Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (42)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB427
Act 663
· 5 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…att McKee SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS Number Sponsor Subtitle SB427 J. Bryant CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION;…”
|
TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB427 is now Act 663 |
|
SB428
Act 664
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…TO PENALIZE A BUSINESS INVOLVED IN PROMOTING PROSTITUTION. SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF…”
|
CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB428 is now Act 664 |
|
SB429
Act 665
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “Senate Bill 429. Thank you, Mr.”
|
TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB429 is now Act 665 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. 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 |
|
HB1745
Act 604
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER. HB1745 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE HOLDERS T…”
|
TO REQUIRE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE HOLDERS TO POSSESS A UNITED STATES WORK AUTHORIZATION; TO … | Hawk | Notification that HB1745 is now Act 604 |
|
HB1757
Act 528
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE STATE; AND TO CREATE RELATED OFFENSES. HB1757 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RAILROADS; AND TO CRE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RAILROADS; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF TAMPERING WITH RAIL … | Joey Carr | Notification that HB1757 is now Act 528 |
|
SB143
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle 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: “…REATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. 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. |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GERED RUNAWAY CHILD. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB426
Act 654
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…estrictions designating areas as 'Members and Staff Only'. SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL … | Hester | Notification that SB426 is now Act 654 |
|
SB430
Act 666
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWA…”
|
AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB430 is now Act 666 |
|
SB442
Act 667
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB442 is now Act 667 |
|
SB449
Act 669
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNAT…”
|
TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO … | Dees | Notification that SB449 is now Act 669 |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB477 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB485
Act 670
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
|
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB485 is now Act 670 |
|
SB511
Act 757
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB511 is now Act 757 |
|
SB512
Act 758
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB512 is now Act 758 |
|
SB513
Act 759
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AN…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB513 is now Act 759 |
|
SB514
Act 760
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB514 is now Act 760 |
|
SB537
Act 763
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB537 is now Act 763 |
|
SB539
Act 723
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW R…”
|
TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION … | Gilmore | Notification that SB539 is now Act 723 |
|
HB1624
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. 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. |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…N AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI. HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE T…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR. HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. 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 |
|
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. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. 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. |
|
SB431
Act 987
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO EL…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB431 is now Act 987 |
|
SB441
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…CO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL. 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. |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB461
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING. 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. |
|
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 |
|
SB472
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES. 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. |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB5
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…EGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE. 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. |
|
SB501
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. 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. |
|
SB509
· 1 mention in agenda
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. |
|
SB548
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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
· 1 mention in agenda
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 |
|
SB6
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
the Josh Brown show. Let's get started. We got a lot
Speaker 6
0:31
of business before us. Yeah, it's a show today.
Speaker 12
0:52
It. Oh, I'm going to. But We're going to vet everything properly, but we're going to move because of the amount
of the agenda and the lightness of the session. We're going to move as fast as we
can. Do I hear a motion? Motion from Senator McKee.
What's the motion limit testimony to 3 minutes per individual, and I have a second from Cen Rice and Sure, discussion. No, this is for the this is for the day, yes. Yeah. I OK.
Any other discussion? All for the motion so probably saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:58
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just like to recognize a page for the day and Rose Anna Rose Grizzle. This drizzle She's going to win the award for uh furthest traveler for our pages this session. She's straight to us from New York City. New York City, yeah. Welcome, welcome. Good to have you here today. Senator Bryant.
I don't have. one. Is Senator Brian here. We're starting off with a special order of business with 6 bills for Senator Bryant. Senator, are you going to go in
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:13
order or you have a reason to in order as listed as we just
fine. SB 427, I'm told has an amendment. Yes Yeah, right there and right there.
Senator Bryant, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, Mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:00
Chair, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. And I have two guests with me if you'd like them to introduce themselves.
Speaker 44
4:09
OK. Teresa Howe, prosecutors association. Chris Walton, prosecutors Association. Thank
you. Uh Would you like to explain your amendment? Central, yes, I would. The
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:26
amendment is subsequently is the same as
the bill originally the bill had struck sections 104, 105, and 106 and basically put all that into one section. But after going through and talking to different stakeholders, it'd be cleaner if we just integrated the new language into the existing statutes and so we reimplemented 104, 105, 106, and just put the new information into those existing statutes just just really to make it cleaner.
All right, any questions from the committee on
the amendment do pass from Center McKee. Second from Senator Johnson, any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator, you have amended your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, committee, what I'd like
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
5:19
to do is just start as a as a preference uh for
the special order. As you notice, all 6 bills are related to human trafficking, and so
there there really is a context that I want to make sure the committee is aware of and how these legislative acts. are being generated. In 2002, Arkansas received an F on our Shared Hope International report card. Concerning significant gaps in state laws addressing child sex trafficking. In the nationwide
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:50
assessment of legislative frameworks show Tennessee had the only A grade in the nation.
So what this prompted is in 2023 upon the election of Governor Sanders, she had issued an executive order to combat child sex trafficking. With the help from the funds of office of victims of crime. They pursued and to establish the human trafficking council in Arkansas with the goal of coordinating multidisciplinary agencies throughout the state and to see how to close the gap in our laws to ensure effective not only effective prosecution of those that do these types of
acts, but also to ensure all of our law enforcement partners have an avenue or a source
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
6:36
to get the needed resources that Have been available in the states, but perhaps not easily accessible or easily known about. So they put together this trafficking council
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
6:45
made up of key state partners led by the Department of Public Safety and in a little bit we'll have Sergeant Foster, who leads the council come up to assist, but in that group was the Office of Attorney General, the Department
of Human Services, the CID within Arkansas State Police along with
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
7:05
several victims' advocacy organizations and other groups that played a key role in trying to understand how to tackle child
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
7:11
trafficking. And then make sure that the resources were available to all our partners across the state. They had a mission and approach of being victim centered, collaborative, and multi-disciplinary. To prevent trafficking, to protect victims, and to prosecute criminals, very simple mission. I'll say it again, to prevent trafficking, protect
victims, and prosecute criminals. Their focus was on domestic and international human trafficking, including the commercial sex and labor trafficking. A lot of times we just think of sex trafficking, labor trafficking is just as serious and just as real here in the state of Arkansas. Uh What the council did is they put up 6 subcommittees to address key issues, and I apologize if I'm, I'm not trying to go wrong. I think just having one set of contexts for all 6 bills, we'll establish how these bills get generated.
The 6 committees to address key issues were victim services in order to prioritize trauma informed care and access to these resources across the state to develop strategic planning and trafficking protocols which is developed to develop standardized statewide response frameworks. To have outreach and public awareness in order to educate and inform communities and businesses in order to train our law enforcement, our prosecutors, and our front line responders to how to address these issues. And to address with law
enforcement, to strengthen the investigative collaboration and the case management across our state and to engage survivors and to ensure that their perspectives are gained to inform our policies and our programs, so I think very noble initiatives of the council. Uh, again, the membership has two representatives of the Department of State Police, one within the the actual state police and one within research and planning to representatives from our office of Attorney
General, a representative from the Office of the prosecutor prosecutor coordinator. A representative from Health and Human Services, a representative from Department of Health, representatives from Children's Advocacy centers from our college and university departments of researching of victimology. Department of Labor trafficking within our colleges and universities, Representatives from a mental health field expertise of minor victims and expertise of adult victims and their victims service organizations.
That includes the direct services to minor victims direct services to adult victims and direct services to labor trafficking victims. And lastly, residential care providers not only
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
9:47
a minor and adult but also victim survivors of human trafficking to help lend to this council. So the conclusion is that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:56
what this group does is they not only do they lead investigations and partner with our federal and our state enforcement agencies.
They also debrief about what went right, what went wrong, not only in the investigation side but also in the prosecution side and then they also look at other states to see
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
10:19
what they're doing better, what they're doing right, in order to bring up our grading um within the state. So while these 6
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:26
bills are not all encompassing. They are a good start in the direction to try to address our gaps. Within our laws. So just looking at Senate Bill 427. summary of this bill is
Um, it focuses on revising our Arkansas laws regarding promoting prostitution. It removes previous legal provisions by promoting prostitution and replaces them with stricter classifications and penalties. It categorizes promoting prostitution into 3 degrees with higher penalties involving coercion of minors. The new definitions are first degree promoting prostitution, which is engaging in prostitution through force, intimidation, coercion involving minors, punishable from a Class
C felony for the first offense to Class A felony if the victim is a minor. A 2nd degree promoting prostitution or managing a prostitution enterprises enterprise or facilitating prostitution online punishable escalating from a class D felony for the first offense to a class C felony for subsequent offenses. And a 3rd degree promoting prostitution, which is owning or controlling a premise used for prostitution and failing to take action, which is very common in our state. This ranges from a class A misdemeanor for the first
offense to a Class D for subsequent offenses with additional fines for individuals convicted of 2500 for the first offense, 5002nd offense, or 10,000 for a third or more offenses. It also adds for business liability and penalties for businesses that knowingly allow or facilitate prostitution activity. The penalties for businesses range from the first defense violation of a 30-day suspension of their business license and a $5000 fine. Second violation is
60 day suspension with a $10,000 fine and third or more a permanent license revocation with $100,000 fine, and all these fines to be payable into the human trafficking Victims Support Fund. So for brevity, I can give you examples of
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:27
the before and after if this bill was to be enacted, but with that I would like to open it up to
questions. Thank you, Senator. I think for my clarity, will you go back you're talking about the the the council that's being created, that council doesn't exist today, correct? It exists.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:45
It existed under executive order of 2023. OK,
so none of these bills change. That counsel is that, is that what you said that counsel already
exists, but do any of these bills change the makeup of that of that
Speaker 68
13:00
current council? No, in 2013, the legislature enacted an at-will counsel or at will
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
13:05
committee of the Office of the Attorney General, some attorney general at one point maybe Attorney General Rutledge used that on and off. Attorney General Tim Gerin, I believe,
has theO group, which is uh uh a partner um that has members both on this committee, on this council, and within. their stop group, but none of that changes. It was visited that we might try to establish something like that, but under the executive order and the governor's desire not to create new boards, commissions and committees. Everything is functioning fine as is, so everything gets left intact, particularly this bill for 27 just addresses the prostitution. areas of the law. OK, thank you for that clarity. Appreciate it
members, any questions on 427 Senate Bill 427.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
13:52
Senator Rice recognized. Central right, would you just briefly cover, I mean, I,
I Read newspaper articles in the past. About uh, Businesses that clearly Didn't do anything to Uh resist This type of trafficking, but can you give us briefly uh something that would
Uh, tell us what would bring on the charge, do they have to have a certain number of complaints or uh in the investigation of a complaint or something like that. Senator Ross with the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
14:30
permission of the chair, I'd like to bring on Sergeant Foster. I think he could best address um Back scenarios absolutely please recognize
yourself for the record, and you are free to answer Senator Rice's question. My name is Sergeant Matt Foster,
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
14:49
the Arkansas State Police. Senator Rice, what we've seen in the state of Arkansas is approximately we have between 40 and 60 illicit massage businesses that are actively posting advertisement on escort sites, and this will help deter that. So you would have evidence. Yes sir. Yes. OK, that's, that's what
Speaker 77
15:07
I'm looking for. Thank you. Thank you. And sir, would you mind recognize yourself for the
record as well. I'm Captain Joe Carter, Arkansas State Police
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:20
Special operations. Thank you. All right, Senator Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. So for this bill, just making sure I'm understanding correctly,
it really seeks to regulate only those who are supervising the prostitution, not the ones actually engaging in the
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
15:39
prostitution, correct? Yeah Senator Tucker, yes, that is correct. It's to stop the traffickers. That's what I thought. I just
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:45
wanted to make sure that I had that correct. My other question
It is about the funds. So first of all, when it comes to the individuals, not the business section of the bill, but the individuals. The funds are actually lower than the normal. Fine caps for Class B, C, and D felonies. Um, for example, you know, promoting pro prostitution in the first degree under the bill. The first offense would be a class C felony with a fine up to $2500 but Classy felonies otherwise have fines up to $10,000 right? And
so I just was curious why. And, and then it's
like that with the others as well, and I, I was just curious. Why the differing amounts. Uh, those
are just additional fines on top of the standard amount, OK. Uh, last question. It
is about the business related section. So Unlike individuals, You can't put a business in
prison, right? Um, so really define as the only form of punishment that you can have on on the business. And so for that reason, obviously the 3rd Offense with the revocation of the license and $100,000 fine, that's a very severe penalty. Um for the 1st and 2nd offenses, the fines are $500 and $10,000 respectively. Which is kind of, it's not exactly
the same, but it's kind of in line with someone who commits promotion of prostitution in the first degree, but the difference
is an individual who commits that can spend up to For a first offense up to 10 years in prison, which is in my view the main punishment and the fine is sort of the secondary punishment, right? But when it comes to the business, the fine is the primary and only form of punishment and so I just, anyway, I just For that reason, I was curious if you all thought about. Changing those fine amounts on the business to to be more as Anyway, that's my question. I can be.
Speaker 91
17:56
That's what's the. Listen, most. So you don't have that. Uh,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:08
Senator Tucker that there's another, another bill that is trying to be devised and worked on to address specifically those issues with like illicit massage businesses. I don't know that we'll get to it this session is time winds down because it's just so comprehensive we want to make sure all stakeholders are on board. OK. All right, thank you.
Thank you, Senator. Any other questions? Senator Bryant.
All right, see and none, we do have some folks signed up to speak against Mr. Jeff Rosen swag, Excuse me, you're passing. OK, thank you. Are you signed up for the other 5. Is that correct? OK, thank you. OK, no one else has signed up for or against the bill. Any anybody else in the room like to speak for or against. See none. Senator, would you like to close for your bill? I
closed. Appreciate a motion. Do pass, OK, members, what's the will of the committee? I see a motion from Senator Gilmore and a second from Senator Johnson for a motion to do pass as amended any discussion. Seeing none, all in favor of the motion signaled by saying I pose like sign. Congratulations, your bill is passed. Thank you. Thank you committee as amended,
has passed as amended. Thank you. All right, Senate Bill 428.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
19:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 428 aims to increase the statute of limitations to commence 10 years from the date the plaintiff discovers human trafficking, so it adds additional 10 years to the already existing statute of limitations in order to match with the federal law. This is just to establish a civil cause of action
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:52
against the trafficker. Thank you for the description of
the bill, members. Any questions on 428.
See none. No one has signed up for, I'm sorry, we do have a question, Senator Tucker, recognize. Did you say 10
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:10
additional years or 10 years total? It's 10 years from the date of the discovery, right? 10 years from the date of discovery. OK, thank
you. OK, um, see no further questions. Do we have anybody signed up for
or against. Not seeing that. Nobody in the room. So you're free to close. I'm closed, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I've got a motion do pass
from Senator Gilmore, a second from Senator McKee. Any discussion, seeing none members all in favor of the motion do pass signaled by say aye, opposed
like sign. Congratulations, 428 has passed. All right, 429
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:53
Chair. Senate Bill 429, this bill has The main purpose is to amend existing laws to expand the
criminal records ceiling for the victims of human trafficking to
ensure that human trafficking victims have specific rights and that mandate no contact orders be given in human trafficking cases. The key provisions in Section 1 current law, courts may issue
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
21:13
no contact orders if the defendant is charged with a serious offense, but the amendment of the courts must issue a no
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
21:21
contact order in all cases where the defendant is charged under the Human Trafficking Act of 2023. In Section 2 we're going to define human trafficking offense as a crime under the Human Trafficking Act of 2013 and
expand the definition of an offense against a minor to include human trafficking crimes where the victim is a minor and to clarify, the victim to include human trafficking victims in addition to victim of sex offenses, violent crimes or crimes against minors in order to strengthen protections for minors of human trafficking survivors for minors and human trafficking survivors. And then the section 3 as far as sealing criminal criminal records for trafficking victims. A current code allows victims to have their criminal records sealed if they were convicted of
prostitution as a result of being trafficking, and if the conviction occurred when they were a minor or an adult during trafficking. Uh, the key changes is the court must grant the record sealing petition if it finds the victim's convict conviction resulted from trafficking, and if granted, the victim's name must be redacted. From all arrests, citation and criminal records related to the prostitution charge. It also creates a presumption. that the person was a victim of trafficking if they have
official documentation such as court records, law enforcement certifications, or immigration approvals. And that's the uh the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
22:46
goal of the bill, the main goal, the impact will be to strengthen protections for victims of human trafficking to ensure automatic no contact orders for traffickers to allow survivors a clear to clear prostitution conviction convictions that resulted
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:01
from their victimization and to provide legal recognition of human trafficking survivor rights.
