinely believe that that is the intent of the sponsor of this bill. It may seem simple and obvious to y'all. I believe that all of you all want to protect children, and I hope that you know me well enough to know by now that that is also what I want to do. So I came down here today to ask that you will believe me that this bill, if it becomes law, will not protect anyone, and it will, in fact, do the opposite. This bill will not protect people. It will put them in danger.
And I ask you to believe me when I explain to you how. So this bill was presented to us as necessary because women are afraid to use the restroom. I want to say that as we have seen with a lot of these bills, yet again, in committee yesterday, we did not hear from one person who has been assaulted in a bathroom by somebody gaining access by claiming to be transgender. we didn't hear about one person who had been placed in that situation not one and trust me
the people pushing for these bills the people behind the scenes pushing for these bills make their living off of getting these through so trust me when I tell you if those people existed we would have heard about them we would have heard from them the most we've heard I hate that our colleague was afraid, but the most we've heard is that somebody was standing in the restroom with her. What we did hear was from, I didn't count, maybe upwards of 20 Arkansans, trans
people who have been assaulted, sexually and otherwise. In bathrooms, they were forced to enter by law. I know many of you in this chamber haven't spent a lot of time around trans people, or at least you don't know that you have, but I am really lucky to say that I have. Since I was in middle school and I met my first trans friend, we didn't have the words for it yet. We didn't know what it was. We just knew that he felt better, more
comfortable in women's clothes and hair and makeup. And so when we weren't in school, that's what he did. He was beautiful. One day in high school, this friend, like so many teenagers, decided to go to the mall and have themselves a day. And that day at the mall, the reality of my friend's identity came out. When it did, a man he had met that day brutally assaulted him.
When the fact that he was trans was exposed, his life became in immediate danger. If this bill passes, we are forcing every trans Arkansan in a public building to reveal the same thing about themselves. We are forcing every trans Arkansan to be in this same danger. We are being told that this bill is to keep men out of little girls' spaces, but I really want you to stop and think,
what do you think will happen if a big, burly, bearded person follows a little girl, follows one of your daughters into the restroom because, as this bill requires, they had a female reproductive system. That person will have to use the girl's bathroom. Do you truly believe that that person
will be safe doing so? Conversely, what do you think will happen when a brunette woman, somebody who you would never know anything about their reproductive organs being otherwise, a beautiful brunette in a dress walks into a men's restroom? Do you think that person is safe now that they have revealed that fact about themselves?
They will be forced by law to do so. They will have to make the decision to expose themselves to the risk of real violence or break the law. That's not a position any Arkansans should be in. And this isn't an abstract hypothetical. We know that it's real. I know that it's real because I lived it with my friend. We also know that it's real because we heard from numerous members of the public who told us yesterday that they have already experienced violence in these situations.
This isn't abstract. At the end of the day, this fight really does boil down, this bill really does boil down to a fight between two groups of people. Both groups of people are scared, and I acknowledge that. One, non-trans people who are afraid of being assaulted in the bathroom. I can tell today that that fear is real. Two, the second group, trans people who are afraid of being assaulted in the bathroom.
Both of those fears are real, but I am standing before you today begging you to believe me that even though they are equally felt, they are not equally substantiated by real life. I have no doubt that people are scared of people assaulting them in the bathroom by claiming to be trans. There have been no instances of this in our state. People aren't scared because this is actually happening. People are scared because we keep bringing laws like this, bills like this, pretending that it is. The fear that trans Arkansans have is supported by fact.
There have been many instances of assault against trans people in the bathroom. That's real. We heard many personal stories last night to this effect, but the data also back it up. Trans people are more than four times as likely to be the victims of sexual assault than their non-trans counterparts. These numbers grow in states where bills like this become law. I want to close with a story, and I'll be quick.
But last night, after this bill barely passed out of committee, there were no and present votes from both parties, by the way. Many of you may have noticed that I came back to committee quite emotional. I want to tell you why. When I walked out after this vote, One of the trans people who has showed up to committee day after day after day waiting for this bill to be heard said something very kind to me, and it made me a little bit emotional. And so I walked away from the room. I went into a quiet corner of the Capitol to breathe and compose myself and get myself ready to get back to work.
As I was doing that, I felt a tap on my shoulder. I turned around, and it was another trans person who had come to watch the hearing. This person wasn't there to ask me for help. They weren't there to thank me. Instead, they just asked if I was okay. And they took out a handkerchief, which I didn't bring up here because no props allowed, but I brought it with me today. They took out a handkerchief and handed it to me and told me that I could keep it.
On a day when this person knew that this legislature had gotten one step closer to putting them in real physical danger for no reason. They were more concerned about me. These are real people. They are good people and passing this bill will put them in danger. Please vote no. Representative Clowney
has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Crawford you are recognized to speak for the bill
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
4:13:01
thank you mr. speaker hello friends I just have to say that since I've been at the Capitol. Not this session, but last. There was a huge man in a dress with a ponytail, using the women's bathroom. I couldn't go to the bathroom because a man was in my space.
And all this bill is asking is signs. If we have, which we do on the fourth floor, I didn't know it, if we have individual restrooms, once this law is passed, signs will have to be put up, am I correct in that? will have to be put up to where people will know where those individual bathrooms are.
