Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (42)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB427
Act 663
· 7 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
· 6 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
· 5 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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 8, 2026
Let's get started. We got a lot of
Speaker 6
0:26
business before us. Yeah, it says show today.
but we're going to move because of the amount of the agenda and the lateness 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 three minutes per individual. And I have a second from Senator Rice.
Sure, discussion. No, this is for the day, yes. Okay, any other discussion? All
for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Senator Tucker. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54
you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to recognize Paige for the day, Anna Rose Grizzle.
She's going to win the award for furthest traveler for our Paige this session. She's straight to us from New York City. New York City? Yeah. So welcome, Anna Rose. Good to have you here today. Senator Bryant?
Is Senator Bryant here? we're starting off with a special order of business with six bills for center bryant center are you going to go in order or do you have a reason to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:08
in order as listed as we just fine okay sb 427 i'm
told has an amendment yes Yeah, maybe right there and right there.
Senator Bryant, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:55
Mr. Chair, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. I have two guests with me, if you'd like
Speaker 43
4:04
them to introduce themselves. Okay. Teresa Howell, Prosecutor's Association.
Chris Walton, Prosecutor's Association. Thank you. thank you uh would you like
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:18
to explain your amendment central bryant yes i would the amendment
it 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 would be cleaner if we just integrated the new language into the existing statutes and so we re-implemented 104 105 106 and just put the new information into those existing statutes just just really to make it cleaner all right any questions
Brent Toomey
Unverified
4:55
from the committee on the amendment you got to do pass from center mckee second from center johnson any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion carried congratulations senator you have amended your bill thank you mr
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
5:14
chair committee what i'd like to do is just start as a preference
for this special order as you notice all six bills are related to human trafficking and so there there really is a context that i want to make sure the
the committee is aware of and how these legislative asks 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. And the nationwide 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 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 not only affect the 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 to get the needed resources
that have been available in the state, but perhaps not easily accessible or easily known about. So, they put together this
trafficking council 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 several victims advocacy organizations
and other groups that played a key role in trying to understand how
to tackle child 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 multidisciplinary 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. What the council did is they put up six subcommittees to address key issues. And I apologize if I'm not trying to go wrong. I think just having one set of context for all six bills will establish how these bills get generated. The six 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 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 frontline responders to how to address these issues, to address it 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. Again, the membership has two representatives of the Department of State Police, one within the actual state police and one within research and planning. Two representatives from the Office of Attorney General, a representative from the Office of the 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 then victim service organizations. That include 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 of minor and adult, but also victim survivors of human trafficking to help lend to this
So the conclusion is that 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 what they're doing better, what they're doing
right in order to bring up our grading within the state. So while these six 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, a summary of this bill is it focuses on revising our Arkansas laws regarding promoting prostitution. It removes previous legal provisions on promoting prostitution and replaces them with stricter classifications and penalties. It categorizes promoting prostitution into three 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 a class A felony if the victim is a minor. A second degree promoting prostitution or managing a prostitution 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 third 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 $2,500 for first offense, $5,000 for second offense, or $10,000 for 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 offense violation of a 30-day suspension
of their business license and a $5,000 fine, second violation 60-day suspension with a $10,000 fine and third or more a permanent license revocation with a $100,000 fine and all these fines to be payable into the human trafficking victim support fund So for brevity, I can give you examples of 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 what will you go back? You're talking about the count that the council that's being created
That council doesn't exist today, correct?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:39
It exists. It existed under executive order of 2023.
Okay. So none of these bills change that council. Is that what you said? That council already
exists. Do any of these bills change the makeup of that current
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
12:55
council? No. In 2013, the legislature enacted a at-will council or at-will committee
out 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 Griffin, I believe, has the Stop Group, which is a partner 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 427 just addresses the prostitution um areas of the law okay thank you
for that clarity appreciate it members any questions on 427 senate bill
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
13:47
427. senator rice recognized senator wright would you just briefly cover
i mean i've read newspaper articles in the the past about businesses that clearly didn't do anything to resist this type trafficking but can you give us briefly something that would tell us what would
bring on the charge do they have to have certain number of complaints or an an investigation of a complaint or something like that. Senator Rice, with the permission
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
14:25
of the chair, I'd like to bring on Sergeant Foster. I think he could breast address back scenarios. Absolutely. Please
recognize yourself for the record. And you are free to answer Senator Rice's question. My name
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
14:42
is Sergeant Matt Foster with 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.
Speaker 77
15:02
Okay, that's what I'm looking for. Thank you. Thank you. And sir, would you mind
recognize yourself for the record as well? I'm
Speaker 79
15:13
Captain Joe Carter, Arkansas State Police, Special Operations.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:17
Thank you, Captain. All right, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. 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
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
15:34
engaging in the prostitution, correct? Senator Tucker, yes, that is correct. It's to stop the traffickers. Yes, sir. That's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:40
what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that I had that correct. My other question is about the fines.
So first of all, when it comes to the individuals, not the business section of the bill, but the individuals, the fines are actually lower than the normal fine caps for Class B, C, and D felonies. For example, you know, promoting prostitution in the first degree under the bill, The first offense would be a Class C felony with a fine up to $2,500, but Class C felonies otherwise have fines up to $10,000, right? So I just was curious why.
And then it's like that with the others as well. And I was just curious why the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
16:27
differing amounts. Those are just additional fines. Oh, on top of the standard
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
16:35
amount. Okay. Last question is about the business-related section. So, unlike individuals, you can't put a business in prison, right? So really the fine is the only form of punishment that you can have on the business.
And so for that reason, obviously the third offense with the revocation of the license and $100,000 fine, that's a very severe penalty. For the first and second offenses, the fines are $5,000 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? 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, was curious if y'all thought about changing those fine amounts
Speaker 91
17:50
on the business to be more as, anyway, that's my
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:03
question. Senator Tucker, there's 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 as time winds down because it's just so comprehensive when we make sure all stakeholders are on
board. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you,
Senator. Any other questions for Senator Bryant? All right. Seeing none, we do have some folks signed up to speak against. Mr. Jeff Rosenbaum. Wrong. Roden Swag, excuse me. You're passing. Okay. Thank you. Are you signed up for the other five? Is that correct? Okay. Thank
you. Okay. No one else is signed up for or against the bill. Anybody else in the room like to speak for or against? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
18:53
for your bill? I'm closed. I appreciate a
motion. Do pass. Okay. 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 aye. Opposed, like sign. Congratulations. Your bill has passed. Thank you. Thank you.
committee as amended has passed as amended thank you all right Senate bill 428.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
19:24
Senate bill 428 aims to increase the statute of limitations to commence 10 years from the date the plaintiff discovers human trafficking so adds additional 10 years to the already existing statute of limitations in order match with the federal law this is just to establish a civil cause of action
against the trafficker thank you for the description of the bill members any questions on 428 seeing none no one has signed up for I'm sorry we do have a question senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:05
Tucker recognized did you say ten additional years or ten years total it's it's ten years from the date of the discovery
right ten years from the data discovery okay thank you okay see
no further questions do we have anybody signed up for against not seeing that nobody in the room sooner
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 signal by saying aye opposed like sign congratulations
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:48
bill 429 thank you mr. chair Senate bill 429 this bill has the main purpose is to amend existing
laws to expand the criminal record ceiling for the victims of human trafficking to ensure that human trafficking victims have specific rights rights and that mandate no contact orders be given in human trafficking cases. The key provisions in section one, current law, courts
may issue no contact orders if the defendant is charged with a serious offense, but the amendment of the courts must issue
a no contact order in all cases where the defendant is charged under the Human Trafficking Act of 2023. In section two, 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 and human trafficking survivors. And then Section 3, as far as sealing criminal records for trafficking victims, 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. The key changes is the court must grant the record-sealing petition if it finds the victim's conviction resulted from trafficking, and if granted, the victim's name must be redacted from all arrests, citations, 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 goal of the 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 to clear prostitution convictions
that resulted from their victimization, and to provide legal recognition of human trafficking survivor rights.
And so the impetus of this is
trafficking involves all sorts of means of coercion and 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 make it immediate that upon conviction that
there's a no contact order applied to that penalty? Right? Charged. Yeah.
If they're charged. Oh, once charged, not after convicted.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:36
Yes. An example that we wrote here is just using, you know,
fake names that Sarah is a trafficking victim and testifies against her trafficker, Mark. Mark is 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 Sarah. And there's no action that the court can take. And what's
the penalty if they break that no contact order?
Contempt of court. Okay, thank you. Members, any questions on 429? Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
24:21
Tucker. So 102 is not in the bill, right? And is that just the standard offense for the person who actually is engaged in the prostitution themselves? Okay. So I'm looking specifically at section three on page five. And so all this is saying is that if you're guilty of that offense 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 the offense was under the 102 section.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:56
and it's automatic at that point. We're getting clarity of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:15
your question. Senator Tucker, are you on line 16 through 20? Yes, sir, and then also 26 through 29 as well.
Speaker 122
25:26
Senator, could you start your question one more time so we're making sure that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:42
we're on the right section. Right. I just, yeah. The record of your conviction will automatically be sealed if you're a victim of human trafficking and you're a minor, or if you're a victim of human trafficking IN AN ADULT, BUT THE OFFENSE YOU'RE CONVICTED OF IS THAT PROSTITUCE IN SECTION 102.
Speaker 125
25:58
YES, SIR. I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT. AND ALSO, YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION AS A JUVENILE, BECAUSE JUVENILE RECORDS ARE SEALED AS WELL. SO THERE IS THAT PROTECTION AS WELL. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND WOULD YOU MIND SPEAKING CLOSER TO THE MIC? JUST A LITTLE BIT. IT'S HARD TO HEAR A LITTLE BIT. THANK YOU. SENATOR TUCKER, DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? OKAY. 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 125
26:42
if we're on line 16 through 20, the 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 adjudicated also have sealing 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 sealing would come in on that.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
27:10
Okay. All right. Thank you. Did you want to add something Senator Bryant? Okay.
