Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (56)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB623
· 10 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB623 J. Scott CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DET…”
|
CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DETAINEES IN CORRECTIONAL OR DETENTION FACILITIES; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB612
Act 901
· 9 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL M…”
|
TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; … | Dees | Notification that SB612 is now Act 901 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 6 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…Matt McKee RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB509
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…E TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION. SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 3 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1148
Act 597
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS C…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT … | Vaught | Notification that HB1148 is now Act 597 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1615
Act 677
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DETAINEE WHO IS PREGNANT OR HAS RECENTLY DELIVERED A CHILD. HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. | Lundstrum | Notification that HB1615 is now Act 677 |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TEAMS. Page 3 of 4 DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. HB1777 G…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1752
Act 681
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION O…”
|
TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. | Maddox | Notification that HB1752 is now Act 681 |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT. HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … | Underwood | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682 |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…um TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION. HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING. HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684 |
|
HB1799
Act 685
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE. HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1799 is now Act 685 |
|
HB1815
Act 687
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE. HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS;…”
|
TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY … | Perry | Notification that HB1815 is now Act 687 |
|
HB1824
Act 688
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE. HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.…”
|
TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. | Duffield | Notification that HB1824 is now Act 688 |
|
HB1829
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … | Dalby | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AN…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP. HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1865
Act 976
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW. HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES A…”
|
TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. | Vaught | Notification that HB1865 is now Act 976 |
|
HB1875
Act 841
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841 |
|
HB1887
Act 658
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1887 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTIO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS. | Pearce | Notification that HB1887 is now Act 658 |
|
SB143
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. Page 2 of 4 SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB441
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NG; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING. SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. S…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR. SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB609
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB620
Act 1003
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD. SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINO…”
|
TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO … | Irvin | Notification that SB620 is now Act 1003 |
|
HB1662
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB6623
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…23 as amended. OK, thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 6623, a bill that speaks not only to the letter of the law, but…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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 7, 2026
let's get started. I see Senator Scott here. Senator Scott, you're up.
Speaker 2
0:09
Okay, you have an amendment you need to sign.
while we're waiting on center scott center gilmore you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
0:56
want to do sb 590 yes sir i think i'll be very quick uh actually not really sure why it was referred back to committee i think i must have misspoke on my motion on the floor uh but the motion was to have it engrossed um i i gave a basically an analysis of what that amendment did.
It changed basically two words. So if you're ready, I can present that really quick and move on.
Speaker 15
1:23
Please do. It's already been engrossed. What's the discussion? Okay.
So are you making a motion?
Do pass. MOTION DUE PASS WITH A SECOND. THERE'S NOT ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON SB 590.
OKAY. SP 590, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND DUE PASS.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations. Senator Gilmore, you have passed your bill again. Senator Scott, what bill
number? SB 623 has an amendment.
Senator Scott, would you like to explain
Speaker 27
2:55
your amendment? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
2:57
Colleagues, the amendment you have before you is the language I received from the governor's office last week via the Department of Corrections to
make sure that they were okay with this bill. amendment that I I made for them to be
got a motion to adopt who was a second
senator Tucker second oh any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye senator Scott your bill is amended you you are recognized present I'm sorry identify yourself for the
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:31
record senator Jamie Scott, District 12. Okay,
you are recognized to present Senate Bill
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
3:38
623 as amended. Okay. Thank you for the opportunity to present Senate Bill 623, a bill that speaks not
only to the letter of the law but a shared humanity and includes our values for all Arkansans. Senate Bill 623 addresses the treatment of incarcerated women, particularly those who are pregnant or who have recently given birth while in prison or any of our facilities across the state. This This bill seeks to amend the law to ensure that every woman under the care and custody of our correctional and detention facilities is treated with dignity, compassion, and receives the medical attention her conditions require.
Every year women in Arkansas correctional facilities go through pregnancy, labor, and postpartum recovery, one without adequate and often without adequate prenatal care, without consistent monitoring, and without basic safeguards. So basically, Senate Bill 623 does four critical things. It limits the use of restraints on pregnant women, inmates during labor, delivery, and postpartum recovery, except in an extraordinary circumstance where safety is at risk. It requires access to appropriate prenatal and postpartum care, consistent with medical
standards. It provides trauma-informed training for correctional officers, staff, and those who are in need of pregnant and postpartum, in the presence of the pregnant and postpartum women and it establishes reporting standards to ensure transparency and oversight where restraints are used during pregnancies. Colleagues, how we treat those amongst us, how we treat these women in this process is very important and I think this also plays in fact with us having the highest maternal
mortality rate in the state of Arkansas. So if we can better take care of the women who are in our custody, I think that helps with that rate. Senate bill 623 is not a partisan bill. It is a principal one and is supported by the Department of Corrections in the governor's office and I would be happy to ask answer any questions
that you might have. Questions from committee? Hearing none. No. Senator Ross and Thank you.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
5:52
Senator Scott, can you tell me how many female inmates we currently have or average what we have incarcerated that are pregnant? I do not. Can I ask if
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:04
someone from the Department of Corrections is here and might have that information? Just a minute. If
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:11
you're running a bill for this, but you don't know if this is a widespread problem? Well,
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:17
I've worked on legislation in the past to where we didn't put pregnant and women in solitary confinement.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:23
It has been an issue that I've... How many women do we have in solitary confinement normally from
Speaker 40
6:31
your previous bills? I don't want to misspeak. That's why I wanted
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
6:34
to ask. What I'm trying to get at is what size problem is this? Is it a problem? I'm not trying. I'm just asking... No, no, no. I believe it is... How many does this
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
6:50
affect? I would prefer for Department of Corrections to give us the exact number. I'm sorry that I don't have it.
Is there someone from the Department of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
7:07
answer, Senator Gilmore? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So two years ago when we were running the Protect Act, The PROTECT Act
included some substantial reforms related to pregnant inmates. And at that time, I believe the number was about 26. I know it was just under 30.
So I think that number varies quite a bit. But, again, that
was two years ago. About 26 to 30 pregnant inmates. Was that
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
7:41
your question, Senator Ross? And just for some education, one, we were talking about 26, 30 people.
Is there something in the sentencing, and I'd welcome an agency, the department or judicial come up, is there something,
I mean, we're dealing with a nine-month pregnancy period here,
and I realize there's things after that, but I'm wondering, Do we incarcerate, evidently we do, pregnant females, is there not, do they have any consideration to not have them incarcerated during that time? Something I just, when I saw this bill, I didn't know.
ANYONE HERE FROM AOC OR ANY PLACE THAT CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS? NOBODY'S JUMPING UP TODAY. SENATOR STUBBLEFIELD? NEW SPEAKER: MY QUESTION WAS ALONG THE SAME
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:47
LINES. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY QUESTION WAS ALONG THE SAME LINES. Does anybody, there's no
one from the Department of Corrections here to tell us what their
policy is regarding pregnant females and the DOC system? Can we get someone here? I think we
need someone here to answer these questions. I'm happy to pull it down and
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
9:18
try to get in touch with someone and come back this afternoon if that was the will of the committee to try to get the questions answered. If you can
get them here, you can come back this morning. Okay. And a total amount of female prisoners also.
Okay. Would you like to do that? Yes. Okay. So, Senator Scott is going to pull her bill down and bring somebody back from the Department of Corrections. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any senators here to run Senate bills? Senators here to run Senate bills. Seeing
none. Representative. Okay, you're going to get it out. It's time to get it out.
Senator Dees is
Speaker 70
10:09
considering running a bill. Senator Dees is going to
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
10:44
State Senator Tyler Dees, District
Chair
Unverified
10:47
35. Senator Dees, you are recognized to run SB 612. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
10:53
thank you, members. So Bill 612 is a building a framework, a private right of action related to social media. And it gives a framework for if there is harm being done and provable harm to the users, then this creates a framework where parents can hold accountable the social media and
Speaker 82
11:16
big tech companies. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT'S THE ATTEMPT TODAY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS
FROM COMMITTEE? SAYING NO QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE. SENATOR TUCKER. SO I'M JUST
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
11:34
LOOKING AT THIS ON PAGE 2 LINES 13 AND 14. How are
they going to know that? One, two, three, and four are pretty clear-cut. I mean, excuse me, one, two, and three are pretty clear-cut to me.
Four is a little more vague, so I'm just curious about that. Will you describe that more?
How is who going to know what? Yeah, I mean, one, two, and three social media platforms shall not knowingly, essentially, cause a person to purchase a controlled substance. That's a verifiable thing. develop an eating disorder also verifiable commit or attempt to commit suicide also verifiable develop or sustain an addiction to the social media platform a little tougher a little tougher
to prove uh or know whether that's the case or not without you know getting in inside someone's head so anyway that's just that's the one piece of that that i have a just question about if how you know whose burden is that
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
12:44
to prove and that sort of thing? Well I think my initial response would be that that's this is the framework to have that discussion and so we can have a process
where where a case can be caught can be brought for the courts to help decide you know if there's damaging aspects that
have taken place as a result of an interaction with big tech
this framework helps that and I would also say that this models after other states that have forged ahead. I think in this whole conversation, Arkansas led the way in the Social Media Safety Act
in 2023, and there's things that we have moved and adapt since then. We've learned from other states, states have learned from us, and I think we're moving into a better policy
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:32
direction. Okay. Any other questions from committee?
So all of the damages, sorry, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. You're recognized, Mr. Tucker. So all of the liability
is outlined in the new proposed section. Mr. Tucker, could you speak more into your mind? My apologies,
Mr. Chair. All the damages, all the liability for the social media platform is outlined in the new proposed section 1503, correct?
Yes, sir. So there's civil penalty under subsection A, the civil penalty and the attorney's fees and costs.
Under subsection B, that's only for minors who either commit or attempt to commit suicide? I believe that's correct. Okay. Okay. So other than the attempt to commit or actually committing suicide, the only liability
for the social media company is for the other three harms, purchasing a controlled substance, developing an eating disorder, or developing or sustaining an addiction to the social media platform, the only liability for those for the social media platform is the $10,000 civil penalty. THERE'S NO HARM, THERE'S NO DAMAGE THAT THE PLANTIFF CAN PROVE AND RECOVER FOR. I BELIEVE THAT'S HOW I READ THAT AS WELL.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
15:08
OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I THINK
BEFORE -- EVEN BEFORE CLOSING, JUST KNOW WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME REQUESTS FOR AMENDMENTS FROM DIFFERENT COMPANIES. WE ARE REVIEWING THOSE. I wanted to make sure we had a chance for this to be heard. I have full intention to continue those conversations. I'm not sure if we will amend those or not, but those conversations are ongoing. This is with companies that want to be excluded or definitions changed from the tech companies.
And so those conversations will continue to be had, but I can tell you this framework is the
direction that we're pursuing. - Other questions from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
15:54
committee? Senator Stouffel. Senator D, don't misunderstand me. I certainly agree with the intent of the bill. It's just that
along the lines that Senator Clark, Senator Tucker, asked, how do we know and how do you, I mean, do you do an investigation of the algorithm? Or how do you know that a company causes someone to commit suicide?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
16:17
Sure. And I think this, I believe this framework helps us know that. You know, if a parent, as an example, has a case where a child was actively engaged and being arguably preyed upon from a big tech company, I believe that there would be ample proof that the courts could be able to review. And this framework creates that private right of action for a parent to be able to bring that case against these companies.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
16:48
Do you believe these companies at the present time are gathering
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
16:56
data on each one of these individuals? Absolutely. The data is actually the currency. And being used for this purpose? I believe it's an argument can be made that it's there's negligence in that the pursuit of more users and more time on their platforms and devices outweighs their concerns for the safety and well-being, especially of our minors.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
17:22
Okay. All right. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Other questions
from committee? There's no one to testify for or against. Senator
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
17:33
Dees, would you like to close for your bill? Members, thank you for the chance to bring these to. We have a Social Media Safety Act, kind of a revamp from last session that has already passed through Insurance and Commerce last week. This is the private right of action framework with, I would say, similar intent that we just want to make sure that especially kids are protected online. The statistics that we have
continue to see are very damning and I don't want as a father of young three young kids I don't want to our to allow our kids to continue to be the guinea pigs of social media without us at least creating framework for protection so that's why this bill is being presented today with that I would be closed and would make a motion of do pass
motion do pass from Senator Dee second from Senator Gilmore any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Dees, you have passed SB 612.
Thank you, members. Any other senators
Speaker 6
19:04
bills? Yes. Senator Stubblefield? No, I do that. Okay. Are there any other senators here
for Senate bills at the moment, including the committee?
Unless someone walks in after Senator
Speaker 127
19:37
Stubblefield, we'll be going to House bills. Senator Stubblefield, what bill are you
running? This is
Senate Bill 509.