Little girls don't need to go in a bathroom and see a man. Even when that man came in, I heard other legislators talk that when he went in the stall. He used it like a urinal and made a mess. Go to your own bathroom. If you're going, I'm just saying, I'm going to quit. We're all tired. I don't want to go in a bathroom with a
man. I don't want my granddaughter to go in a bathroom and see a man. I would ask you to vote for this. Representative
Crawford has spoken in favor of the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill. Representative
Mayberry, you recognize to speak against the bill? Okay. You are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't want
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
4:15:06
to get in the middle of this. I really didn't. This is not an issue I want to have any conversation
but I've got to tell you this weekend I was at an event and I used the man's restroom there were extenuating circumstances but me and probably two or three other ladies went over to the men's restroom because there was a man there who had a baby and he needed to use the diaper changing table so he was going into the women's restroom
so we went into the men's restroom and when I came out I thought oh my did I just do something illegal. It was very innocent. But the way I interpret what this is, yeah, I did. I just think that there might be some unintended consequences with this, and I think we need just a little bit more thought. I'm very thankful for the bill that was passed last session. Um, I, I, it was last
session, right? I don't know. Everything's starting to blend in with me now. I think we very much needed that that indicated intent my intent was not to go and do harm in the men's restroom that's why i'm a no today thank you representative mayberry
has spoken against the bill would anyone like to speak for the bill against the bill representative
bentley would you like to close for your bill you are recognized to do so okay callers just
to clear a few things up last year
we passed the privacy bill with K through 12 and what did we find we found that everybody was safer we didn't hear any any increases of transgender children being hurt at school or in the bathrooms actually we cleared things up and made it better for those students what we did for K through 12 has worked great and I want to institute that across the board and to bring up as far as exposure we have to prove that that person had criminal intent in the bathroom if you can't prove that they had criminal intent, then that exposure is not a crime. They have to prove criminal intent.
So the exposure thing still stands. Do we need to wait until a female inmate in Arkansas has been raped like they have been in California when biological males were allowed in their correctional facilities before we protect them? Is that what we need to do? Do we need to expose women in domestic violence shelters to more potential violence by allowing men into their shelters? Because that's what they're going to be forced to do. And that's what's happening in other states it's our domestic violence shelters that may need this to be passed this bill is very simple it does just what President Trump did on the national
level it's going to make things safer for everyone I wish we weren't here I wish to goodness we didn't have to do this but I'm going to protect my daughters and I'm going to protect my granddaughters and hope that all of you will do the same thank you
representative Bentley is closed for the bill the question before the house is the passage of Senate bill 486 prepare to the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 60 yeas, 22 nays, and zero present, the bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Bill
Chair
Unverified
4:18:45
569. bill 569 by representative ray an amendment to the arkansas constitution concerning ballot titles of proposed measures and amending the arkansas
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:18:52
constitution under the authority of the arkansas constitution article 5
section 1. representative ray you are recognized to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:19:00
explain the bill all right thank you mr speaker colleagues amendment 7 to the arkansas constitution
allows the general assembly by a two-thirds vote of both chambers to amend any measure voted on by the people. That amendment also goes on to define the word measure to include both initiated acts as well as constitutional amendments. If you're not familiar with the background on this issue I'd encourage you to read through the legislative intent and on pages 1 and 2 of this bill. Senate Bill 569 utilizes this authority to add a very short section on to amendment 7. There's
There's two sentences. The first sentence limits the length of a ballot title to 500 words or less. For context, the entire Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution is 463 words. And that 500 word limit applies only to the ballot title, not to the entire text of the measure. The other sentence that this bill would change in Amendment 7 gives the legislature the ability
to establish a standard for the readability of the title, similar to the bill that Representative Rose passed through this chamber earlier this session, you all probably remember that. Even though the plain language of Amendment 7 authorizes the General Assembly by a two-thirds vote to amend any measure voted on by the people. The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in 1951 in the Edgemont case that that, sorry, that that did not apply to constitutional amendments.
The court reached that decision despite the plain language of the Constitution being to the contrary. In recent years, the court, there have been court decisions that have cast doubt on whether or not the reasoning behind the Edgemont decision would withstand scrutiny if it were revisited today. You can look at the 2020 decision in the case that dealt with the I-30 widening as an example. The court held that in Amendment 91, when the legislature said four-lane highway, they
meant four-lane highway, not a six-lane highway. Last year, Senator Dotson requested an attorney general opinion about this issue. If you haven't read that opinion, I would encourage everybody to read it. That four-page opinion includes the following response: "In my opinion, that decision," referring to Edgemon, "employed an erroneous form of reasoning that was wrongly decided. If this issue were raised today, I believe the Supreme Court would overturn that case
and hold that the plain language holds, or controls, excuse me. It goes on to say, quote, "Amendment 7's plain language gives the General Assembly power to amend initiated constitutional amendments. In my opinion, if the Supreme Court were faced with your question today, it would most likely hold that Edgemon was wrongly decided, employed a form of reasoning that is now rejected, and should thus be overturned." So we have this 75-year-old precedent from the court, and there are legal opinions today that that opinion was wrongly decided.
And so there's an open question, a really important question, I think, as to what our authority is as a General Assembly in this area. What this bill does is it gives us an avenue for the court to revisit this issue. So I know the background and the history of this are sort of extensive. We talked about it quite a bit in committee yesterday. But I'll summarize it by saying this as succinctly as I can. If you think that if you agree with a 500-word limit to the ballot title
and for the General Assembly to be able to establish a readability standard, and if you think it would be prudent for the court, for us to ask the court, to seek clarity on this issue, then I think a good vote for this bill would be in order. It would take two-thirds to pass this bill, and with that, I would be happy to answer a
Speaker 482
4:23:29
couple of questions. Representative Eves, for what
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
4:23:31
purpose? Question. You're recognized. Representative Ray, are you saying that the bill is going to ask the court to revisit the idea that this General Assembly can modify
or amend a citizen initiative that got got installed in the constitution or is it confirming that we have the ability to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:23:50
do that now well that's a good question it would this bill would
amend the constitution the practical effect of this bill passing would be that it would be almost certainly challenged and the lower courts adhering to the precedent would probably strike it down and then upon appeal it would be elevated and it would give the the court the opportunity to revisit this issue.