And so the the impetus of this is
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
23:11
uh trafficking involves all sorts of means of coercion, intimidation, so this just gives a pathway for the courts to address those.
Thank you, Senator. So on the no contact order. So this would, this would make it immediate that upon conviction. that
there's a no contact order applied to that penalty. Charged, yeah, if they're
charged once charged, not, not after convicted, the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:40
example that we wrote here is just using, you know, fake
names that Sarah is a trafficking victim and test testifies against her trafficker, Mark. Mark was arrested and charged under the Human Trafficking Act of 2013. The judge has the discretion currently to issue it but not required to do so. So therefore,
Mark, if he gets released, he continues to harass and intimidate. And there's no action that the court can take and what, what's
the penalty if they break that no contact order. contempt
of court. OK. OK. Thank you. Members, any questions on 429? Senator Tucker So
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:26
102 is not in the bill, right, and that is that just the standard offense for the person who actually is engaged in the prostitution themselves. OK. So I'm, I'm looking specifically
at section 3 on page 5. And so all this is saying is that if you're guilty of that offense of of prostitution. Then your record shall be sealed. If either if you were a victim of human trafficking. And either you were a minor or your offense was that
102 or if you were an adult and that offense, the offense was under the 102 section. And it's automatic at that point.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
25:10
We're we're getting clarity of your question. Senator Tucker, are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:20
you on line 16 through 20. Yes, sir, and then also 26 through 29 as well. You want. Senator, could you state your
Speaker 122
25:40
question one more time so we're making sure that we're on the roll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:47
I just, yeah. Um There's Your, your, the record of your conviction will automatically be sealed if you are a victim of human trafficking, and you're a minor. Or if you're a victim of human trafficking and an adult, but the offense you're convicted of is that prostitution in Section 102. Yes, sir, I believe that's
Speaker 125
26:04
correct. And also you have a, you also have additional protection as a juvenile because juvenile records are sealed as well, so there is that
protection as well. OK. All right, thank you. And would you mind speaking closer to the mic just a little bit. It's hard to hear it a little bit. Thank you. Senator Tucker, did you get your question answered? OK. members, any further questions? I think this is what you said, but this is only referring to the victims of minors. On the redacted information, is that correct?
Speaker 130
26:42
On Section Section 3. If we're looking at
Speaker 125
26:47
Section 3, and if we're on line 16 through 20. The protection is going to be for minors, for crimes that were committed as a minor, as a juvenile, if they were victims of human trafficking. Of course my follow up with that is that juveniles who have been convicted or adjudicated also have ceiling that automatically happens because they are juveniles, but as an adult, if you're a victim of human trafficking and you're charged with prostitution. That's where
the ceiling would come in on that. OK. All
right. Thank you. Did you want to add something sooner, Bryant? OK, members,
any further questions? All right, seeing none, um, Mr. Rosensweig, were you signed up for this one? OK, all right, no one else looks to be signed up for or against anybody in the room want to speak for or against seeing none. Senator, you're free to close for your bill. I'm Mr. Chair. Appreciate
it, motion. OK, I see a motion to pass from Senator McKee, a second from Senator Gilmore. All in favor of Du pass signaled by saying I pose like sign. Congratulations, 429 has passed. Thank you committee. Thank you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
28:07
Mr. Chair. All right, Senate Bill 4:30. Thank you chair Senate Bill 4:30 uh has the purpose to require mandatory mandatory restitution
for victims of human trafficking and to amend the Arkansas crime victim reparations Act. What it defines is any person convicted under the human trafficking Act of 2013. has restitution coverage for medical and psychological treatment necessary living costs, legal and court-related expenses, property damage, relocation expenses, other losses in eligibility considerations that is in Section 1. Section 2 changes the filing deadline to extend the filing
claim from one year to 5 years after injury or death. Uh, and if the victim was a minor at the time, they have 5 years after the age of 18 to file a claim with the victim's restoration, uh, victims reparations board. Um We gave a few examples of how this would apply. A scenario would be if a trafficker is convicted of exploiting a 17-year-old, the victim has sustained physical injuries and
suffers from PTS due to the trauma. The restitution can be ordered for medical treatment, psychological counseling, and therapy, and rehabilitation for physical and mental health. For example, another example of trafficking case requires a lengthy investigation and prosecution with victim advocates assisting the survivor throughout the legal process. Therefore, restitution can be ordered
to pay the expenses of the investigation, court fees and victims advocate support and other court-related costs incurred due to the case. So really it's just expanding
reparations for victims of human trafficking. Thank you,
Senator. I see a question from Senator Gilmore. You recognized? Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
29:54
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you bringing this package of bills. It's good stuff. I do have a question
on this one though, and maybe this is for the prosecutors or anyone else down there that can address this. What is the penalty if they don't pay restitution or unable to pay.
Speaker 125
30:16
You know? Senator, If we had a trafficker in this particular case who went to prison or was on probation if they did not pay, that would be a violation of their probationary conditions, and then if they did go to prison and then were released on
parole, that would be continued through their parole violation or parole conditions and so if they did not pay it would be a violation of their parole. Now in Arkansas we're also going to look at if they do legitimately do not have the means to be able to pay that, we would have to address that along the way as well and would hopefully work to be able to Find that those funds to be able to do it, but that's, that's in reality where we are, OK, so follow up, Mr. Chair. So just to make sure I, I understand just
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:19
to just to reiterate what you said, that is the ability to pay is looked at, um, when this is imposed. It's actually
Speaker 125
31:28
going to be looked at at the very beginning whenever someone is arrested and charged with adjudication, yes sir, that's correct. Thank you. members, any
further questions on 4:30? See none. We don't have anybody signed up for or against anybody in the crowd. I'd like to speak for or against.
See none. Senator Bryant, you're free to close. I'm closed, Mr. Chair. I appreciate motion. I've got a motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, a second from Senator Johnson, all in favor of a motion of due pass signaled by saying I pose like sign. Congratulations, Senate Bill 4:30 is passed. Thank you committee. All right, Senate Bill 431. There's an amendment. We have amendment being passed out.
Yeah Yeah Right, I think everybody has the amendment. Senator Bryant, you're free to describe the amendment.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
32:47
I don't have a copy, but we are removing affirmative defense.
From the language. Would you like a copy as well? I, I don't think I need one, so we, when we initially filed this bill, um, there's obviously concern going in and we wanted to make sure this all stakeholders were good, um, so in consultation with various other
stakeholders, it's just easier just to remove that provision of the bill and not have an affirmative defense, um,
if a, if a victim of human trafficking created did an act, and a legal
act. They need to be held accountable if if it's warranted. So we just want to make sure that the law provides
for that. OK. OK, we've got a motion to adopt for Senator McKee a second from Senator Gilmore on favor to adopt the
amendment, and I pose like sign. Congratulations, your bill is adopt the
The amendment is adopted. You're free to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:53
Committee Senate Bill 431, um, is proposing amendments into the Human
Trafficking Act of 2013 to include the removal of statute of limitations for specific human trafficking related offenses
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
34:04
and the creation of safe harbors for miners as well as the prohibition of child sex dolls. And so elimination of the statute of limitation. What we're doing is expanding the list of offenses that can be prosecuted any time, including
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
34:18
sexual extortion if the victim was a minor trafficking of
persons, patronizing a victim of human trafficking, grooming a minor for future sex trafficking or traveling for unlawful sex acts with a minor. Uh, and then the prohibition of child sex dolls making it illegal to possess transport, distribute, or manufacture child sex dolls. And we define child sex do as anatomically correct dolls, mannequins, or robots resembling miners for the intention of sexual use and established the penalties for possession as a class D felony transport or distribution as a class C felony
and manufacturing is a class B felony. I believe the state of Florida enacted this a couple of years ago because it's readily available that you could Potentially take a picture and submit it to a manufacturer or company and get a like image doll shipped to your house
for sexual gratification, so we are going to prohibit that in the state of Arkansas. Thank you, Senator
for the description as amended members, any questions?
See none. We do have Mr. Rosensweig, your, uh, free to join the table to speak against. As a reminder, we have a 3 minute limit on testimony today Feel
Speaker 159
35:41
free to represent your recognize yourself for the Jeff Rosensweiggen, Arkansas Association of
Speaker 161
35:47
Criminal Defense Lawyers with regard to the child sex doll issue that Senator just mentioned, there are several problems with that. One,
is that it is void for vagueness because it is because the language includes features that resemble and things of that nature that essentially any doll, any inanimate object would be felony felony contraband, and it does not give a specific guidance to a possessor of one, including A child,
what what is illegal and what is not. Secondly, it's, I think, impossible to square this bill with the US Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition, which, which specifically held that that uh uh in the context of child pornography that the image had to be of an actual person and not something conjured up with
artificial intelligence. So here we have essentially an inanimate object that doesn't even meet meet that criteria. I think you're going to run into a whole lot of trouble and a whole lot of abuse, and it's probably going to be declared unconstitutional and I suggest that this provision be stricken from the bill. Thank you, Mr. Rosensweig. Members have any questions? See,
I appreciate your testimony today. We don't have anybody else
signed up for or against, uh, anybody in the room, I'm sorry, Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:42
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to give Senator Brian or the
prosecutors an opportunity to respond to Mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
37:56
Rosenzwe's stated concerns. I, I, I will respond that I think it's the courts need an avenue to prosecute people that want to do this type of
behavior, if you're possessing a doll that looks like a child for the intentions of sexual gratification. I think the state needs to address that action. Um, and I think this is the means to do it and the courts can decide if this is the appropriate manner of
behavior because that is predatory behavior that leads to the future of finding a real child for
the purposes of sexual gratification. OK. So I appreciate that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
38:31
policy response. I guess I'm going to ask the prosecutors for a response to the constitutional argument.
Speaker 44
38:42
Senator, without having read that particular uh decision by the Supreme Court, I'd have to go back and read it and see exactly how it looks for the vagueness argument and then also the argument with the specific resemblance
Speaker 125
38:57
of a child. What we're coming across in some of our cases that we've seen is we've gone from Absolute inanimate objects that just will have um Um,
One, give the opportunity for someone to use that particular inanimate oddvic for sexual gratification too. AI has opened up such a level. Of, of, um, Avenue to Satisfies satisfy these wants Of predators that Just as was stated a moment ago, you can actually get a photo of a child and then superimpose
that and have a have a doll made of it. We're seeing AI generated, um, images, um, That we're seeing for pornographic images, photos, videos, all of those things that look so real you really can't tell the difference. And if we're moving to a point where we've gone from anime. A pornography to a point where we actually have the face of a child that is a real child that
is then superimposed onto a doll, some kind of likeness. That's what we're looking at because we are going down a path that is leading to um, Whether it's future grooming of children, seeing how that will work or just the violation that's the path that we're looking at here and trying to stop that before we get there. Additionally, Senator Tucker, we had a
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
40:38
provision in one of these packages, I believe it was in
420442 that addressed the issues out of the Ashcroft decision because there's been subsequent rulings at the Supreme Court that have challenged that original ruling back in the early 2000s because of the onslaught of AI and the advancement of our technology, so but I believe the team at the Office of Attorney General is going to is prepared that bill and will be in the process of
running that in the near, near, near future. God. All right, thank you. Senator, I think
in your opening I may have heard you say this,
but did you say other states have passed similar legislation in
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
41:19
2021 in the state of Florida, I believe, passed this and as a as a member in the House, I prepared a draft for this, but due to the Ashcroft decision and other pending items, the time was not right for the bill, but the time is right now with this council and what they're seeing and with the chair's permission, we have a witness. I don't know if she signed up to speak for or against this particular. that she might be able to address the other concerns, so
it did pass in Florida already, correct? And did the Supreme
Court take up that has that Has that bill been? I do
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
41:56
not know if there's any challenges or any charges related to the Florida legislation in
that state, but I do know it passed in Florida in 2021. OK, we've got a few more questions and I'd love to hear
your testimony, but a few more questions first, Senator Gilmore, you recognized? Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
42:12
Senator again for bringing these bills and I always appreciate the testimony
from Mr. Rosensweig because he's good at what he does and he, he raises, I think real questions, but again, I think we're in a situation where we're trying to stop this behavior that's happening and so we need to do everything we can, um, the only thing that I that I have just as again maybe a question of the prosecutors starting the bottom page 2 over to page 3, where it talks about the Affirmative defense, um, My only concern is one of the things that we're seeing right
now on the state, especially in more urban areas as younger um Younger people committing crimes frequently and a lot of times that's gang related activity. I guess my only concern and and hope it's not the case, and I'm not sure how you really address it or absolve this, but could they claim this
as an offense if they're engaging in other activities that are unlawful. Senator Gilma, I believe,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:14
and I don't have the amendment. It was, it was done
before break. The goal was to strike all language regarding affirmative defense. Well, there's some additional language
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:24
on page, um. Page 3 that carries over to page 3, you
Speaker 178
43:31
did strike some. new stroke. 3. So Senator Gilmore, the intent
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:39
was to strike all affirmative defense language, so I'll have to I will need to
prepare another amendment to correct that. Well,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:49
I think verbal amendments are allowed in this committee if
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:52
you'd like to I would love to make a verbal amendment in the essence of time to verbally strike Section 3, page 2 lines 35, 36 then on page 3 lines 1 through 5. Um, would it be just striking that whole section 3, Senator? Yes, it would be, Senator.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:09
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to at the appropriate time,
and I don't know if now is the time, but at the appropriate time, I'd
like to make a motion to amend. Let's do this. Let's, I think we've got another question, and I think potentially one more testimony and let's see if there's any other. Um, changes needed at that time, then we'll come back to your motion.
Speaker 186
44:40
Um All right, Senator Johnson, you're recognized for a question. I appreciate uh Mr. Rosensweig's defense of the indefensible, but uh I don't care the opinion of a court in this matter. I think
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:53
we've got to handle this situation now and as a body and and I appreciate. Everyone at the end of the table who has brought this and It's just how that's, what kind of sick world that that we've got to create. Laws To handle
these situations. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Johnson. All right, ma'am, if you, would you like to present your testimony today. It's your decision.