Members, any further questions? All right. Seeing none. Mr. Rosen-Swag, were you signed up for this one? Okay. 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 closed, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it. Motion. Okay. I see a motion do pass from Senator McKee, a second from Senator Gilmore. All in favor of do pass signaled by saying aye.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
27:45
Aye. Opposed, like sign. Congratulations, 429 has passed. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Senate Bill 430. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senate Bill 430 has the purpose to require mandatory restitution for victims of human trafficking and to amend the Arkansas Crime Victim Reparations Act.
What it defines is any person convicted under 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, and eligibility considerations. That is in Section 1. Section 2 changes the filing deadline to extend the filing claim from one year to five years after injury or death and if the victim was a minor at the time they have five years after
the age of 18 to file a claim with the victim's reparations board. 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.
Another example, a 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 victim's 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 you, Mr.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
29:49
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 if they don't pay restitution or unable to pay? Do we know?
Speaker 125
30:27
- 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 gonna look at if they 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 those funds to be able to do it. But that's in reality where we are. Okay. So
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:11
follow up, Mr. Chair. So just to make sure I understand and just to reiterate what you said, that is the ability to pay is looked at when this is imposed.
Speaker 125
31:23
It's actually going to be looked at at the very beginning whenever someone is arrested and charged with it.
That's what I mean. During adjudication. yes sir that's correct okay thank you members any further questions on 4 30. seeing none we don't have anybody signed up for against anybody in the crowd like to speak for or against seeing none senator bryant you're free to close i'm closed mr chair i appreciate a motion i've got a motion do pass from senator gilmore a second from senator johnson all in favor of a motion of do pass you know by saying aye aye opposed like sign Congratulations. Senate Bill 430 is passed. Thank you, committee. All right. Senate Bill 431.
Unknown speaker
32:05
There's an amendment. We have an amendment being passed out. All right, I think everybody has the amendment.
Senator Bryant, you're free to describe the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
32:42
amendment. I don't have a copy, but we are removing affirmative defense from the language. Would you like a copy as well? I don't think I need one. So, when we initially filed this bill, there's obviously concern going in and we wanted to make sure all stakeholders were good. 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. If a victim of human trafficking did an act, an illegal 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 okay okay we've got
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
33:30
a motion to adopt senator mckee a second from senator gilmore all in favor to adopt the amendment signal by
saying aye opposed like sign congratulations your bill is adopted the
the amendment is adopted you're free to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
33:46
present your bill as amended thank you mr chair committee that so 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, and the creation of safe harbors for minors, as well as the prohibition of child sex dolls. And so elimination of the statute of limitations, what we're doing is expanding the list of offenses that can be
prosecuted at any time, including sexual extortion, if the victim
was a minor, trafficking of persons, patronizing a victim of
human trafficking, grooming a a minor for future sex trafficking or traveling for unlawful sex acts with a minor. 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 doll as anatomically correct dolls, mannequins, or robots resembling minors for the intention of sexual use and establishes the penalties for possession as a class D felony, transport or distribution as a class C felony, and manufacturing as
a class B felony. I believe the state of Florida enacted this a couple 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?
I see none. We do have Mr. Rosenzweig. You're free to join the table to speak against. As a reminder, we have a three-minute limit on
Speaker 159
35:36
testimony today. Feel free to recognize yourself. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of
Speaker 161
35:42
Criminal Defense Lawyers. With regard to the child sex doll issue that the 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 specific guidance to a possessor of one, including a child, what is illegal and what is not.
Secondly, it's, I think, impossible to square this bill with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which specifically held that, 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 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.
Rosenzweig. Members, any questions? Seeing none, appreciate your testimony today. We don't have anybody else signed up for or against. Anybody in the room? I'm sorry, Senator Tucker, you're
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
37:35
recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to give Senator Bryan
or the prosecutors an opportunity to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
37:51
respond to Mr. Rosenzweig's steady concerns. 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. 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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
38:22
for the purposes of sexual gratification. Okay. So I
appreciate that policy response. I guess I'm going to ask the prosecutors for a response to the constitutional argument.
Speaker 43
38:37
Senator, without having read that particular 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
Speaker 125
38:52
resemblance 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... give the opportunity for someone to use that particular inanimate object for sexual gratification.
Two, AI has opened up such a level of avenue to 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 doll made of it. We're seeing AI-generated images 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 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 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 Joshua Bryant
Unverified
40:33
Senator Tucker, we had a provision in one of these packages, I believe it
was in 442, that addressed the issues out of the Ashcroft decision because there's been subsequent rulings out of 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 STOP 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 future.
All right, thank you. Senator, I think in your opening, I may have heard you say this, but did you say other states
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
41:14
have passed similar legislation? In 2021, the state of Florida, I believe, passed this. And as a member of 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 bill, but 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 bill been? I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
41:51
do 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. Okay. We've got a few more questions,
and I'd love to hear your testimony, but a few more questions first.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
42:05
Senator Gilmore, you recognize? Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Senator, again, for bringing these bills. And I always appreciate
the testimony from Mr. Rosenzweig because he's good at what he does, And 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. The only thing that I have, just as, again, maybe a question of the prosecutors, starting at the bottom of page two, over to page three, where it talks about the affirmative defense.
My only concern is one of the things that we're seeing right now in the state, especially in more urban areas is younger people committing crimes frequently and a lot of times that's gang related activity. I guess my only concern and I 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
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:09
Gumapp, I believe and I don't have the
amendment. It was done before break. The goal was to strike all language regarding affirmative defense. Well, there's some additional
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:19
language on page 3 that carries over to page 3. You
Speaker 178
43:26
did strike some. So, Senator Gilmore, the intent was
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:34
to strike all affirmative defense language so i'll have to i will need to prepare
another amendment to correct that well i think
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
43:44
verbal amendments are allowed in this committee if you'd like
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
43:47
i would love to make a verbal amendment in the essence of time to uh verbally strike uh section three page two lines 35 36 okay then on page three lines one through five Would it be just striking that whole Section 3, Senator? Yes, it
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
44:04
would be. Okay. Senator, 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. I think we've got another question, and I think potentially one more testimony, and let's see if there's any other changes needed at that time, and then we'll come back to your motion.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
44:35
All right, Senator Johnson, you're recognized for a question. I appreciate Mr. Rosenzweig's defense of the undefensible, but I don't care the opinion of a court in this matter.
I think we've got to handle this situation
now and as a body, and I appreciate everyone at the end of the table who has brought this. It's just how that's, what kind of sick world that we've got to create laws to handle
these situations. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Johnson. All right. Ma'am, would you like to present your testimony today?
It's your decision. Okay, please recognize yourself and
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
45:26
who you represent. 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's just a little bit of background. The reason this 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 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 CSAM,
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. 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'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 underestimated that damage. These dolls are no different. Countries
around the world are addressing the danger. Australia, Germany, Denmark have 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 are 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 three minutes for testimony. I definitely appreciate it. Would you be willing for questions? I believe we have a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
48:50
question today. Absolutely. Senator Tucker, recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just one question. Thank you for the work that you do over all your significant investment over a period of decades. And I totally agree with you on the heinous nature of all this. You helped me understand better what we're talking about here. My one clarification question is these dolls, they're basically life-size. Is that what you're saying?
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
49:09
Yes, they are life-size. They are child-size, so they're not even... I hadn't understood that until
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
49:21
your testimony, so thank you for that. You're welcome. Senator Rice, you recognize your question? My concern, is
there anything that the amendment changed that would cause a problem with the title to give them a technicality to kick back on? I'm sorry, Senator Rice. Is there anything, the amendment change, that would cause the
title to have something that would get kicked back?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
49:45
No, Senator Rice, I was looking. So since we did originally intend to strike all of Section
3 and some of Section 2 down at the bottom lines, 25 through 31, as originally amended, there's still changes in Section 2, lines 12 through 17, just for clarity.
So I believe the title would still hold true. Okay, thank you. Thank you, members,
and thank you for your testimony. Any other questions today? Okay, 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. Do I hear a second on that motion? I see a second 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 three. Signal
by saying aye. Opposed, like
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
50:59
Just for clarity, Mr. Chair, the
original amendment stands, and this is on top of the original amendment. So one total amendment being
the original amendment plus section three. We've already adopted the original amendment. This would be a second verbal amendment, which has passed. So, Senator, you are free to close on your bill as amended, as amended. I'm closed, Mr.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
51:22
Chair. I appreciate the committee. I appreciate the motion. Okay. Got
a motion do pass from Senator Johnson.
A second from Senator McKee as amended.
All those in any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor of a do pass motion as amended, signal by saying
aye. Aye. Opposed? Like sign. Congratulations. Senate Bill 431 has passed as amended. Thank you, committee.
All right. Senate Bill 441. 442, I
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
51:53
believe. Okay, I'm sorry. The last one. 442,
and this does have an amendment being passed out.
All these are still true, right? All right, members, we have Senate Bill 442 amendment in front of us. Senator Bryant, you're free to describe your amendment.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
52:55
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank
you, committee. This amendment, again, once the bill goes out into circulation and different members of the 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 forfeiture law that's been tried and true in the courts. So their ask
was just to not reinvent the wheel, just to use exact language out of existing
forfeiture for drugs and other purposes to apply to human trafficking. So that's the body of the entire amendment. Members, you've heard
the description. I've got a motion to adopt the amendment from Senator McKee and a second from Senator Dees.