So similarly to how other states have passed, you know, for many years, states like Arkansas and Mississippi and many others passed pro-life laws that were unconstitutional at the time under the Roe v. Wade precedent, those bills or those laws created a test case
that gave the court opportunities to revisit those precedent. And so this bill would do something similar. Follow-up. You recognize? I just
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
4:24:42
want to make sure I'm understanding.
The idea of this bill is to clarify that perhaps we have the ability to amend quote-unquote direct democracy ideas that make it to the Constitution. I think based
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:24:59
on the plain language of Amendment 7, which by the way, Amendment 7 was brought to us by the people. was a an initiated constitutional amendment and I based on the plain language of amendment seven yes I believe that we have that authority
representative Wooldridge for what purpose question you're recognized thank
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
4:25:20
you mr. speaker and to start this off I have an immense amount of respect for you and Senator Johnson as the sponsors of this I have concerns with a hundred and thirty-five members or a percentage of those members circumventing what has been voted on by the will of the people but my question would be has this been utilized in Arkansas and then for whatever reason dismissed have has the legislature tried to I guess reverse course on an initiated act and not been
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:25:51
able to do so well an initiated act
is very different than a constitutional amendment a constitutional amendment I'm sorry okay so you're asking if
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
4:26:01
we have done this in the past have they utilized this in the past and a court deem that it was not
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:26:11
able to be utilized, the power of this legislature? I do not believe that since 1951 the Edgemont decision has been revisited. There are some constitutional amendments that prescribe that the legislature has the ability by a two-thirds vote of both
chambers to amend, but those are specific amendments that authorize
that, so no, I don't believe it's been revisited by the
court since that time. Thank you. Representative Rose, for what purpose, you're recognized. Thank you. Representative Ray, could you revisit
and just discuss a little bit more or maybe just reiterate that this provision was actually brought by the people through an initiated act that then had to have been voted on and passed to
Representative David Ray
Unverified
4:26:55
become a part of our constitution? Yeah, through an initiated constitutional amendment.
It was a citizen-initiated constitutional amendment in, I believe, 1920 that created Amendment 7. So
that's where it comes from. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Ray has explained the bill.
Would anyone like to speak against the bill, for the bill? Representative Ray, are you closed for the bill? Representative Ray
is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 569. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 32 yeas, 54 nays, and 4 present, the bill has failed. Representative Meeks, for what purpose?
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:27:52
Motion. Let's hear your motion. Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side consideration of Senate bill 585 I move reconsideration how did you vote now
that's proper motion and it is debatable please come to the well and explain your motion I'm
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:28:24
going to assume I'm recognized and I'm just going to jump right into this so So colleagues, thank
Speaker 540
4:28:30
you, thank you. You were recognized before. Thanks.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:28:34
So Representative Gonzales-Werthin has some additional facts that she would like to share that she didn't have the opportunity to share on
this before. I don't know if I'll change my vote or not, but I want to at least give her that opportunity to come down here and do so. So that was the point of my motion.
Representative Meeks has spoken in favor of the motion. Would anyone like to speak against
the motion? For the motion, Representative Beatty, you're recognized to speak against the motion.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
4:29:09
Oh, this is Senate Bill 585, Madam Clerk. Members,
I think the body was pretty resounding in the defeat of this bill, and I would just encourage you all to vote no on it. you. Representative Beatty has spoken
against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion? Representative Collins, you recognize to speak in favor of the motion.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
4:29:40
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was a lot of discussion, but it only failed by a handful of votes, and we talked to several members who didn't realize that actually it just requires the information on the pay stub to be furnished. It doesn't have to be paper. It can be electronic, whatever form the employer wants to do, just to make sure that this minor gets the information about what they worked and what was taken out as far as taxes. So it's a good bill,
simple bill. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thanks. Representative Collins has spoken in favor of the motion. Representative Puryear, you're recognize to speak
against the motion I have two issues with this it imposes more rules on private employers and making it a two-tier system if it's good enough for minors it's good enough for everybody and the second thing is you know I have I have to argue that it might need a fiscal impact since this is taxpayer employers that were some of these kids work for so I'd appreciate a note
representative Puryear has spoken against the motion would anyone like to
to speak for the motion, against the motion. Representative McElhinden, you're recognized to speak against
the motion. - Thank you. I just want to reiterate what Representative
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
4:31:01
Puryear said. This does add a burden onto taxpayers, and it does set a different standard for minors than it does for people who are not minors, and for that reason, I would ask you to vote against the
motion. Representative McElhin has spoken against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion?
Against the motion. Representative Meeks is closed
for the motion. The question before the House is the motion to reconsider Senate Bill 585. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say nay. No. The no's have it. Members, we're going to move now to page two of the red calendar, concurring in our Senate amendments.
Madam Clerk, please read House Bill, actually, Representative Meeks recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1877. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1877.
Chair
Unverified
4:32:01
Representative Meeks, you are recognized to explain Amendment 1.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
4:32:08
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Back again, colleagues. So in the technology world, there are what are known as red hat teams or
red teams. And the purpose of these teams are whenever you develop a technology, you put up your firewall and then you send out these teams to purposely attack that wall to look for vulnerabilities that you can then make sure are taken care of before the bad guys find them.
So what this bill does, as you might remember, 1877, this is a CSAM bill. This is the bill that outlaws AI-generated child pornography. And what this amendment does is this allows these entities to send out these red teams to try to purposely get these programs, if you will, to generate the child porn to make sure that there's no loopholes or way for it to be generated. So this is an opportunity for them to be able to do so without running afoul of the law.