OK, please recognize yourself. And who you
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
45:31
represent. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Kathy Bryan. I have the privilege of serving as CEO of the Genesis Project. We're an organization that provides tailored services to both adult and minor survivors of human trafficking, and we equip others to do the same. I've been in the anti-trafficking field for about 15 years and literally have served hundreds of survivors,
and so that, that's just a little bit of background. The reason this is is Such an appalling issue is these childlike sex dolls, just to be clear, this is not adult sex dolls. This is child sex dolls. These so-called dolls are deliberately crafted to look like real children. They are far more insidious than just some novelty toy. They are literally tools of rehearsal. They're designed with anatomically proportions, facial
features of children the size of the doll, the size of all of the I'm sorry for this word orifices are atomically correct in some cases they literally are crafted, so like if you, if I, if I was a predator and I saw your daughter on the soccer field, and I liked her. I could take a picture, send that to the manufacturer, have that doll look exactly like your child. It is, there's no word for how heinous this is to me it is very
much akin to CAM, which is, you know, child sexual abuse materials we use that word for. What we used to call child pornography and other items. This falls into that category despite the fact that it's an actual doll because of the way it's used by the perpetrators. Excuse me. Um, Though an actual child is not necessarily present in the room. The damage occurring is far more than imaginary research and behavioral science has
consistently shown that repeated behavior, even with an inanimate object, reinforces neurological pathways in our brains when a deviant action is coupled with pleasure, it becomes significantly harder to control. These dolls, therefore are not to serve as a preventative, as some people espouse, they, they're not a deterrent. Instead, it's a rehearsal for future abuse. We've seen this pattern with exposure to violent pornography
simulated rape games. Every time we're told we've told ourselves it's just fantasy. What harm can it do, but we've underested that damage. These dolls are no different. Countries around the world are addressing the danger. Australia, Germany, Denmark have already explicitly banned them. Other nations, including the United Kingdom, Canada, and South Korea, use existing obscenity and child sexual abuse material laws to criminalize them in their countries. Here Arizona, Florida, Kentucky,
Tennessee, Hawaii, South Dakota and Wisconsin have already either enacted or introducing legislation to outlaw them. I feel Arkansas should not be the last to act. We should be among the leaders in protecting our children. Thank you, Ms. Kathy. We're coming up on
our 3 minutes for testimony. I definitely appreciate. Would you be willing for questions. I believe we have a question. Senator Tucker. Thank you. Just one question,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
48:55
and thank you for the work that you do overall you're significant investment over a period of decades and I totally agree with you on the heinous nature of all
of this. You helped me understand better what we're talking about here. It's my one clarification question is these dolls are, they're basically life size. Is that what you're saying? They are lives. Yes, they are
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
49:14
life size. They are child size, so they're not even understood that until your testimony. So thank you, thank you for
Speaker 73
49:26
that. Senator Reich recognized her question. My concern is there anything that, uh, the amendment changed that. would cause a problem with the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
49:36
title to give them a technicality. Kick back on. I'm sorry, Senator. Is there anything the amendment changed that would would cause the title to
Speaker 73
49:47
have something that would get, no, Senator,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
49:50
I was looking so since we did originally intend to strike. All of Section 3 and
some of Section 2 now at the bottom line is 25 to 31 as originally amended. There's still changes in Section 2 lines 12 through 17
just for clarity, um, so I believe the title would still
hold true. OK, thank you. Thank you members, and thank you for your testimony. Any other questions today? OK, Senator Gilmore had a motion. I'm going to make a suggestion without objection. We are going to strike Section 3. for a verbal amendment. Um,
And uh do I hear a second on that motion. I see a 2nd from Senator McKee. So all in favor of the verbal amendment. Senator Bryant, make sure I'm saying this correctly. All in favor of the verbal amendment to strike all of Section 3. Signal by saying I
opposed like sign. OK, so we have, we
Speaker 174
51:01
have amended. Just for clarity, Mr. Chair, the original amendment
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
51:04
stands, and this is on top of the original,
so one total amendment being the original
amendment plus section. We've already adopted the original amendment. This would be a second verbal amendment. Um, which has passed, um, So Senator, you are free to close on your bill as amended, as amended. I'm closed, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
51:27
the committee. I appreciate emotion, OK, got a motion to pass from
Senator Johnson, a second. From Senator McKee as amended, all those in any discussion, see
9, all those in favor of a due pass motion as amended signaled
by say aye I posed like sign. Congratulations Senate Bill 431 has passed as amended. Thank you,
committee. All right, Senate Bill 441 442, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
51:58
believe is the last one. 442 and this does
have an amendment being passed down. I'm not saying for.
All these are still true, right? another. Current members, we have Senate Bill 442 amendment in front of us. Uh, Senator Bryant, you're free to to um describe your
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
53:00
amendment. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you committee. This amendment again, once the once the bill goes out into circulation and different members of stakeholders have a chance to read it. There was a concern in the prosecutor's office that the bill did not align in the realm of asset forfeiture of previous asset for for uh law that's been tried and true in the courts, so their ask was just to not remit the will
just to use the exact language out of existing asset forfeiture for drugs and other purposes to apply to human trafficking, so that's the body of the entire amendment. OK, remember, you've
heard the description. I've got a motion to adopt amendment from Senator McKee. In a second from Senator Dees, all in favor
of the adoption of the Senate, the amendment to Senate Bill 442 I. The pose like sign. Congratulations, you're, you're amendment is adopted, you're free to present Senate
Bill 442 as amended. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
54:07
Chair. Thank you committee. Senate Bill 442 deals with many things, but among them asset forfeiture and for human trafficking crimes. This will expand existing asset forfeiture laws to include the property used in human trafficking offenses. Uh, different, a new rule would be if the property owner did not know it was being used for trafficking, that could not be forfeited. It prohibits transferring forfeited property
to federal agencies without a court order and ensures part of the asset sale proceeds go into the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support funds. There is an existing fund that will be replaced. It was not being utilized. I think there was $88 in the account, um, the funds that go through the asset forfeiture will be deposited not only a month. existing law into federal agencies but also portioned into the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support fund, which will be created underneath this bill. In that fund, it creates, it'll
be managed by the Arkansas State Police. It replaces the previous human trafficking victims support fund and the funding sources include the fines collected from human trafficking and prostitution convictions asset forfeitures, legislative appropriations and donations for the permitted uses of housing advocacy, legal and social services for the trafficking victims, grants to nonprofits that assist these victims, training software and equipment for law enforcement investigations.
prohibited items will be buying vehicles or emergency equipment for the purposes. The bill also creates a new section for harboring endangered runaways of minors. It makes it illegally if they know if someone knowingly harbors a runaway miner who is considered endangered. penalties being the first
offense of class state misdemeanors second or later being a class D felony, additional mandatory fines
of $1000 per conviction with this money going into the human trafficking Council support
fund. It also defines the endangered runaway as an
underage or missing minor for at least 72 hours without guarding consent or a valid reason. Increase his financial penalties for human trafficking related crimes updates to find distributions
for the various human trafficking and prostitution related cases. The fines will not be split, um, 100% to the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support fund with covered the covered offenses of these funds being from the trafficking of persons,
patronizing of trafficking victim, grooming a minor trafficking, traveling for illegal sex acts, prostitution, sexual solicitation, and promoting prostitution and then again giving new sentencing guidelines for sexual sexual solicitation, being the first offense of a Class A misdemeanor second offense of a Class D felony with a mandatory $2500 fine for buying a sex, money going to the human trafficking victim support fund. Um, it also establishes the human trafficking operations
unit in Section 18, which creates a dedicated human trafficking operations unit within the Arkansas State Police with defined duties to investigate human trafficking, investigate high risk missing children cases and support law enforcement agencies across the state. Establishes the human trafficking coordinator and analyst
position. Within the department and repeals previous task force and victims funds. Which
again creates Arkansas Human Trafficking Council
support fund, so just replacing the funds with the other. The key takeaways for the bill is to expand law enforcement powers to seize and forfeit assets used in human trafficking cases to create a new dedicated law enforcement units within the Arkansas State Police. To create a new violation for harboring endangered runaways to increase the financial penalties for sex and traffic traffickers and sex buyers with the fines funding victim services provides more oversight on law
enforcement asset seizures to prevent misuse. It centralizes human trafficking response under the Arkansas State Police and expands the Arkansas human trafficking efforts to ensure stronger enforcement, victim support, and coordination across the agencies. So that is the meat of the bill. I'm happy
to give some examples of the committee wishes. Other than that, I'm open to take questions.
I don't have this in this bill. Cents, you reckon? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I think you might have said this, Senator Bryant, so I apologize if this is repeat, but so with this, with the human trafficking council support fund. Will you give
some real examples again. Yeah How that is how that how those dollars are used some real life examples, um, so it's collected from the fines and then
Where, where are those dollars going, maybe a few examples of
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
59:33
the most common. So an example of maybe the most common would be um For the funding of Safe House for victims, very common.
They probably don't have a place to go back to their home where they need they need to get services and so the steroid be is a nonprofit running a safe house for trafficking survivors needs funding for mental health counseling prior to the potential passage of Senate Bill 442, these funds were limited and payable through really just federal grants or private
donations if the Senate Bill 442 were to be enacted into law, the funds that
go into this newly created support fund can provide grants to support therapy, housing,
and legal aid for these victims. I think for that clarity and so is
the entire fund from fines and penalties, or is there any other budgetary or even private
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:00:20
dollars that funding sources being the fines collected from the activities of human trafficking and prostitution convictions related to human trafficking asset forfeiture as identified in the
content of the bill legislative appropriations that the General Assembly might bestow upon them, upon our Sessions and then
any donations received by the general public for their good. Thank you for your clarity. Appreciate it. Sir Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:00:47
Chair. I've got, I've just got a couple of questions about sections 9 and 11. start,
start with section 9. What, what page?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:01:00
17 If you had a shorter bill, Senator, it'd be easier to find. Well, I broke them out into 6 buildings or else it was a novel, fair enough, fair
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:01:20
enough. So I ask this question with the acknowledgement that I'm not an expert in this area, right? OK. But I'm, I'm wondering if there should be a
definition of harbor. The reason why I'm asking this is because I could see a situation where
A person is Keeping a minor because they they're trying to protect from maybe their Father step stepdad or some situation like that, um. And And if in that situation, the way I read this section 9, that person could be. Guilty of a criminal offense. That's what I'm wondering about. Uh, uh, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:01:58
believe that there's an amendment, uh, a part of, part
of the amendment talks about good faith. Can you point me to the floor I believe it's page. 18, I'm sorry, page 5 of the amendment. Talking about page 18. Deleting lines 11 and substituting the following. Just I I shared those concerns initially upon the ask of the council about safe harbors and endangering because again if you have somebody with a good intention you don't want to prosecute them unnecessarily, so at some point there's activity
across the state that law enforcement needs to take action. OK, that's, that's, that's good.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:41
Thank you, that, that's helpful, yeah. Um. The other question about that is on on page 18. That subsection D. Is 8 through 11. That definition
of endangered runaway minor. How does that 72 hours relate? To the to the conviction. I mean, do they have to be with that person for 72 hours, or
I'm not sure there's a direct link in the language. I mean, what if they, what if the miner's gone for 72 hours and then they're with the person doing the doing the harboring for 5 minutes, or do they have to be
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:03:18
with the person doing the harboring for 72 hours. I would say be with the individual for 72 hours
without that individual notifying law enforcement or The authorities. Whose voluntary absent from his or her home for at least 72 hours with a compelling reason.
And without the consent of the custodian.
So if somebody's creating the safe harbor for that 72 hour period. So. My, my suggestion.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:03:53
would be online 17. I mean, excuse me, page 17 line 33.
To say there If he or she knowingly harbors a minor for 72 hours. That way it makes it clear that
the person's doing the harboring for 72 hours. I'm not sure it's clear the way it's written right now that you have to harbor the minor for 72 hours. The way, the way I read it and I'm not, uh, infallible is that the person under the subsection D, they just have to be gone for 72 hours and there's no direct link to doing harboring for 72 hours. If you give me a minute, Senator
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:04:50
Tucker. I'll ask. Senator Tuckey with the Willow Committee, I'd love to make that amendment as a verbal minute to add um As
you recommended. A person commits the offense of harboring and a dangered runaway minor if he or she know harbors a minor. Who is endangered runaway minor for a period of 72 hours. Is that I've at least 17, yeah, at least
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:05:20
72 hours. What page in line number so. No, it's on page 17. It's going to add some some language to the end of A. The. No Just, just, it would just be adding language to the end of A.
So on online 34 after minor. It would read for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:05:57
a period of at least 72 hours. That's
Speaker 226
1:06:03
what I just wrote, Yes, absolutely. That's
it. OK, Thanks ma. OK, we're on page 17 line. 334, and
the amendment After the word minor,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:16
we'll add the words for a period of at least 72 hours.
OK. Uh, We're going to, according to our rules, uh, I don't think
this is a minor amendment we need a motion first to suspend the rules. Some of got a motion from Senator Tucker to suspend the role 2nd from center D. Any discussion? Carry none all for the motion signified
by saying I, OK, now the motion to amend is on page 34, page 17, page 17,
line 34, and we're adding the words. For a period of at least 72 hours for a period. of at least 72 hours staff got that. OK. Uh And everyone on the end
of the table is good with that. Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you. Uh, we've got a motion and.
Second, uh, any discussion on the motion?
Carry none, all for the motion to do a verbal amendment on SB 442 as read signified by saying I all opposed. Congratulations, Senator Bryant, your bill has been amended again. Thank y'all. I appreciate that. Um, and then my last question, I'm sure
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:07:50
y'all accounted for this, but it's section 11 of the bill on page 18.
And we had a bill come through
this session already that amended that code section and the changes in here consistent with the changes from that bill. It was Senate Bill 314, I believe. I think it was.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:08:12
Yes, yes, we were monitoring the different bills from the different advocacy groups that, and yes, it is a lot. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK. Other questions from the committee. Please excuse me because I
came in late, uh, from the Education Committee, the
Does this bill, do we already allow forfeiture of assets. I can't tell from reading the title, and it's a long bill or
this this bill authorized the forfeiture of assets. Authorizes it for that we
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:08:51
already allow it for certain circumstances, but not specifically for human trafficking.
This would allow it to mirror existing language for the purposes of property used in human trafficking.
Speaker 125
1:09:03
OK, for the prosecutors does uh the forfeiture require Uh A Guilty Verdict Yes sir, it does. It mirrors Section M in the asset
forfeiture of 564505. And I
don't know that law prosecutor. That is in specific to
Trafficking or is that specific elsewhere. The 564505 is the asset forfeiture
Speaker 125
1:09:54
statute in the Criminal Code that Section M is the section that talks about there must be a conviction within the asset forfeiture or
for the there must be a conviction for the corresponding criminal case that the asset forfeiture corresponds to. There are exceptions to that in Section M of that, and it's my understanding that under this as the asset forfeiture, for the human trafficking that that section M mirrors that. So there are exceptions. Yes, so there are exceptions without a conviction there can be an asset forfeiture before
conviction under Section M4 for when a person has died. They've been deported. They've been given immunity. They have waves of the, um, owning the property that they did not respond in a timely manner, things like that. I don't have it right in front of me. That's just off memory, so. OK, because I know it
has been problematic and uh in some cases and the Uh
drug side of it. Uh, and that it doesn't require. A guilty verdict, and Senator
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:11:20
Clark, a provision in the in the Senate bill 442 is that the property owner had to know
it was used for the purposes of trafficking as to not get caught up if you loaned your car and that owner did not know it was being used for
trafficking, OK, good enough that uh Because we've had some heartburn on that. Uh
On the other side, but that I would think would clear it up. for this particular offense. Other
questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:11:54
Mr. Chairman. I just have one simple question. Uh, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one simple question. Would would this bill still require law enforcement to report to the control fund that forfeited property.
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
1:12:14
Yes, this, this Senator, this bill will report, law enforcement report to that new position created Arkansas State Police. The human traffic coordinator, which will in return be that drugs director that you see in the asset forfeiture for drugs, and it would
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:12:27
still be dispersed in the same manner as the
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
1:12:33
other 4. Yes, it's mirrored to that. The fund will go into the victim support fund for for human trafficking, that's the counseling support fund, which will go back to advocates, victims of human trafficking
Speaker 258
1:12:44
along those lines, but yes, prosecutors can use it the same way as it is in that drug asset forfeiture fund for vehicles. All
right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other questions from the committee. hearing none. We have testimony. OK, uh, Mr. Rosensweig. OK. I'm amazed.
Senator Tucker took care of Mr. Rosensweig's concerns, so. Um, I think. Brent Toney to me. I'd
like to speak for the bill. I believe before I left we set a
limit of 3 minutes. OK. If you were to turn the mic on, identify yourself for the record. My name is Brent Toomey with Saving Children and
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:13:48
Reviving Souls. We are a 501c3 nonprofit based in Northwest
Speaker 265
1:13:50
Arkansas, and we work nationally. Um, I need a lot more than 3 minutes, but I'm going to leave you with this. We've been working for 6 years with federal, state, county law enforcement all over the country. We work on the front lines with the children that are being trafficked. And I'm not talking one or two, I'm talking thousands. This is happening in Arkansas specifically Northwest Arkansas. We've had 3 or 4 cases in the last 5 months of people traveling to Northwest Arkansas to buy children for sex.