Senate Bill 509. Senator, would you and your guests identify yourselves for the record?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:06
Yes, I'm Senator Gary Stubblefield, Senate District
Speaker 131
20:09
26. I'm Andrew Anzalone. All right. So I'm
still fulfilled you are recognized to present SB 509. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman. If the
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:24
committee will remember, we presented this bill a couple of weeks ago
and Mr. Anzalone was not here and he knows more about the specifics of this issue than I did. So I asked him to come down this morning, hoping that he would get to testify and tell you exactly what's going on with these rental services and the other things
that deal with this bill. So I'll let him answer any questions. You're recognized.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
21:00
Tell him what's going on. So right now, if somebody rents a piece of equipment from me, I own an equipment rental place in Greenwood, Arkansas, and they don't pay their bill it's a civil offense and i consume civilly and i've done this several times and nobody ever makes them pay me and you have to file liens on their properties and such i would like to make it where it's a where it's a criminal offense where i could
get help from the courts to help me recoup my money and my damages to the to the equipment i I have a guy right now who I've just sued for $30,000 for damages that he's done to the equipment and money that he's owed me. I've got a lawyer. He lives in northwest Arkansas. They finally got him served. He never got a lawyer and never even challenged it.
The people that are doing this know the law and they know it's going to be a criminal offense or a civil offense and that there's no way you're going to get your money. And it happens quite regular. And I've tried using credit card authorization forms to get a card on file so they, you know, that I could charge their card. But they dispute it, and most of the time the credit card company rules in their favor so that they get their money back.
It's just, it seems like rental companies, people steal from them, and there's nothing we can do about
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
22:53
it. Questions from committee? Senator Ross? Thank you for being here
today. I don't know anything about the rental business. I sympathize with you from being a retailer. Thank you. Things that
people don't see or have any clue that we put up with.
But when this was presented the other day, one of the questions I had, how do you know, I'm sorry, guys,
I can't. Senator Tucker, Senator Gilmore. I can't. My hearing aids pick up everything. I'm sorry. It causes problems. What I want to
know is if I come in and rent a piece of equipment, let's say a backhoe, and the last guy is the one that actually abused it,
I come in and it looks fine, but it breaks with me. Do you follow me where I'm going? Yes, sir. How do you determine that the last user is the one that needs to step up and pay
Speaker 147
23:51
$10,000 or whatever? So most of the damage is cosmetic, and the machine is,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
23:57
I have a mechanic, so the machine, it gets washed when it gets to the yard. My mechanic inspects it, and then he puts a ready tag on it where it's ready to rent,
and he goes through everything and checks everything on it. Then before it leaves the yard, we take pictures of the whole machine just to make sure that there's no damage cosmetically or any damage to the machine. And mostly that's the damage that we're trying to get back is cosmetic because they run it into stuff, run it into a tree or anything or such as that. But as far as the motor and the hydraulics and hoses, I mean, all of that is checked.
Speaker 147
24:41
And so it's the equipment's in good condition
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:45
when it leaves. Right. Well, again, but the engine, there's things, all I know,
small equipment, and we don't do that anymore, but I know small equipment is finally going to wear, and something will eventually break. So what I'm needing to hear is there's a fair process to start with. I understand you've got a problem of collecting for damage, but I want to know it's a fair process.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:14
It's fair because, I mean, like all my equipment's new for one thing. So, I mean, it's the motors are not. But, I mean, the motors are maintained. All the equipment's maintained. I've never went after anybody for, you know, if they did
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:32
any, if the motor went out because we never had that issue. But probably, thinking about this, if you can get a civil judgment, evidently the judge didn't expect it was abuse or did expect it was abuse
and didn't expect it was something that
just happened or you couldn't get civil judgment. Would that be a fair assumption?
Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. Other questions
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:05
from committee? Senator Tucker? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So when you ran this before, Senator Sebelfield, we talked about how this was already covered by another crime in the code now. And Mr. Rosenzweig was here and he cited me the statute. I don't see Mr. Rosenzweig here now, so I don't think we have
that code section to cite. But how this, and maybe it was theft of services, I don't remember which code section it was, but
how this was already covered by another crime, the situation that you're describing. Have you all been able
Speaker 157
26:37
to clarify that? I've talked with, the only people that I know that I talk to is the prosecuting
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:43
attorneys in Fort Smith, Arkansas. And every time I go to them with anything, they say it's a civil offense and not a criminal offense and therefore I have to sue them civilly. They never told me that it was a
Speaker 123
26:55
criminal offense. Are we have any prosecutors available? We're at
the end of the session. No one, there we go. There
you go. If you will identify yourself for the record, please. Yes, Chairman, Tom Tatum, Prosecuting Attorney, 15th Judicial District.
Ms. Taylor, do you answer the question? You want Senator Tucker to repeat it? No, I think I can respond. I do believe this is
Speaker 168
27:40
covered by theft of services. The issue, kind of the broader issue is a lot of times for something to be a crime, you know, the person needs to have criminal intent. You know, all our crimes are set up that way where you've got to have criminal intent and a criminal act.
And I just glanced over this act, and I think what's happening to our merchant here is his property's being damaged, but maybe not with criminal intent to damage it or deprive him of a monetary interest, but it's still a civil liability or a civil obligation. And so those are two different things. So, the prosecutor, and I'm just guessing, I haven't seen the files or anything, the prosecutor's telling him, hey, this is more civil, not a criminal issue, and you should pursue your civil remedy, whatever that is.
Now, if he gets a judgment and can't collect the money, that doesn't, just because he can't do that, doesn't make it criminal. I don't know if that helps at all. Yes, sir, that answers my question. I appreciate you. Can I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
29:08
say something? Senator McKee, you're recognized? Would it not be criminal if they don't pay you? I mean, if they take your equipment, rent it, and then they won't pay you? I mean, is that not criminal?
Speaker 173
29:23
I would think that would be criminal. Because that
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
29:25
happens all the time. They'll rent your equipment. and in the rental world or like with me with a small rental company I have I just if you come in to rent something and you're going to rent it on a long-term rental say you're going to rent it for three or four months we charge you for a month at a time and then you use the equipment for a whole month and then we send you a bill and then you use equipment for another month and then we send you a bill so you're always a month behind so a lot of times you that you will be behind
and they'll owe you several thousand dollars and then when they bring the equipment back they just don't pay you and even though you have a credit card on file that you can charge they they dispute it and nine times out of ten the credit card company is going to rule in their favor because it's their
credit card senator mckee thank you mr chair senator sofield i i apologize for not being in the
when you presented but I remember having some conversations about this bill I think last time
you presented and my concerns basically just follow around what I perceive is a little bit of vagueness with respect to why you're immediately guilty of a felony if you don't return the equipment or fail to pay for it. It just seems like there should be some times for you to be be able to cure or resolve some of these issues before you're charged with a felony. Can you address that for me, please?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
30:59
Well, I'm not in the rental business, Senator McGee, but Andy is. Maybe he can address it for us. I think
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
31:05
I understand what you're trying to do, and I sympathize with you. I just want to make sure we do the right thing,
right? Yeah, and we give, I mean, I give people a lot of time. I mean, there's 30, 90 days out before they pay me before I even try to do anything. And they have more than enough time to come pay us, but they know the laws are everything is civil.
And I don't know if anybody in here has ever sued anybody civilly and then tried to get your money. It's next to impossible. Follow-up.
Yes, Senator McKee. So, like I said, I sympathize with your situation and I want to find a
way to fix it, but this doesn't have any time frames, this doesn't have any cure period, this doesn't have any of that language in it. Is that already existing in statute? And maybe the prosecutors can answer that question, or is that something that should be in here just to make sure that folks are trying to, you know, whether it's arbitration or whatever, trying to figure out their situation to get them worked out before we're charging people?
Speaker 174
32:15
That structure is not currently in the statute. Okay. I know civilly it is. Sorry? Civilly
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:23
it is, but we're talking about criminal, right? Yeah. So, Senator Subblefield, do you see my
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:30
concerns? Yeah. Yeah, I see your concerns. Let
me give a little example that's a little off topic here. We're not talking about rental equipment, and Mr. Tatum is well aware of this. a year ago, I had a man that stole nine horses within a mile and a half of my house. He took
those horses. He has paid how much restitution, Tom? Very little. Very little. He took approximately $9,000 worth of horses. And it's not a bulldozer or any kind of machine, but it still has value. it, but it's the same thing he's doing as they are doing with these rental products. Disappointment. They're just not paying. And this man's been trying to get his money for
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
33:26
well over a year. I have several people that I've just written off, I mean, because I know I'm never going to get paid from
them, and it's just... And I don't want you to have to do that, right? I mean, nobody
wants to put you in that situation. I guess my concerns are around, basically, it's line 26 on page 1, after the expiration of a lease or rental period. So that's any time. And while you may be a good actor, there's others out there who might take advantage of that.
So I don't know how that works with respect to the prosecutors, but, Ms. Prosecutor, would they come to you and say, this person has violated the terms of this rental agreement, and you
Speaker 168
34:15
would investigate and decide whether or not to charge? Or how does that work? Yeah, close. Law enforcement would have to, they'd go to law enforcement, file a complaint, it would be investigated, and then brought to us. But, you know, I think that the danger here you're looking at is, you know,
if someone misses, you know, there's all types of reasons why people miss payments. And normally we're not involved in the back and forth of whether the equipment was working properly, just like he's talking about the debtors challenging, you know, maybe things in the contract. And, you know, those normally, normally a disagreement about the contract or the condition of the equipment doesn't result in a criminal penalty.
You know, it's more of a, you're looking for a scheme where someone is going around trying, has the intent when he rents the equipment to do a crime. And that's really, that's really not what's going on here. It sounds like there's some other dispute happening after the property was rented and initial payment made, which makes me, you know, think that it's quite possibly a civil matter, which is just a disagreement amongst a buyer and a seller or a renter or a leaser and a lessor, that type of thing.
Speaker 147
35:42
It's not a disagreement. It's the fact that they won't pay you. I mean, it's real
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
35:48
simple. And I understand, but with all the issues that we deal with, and Senator Stouffield
can speak to this, there's two sides to every story. And while we trust you as a witness in our committee, there's always two sides to every story. And so, Senator Sobelfield, like I said, I agree with what you're trying to do, but I can't vote for this one because of the vagueness. Is this something you'd be willing to work with me on
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
36:13
so that we can get it right? If it's something that we can get out before this session adjourns, and if you've got an amendment
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
36:26
you would like to i don't but we had this conversation
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
36:34
last time you presented the right right senator tucker you recognize thank you mr chair the prosecutor
for fort smith mr dan shu is is watching online hello mr shu hope you're doing well he he texted in the statute that i that i think he's saying
does cover this. It's 5-36-115, which is the theft of leased or rented property. And so that's a criminal statute that is on the books that I believe covers the situation. So just adding that for the discussion. All he sent was the statute. So I don't have him saying this covers what you're describing. So I don't want to speak for him. But using my deductive reasoning, I think he sent that because he believes this statute covers your situation. That's what I. That would be great if
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:22
it did, but I've never, I mean, it's everyone that I've ever brought to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:30
him, they say it's civil. Okay. I'm just, I'm just adding that because I, based on what you described in my reading of this code section on the books, I think it would be covered. So just my
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
37:48
opinion. Thank you. Senator Johnson. Senator, thanks for bringing this. This is similar, real similar, probably.
It's not as detailed as what we've handled in the criminal eviction. And there is, you know, there's been a hang-up with that. They want the eviction process to be handled civilly. And the judicial system will not handle that prosecutorily for criminal eviction. And with these dollar amounts, it's criminal whenever you're talking about the dollar amounts that this man is in this bill.
And I understand the situation with contracts and wanting it to be civil. but at some point in the dollar amount, whether we've got it right in this bill or not, this action is criminal, and there's intent whenever you don't want to pay dollar amounts. I don't know if it's right in this bill, but I get where both of y'all are coming from. Was it Mr. Angelo?
Yes. Mr. Angelo? You know, as I sum up this bill, and I like the
fact that it's short, on page 1, line 24, we have the offense of theft of equipment rental services. And it says after the expiration of a lease, we have a time period, and then it's basically in 26, 27, 8, 1, if they don't return it,
Lines 29 through 31, if they cause damage, and then lines 32 through 34, if they fail to pay. Now, it's a defense on line 35 to prosecution under this section that the person compensated the lesser. I see a number of problems, and I'm very sympathetic, empathetic. I have been to court many times, and like you say, once you get a court, once you get a judgment, then you have to make good on that judgment, which is often almost impossible.
That being said, assuming you're an honest man, and I think we can safely assume that, Senator Rice brought up the damages, and you said cosmetic, not mechanical. But that's not in Lines 26, 27, 8. It doesn't say that it's only cosmetic, not mechanical, although I'm not sure that that matters. You've brought out that people dispute, and what you're saying is they're not legitimate disputes,
that somebody has criminal intent, and that may be the
case, but there are legitimate disputes with rental companies. Every rental company is not you. There's people who renting certain items that make their living more on the damages that they, the little dent in the C-DU that they never fix than they do on the actual rental of the C-DU. And this makes the person renting automatically a criminal uh
if they don't pay even though they may be being ripped off
uh the uh we can't make law for just one case for one business that's doing a good job you can uh and i'm not saying you can i'm a businessman i'm not saying that you really can i'm saying you technically can do credit checks even though it's my credit card because people written equipment normally are have credit accounts at companies like mine
that sell building materials etc so you can check those people out to see if they pay it appears to me that you can make your contract stricter about what happens and even that it's that it is theft that they don't return it after so many days after So I would think that you could put that in the contract prosecutors would Have to tell me whether that held water or not the
And you could require payment instead of at the end of every month you could require payment up front I'm not saying you really can I'm just saying as I look at my credit policies and these things are happening to me I have to make a decision Because, especially on the payment part, it's hard to make it criminal. There are those people who go around doing this to business after business, but it's partly our job to check them out and make sure that's not the type of person we're doing business with.