All in favor of the adoption of the amendment to Senate Bill 442, signaled by saying aye. Opposed? like sign congratulations your your amendment
is adopted you're free to present senate bill 442 as amended thank you
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
54:02
mr chair thank you committee senate bill 442 deals with many things but among
them asset forfeiture for human trafficking crimes this will expand existing asset forfeiture laws to include the property used in human trafficking offenses different a new rule would be if the property owner did not know it was being used for trafficking it 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's $88 in the account the funds that go through the asset forfeiture will be deposited not way amongst existing law into federal agencies, but also a portion into the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support fund, which will be created underneath this bill. In that fund, it creates, it will be managed by the Arkansas State Police. It replaces the previous human trafficking victim 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 purposes. The bill also creates a new section for harboring endangered runaways of minors and makes it
illegally if someone knowingly harbors a runaway minor who is considered endangered. Penalties being a
first offense, a class A misdemeanor, second or later being a class D felony, additional mandatory
fines of $1,000 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 increases financial penalties for human trafficking
related crimes updates to find distributions for
the various human trafficking prostitution related cases the fines will not be split 100 to the arkansas human trafficking council support fund with covered of the covered offenses of these funds being from the trafficking of persons patronizing of trafficking victim, grooming a minor for trafficking, traveling for illegal sex acts, prostitution, sexual solicitation, and promoting prostitution. And then again, giving new sentencing guidelines for sexual solicitation, being the first offense of a
class A misdemeanor, second offense of a class D felony with a mandatory $2,500 fine for buying sex money going to the human trafficking victim support fund. 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 the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support funds. So just replacing the fund 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 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 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 if the committee wishes other than that I'm open to take questions
Senator Dees, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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, how that is, how those dollars are used, some real life examples? So it's collected from the fines.
And then where are those dollars going? Maybe a few
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
59:28
examples of the most common. So an example of maybe the most common would be 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 to get services. And so the scenario would 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 available through really just federal grants or private donations.
If Senate Bill 442 were to be enacted into law, the funds that go into this newly
created support fund can provide direct grants to support therapy, housing, and legal
aid for these victims. Thank you for that clarity. And so is the entire
fund from fines and penalties, or is there any other budgetary or even private dollars
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:00:15
going into that? MAIN 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:00:36
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARITY. APPRECIATE IT. Senator Tucker, are you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've just got a couple questions about sections
9 and 11. Start with section 9. What page? 17. If you
had a shorter bill, Senator, it would be easier to find.
Well, I broke them out into six bills or else it was
a novel. Fair enough. Fair enough. So ask this question with the acknowledgement that I'm not an expert in this area, right?
Okay. But 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're trying to protect from maybe their father or stepdad or some situation like that.
And if in that situation, the way I read this section, that person could be guilty of a criminal offense.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:01:53
That's what I'm wondering about. I believe there's an amendment. Part of the amendment talks about good faith. Okay. Can you point me to that? 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.
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. Okay,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:36
that's good. thank you that that's helpful yeah um the other question about that is on on page 18
that subsection d lines 8 through 11 that definition of a danger 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 minor is gone for 72 hours and then they're with the person doing the harboring for five minutes or do they have to be with the person doing
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:03:13
the harboring for 72 hours i would say be
with the individual for 72 hours without that individual notifying law enforcement or the authorities who is voluntary absent from his or home for at least 72 hours with a compelling reason and without the consent
of the custodian so somebody's creating the safe harbor for that 72 hour period so
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:03:48
my suggestion would be on line 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 I read it, and I'm not 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 the harboring for 72 hours.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:04:33
If you give me a minute, Senator Tucker, I'll ask.
Senator Tucker, with the Wheel of Committee, I'd love to make that amendment as a verbal minute to add, As you recommended, a person commits
to the offense of harboring an endangered runaway minor if he or she knowly harbors a minor who is endangered runaway minor for a period of 72 hours. Is that? At least 72, yeah. At least 72 hours. What page and line number? So, no, it's on page 17.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:05:24
It's going to add some language to the end of A. It would just be adding language to the end of A. So on line 34, after minor,
it would read for a period of at least 72 hours.
That's what I just wrote. Yes, absolutely.
page 17? Yes, sir. Line? 34. And the amendment?
After the word minor, we'll
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:06:11
add the words for a period of at least 72 hours. Okay.
We're going to, according to our rules, I don't
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:06:26
think this is a minor amendment.
We need a motion first to suspend the rules. So moved. Got a motion from Senator Tucker to suspend the rules. Second from Senator Dees. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion
signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. Now the motion to amend. Yes, sir. Is on page 34. Page 17. Page 17, line
34. Yes, sir. WE'RE ADDING THE WORDS -- FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 72 HOURS. FOR A PERIOD OF AT LEAST 72 HOURS.
STAFF GOT THAT? OKAY. AND EVERYONE ON THE END OF THE TABLE IS GOOD WITH THAT? YES, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. We've got a motion
and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all for the motion to do a verbal amendment on SB 442. As read, signify by saying aye. Aye.
All opposed? Congratulations, Senator Bryant. Your bill has been amended again. Thank you all. I appreciate that. And then
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:07:45
my last question. I'M SURE YOU ALL ACCOUNTED FOR THIS, BUT SECTION 11 OF THE BILL
ON PAGE 18. 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. YES, YES.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:08:08
WE WERE MONITORING THE DIFFERENT BILLS FROM THE DIFFERENT ADVOCACY GROUPS AND YES, IT IS ALLOWED. THANK YOU, SENATOR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. Okay, other questions
from the committee? Please excuse me because I came in late from the education committee. 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 does this bill authorize the forfeiture of assets? authorizes it for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:08:46
that we 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 okay
for the prosecutors does uh the forfeiture require uh a guilty verdict
Speaker 125
1:09:16
yes sir it does it mirrors section m in the uh asset forfeiture 564
505 and i don't know that law uh prosecutor uh
that is in specific to trafficking or is that specific elsewhere?
Speaker 125
1:09:49
The 564.505 is the asset forfeiture 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 asset forfeiture for the human trafficking that that section M mirrors that. So there are exceptions. Yes sir there are exceptions
without a conviction there can be an asset forfeiture before conviction under section M for for when a person has died they've been deported they've been given immunity they have waived the 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 okay because
I know it has been problematic and the in some
cases and the drug side of it and that it doesn't
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:11:11
require a guilty verdict and Senator 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 that's not get caught up if you loaned your car and that owner did
not know it was being used for trafficking. - Okay, good enough, because we've had
some heartburn on that on the other side, but that, I would think, would clear it up for this particular offense.
Other questions from the committee?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:11:49
Senator Stubblefield. - Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one simple question. Would this bill still require law enforcement to report to the control
Speaker 253
1:11:58
fund that forfeited property? - Yes, this,
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
1:12:08
Senator, this bill will report, law enforcement will report to that new position created at Arkansas State Police,
the human trafficking coordinator, which will, in return, be that drugs director that you see in the asset forfeiture for drugs. - And it will
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:12:22
still be dispersed in the same manner is the other fourth
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
1:12:28
yes it's mirrored to that the the fund will go into the victim support fund for for human trafficking that's a counseling support fund which will go back to advocates victims of human trafficking along those lines but yes prosecutors can use it the
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
1:12:39
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 do we have testimony okay mr.
Rosenzweig okay I'm amazed Senator
Tucker took care of mr. Rosenzweig's concerns so
I believe before I left, we said a limit of three
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:13:32
minutes. OK, if you would turn the mic on, identify yourself for the record. My name is Brent Toomey
with Saving Children and Reviving Souls. We are a 501C3 nonprofit based in northwest Arkansas, and we work nationally. I need
Speaker 267
1:13:45
a lot more than three minutes, but I'm going to leave you with this.
We've been working for six 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 three or four cases in the last five 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 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 two, three 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 presentations 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 is a statement made publicly. The problem is we don't have enough resources. Law enforcement doesn't have what they 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.
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 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 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 should tell us everything. 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 fund it. 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 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 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.
I appreciate the testimony. And if the
committee wants to do differently, they can let me know. We know that people have traveled a long ways in many cases to testify for and against these bills.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:17:19
And we 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 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. If a bill seems to have unanimous support in the committee, and so it's going to pass regardless, we're going to tend more to listen carefully to those who are against. If a bill seems 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 from that testimony, and I
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:18:13
would tell you that as far as resources, I think this certainly one of the things that will come out of this bill is 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 uh senator tucker thank you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:53
mr chair i've got another uh little technical fix for mr rosenswag 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 a 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 reference there.
Mr. Rosenzweig's suggestion is 5-64-505. i'm told that is correct okay what
is the correct section center tucker
5-64-505 5-64 that's 505 that is a technical correction which is within the rules of this committee
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:20:20
uh and center bryant y'all are good with the technical correction yes
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:20:27
mr chair senator tucker would you
like 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
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:20:40
a reference to 5-64-505 second center dees uh any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion carried the uh senate bill 442 has been
amended for the third time the uh anything else from the committee thank y'all uh mr rosa swag and senator tucker for that catch the central
bright you are recognized close for your bill don't kill it Mr. Chair,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:21:21
we have a, did you sign up to speak? Okay.