The human trafficking council that was created is a blessing for us in the state. We are We're not doing enough right now. This bill puts us out there. Arkansas needs to be number one in protecting our children. Right now, we are underfunded. I mean, we can use the council, for example. They had a $750,000 budget for three years. Two members of that council found 300 victims in a year, and we can't keep up. Benton County prosecutors said
last week or 2 or 3 weeks ago in a statement that they could use, and this was a statement they made last year. This is a statement that we use in our present. ations for anti-human and child trafficking. They said we could use 100 detectives. And 20 prosecutors to combat crimes against children and the sale of children. This was a statement made publicly. The problem is we don't have enough resources. Law enforcement doesn't have what they need. We need, we need so much more. The cartels and
criminal organizations that are taking over the trafficking. They're using AI. We can't keep up with them. We do not have the things that we need to fight this. We don't have the bed space to put the predators in jail. We DCFS doesn't have the investigators to go deal with all the cases that are coming in. The hotline doesn't have enough people to answer the phones. This bill right here is a giant leap in putting Arkansas as a leader in child maltreatment reform in the state of the United States. We have to do something. We are behind right now.
We are far behind the criminals are winning. They're stealing our children. They're, they're murdering their souls. We need to do something, again, I want to reiterate that statement. 100 detectives and 20 prosecutors for Northwest Arkansas to keep up with crimes against children. I don't know what else I need to say that that should tell us everything. We need to make We need to make Arkansas. The leader in the United States. We have to protect these
children, not just talk about it or we need to do something now, and that means properly funded. That means properly staff the agencies, not just the law enforcement, but the NGOs. The NGOs are the ones going and picking up the children and dealing with them after they've been raped and sold over and over and over. They, they have to go out and hustle up money from the private sector and try to get grants to try to take care of these children. We're not meeting all those children. You can get the leaders of those NGs NGOs up here right now, and they will tell you we are not meeting their financial needs. We are not meeting the needs of the
victims out there. The new process with the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council and what they're presenting puts it all, everybody working together. They're doing it now. They're proving it now. Your time
is up. Yes sir. Thank you. The uh I appreciate the testimony,
the, uh, and if the committee wants to do differently, they can let me know. Uh. We know that people have traveled a long ways in many
cases to testify for and against these bills, and we're always try to be as accommodating as we can. We're at a point in the session
where if we're going to get all the bills run and there are as passionate as you may be about this bill. There's somebody else passionate about another bill, and we are going to be more accommodating. We're going to treat people equally, but we're going to be more accommodating with people on the opposite side of where the bill seems to be going. The
bill seems to have unanimous support in the committee and so it's going to pass regardless. We're going to tend more listen carefully to those who are against. If a bill seems to that it's going to fail, we're going to tend to listen more to those that are for, although we're going to give everybody equal time but Again, I learned some things there, uh, from that
testimony, and I would tell you that as far as resources, I think this certainly one things will come
out of this bill is a out of this session is that it was a human
trafficking session pretty much if it came through, it passed but as far as asking for resources, I don't remember seeing that and that would come from the executive branch that would come from the state police. And others they asked for it. I have
a feeling from what I've seen they would have they would have got it, so, uh, thank you for the testimony. Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:19:00
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got another little technical fix for Mr. Rosensweig that I think is appropriate. On page 16. Line 19. There's a reference there to code section 5-4-607. That code section is Murder sentence
So I don't think that's the right code section. Because It's actually a civil asset forfeiture. That we're trying to
Speaker 232
1:19:53
reference there. Mr. Rosensweig's suggestion is a 564-505.
I'm told that is correct. OK. What is the
correct section, Senator Tucker? 564-505. 5-64. Oh That's 505. That is a technical correction which is within the rules of this committee, uh, and
Senator Bryant, y'all are good with the technical correction. Yes, Senator Tucker, would you like
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:20:32
to make that motion? Yes, sir. I move
that on page 16 line 19, we strike the reference to 5-4-607 and replace it with a
reference to 5-64-505. 2 Centra Ds uh any discussion? All for the motion. So Papa saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. The Senate bill for
42 has been amended for the 3rd time. The, uh, anything else from the committee? Thank you,
Mr. Rosawa and Senator Tucker for that catch. The Senator Bri, you are recognized close for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:21:26
your bill. Don't kill it. Mr. Chair, we have a, did you sign up to speak? OK. Are you OK to pass? Um, I had somebody here to speak
for it, but with in light of your comments from the chair. I would be closed for my bill and I appreciate a motion to you pass.
Du pass has amended. OK, OK. I heard the second who was the motion. Motion Senator Johnson's 2nd Senator McKee, any discussion? Hearing none all for the motion signified by saying
aye. Uh, congratulations, Senator Bryant. You have passed your bill as amended, amended, amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee.
I sent to Bryant, we are done with. The special order business, but I believe the next bill on the agenda is SB 355, which is yours. Are you ready
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:22:35
to run? Yes, yes, Mr. Chair, I am. SB 355. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Senate Bill 355 adds a provision within obstructing government operations for an individual that had been received personal services of a subpoena by the judge or circuit
clerk fails to appear and testify at a trial or at a court hearing. Our district judges are saying they're having
trouble clearing our docket because people aren't showing up. It's hard to issue in order to get them there because the processes sometimes are not as clear in cut and dry, so this gives
them a method to uh for the prosecutors to charge somebody that does not show up and obstruct these government operations. I did visit with the um public defenders about this bill, they've suggested the amendments
that Iran for this to get their to get them to remain neutral, at
least if not support the bill. So with that, I'll be glad
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:23:29
to take any questions. Questions from the committee, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. What was the amendment
is there an amendment on it? It was clarity. The original bill just said that the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:38
uh the clerk and so the amendment just really between the public defenders and the judge that asked for this, it just
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:23:46
really clarified the intent. So was that I don't see any italicized
language of the bill. So did you put, did you make that change before you actually filed the bill? Yes, I ran as members on. OK, but I don't. I don't see where Anything as a talli sauce. Has he never been adopted? It struck the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:07
entire, I believe the whole thing is italicized. It struck the entire I don't have a language. That's what it is in my packet here.
OK, let me, I'm gonna look it up online real quick, Mr. Senator Bra, this bill makes it a class C misdemeanor.
If you knowingly don't Honor a subpoena. Yes, Mr. Chair, do you know what
a Class C misdemeanor penalty is not. We've got prosecutors that can tell us. Off
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:03
the top, I do not maybe the prosecutors can come back to the table, please. class.
Got two questions. The penalty for a Class C misdemeanor and is this not already in the law anywhere? Classy misdemeanor is up
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:56
to 30 days in jail and up to a $500 fine and I know the judge that recommended this
language and if he could find it in the statue and use it, he would have, so that's why he's asked for this bill, OK? And prosecutor how do you
believe that this is true, that we don't currently have a penalty for not honoring a subpoena. Your
Speaker 125
1:26:21
Honor, the only thing that we would have at this point would be contempt of court if there was a subpoena that was issued and a subpoena served and someone did not appear at that point. They could be found in contempt of court, OK, so that would uh would have handled it, but this
makes it more specific. That is correct, Your Honor. Sorry, Chairman, Mr. Chairman, sorry. Any other questions from committee?
Hearing none. Is there anyone here to testify for or against? No. Central Bryant, would you like to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:54
close for your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair.
I appreciate it. Do pass. Senator Johnson DuPass, Senator Dees, 2nd. Uh Any discussion, hearing none, all for the bill signified by saying a, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bryant, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:27:12
and with the chairs and the committee's permission move Senate Bill 356 to deferred.
They have reconciled those issues at the agency level and you wish
to for staff's benefit, you wish to defer move Senate Bill 356 to deferred. It is done. And I am out of here.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:27:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. I do
not see Senator Hester. Um, a few after them. If that works. Somebody check with Senator Hester and let's move down the list.
Do not see Senator King. So after these. Oh. Thank you, members. Tyler Dees, state senator, District 35.
Speaker 164
1:28:24
Centra D you are recognized to present. SB 449. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Members, this is a bill that just provides clarity and safeguards to provide civil immunity for the confiscation of alternative nicotine products, vape products, um, this, this really comes from when in our schools with our teachers, with our law enforcement when they engage with citizens with these, these products if they have to confiscate them, that they can't be civilly civilly.
a lawsuit brought against them for that confiscation of those products. Questions from committee. SB
449. You are recognized Center stubblefield. But Ross.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:29:26
I was reading a bill last night and this evidently wasn't it, but there's,
Speaker 73
1:29:31
is there another bill out here that Goes further than this that you, there's there's a multiple vape-related bills that are running through the legislation $100 and some
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:29:41
stuff that I had some questions, OK,
this is not it. Thank you. So this allows. But this
makes clear that Is this a school employee? It could be, yes sir. School
employee confiscates. $100 worth of nicotine products, vape products, etc. that they have no liability if
they collect 1000 confiscate $1000 10,000 dollars, $100,000. Yes sir, you're correct. They are immune. OK. Uh, Any other questions
from the committee? Senator Ross.
Speaker 73
1:30:28
You, you said it could be. Uh If you see, I'm, I'm sorry, I haven't read this one,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:30:39
but if I rolled up. on the school ground and and some kids standing out there and I went over
Speaker 295
1:30:44
and confiscated all of them just to protect me too If you look in the bill on, on, on page 3 line 9, it does say employee of a school, right, so that could be a janitor. I believe it could
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:30:56
be, sir. Yes, OK, all right, and believe me,
back in my day, the janitor would do that if he. And I wouldn't
have questioned it either. It says a or a person otherwise in a position of trust or authority over
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:31:12
the minor, and that can be pretty much anybody in the school system. OK, that clarifies. Thank
you. Any other questions? Sent Stubblefield. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:31:25
Chairman Senators, this only uh pertains to nicotine.
Product, right? Like the products, e-liquid products, nothing else like Delta 8 or Any of
those, so we have different bills as I said before, that will address some of those other products, but you're correct. This is, uh, if you see in the description, it's
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:31:49
yes sir. Thank you. I've got one more. So Ross, you are. I think it'll
be my last. Does the school have to have it in their policy. That they can't have these own
school property. I'm not sure if it's required. I can tell you that I don't know of a school district that doesn't have that in their policy you would think they
Speaker 295
1:32:11
would have to to be able to take it away from them. Yes, that
would make sense logically to me as well, and a lot of these products too also are um aren't for minors anyway, so there are some state laws that would apply to that as well. But if a school district
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:32:24
didn't specifically have that if this passed, it would be wise for them to have it. I would agree clearly in their policy. Yes sir, I'd agree.
The central day these, it seems that it would Hm Makes sense to have that wording in
here, but like I said, probably every school already has it. In their handbook but I think they would have a hard time being immune. For confiscating something that they didn't have a rule against. Um, uh, it would, that would provide a little bit of clarity in the law, I think, but Other questions?
Hearing none, uh, anyone here to speak for or against, no one to speak for or against. Sentra Ds, would you like to close for your bill? Close and make a motion to pass. Motion to pass, 2nd from Senator Gilmore, uh, any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying ah
all post motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Dez. You have passed your bill. Senator Hester's still not here who specifically wants to run a
bill, Senator King getting answers from Central lighting is not here that guy
King's not going to be here today. Central lighting. He's got
rental Scott's not here. Senator Stubblefield, SB 477. No, the man that
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:34:00
It's responsible for this. I had to go and have a cancer treatment this morning.
Speaker 320
1:34:06
He owns a rental business in Northwest Arkansas. He'll be here next Monday. OK, uh,
OK Good Center SB 485, Senator Tucker has stepped out of the room. Are
Speaker 323
1:34:23
we, are we gonna hear Senate bills? we here. We are going to hear
Senate bills Wednesday. Uh, they'll be cutting it awfully close Wednesday, then we have another one here for Center. We have one for Center Irvin. Can somebody contact Senator Irvin? She's not here today.
OK, then she won't be running, will she? Senator Bryant
has another bill. Center Stubblefield, SB 509
Speaker 294
1:34:58
that's, that's that, Center Stubblefield, SB 509 that's, that's OK, Senator Johnson,
511. OK, well, we'll probably inter interrupt you.
Senator Hester gets in the room.
OK, well, they say Setra Hester is on the way, so whoever gets
Speaker 12
1:35:29
to the end of the table you can stay there. Aen Hester is here. I can't. Senate
Bill 426 is there amendment? OK. Of an amendment for SB 426.
Speaker 334
1:35:54
So Hester, would you identify yourself for the record, Bart
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:35:59
Hester, state senator, District 33. This amendment clarifies page 2 lines 23 through 36 after some good feedback from some people in this room on uh uh that that needed some clarification, that's what That's what that does. Motion
it up. Motion to adopt the amendment by Senator Dees, 2nd from Central McKee. Discussion hearing none,
all for the motion to adopt the amendment was saying no, all posed. Motion carriage center,
Hester, your amendment is adopted. Are you ready to present your bill? I am. So, thank you, Chairman Clark. Uh,
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:36:40
remember, so if I, if I run into questions that I'm not able to answer, I will come back after I've got some people that were scheduled to come present with me. I told them I'd be doing it after session, but because of the schedule opening up right here, I thought I would
come down here and do it, but remember this bills, I, I feel like something pretty common sense and simple. It says that if you are in the state of Arkansas illegally. And you commit a violent crime, then there will be enhanced penalties on that violent crime and those enhanced penalties will, you will not be eligible for parole. Under under the enhanced part of those penalties. And if you want to look, there's
a list on page 2, starting with with a list of those violent crimes. Uh, this also will um require each of our counties to participate in the warrant Service officer program with ICE, um, and what that will really do is rather than maybe sending an email or saying, is this person here, they will actually have the ability to go into the system and communicate with who they are in possession of. or in custody of at that time. I
think this is a bill that we would all agree would hopefully keep us safer. We've seen what's happened in many other states. We want to keep this from happening to the state of Arkansas. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:38:23
Questions from committee. Senator Rice, you recognize I'm sorry, I scanned over this. Is this Only after
An arrest Uh, as far as the Interaction with ice. Yeah, yeah, so that's actually a great question.
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:38:46
I meant to say that in my presentation. So this is only what somebody has been arrested. Right, so we're not asking our sheriffs to go, you know, if somebody gets pulled over for a traffic ticket or if they see someone like we we hope that our local sheriffs and local law
enforcement have trust in all communities, um, and so this does not require them or ask them to participate in anything unless there is an arrest and somebody is in custody at the prison or jail. OK,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:39:18
and, and that, that was my concern for what We had testimony in previous committee, not with ICE, but Uh, with The concern That another agency, what their action.
was it resulted in a death and what we had, uh, were told as it was from local.
Speaker 343
1:39:40
Law enforcement in and that's what I've had concern in here is how that would be, but your answer answered my question. Thank you. Yeah Other questions from committee members. Hearing none,
we have some folks signed up to testify against. Uh, beginning with folks on the list is Jeff Rosensweig.