Because there's other people who just stump their toe and can't pay. Job went bad, and we've made them criminals if we pass this bill. So while I'm extremely sympathetic in what you want to do and wish things favored me more as an honest man, you also have to protect the innocent customer. Does that make sense? - Yes, sir. - Yes, sir. - And for those reasons, while I'm extremely sympathetic,
I don't know how we could implement any of this. So any other questions from committee? HEARING NONE, THERE'S NO ONE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST, SENATOR STUBBLEFIELD, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED AND CLOSE FOR YOUR BILL. I'M CLOSE. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION?
I'VE GOT A MOTION FROM SENATOR RICE, DO PASS. We have a motion to pass. From Senator Rice, yes. I'll second it. Senator Stubblefield seconds it. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. I'm sorry, Senator Stubblefield, your SB 509 did not pass. Have any other senators come into the room to run a Senate bill?
Seeing none, Representative Dalby, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:39
Chair. With the chair's permission, may I have Judge Hertzfield at the table with me? Okay.
Please have a seat. At what bill are we running, Representative Dalvin? House
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
44:50
Bill 1835. I believe that's the first one on the list. House Bill 1835.
If you and your guests will identify yourselves for the record Yes,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:02
Representative Carol Dalby, District 100 Judge Robert
Chair
Unverified
45:07
Hurstville, Selene County Judge, good to have you here Thank you, good to be here
Representative Dalby, you are recognized to present House Bill 1835 Thank you, Mr.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
45:20
Chair, members of the committee This is the specialty court legislation comes from the Specialty Court Advisory Board.
This has several sections in it, but most of it's technical. Just to point out the highlights to you, Section 1 is repealing the statute that's in there and placing the standalone statute for record sealing for all specialty courts over into Section 7. So there's still the sealing part of it. It's just moving to Section 7. Section 2 is allowing the addition of three district judges to the specialty court program advisory committee then the rest of it is technical corrections it's
clarifying some things in regard that attorneys serving on part-time bases that are on behalf can still enter it into contracts to be defense counsel in specialty court programs I think that that is it, because everything else is going to be technical corrections. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions from committee? Senator Ross.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
46:31
Representative Daube, for whatever changes there are, they have funding to do any changes. Yes. Yes.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
46:37
None of these changes require any funding. Thank you. Other questions from
committee? Hearing none, there is no one to testify for or against. Representative Dalby, you are recognized and closed for
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
46:54
your bill. Members, I'm closed for House Bill 1835, and we would request a motion to
do pass. Motion from Senator Rice, second from Senator Deese.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all for
the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Congratulations, Representative Dalby, you have passed House
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:13
Bill 1835. What's next? House
Bill 1838. House Bill 1838. For the
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:25
record, I'm Carol Dalby, State Representative, District 100. I
Speaker 227
47:30
am Secretary Judge Robert Hurstfeld from Saline County.
Okay. Representative Dalby, you are recognized to present House Bill 1838. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
47:42
you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1838 is a cleanup of our probate and guardianship law doing things like instead of using the word institution for treatment of mental or nervous diseases changing that to what we commonly refer to a mental health facility. Also it's doing things in certain in a section of it where there's references to incompetent individuals then those are being changed to proposed
ward. This is actually bringing the code up into current practice. It's also making the code a little more easier to follow for those who practice in in that area and also for the judges such as Judge Hertzfield who has a heavy probate docket. This is giving those courts guidance as to as to how this should work in all those areas and Judge Hurstville can opine as to anything
Speaker 229
48:42
additional. It is just as Representative Dalby said it's making the it's an attempt and I think to make the code in probate which is generally complicated anyway to make it simpler more modern and consistent internally and I could I could talk about it for four or five hours you don't probably want to hear me more than a few minutes but I'm happy we would answer any questions we would not pass it I'd be happy to answer any questions questions from the committee hearing none
no one here to no one here to
testify for or against representative Dalby you are recognized to close for house bill 1838 thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
49:30
you mr. chair I'm closed and we request a motion to do
pass A motion do pass from Senator Johnson. Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion
signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Representative Dalby. You have passed House Bill 1838. Thank
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
49:48
you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the last bill I'll be presenting today is House Bill 1839. Once again, Carol Dalby, State Representative,
Speaker 227
49:57
District 100. And Circuit Judge Robert Hurstville from
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
50:02
Saline County. Members, this one's actually maybe a little more interesting than the last two because this is amending the procedures for the declaration of a death of a person who's missing. So this is taking out, we don't have a really great procedure, quite frankly, and this is going to take out the requirement that we send a certified letter to somebody who's dead to find out whether or not they're dead. So we're streamlining old probate law.
Speaker 231
50:29
That's what it does. be happy to answer
Speaker 233
50:38
any questions questions from committee not a serious question I understand
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
50:43
it does always people find this one interesting no one here to testify
for against represent Dalby you are recognized to close for House Bill 1839 thank you mr. chair members I am closed
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
50:56
and would request a motion do pass. Motion do pass from Senator
Johnson. Second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signify by saying aye. Motion. Those against by the same sign. Motion carried. Congratulations. Representative Dalby,
you have passed House Bill 1839. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
51:20
Mr. Chair, with that, I am, if I may be excused, that's all I have before this committee today.
Yes, ma'am. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. I see Senator Scott is back. Are you ready? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can I call up
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
51:47
the chief of staff and chief legal counsel for the Department of Corrections? They're here to help me answer some of the questions. Yes, ma'am. If you all come to the table.
We are hearing SB623. If you would both identify yourselves for the record. Senator Scott, District 12. Tawny Rowell, Chief Legal
Speaker 27
52:12
Counsel for the Department of Corrections. Thank you. Senator Scott, you are
recognized to present SB623. Mr. Chair would you like for me
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
52:27
to represent or would you like for me to just address the questions to answer the questions?
Let's just unless you have something you want to add. Let's just
Speaker 239
52:41
go straight to the question. Okay. Thank you Senator
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
52:46
Ross Thank you previously was asking one how many Females That this bill deals with are incarcerated I asked about the the pregnancy time line do
we not have in the judicial process where they can allow
for birth outside of prison deal and as we all know there are pregnancies happen within the prison deal I want to know how many of those there are and I want to know there's ways to find out whose child that is I don't know if that's being
Speaker 240
53:24
done all of that's got costs and can you give me some background on
Speaker 238
53:31
this absolutely so procedurally and every female who comes into one of our units
is given a pregnancy test I'm going to defer on the extent to which we determine paternity a lot of times that is done judicially as you know if the pregnancy were to occur inside of the prison that would be a criminal offense and we would address that. It'd be sexual assault at the very least. So we have six inmates between both divisions right now who are pregnant. I think the number seven was floating, but we had one deliver last Thursday, and we got that up-to-date number while we were on the way over here.
So we do perform the pregnancy test, and there is certainly the option for the courts, if they're aware that the inmate is pregnant to provide some sort of diversion but you know we are tasked with the responsibility of housing them whether they're pregnant or not um and i think that addressed all your questions but if you have follow-ups i can do my best and i understand
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:30
that you you don't want that to to be something that will keep somebody from being
incarcerated we'd have additional pregnancies maybe to put off incarceration but you've answered six six people currently yes sir
Okay. So you don't have statistics you just said on the screening coming in. They know if somebody's pregnant or not within a pretty sure deal. Can you tell me how many in recent history that we've had that have been impregnated after incarceration? I don't have any information. Do you
Speaker 238
55:11
have somebody here that can answer that for me?
Let me look and peek around. I don't know of any. I can tell you that we've not had any become pregnant since I became chief legal last year because I would have personally seen that termination. But I don't know historically. I can send a text and get that information. I'm sorry, that was not a question I was prepared
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
55:37
to answer. Again, I'm just trying to get some factual information on, one, how much is this going to cost?
and you know how badly needed is it so I don't think you've got all that information
thank you okay other questions from committee hearing none we have no one to testify for against Senator Scott you are recognized to
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
56:14
close for your bill thank you colleagues this bill does not compromise safety I think
it just allows us to one of one of the issues that I talked through earlier to use restraints only when there is an immediate and serious threat to these women who are incarcerated but it ensures that the correctional policies reflect medical practices and a respect for life and I would ask for a do pass I have
a motion do pass from Senator Gilmore, a second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Senator Gilmore? Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
56:48
And so just to expound on this, Senator Scott, I think, again, your bill is a good bill. I think there's always concerns, as Senator Rice brought up, things that we need to be aware of that happen in incarceration that are unfortunate circumstances and should be addressed. With that, I think this is great work that builds on what we've previously passed in previous sessions with PROTECT Act in particular and some of the work that we did with pregnant inmates in that. This is further increasing that work and doing a great job of accounting for the humanity
and dignity of these women, and I
appreciate it. Thank you. DISCUSSION HEARING NONE ALL FOR THE MOTION TO PASS AS AMENDED SIGNIFIED BY SAYING AYE ALL AGAINST BY THE SAME SIGN NO MOTION CARRIED CONGRATULATIONS SENATOR SCOTT YOU HAVE PASSED SB 623. Okay, seeing no other senators here to present bills,
Senate bills, Senator Boyd has been waiting since Wednesday to present a House bill. If you'll take a seat and identify yourself and
tell us what bill it is. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
58:13
opportunity to be here. Justin Boyd, State Senator, Fort Smith. I'm here to present House Bill 1624, and I'll begin when you're okay with that. Okay, hold on just a moment.
I'm sorry, and that number was again? 1624, House Bill 1624. whoever might want to should get the word out to house members or senators who are going to be presenting house bills. I don't see a bunch of people lined up right now. Okay. All right. So we've got some here at the table because I know many people have contacted me and they're assuming we're going to meet this afternoon and if we the condition on that would be that we ran out of time
this morning. If we run out of time if we don't run out of time there's nobody here then we most likely will not meet this afternoon so if you know somebody's wanting to run a bill uh
Speaker 256
59:13
need to let them know and and i do have another one if
you choose to let me present it as well okay uh you're at the end of the table so we probably are going to uh senator boyd you're
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
59:27
recognized to present house bill 1624 thank you mr chair uh this is an update to the
county law library board bill or law. It clarifies the term an attorney member of a county law library board shall be for
a term of five years. It clarifies how a vacancy of an attorney member on a county law library board shall be filled. It requires the appointment of a circuit judge and a district judge on a county law library board. It establishes members for judge members of a county law library board and it establishes how a vacancy of a judge member on
a county library board shall be filled.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:00:08
Questions from committee? Senator Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Did we do some work in the previous session related to law libraries? Are you aware? I
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:24
understand that maybe this bill was filed last session and made it out of the House and came down to the Senate without a Senate sponsor and just died because a senator picked it up and chose not to run it. Okay. So this is that same bill?
That is my understanding. Okay. Other questions from
committee? Senator Boyd, why are we adding two judges to the library board? JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:00:54
DIVERSITY AND THE DIFFERENT DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY ON THE LIBRARY BOARD? YOU KNOW, SENATOR,
THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION. I'M JUST CURIOUS --
It seems like if we wanted to burst into a law library board, we'd be
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:01:41
looking for farmers. so i'd say judges are uniquely qualified to help identify those needs on the library such as
technology upgrades in courtrooms and legal research for self-represented litigants judges are frequent users of legal reference materials their input can help ensure the county law library acquires the right legal databases treatises and rule books disposes of outdated materials appropriately and keeps up with changes in law that affect practice and procedure. So I just think that judges are uniquely qualified to hold a position on this law library board. All right. Other questions from committee?
Hearing none, we have no one to testify for or against. Senator Boyd, you are recognized to close for House Bill
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:02:27
1624. Thank you, Senator, for letting me PRESENT THIS BILL TODAY. I WOULD APPRECIATE SOMEONE GIVE ME A DUE PASS AND A
SECOND AND A POSITIVE VOTE. THANK YOU. WILL OF
THE COMMITTEE? MOTION FROM SENATOR TUCKER DUE PASS. SEEMED LIKE HE ALMOST HAD
TO DO THAT. SECOND FROM SENATOR JOHNSON.
any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye aye
all opposed by the same sign here motion carried congratulations center boy do you have passed house bill 1624 you've got another
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:03:12
one yes sir with your permission uh house bill 1752 by representative maddox i'm the senate sponsor on that
one. House bill 1752. Yes, sir.