Are you okay to pass? I had somebody here to speak
for it, but in light of your comments from the chair, I would be closed for my bill, and I
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:21:41
appreciate it. Motion to pass. Do pass as amended? Okay. I heard a second. Who was the motion? motion center johnson second senator mckee any discussion hearing none all for
the motion signify by saying aye aye congratulations senator bryant you have passed your bill as amended amended amended
thank you mr chair thank you committee senator
bryant we are done with uh the special order business but i believe the next bill on the agenda is sb 355 which is yours are you ready to run yes yes mr
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:22:30
chair i am sb 355 thank you mr chair thank you committee senate bill 355 adds a provision within obstructing
government operations for a individual that having 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 an order to get them there because the processes sometimes are not as clear and cut and dry. So this gives them a
method for the prosecutors to charge somebody that does not show up and instruct these government operations. I did visit with the
Public defenders about this bill, they've suggested the amendments that are ran for this to get them to remain neutral, at least, if not
support the bill. So with that, I'd be glad to take
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:23:24
any questions. Questions from the committee? Senator Tucker, you're recognized. What was the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:23:28
amendment? Is there an amendment on it? It was clarity. The original bill just
said the clerk, and so the amendment just really between the public defenders and the judge that asked for this,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:23:41
it just 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 it as a member's own. Okay, but I don't, I don't see where anything is italicized. has he never been adopted it struck the entire i believe the whole thing is italicized it struck the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:02
entire oh i don't have language version that's what it is in my packet here okay okay let me i'm going to look it up online real quick mr. chair
okay senator bryant 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 if not so we've got prosecutors that can tell us off top I do not
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:24:59
maybe the prosecutors can come back to the table please Got
two questions, the penalty for a Class C misdemeanor and is this not already in the
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:25:43
law anywhere class C misdemeanor is a up to 30 days in jail and up to a $500 fine and I
know the judge that recommend this language and if he could find it in the statute and use it he would have so that's why he's asked for this bill okay
prosecutor how do you believe that this is true that we don't currently have a a penalty for not honoring a subpoena? Your Honor, the only thing that we would
Speaker 125
1:26:17
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.
Okay, so that would have handled it, but this makes it more specific. That
is correct, Your Honor. Okay. Sorry. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, sorry. Any other questions from committee? Hearing none. Is there anyone here to testify for or against? No.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:26:49
Senator Bryant, would you like to close
for your bill? I'm closed, but your chair appreciated. Do pass. Senator Johnson, do pass. Senator Dees, second. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the bill signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Bryant.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:27:06
you have passed your bill thank you mr. chair and with the chairs and the committee's permission you
move senate bill 356 to deferred they have uh reconciled those issues uh at the agency level and you wish to for staff's
benefit you wish to defer move senate bill 356 to defer yes it is done i am out of here thank you mr chair
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:27:29
thank you committee i do not see senator hester
somebody check with center hester and let's move down the list do not see center king center d's
Thank you members, Tyler Deese, State Senator
District 35. Senator Deese, you
Speaker 164
1:28:21
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 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 law a lawsuit brought against them for that confiscation of those products Questions from committee? SB
449. You are recognized, Senator Stubblefield. Senator Ross.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:29:20
I was reading a bill last night and this evidently wasn't it, but is there another bill
out here that goes further than this? Yes, sir. There's a multiple vape-related bills that are running through the legislature. I'm going to fine them $100 and some
stuff. I had some questions. Okay, this
is not it. Thank you. Yes, sir. So, Senator Dees, this
allows, this makes clear that, is this a school employee?
It could be, yes, sir. school employee confiscates $100 worth of nicotine products, vapor products, et cetera, that they have no
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:30:02
liability? Yes, sir. If they collect $1,000, confiscate $1,000, $10,000, $100,000? Yes, sir. You're correct. They are immune. Okay. Any other questions
from the committee? Senator Rice?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:30:21
I'm sorry, I haven't read this one, but if I rolled up on the school ground
and some kids standing out there and I went over and confiscated all of them, does this
Speaker 298
1:30:39
protect me, too? If you look at the bill on page 3, line 9, it does say employee of a school. Okay. All right. So that could be a janitor? I believe it could be, sir. Yes.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:30:52
Okay. And believe me, back in my day, a janitor would do that. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 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
1:31:07
the minor. And that can be pretty much anybody in the school system. Okay.
That clarifies. Thank you. Any other questions?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:31:20
Senator Staubelfield. Mr. Chairman, Senator Deeds, this only pertains to nicotine products, right?
Vapor products, e-liquid products, nothing else like Delta-Aid 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, if you see in the description, it's... Specifically for nicotine related, okay. Yes, sir. Thank
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:31:44
you. I've got one more. Senator Ross, you are recognized. 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.
Speaker 298
1:32:06
You would think they 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 aren't for minors anyway. So there are some state laws that would apply to
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:32:19
that as well. If a school district didn't specifically have that, if this passed, it would be wise for them to have it.
Speaker 317
1:32:24
I would agree. And clearly in their policy. Yes, sir. I agree.
Yes, Senator Dees. Dees, it seems that it would make 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. That would provide a little bit of clarity in the law, I think. Other questions?
Hearing none, anyone here to speak for or against? No one to speak for or against? Senator Deese, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. I make a motion. Do pass. motion do pass second from senator gilmore uh any discussion all
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:33:19
for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulations senator dees you have passed your bill senator hester still not here who specifically wants to run a bill
Senator King getting answers from, Senator Letty is not here, Senator King's not
going to be here today, Senator Letty, Senator Scott's not here, Senator
Stubblefield, SB 477. No, the man that is responsible for this had
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:33:55
to go and have a cancer treatment this morning. He owns a rental business in Northwest
Arkansas. He'll be here next Monday. okay uh center sb 485 center tucker has stepped out
of the room are we are we going to hear senate bill
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 center urban she's not here today okay then she won't be running will she senator
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:34:48
bryant has another bill Senator Stubblefield, SB 509.
OK, Senator Johnson, 511. OK, well, we'll probably interrupt you if Senator
Hester gets in the room. OK, well, they say Senator Hester is on
the way. So whoever gets to the end of the table. You can stay there. Senator Hester is here.
Senate Bill 426. Yes, sir. Is there an amendment?
Okay. We have an amendment for SB 426. Senator Hester,
Speaker 336
1:35:48
would you identify yourself for the record? Bart
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:35:54
Hester, State Senator, District 33. This amendment clarifies Pace 2, Lines 23 through 36, after some good feedback from some people in this room that that needed some clarification. That's what that does.
Motion to adopt the amendment by Senator Deese. Second from Senator McKee. Discussion? Hearing none. All for the motion
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:36:18
to adopt the amendment signify by saying aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Senator Hester, your amendment is adopted. Are you ready
to present your bill? I am. So thank you, Chairman Clark. Members, so if I run into questions
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:36:35
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, members, this bill is, 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 the enhanced part of those penalties. And if you want to look, there's a list on page two, starting with a list of those violent crimes.
This also will require each of our counties to participate in the Warrant Service Officer Program with ICE. 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 in the state of Arkansas.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:38:18
I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from committee? - Senator Rice, you're
recognized. - I'm sorry, I'd scanned over this. Is this only after an arrest as far as the interaction with ICE?
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:38:40
- Yes, sir, that's actually a great question. I meant to say that in my presentation. So this is only once 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 something. We hope that our local sheriffs and local law enforcement have trust in all communities. 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.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:39:13
Okay, and that was my concern for what we had testimony in previous committee, not with ICE, but with the concern that another agency, what their action was, it resulted in a death. And what we had were told is it was from local
law enforcement. And that's what I had concern in here is how that would be. But your answer answered my question.
Thank you. Other questions from committee members? Hearing none, we have some folks signed up to
testify against. Beginning with the first on the list is
Jeff Rosenzweig. Yes, and a reminder that we
have a three-minute time limit. If you'll identify yourself for the record. Jeff
Speaker 161
1:40:14
Rosenzweig, 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 there is no definition of illegally or unlawfully that's in the bill. The problem is it doesn't have any defense for notice that you are here illegally or unlawfully. Now, someone who jumps over a wall in 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 has revoked, you know, visas and temporary protective status and that type of thing that the person has no notice of. And this is a criminal statute here. And I think there needs to be additional language here 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 our concern. Questions from the committee? Senator Rice, you recognize?
I don't think it's quick
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:41:59
as you, but as you were speaking, I'm thinking.
We're 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 have to know 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 could you respond to that? Yes.
Speaker 161
1:42:57
Well, obviously, a person has actual or constructive notice about a criminal statute. In other words, you know or deem to know that murder is against the law or robberies against the law, that type of thing. That's not what we're talking. We're talking about a status that is personal to the defendant here at issue.
Now, obviously, if someone sneaked into the country 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 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 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 there was a misstatement or a misrepresentation in the application for a green card?
You still have the green card, but are you 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 X number of years or decades or
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:45:06
whatever I appreciate your answer, but 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 capable of being in control. and underlings were making policy in giving things maybe like green cards. Without properly vetting, we just opened the borders, and now we're dealing with that. And while I won't due process, I just feel like we're at a stage that we've got to do some things,
And anybody with temporary data and all needs to be very concerned about them conducting themselves legally. Yes,
Speaker 161
1:46:11
sir, but the problem is, I understand what you're saying. The problem is we're talking about 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, or in every case has to have, should have, actual or constructive notice that he falls within the terms of the statute.
Now, everyone knows there are 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 subject to change day by day. That's the constitutional problem with it.
Thank you. Senator Dees, you recognize? Mr. Chair, I see
where you're trying to go, Mr. Wozniak, about wanting clarity about are they a legal citizen or not. But the majority of this bill is talking about those individuals who are not legally allowed to be here, but also who commit serious felonies involving violence. And 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 juggle those
Speaker 355
1:48:06
two thoughts for a concern of a defendant in this? Your argument is with
Speaker 161
1:48:12
the U.S. Supreme Court in the Apprendi case. Any statute that raises a sentence is something that is treated as a criminal statute and has to be proved to a jury or the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt
and is subject to all the due process protections that one would have for the underlying criminal statute. And that's the problem, it's the problem of notice. Now, it can be solved with a statutory definition of exactly what is illegal or unlawful.
And my concern is the person who was here legally and then somehow subsequently determined what's illegal. I appreciate that. I think the legislative intent here is very clear
that 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.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:49:32
Senator Johnson. So I get what you're saying, but we're not the one that is
the notifier, the state of Arkansas. It's 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 as a state to do so. It's their job to know whether they're here legal or not, and it's the enforcement's job
Speaker 351
1:50:18
to be able to determine that. Yes, well, there's, but you're
Speaker 161
1:50:24
still, you still have, under due process, you still have the requirement that, for notification, and that your, for instance, status has been revoked.