Yes, and a reminder that we
have a 3 minute time limit. If you'll identify yourself for the
Speaker 161
1:40:19
record, Jeff Rosensweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The amendment fixed one of the problems we had with the bill, but it did not fix the other one, which is, uh, the, there is no definition of illegally or unlawfully that's that's in the bill. We, we, the problem is it doesn't have any defense. For notice that you were here
illegally or unlawfully. Now someone who jumps over a wall and Texas and comes over obviously he or she is going to know he's here illegally, but you've seen from the headlines recently that a number of people that Secretary of State Rubio apparently just sitting in his office as revoked, you know, visas and temporary protective status and that type of Thing, uh, that the that the
person has no notice of. And this is a criminal statute here and the, I think we there needs to be additional language here that that assures that a person will have notice actual or constructive that he or she is unlawfully here in the United States because apparently
at least in the current administration. there is a whole lot of arbitrary or apparently arbitrary revocations of particular statuses, particular visas, things like that. That's uh that's our concern. Questions from the committee, Senator Ross,
you recognize I don't think it's quick
Speaker 348
1:42:04
as you, but as you were speaking, I'm thinking. We're
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:42:10
saying that an illegal should have
Let's say definitions or you're saying notice. As a citizen, I know what the laws are. It's my responsibility to know what the laws. are and if I'm breaking the law. And I don't, I don't have to know when, when I'm doing something that's not allowed, and I'm thinking you're talking about maybe the green card deal that is a privilege not a right. They're in the country. On
a status that has limitations as a citizen, there's limitations even for me. And it's my responsibility to know what those are, so I, I, I, I get, can you respond to that? Yes,
Speaker 161
1:43:02
well, obviously a person has actual or constructive notice about a criminal statute. In other words, we, you know, or deem to know that murders against the law or robberies against the law, that type of thing. That's not what we're talking about. We're talking
about a status that is personal to the the defend it here at issue now obviously if someone sneaked into the country and is not and is totally undocumented has not interfaced with the government in any way. He's clearly going to be here illegally, but what about the person who came in legally and who for instance was given one of the temporary protected statuses
and has gotten no notice that that it has been revoked. or withdrawn. We're not talking about general criminal law. We're talking about status specifically to him or her, and I think the bill should require notice to that person or and or and or a definition of what unlawfully in the United States means because you can be lawful one day, unlawful. the
next day, depending on what some ICE agent or some cabinet official or someone in between says. What about the person who was granted a green card and then someone claims that uh that there was a misstatement or a misrepresentation in the application for a green card, you still have the green card, but are you, uh, it does this law apply to them. I think it needs to be clear that's that's
the That's the issue here and we need clarity and so the person, the defendant has noticed if you're if you're going to enhance his sentence by, you know, 10 number of years or decades or whatever. And I appreciate your answer,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:45:11
but I, I, what I think about The past administration. It has been substantiated that
they flew people into this country. They gave documentation. We opened the borders. We let people come in. We didn't know even if the executive of this country was in, was capable of, of being in control. And, and underlings were making policy in in giving things maybe like green cards, without properly vetting, we just opened the borders, and now we're dealing with that and well, I
won't do process. I just I feel like we're at a stage that that we've got to do some things and anybody with with temporary data and all needs to be very, uh, Concerned about them. Conducting themselves legally. Well, yes, sir, but the problem
Speaker 161
1:46:16
is I understand what you're saying. The problem is we're talking about this will be, this would be applied. We're not talking about general
immigration policy here. We're talking about criminalizing a particular person and that particular person has got in a lot of cases has got to have notice either in every case has to have, should have actually or a constructive notice that he falls within the terms of the statute. Now everyone knows their murders against the law, and everyone knows that everyone
would be subject to a charge of murder, but here you're talking about criminalizing a particular status that is not defined or not sufficiently defined because it's something that can, as we've seen from the headlines, is, you know, is subject to change day by day. That's, that's the constitutional problem with it. Thank you. Center days, you reckon? uh, uh, I
see where you're trying to go,
Mr. Was swag, about um About wanting clarity about are they a legal citizen or not, but the majority of this bill is talking about Those individuals who are who are not legally allowed to be here, but also who commit serious felonies involving violence, and I just, I find it hard to take serious the concerns about An individual that may not know if they're legal or not here, but
Everyone knows you shouldn't be committing serious felony offenses involving violence, and that's the majority
of this bill. So how do you, how do you juggle those two
Speaker 353
1:48:11
thoughts for a concern of a defendant in this argument is with the US Supreme
Speaker 161
1:48:17
Court in the Apprendi case. Any, any statute. That raises the sentence is something that has is treated as a criminal statute and has to be proved to a jury or or the
factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt in is subject to all the all the due process protections that one that that one would have for the underlying criminal statute, uh, and that's the problem. It's probably of notice. Now it can be solved with with a statutory definition of Uh, exactly what is
illegal or unlawful, and my concern is the person who who was here who was here legally. And then somehow is it subsequently determined what's illegal. I appreciate that. I think that the legislative intent here
is very clear that we We
were, we want legal citizens here and if you're not here legally and you commit these acts of violence that you should be prosecuted and enhanced. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Speaker 186
1:49:36
Senator Johnson So I, I get what you're saying, but we, we're not the one that is
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:49:48
the notifier. The state of Arkansas. It's the Fed. The feds who bear that responsibility of notification and if these individuals are not in the same place as their recorded domicile, if they are legal citizens at
that time if they're no longer there, you can't notify somebody, and it's not our job. the state to do so, it's their job to know whether they're here legal or not, and it's the, it's the enforcement's job to
Speaker 349
1:50:23
be able to determine that. Well, yes, well, there's, there's, but you're
Speaker 161
1:50:29
still, you still have under due process, you still have the requirement that for notification and it that
your for and status has been revoked. And uh as I say, that we can, you can solve most you can solve the problem by writing something that says that received notice or notice had been sent to the address registered or that type of thing. That would just give them an out.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:51:02
you have to receive notice that you're illegal. I mean,
It's their responsibility. If I was in another country, I would want to know that I'm legal today, tomorrow, every day I was there, and it's their responsibility, not our responsibility as a state. It's their responsibility and the Fed's responsibility to serve that
Speaker 349
1:51:25
notice. Well, but what, what if the revocation was the day before or something like that or
Speaker 161
1:51:31
6 or 6 hours before that's, that's the problem, and that's, that's what for instance we see in
Hi, you know, people are who think they're totally legal and all of a sudden they're picked up and sent whatever because and there's been this almost immediate, you know, backdated or whatever revocation. Again, we are not dealing here with immigration law. We're dealing with this is a criminal statute, and it is subject to the due process to due process requirements which applies to every person. It doesn't imply just the
citizens any person who's on trial, and it is a it is a criminal statute and it's subject to the constitutional guarantees of due process process which includes notices. so if you it needs to have definition that that discusses notice and discusses it in a way that uh that you know that would meet those two process requirements. We
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:52:34
live in a beautiful country that gives you process even though you're here legally. That's that's in the 14th Amendment.
Other questions from committee. Uh, Mr. Rosensweig, if you would
like to Write an amendment that says If you are here legally. And that's revoked. And that it takes 48 hours for this to become Uh
Attached to you, um, I'm sure that Senator Hester would would entertain it. I will, I
Speaker 349
1:53:22
will get with Senator Hester and try to come up with some language. I'm
sure he wants it to be completely constitutional. Any other questions from the committee. I, no,
I'm not suggesting that I'm just suggesting that if he worked, if he gets that and gets with Senator Hester, I'm sure Senator Hester will entertain it. Any other questions?
He none uh uh next speaking against, we have Marri Moriella Marisa Garcia. Don't believe
she's here. Sara Everett. Miss Everett, if
you will identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 365
1:54:20
Good morning. I am Sara Everett. I'm the policy director for the
AU of Arkansas. And uh would you like, you have 3 minutes. Yes, thank
Speaker 365
1:54:33
you Forgive me, I'm a little all over the place this morning, but I did want to
Speaker 367
1:54:38
make a few points on this bill, um, one of them being just the kind of the continuation of the ban on on sanctuary policies. Uh, it's very broad. This bill would
divert local resources from public safety to federal law enforcement. It prevents cities and counties from determining what's best for public safety in their own community and forces them to take on other responsibilities. Um, a few questions that that I have about the bill that kind of go along with just the, the mass incarceration problem in general, it's, it's cost, um, how much are we going to be spending uh from taxpayer
dollars to keep people in prison longer in Arkansas, and, and then just um beyond that, we, we don't feel that bills like this really do anything to help public safety. I don't think most people are doing a whole lot of math when they're uh thinking about committing a crime, I think um what we really need to be focusing on is preventing crime in the first place, and there are a lot of things that we could be doing, including expanding access to mental
health and other essential resources. Um, I, a few other questions that we had about this bill or whether we have assurances that Costs associated with this will be reimbursed by the federal government or whether counties will uh will have to burden, share the burden or take on the burden of more costs, and um whether we're concerned, we are concerned that people are are
spending longer in county jails than is legally allowable now, and we worry that this would exacerbate that once you contact ICE, um, ICE has a certain amount of time to come and pick people up, but county jails are often holding people longer than that because ICE isn't coming quickly enough, so I think this would subject more counties to potential litigation on that issue and then
I think, you know, I, hopefully we can work with Mr. Rosensweig on the the issue of of knowingly or not knowingly, but it is, there are certainly many people in this country who either are here lawfully or came here by no choice of their own, unlawfully, and I worry that this bill would punish people for something that they didn't choose. Thank you. Questions from committee. Ms. Everett
Uh, you said it wouldn't help public safety. Will it hurt public safety? Personally,
Speaker 367
1:57:35
I, I always think that uh choosing to do things that aren't helpful instead of doing things that are helpful, I think that harms public safety, and you brought up mental
health, I think that would be pertinent in a lot of discussions. I'm not sure how it's pertinent for people who aren't here legally. I think
Speaker 367
1:57:54
uh putting people in prison longer doesn't stop them from committing the crime to begin with, I think helping
people make better choices. For example, providing mental health treatment and other necessary resources help prevent crime rather than simply punishing after the fact. Let me ask you a question.
Perhaps you know the answer Colorado was one of the first states that legalized marijuana. Did more people go there. Because of that law. Uh, I don't know the answer to that. OK, I
people who moved to Colorado because the law was
less restrictive. So you don't think that a law that says if
you, uh, commit and let me read this. For serious felonies involving violence. Uh That you're going to be, you're going to be incarcerated longer
if you are here illegal illegally. You don't think that that might Keep someone from coming here who might commit murder in the first degree, murder in the second degree, battery in the 1st degree, aggravated assault, terroristic threatening a terroristic act. etc. I think it's very unlikely. I think most of
Speaker 367
1:59:27
these crimes, the vast majority of the time are committed in the heat of the moment. They're not something
that someone plans to Enter another country to do uh that far in advance, but if you go
to Colorado to smoke marijuana. Then there is a chance that if
you go somewhere because of the law that you might not go somewhere because of law, and like you said, it may be committed in the heat of the moment, but if you're not here, you didn't murder in Arkansan, did you?
You maybe, maybe you went to Colorado or Texas or Oklahoma or New York and murdered somebody there. I, I think murder is
Speaker 367
2:00:15
illegal in all of those states too. I, I understand what you're saying. I, I think I just, I'm
gonna have to agree to disagree. Do you think it would be horrible if again I know who you're representing, but do you think it would be horrible if Arkansas was recognized as the hardest state on illegals who Uh, who commit violence. Do
Speaker 370
2:00:35
you think that'd be a horrible thing?
Speaker 367
2:00:42
I don't think that in and of itself is a horrible thing. I think there are many other unintended consequences of things like this
that are that are unintended consequences of not controlling the border. I appreciate your testimony. Uh That is the last one.
we have already passed you up, Ms. Garcia. I apologize. Senator Hester, you're recognized the closure for your
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:01:22
bill. Thank you, members, and I appreciate the discussion here. At the end of the day, we do not control if the federal government notifies somebody. Right, that's why we allow in this bill, as we always do prosecutorial discretion on page 3, line 2, or line 3, the prosecutor attorney may include this. They will consider all the
factors if they choose to violent crime. Like Here legally or illegally, there's going to be a significant consequence, and I appreciate Senator Chairman Clark's position like we do not want to make this a place where violent criminals come. We do not want to be the place where we're seeing all these gangs start to move to, we want them
to say there are many other states that are more open to having people there that commit violent crimes with gangs that are here illegally. So this is a very small subset of of those that are here illegally that this should ever apply to, um, and I think we all agreed that this would keep our community safer and with that, I asked for a good vote. Motion to
pass such a what Motion to pass as amended for
Senator Gilmore, uh, And 2nd from center D's discussion. Senator Hester, I want to congratulate you on bringing one of the few enhancement penalty bills that I have ever locked. Any other discussion? Harry Nunn, all
for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Hester. You have passed your bill.
OK, I saw Senator Scott come in time. OK, I know that unless you're watching on video, you cannot, don't know what I'm saying right now, but we're trying to get Senate bills out this week. That means today and Wednesday, and we're not going to meet this afternoon because we're not going to have anything to meet on this afternoon. That means that I don't believe this committee is going to be nearly as sympathetic on Wednesday as they are today. Uh, they'll get your homework's not going to
work very well for us. We were here. We could have come back this afternoon. We could have heard your bills. If you don't get hurt on Wednesday, it's not going to be this committee's fault now. If we don't Uh, everybody else is coming back on Wednesday.
Senator Johnson, I believe you're next up. I have 11 to
Senator Johnson, if you would identify yourself for the record, Senator Blake Johnson, Senator Johnson. we have some technical business we
need to take care of before that Senate Bill 442, uh, in order to make sure everything is absolutely legal. We need to expose the
vote by which uh The First Amendment CEB 238 was adopted. Uh,
you know, have a motion, motion to expunge second from Senator D's all for the motion signified by saying I opposed Ocean carried, and we need to expunge the votes by which the two verbal amendments were adopted.
Motion from Central Gilmore. Senator Des in discussion, hearing none, all for the motion. So saying
aye, all pose motion carried. Now we need to adopt. Uh, the verbal amendment that includes all three amendments.
motion in 2nd. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying a. OK. That's all we need to do. All right, Senator Johnson, I apologize for interrupting
you. Would you please identify yourself for the record. All right, I
Speaker 356
2:06:01
already did that, but my guests can introduce
Speaker 390
2:06:05
theirselves. Laurie Trogden, president and CEO of the Arkansas Bankers Association. And Mike
Speaker 391
2:06:11
Shepherd, president of the Banker Security Council of Arkansas.
Speaker 356
2:06:18
Hey Centra Johnson, I'm going to start with
Speaker 186
2:06:26
Senate Bill 511. This bill will increase the state the fell felony for criminal mischief to clearly provide that interruption or impairment wholly or in part of an ATM is a Class D felony. These crimes are rarely prosecuted under the federal bank robbery statutes, and this will enhance the deterrent and strengthen the tools for
prosecution in the state of Arkansas. Questions from the committee. Hearing none. There's no one to
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:07:04
testify for against this bill, Senator Johnson, would you like to close for SB 511. Thank you, members. I'd appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to accept Senate Bill 51. Motion to pass SB 511 2nd from center Gilmore. Any discussion? All for
the motion signified by saying a all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you have passed
Speaker 186
2:07:30
SB 511. So, Same witnesses, same presenter for
512. If you would go ahead and identify yourself for the record again, Senator John. Senator Blake Johnson, District 21, I think you're recognized
Speaker 186
2:07:44
to present SB 512. This bill, uh, this bill allows for someone who
presents a note, uh, for a bank robbery to be charged with a robbery instead of just theft. OK, so the intention is a note. Cres Or creates a circumstance that
would cause a reasonable person to believe the use of physical
force is imminent. OK, and this is Not
Speaker 388
2:08:35
just from the bank, this is anywhere. Well, it was, it's meant to be in a robbery in a bank robbery,
so what is this specific to bank. To I would
assume robbery doesn't spell out banks that
it's just robbery, but I could be wrong because I'm not
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:08:59
a lawyer. Yeah, my understanding is that there is no specific statute for bank robbery. And when we sent this to BLR, this
is where they put it in the code. OK, so A person commits robbery if with the purpose of committing a felony or misdemeanor theft. Or resisting apprehension immediately after committing a felony or misdemeanor theft. The person employees or threatens to immediately employ physical force.
Or creates a circumstance that would cause a reasonable person to believe the use of
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:09:32
physical force is imminent, so Chairman, that would be like give them a note that I have a gun. And uh and we was gonna Intimidate those folks in the situation. And
Speaker 388
2:09:45
that makes perfect sense. I know this
is going to be used in other ways. I'm just trying to. To
Figure out what that would be. Code section. They could say,
you know, Senator Johnson just looked violent But I've been told I've been told that before. You and me both.
Chair
Unverified
2:10:19
Any other questions from the committee? Senator Ross, you're
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:10:22
recognized. I'm sorry I had trouble hearing the the witness response is this for any robbery, there's not
exclusive to banks, is that correct? They come in my furniture store and give me a note
Speaker 399
2:10:37
that seems threatening. It would pertain there too. I, I don't have a specific answer
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:10:45
for that question. I just know that bank robbery isn't specifically mentioned in the code and when we gave BLR this language, that's where they put it in the code. I don't know if you would give them furniture if they came in and gave you a note, but we have a $1 or $2
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:11:01
around every once in a while too, but I'm serious. It just pertains to something more than banks. I couldn't answer that. That
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:11:08
would be a question, I think, for prosecutors. The prosecutor after that. Uh, um, if
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:11:12
I may, I think I can answer it yes it would. It's in
the criminal code statute under robbery, which would be any robbery, not just a bank.