Happy to answer any questions. Seeing none, appreciate a
good vote. Representative Meeks has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment, Representative Meeks is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1877. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? has everyone voted cast up the ballot madam clerk with 92 yeas zero nay and
zero present the you have concurred in Senate amendment number one to House bill 1877 representative Lundstrom for
what purpose motion let's hear your motion motion
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:33:51
to send HB 1354 and HB 1911 to independent study that's a proper motion that is debatable
please come to the well and explain your motion
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:34:16
both these bills need some work during during offseason and I would appreciate a
good vote to send those to independent study 1354 and 1911 thank Thank you. HB 1354 and HB 1911.
We'll take them one at a time. House Bill 1354, that is the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion, for the motion? Representative Lundstrom is closed for that motion. All in favor of sending House Bill 1354, withdrawing House Bill 1354 and sending it to committee, say aye. - Aye. - Any opposed say nay. Motion is passed. Now we'll do the same thing with House Bill
I know you've already explained that but please come back to the well so we can do this properly. House Bill 1911 you're
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
4:35:34
recognized for that motion. Thank you for your indulgence. House Bill 1911 was on property taxes and it also needs some more work and I would appreciate a motion to send it
back. Thank you. Representative Dunstrom has spoken for the motion. Would anyone
like to speak against the motion? For the motion, the question before the House is the withdrawal of House Bill 1911 to send back to committee. All in favor say aye.
Aye. Placing back to independent study. All
in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed say nay. All right. Motion carries. Representative Long for what purpose? Same kind of motion. All
right. All right, let's hear your motion at the well.
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
4:36:30
Colleagues, I'd like to make a motion that we withdraw HB 1687 and send it to interim study. Representative Long has explained the motion. Would anyone
like to speak? No, 1678. I'm sorry. I'm sorry 1678 let's
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
4:36:48
get that put up on the board
Gesundheit. Representative Long has explained the motion to send House Bill 1678, withdraw it, and send it to interim study. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? For the motion? Representative Long, are you closed for your motion? Question before the House is House Bill 1678 to withdraw and send to interim study. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed
Speaker 78
4:37:42
say nay. Motion is carried. Representative Painter, for what purpose?
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
4:37:47
Let's do this number three. I would like to make a motion to withdraw 1897 and send that to interim study.
That's a proper motion. It is debatable. Please come to the well and explain your motion.
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
4:38:04
You are recognized. Sorry, colleagues. I figured since everybody came to the well and I didn't, I would have my turn, too. Just saying HB 1897, the original 2.0 towing bill, since the compromise got passed in the Senate,
I wanted to follow through my commitment and pull this down and put this in interim study, because that way in the next legislative session, this will be part of the comprehensive towing bill
that this state needs. Appreciate a good vote. Representative Painter has explained the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? For the motion, Representative Painter is closed for the motion. The question before the House is to withdraw House Bill 1897 to send to interim study. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. No. The motion carries.
Mr. Parliamentarian, you are recognized to explain the previous activities. For those of you that
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
4:39:01
wonder what we do at 830 every morning, that was it. We just don't have a withdrawal calendar, members' own calendar after today, so those bills that want to go to interim study, we sent. So in the future, if you're around at 8.30, we take care of those matters most mornings under the direction of House management. All right, we
will go back to our red calendar, page 2, concurring in Senate Amendments.
Representative Vaught recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1865. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to
Chair
Unverified
4:39:37
House Bill 1865. Representative Vaught, you
are recognized to explain Amendment No. 1. Thank you, Mr.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
4:39:43
Speaker. It's just adding some co-sponsors. Representative Vaught has
explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? Representative Vaught is closed for the amendment. The question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1865.
Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. has everyone voted has everyone voted cast up the ballot madam clerk with 90 a zero nay and zero present the you have concurred in Senate amendment number one to house bill 1865 representative Vought recommends that we concur in Senate amendment number two to house bill 1865 madam clerk please read Senate
Chair
Unverified
4:40:28
Amendment number two. Senate Amendment number two to House Bill 1685, 16, 1865.
Representative Vaught, you're recognized to explain Amendment number two.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
4:40:37
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had some spots in the bill that actually might have conflicted with the Protect Act, and
we didn't want that to happen. So we made the amendments to make sure that there's no conflict, and with that,
I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Vaught has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? Representative Vaught is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1865. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up
the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 91 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1865. Representative Underwood recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1685. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No.
Chair
Unverified
4:41:33
1 to House Bill 1685. Representative Underwood,
you are recognized to explain Amendment No. 1.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
4:41:39
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment just corrected an engrossing error that we had on amendment we had on
our side. I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Underwood has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment for the amendment? Representative Underwood, you closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1685. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 95 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1685. Representative Underwood recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1685. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 2. Senate Amendment No.
Chair
Unverified
4:42:28
2 to House Bill 1685. Representative Underwood, you
are recognized to explain Amendment No. 2. Thank you,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
4:42:35
Mr. Speaker. Previously, we amended this bill to ensure that local municipalities could still have taxing authority.
On the Senate end, we clarified that the border city tax would be clarified in the bill to ensure that they could still collect that tax as
well. And I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Underwood has explained of Senate Amendment No. 2. Would anyone like to speak against the
amendment? For the amendment, Representative Underwood is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1685. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted?
Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 93 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1685. Representative Brown, for what purpose? I would
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:43:30
like to withdraw House Bill 1664 and send it to interim study. That's a proper motion. That is
debatable. Please come down to the well and explain your motion.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
4:43:47
you are recognized thank you mr. chair I believe this bill needs some work and I would like to work with the people involved and see if we can't make
it a better bill thank you representative Brown has explained the motion would anyone like to
speak against the motion for the motion representative Brown is closed for the motion. The question before the House is the motion to withdraw House Bill 1664
and put it into interim study. All in favor say aye. Aye.
Any opposed say nay. No. The ayes have it. The motion has passed. Madam Clerk, let's see. Representative Holcomb recommends
that we concur We're in Senate Amendment Number 1 to House Bill 1845. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment Number 1. Senate Amendment Number 1 to House Bill 1845. Representative
Chair
Unverified
4:44:48
Holcomb, you're recognized to explain the amendment.
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
4:44:53
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this bill, actually,
in the future, when technology is available, allows DF&A to do some electronic signatures. They're not ready yet. They mistakenly put in the bill that it's ready for our constituents to apply for, and so we're amending and taking that out. It's just not ready yet. That's all it does. Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative
Holcomb has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? Representative Holcomb is closed for the amendment.
The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1845. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 91 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 with House Bill 1845. Representative Stimel recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1606.
Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No.
Speaker 332
4:45:57
1. Senate Amendment No. 1, House Bill 1606. Representative
Stimel, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
4:46:04
you, Mr. Speaker. Dear colleagues, this is a simple amendment requested by Senator Desmang to allow the electric UTVs into this bill. So with that, I'll answer any questions, and if I don't see any, I appreciate a good vote. Representative Steimel
has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment, Representative Steimel is closed for the amendment.
The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1, House Bill 1606. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 90 yeas, zero nay, and one present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1606. Representative Lee Johnson recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1841.
Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No.
Chair
Unverified
4:46:58
1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill
1841. Representative Johnson, you are recognized explain amendment number one. Thank
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
4:47:05
you members. This is just changing up to clarify some language around some funding that was in the bill and there's no objection to the Senate.
Appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Johnson has explained the amendment. Would
anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment? Representative Johnson is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate amendment number one to House Bill 1841. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone
voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 81 yeas, 4 nay, and 6 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment Number 1 with House Bill 1841. Representative Vaught recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment Number 1 to House Bill 1186. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1? Senate Amendment No. 1, the House bill 1186. Representative
Chair
Unverified
4:47:56
Vaught, you're recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. DHS had a little change
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
4:48:02
that they wanted us to make, and we went ahead and made it for them to make the bill a little bit better. So with that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Vaught has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? Representative Vaught is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1186. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 90 a, 0 nay, and 2 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 with House Bill 1186.
Representative Moore recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1801. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1
Chair
Unverified
4:48:56
to House Bill 1801. Representative Moore, you
are recognized to explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This just allows the Board of Pharmacy to promulgate some rules on labeling. Appreciate a good vote. Representative Moore has
explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment. Representative Moore is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1801.
Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 91 yeas, 0 nay, and 1 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 with House Bill 1801. representative gonzalez recommends that we concur in senate amendment number one to house bill 1963 madam clerk please read senate amendment number one and
Chair
Unverified
4:49:49
amendment number one to house bill 1963.
representative gonzalez you recognize to explain amendment number one thank you
Speaker 570
4:49:55
mr speaker colleagues this is that amendment that uh i said if representative johnson made me do we would do it and here we are he made me do it so take
any questions all right appreciate it representative gonzalez has explained the amendment would Would anyone like to speak
against the amendment? For the amendment, Representative Gonzales is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment number one to House Bill 1963. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk.
Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 84 yeas, one nay, and four present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment number one with House Bill 1963. Representative Hall recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1762. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate
Chair
Unverified
4:50:49
Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1762. Representative
Hall, you are recognized to explain Amendment No. 1.
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
4:50:57
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're almost there,
folks. All it does is add a definition on what surface application meant. Any questions? Thank you. Representative Hall has explained
the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment, for the amendment? Representative Hall is closed for the amendment. The question before the House is concurrent with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1762. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted?
Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 92 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1762. Representative Pilkington recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1131. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 1. Senate Amendment No. 1 to House
Chair
Unverified
4:51:45
Bill 1131. Representative Pilkington, you are recognized to
explain Amendment No. 1. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This was some
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
4:51:51
language added by the Senate to make them feel better. Appreciate a good vote. It doesn't really do anything to change the bill.
Representative Pilkington has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment, Representative Pilkington, When it's closed for the amendment, the question for the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1131. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 92 yeas, 0 nay, and 0 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 1 to House Bill 1131.
Representative Pilkington recommends that we concur in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1131. Madam Clerk, please read Senate Amendment No. 2. Senate
1131. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to explain
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
4:52:47
the amendment. Thank you. This adds my boy, Clint Penzo, to the bill,
so I appreciate a good vote. Representative Pilkington has explained the amendment. Would anyone like to speak against the amendment? For the amendment. Representative Pilkington is closed for the amendment.
The question before the House is concurrence with Senate Amendment number one, the House Bill 1131. Prepare the
machine, Madam Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has
everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With 86 yeas, 4 nay, and 1 present, you have concurred in Senate Amendment No. 2 to House Bill 1131.
Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go into recess for about
10 minutes. Representative Vaught will recognize you for some announcements. Do you
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
4:54:02
want me to go down there, or do
you want me to do it from here? If your mic's on right now, go ahead. It's finally on, sorry. So in your mailboxes, you have these cards for Serving Up Solutions.