Senator Boyd, do you recognize to present house
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:03:30
bill 1752? Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill is pretty much as
simple as its title. It really just updates the code and it's an act to exempt certain savings plans from execution of a judgment and for other purposes and so when it looks like when the original code passed these types of federally qualified savings accounts were not done and so what it does is it adds an inherited an inherited IRA a health savings account and 529 plans and Coverdell education savings plans to
the code that says you can't attach have an attachment execution or see seizure for satisfaction of debts so these are all types of accounts where holders are in partnership with the federal government and we don't really know ultimately what the tax
burden is going to be questions from committee senator dease thank you mr chair uh senator
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:04:38
boyd we will you just kind of give a real life example
of how how this might look and just want to make sure i'm following
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:04:49
what this what this would do so an attachment is like putting a lien on somebody's inherited ira so or putting a lien on someone's educational savings account right or health savings account or 529 account so current law we you can well i don't interpret it that way i interpreted this makes it clear because the code code is you know old old before really these accounts were
named in federal law okay thank you other questions
Speaker 282
1:05:23
from committee Senator Tucker Thank you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:05:33
Mr. Chair So Excess contributions to IRAs Are not exempt under the bill Is that right? You can't have excess If you
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:05:46
do You're in a My understanding is if you have an excess
Contribution you've got to work that out with the federal government Okay so So the point is, is things that you haven't paid your taxes on, like they're exempt for federal taxation. If
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:03
you've already paid taxes, then it's exempt.
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:06:06
Well, so like if you notice, a Roth IRA is not on here. Right. So these are ones where you have not paid federal taxes. You've been exempted from federal taxes, and you're
in a partnership with the government on these things. The federal government, not state government.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:23
Okay. Right. And I know you've explained this, Senator, so my apologies, but why are we doing
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:06:30
this? We're updating the code to make it clear that these types of accounts are there. It's just an update that hadn't been updated in a long time. But it's a change to the law, right? It is. I would call it an update. But again, what I would say is that it's not changing things, it's making it clear. So how is that already
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:06:57
Because these when this code was originally passed, these specific things were not named in there. It says and other. And I would call
Speaker 291
1:07:03
these the other. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from committee? Senator Gilbert. Just so I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:07:19
understand, you just made the statement that it says and other. Where does it say that in the bill, Senator? Just so I can see it. Or is it in code elsewhere?
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:07:33
I'm distrusting that Representative Maddox told me correctly when he explained it to me. I got you. Okay, I
just didn't know if I was overlooking it. No, because I looked for it specifically, but he was pretty clear that he felt like this is just updating and making clear that these that are listed were already covered, but this
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:07:54
just makes it crystal clear that they're covered. I think it's the very end, the second page, line three. It says, however the limitations of subdivision be one, this section do not apply to an individual retirement account established percent.
You know, it's 1986, and there's been changes since that time, and I think that's where you're getting the other. I would agree
with that. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there is no one to testify for or against this
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
1:08:32
bill. Senator Boyd, you are recognized to close. Thank you, Judiciary Committee, for hearing me on this important update to the state code
regarding retirement plans and educational savings accounts and such. I would very much appreciate a do pass
and a second and a good vote. I'm closed. Thank you. Motion
do pass from Senator Johnson, second from Senator
Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS. CENTER BOYD, YOU HAVE PASSED HOUSE BILL 1752. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. REPRESENTATIVE LUNSTROM.
Speaker 296
1:09:10
CAN I READ THE REST OF 1662 THAT WE HAVE THREE FORMERS IN THE HOUSE? I'M SORRY. CAN I READ THE REST OF 1662 THAT WE HAVE THREE FORMERS IN THE HOUSE? YOU CAN. REPRESENTATIVE
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:09:42
LUNSTROM. yes sir what's the bill number 1615 house bill 1615 state representative robin lundstrom district 18
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:09:44
good morning senator gary stubblefield uh senate district 26 representative senator you
are recognized to present house bill 1615 Thank you, colleagues. This
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:09:59
law simply clarifies current Religious Freedom Act. It refines it and defines it for religious organizations and protects those organizations from discriminatory hiring practices. Basically, if you're a Asylum Springs Baptist Youth Assembly camp and you want to hire a Baptist to work for you that summer, the kids to be of the same faith,
this allows you to do that. Basically, this law comes down to preventing government from taking away an individual's religious freedoms, and it keeps them from putting the finger on the scale. Government should never do that. Government should protect religious freedoms.
Speaker 305
1:10:42
Yeah, you know, when we run, when we
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:10:45
run bills like this, I can't keep from thinking about the man in Colorado who was hauled into court and harassed for several years because
In his spirit, he could not honestly participate in a ceremony that was directly opposed to his sincerely helped religious beliefs. And under this bill, he could do that by filing a recuse ahead of time, a recusal ahead of time. And so this is something that we've needed to do a long time. You say, well, why are there examples of something like this happening? All you have to do is look back during the COVID when the court had to intervene against California's COVID-19 restrictions
and they placed harsher limits on religious gatherings in homes than they did on secular businesses. This bill simply clarifies Arkansas Religious Freedom Act. As someone who carried the RFRA bill back in 2015, I remember very well what happened because it was the only bill that was ever hijacked by the Senate from a state senator
in the history of the state of Arkansas. And it was used, and there were people thinking, you know, that the world was going to fall apart if we pass this bill. Well, that was 10 years ago. Nothing has happened. This bill applies to religious discrimination by the government only. The law is designed to restrict the government's ability to burden anyone's freedom of religion. It does not prevent the government from burdening the free exercise of religion
in the rare case that the government has a compelling interest at stake. It protects all religion freedom equally. There are good people everywhere who disagree on marriage and other things. But we still have the same protection under the government. And that's the way it should be. That is the thing that made America great, was the fact that we have religious freedom here. And we shouldn't be discriminating against someone who doesn't agree with us,
even though our country was founded on Christian principles. and found it on the Bible. So we'd
Speaker 308
1:13:11
be glad to take any questions. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:23
Thank you. And so, just so we're clear, I appreciate what you're trying to do here. And I agree, I think, with a lot of it. I do have a question because I think these things matter
in the course of the bill. So when you say on page, I'm looking to see where it starts exactly, I think it's on maybe page three at the top when we talk about compelling governmental interest. Is that term defined anywhere? What would be an example of that? No,
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:13:58
I believe that's a standard lawyer industry term. And basically what that means is, for example, there's a compelling government interest to
pay your taxes. You can't just say, because of deeply held religious beliefs, I'm not going to pay my taxes. So that's what that's referring to. You can't use it to get out of drug use. If you use illegal drugs and say, I have a compelling government interest to whatever, have a meth lab in my house, that one's not going to fly. So that's what they're talking about
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:14:27
there. Okay. So in that sense, if I may, Mr. Chair, so in that sense, we're not letting this supersede an unlawful act. No, there are gutters.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:14:36
And those are those gutters that compel in government
interest. Thank you, Representative. Thank you, sir. Other questions from
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:49
committee? Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question, my primary question is going to be in Section 3 of the bill.
What page number, sir? That's page 2, starting on, Section 3 starts on line 10. Yes.
So my question really is about the new subsection 6 that is being added to 16-123-602. That puts a specific religious belief into the law, does it not? No, sir. When you're referring to male
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:15:24
or female, woman or man, that's based on science. That's not my opinion. I mean, it's genetics. It is what it is. Okay. Well, let's just,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:15:35
let's talk about that for a second.
Excuse me, Senator Tucker, could you tell us the page and line number again? Yes, sir. My next question is going to be on page two, lines 13 and 14. You may proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I understand
your testimony, Representative Lundstrom, but on page two, lines 13 and 14, It explicitly says a belief based on religious or philosophical premises, correct? Yes, it does. So that is putting a belief based on religious or philosophical premises into the Arkansas code, is it not?
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16:13
Yes, we are talking about marriage. If someone believes that two male or two females should be married, that is their religious beliefs. But you cannot change the genetics of an individual.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:16:24
Okay. I don't believe that's at issue. I think what's at issue is the religious belief that we're putting into the code. This defends their religious beliefs
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:16:31
no matter which side of the blanket they're on. A specific religious
belief. Which one? I mean, it doesn't call out any specific religious belief.
You're entitled to believe what your faith compels you to believe. But the gender of a person or the sex of a person doesn't change. So,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:02
you know, the state, for one thing, we did pass a religious freedom bill 10 years ago in 2015, correct? Yes, sir. And then four years ago, the General Assembly referred out to the people of Arkansas a constitutional amendment
to put a good portion of that language in the state constitution. The people of Arkansas rejected that at the ballot in 2022, did
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:17:26
they not? you know, off the top of my head, I've been so marinating on
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:17:31
this that I couldn't tell you exactly. Okay. Well, I know for certain that that happened. People of Arkansas rejected a constitutional amendment referred out by the General Assembly to put into our constitution not this specific religious freedom language, but generally the religious freedom language that we had in the bill in 2015. But in the Arkansas constitution as it is now, not amended by that
referral in 2021 onto 2022. In Article 2, Section 18, it says, the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen or class of citizens privileges or immunities, which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. Sir, when you think of religious
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:09
beliefs and freedom of speech, those should be almost, to me, they're sacred freedom of speech and religious beliefs. This is protecting those. This just says the government can't come in and put their finger on the
scale. Protecting your right and protecting mine.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:28
Right, but it is creating a
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:31
preference. Only for those specifically church-related organizations. If a Muslim church wants to have a camp, they probably want to hire those of their own faith to run that camp. And that's already covered under the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:46
current Religious Freedom Law. It
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:48
is not clear, and this only clarifies that.
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
1:18:54
No, but why do you lock your front door? Not because you've been broken into, because
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:19:00
you don't want to get broken into. Let me add something to you also. Senator Tucker, RFRA is just a general standard of review. It does not tell you exactly what your rights are. It's only a general standard of review. We passed it back in 2015. We knew that then. So this clarifies a lot of that as
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:23
well. Well, when it comes to constitutional law and religious freedom,
there's two sides of the same coin. And I think we, including myself, I'm not leaving myself out of this, we sometimes conflate what those two provisions are in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. One is that people can establish religion as they see fit, and I believe wholeheartedly in that. But the other is the government shall not establish religion. And that's the other side of that coin. And I think that this bill starts to tread into that territory.
Going back to the state constitution, in Article 2, Section 24, it says, no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishment, denomination, or mode of worship above any other. And when we start getting into specifics like we do in Section 3 of the bill, I think we're starting to establish that preference, which violates Article 2, Section 24 of the State Constitution and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to
the U.S. Constitution. Well, I would respectfully disagree.
The distinction is, once again, as an individual, you operate and worship as you see fit, But once it starts inflicting on the rights of others and then the government prevents that from happening, that's when you start establishing a religion. So anyway, that's my concern. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other questions from committee?
Hearing none, we have anyone to testify for or against. No one to testify for or against. Representative Luskram, Senator Stubblefield,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:21:14
you were recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, America's implementation of Christian teaching or toleration and non-coercion and protecting the rights of conscience are demonstrated in many ways, even today. We don't require Quakers to fight in wars because it's against their religion.
We don't allow, or we don't require Jews and Muslims to shave their beards off. If it's because that's the religion. We don't do a lot of things because we are a nation that is based on freedom of religion. That's the reason the very people that came here came here. They left a country where they did not have that freedom. The Bible was read to them from a chain to a pulpit. And they were given only the scriptures that the government felt they should have.
The last time I checked, we have a constitution where the people tell the government what to do, not a government that tells the people what to do, as most other countries. So with that being said, I am closed, Mr. Chairman. I would ask
for a good vote. I have a motion from Senator Dees, a second from Senator McKee. Discussion? Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:37
Tucker? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be brief. I don't
want to repeat what I've said already, but there's a difference between saying, because of my religious belief, the government cannot discriminate against me. I'm 100% in support of that, no matter what your religious belief might be. But there's a difference between that and saying, my religious belief authorizes me to discriminate against other people. And And that's what this bill explicitly authorizes people to do. And that's bad policy, but I also believe it violates the U.S. Constitution and the
state constitution. We shouldn't be authorizing, attempting to authorize through the force of law legal discrimination against Arkansans. And we definitely should not be passing laws that might be violative of the U.S. and state constitution. So
Chair
Unverified
1:23:30
I'll be voting no. SENATOR JOHNSON: I appreciate your concerns and you're
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:23:35
a very good safeguard for those things, but I think this bill protects both, all religions and doesn't establish one that
says you can't do this or can't do that within your religion, but
Speaker 329
1:23:49
it just, it protects all, but I appreciate
your -- SENATOR JOHNSON: SENATOR TUCKER, I -- we agree on a lot of things, along these lines, but I think you brought out why the bill's needed. The First Amendment, rather than going against the First Amendment, I think this actually
spells out the rights within the amendment
when it comes to freedom of religion, and there's not an establishment here. I appreciate your reading of it, but I read it completely different, and we probably will have that discussion on the floor. BUT ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTIONS SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS REPRESENTATIVE LUNDSTROM, SENATOR STOBBLEFIELD, DO YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL?
THANK YOU COLLEAGUES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
Senator Johnson? Thank you, Chairman. Most of this 1662. House Bill 1662. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. Britt
Speaker 332
1:25:08
McKenzie, State Representative, District
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:25:12
7. Members, this We pretty much heard, but we deferred to wait until others were here.
But it does not allow lobbying for the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation in other circumstances, and it gives the penalties for doing so. You're through. Senator Rice,
you're recognized? The amendment that was made, could you explain that?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:25:53
My understanding it gives an out for the world's
largest retailer. Can you expound on why that and not something for everybody? I believe it was, so that was done in
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:26:11
concert with the governor's office. The term affiliate was removed. There is a good
case to be made for organizations that incorporate in the United States that are under a licensing agreement in the People's Republic of China.