And, as I say, 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
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:50:57
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
Speaker 351
1:51:20
Fed's responsibility to serve that notice. Well, but what if the revocation
Speaker 161
1:51:26
was the day before? Or six hours before? I understand. That's the problem. And that's what, for instance, we see in people who think they're totally legal and all of a sudden they're picked up and sent whatever and there's been this almost immediate or 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 apply just to citizens, probably to any person who is on trial. And it is a and is a criminal statute and it's subject to the constitutional guarantees of due process, which includes notice. So, it needs to have definition that discusses notice and discusses it in a way that, you know, that would meet those two process requirements.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
1:52:29
We live in a beautiful country that gives you process even though you're here legally. That's correct. That's
in the 14th Amendment. Other questions from committee? Mr. Rosenzweig, 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 attached to you.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:53:12
I'm sure that Senator Hester would would entertain it yeah I
Speaker 351
1:53:17
will I will get with Senator Hester and try to come up with
Brent Toomey
Unverified
1:53:21
some language I'm sure I'm sure he wants it to be completely constitutional any
other questions from committee 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? Hearing none. Next, speaking against, we have Maricela, Maricela
Garcia. Don't believe she's here. Sarah Everett. Ms. Everett,
if you will identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 367
1:54:14
Good morning. I am Sarah Everett. I'm the policy director for the ACLU of Arkansas. Or,
I'm sorry, ACLU of Arkansas? Yes, sir.
And would you like, you have three minutes. Yes, thank
Speaker 367
1:54:28
you. Forgive me, I'm a little all over the place this morning, but I did
Speaker 369
1:54:33
want to make a few points on this bill. One of them being just kind of the continuation of the ban on sanctuary policies. 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. A few questions that I have about the bill that kind of go along with just the mass incarceration problem in general is cost. How much are we going to be spending from taxpayer dollars to keep people in prison longer in Arkansas? And then just beyond that, 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 thinking about committing a crime. I think 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. A few other questions that we had about this bill are whether we have assurances that costs associated with this
will be reimbursed by the federal government or whether counties will have to share the burden or take on the burden of more costs. And whether we're concerned, we are concerned, that people are spending longer in county jails than is legally allowable now. And we worry that this would exacerbate that. Once you contact ICE, 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, hopefully we can work with Mr. Rosenzweig on the issue 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, you said it wouldn't help public safety. Will it hurt public safety? Personally, I always think
Speaker 369
1:57:30
that 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
Speaker 369
1:57:49
aren't here legally i think 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 Yeah. Colorado was one of the first states that legalized marijuana. Did more people go there
know the answer to that. Okay, I do. And there was numbers of people who moved to Colorado
because the law was less restrictive so you don't think that a
law that says if you commit and let me read this for serious felonies
involving violence 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 first degree aggravated assault terroristic threatening, terroristic act, et cetera.
Speaker 369
1:59:22
- I think it's very unlikely. I think most of 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 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 the 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? Maybe you went to Colorado or Texas or Oklahoma or New York and murdered somebody there. I think murder is illegal
Speaker 369
2:00:10
in all of those states, too. I understand what you're saying. I think I just am going to
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 commit violence?
Speaker 369
2:00:37
a horrible thing? I don't think that in and of itself is a horrible thing. think there are many other unintended consequences things like this that
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:00:46
are that are as there are unintended consequences of not controlling the border I appreciate your testimony that is the last one
we have already passed you up Ms. Garcia I apologize. Senator Hester you're recognized for your bill. Thank you members
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
2:01:17
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 prosecuted attorney may include this. They will
consider all the factors if they choose to include this. And I appreciate Senator D's position. Like, if you're going to commit a violent crime, like, here 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 those that are here illegally that this should ever apply to. And I think we all agree that this would keep our community safer with that I ask for a good
vote motion do pass from Senator what motion do pass as amended for Senator Gilmore and second from Senator 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?
HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRYED. CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR HESTER, YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:03:08
BILL. OKAY, I SAW SENATOR SCOTT COME
IN. OKAY, 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 dog ate your homework it'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 heard on Wednesday it's not going to be this committee's fault. Now if we don't
everybody else is coming back on Wednesday. Senator Johnson I
Speaker 383
2:04:02
believe you're next up. Senator Johnson, if
you would identify yourself for the record.
Senator Blake Johnson, District 21. Hold on, Senator Johnson. We have some technical business we need
to take care of before we do that. Bill 442, in order to make sure everything is absolutely legal, we need
to expunge the vote by which the First Amendment, CEB
238, was adopted. Can I have a motion? Motion to expunge.
Second from Senator Dees. All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed. Motion carried. and we need to expunge the votes by which the two verbal amendments
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:05:20
were adopted motion from senator gilmore second center dees any discussion hearing none all for the
motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried now we need to adopt the verbal amendment that includes all three amendments
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:05:39
motion and second any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye okay 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
Speaker 358
2:05:56
right i already did that but my guests
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:06:00
can introduce themselves laurie trogden president and ceo of the arkansas bankers
Speaker 393
2:06:06
association And Mike Shepard, President of the Bankers Security Council of Arkansas.
Speaker 358
2:06:13
Okay, Senator Johnson. I'm going to start with
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:06:21
Senate Bill 511. This bill will increase the state felony for criminal mischief to clearly provide that interruption or impairment wholly or in part of an ATM as a Class D felony. These crimes are rarely prosecuted under federal 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 testify for against
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:06:59
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 511. Motion to pass SB 511.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:07:10
Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? All for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations,
Senator Johnson. You have passed SB 511.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:07:25
So, same witnesses, same presenter for 512.
IF YOU WOULD GO AHEAD AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD AGAIN, SENATOR JOHNSON. SENATOR BLAKE JOHNSON, DISTRICT 21, I THINK YOU'RE RECOGNIZED
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:07:39
TO PRESENT SB 512. THIS BILL ALLOWS FOR SOMEONE WHO PRESENTS A NOTE FOR A BANK ROBBERY TO BE CHARGED WITH A ROBBERY
INSTEAD OF JUST THEFT. OKAY, SO THE INTENTION, AS A NOTE, CREATES OR CREATES A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT WOULD CAUSE A REASONABLE PERSON TO BELIEVE THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMINENT.
OKAY, AND THIS IS NOT JUST IN THE
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:08:30
BANK, THIS IS ANYWHERE. WELL, IT WAS -- IT'S MEANT TO BE IN A ROBBERY, IN A BANK ROBBERY, SO -- WELL, IS
THIS SPECIFIC TO BANK -- TO -- I WOULD ASSUME
ROBBERY DOESN'T SPILL out banks that it's just robbery. But I could be wrong because I'm not a lawyer. Yeah, my
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:08:54
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. Okay. 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 employs 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
2:09:27
PHYSICAL FORCE IS IMMINENT. SO, CHAIRMAN, THAT WOULD BE LIKE GIVING THEM A NOTE THAT I HAVE A GUN AND WE'RE GOING TO
INTIMIDATE THOSE FOLKS INTO THE SITUATION. And that
makes perfect sense. I know this is going to be used in other ways. I'm just trying to figure
out what that would be. 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. Any other questions from the committee?
Chair
Unverified
2:10:13
Senator Rice, you're recognized. I'm sorry, I had trouble
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:10:17
hearing the witness response. Is this for any robbery that's not exclusive to banks? Is that correct? If they come in my furniture store and give me a note that seems threatening,
Speaker 401
2:10:32
it would pertain there, too. I don't have a specific
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:10:40
answer 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
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:10:57
gave you a note. Well, we have a dollar or two around here once in a while, too. But I'm serious. This just pertains to
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
2:11:03
something more than banks. I couldn't answer that. That would be a question, I think, for
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:11:07
prosecutors. Good to prosecute her after that. If 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. Thank you. I apologize. Any other questions from the committee? Senator Deese? Just as a follow-up to this conversation, 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 any robbery situation.
Any other questions? Hearing none, there's no one here to speak for or against any of Senator Johnson's bills,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:12:08
so Senator Johnson, you are recognized to close. I appreciate a good vote, and I would motion to adopt Senate Bill 512. Motion to adopt. Second.
Second from Senator Gilmour. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:12:24
by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Senator Johnson. You have passed SB 512.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:12:32
So, Senate Bill 513, this is like your postal theft issues and check washing. Check washing is rampant in Arkansas and as well as across the United States. Criminals most commonly use mail theft to find checks to wash. The Financial Crime Enforcement Network has reported that over a period of six months in 2023, over $688 million have been linked to mail theft related to check fraud and an average loss of $44,774 per incident.
Experts predict that the fraud losses would reach over $24 billion in 2024. Those stats are not out yet. mail theft is a federal crime. However, most cases in the United States, postmaster general will not refer a case to the U.S. attorney for prosecution unless the amount includes hundreds of millions of dollars. This bill gives local prosecutors the ability to prosecute mail theft or possession of a mailbox key or lock.
This is a state and local, the prosecutors that
gives them the tools to address this, not just the Postmaster and the Feds. All right, any questions from committee? Hearing none, there's
Speaker 343
2:14:16
no one to testify for or against. Senator Johnson,
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:14:24
would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. I appreciate a good vote, and I make a motion to pass Senate Bill 513.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:14:34
Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Senator Johnson. You have
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:14:50
passed SB 513. This is the last of the list, Senate Bill 514. This bill strengthens the state crime of payment 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 they have those devices or also they can walk beside of you and take your card information with one of those skimmer machines and they can be easily bought and your card can be duplicated in that situation. Questions from
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:15:45
the committee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So, unlawful possession of a skimmer, what about lawful possession
of a skimmer? 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
Speaker 413
2:16:06
the skimmer in and of 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 I put on a device at Kroger at the gas pump or I've slid it on top of another point-of-sale device at 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. So they are 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
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:16:52
other questions from committee senator johnson i apologize for not answering asking this question on your other bills
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 to commit the
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:12
crimes anyway. I don't care. I appreciate the thought there but criminals need to be just penalized. So just following you
know that laws do no good and and we don't know why we're locking them up so
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:17:30
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
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:39
like to close for your bill? Thank you, Chairman. I had this happen to me one time before the Walmart, whatever that country market or whatever it was down here on, I think it was Kavanaugh. I got gas there, and apparently they used my card and duplicated it, and I was in Florida without my knowledge and without me enjoying it.
they tried to use my card and 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 problem
and it's getting worse 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. Second from Senator gilmore any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:18:36
motion carried congratulations center johnson on passing sb 514 center tucker you don't
want to run your bill
today okay okay center stubblefield we're ready for you if
you're ready Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The number is Senate Bill 477.