Please make sure that you get them filled out and give to either Representative Hudson or myself, so we can get them turned in. And Serving Up Solutions is on June the 12th. the other thing there's a couple of more and they're kind of important so everybody just listen to me for just a second just one second so please clean out your mailboxes because you won't be here all the time there'll be stuff being put in those mailboxes so we need you to clean those out today on this
floor we have girls state and boys state so make sure that you take anything off your desk that you don't want to be messed with anything out of your drawers that you don't want to leave here just in case and then I want to thank everybody who did the donations to do past denim we raised $1,430 for the Veterans cemetery all right we are in recess thank you
Unknown speaker
4:55:44
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Unknown speaker
5:01:14
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
the House will come to order. Speaker
Speaker 28
5:05:36
Evans, you are recognized. Thank You Mr. Speaker. Members, as we
Chair
Unverified
5:05:40
begin this ceremonial steps of closing out the 95th general assembly on this 94th day of session i reflect back to challenges that i
accepted and challenged myself with and joined together with each of you to spend our time practicing sacrifice over self however regardless of the effort that each of us put into this session we could not have done it with our
Speaker 24
5:06:08
work for the people of arkansas without the incredible first-class performance of our amazing staff.
Chair
Unverified
5:06:40
Oh but wait, oh but wait, you remain standing because there is more. I
would ask at this time that each of our staff members please join us in the house
Speaker 397
5:07:19
chamber. they come. Come on, come on, come on, Jackie,
Speaker 361
5:07:31
Amber, EG, our fabulous red coats. Here they
Speaker 586
5:07:34
come. Members, please join me in thanking them for the service that they have provided.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:08:04
Now, while you're standing, I want to recognize a couple of particular staff
Speaker 586
5:08:17
members. First, I believe I saw him slip in. Lennon, where
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:08:34
are you? Members, for over 35 years Lennon has served with the highest level of service, integrity,
and endurance. I believe all of you would say he is the definition of a true
Chair
Unverified
5:08:48
gentleman, he is a statesman and a true servant of the people of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, please have the clerk read
the citation in its entirety. Madam Clerk, please
read the citation in its entirety. Whereas Arkansas
Chair
Unverified
5:09:01
is blessed with an abundance of citizens whose life experiences provide a wealth of wisdom that serves to guide and influence our state on the road of continual progress, and whereas Mr. Lennon Jones started his career with the Arkansas House of Representatives
in 1989, he has held the position of Properties and Facilities Manager, and whereas Lennon has been an invaluable asset to this institution after 36 years of unwavering service and dedication to the House of Representatives. He deserves to be celebrated. He has been an outstanding state employee who has consistently demonstrated commitment that is truly inspiring. His absence will certainly be felt throughout these marble Capitol walls by members, staff, and many friends. As he embarks on a well-deserved retirement, new adventures await as well as savoring special
moments with his wife, Catherine, and daughter, Rita. And whereas the House of Representatives of the 95th General Assembly of the state of Arkansas take great pride in recognizing Mr. Lennon-Jones on the occasion of his upcoming retirement and wishes him the very best in all his future endeavors now therefore pursuant the motion of Speaker Brian Evans the Arkansas House of Representatives directs this citation be presented on this 16th day of April 2025. Members Lennon-Jones.
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:10:48
Since 1998, Amber has been a tremendous staff member of this institution. She has worn
Chair
Unverified
5:11:04
many hats during that time and provided the house exemplary service. She is a professional and a true example of selfless service. Mr. Speaker, please have the clerk read the citation in its
entirety. Madam Clerk, please read the citation in its entirety.
Whereas Arkansas is blessed with an abundance of citizens whose life experiences provide a wealth of wisdom that serves to guide and influence our state on the road of continual progress, and whereas Ms. Amber Prather started her career in state government with a disability determination for Social Security Administration in 1997, in 1998 the Arkansas House of Representatives hired her where she held many positions within the legislative branch such as working in member services, bill books clerk, calendar clerk, and travel coordinator. And whereas Amber has been an outstanding state employee who has consistently demonstrated her commitment to serving the people of Arkansas,
she deserves to be commended for many years of selfless service and dedication to the House of Representatives. The members and staff will miss her and hope that she enjoys the freedom that retirement brings, especially being able to spend more time with her husband, Lou, and furry friends. And whereas the House of Representatives of the 95th General Assembly of the State of Arkansas take great pride in recognizing Ms. Amber Prather on the occasion of 28 years of service in her upcoming retirement and wishes her well now they're pursuant to the motion of speaker brian evans the arkansas house of representatives directs the citation be presented on the 16th day of april 2025.
Speaker 286
5:12:28
members 30 years and 35 years please give it up for these two incredible servants members
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:12:52
I believe that I can say without a doubt that each of you also during this session have
Chair
Unverified
5:12:57
rose to the challenge I've asked staff where they are I've asked a couple of staff members if they
would to pass out to each of you a special ordered challenge coin just as my gift to you it is engraved with your district number because I believe you've exceeded the expectations in rising above the challenges placed this session before you as you were sent here by the people of your district to serve them and I believe that each of you have done that admirably so thank you very much for your service staff if you'll pass those out please
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:13:42
members again I applaud each of you
Chair
Unverified
5:13:57
for your work very well done for your districts your district should be proud of you for your service in this 95th General Assembly as you depart the chamber today I ask that you please pick up around your desk. We have groups that use this chamber in the interim and we want to make sure
that we protect your business and personal belongings. Please continue to monitor your emails and text messages. There will be announcements coming soon about ALC subcommittees as well as Boys and Girls State Service and about Sine Dye. These should be coming out to you prior to May 5. And for the last time of
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:14:36
the 95th General Assembly, Representative Meeks, you
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
5:14:42
are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that in accordance with House Concurrent
Resolution 1006 that the House stand in recess at the close of business today and remain in recess until we are called to reconvene for certain purposes or to adjourn, signing die on or before noon, May 5th, 2025. That's a proper motion. It
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
5:15:03
is non-debatable. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed nay. No. Representative Bennett,
Speaker 28
5:15:12
I believe the ayes have it. We are in recess.