We can create that direct correlation from that company that's licensed out of China to their incorporation in the United States to them in turn lobbying. Affiliate, the governor believed in the governor's office, and both Senator Johnson and I agree, would create a much longer tale of chasing down these incorporated entities that may or may not have a direct tie to the People's Republic of China or the Russian Federation. Does this affect
Speaker 44
1:26:55
others that you know of right now besides TikTok?
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:27:00
Alibaba is another one. But again, we would be writing code that affects the future. The Alibabas today, or the Kmarts or the Zmarts have passed. Every five years, the People's Republic of China, in their infinite wisdom, decide to reinvent a new either retail, software as a platform, technology entity that takes the world by storm. So, if we were to affect this law or put it into code, it would have a longstanding opposition
to those entities trying to influence our legislative
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:27:38
process. Okay. And in reference to the TikTok that I saw where President Trump had just given, was it a 60-day extension for them to change their holdings? I believe so, yeah. that. And evidently he changed his mindset on that over a
period of months. Has that done anything to
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:28:03
make you question this? I'm not in the weather business, nor am I in the predicting President Trump's actions business. What I do understand is that by very large bipartisan support, the Divestment Act passed both the House and Senate in Washington, D.C. It is the will of people that sent them before the election and after the election to make some kind of measured response to the fact that TikTok, which is owned by ByteDance, has the golden share, which I don't know if everyone's familiar, but the golden share is ultimately the CCP and the PRC's tight-fisted
control over the market dynamics of any company that's licensed out of Beijing. So the sad fact is that ByteDance still hasn't made the divestment. TikTok has suitors lined up left and right, Even some of those affiliates in the United States are willing to purchase it. But Beijing does not want to relinquish control over, I believe, what Senator Dees was talking about, their ultimate cash grab, which is the data of all of our children. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:08
Senator Tucker, you're recognized? Do you know what Arkansas business is this bill affects? Pardon? Do you know what Arkansas business
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:16
is this bill affects? Not offhand, no. Well, ultimately, there's businesses, and then there's individual lobbyists. That's what I'm really
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:21
asking, because it really ultimately only affects the people doing the lobbying, correct? Or, yeah, future lobbyists that wish to represent the Chinese. Yeah, but it's not the actual business's operation in Arkansas. It's just the lobbying on their
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:29:33
behalf. Well, one could make the opportunity cost argument that they don't have the affect over our legislature if we change this, ultimately affecting their pocketbooks, but yes.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:42
Fair enough. Okay, so then just restated after
that clarification, do you know which Arkansas lobbying businesses this might affect? I do, but I wish not
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:55
And did the amendment exclude any Arkansas businesses in particular that you're aware of?
Not to my knowledge. Okay. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:07
Chair. Other questions from committee? Senator Stubblefield? Would this
bill dictate by law the subjects about which lobbyists can speak?
Sorry, say that again, Senator. Would this bill dictate by law the
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:30:26
subjects on which lobbyists can speak? The subjects, no. The affiliations or the individuals they represent, yes.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:33
This seems like a real slippery slope to me in a
Speaker 203
1:30:40
lot of regards. We're not This is not Senator
Speaker 117
1:30:43
Johnson I'm talking to Yeah, it's on my bill too
Hold on just a moment, Senator Stouperfield has
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:30:57
had the bill But it seems like a slippery slope To me Because when you start telling lobbyists The subjects they can and cannot talk about That just doesn't seem right
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:31:12
I understand, sir. I would say that, again, they don't, it won't affect the subjects that they can
speak about. The individuals, the companies or entities, their affiliations are what a question.
If a lobbyist would like to, you know, speak on behalf of the CCP and whatever other interests they want, they can do so still. Who they register to lobby, the individual or entity that they take money from to represent is that question. And this doesn't stop any of those entities from other forms of political speech. This regulates similar in line to our restrictions on campaign finance. You or I or Senator Gilmour or Senator Tucker cannot take money from a foreign entity at
all. Period. Full stop. This is even narrower than that in saying that just specifically the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation are unable to take undue influence over
Speaker 354
1:32:05
our legislative process. So you don't think this affects free speech in
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:32:09
any shape, form, or fashion? I think it regulates speech. I think it's a very similar regulatory framework to what we have on our political speech for campaigns
and candidates, for initiatives. And also how we've, and I believe all of us have voted for...
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:32:24
Well, that's exactly the reason I said this goes down a slippery slope. Because when you have initiatives where you regulate the speech, then you're basically not letting the real truth get out to everyone. And that's what I have a problem with, is the regulation of free speech. I mean, it's in the First Amendment. But political speech is, yes, sir. One
of the most important things we have in this country is the ability to speak freely.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:32:58
And I totally agree. Just like you or I can't walk into a movie theater and yell fire, there are reasonable
limits on speech. I agree with that. The People's Republic of China stands as an emergent and exigent threat. But that is a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:33:09
duty. You know, there's a difference in a duty and a right. And
that's a duty that, you know, just because you've got a gun doesn't mean you go out and shoot people. You have a duty to be responsible with that firearm. Just like you have a duty to be responsible for what you say if you go into a movie theater.
You can't yell fire. And I'm not seeing a duty here.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:33:38
Senator, lobbying, they get paid. Right. This is limiting who can pay them to do their speech. These folks are not, it's just not free speech like going out in front of this Capitol. are coming in here and speaking for yourself. These individuals are getting paid by people from the People's Republic of China
to help enrich the companies that they're representing. It's not just free speech. This is a paid speech that is being regulated through this act. Lobbying is paid speech. And you're trying to stop the enrichment from the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation through this bill. Well, the way
Speaker 354
1:34:32
this bill entangles itself with our First Amendment right is what bothers me.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:34:38
Because by getting to the Chinese and stopping some of that, you're also affecting our own constitutional rights. And that bothers me. And I
would say, you know, there has to be, maybe there's another way to take care of this issue without, you know, encroaching on our own First Amendment
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:35:02
rights. I would disagree, but anybody, even if this bill passes, can come and lobby on behalf of those Russian and Chinese companies, but they can't get paid to do so and be a paid lobbyist to do that.
Speaker 135
1:35:17
Well, don't mean to understand me. I'm not a big
fan of shining marbles. I understand. Senator Stouperville, can we come back to you?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:35:33
No, I'm done. Senator Rice? Yeah, and that's my deal. We're tied up in global economy, and we're going to do business with these companies, but we're going to say somebody can't speak for them and get paid as a lobbyist.
And I do think it is a
slippery slope. And I'll remind, I questioned the last executive branch before the current one was elected. If you remember, I asked because they had chairman, was their title, from the CCP, from companies dominated by the CCP. And we passed legislation, and the past governor's family, which he had said he had associated himself with, his law firm, was an advocate for that.
This is just, you know, we're saying a lobbyist can't do that, but the inner circle that was here before was doing it, and that was okay. I didn't have anybody jump up and support me when I questioned it and
I think it's fine to question, I think it's fine to point it out, I just think this is a slippery slope. And I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:36:52
would agree just in response to that, as a background, I worked for the organization that changed the campaign finance rules for the entire country, Citizens United vs. FEC.
I was there when they decided, the Supreme Court decided that money was speech. I am as close to, and this bill may not represent it to you, Senator Stubblefield, as close Those two are free speech absolutists as you're going to find here. China is the enemy. And if we can't agree on those terms, then I don't think we'll ever agree on this bill. They are the enemy. They're the enemy within as of right now. The Department of Commerce, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, all federal agencies that have the closest tie have placed them on the entity list insofar as the Department
of Commerce, Department of Defense will not contract with any military or subcontract military organizations that have bases in China. This isn't, and I appreciate the pushback because it's fair, and it's hard for me to even be here to talk about some curtailment of any type of speech. They are the enemy, and it's not up for debate anymore. They are the enemy. The National View, the long-standing conservative bellwether in this country for over 100 years just came out in support of tariffs on China. An organization that, you know, William F. Buckley may be rolling
over in his grave because they support a tariff, agrees that the intellectual property theft as well as what the disservice they're doing to our people is beyond reproach. It is here. So, and I understand that this may be a little too far afield or just on the edge of that slippery slope, China is the enemy. And if we hopefully pass this bill through committee today, we'll be taking one step to protecting Arkansans from any of their business or military or pseudo-governmental INTERESTS TAKING HOLD IN OUR STATE. NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR TUCKER?
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:38:37
NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I AGREE WITH SENATOR SERBERFIELD'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT, BUT I WON'T REPEAT THOSE. CONTINUING WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT, A DIFFERENT POINT OF CONCERN IS ON PAGE TWO, LINES 11 AND 12. THE WAY THAT'S WRITTEN, A PERSON person who receives a monetary benefit for lobbying shall not lobby on behalf of a covered foreign entity. The way that reads is the monetary benefit for lobbying doesn't have
to be the lobbying on behalf of the covered foreign entity. So if they receive a monetary benefit for anybody, including an Arkansas-based company, then they may not do unpaid lobbying on behalf of a covered foreign entity. And I think that creates an additional First Amendment concern. If it read a person who receives a monetary benefit for lobbying on behalf of a covered foreign entity shall not lobby on behalf of a covered foreign entity, then that would make clear that they're only prohibited from lobbying for the payments they receive
for the prohibited foreign entities. But the way that it reads, it just says you can't receive a monetary benefit for any lobbying. And in that case, you can't even do unpaid lobbying on behalf of a covered foreign entity. And unpaid lobbying, you know, has even more protection under the First Amendment than paid lobbying, although I do believe paid lobbying does have First Amendment protection. So I think that's a concern. The fact that
the bill explicitly includes subsidiaries, U.S.-based subsidiaries, I think subjects it to potential violations of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution and also the equal protection clause. And then, you know, the other equal protection potential violation is that it specifies which countries, you know, of origin present problems. So, anyway, feel free to respond, but I got First Amendment concerns, but I also have 14th Amendment concerns
and Commerce Clause concerns. Appreciate it. Representative, I believe I have supported every title bill that has come along in the last few years. But among other things, my family
retails flooring and building materials. And we've had things from
our industry come before the legislature before I was here. I could come personally and lobby.
I could come personally and testify.
but I also had the ability to hire a lobbyist or for our organization to hire a lobbyist. Now, why would I do that? Why would I hire a lobbyist rather than become myself? One, hard to get here. Two, I've got a business to run.
But how would I get a lobbyist any other way but hire them?
Speaker 363
1:41:53
Was that in the form of, I'm sorry, is that
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:41:58
a question? Yes, that was a form of
question. How, can you restate it just one more time? Sorry. How would I get somebody
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:42:08
to come lobby for me any other way but hire them? To lobby, the act of lobbying. Yes. Grassroots organizations is just the first thing that comes to my mind. You could establish a nonprofit organization that advocates for the
political causes that you wish. That's just one. No, we spent years here on lien law, on what our rights are in filing liens on somebody who's building a house and isn't paying.
Spent many years on that, and it's become very complicated law. Don't have a grassroots organization for that. We have the Mid-America Lumberman's Association. And each of us can come testify, but each of us have businesses to run and places to be. How do we
get somebody to come lobby for us other than hire them? You, I mean,
Speaker 277
1:42:54
you would hire a lobbyist. That's how you would do it. Okay. So we would project our
speech by hiring someone to speak for us.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:43:03
Correct. You are a U.S. citizen. The protections of the First Amendment are on
you as being a natural born citizen. You aren't working in the interest of any other entity other than yourself or
your company or your family's company. Yeah, I'm
just talking about how speech amplifies itself. Because, you know, if I'm out campaigning, I can go knock on every door, assuming that I have time. Having done that in a couple of smaller races, that's not as easily done in a Senate race. Having said that, I can get volunteers to go, etc. But there's a reason I put up signs, there's a reason I send out postcards, there's a reason I do newspaper ads, there's a reason I do radio ads, and that is to amplify my voice.
So all of that comes back to speech. Japan, you said China was the enemy and there's no doubt about that. Okay. That's why
I've supported every China bill up till now. I just, driving back from Florida a couple weeks ago, came through, I think it was Dumas, maybe McGee, but I think it's Dumas, where we have a Japanese internment camp from World War II.
Japan was the enemy, were they not? Yes, absolutely, positively after Pearl Harbor, there's no doubt about it. So we could spell that out more clearly. But
did we do the right thing? The Jews in Nazi Germany were the enemy to
them. So I think we definitely have First Amendment problems. It's one thing to say they can't own land. It's one thing
to say you can't have a certain business
this close to a military installation, to electrical utility, et cetera. It's another to say, and I think dangerous to say, that you can't speak. Because I don't know when I'm going to become the enemy. And as you pointed out, I am an American citizen. But there are those I watched in the last administration who very much wanted to stop me from speaking. And before Twitter was taken over and before Trump was voted in, both those people, I watched them shutting down my voice every direction I went.