That's what I want to know. OK. I apologize. Any other questions from the committee? So I just as a follow up to this conversation, I, I just pulled up that
code section. It does not mention anything about banks at all or any reference to banks, so I would assume just clarity of of any
robbery situation. Any other questions? Hearing none, there's no one here to speak for or against any of Senator Johnson's bills. So
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:12:10
Senator Johnson, you'll recognize to close. I'm a, uh, appreciate a good vote and I would motion to adopt Senate bill 512 motion to adopt 2nd
from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified
by saying a all opposed. Congratulations, Senator Johnson, you have passed SB 512. So
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:12:42
Senate Bill 513, uh, this is the, like your postal theft issues and and uh check washing, uh, check washing is rampant in Arkansas and as well as well as across the United States. Criminals most likely most commonly used male theft to find checks to wash, uh, financial crime enforcement network has reported that over a period of 6 months
in 2023/688 million dollars have been linked to the mail theft related to check. on an average loss of $44,774 per incident. Experts predict that the fraud and losses would reach over 24 billion in 2024, those stats are not out yet. Mel theft theft is a federal crime. However, Most cases in the United States Postmaster General will not refer a case to the US attorney
for prosecution unless the amount includes hundreds of millions of dollars. This bill gives the local prosecutors the ability to prosecute male theft or possession of a mailbox key or lock. This is
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:14:08
prosecutors who gives them the tools to address this, not just the postmaster and the feds.
Speaker 341
2:14:20
Any questions from committee? Hearing none, there's no
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:14:29
one to testify for or against Senator Johnson. Would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. I'd appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to
pass Senate Bill 513.2 from Central Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a all opposed. Congratulations, Senator
Johnson, you have passed SB 513.
Speaker 186
2:14:55
This is the last of the list, uh, Senate Bill 514. Uh this bill strengthens the state crime of payment. Uh, payments, card skimming by enhancing the penalties for repeat offenders to require mandatory prison time, at least one year. And card skimming is like
whenever you put your credit card in and there's uh they have those devices or also they can walk beside you and, and take your card information, uh, with one of those skimmer machines and they can be easily bought and uh in your card can be duplicated in that situation. Questions from the committee. I don't know Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:15:55
Unlawful possession of a skimmer. What about lawful possession of a screamer. Is there such a thing? I don't know if there's a such thing. Well, I'm just saying it says unlawful possession of a skimmer and I don't know.
Speaker 412
2:16:11
itself illegal. I would say no, the skimming device is not illegal itself. I would say the acts thereof, someone who's deployed a skimmer. So if, if I put it on a device at Kroger at the gas pump, or I've slid it on top of another point of sale device that Mr. their furniture store,
anything like that is very possible that happens day to day, but skimming devices, if you don't know if you use outside gas pump at any gas station, you're probably going to be victimized. Uh, so they're just completely prevalent. But yes, I would say, I mean the possession of a lawful one is you can't have those because you could be doing a point of sale device yourself, and you could be using that skimmer device to to replicate ID cards, but there is obviously unauthorized uses of them. Thank you.
Other questions from committee. Senator Johnson, I apologize for not answering asking this question on your other bills, uh, but having heard testimony here today, you realize that this
is just going to cost us more money by putting people and more people in prison longer and they're still going
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:17
to commit the crimes anyway. I don't care. I appreciate the thought there, but criminals need to be penalized.
So just following, you know, the laws do. good and and we're don't know why
we're locking them up, so, well, just to cost the taxpayers money. All right, any other questions? Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Senator Johnson, would you like to close for your
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:44
bill? Thank you, Chairman. This I had this happen to me one time before the Walmart uh whatever that country market or whatever it was down here on, I think it was Kavanaugh.
Uh, I got, I got gas there and apparently they get they use my card and and duplicated it and I was in Florida and and uh without my knowledge and without me enjoying it, but they tried to use my card and and uh if I'm gonna, if I'm gonna pay for it, I at least want to have the enjoyment of being there. This is, this is a uh a problem and it's getting worse
Speaker 186
2:18:22
and I think we need to do something about it, and I'd appreciate. a good vote and make a motion to pass Senate Bill 514.
2nd from center Gilmore. Any discussion? All for the motion signed about saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations,
Senator Johnson on passing SB 514. Senator Tucker, you don't want to run your bill
today. I OK. OK, Central Stubfield,
we're ready for you if you're ready.
Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The number of Senate Bill 477 SB 477, you identify yourself for the record. Gary Stubblefield District 26.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:19:16
This bill was brought to me by a Equipment renter up in northwest Arkansas and I had no idea this was going on. He's uh wanted to be here today, but he had to go to the hospital for some cancer treatments. It really exists to 3 things. It wants to be, make
it a criminal offense instead of a civil offense. To start out with is using this section equipment rental service means the commercial service providing equipment for rent or lease, a person who commits the offense of theft equipment rental services, if he or she knowingly after the expiration of the lease, a rental period, exercises unauthorized control or otherwise deprive the lesser
or renter of equipment that is leased, rented, or entrusted. To the person. In other words, they either give someone else the property after the lease has ran out, or they use it themselves longer than they agreed to in the contract in the contract. Uh, the other thing it does, it, uh, It will allow the court to get restitution from the uh person uh that does this, and it also puts the criminal rent and
damage both together. It combines those. That's basically what it does. I had no idea these were all civil penalties,
Speaker 260
2:20:51
but they are. Uh questions from the committee.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:20:58
Secretary McKee. English chair. So I'm, I, I
think I understand the impetus behind this. My concern is someone who rents equipment from time to time is the lack of definitions, I guess. So if, if
If I keep a piece of equipment knowingly or not knowingly, uh, what is, is there a time period that specified whereby which I, I mean, obviously I don't do this, but I know that there's people out there, but, uh, if I, if I forget that I've got this piece of equipment because I mean it's everything from backhoes and trailers right to small bulls and things like that. Obviously those things aren't going to run into $25,000 range, but I mean you're looking at felonies here.
If you, if you keep equipment longer
Speaker 418
2:21:48
than you were supposed to. Well, if you were, if you were at a half
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:21:53
a million dollar bulldozer, you have that in a contract, and you know exactly the day that you're supposed to return that piece of equipment. And certainly not alive someone else to use it over the weekend for their purposes and and and damage it. Uh, so this, this would just prevent that from happening. They would have to return it, uh, especially without any repairs needing to be done on it.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:22:19
So that's which happens quite frequently. So that $25,000 damage mark for the Class B felony or see if it's below that. Is there anything that specifies how, how the renor is setting their prices or those prices have to be set in the contract beforehand. Well said, according to what other rental stores rent for there, you know, it's a competitive business. I guess my concern there though is the lack of definitions.
I don't know. It seems open ended to me. I understand what you're trying to do, and I appreciate that
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:22:57
it's to protect the rental store for people who have abused this, uh, and I've seen it happen myself in my own area, so it's just protect the property owners and the rental service their businesses, small business. I, I,
Speaker 423
2:23:09
I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other questions from
committee? Tucker. Senator, um, I was just made
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:23:21
aware of another, another code section where it is a criminal. It's already a criminal offense. I just, I don't know if you want to take
Speaker 425
2:23:27
a look at this, and it hasn't broken down by value the theft and class BC. It's already a criminal offense to keep these. Well, the
Speaker 255
2:23:42
draft who put this together was supposed to cover all those areas
Speaker 428
2:23:44
that weren't covered under original codes. I don't know if you want to take a look at that.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:23:56
They cover the. Yeah, does this cover the damages? I have to Um, but, I'm not sure
that covers the damages. Because a lot of times this equipment's brought back in different uh shape than it was when it left the owner with. responsibility to pay for those damages.
While they're studying Center Stolefield, it is the damages part that causes me concern. Uh
I locked the rest of it, but Section 1B2, which is line 29. Causes damage to equipment that is leased, rented, or entrusted to the person such
that the equipment is not in condition to be provided for rent or lease without repair. Quite what line
did you say? Line 29. On the second page.
Uh, no, first page. My Heartburn there is often there is a dispute. I
had that many years ago, 20 probably in Florida, my rented a motorcycle. My son went 100 ft, fell over in the sand, and I got a bill for $2000 worth of damages, which was a scam, uh, I had that many years ago, 20 probably in Florida, my rented a motorcycle. My son went 100 ft, fell over in the sand, and I got
a bill for $2000 worth of damages, which was a scam, and there was some scratched plastic, the and I know it says here, and I know that it's also true often with boat rentals, sea rentals. How much damage was there. Uh, you know, can it be because it says can't be rented, but I seen the argument presented
several times that, well, we can't rent it unless it we fix it when that's Pretty much not the case, but we're we're making something
criminal there that I'm not, I understand why, and I unders I understand the situations that they're going after, uh, but I'm afraid it's
so broad that it puts the consumer in a place who has a legitimate dispute that they're in danger of criminal charges. Well,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:26:19
a conversation with him with him about that. Uh, he told me that it was getting so bad, so These equipment. rental dealers that they were actually selling out because
they could not recoup the damages, and I can imagine and especially the other parts, whether they're law or they're not,
where it says that if you don't bring it back, and I know people, I only rent 5 or 6 items for installing flooring, and they, they do get pawned other things happen that should be, should be criminal. if they're not, and I appreciate
the uh the The damage part, but I'm afraid of it unless they unless they've got better word, Senator McKee. English, so I'd
Speaker 370
2:27:11
really like to vote for a bill like this,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:27:13
but I, I'd really like Like Senator Clark has said, some definitions and some clarity to handle those instances where there are disputes between the renter and the renter. Well, I'll tell you what, I will pull this down.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:27:32
And talk to him again about you guys. Your concerns and then bring it
back Wednesday. OK, try to bring him back. Thank
you. Have you got another bill
Speaker 436
2:27:49
Center stoleville? Senator Gilmore. Uh 537 SB 537. correct you from now 539.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:28:20
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Gilmore, District one, I think there's an amendment being passed out. And
I would ask Miss uh Hughes with the department to come to the table if you would please. All right, she's going to explain the amendment.
Speaker 441
2:28:43
I believe so. If you will identify yourself for the record. Yeah Thank you everybody. Tony Roll, chief counsel for the Department of Corrections. Um, the amendment just addresses some
issues that we came across when we saw the bill in its entirety. Most of the bill is technical corrections, and we just identified additional places, Um the main substantive change is that On The, uh, back on page 4 of the amendment, um, we strike two references to specific funds, and then add a provision that effectively just says that these changes that transfer the
centers in Sona, um, would not be overridden by any subsequent acts that use old language, and I think that's all the amendment
does. that Questions on the amendment. Harry
Nunn, uh. of a motion from Senator Johnson to adopt Amendment from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a all opposed motion carried, uh, SB
539 is amended. Senator Gilmore, would you like to
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:29:58
present your bill? Well, again, I think we're open to taking questions. I think that was the amendment pretty well explained the bill as well, so not to belabor any of this. Happy to move to questions
if there are any. Well, excuse my ignorance, but, uh, what does SB 539 do again? Well, I think
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:30:21
as it was stated, it is. Pretty much a corrections
cleanup and clarification bill just aligning what is currently practiced with the department and the Board of Corrections, but I will defer to Ms. Ryle for
Speaker 441
2:30:38
further clarification. Sure, absolutely. So the bill takes and makes the changes in code necessary to move the community correction centers from supervision of the Division of Community Correction and moves the sex offender community notification assessment. from the division of correction
to the Department of Corrections. Um, back in 2024 as a result of theTECT Act, the Department of Corrections created an assistant director of programming, and that individual took over programming for all of our secured facilities and our probation and parole offices. Um, that means that that left those community correction centers with just their security functions. and security functions are really best handled by
individuals who, you know, perform security functions on a daily basis. So the Board of Corrections voted to approve this. The Secretary of Corrections did transfer the security functions of those centers pursuant to her authority under the transformation and Efficiencies Act, but what that left us with was some code language that deals with the sentencing portion that didn't really exactly line up with what we have in practice now, so that just cleans all of that up. And makes it clear, also enables us to transfer the positions and kind of create some efficiencies
there and all the parties involved are agreed. That's correct, Senator.
Any other questions from the committee, Senator Tucker. There's, I'm
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:13
just catching up on, on this, but there's some language in there about eligibility for community correction and And whatnot. Can you I think there's
a You have a page number, Senator. Let me ask you this one first because I've got the page site
Speaker 447
2:32:30
ready for this one. On page 14. On 27. What's the
Speaker 441
2:32:46
thought for strike striking that subsection there, so that's actually done at the Department of Corrections level. OK, and this is that's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:55
correction division. OK, so it's not striking that requirement. She's clarifying where. No, it's just upward, OK. Uh.
Speaker 441
2:33:03
Let me, give me one second. Hey, if I could just clarify, I'm sorry, that's the correction, um, level, not community
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:33:19
correction. OK. I think my Well, my other question was at the top of page 4, but I think it's basically going to be the same answer. Yeah
It's not actually changing. I think that's that's correct, yeah. OK. All right, thank you. Other questions
from committee. Hearing none, there's no one signed up to testify for or against Senator Gilmore, would you like to close for your bill? Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:33:54
you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm, I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass motion motion do pass as amended, as amended. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Johnson seconds, any discussion? Carry none off the motion signified by saying ah I posed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore. You have passed SB 539 as amended. Thank you, Senator. And then if I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:34:18
may, 537. As SB 537 also has
an amendment. Yes, sir, I think the most important
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:34:25
thing about that amendment is that Senator Tucker is a co-sponsor. But, um, that amendment as it's being passed out, I'll just tell you, just make some clarifying
and technical corrections to the bill just so that there was um no uncertainty as to when this bill would begin, and so when I further explain the bill, I think that will be more clear. Have you got another copy of
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:35:08
motion to adopt at the proper time. Motion to adopt second
from center Ds, all for the motions to any
discussion. Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, you have amended your bill. Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:35:25
you, Senator. Um, if I may, uh, members, Senator Gilmore, District 1 here to present SB 537, um, I think it's a really great bill considering some of the things that we're trying to
do in Arkansas, especially as it relates to making offenders more successful when they get out of incarceration, and this bill seeks to do. that and I think it'll actually move the needle quite a bit. One of the things that we are doing with this is we are taking into account work as a way for offenders to reduce their time of supervision post release and so this bill actually allows
them to earn basically time off of their supervision if they're engaged in gainful employment. That's pretty much what the bill does. You can see starting on page one, where it talks about eligibility employment. There's the definition there, supervised offender definition there, and then it talks about the working days. I think on average, basically an offender can earn probably, and this is again rough math, but probably about a 6 off of their time of
supervision post release so that's really what the bill does, and I think it's a good opportunity to sort of help. Uh, offenders move off of supervision and be successful, and I think will help reduce recidivism, and that's certainly the goal of this bill. Happy to take questions. Questions from committee. See none. Uh, Anyone here speak for or against. No one
here speak for or against Senator Gilmore, you'd like to close for your bill. Thank you, sir. Members,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:37:11
I'm closed again. I think it's a bill that'll do a lot of real good and very meaningful work in helping reduce recidivism, and with that I'm closed, make a motion to pass. Motion to pass as
amended, as amended. Second Central McKee, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I, I, I opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Senator. OK, committee, we have 2 House bills that we have people here
to run the bills, Representative Carr, you said yours was had no opposition. Until
today. If you will identify yourself for the
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:38:01
record. Joey Carr, State House District Representative, 34 and on House Bill 1757. Uh, this is one to amend the law concerning railroads and dealing with the tampering of railroads.