Agenda
Call to Order
Prayer
Pledge
Roll Call
Morning Hour
RESOLUTIONS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SCR5 Irvin Barker TO CONTINUE TO ENCOURAGE THE PURSUIT OF NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE DESIGNATION BY THE WINTHROP P. ROCKEFELLER CANCER INSTITUTE AT THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES.
HR1115 Wooldridge TO RECOGNIZE THE IMPACT OF COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES IN THIS STATE AND TO COMMEND THEIR DEDICATION TO IMPROVING THE LIVES OF ARKANSANS.
SCR7 J. Scott Ennett TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES HIGH SCHOOL COMETS BOYS' BASKETBALL TEAM AS THE CLASS 4A STATE CHAMPIONS.
SCR8 J. Scott Ennett TO RECOGNIZE THE MILLS UNIVERSITY STUDIES HIGH SCHOOL LADY COMETS BASKETBALL TEAM AS THE CLASS 4A CONFERENCE CHAMPIONS AND TO REMEMBER HEAD COACH JOE GREGORY'S WIFE, CYNTHIA GREGORY.
SJR15 J. Dismang Beaty, Jr. A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT CONCERNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE STATE OF ARKANSAS; AND AUTHORIZING THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO PROVIDE FOR THE CREATION OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
End of Morning Hour
CONCUR IN SENATE AMENDMENT
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1877 #1 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD.
HB1865 #1,2 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
HB1685 #1,2 Underwood TO CREATE THE GROCERY TAX RELIEF ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SALES AND USE TAXES LEVIED ON FOOD AND FOOD INGREDIENTS, AS AFFIRMED BY REFERRED ACT 19 OF 1958; AND TO EXEMPT GROCERIES FROM STATE SALES AND USE TAXES.
HB1845 #1 Holcomb TO ALLOW THE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE OWNERSHIP OF MOTOR VEHICLES; TO AUTHORIZE ELECTRONIC LIEN, TITLING, AND REGISTRATION SYSTEMS; AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CREATION OF A SECURE DIGITAL TITLE SYSTEM.
HB1606 #1 Steimel TO ALLOW A LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF A UTILITY TASK VEHICLE ON A DESIGNATED PUBLIC STREET OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S JURISDICTION SUBJECT TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS.
HB1841 #1 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS REVENUE INVESTMENT IN VITAL EMS SYSTEMS (ARRIVES) ACT; AND TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS REVENUE INVESTMENT IN VITAL EMS SYSTEMS (ARRIVES) FUND FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AGENCIES.
HB1186 #1 Vaught TO CREATE THE PAIN RELIEF PARITY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE PAIN RELIEF PARITY IN THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM.
HB1801 #1 K. Moore TO AUTHORIZE AN OUTSOURCING FACILITY OF LEGEND DRUGS AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES THAT COMPOUNDS A PRODUCT TO SELL THE COMPOUNDED PRODUCT TO CERTAIN ENTITIES.
HB1963 #1 Gonzales TO CLARIFY THAT AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE WHO PRESCRIBES A STIMULANT MAY SUBSTITUTE A THERAPEUTICALLY EQUIVALENT MEDICATION.
HB1762 #1 Hall TO REQUIRE REVOCATION OF A PERMIT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE IN AN AGRICULTURAL OR PASTORAL APPLICATION FOR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS.
HB1131 #1,2 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE AN ADVANCED PRACTICE REGISTERED NURSE TO DELEGATE CERTAIN TASKS TO MEDICAL ASSISTANTS AND OTHER UNLICENSED STAFF.
REGULAR BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1897 Painter TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS TOWING AND RECOVERY REFORM AND EFFICIENCY ACT OF 2025; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS TOWING AND RECOVERY BOARD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1295 L. Johnson TO CREATE THE HEALTHCARE COST-SHARING COLLECTIONS TRANSPARENCY ACT.
REGULAR SENATE BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB459 G. Leding Hudson TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT.
SB325 A. Clark Brooks TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SB326 A. Clark Brooks TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.
SB149 J. English Brooks TO AMEND PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING AMOUNTS UNDER THE PUBLIC SCHOOL FUNDING ACT OF 2003.
SB638 J. Boyd L. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAX ON THE SALE OF A NEW OR USED MOTORBOAT; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE DIRECT PAYMENT OF SALES AND USE TAX ON A MOTORBOAT SOLD BY A MOTORBOAT DEALER.
SB621 Irvin L. Johnson TO CLARIFY ENFORCEMENT PROVISIONS AGAINST A HEALTHCARE INSURER; TO RETROACTIVELY APPLY TO A HEALTHCARE CONTRACT FOR THE BENEFIT OF A TEMPORARY HOSPITAL FACILITY; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB625 B. Davis Brooks TO AMEND PROVISIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE CONCERNING THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL FREEDOM ACCOUNT PROGRAM; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB437 Hester Hall TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ACT.
SB491 K. Hammer Achor TO REQUIRE A VENDOR THAT CONTRACTS WITH THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS DIVISION TO SUBMIT DATA FOR VERIFICATION BY AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT; TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY ON A VENDOR THAT PROVIDES INACCURATE DATA; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB441 Hester Pilkington TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB355 J. Bryant Underwood TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB444 K. Hammer L. Johnson TO AMEND THE MEDICAL ETHICS AND DIVERSITY ACT.