And so this is not a concern at all. I mean, because I understand China's the enemy. I understand why you're trying to do what you're trying to do. But the other side of this argument is that anybody can become the enemy. And when we muzzle somebody, maybe, I mean, has the government ever pointed us toward an enemy and they were wrong? I mean, the American Indians were our enemy. You know, we wiped out the buffalo
to do away with their food source.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:46:05
Has the government ever been wrong? Well, this body, I mean, this is a bill built for this time, and it also expands beyond this time, but the government has been wrong, but it also has the ability to make it right under another. If these nations are no longer our enemy, if they become our allies, we have the ability rescind that this and there'll be other enemies at that time because the United States has
always had enemies. So I don't disagree at all, but whenever we allow these companies that are our enemies to have a voice that influences this body, it makes a difference and that action can enrich those countries. I don't want to enrich those countries, even though I share some of your concerns about the voice.
I don't mind muzzling my enemy because they
Speaker 329
1:47:14
are our enemies at this time. Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So would
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:47:23
you say the real question is, does the state
have the authority and should we exercise that authority to ensure that countries who do not want what is best for the people of
Arkansas to influence the political decisions that we make?
Yes, absolutely. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, no one is here to testify for or against. REPRESENTATIVE,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:47:59
SENATOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO CLOSE FOR HOUSE BILL? THANK YOU ALL FOR THE DISCUSSION. IT IS VERY, I MEAN, HEARTFELT AND UNDERSTOOD BY ME AND REPRESENTATIVE MCINNY, BUT ALSO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE VOICE TO MY ENEMY AND THE
ABILITY TO ENRICH THEMSELVES THROUGH THAT, AND I WOULD I'D APPRECIATE do pass and I make that motion we have a motion from
Senator Johnson a second a second from Senator Gilmore we have discussion beginning with Senator Stubblefield I understand what you're
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:48:39
what this bill is about I really do but I also understand and I've watched it during my lifetime I've seen other people
killed, murdered in their country for the right to speak freely, just for speaking freely, what was in their heart. They were executed and that is the one sacred freedom we have here that should never ever be jeopardized to fight another. There's other ways to shut China, to fight for China without going this route. And that's the way I believe. So I'm finished, Mr. Chairman.
Chair
Unverified
1:49:25
Senator Dees, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:49:30
think for the discussion, I don't see any concern with First Amendment issues. I appreciate us going down that path to discuss it and to explore to
make sure we're not. The way I read this bill is that any person whether they're from a foreign entity or not always has the ability to come speak for
and to even under the definition potentially lobby for a cause or a belief or an initiative. But all this does is make sure that it's clear when money is being being transferred for a lobbying effort that it can't be from a foreign entity of our enemies. And I think I disagree with the premise that what if I become an enemy? Because I think it's
analogous to say that we, under that tone, that we shouldn't pass any criminal code because what if I break the law someday? You know, I don't think that fits because these, if you're a foreign an entity that is an adversarial enemy to the country, we do need to protect our citizens from. I mean, that's almost by definition. And so because of that thought, because of that process, I want to do everything I can to make sure that our country is protected
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:51:04
from our enemies, so I'll be voting yes. Senator McKee, you're next. I appreciate the discussion. This is not a free speech argument. we tell folks outside of the United States, you can't do stuff all the time. If we're going to start applying constitutional amendments to foreign countries or the people who advocate for them, I think that's a whole separate discussion. This is about the ability of a foreign nation to contract and try and influence the decisions that we make here in Arkansas.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:51:42
So that's why I'll be voting yes. Senator Gilmore, you're next. Thank you, and I'll be very brief. I'm going to echo what's already been said. In that case, I will be brief. There's no question we are in a war. We are in a war financially. We are in a war of ideas. We are in a war that practically all, I think the whole delegation, federal delegation in the state has spoken to with very, very clear rhetoric of where we're at. This bill moves us in the right direction. I appreciate the sponsors for bringing it.
Again, I don't think it's anyone's goal here to limit free speech. I think there is a goal here to limit the activities and the expression and the speech of a foreign entity that is an enemy of our state and of our nation. And for that,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:52:28
I'll be voting yes. Anyone else? Senator Tucker and then Senator Stubblefield. Thank you. I'll be brief. I just want to say we're not regulating the conduct of China with this bill.
We're regulating the conduct of Americans. And so that's why I think it infringes on their speech.
Not to mention the fact that we know, for example, there are tens of thousands of Arkansas businesses that advertise on TikTok to pick one company as an example. And those Arkansas businesses, again, Arkansans, deserve to have a voice here at the Arkansas legislature. So I think there are legitimate constitutional concerns, but those constitutional concerns are founded on legitimate policy concerns, WHICH IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR KANSANS, YOU KNOW, HAVE A VOICE HERE AT THEIR STATE CAPITAL. SO I'LL BE PUTTING NO.
SEN. STOBELFIELD. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. I HAVE ONE QUESTION LEFT. IT'S TIME FOR DISCUSSION, BUT WE'LL
Speaker 198
1:53:29
GO WITH IT AND WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES. WHEN WAS ONE, BEFORE THIS BILL WAS AMENDED,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:53:35
WAS THIS BILL AMENDED TO ALLEVIATE ONE AFFILIATE? So this bill was amended to alleviate one affiliate. Okay. Then why is one affiliate alleviated from this?
Senator Rice, may I allow that?
Speaker 123
1:53:53
I'm sorry, Representative. It sounds like we're playing
favorites here. But let me just explain very quickly. As much as I have already said in talking about this bill, I want to be fair to everybody. IN DISCUSSION, IT'S PROHIBITED THAT ANYBODY BUT COMMITTEE SPEAK. WE WOULD HAVE TO SUSPEND
THE RULES FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. SENATOR JOHNSON, YOU
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:54:16
CAN RESPOND. IT IS NOT AN ALLEVIATION.
I ALLOWED HIM, BECAUSE IT WAS ON HIS END WHENEVER IT WAS AMENDED, TO DO THAT. HE HAS STATED IT IS NOT FOR ONE AFFILIATE. OKAY. I'M
Speaker 379
1:54:31
GOOD WITH THE REPRESENTATION TO SPEAK. If somebody
wants to make that motion, you can. I think we're in
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:54:39
discussion. I think the committee is ready to vote. I don't know that we're changing any minds. So with that,
I say we move on. I've already expressed my concerns. Anyone else?
Then discussion is over. Everyone for the motion signify by saying
aye. Aye. All opposed? No. With my accounts four to four Call the
Speaker 381
1:55:17
roll Senators couple food. No, Senators couple filled. No Senator rice, no, senator rice, no senator, johnson
Senator rice, senator, johnson, aye senator, tucker, no, senator, tucker, no SENATOR GILMORE AYE SENATOR GILMORE AYE SENATOR MACKEE AYE SENATOR MACKEE AYE SENATOR DEESE AYE IT IS FOUR TO FOUR THANK YOU COMMITTEE
OKAY ANY SENATOR HERE TO PRESENT A SENATE BILL Okay, I have representative Dionne Vaught
and then you Senator Petty Depending on how long hers take because we will have
to Dismiss at some point We didn't go into the Senate at one today. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I'll try to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:56:24
go fast What are we starting with can we start with house bill 1799
House bill 1799. Representative, would you identify yourself for the
record? Dan Vought, district 87. You are recognized to
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:56:53
present house bill 1799. So in 1799, all we're doing is taking away the fax machine. They no longer have the fax machine for reporting.
Okay, I guess we should take it out of law then if
they don't have one. Yes, sir. Any questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no
one to speak for or against. Representative Vaught, you're recognized to close for House Bill 1799. I'm closed and
I appreciate a good vote. Motion from Senator Dees, second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Thank you. Representative Vaught, you have passed your bill. Thank you.
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:42
Would you like me to re-identify myself for the record again, sir?
The main thing I will know is what bill? House bill 1148. House bill 1148. No, I think
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:57:53
identifying yourself one time is good. Thank you, sir. So this bill I
had lots and lots of help with. When we first started, it was a bad bill, but everybody coming into
the room. I'm not disrupting anything the state police do, highway, game and fish, nothing that they already do. But what we are doing, as we're saying, I had a friend that worked cattle last week and they had a drone flying over their head the entire time they were working their cattle and they had no idea who was there or what they were capturing or what they were doing with that drone and this bill would just say that you would have to contact that property owner before you could actually fly that drone over. We also had some girls that were sunbathing, and we had a man
that was a pedophile, didn't live near the girls, but was flying the drone over the girls, watching them while they sunbathe. And then the other instance that we had, and the reason this bill, another reason this bill came about was we had some elderly women who were widowed, that somebody was flying over their house, and they were capturing pictures, and then they were going and telling them that they needed new roofs. They would pay for the roof, but there was never a new roof put on. So we're just saying, before the drone's flown over, just ask for
permission. And with that, I'll take any questions, and I'm closed. Any questions
from committee? Seeing none, there's no one to testify for or against, and Representative Vaught is closed. will the committee do pass from center stubblefield second from center
tucker all for the mo any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulations
representative you have passed past house bill 1148
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
1:59:45
what's next house bill 1865 and if
it's okay can I have Miss Alex from the AG's office join me you may
Speaker 401
2:00:01
if you will identify yourself for the record thank you
mr. chair Alex Benton attorney general's office represent vault you are recognized
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:00:10
to present house bill 1865 thank you sir and I'm gonna tell you how this bill came about and what's the
reasoning behind the bill. I want to thank Senator Clark Tucker for helping me with an amendment that he felt like
made the made the bill better and I want to thank the Attorney General's office because they've been so helpful. I went to Miss Alex and I told
Speaker 403
2:00:36
her what had happened in my district. I had a young girl that was raped viciously by her stepfather and he only got 15 years. He
serves in the army and he's an army sniper and now she's scared for her life. Two weeks later I had a child beat to death by his stepdad with his hands just beat to death. When he got through beating the child, he took that child and laid it at the door of the doctor's office. He didn't take it to the emergency room. Two weeks after that,
which seems absolutely crazy, but another child was beat to death by the hands of a young lady's boyfriend. She had gone to work and left the children with him. The baby had the stomach bug, threw up in the floor, and the man beat him to death. He survived 30 minutes of beating.
Speaker 405
2:01:53
As someone who has survived sexual abuse, it's hard for me not to put myself in
Speaker 403
2:02:00
their place and try to imagine what's going through their mind at that time. So I went to Ms. Alex and I asked her about doing minimums for very heinous crimes.
Speaker 393
2:02:14
I'm sorry, I don't mean to cry. Take your time.
Speaker 408
2:02:31
Mr. Chair, if you don't mind, take over for
Speaker 401
2:02:37
a little bit. That'll be fun. So Representative Vaught was was kind enough to to reach out and give like she said give us some of the scenarios that she wanted to to address in this bill and to prevent really the heart behind this is to attempt to prevent these criminals from from reoffending or giving them the opportunity to reoffend us when there are certain specific heinous crimes. In the discussion when drafting this bill, it was very
important for us to talk about how the offender be in that position of authority or trust over the child. So this is a legal term that would encapsulate, you know, your teachers, your guardians, parents, step parents, grandparents, babysitters, things of that nature, and then to limit the list of 14 specific offenses which would be caught up in the in these enhanced penalties and you'll see from that list that it is your more serious offenses
homicide, kidnapping, assault and battery, sexual offenses, voyeurism, human trafficking, domestic battery, permitting the abuse of a minor, exposing them to chemical substances, exposing them to meth, the use of children in sexual performances, computer crimes against minors, stalking, and then starting on page 2 line 12 you see subsection C talks about that minimum term of imprisonment for these enhanced penalties, and then subsection D talks about information in the indictment that must include so that when people are
accused of these crimes and subject to these enhanced penalties that they are put on notice. So that concludes kind of the structure of the the bill. Subject to your questions. Questions from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:04:31
committee? Senator Stoffelfield. Representative Vaught, how long was it after he
had killed the first child did the second incident happen? They're two weeks
Speaker 404
2:04:43
apart and they're both in Sevier County.
Speaker 403
2:04:48
He did this two weeks apart? Oh, not the same person. It's not the same person. Oh, okay. It's two different. Two different people. Yes, sir. It's three different men that did this, and it's all within a month and a half of each other. I mean, it's all two weeks, two weeks, two
Speaker 411
2:05:03
weeks. Was this down in your area? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Well,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:05:12
I will tell you this. Idaho just passed a bill on pedophiles. that they passed a bill that they would be put in front of a firing squad.
So if you decide to run that bill the next session, I'll be glad to be your co-sponsor after
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:05:39
hearing this. Because this makes me sick. Thank you, sir. Other questions from committee? Senator Deese? Just for clarity, so the current penalty is what versus what we're
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:05:47
going to. just make sure that's really clear the first the first penalty was 10 years to
40 years this says it will be a minimum of 30
Speaker 401
2:05:59
years I can't remember the other ones I'm sorry so it depends on the offense and and so you'll see on subsection C page 2 lines 12 that if it's a class-wide penalty or a class-wide felony it would be an enhancement so each of these types of felonies hold their own sentencing kind of thresholds and this would expand upon that and
enhance those for these specific crimes when committed against somebody where the victim was or the excuse me the perpetrator was in a position of trust or authority over the victim. So each of you know class C felonies in Arkansas have their specific sentencing thresholds and this would be in it in addition to whatever the underlying offense is sorry I didn't understand I'm so that's helpful
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:06:47
to see I see it on page 2 line 14 down thank you so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:06:54
Senator Tucker so I'm sorry I just caught the last thing of what you said Alex so my understanding is that would
just raise the minimum sentence but is it it's
Speaker 408
2:07:08
so it's not it's not in addition to the underlying yes senator I'm I fell into old
Speaker 401
2:07:13
habit of of using a phrase that has a legal meaning versus uh yeah it's not an enhanced penalty it is raising the minimum penalties for these offenses in these circumstances it's not an additional enhancement okay thank you other questions from committee
hearing none there's no one here to testify or against this bill representative thought you're You're recognized
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:07:40
to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do apologize for getting so emotional. I can't do anything to
Speaker 403
2:07:47
bring these kids back. There's nothing I can do. Even for the young lady who suffered being raped by her stepfather,
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
2:07:56
there's nothing I can do to make it better. She will always have that in her mind. But what we can do is try to make it so stiff
that no one else wants to do this to another child. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Motion
do pass from Senator Dees. Second from Senator
Rice. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Rep. DeVault. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. - The,
okay, any Senators here to present Senate bills? If
not, Senator Petty, you're next.