And on the, the prohibitate the prohibition of tampering really dealing with the rail infrastructure, their property, their equipment, and this is just amending the fact that anyone that attempts, threatens, or conspires to Deal or vandalize or damage or any of their property, and the idea came out of this. There was a cut of cars that that were kind of vandalized and the separated and allowed to just roll freely. Someone had went in
and tampered with some of the cars, and there was a lot of property damage fortunately, there was no injury or deaths to the humans, but you know, dealing with this, some of the rail cars they do transport some Chemicals and things like that that could be harmful to society, and so the entire rail industry is behind this, and I'll just read off the those groups, the Association of American Railroads, American Short Line Railroad Association
of the rail labor organizations and so With the entire rail industry being behind this, you can see it's a good deal. What it does is it brings the punishment of tampering with the any of these this rail. Equipment, it brings it up to a class D felony. And where is it currently representative? I'm not positive on that, you
know, misdemeanor of some type, I assume
it's going to be a high level misdemeanor, Senator
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:39:59
Johnson, you recognize. Representative car, uh, I, I agree with the intent of this, but I want to tell you a situation. That happened over by peach orchard, Arkansas, which is, you know, where I know where Peach Orchard is. Yes, sir. the company sent a set out on a secondary rail, a train and all
or well it didn't have an engine, but all the cars were on that on that secondary rail. It was blocking access to farm equipment farm access in those areas. And uh so I got notification the guy had planted he he had to go multiple miles around that and had planted and everything and he was ready the situation for watering and it was right across that rail, and he had to go, he had to go over 5 miles around to get to that.
So I called the regional manager in Louisiana, and I said, I said, you better move that. To where they can access it, split it, or somehow because that guy was fixing to hook his tractor on and move it and move it. And it'll move it just like the engine will and uh in that situation, are we, uh, are we possibly if they hadn't, if they hadn't a remedied that situation, what if we made him a felon for moving that so he can
access his his farm. On the
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:41:30
first page, line 29, the definition for tampering. is displacing removing. Damaging, disabling, destroyed, setting fire to, impairing, or otherwise interfering with. Um Well, if I, if I hook my tractor, that sucker and displace it.
I, I, I get you, I get you. Uh, Mr. Chair, would, would you allow Mr. Sale to come to possibly answer that plea, sir. Sure. If we
Speaker 465
2:42:13
get too long and we'll ask you to pull the bill down. Yes sir. Sure.
Speaker 466
2:42:18
My name's Gerald Sale, state director for Smart Transportation Vision. We represent rail employees of the state of Arkansas, and no peach orchards quite well, grew up over there, duck hunted over there and your answer would be
there'd be no damage to the equipment there. That wouldn't be something what this is trying to avoid is if for instance there's a derail that's taken off or switch misaligned and it ends up causing something. cut of cars or something like chlorine or anything like that could really adversely affect the general public to derail and to cause significant damage. That's really what it's about, not about the movement
Speaker 356
2:42:51
of cars. That's what you're in displacing that's what you're saying is derailing that car, the cars, yes.
Speaker 469
2:42:59
Movement on the rail, you haven't damaged anything, but, but I would encourage you to call me because I know local management and I can get that moved for you probably
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:43:09
quicker than I, I know him also, and that's the reason I called him, so, uh, I just, uh, you know, I just calls for concern, you know, in that situation,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:43:23
so. Other questions? Dr. Ross When you, you said the Tampering is is described as
displaced removing damaging, etc. It says The acts of tampering with So tampering can mean more than just what Is that not correct? Well, what they're really
Speaker 465
2:43:47
talking about when it talks about displacing, it's talking about switches and let's
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:43:52
go back to tampering. It says To eliminate the possible extent possible of the acts of
tampering with displacing it all is the is the tampering only the displacing, removing, damaging this. Enabling, destroying, and setting fire, etc. Yes sir, so this is not going to get in. I'm not part. I'd be fine being on a minute, but abstract art on there too, uh. That that those are used as canvases
Speaker 344
2:44:23
for some of our Budding I wouldn't call that
Speaker 473
2:44:28
tampering as far as that goes. The real
Speaker 474
2:44:34
intent of it, and if we need to admit it, that's fine. I'm I'm, I'm just joking with you on that, but I
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:44:42
am serious on on whether tampering is is something besides what say I know what you're And I'm support what you're doing here, but what it says is what gets enforced. And that's what Senator Johnson was was bringing on, but is, is somebody going to try to prosecute somebody for moving, moving that.
car with a tractor if the rail services slip off, we're not going to come. That's our track. Sometimes you get that response, not saying you're not going to help.
Speaker 475
2:45:16
I'm saying, some places could. It's what's what this says is what we have to deal with what I'm getting at. Thank you. Other questions from
Speaker 465
2:45:30
committee? Sir, can you tell me again who you represent? Smart Transportation Division. We represent conductors and engineers, train crews in the
state of Arkansas. So you represent employees. There's not anyone here that represents the actual The railroads themselves know this bill actually was given to
Speaker 466
2:45:47
me by the Class One carriers. It came from BNSF originally. It didn't come from us. We were just
in support of it. OK, because I had a question came to mind before Senator Johnson. You mentioned Representative Carr.
Where Uh, training been decoupled cars had
been decoupled rolled, and I would ask that was that a situation where a train continually sits across the road for 24 to 48 hours, uh, And somebody got tired of it. Because they certainly don't get any help on
Speaker 466
2:46:26
it. No, that specific situation wasn't that. It was, it was a yard application where it said in the switch switcher's yard, and someone had trespassed end up releasing the brakes, lining and switching to derail and videotaping the videotape
showing my age here, recording the cars derailing at that point. We were just lucky that it wasn't anything
Speaker 473
2:46:45
that was inhaling or anything like that that would actually affect the people living in the surrounding
area. That the railroads already have strong laws protecting them, don't they? Federal laws. There's
Speaker 466
2:46:57
not really anything dealing with tampering, to be honest with you, as far as federal laws go, there are some trespassing laws, but what we've run into is just due to the expanse of the railroad, and the
limitations on how many employees the railroad have as far as enforcement of those laws. For instance, for the state of Arkansas, um, Really we don't have one law enforcement officer that handles that used to
Speaker 477
2:47:24
there were multiple, and they've moved into a situation where actually one officer will handle multiple states. I
find this bill somewhat ironic, uh,
Because it appears That sometimes the railroads don't think that Arkansas law applies to them.
Specifically the law that protected employees. Uh, with a firearm in their vehicle on the parking lot, uh. And if they don't need to obey that, why would We need to
put this in practice and what would citizens need to obey it? Well, I would say, and I worked with
Speaker 478
2:48:06
you on that bill, and I understand exactly what you're saying and appreciate your support on that.
Speaker 466
2:48:13
What I would say is actually this protects the citizens themselves. If you look in there, there is protection for employees that are working out there. I can testify to the fact that, you know, we have bulletproof glass on the locomotives for a reason. We get shot at quite often, been shot at myself out there, unfortunately, um, but what this really protects is the citizens for instance here in Morocco. the switching operations that we have are quite extensive in the chemicals that we deal with are
pretty toxic and dangerous, so this has really meant not as much to protect or it's meant to protect the railroads. I'm not going to say it's not, but just a much protect the general public as it
is the railroads. Oh, I'm all about protecting the employees. The you were the wrong person to answer that question, but it needed to
be asked anyway. Yes sir. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none, anyone signed up,
no one signed up to speak for or against Representative Carr, would you like to close for your
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:49:16
bill? Yes, sir. Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate a motion do pass in a favorable vote. Thank
you. Committee. Motion to pass from Senator Johnson. Second from Senator Gilmore, any discussion? Carry none
all for the motion signified by saying a. All against saying no, no, congratulations, uh, Representative Carr, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee.
Speaker 445
2:49:48
A representative Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:49:53
know, I had told Senator Gilmore that I would be added as a co-sponsor of Senate Bill 537. That was before I actually saw the rest of the amendment. There's something in the amendment that gives me pause and so I'd like to move to expunge the boba which Senate Bill 537 passed.
make a verbal amendment. OK. 2nd from center Gilmore. Uh, any discussion
all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed motion carried. So the bill is no longer
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:50:30
amended. Now the bill is no longer passed, but the original amendment is still adopted. And I'd like to make a verbal. I'm going to move to make a verbal amendment. To the language that was amended. On On
Speaker 484
2:50:42
page 3 of the amendment. It has subsections C and D, and that should read subsections B and C.
Argued that code provision would handle that, but do we have a second 2nd, 2nd from Central Gilmore. Any discussion,
hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying no. That was staff is. I'm on page 3
Speaker 268
2:51:14
of the amendment. Are y'all with me, Colby? Not totally
Speaker 177
2:51:18
fair enough. It We may have gotten too creative
While we're waiting. Representative Hawks and Center hammer have been waiting, uh, would y'all like to hear their bill now or after session. You get
Speaker 92
2:52:12
it. I What I love you, but you can't amend that amendment. So would you
Speaker 436
2:52:20
like to make a motion to So what do we do? expungement, which is adopted
Speaker 12
2:52:28
and amending, yeah, we do that. I actually knew that. You can't make an amendment on an
amendment. I knew that because we've tried that before. Well, I mean on the floor or what? Well, yeah, on
Speaker 492
2:52:41
the house and I don't know much. All right, well, it sounds like Senator Gilmore wants to either amend it on the floor
Speaker 445
2:52:46
or amend it on the. On the house and OK, so now we'll just repass it. I'll, I'll move to pass as amended.
OK circuit by centuries. Any discussion? All for the motion signal about saying aye, all
opposed motion motion carried you congratulationsy Gilmore. You have passed your bill again. if I if I may, Mr. Chair, I just
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:53:17
would like to ask one quick question to Senator Tucker through the chair. I really a member of the code revision committee Good question. Uh.
That's right. Representative Hawke, Senator Hammer. We never
Speaker 287
2:53:44
eat lunch anyway. Yeah, look at. Pass the bill. We have expunged it, so then we passed
Speaker 28
2:53:55
it again. the movement's been left out do anything.
Senator Hammer, Representative Hawke, what bill are we looking
at? House Bill 1745, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1745, would
Speaker 497
2:54:14
y'all identify yourselves for the record? Kim Hammer, state senator, District 16. RJ Hawk, House
District 81. We have an amendment for 1745. Would you like to explain the
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:54:25
amendment. Yes, Mr. Chair, really this, this amendment does two things. So anywhere in the bill that you see employment authorization document. We've changed that to
say work visa, uh, and then the second thing we want to codify the English language proficiency requirement for
Speaker 497
2:54:42
commercial drivers verbatim as it exists with federal law, and that's all the amendment does. Committee, you've heard
the amendment. Hearing no questions, we have a motion from Senator Johnson to adopt 2nd from center
D's. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying a. Opposed. Representative of your bill is amended. Would you like to
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:55:07
present the House Bill 1745 as amended. I, I would, sir. Thank you very much. committee members, what this bill does is currently due to NAFTA and the USMCA, there are ways for the United States to recognize foreign CDLs from Mexico and Canada, and because of those two entities, uh, right now truck drivers from that have a Mexican CDL or a Canadian CDL can drive into the United States because of those agreements.
What this bill does is that it helps cut down on fraudulent CDOs from the those countries by making them get a work visa prior to coming into the United States talking with the state police and the highway police, uh, they said this is, this is something we've needed for quite some time so that we can help crack down on those fraudulent CDLs, um, last session, the state of Texas passed this this almost same exact bill and it passed
overwhelmingly just to help cut down on that because of federal law, there's a lot that we can't do. We want to do a whole lot more, I promise you. Uh, but because of federal law, we can't and after talking with the Attorney General and others, this takes it right right there to the limit of what we can do as a state and so really what we're just at the end of the day we're just trying to cut down on fraudulent Mexican CDLs. You ready to take
questions? Questions from the committee. That your stubble field, do you recognize it? Thank you, Mr.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:56:40
Chairman. Uh, you, you have any idea how many fraudulent CDLs. have been stopped. I don't know, Senator, I don't talking
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
2:56:49
with the state police and highway to police, maybe if they're in the room or maybe the trucking association would have a better number exactly for you. Um, I, I think when I talked to last with the highway police, they said there were 5 or 6 that they could think of in the recent, recent memory. And this is just Mexico,
majority of Mexico, yeah, Canadian Canada, I mean, from what I understand, they don't have that many issues with fraudulent. We're seeing a lot of fraudulent CDLs out of Mexico. But we've only had 5
Speaker 501
2:57:23
or 6, according to what I've been told. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, they
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:57:30
are. Representative is in the room and so is the Truckers Association as chair would like to clarify any of that. They are in the room. Other questions from the committee.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:57:44
Tucker. On page 3 on 16 and 17. So it just says there, so
commercial driver's license issued by Canada and Mexico, and then it says or any other jurisdiction under a
waiver or exemption. Are there, are there any other jurisdictions that have waivers or exemptions to your knowledge right now? Not to my knowledge, no, sir. And so this language is just design in case there are ones that arise in the future,
and it's not designed to change federal law. It's just designed to accommodate future changes in federal law. Correct, yes sir. OK. All right, thank you. Other questions from committee. Hearing
none. We have, I think, 4 people signed up to testify for and against. I'm going to entertain a motion from
the committee so that we can vote on this up or down before.
We have to go a motion that we limit debate limit testimony to 2 minutes. I got a motion from Senator Ross, 2nd from Centra Ds discussion. Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried, whose first on our list? Harvey
Speaker 505
2:59:17
is at beach. I'm Harvey Beach. Oh, thank you. Yeah, if you identify yourself for the record. Yes sir, I'm Harvey Beach. I'm one of the co-founders of American Truckers United and my family has been in the trucking business in Arkansas for 43 years. I'm going to really quickly try to give you guys some facts and then also speak to the enforcement language that was in 1745. Some facts.
The American Trucking Association advised our federal government that it was OK to give non-citizens, what's called a non-domiciled CDL. And it's important to note that a non-domiciled CDL cannot even be used to board an airplane in our country. The Biden administration With their open borders policy and under the advisement of the American Trucking Association.
Created the Biden Trucking action plan in 2021. And the results of that plan flooded hundreds of thousands of unvetted non-citizens into the long haul trucking segment. The majority of these folks cannot read, speak, or understand English. And again, I would like to point out a non-domiciled CDL cannot be used to board an airplane in our country. The American Trucking Association
and the Arkansas Trucking Association endorsed the Biden trucking action plan. Since that plan has been put in place, there has been an effort by the American Trucking Association to pass bills in as many states as possible that allow for non-domicilled CDLs and even non-domiciled learner's permits, which was in the original draft of House Bill 1745. I want to talk about the enforcement language.
Um, the employment authorization document which I realized they just amended the bill, most if not all, of these folks that possess non-domiciled CDLs already have that document. So requiring that does nothing to help I apologize, Mr. Beech. Your time is up. But
I think there will be some questions from the committee. But I'm against 1745 because it does
nothing to fix our problems on our roadways, OK, what, what House Bill 1745 are you against, Mr. Beech or your association lack
Speaker 505
3:02:06
of taking drivers off of our roads that cannot read and understand our road signs and our temporary warning signs. There's been a drastic increase in fatality and injury accidents cause buy big trucks, and we believe this is one of the root causes for it, sir. OK, questions?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:02:26
Senator Ross. And what you're saying is what what it looks like in this bill is is requiring Some documentation that's not Required now makes it look
Speaker 73
3:02:42
like they're doing something that they're really not. Is that what you most recent amendment they
Speaker 508
3:02:47
took out the employment authorization microphone on. I'm
Speaker 505
3:02:50
sorry, I'm back away from it. Um, the most recent amendment, I believe they removed the
employment authorization document language because that's the very document that has been given to asylum seekers that they use to go get the non-domiciled CDL. So all of these people on our roads and big trucks that can't read and understand our road signs and temporary warning signs. They
Speaker 509
3:03:15
already have that document, sir. OK, well, I, I would agree with you. I don't come
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:03:22
into contact with that many, but I've come
into contact with ones that can't understand English good enough to have a conversation that's that's delivered to me and I've seen some of the things on the road, so. Mr. Chair, I hope the Sponsors can can answer some of the concerns of this because I
don't want to do. Uh Arm that's already been being done. Other questions from committee.