SB 477, would you identify yourself for the record?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:19:11
Gary Stubblefield, Senate District 26. This bill was brought to me by an equipment renter up in northwest Arkansas, and I had no idea this was going on. He wanted to be here today, but he had to go to the hospital for some cancer treatments. It really exists of three things. It wants to make it a criminal offense instead of a civil offense. To start out with, as used in this section, equipment rental service means a 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 or rental period, exercises unauthorized control or otherwise deprives 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.
The other thing it does, it will allow the court to get restitution from the person 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, but they are. Questions from the committee?
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:20:50
Secretary McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
So I think I understand the impetus behind this. My concern as someone who rents equipment from time to time is the lack of definitions, I guess. So if I keep a piece of equipment knowingly or not knowingly, what is, is there a time period that's specified whereby which I, I mean, obviously I don't do this, but I know that there's people out there But if I forget that I've got this piece of equipment, because I mean, it's everything from backhoes and trailers, right, to small saws and things like that.
Obviously, those things aren't going to run in the $25,000 range. But, I mean, you're looking at felonies here if you keep equipment longer than you were
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:21:43
supposed to. Well, if you rent a half 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 allow someone else to use it over the weekend for their purposes and damage it. So this would just prevent that from happening.
They would have to return it, especially without any repairs needing to be done
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:22:15
on it. 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 the renter is setting their prices? Are those prices have to be set in the contract beforehand? Well, they're set according to what other rental stores rent for.
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 it. Well,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:22:52
it's to protect the rental store from people who have abused this. And I've seen it happen to myself in my own area. So it's just to protect the property owners and the rental service. Their business is
Speaker 425
2:23:04
small business. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Other questions from committee? Senator Tucker? senator um i was
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:23:14
just made aware of another another code section where it is a criminal it's already a criminal offense i just know i don't know if you want to take a look at
this and it hasn't broken down by value of theft and class bc it's already a criminal yes offense to keep these yes sir well the draft
Speaker 257
2:23:37
who put this together was supposed to cover all those areas
Speaker 429
2:23:41
if they weren't covered under original codes? - I don't know if you
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:23:54
want to take a look at that. - Yeah, does this cover the
damages? I'm not sure that covers the damages. Because a lot of times this equipment's brought back in different shape than it was when it
left. LEAVE ANYTHING ON THEM WITH RESPONSIBILITY TO PAY FOR THOSE DAMAGES.
While they're studying, Senator Stubblefield, it is the damages part that causes me concern.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:24:29
I like the rest of it, but Section 1B2, which is Line 29, Causes damage to equipment that is leased, rented, or entrusted to
the person so that the equipment is not in condition to be provided for rent or leased without repair.
What line did you say? Line 29.
On the second page? No, first page. No,
first page. My heartburn there is often there is
a dispute. I had that many years ago. 20 probably in Florida. I rented a motorcycle. My son went 100 feet, fell over in the sand, and I got a bill for $2,000 worth of damages, which was a scam.
And there was some scratched plastic. And I know it says here, and I know that's also true often with boat rentals, Sea-Doo rentals, how much damage was there. You know, can it be, because it says can't be rented, but I've seen the argument presented several times that, well,
we can't rent it unless we fix it, when that's pretty much not the case. but we're making something criminal there
that I'm not, I understand why, and I understand the situations that they're going after, 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
2:26:14
a conversation with him about that. He told me that it was getting so bad of some of these equipment rental dealers that they were actually selling out
because they could not recoup
the damages. 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 five or six items for installing flooring, and they do get pawned. other things happen that should be criminal if they're not.
And I appreciate the damage part, but I'm afraid of it, unless they've got better work.
Speaker 372
2:27:04
Senator McKee? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'd
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
2:27:08
really like to vote for a bill like this, but I'd really like, like Senator Clark has said, some definitions and some clarity to handle those in instances where there are disputes between the renter and
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:27:23
the renter. Well, I'll tell you what, I will pull this down and talk to him again about you guys, your concerns, and then bring it
back Wednesday. Okay. Try to bring it back Wednesday.
Thank you. Have you got
Speaker 437
2:27:44
another bill, Senator Stovallfield? No. Senator Gilmore? SB 537 539
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:28:11
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 she would please all right she's going to explain
Speaker 442
2:28:38
the amendment i believe so if you will identify yourself for the record thank you everybody tony ral chief counsel for the department of corrections 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 the main substantive change is that on the back on page four 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 and SOCNA um would not be overridden by any
subsequent acts that use old language and I think that's all the amendment does
uh questions on the amendment hearing none
uh we have a motion from center johnson to adopt amendment second from center gilmore any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried uh sb 539 is amended center gilmore would you like to present your bill well uh again i
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:29:55
think we're open to taking questions i think that was a 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 excuse my ignorance but what does SB 539
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:30:16
do again well I think as it was stated is pretty much a corrections cleanup and clarification bill just aligning what is currently practiced
with the Department and Board of Corrections, but I will defer to Ms. Ryle
Speaker 442
2:30:33
for 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 assessments from the Division of Correction to the Department of Corrections. Back in 2024, as a result of the Protect 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. 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. Yes,
sir. Any other questions from the committee? Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:08
Tucker? I'm just catching up on this, but there's some language in there about eligibility for community correction and whatnot.
You have a page number, Senator? let me ask you this one first because I've got the page site ready for this one on page 14 line 27 what's
Speaker 448
2:32:38
the thought for striking that subsection there so that's
Speaker 442
2:32:41
actually done at the department of corrections level okay and this is that's community correction division okay so it's not
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:32:50
striking that requirement she's clarifying where no it's just up where it's done okay let me give me
Speaker 442
2:33:05
one second hey if I could just clarify I'm sorry that's the correction um level not community correction
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:33:14
okay I think my well my other question was at the top of page four but
I THINK IT'S BASICALLY GOING TO BE THE SAME ANSWER. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY CHANGING LAW. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. 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
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:33:49
BILL? Thank you, members. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed. I appreciate a good vote. I make a motion to pass.
Motion. Motion do pass as amended. As amended. Thank
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:33:59
you, Senator. Senator Johnson seconds. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations. Senator Gilmore, you have passed SB 539 as amended. Thank you, Senator. And
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:34:13
then if I may, 537. SB
537 also has an amendment. Yes, sir. I think
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:34:20
the most important thing about that amendment is that Senator Tucker is a co-sponsor.
But that amendment, as it's being passed out, I'll just tell you, just makes some clarifying and technical corrections to the bill, just so that there was 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 the recipe, 547?
Was that a motion? That's a motion to adopt at the proper time. Motion to
adopt. Second from Senator Dees. All for the
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:35:10
motion. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. congratulations. You
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:35:20
have amended your bill. Thank you, Senator. If I may, members, Senator Gilmore, District 1, here to present SB 537. 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 to 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 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 sixth 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 offenders move off of supervision and be successful, and I think will help reduce recidivism, and that's certainly the goal with this bill. Happy to take questions. Questions from committee? Seeing none, anyone here speak for or against? No one
here speak for or against? Senator Gilmore, would you like to close for your bill? Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:37:04
you, sir. Members, I'm closed. Again, I think it's a bill that will 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 do pass
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:37:19
as amended. As amended. Second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Senator. Okay, committee, we have two House bills that we have people here to run the bills. Representative Carr, you said yours had no opposition?
Until today. If you will identify
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:37:56
yourself for the record. Joey Carr, State House District Representative, 34. And on House Bill 1757, this is one to amend the law concerning railroads and dealing with the tampering of railroads. And on 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 other property. And the idea came out of this, there was a cut of cars that were kind of vandalized and 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. Unfortunately, there was no injury or death to the humans, but 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 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 any of this rail equipment, it brings it up to a Class D felony.
Speaker 460
2:39:35
And where is it currently representative? I'm not positive on that. misdemeanor of some type i
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:39:47
assume it's going to be a high
level misdemeanor center johnson you're recognized representative carr i
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:39:54
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 set on a secondary rail a train, and all, or well, it didn't have an engine, but all the cars were on that secondary rail. It was blocking access to farm access in those areas. And so I got notification. The guy had planted. He had to go multiple miles around that and had planted and everything, and he was ready
at the situation for watering, and it was right across that rail, and he had to go over five 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 it'll move it just like the engine will. And in that situation, are we possibly, if they hadn't remedied that situation, would have we made
him a felon for moving that so he could
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:41:25
access his farm? On the first page, line 29, the definition for tampering is displacing, removing, damaging, disabling, destroyed, setting fire to, impairing, or otherwise interfering with. Well, if I
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:41:46
hook my tractor, that sucker, and displace it.
Speaker 227
2:41:51
I get you. I get you. Mr. Chair, would you
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:41:54
allow Mr. Sale to come to possibly answer that, please, sir? Sure. If we get too long, I'm going to ask you to
Gerald Sale
Unverified
2:42:08
pull the bill down. Yes, sir. Sure. My name is Gerald Sale,
Speaker 467
2:42:13
State Director for Smart Transportation Vision. We represent rail employees in the state of Arkansas. And I know Peach Orchard quite well, grew up over there, duck hunted over there.