Speaker 425
2:08:59
Senator, what bill are you presenting? HB 1887. - And would you identify yourself for
Speaker 426
2:09:05
the record? - Yes, sir, Mr. Chair, thank you. Jim Petty, State Senator, District 29.
- You are recognized to present House Bill 1829. - Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:09:32
This is a relatively straightforward bill. All we're doing is amending the law around the statewide child abduction response teams. These teams work along with the Amber Alert and what this is essentially doing is amending, moving it out of the Criminal Justice Institute back to the ASP. These teams are, they work across the state.
This will allow this to be more fluid across
the state. - Hold on, hold on. I'm looking at 1829 and that's representative Dalby and me. So what number is it? - 1887. -
Speaker 426
2:10:17
1887. - Did I say 1829? - Okay. - I don't
know how we got that in our mind. Hypnotism, maybe. Okay. Okay. We are hearing House Bill 1887.
Speaker 426
2:10:33
My apologies, Senator Petty. Yes, sir. No problem. So these are the
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
2:10:37
statewide child objection response teams currently in the Criminal Justice Institute doing the education and awareness and training. We're going to move it back to the Arkansas State Police because they can, they have better access to resources across the state. can take it across the state with the education and the awareness rather than an officer from a specific region coming in for training and taking time away from their work. They'll continue to
collaborate with many, many agencies and organizations. For example, the Attorney General's Office, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, the Criminal Justice Institute will continue working with the sheriff's offices, Office of Emergency Management, et cetera. No known opposition at all. It's simply moving what is existing in the Criminal Justice Institute to the ASP to make it more statewide and more efficient statewide education and response.
- Questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one here to speak for or against. - Senator, are you closed for your bill? - I am closed and I would appreciate a good vote. - Motion
to pass. - Motion to pass from Senator Dees. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. - All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations Senator Petty, you have
Speaker 426
2:12:08
passed your bill. - Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:12:11
Thank you, committee. - Representative Burks. What bill number, Representative? House Bill 1729. House
Bill 1729. And Mr. Chair, may I have permission to be joined by a witness? You have, if you
Speaker 431
2:12:32
would both identify yourself for the record. State Representative Rebecca Burks, House District 11. Hannah Van Horn.
I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name. Hannah Van Horn. Okay, thank
you, Ms. Van Horn. What was the bill number again? House Bill 1729. 1729. Representative Berks, you are
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:12:56
recognized to present House Bill 1729. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Committee. I'm pleased to be joined by Hannah Van Horn. She is an attorney with Reese Moore Pendergraf, a JD, and a master of laws in taxation. In the event that you have additional questions, this bill is designed to extend the homestead exemption to a home-owned and a limited liability company.
Under current law, certain types of property, including a homestead, are exempt. from bankruptcy and other certain judgments. The purpose behind this policy is, of course, to allow individuals who are struggling financially to maintain their home and other assets while they work to get a fresh start. Because of easy access to online property records, though, some people might prefer to own their home in an LLC for privacy reasons. In Arkansas, if you own your home in your own name or in the name of a trust where you are the trustee, then it's very easy to look up where you live
in property records. Domestic abuse victims, judges, prosecutors, and other individuals might have a desire to have privacy from these online records. And so owning their home in an LLC would afford them this privacy. You might also recall that last session we passed a law allowing individuals who own their home in an LLC to take advantage of the homestead tax credit. So in essence, we're encouraging some Arkansans, go ahead, put your home in an LLC, take advantage of the tax credit but under current law when you do that you
no longer get the homestead exemption in the event of a bankruptcy. So with this bill we're trying to clear up that conflict and also allow a little bit of online records privacy for individuals who choose to do that and with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from committee? Senator
Tucker you're recognized. Representative Merckx is this your first time testifying
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:14:40
to Senate judiciary? It is. I want to commend you on doing an excellent job. Thank you. Was there a question
there, Senator Tucker? Do you hear? All right. I did hear that question. Senator Ross, you're recognized. And on
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:15:02
the LLC, I understand the reason for doing it, but LLC just has to give a PO box or something? You're
saying we did it protect? So when you register your LLC with the secretary of state,
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:15:18
I believe you are required to give a physical address, but that could be the
address of your CPA or your attorney or an institutional registered agent. So it wouldn't necessarily identify your personal residence. Can you give just a mailing box? I don't believe that you can
Speaker 440
2:15:30
when you register the LLC with the secretary of state, that there
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:15:34
needs to be a physical address? Do you know the answer to that? It would make sense, but I'm thinking of an LLC. I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:15:42
think it's got to feel, well, maybe they... Perhaps Ms. Van Horn could shed some light on that.
Speaker 443
2:15:51
Whenever you register an LLC with the Secretary of State's office, you are required to give the
physical business location, and if that is somewhere that doesn't have an actual brick-and-mortar building, people will often give home addresses or some other address, but it does have to be a to school
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:16:09
address. Is that the address that's revealed, or can you have the two addresses, PO box for primary and a physical address for
Speaker 431
2:16:21
information? You can have a PO box for
Speaker 445
2:16:23
mailing purposes. I'm wanting to know what's revealed to
Representative Berks
Unverified
2:16:26
the public. Well, for the information relating
to the Secretary of State, the mailing address and the physical address that you used to identify that LLC would be revealed to the public. Both addresses would be? Yes and that would be in the Secretary of State's records. Now when we talk about the online privacy from from records generally and we're talking about the assessor's records that are the records for that particular property that's where a lot it's very easy for somebody to go and look look up somebody's home address that way and and so at least it would be a lot more clicks to figure out oh it's owned by
LLC I have to go to the Secretary of State and dig deeper.
Okay, thank you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none.
No one to testify for or against. Representative Birch, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, I'm closed for the bill. Thank you for your time. Motion
do pass from Senator McKee. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed? Congratulations, Representative Berks. You have passed your bill. Thank you very much. Senator Tucker?
Speaker 127
2:17:44
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is House
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:17:50
Bill 1815. Senator Tucker, if you'll identify yourself for
the record, then we'll hear House Bill 1815.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, Clark, Tucker, State Senator, District
14. 1815. 1815. I stated it wrong. You are recognized to present House Bill 1815. Thank you, Mr. Chair. There's a gap in the law right now
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:18
when there are crimes committed involving juveniles on exclusive federal property. for example, the Little Rock Air Force Base, there needs to be concurrent jurisdiction between the state and federal governments on this matter. There is for crimes involving adults,
but there's a gap in the law when it comes to juveniles. So, as you see in the bill, the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services resolved for state legislatures to ensure that they're extending concurrent jurisdiction on juvenile justice between the states and the federal property in those states. The Department of Defense has worked with the DOD liaison in particular to Arkansas has worked with the Attorney General's office to craft this language to extend that concurrent jurisdiction on juvenile matters in Arkansas for a couple
years is my understanding. And so this just closes that gap to make sure that if the federal government refers a case to the state because of the commission of a
state crime involving a juvenile on federal property grounds, then the state can handle that case. So that's what this bill does. Happy to take any questions. Questions from committee? Hearing
no questions from committee, there's no one to speak for or
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:19:35
against. Senator Tucker, would you close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote, and
I move due pass. I have a due pass from Senator Tucker. A second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Tucker. You have passed your bill.
Senator Deese. Committee, while he's going to the end of the table or wherever he's going down
there. The, uh, I had assumed that we would probably meet this meeting, meet this evening, but I told everybody it would depend on what happened this morning. Uh, do you see a need to meet this evening? Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:20:33
Tucker? The only, I don't want to, uh, test the patience of the committee, but my only, my only issue is there's a Senate bill that I got out of here
last Wednesday about contracts and where an Arkansas resident could be sued if they
purchase a home or a mobile home at a value of less than $100,000. As Senator Rice knows, someone brought a concern to me. I've got an agreed upon amendment, just adds two words to the bill to add to that bill. If we were going to meet this evening, my plan was on the floor this afternoon to re-refer it to judiciary to add that amendment and get it back out. If we're not going to meet this evening then I would need to put that amendment on a house committee and I'm concerned I may run out of time so that's that's my only issue but I again I don't want to test the
patients of the entire committee and have us meet just for that sole purpose so that's just throwing that out is
it possible for you to amend it on the floor Mr. Treat told me that it was but if that's
if the committee members are good with that I think
Speaker 425
2:21:44
we are okay then I will then I will ask mr treat for us to amend it on the floor okay okay thank you members senator deez what bill number uh this is 1777 through 1780 let's begin with house bill 1747 1777 1777 1777 and senator deez
if you'll identify yourself for the record thank you mr chair the state senator tyler deez district 35. You are recognized to present the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'd love to bring up some members from the prosecuting attorney
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:22:12
as well, because these are bills we've
worked with them. Love to have them as long as they're not very verbose. Recognize yourselves.
You will both identify yourself for the record. Tom Tatum, prosecuting attorney, 15th Judicial District. And
Speaker 456
2:22:30
I'm Lori Comperis, the Deputy Prosecutor Coordinator. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 425
2:22:36
Recognize to present the bill. Thank you. House
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:22:40
Bill 1777. This is related to concerning offenses of sexual grooming of a child to include bribery and or attempted bribery and allow the prosecuting attorney to add any more commentary. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 461
2:22:56
members of the This is a Prosecuting Attorneys Association bill, and Senator Dees is correct that what it does is add bribing a child to the offense of sexual grooming of a child.
We did not have any issues on the other end with this bill, and I did run the language past Mr. Rosenzweig. I know he's not here today, and he was okay with the bill. But basically, it's just bribe is defined now as offering to bestow a gift or something, a goods, or some kind of service or withholding it. Sometimes in these cases of sexual grooming, that is the activity that prosecutors are beginning to see and how they entice children into sexual activity against their will.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:23:44
And Mr. Chair, I did notice that three of these bills don't have a sponsor on
them. And so if the committee would be willing to suspend the rules to amend for a Senate sponsor, that may be a smart move. You don't need
a suspension of the rules. So then can I
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:12
make a motion to add Senator Gilmore
as the Senate sponsor for House Bill 1777? Sure,
he's not here. It seems like
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:21
a good idea. I have been in collaboration with him. Okay,
so we have a motion and a second to add Senator Gilmore as the Senate sponsor. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion is to signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Motion carried. The bill is amended to have Senator
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
2:24:42
Gilmore as the Senate sponsor. So you've heard the
amendment and now presented the bill as amended,
HB 1777 and we're open to any questions. Senator Tucker? The only question
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:25:00
is and I'm just reading this so I'm sure there's a oh I see it never mind so that the language we're striking on page one is added back in on lines five and six
of page two okay I'm good thank you Mr. Okay I have no problem with what you're doing. And I guess if we say that bribe means what it says here on lines 2729 on page one,
that's what bribe will mean. But it seems like we should have, bribe means to offer or bestow any property gift or service. Withhold doesn't seem like that's a bribe, although if we said it is,
it would be. It seems like maybe another word to go along with bribe would be more
Speaker 456
2:25:53
correct. I understand what you're saying, Senator Clark.
Speaker 461
2:25:55
I'm not sure why the bureau drafted it the way
they drafted it, because there's kind of two situations we're trying to get at. One is where they actually offer to give the child something and the other is where they withhold like punishment or privilege. Like coercion. Yes. And so, but for whatever reason, the Bureau drafted it. It seemed easier, I think, to put it into all into one definition and that's the way they drafted it and I'm not sure
about that. So we're including coercion in the definition of bribe. For purposes of this statute. For the purposes of this statute only?
Yes. Because you know these things seem
Speaker 456
2:26:34
to run wild. That is my understanding. Since it's in this particular code section, it would be only applied to this particular
statute. Thank you for the answer. Other questions from committee?
Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against. Senator Dees, would you like to close for your bill? Yes,
I'll close and I'll make a motion to pass. Motion do pass as amended by Senator Dees, seconded by Senator McKee.
Any discussion? I guess there will be none, even though it's a flawed bill. All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Dees, you have passed your bill. Have we
got senators to present a Senate bill? I apologize, Senator Dees, but we have senators in here now to present a Senate bill. -
House bill. - House bill. - I have a Senate bill. - Senator Irvin has a Senate bill. - All right.