Again, let me be sure I understand, Mr. Beets. You're against
the bill. Yes, sir. Not because of anything that's in it, but because of what's not in it, and if
Speaker 505
3:04:11
I, if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. Um No, this bill has been put out in opposition to HB 1569 that we are trying to get past, um, I would also like to point out that we have been told from high level law enforcement officials in our own state that our state
and local law enforcement folks out there on the street. They have no way to tell if a Mexican CDL is real or not, that's quote unquote. So how are we going to force fake Mexican CDLs if our folks out there doing the job have no way of telling if it's real or not. There is a competing bill, HB 1569. We've been trying to get it before committee in the House for a while, but we keep getting stalled at this point I'm wondering if that's going to
happen. Uh, but it's in transportation in the house. Yes
Chair
Unverified
3:05:10
sir. OK. Any other questions from committee? All right, thank you, Mr.
Speaker 370
3:05:15
Beats. Thank you, gentlemen. Next. Next we're going to go 4, Uh. We
like to have last names, but I think it's Shannon Newton.
Speaker 513
3:05:35
I got the right Shannon. There's more than one on the list. Uh, I was just like, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I think I'm going to be super brief because I anticipate some questions, so I'll just elaborate. I'm sorry, Shannon Newton, president of Arkansas Trucking Association. Um, as Representative Hawke said, it was brought to our attention by the Texas Department of Public Safety that they had identified some fraudulent CDLs primarily they're being sold by the
cartel, and you, it has been verified even in Arkansas there was a case when a The person was incarcerated in our state and was delivered a fake Mexican LSC in prison, and so verify that that is a real thing and so in order to thwart that, the Texas solution was to require this additional form of ID which is issued by the United States, whether it be a work permit or a work visa. Those are US documents, and that is a way to verify that the individual that is presenting that foreign
CDL is who they say they are and is here working. And that was our solution in order to help to answer Senator Stellafield's question about how many there are. It's been very difficult to identify how many there have been presented because there was no way to use a second form of authentic authentication to figure that out. You're
ready for questions? Senator Johnson, you recognize, so if they have the fake CDL. He says that
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:07:08
They are, they're gonna have this documentation also. I don't think that's the case if you've got a fake
Speaker 515
3:07:17
CDL, am I correct? The majority of Mr. Beach's comments
Speaker 516
3:07:20
were about non-domiciled CDLs, which are issued in the United States. That's a completely different
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:07:27
issue than a foreign CDL. So I mean, only the people who are here through those other provisions would have this secondary documentation, correct? Correct. That's what
Speaker 513
3:07:39
the fact that it's issued by the US government is the, I guess the, I mean, I guess nothing is foilproof, but in order to provide the best solution possible, that is what we've
Speaker 519
3:07:51
come up with. OK, thank you. said to Ross,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:07:58
you reckon? So you're speaking for the bill as truckers Association. Are you in the opposition to HB 1569. Our position on
Speaker 513
3:08:06
HB 1569 has been inconsequential because it's it
violates 9 different subchapters of Federal motor carrier Safety Administration. Concerns have been raised by the Attorney General's office, by state police, the highway police, and RA. It's my understanding that that bill is actually pulled down this morning. OK, thank you. OK, so
we've got different trucking associations on different sides of this bill.
Is that correct? I take a little bit of an issue with them
Speaker 513
3:08:34
being called an association, but yes, sir, from your parents, from my parents is
yes. OK, and so clear up for me and possibly for other members of the committee, we have a license that allows Non-Americans, we would assume
Canadians and Mexicans to transport into through the United States, correct? They are able to deliver international freight, and
Speaker 523
3:09:01
that is called It is authorized to the USMCA International
Speaker 513
3:09:07
trade agreement, and does it have that license
have a particular name? No, it is a Canadian CDL or a Mexican CDL, which has a different acronym, but then you said there was a non the non-domiciled CDL is a US issued CDL. Some states issued them Arkansas does not, but it is attempting to address a circumstance in which an individual does not reside in the state in which it is being or that individuals being licensed. The original purpose was to help people go to school in one state that they don't live in and get their CDL there and then move
home. That's the original purpose of it. I will not There are certainly abuses within that
Speaker 516
3:09:48
system, but the purpose was to service American citizens who were getting training in some state other than their own. OK,
well, the testimony we've heard so far that seems to be the problem, and from what you've
said. Of the other association. And the but One, the first licenses we talked about which came out of
NAFTA is that those from Canada and Mexico could operate trucks into the US The non-domicile
is you can live here. I'm assuming without being a citizen. That would vary based on the state that was
Speaker 514
3:10:25
issuing it. Will non-domicile It just means that you're
Speaker 521
3:10:29
not a resident of their state. It means you're not a resident of
that state, but it is being used. By some states
for those who are not from the country at all.
Speaker 515
3:10:44
Different states would have different Standards for issuing those CDLs. Yes, sir,
but then are there regulations? If somebody's in Oklahoma, for instance, is there regulations about where they can go. No, anyone
Speaker 513
3:11:02
with a US CDL can drive within the US, the same way that you and I could drive
into Oklahoma, California. Issues the Lawson's Arkansas has
Speaker 513
3:11:14
no say so. That is correct. The federal government has a minimum standards that the states comply with, and those are outlined by the Federal motor carrier Safety Administration and the CVSA, which is the commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, and so there's a minimum federal standard that all states must comply with, but they don't all do so in exactly the same way. So is your opinion
that the state of Arkansas can or cannot do anything about that. I don't think the state of Arkansas
Speaker 513
3:11:37
has the ability to reject licenses issued in the other. 48 states. Have you ever seen us do
something we couldn't. Yes, Senator Johnson, you
Speaker 186
3:11:53
reckon that. So, Sitting the Federal motor carriers. Disallow this action or lose your federal funding for your the solutions to these problems
Speaker 528
3:12:00
that we're talking about are primarily federal. Uh, we are doing what we
Speaker 513
3:12:05
can at the state level to give the tools to the law enforcement here to make the roads here as safe as possible. Thank you.
Other questions from committee. Center Stubblefield. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:12:26
you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thanks, Shannon. Can, can
Speaker 523
3:12:30
this be reproduced? Can this be about the bill or the CDL? What is this? Can a CDL be reproduced? Yeah,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:12:40
can this be reproduced. To where it would look legitimate, yeah, the CDLs that
Speaker 513
3:12:46
the that are being acquired that are fraudulent look legitimate, and I always, they scan, like they present good and that's why law enforcement has had difficulty identifying them roadside. How do you identify them? Well, by, by requiring the second form of ID is our intent to demonstrate that those individuals are who they say they are. Well, can you, can you reproduce the second form of? No, no, sir, you would have to, the US government would have to see that I the and view it as legal in order to give you a
work visa or a work permit, so you can't go to the streets of Vegas and get one. that would be more difficult to acquire fraudulently. All right, thank you. Other questions
from committee. Hearing Nunn, thank you, Ms. Newton. Thank you, Chairman and members
of the committee. Um. Uh, Chuck Rahmer. Speaking against is it Raymer Rahmer? That's Rhymer. OK, if
Speaker 533
3:13:48
you will identify yourself for the record. Chuck Remer. I've been in the safety and compliance and
Speaker 534
3:13:54
transportation for about 35 years, and I'm here to speak against this bill. The original bill which I testified at the House Transportation Committee a couple of weeks ago didn't include any of the amended language that we see today, um, We were trying to get some of the language. To follow the federal regulations as far as English
speaking, being proficient. They have now mended their bill to include that, but we feel like, you know, we need to take this a step further in the state of Arkansas, uh, we have federal regulations, which is what this book is. All the federal regulations that safety regulations that we have to comply with. I've had the opportunity In the past to work Um And look at many
I know we're a lot today has been said about B-1s and Mexicans and Canadians and things like that. When you, when you vet a Um, Mexican CDL. We don't get to go to the state of Arkansas DMV and run an MVR to see what previous history that driver had. You have to go to the SRT in Mexico. Which only provides you if the
if the conductor's license is valid or not. I've never thousands that I've reviewed ever seen a violation listed. On a Mexican MVR, if you want to call it that. My understanding is it's already required the language that the amendment is giving us. The language is already in with the USMCA previously the NAFTA agreement. They already have to have
The work visa. For your B1, your B2 or anything like that. That, that's already required. You don't get to cross the border. Driving a truck Just with a conductor's license, you have to have a visa. The it's already required. I don't see that this bill does anything to improve safety. We still have Operators out there that cannot read. Right
Speak the English language. It's a, it's an out of service spot. It used to be an out of service violation at the FMCSA. Your time
is up, Mr. Romer. Any questions from committee? Senator Gilmore, no. I just was going
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
3:16:41
to remind the committee of the clock and we should probably take a vote and let them close as quickly as
we can, sir. We have someone else set up to testify again. Anyone I'm sorry.
Speaker 536
3:16:54
I think that's I. Are you on the list? Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Romer. Thank you, Chairman, members of
Shannon Everett
Unverified
3:17:15
the committee. I know we're tight on time here, so I'll go as quickly as I can. There's a lot to discuss here, so I wish we weren't so tight on time. Will you identify yourself
with. My name is Shannon Everett. I'm one of the co-founders of American Truckers United. I've been in the industry for about 25 years. I represent a membership group that's over 2000 people now, which includes truck drivers, the other association that spoke today mainly represents carriers, larger carriers. I would even go on to say probably the biggest carriers. We try, we are bringing a voice. to the American truck driver and the crash victims. And so we are here today to speak against HB 1745. This bill
is a paper tiger. There's an industry-wide discussion right now that's taking place about two different groups of drivers. We have the American truck driver and the legacy American mom and pop small trucking company, and we have this new group of non-citizen foreign truck drivers who have taken over the industry. They're putting people out of jobs. They're having crashes and there's no accountability. The loophole is currently in state law and federal law are allowing this to take place. There is US code 49 USC 31141 that clearly states that states can
enact laws or regulations on commercial motor vehicle safety that are more stringent than federal standards. This would require a federal review process by the Secretary of Transportation, but I encourage everyone on this committee. To not be uh discouraged in enforcing stricter standards. There's there's laws for that. There's a process for that. The English proficiency amendment that was provided does not take the imminent hazard of off of our roadways and the federal code calls for out of service. So we need to go further and impound their vehicles, which is one of the recommendations in HB 1569.
We have a more adequate English requirement over in that bill in the House. Which includes taking them off the roads, roads, but the main thing here is these loopholes. We need to be closing loopholes. We don't need to be putting language around the loophole. We need to shut them down. This, this bill as it exists 1745 still allows Mark Bryant's death in Lawrence County to go unpunished. This bill as it sits allows the death of Scott Miller. It would go unpunished. This bill, as it sits still allows American truck drivers to be replaced by non-citizen truck
drivers all across the country. Your constituents, your voter. are being replaced by this new group of non-domicil truck drivers by this new group of foreign commercial truck drivers. And so 1745 is actually protecting these loopholes. The original draft included reciprocity for non-domicil learner's permit. We got them to take that out. The current draft defers this legislative authority to a federal agency, the FMCSA. Mr. Everett, your time is up. OK. Questions from committee.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:20:06
So a rice. Uh, I would ask you, uh, to explain what FMC is saying, I know what it is. I'll explain their position on this. Thank you for that
Shannon Everett
Unverified
3:20:18
question. I was actually with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration this past week. At the largest trucking show in the United States with all of our owner operators and small fleet owners. Impressive show about 50,000 people in attendance. They had an event where with a Q&A and we were able to ask them about this
issue, specifically the non-domicile issue that's been discussed at length a little bit by some of the earlier witnesses, and they on on tape said it's a state issue. The states are the one issuing the commercial driver's licenses and so it does matter in Arkansas and we should be taking action on these things. Because as we've spoken to FMCSA, they're pointing back, nobody's wanting to take responsibility for this. And that's, that's why it's allowed to exist and that's why it's growing exponentially. I can, Mr. Chair, I, I just passed along the committee may be ready
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:21:08
to vote, but I've got more questions on this, and I've got some history with, with some drivers wouldn't in Mexico or Canada. I don't know where it's from. Maybe the US, the Slavic uh Uh Language couldn't understand at all and did damage. Now this, this thing needs more discussion, I believe. I wouldn't
disagree with that. Any other questions for the committee from the committee.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
3:21:38
Harry Nunn, thank you, Mr. Eick. Thank you, Chair. Representative Senator, you recognize the close for your bill. But you handle it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Look, at the end of the day, I, I, Senator Rice, I have some of those same concerns you do. Um, but there's just nothing we, we
can't violate federal law at the end of the day, that's what this is. The issues that were discussed about the English profess proficiency, I can't even say it, proficiency. That was a major issue on the House side. We've amended it. We took out, we took out the learner's permit. They said they, they asked us to do it. We did that before we even went to committee. That was a mistake on BLR's part. We got that done The group that they claim they're an association. They're a Facebook group. The Trucking Association of Arkansas represents
successful people upstairs and I'm going to close with this. At the end of the day, this is something that is, that is needed in Arkansas. We are doing something by getting a work visa that is required because right now the federal government is allowing for these foreign CDLs to be in our in our state, and I'll be closed and I'd appreciate a good vote. Committee.
Of a motion to pass for Mr. Gilmore. I have a second from Senator Tucker. Du pass is amended. Any discussion, hearing none.
I'm going to need to hear you. On this vote, hearing none, all for the motion
signified by saying aye. All against I say no. Let's vote again. All those for the motion signified with saying aye. All those against,
so I was saying no. Motion carried. Congratulations,
Representative Hawke, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK. We're adjourned and rush upstairs. We are They'll be on their own on Wednesday.
Agenda
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
SB427 J. Bryant CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION; TO REPEAL SECTIONS OF THE LAW CONCERNING PROMOTING PROSTITUTION; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION; AND TO PENALIZE A BUSINESS INVOLVED IN PROMOTING PROSTITUTION.
SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A STATUTE OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE.
SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT.
SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES; TO CREATE SAFE HARBORS FOR VICTIMS; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD.
SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO CONDUCT HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD.
REGULAR AGENDA
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE.
SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL.
SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION.
SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT.
SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK.
SB477 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.
SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT PROGRAM FOR A PERSON ON PROBATION, PAROLE, OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO EARN TIME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY
SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO CLARIFY REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1745 Hawk TO REQUIRE CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DRIVER LICENSE HOLDERS TO POSSESS A UNITED STATES WORK AUTHORIZATION TO OPERATE A COMMERCIAL MOTOR VEHICLE IN THE STATE; AND TO CREATE RELATED OFFENSES
HB1757 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING RAILROADS; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF TAMPERING WITH RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE.
DEFERRED BILLS
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
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Mar 31, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 6
Speaker 12
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 44
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Speaker 68
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 91
Speaker 109
Speaker 122
Speaker 125
Speaker 130
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 161
Speaker 178
Speaker 186
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
Speaker 73
Speaker 174
Speaker 226
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 258
Brent Toomey
Unverified
Speaker 265
Speaker 232
Speaker 164
Speaker 295
Speaker 320
Speaker 323
Speaker 294
Speaker 334
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 343
Speaker 348
Speaker 353
Speaker 349
Speaker 356
Speaker 365
Speaker 8
Speaker 367
Speaker 373
Speaker 370
Speaker 390
Speaker 391
Speaker 388
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 399
Speaker 341
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 411
Speaker 412
Speaker 260
Speaker 418
Speaker 423
Speaker 425
Speaker 255
Speaker 428
Speaker 431
Speaker 436
Speaker 441
Speaker 447
Speaker 452
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 465
Speaker 466
Speaker 469
Speaker 344
Speaker 473
Speaker 474
Speaker 475
Speaker 477
Speaker 478
Speaker 445
Speaker 484
Speaker 268
Speaker 177
Speaker 430
Speaker 416
Speaker 92
Speaker 492
Speaker 287
Speaker 28
Speaker 497
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 501
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 505
Speaker 508
Speaker 509
Speaker 513
Speaker 515
Speaker 516
Speaker 519
Speaker 523
Speaker 514
Speaker 521
Speaker 528
Speaker 533
Speaker 534
Speaker 536
Shannon Everett
Unverified