And your answer would be there would 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 switched, misaligned, and it ends up causing something, a 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
Speaker 358
2:42:46
the movement of cars. That's what you're, in displacing, that's what you're saying is derailing that car. Yeah, derailing the cars, yes.
Speaker 470
2:42:54
Movement on the rail, you haven't damaged anything. But I would encourage you to call me because I know local management and I can get that moved
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:43:04
for you probably quicker than Drew could. I knew him also, and that's the reason I called him. I just, you know, it just calls
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:43:18
for concern, you know, in that situation. Other questions? Dr. Ross? When you
said the tampering is described as displacing, removing, damaging, et cetera,
it says the acts of tampering with, so tampering can mean more than just what. Is that not correct? Well,
Gerald Sale
Unverified
2:43:42
what they're really talking about when it talks about displacing is
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:43:47
talking about switches. Now let's go back to tampering. Sure. It says to eliminate the extent possible of the acts of tampering with displacing and all.
Is the tampering only the displacing, removing, damaging, disabling, destroying, setting fire, et cetera? Yes, sir. So this is not going to get in. I'm not for it. I'd be fine if you in a minute put abstract art on there, too. that those are used as canvases for some of our
Speaker 346
2:44:18
budding. I wouldn't call that tampering as far as
Speaker 474
2:44:23
that goes. The real intent of it, and if we need to admit it, that's fine.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:44:30
And again, I'm just joking with you on tampering and all that. But I am serious on
whether tampering is something besides what, Say, I know what you're, and I support what you're doing here, but what it says is what gets enforced. And that's what Senator Johnson was bringing on that is, is somebody going to try to prosecute somebody for moving that car with a tractor?
If the rail services flip off, we're not going to come. That's a tired track. Sometimes you get that response, not saying you're not going to help. I'm
saying some places could. It's what this says is what we have to deal with, what I'm getting at. Thank you. Other questions
Gerald Sale
Unverified
2:45:25
from the 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? Yes, sir. there's not anyone here that represents the actual uh the railroads themselves no this bill actually was
Speaker 467
2:45:42
given to me uh my the class one carriers it came from bnsf originally didn't come from us we're
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:45:50
just in support of it okay because i had a question uh came to mind before uh center johnson you mentioned
representative car where uh train had been decoupled cars had been decoupled
enrolled and i would ask that was that a situation where a train continually sits across the road for 24 48 hours uh and somebody got tired of it because they certainly don't get any help on it uh
Speaker 467
2:46:21
no that specific situation wasn't that it was it was a yard application where it said in the switchman switcher's yard and someone had trespassed end of releasing the brakes line and switching to derail and videotaping the uh or videotaping showing my age here recording
the cars derailing at that point we were just lucky that it
Speaker 474
2:46:40
wasn't anything that was inhaling or anything like that that would actually affect the people living
in the surrounding area the railroads already have strong laws protecting them don't they
Speaker 467
2:46:52
federal laws there's not really anything dealing with tampering to be honest with you as far as as federal laws goes there are some trespassing laws but what we've run into is just due to the expanse of the railroad and the limitations on on how many employees railroad have as far as
enforcement of those laws for instance for the state of arkansas really we don't have one law enforcement officer that that handles
Speaker 478
2:47:19
that used to there were multiple and they've moved into a a situation where actually
one officer will handle multiple
states. I find this bill somewhat ironic because it appears that sometimes the railroads don't think that Arkansas law applies to them, specifically the law that protected employees
with a firearm in their vehicle on the parking lot. And if they don't need to obey
that, why would we need to put this in practice and why would citizens need to obey it? Well, I would
Gerald Sale
Unverified
2:48:01
say, and I worked with you on that bill and I understand exactly what you're saying and appreciate
Speaker 467
2:48:07
your support on that. 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 locomotives for a reason. We get shot at quite often, been shot at myself out there, unfortunately. But what this really protects is the citizens, for instance, here in Little Rock. The switching operations that we have are quite extensive, and the chemicals that we deal with are pretty toxic and dangerous. So this is 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 as much to protect the general
public as it is the railroads. I'm all about protecting the employees. 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 bill yes sir
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
2:49:11
thank you for your time mr. chairman and appreciate a motion do pass in favor of vote thank you committee motion do pass from center
Johnson second from center Gilmore any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify
by saying aye all against signify by saying no no So congratulations, Representative Carr, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. Representative,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:49:43
Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I
had told Senator Gilmore that I would be added as a co-sponsor to 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 vote by
which Senate Bill 537 passed, make a verbal amendment. Okay. Second. Second
from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. So the bill is no longer amended.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:50:24
No, 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
Speaker 485
2:50:37
that was amended. On page three of the amendment, it has subsections C and D, and that should read subsections B
and C. Argueed that code provision would handle that. Do we have a second?
Second. Second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye.
Speaker 270
2:51:09
Aye. Staff is 30. Staff is on page 3
Speaker 177
2:51:13
of the amendment. Are you all with me, Colby?
We may have gotten too creative even for the
Speaker 431
2:51:22
judiciary. It shouldn't be the same, if not the same as the future.
Speaker 417
2:51:32
I'm just trying to say, take a degree. It
should be the same. While we're waiting, Representative Hawks and Center Hammer have been waiting. Would y'all like to hear their bill now or after session?
Speaker 92
2:52:05
Get it? What? I love you, but you can't amend the amendment. So would you
Speaker 437
2:52:15
like to make a motion to expunge the amendment? So what do we do? Expunge the
Speaker 286
2:52:20
amendment? Yeah. I actually knew that. You can't make an amendment on an amendment. I knew that because we've
tried that before. Well, you want to amend it on the floor or what?
Speaker 493
2:52:37
Well, yeah. We'll amend it on the floor or amend it on the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:52:41
house end. I don't know what you're doing. All right. Well, it sounds like Senator Gilmore wants
to either amend it on the floor or amend
it on the house end. Okay. So now... We'll just repass it. I'll move to pass as amended. second by Senator
Dees any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye aye all opposed motion motion carried you congratulations Senator Gilmore you have passed your bill again
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:53:10
if I may Mr. Chair I just would like to ask one quick question to Senator Tucker through the chair is he really a member of the code
revision committee good question Representative Hawk Center Hammer we
never eat lunch anyway pass the bill
we had expunged it so then we passed it again
Senator Hammer, Representative Hawke, what bill are we looking at?
House Bill 1745, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 1745, would
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:54:05
you all identify yourselves for the record?
Speaker 498
2:54:09
Kim Hammer, State Senator, District 16. R.J. Hawke, House District 81. We
have an amendment for 1745.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:54:17
Would you like to explain the amendment? Yes, Mr. Chair. Really, this amendment does two things. So anywhere in the bill that you see employment authorization document, we've changed that to say work visa. And then the second thing, we want to codify the English language proficiency
Speaker 498
2:54:37
requirement for 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
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:54:50
to adopt. Second from Senator Dees. Any discussion? All for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Representative, your bill is amended. Would you like to present House Bill 1745 as amended?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:55:04
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, right now, truck drivers 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 CDLs from 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, they said this is something we've needed for quite some time so that we can help crack down on those fraudulent CDLs. Last session, the state of Texas passed 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. But because of federal law, we can't. And after talking with the attorney general and others, this takes it 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? Yes, sir. Questions from the
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
2:56:36
committee? Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clark, do you have any idea how many fraudulent CDLs have been stopped?
No, Senator, I don't. Talking 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. I think when I talked to the last with the Highway Police, They said there were five or six that they could think of in the recent memory. And this is just Mexico? Majority Mexico, yeah. 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.
Speaker 502
2:57:18
But we've only had five or six. According to what I've been told, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
2:57:25
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the RDOT representative is in the room, and so is the Truckers Association. If the chair would like to clarify any of that, they are in the room. Other
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:57:39
questions from the committee? Senator Tucker. On page 3, lines 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 exemption. 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 designed in case there are ones that arise in the
future? Correct. And it's not designed to change federal law. It's just designed to accommodate future changes in federal law? Correct. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Other questions from committee? Hearing none, we have, I think, four people signed up to testify for and against.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
2:58:36
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 testimony to two minutes. I've got a motion from Senator Rice.
Second. Second from Senator Dees. Discussion? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIED. WHO'S FIRST ON OUR LIST? HARVEY IS AT BEACH. I'M HARVEY
BEACH. IF YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD.
Speaker 507
2:59:22
YES, SIR. I'M HARVEY BEACH. 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 okay 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-domiciled 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, the employment authorization document, which I realize 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 what's going on. I apologize, Mr. Beach, your
time is up, but I think there will be some questions from the committee.
Speaker 507
3:01:40
i'm against 1745 because it does nothing to fix our problems
on our roadways okay what what on house bill 1745 are you against mr beach or your association the
Speaker 507
3:02:01
lack 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 caused by big trucks, and we believe this is one of the root causes for
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:02:26
it, sir. Okay, questions? Senator Rice? And what you're saying is what it looks like in this bill is requiring some documentation that's not required now,
makes it look like they're doing something, but they're really not? The most recent amendment,
Speaker 510
3:02:42
they took out the employment authorization document.
Speaker 507
3:02:45
Is your microphone on? I'm sorry, I'm back away from it. 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
Speaker 511
3:03:10
understand our road signs and temporary warning signs, they already have that document, sir.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:03:17
Okay. Well, I would agree with you. I don't
come 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 delivered to me. And I've seen some of the things on the road. So, Mr. Chair, I hope the sponsors can answer some of the concerns
of this because I don't want to do harm that's already been being done.