- Senator Irvin, what bill? - Senate bill 620. - SB 620. -
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:27:52
Yes. - If you will identify yourself
for the record. - Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Senator Irvin,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:28:00
you are recognized to present SB 620. Thank you. Members, Senate Bill 620 was developed in collaboration with the Center for Combating Human Trafficking at CPAC. Mr. Frank Russo would have been here but could not get here to testify for the bill.
And Human Rights for Kids organization also worked on this legislation with me. And they would be here this afternoon but hasn't been able to make it in yet. But what this bill would do is make it illegal to traffic children for the purpose of coercing them to engage in crime or recruiting them into gangs. Just as importantly, it provides critical legal protections for children who are compelled to commit crimes as a direct result of being trafficked, including protections for victims who commit acts of violence against their rapists and traffickers.
And so I think we've worked through issues on the bill and I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions
from committee? Senator Irvin, do you think there's
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:07
anything on trafficking we haven't covered? I don't know, but I know. But honestly, it's such a complex crime that it just, things just keep popping out that we have to address. But for me specifically, this is the very first piece of legislation that really tries to go after gangs and gang recruitment and the violence that is occurring with minors when they're coerced into gangs.
And so really appreciate CPAC for their efforts and their, their, on the, on the bill. Other questions from committee?
There's hearing none. There's no one here to testify for or against. Senator Irvin, would you like to close for your bill? I'm
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:29:49
closed, and I appreciate a good vote from the
committee. Motion to pass from Senator Stouffield, second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Motion carries. Congratulations, Senator Irvin. You have passed maybe the last Senate bill of the session for this committee, and maybe not.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
2:30:11
Appreciate y'all so much. Thank you. Okay,
Senator Wallace. Senator Wallace, what bill are
we looking at? House Bill 1844. Yes, sir, and I will be joined by Colonel Kennedy of the Arkansas State Police.
Senator, if you and the colonel would identify yourselves for the record. Senator Dave Wallace, District 19. Lieutenant Colonel Jason, Aaron. I'm sorry. Senator Wallace, you are recognized to present House Bill 1844. Sir, this bill was brought to us
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:30:52
by the Arkansas State Police. It increases the penalties for individuals that are jumping out of a car when the car is still moving in an attempt to evade pursuit. And with that, I'll allow the colonel to expand on it.
Second. We have a motion to add Senator Wallace as Senate sponsor. We had a second, but any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion, signify by saying aye. Senator Wallace, you are recognized to continue to
present House Bill 1844 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you,
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
2:31:36
committee members. And members, once again, I allow the Colonel to expand on what I talked about.
Speaker 478
2:31:43
You're recognized. For the past six, seven years, we've seen an increase in pursuits across the state and this trend continues to go upward. A new trend that we are starting to see are people that are fleeing from law enforcement are exiting the car as their car is still moving. And so the law enforcement officers got to deal with the moving car and they know that and so they're unable to pursue after them on foot. So we're seeking to increase the penalty by one classification for those that exit a moving vehicle at the end of a pursuit and continue to flee.
Chair
Unverified
2:32:20
All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:24
a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to pull up this code section, but we're amending code section 5-54-125. And the rest of that section is not in the bill, and that's fine. But the entire bill references other subdivisions of that code section, D2, D3, and D4. Like I said,
I'm trying to pull it up quickly, but can you tell me what the differences are between D2, D3, and D4?
Speaker 478
2:32:54
I believe it was the last legislative session we increased it. Anytime someone is fleeing and they exceed the speed limit, it moves it to a felony. I believe it's a Class D felony. And so what we're seeking to do is increase that penalty, one classification, for which classification they violate fleeing in a vehicle. So if it's fleeing, if they don't exceed the speed limit and it's a misdemeanor, if it's fleeing, they exceed the speed limit, and that's the only part of it, each statute element changes the level.
If it's a second offense, felony fleeing, it increases the penalty by one. so it's increasing the penalty by one
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:33:47
if you if you flee if you leave a moving vehicle yes only if you're moving only if you exit the
Speaker 478
2:33:52
vehicle while it's still moving okay and why are we punishing that more well because they know it's a way for them to get away from law enforcement
because law enforcement is stuck with dealing with a 3,500-pound vehicle rolling down the road.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:34:11
questions from committee? Senator Stubblefield? Colonel, do you think this increase in this type of crime is
related to the removal of a lot of illegal immigrants who are fleeing? I don't have data to... You'd just be speculating on that. Yeah, I don't have data
Other questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against. Senator Wallace, would you like to close for your bill? Sure, I am closed. Motion to pass by Senator McKee. As amended, second by Senator Deese. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, without objection, do y'all have another bill?
congratulations you have passed your bill uh the without objection committee uh we have three things before us uh one is getting as many of these bills out as we can two is not meeting this evening and three is lunch and as usual they're all coming together but without objection we're going to have center these go to the end of the table and continue presenting because I'm assuming we would rather
not meet this evening more than
we care about lunch uh no it's that's
why I'm saying it's my intention that we that we
Speaker 70
2:36:02
get whatever we've got and meet again Wednesday morning. And we've got a
representative who just walked in.
okay so you're here to present representative Duffield's bill okay I didn't see you represented
Duffield I'm going to recognize these two the Center D's will these bills wait
Speaker 495
2:36:43
till Wednesday yeah but y'all wouldn't work
with me on that on that bill that tracks the other
parent so let's hear represented Duffield and what bill okay house bill 1824. If you gentlemen would identify yourselves for the record. Mr. Chair, Matt Brown, House
District 55. And Rep. Matt Duffield, District 53. Okay, you are recognized by then
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:37:45
House Bill 1824. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee, April marks the prevention of the cruelty to animals month. A nationwide observance dedicated to raising awareness about the mistreatment of animals and finding ways to combat animal cruelty. Regrettably, animal cruelty remains pervasive and manifests in various forms. Furthermore, it frequently serves as a precursor to other violent offenses, including domestic
abuse, elder abuse, child abuse, and homicide. This legislation will save dogs and cats from unfortunate situations and save lives. This bill amends the animal cruelty subchapter to give law enforcement the ability to temporarily secure a dog or cat if the dog or cat is being neglected. Under current law, technically an animal can only be secured by law enforcement if the owner is being arrested or a warrant to secure the animal has been obtained. This bill would allow law enforcement to temporarily
secure a dog or cat in emergency circumstances while preserving the owner's due process rights. And we'd be glad to answer any questions
Speaker 503
2:38:49
the committee may have, Mr. Chair. Questions from committee?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:39:03
Senator Ross? I'm sorry, I hadn't read the bill until now, I'd heard about it. In fact, you told me about it. This does not give law enforcement
any more authority in what they already have as far
as taking any action to get to owners? Senator
Speaker 507
2:39:19
Rice, no, except that under this bill, a law enforcement officer, like let's say, I think the most common scenario I can see this bill kicking in is let's say law enforcement is called to a house for a welfare check and it's an elderly person, maybe a little bit of dementia, and she's got an animal that's near death. Under current law, their options would pretty much be arrest the woman and then they can impound her animal or go get a warrant to impound the animal.
This would allow them in those emergency situations like on Saturday night to be able to get the animal to go ahead and get it saved right then. While making it clear this is just a
Speaker 508
2:39:53
temporary thing. The owner still has rights and still has, the owner's not losing the animal. So it's just
Speaker 509
2:39:59
kind of a preservation. That's my point. It's, does it give them more authority over the
Speaker 506
2:40:06
human outside of what current law is? Not over the human, no, sir. This is just for securing the animal?
Speaker 508
2:40:15
That's right, Senator. It's more of a, like I said, those situations where it's not an arrestable level type of fence or situation. And the current animal cruelty prevention
Speaker 507
2:40:23
code, I think this is implied, but it actually doesn't say that in there. And so this is really just putting it in there so law
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:40:30
enforcement knows. Senator Tucker? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So just to reemphasize that, it's not the human, it's animal only. And the animal is only on a temporary basis as well, right? That's right, Senator
Speaker 507
2:40:41
Tucker. So this amendment or this statute, if it goes in, it just amends, adds another subsection or another section to that animal cruelty subchapter. And there's already another provision referenced in the statute that actually governs the ability, the owner's rights in terms of it's actually a very accelerated court procedure. I think it's 15 days that they, if they decide to keep the animal notice has to be given, they're entitled to a hearing within 15 days, things of that nature.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:41:04
Other questions from committee? Senator McKee. I guess something I feel like this committee is kind of good at is looking to see the other places that this law might be applied that we're not thinking about, right? So is this statutorily specific to those welfare cases, those welfare checks, or are there other instances when this might be applied? No, that was just
Speaker 507
2:41:33
an example, Senator McKee, so it could be applied.
That was just the best example I could come up with where this may kick in, because under the animal cruelty subchapter, the way things are written right now, like I said, there's been some changes over the years. Some things have been amended and revoked, and the way the code is written right now, it's essentially if the owner's being arrested or if an animal's running loose, law enforcement can get it. Or if they go and get a court order to seize the animal, this would be situations that don't meet that, but the animal's about to die and there's not time to get that warrant. This
Speaker 508
2:42:02
gives them the ability to temporarily get that animal to get it taken care of in order to preserve its life.
Speaker 354
2:42:09
Okay. Other questions from committee? Senator Stubblefield? Yeah. Isn't it
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:42:21
in statute that you can only move these animals two miles from the owner? I
Speaker 508
2:42:28
don't think it's under the subchapter now, Senator. I don't recall reading
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:42:34
that in the subchapter. well i remember uh passing that back in 2012
that they could not remove these animals within two miles of the owner i mean i i like this bill i've been
Speaker 115
2:42:48
arguing against the bill and senator i don't know would that have been maybe when it deals with like large
Speaker 507
2:42:54
farm animals things of that nature yeah i deal mostly with large farming okay that may be why senator i didn't take a look at the farm animal since this is limited just cats and dogs it was mostly horses and cattle yeah this would just be cats and dogs thank you mr chairman other questions
from committee seen none there's no one to testify for against uh representative duffield would you like to close
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
2:43:22
for your bill yes sir thank you mr chair i'm closed and i appreciate a
good vote from committee motion do pass from center stuff bill second from center Tucker any discussion hearing none offer the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulation representative Duffield you have passed your bill
thanks sir okay committee you have expressed your will to meet this evening 15 minutes upon adjournment of the Senate unless you want to meet immediately upon a 15 minutes upon adjournment so you have 12 minutes to find sustenance and get to the Senate floor we are recessed until this evening 15 minutes upon adjournment
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
CALL TO ORDER
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING
PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
SB509 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE
ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR
AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO
ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD. D
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE
DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE
DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF
THE RESIDENCE.
HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE
CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN
THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN
CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC
INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-
HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF
UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; AND TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONTRIBUTES TO A MINOR'S SUICIDE OR SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
HB1148 Vaught TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS PRIVACY ACT; AND TO ADDRESS CERTAIN IMAGES CAPTURED BY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS.
HB1752 Maddox TO EXEMPT CERTAIN SAVINGS PLANS FROM THE EXECUTION OF A JUDGMENT.
HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE
COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
HB1815 Perry TO AMEND THE STATE'S JURISDICTION OVER FEDERAL LANDS; AND TO RETAIN JUVENILE JUSTICE JURISDICTION BY THE STATE.
HB1824 Duffield TO CREATE THE DOG AND CAT RESCUE ACT: DAISY'S LAW.
HB1865 Vaught TO CREATE AN ENHANCED PENALTY FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES AGAINST A CHILD.
SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013.
SB623 J. Scott CONCERNING THE TREATMENT OF FEMALE INMATES AND DETAINEES IN CORRECTIONAL OR DETENTION FACILITIES; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF AN INMATE OR DETAINEE WHO IS PREGNANT OR HAS RECENTLY DELIVERED A CHILD.
HB1615 Lundstrum TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RELIGIOUS NONDISCRIMINATION.
HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.
HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC
ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.
HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD
FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
HB1887 Pearce TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING STATEWIDE CHILD ABDUCTION RESPONSE TEAMS.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF
WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 2
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 27
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 40
Speaker 46
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 70
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 82
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 122
Speaker 6
Speaker 127
Speaker 131
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 147
Speaker 157
Speaker 123
Speaker 168
Speaker 173
Speaker 174
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 229
Speaker 231
Speaker 233
Speaker 239
Speaker 240
Speaker 238
Senator Justin Boyd
Unverified
Speaker 256
Speaker 282
Speaker 290
Speaker 291
Speaker 296
Representative Robin Lundstrum
Unverified
Speaker 305
Speaker 308
Speaker 102
Speaker 329
Speaker 332
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 349
Speaker 203
Speaker 117
Speaker 177
Speaker 354
Speaker 135
Speaker 363
Speaker 277
Speaker 198
Speaker 379
Speaker 381
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Speaker 401
Speaker 403
Speaker 405
Speaker 393
Speaker 408
Speaker 404
Speaker 411
Speaker 425
Speaker 426
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Representative Berks
Unverified
Speaker 431
Speaker 440
Speaker 443
Speaker 445
Speaker 456
Speaker 461
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Senator Dave Wallace
Unverified
Speaker 478
Speaker 76
Speaker 191
Speaker 495
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Speaker 503
Speaker 507
Speaker 508
Speaker 509
Speaker 506
Speaker 115