SB601 Hester L. Johnson TO CREATE A PATHWAY FOR A GRADUATE OF A FOREIGN MEDICAL SCHOOL TO BE LICENSED IN THIS STATE IF HE OR SHE IS OFFERED FULL-TIME EMPLOYMENT AS A PHYSICIAN FROM A HEALTHCARE PROVIDER.
SB554 C. Tucker Wooldridge TO CREATE THE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH LOAN FORGIVENESS PROGRAM.
SB347 C. Penzo Mayberry TO REQUIRE THE ARKANSAS MEDICAID PROGRAM TO INCREASE REIMBURSEMENT RATES FOR CERTAIN DENTAL SERVICES AND TO SET AN ANNUAL REIMBURSEMENT CAP FOR ADULT DENTAL SERVICES.
SB121 C. Penzo Long TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS.
SB122 C. Penzo Long TO AMEND THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT; TO APPLY THE AUTOMATIC OCCUPATIONAL LICENSURE FOR OUT-OF-STATE LICENSURE ACT TO PHYSICIANS.
SB217 C. Penzo Bentley TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO REQUEST A WAIVER TO EXCLUDE CANDY AND SOFT DRINKS FROM ELIGIBLE FOODS UNDER THE SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.
SB262 C. Penzo Pilkington TO AMEND THE CORPORATE PRACTICE OF MEDICINE DOCTRINE; AND TO AUTHORIZE A LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHO OWNS A MEDICAL CORPORATION TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP UPON AN INACTIVE LICENSE OR RETIREMENT.
SB585 G. Leding Gonzales Worthen TO REQUIRE CERTAIN RECORDS BE PROVIDED TO AN EMPLOYEE WHO IS A MINOR.
SB591 C. Penzo K. Brown TO PROHIBIT RACE-SELECTION ABORTION IN THIS STATE; AND TO CREATE THE RACE DISCRIMINATION BY ABORTION PROHIBITION ACT.
SB596 M. McKee McAlindon TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ENERGY; TO ESTABLISH A STATE ENERGY POLICY; TO REGULATE RETIREMENT OF DISPATCHABLE ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB538 Gilmore Wardlaw TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS PROCUREMENT LAW.
SB486 B. Johnson Bentley CONCERNING SAFETY AND PRIVACY IN CERTAIN ENTITIES; AND CONCERNING THE DESIGNATION OF MULTI-OCCUPANCY RESTROOMS, CHANGING ROOMS, AND SLEEPING QUARTERS IN CERTAIN ENTITIES BASED ON AN INDIVIDUAL'S SEX.
SB569 M. Johnson Ray AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION CONCERNING BALLOT TITLES OF PROPOSED MEASURES; AND AMENDING THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 5, SECTION 1.
Budget Calendar
Bills and their Emergency Clauses to be considered which have been introduced by Joint Budget Committee
SB54 AN ACT FOR THE AUDITOR OF STATE - DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025- 2026 FISCAL YEAR.
SB67 AN ACT FOR THE ARKANSAS PUBLIC DEFENDER COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR.
Bills and their Emergency Clauses to be considered which have been introduced by Senators
SB362 AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION - DIVISION OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION YOUTH ORGANIZATION GRANTS APPROPRIATION FOR THE 2025-2026 FISCAL YEAR.
SB636 AN ACT TO TRANSFER FUNDS; DEFINE THE MONIES TO BE AVAILABLE IN THE RESTRICTED RESERVE FUND; AND ALLOW ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR STATE DEPARTMENTS, AGENCIES AND INSTITUTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AND EMERGENCY.
SB637 TO AMEND THE REVENUE STABILIZATION LAW; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Motion to Adjourn
Announcements
Adjourn
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Speaker 2
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 9
Representative Brian S. Evans
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 24
Representative Tracy Steele Chair
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 45
Representative Jeremy Wooldridge
Unverified
Speaker 47
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 71
Representative Marcus E. Richmond
Unverified
Speaker 76
Speaker 77
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 84
Representative Hope Duke
Unverified
Representative Zack Gramlich
Unverified
Representative Johnny Rye
Unverified
Speaker 100
Speaker 101
Speaker 103
Chair (Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.)
Unverified
Speaker 26
Representative Randy Torres
Unverified
Speaker 111
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 119
Representative Wayne Long
Unverified
Speaker 124
Representative Dolly Henley
Unverified
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 95
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Rick McClure
Unverified
Representative David Whitaker
Unverified
Representative Jim Wooten Chair
Unverified
Representative Austin McCollum
Unverified
Representative Rebecca Burkes
Unverified
Representative Keith Brooks
Unverified
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Representative Carlton Wing Chair
Unverified
Speaker 177
Representative Brad Hall
Unverified
Representative David Ray
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore Chair
Unverified
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 19
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Representative Julie Mayberry
Unverified
Speaker 104
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 288
Speaker 80
Representative Mark Perry
Unverified
Speaker 296
Speaker 17
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 315
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 328
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Representative Richard McGrew
Unverified
Speaker 342
Speaker 344
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Representative Mary Bentley Chair
Unverified
Speaker 258
Speaker 340
Speaker 116
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Representative Chad Puryear Chair
Unverified
Representative Lane Jean
Unverified
Speaker 410
Speaker 414
Speaker 415
Representative Ryan A. Rose Chair
Unverified
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Speaker 468
Speaker 466
Representative Denise Jones Ennett
Unverified
Speaker 486
Representative Tippi McCullough
Unverified
Speaker 498
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 503
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 482
Speaker 540
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 78
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Mike Holcomb
Unverified
Speaker 332
Representative Trey Steimel
Unverified
Speaker 570
Speaker 287
Speaker 28
Speaker 397
Speaker 361
Speaker 586
Speaker 581
Speaker 286