Other questions from committee? Again, let me be sure I
understand, Mr. Beach. You're against the bill. Yes, sir. Not because of anything that's in it, but because of
Speaker 507
3:04:06
what's not in it. And if I'm wrong, tell me I'm wrong. No, this bill has been put out in opposition to HB 1569 that we are trying to get past. 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. But it's in transportation in the house? Yes, sir.
Chair
Unverified
3:05:03
Okay. Any other questions from committee? All right. Thank you, Mr. Beach. Thank you, gentlemen. Next.
Speaker 372
3:05:10
Next, we're going to go four. We like to have last names, but I think it's Shannon
Newton. I got the right Shannon. There's more than one on the list.
Speaker 515
3:05:37
I was going to say, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, 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. As Representative Hawk said, it was brought to our attention by the Texas Department of Public Safety that they had identified some fraudulent CDLs. Primarily, they were being sold by the cartel, and it has been verified. Even in Arkansas, there was a case when a person was incarcerated in our state
and was delivered a fake Mexican LSD in prison and so verified 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 work visa those are U.S. 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 legally. And that was our solution in order to help to answer
Senator Stubblefield'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 ready for questions? Yes, sir. Senator Johnson, you recognize? So if they have
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:07:01
the fake CDL, he says that they're going to have this documentation also. I don't think
that's the case if you've got a
Speaker 517
3:07:12
fake CDL, am I correct? The majority of Mr. Beach's
Speaker 518
3:07:15
comments were about non-domiciled CDLs, which are issued in the United States. That's a
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:07:22
completely different 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.
Speaker 515
3:07:33
The fact that it's issued by the U.S. government is the, I guess, I mean, I guess nothing is foil proof, but in order to provide the best solution
possible, that is what we've come
Chair
Unverified
3:07:46
up with. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Senator
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:07:53
Ross, you recognize? So you're speaking for the bill. Yes, sir. Instructors Association. Are you in opposition to HB 1569?
Speaker 515
3:08:01
Our position on HB 1569 has been inconsequential because it violates nine different subchapters of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Concerns have been raised by the Attorney General's Office, the State Police, the Highway Police, and RDOT.
It's my understanding that that bill was actually
pulled down this morning. NEW SPEAKER: OKAY, THANK YOU. NEW
SPEAKER: OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT DIFFERENT TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS ON DIFFERENT
Speaker 515
3:08:29
SIDES OF THIS BILL, IS THAT CORRECT? NEW SPEAKER: I TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE
WITH THEM BEING CALLED AN ASSOCIATION, BUT YES, SIR, FROM APPEARANCES, YES. NEW SPEAKER: OKAY, 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
Speaker 525
3:08:56
ABLE TO DELIVER INTERNATIONAL FREIGHT. AND THAT IS CALLED? IT
Speaker 515
3:09:02
IS AUTHORIZED TO THE USMCA INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENT.
Brent Toomey
Unverified
3:09:05
AND DOES IT HAVE THAT LICENSE HAVE
Speaker 515
3:09:07
A PARTICULAR NAME? No, it is a Canadian CDL or a Mexican CDL, which has a different acronym. And then you said there was a non... The non-domiciled CDL is a U.S.-issued CDL. Some states issue them. Arkansas does not.
But it is attempting to address a circumstance in which an individual does not reside in the state in which that individual is 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 system,
Speaker 518
3:09:43
but the purpose was to service American citizens who were getting training in some state other than their own. Okay, 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, but, one, the first license we talked about, which came out
Brent Toomey
Unverified
3:10:04
of NAFTA, is that those from Canada and Mexico could operate trucks into the U.S. The non-domicile is you
can live here, I'm assuming, without being a citizen. That would vary based on the state
Speaker 516
3:10:20
that was issuing it. Well, non-domicile... It
Speaker 523
3:10:24
just means that you're 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
Speaker 517
3:10:39
from the country at all 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 515
3:10:57
with a u.s cdl can drive within the u.s the same way that you and i could drive into
to Oklahoma. So if California issues the license, Arkansas has no say-so? That is correct. The federal government has a minimum
Speaker 515
3:11:10
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
Speaker 515
3:11:32
OF ARKANSAS HAS THE ABILITY TO REJECT LICENSES ISSUED
IN THE OTHER 48 STATES HAVE YOU
EVER SEEN US DO SOMETHING WE
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
3:11:48
COULDN'T YES CENTER JOHNSON YOU RECOGNIZE SO SHOULDN'T THE FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIERS DISALLOW THIS ACTION BECAUSE OR LOSE YOUR
Speaker 530
3:11:55
FEDERAL FUNDING? THE SOLUTIONS TO THESE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
Speaker 515
3:12:00
ARE PRIMARILY FEDERAL. WE ARE DOING WHAT WE 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
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:12:21
COMMITTEE? SENATOR STUBBLEFIELD. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANKS,
Speaker 525
3:12:25
SHANNON. CAN THIS BE REPRODUCED? Can this be, remember, the bill or the CDL? What is this? The CDL. Can a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:12:35
CDL be reproduced? Yeah, can this be reproduced to where it would look legitimate?
Speaker 515
3:12:40
Yeah, the CDLs 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 requiring the second form of ID is our intent to Demonstrate that those individuals are who they say they are Can you can you reproduce the second form of I know no, sir You would have to the US government would have to see that ID and view it as legal in order to give you a work visa or work permit
So you couldn'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 none. Thank you, Ms. Newton.
Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. Chuck Raymer, speaking against. Is it Raymer or Reimer?
Speaker 535
3:13:43
That's Reimer. Okay, if you will identify yourself for the record.
Chuck Reimer, and I've been in safety and compliance
Speaker 536
3:13:49
and 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. We were trying to get some of the language to follow the federal regulations as far as English-speaking being proficient.
They have now amended their bill to include that, But we feel like, you know, we need to take this a step further in the state of Arkansas. We have federal regulations, which is what this book is. All the federal regulations, safety regulations that we have to comply with. I've had the opportunity in the past to work and look at many. I know a lot today has been said about B1s and Mexicans and Canadians and things like that.
When you vet a 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 conductor's license is valid or not. I've never, in 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'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. 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, write, speak the English language. It's an out-of-service, it used to be an out-of-service violation at the FMCSA. Your time is up,
Mr. Reimer. Thank you. Any questions from committee?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
3:16:34
Senator Gilmore, no? I just was going 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.
Speaker 539
3:16:52
Anyone? I'm sorry. are you on the list yes yes thank you thank you mr reimer thank you
Shannon Everett
Unverified
3:17:10
chairman members of the committee i know we're tied 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 tied on time will you identify yourself with us. Yes. 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 2,000 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 are bringing a voice to the American truck driver and to 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 loopholes currently in state law and federal law are allowing this to take place. There is U.S. Code, 49 U.S.C. 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 discouraged in enforcing stricter standards. There's laws for that. There's a process for that. The English proficiency amendment that was provided does not take the imminent hazard 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. 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 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 voters, are being replaced by this new group of non-domiciled 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-domicile learners permit. We got them to take that out. The current draft defers this legislative authority to a federal agency, the FMCSA. MR. MR. MR. MR.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:19:55
MR. MR. you to explain what FMCSA, I know what it is, explain their position on this. Thank you for that question. I was actually
Shannon Everett
Unverified
3:20:13
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
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 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 why it's allowed to exist, and that's why it's growing exponentially. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
3:21:00
I just passed along, the committee may be ready to vote, but I've got more questions on this, and I've got some history with some drivers. It wasn't Mexico or Canada. I don't know where that's from. It may have been the U.S. The Slavic language couldn't understand it all and did damage. No, this thing needs more discussion, I believe.
I wouldn't disagree with that. Any other questions from the committee?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
3:21:30
Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Everett. Thank you, Chairman. Representative, Senator, you were recognized and closed for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Committee. Look, at the end of the day, Senator Rice, I have some of those same concerns you do.
But there's just nothing, 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 proficiency, I can't even say it, proficiency, that was a major issue in the House side. We've amended it. We took out the learner's permit. They said 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.
We have to be upstairs. And I'm going to close with this. At the end of the day, this is something 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 state. And I'll be closed, and I'd appreciate a good vote. I have
a motion do pass from Senator Gilmore. I have a second from Senator Tucker. Do pass as amended. Any discussion? Hearing none.
I'm going to need to hear you on this vote. Hearing none, all for the motion signify
by saying aye. All against, signify by saying no. Let's vote again. All those for the motion, signify by saying aye. Aye. All those
against, signify by saying no. No. Motion carried.
Congratulations, Representative Hawke, you have passed your bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As amended. 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 43
Brent Toomey
Unverified
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Sergeant Matt
Unverified
Speaker 77
Speaker 79
Speaker 91
Speaker 109
Speaker 122
Speaker 125
Speaker 130
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 161
Speaker 178
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Kathy Bryan
Unverified
Speaker 174
Speaker 228
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 253
Representative Stetson Painter
Unverified
Speaker 267
Speaker 164
Speaker 298
Speaker 317
Speaker 336
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 355
Speaker 351
Speaker 358
Speaker 367
Speaker 369
Speaker 375
Speaker 372
Speaker 383
Lindsay Bailey
Unverified
Speaker 393
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 401
Speaker 343
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 412
Speaker 413
Speaker 425
Speaker 257
Speaker 429
Speaker 432
Speaker 437
Speaker 442
Speaker 448
Representative John P. Carr
Unverified
Speaker 460
Speaker 227
Gerald Sale
Unverified
Speaker 467
Speaker 470
Speaker 346
Speaker 474
Speaker 478
Speaker 485
Speaker 270
Speaker 177
Speaker 431
Speaker 417
Speaker 92
Speaker 286
Speaker 493
Speaker 498
Speaker 502
Senator Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 507
Speaker 510
Speaker 511
Speaker 515
Speaker 517
Speaker 518
Speaker 525
Speaker 516
Speaker 523
Speaker 530
Speaker 535
Speaker 536
Speaker 539
Shannon Everett
Unverified