State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

We got some uh, some pages joining us today. Jack Gunderman out of Fayetteville High School, Central Lettings page in Bristol Ward, y'all stand up, Lake Hamilton, Senator McKee, and then Lexi McKee. Who's your dad, Lexi? Matt McKee, OK, we're not going to hold that against you. Good guy. We're happy to have you all with us today. Thank you for being here. All right, and then Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just, just, just for staff, but also for the public, um. Senate Bill 247 and 248. Can I just move those to the deferred list for now. I'm, I'm intending on running unless something drastic changes 2:27 on Thursday and also Senate Bill 188. So if I could move that back to the active agenda from from the deferred agenda. I just want to mention that. Thank you. And then for those of you in the audience, anybody that's here for a Senate Bill 212. I did not get with staff yesterday to move that off the deferred list, so sticking with our 24 hour rule, we're going to hear that on Thursday. So Senate Bill 212 will be heard on Thursday. And with that we're going to start with Senator Stubblefield and Senator Stubblefield, I believe you've got two bills. We will start with 1399. And then House Bill 1399 members and then House Bill 1121. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you committee. I especially want to thank Scott Cens flip over. Let me come first because I chair another committee. We've got some bills, so I appreciate you letting me go first. This House Bill 1399 uh deals with the urban homestead donation deed uh repeal this bill was brought to me by the land commissioner. It repeals the commissioner of state lands. The urban urban Homestead Act, which was originally passed in 1993 and if most of you, uh, you may have heard about it or you read about it. It's a Tyler versus Hennigan, uh, Supreme Court case where they ruled that this one second center remembers there's a handout going along with this one. So we'll just break for just a second, Senator, and let staff get this handout. Alright, this process was challenged by uh and and we always Supreme Court and Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional because it did not under Article under Amendment 5 of the takings clause in the Constitution, it did not give adequate time for the individual to recoup what they had in the in the property. So this effectively repeals the ability of the commissioner of State lands to donate parcels of land, which has been certified. to the, uh, commissioner of State lands is tax delinquent to cities, towns, and other legal entities uses low housing income, so That's basically all it does. He just removes that language so it doesn't expose us to an unconstitutional, uh, Well and and get us in a lawsuit. So this takes the language out. And the reason I'm, the reason I think that the land commission wants to take it out is when he's gone and he will be gone, so we all will be gone. But the next 1 may see it and not realize it, it is unconstitutional, and he may try to and then it would expose us to an unconstitutional act. So this will repeal the language that would prevent that from ever happening. And that's basically what This bill is very simple. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill or any questions from members of the committee. Senator Tucker, you're going to ask a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. How is the current law and constitutional? I just didn't, I didn't get, get all that. How is the current law and constitutional. Under, under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. It does not, the Supreme Court ruled that it did not give the owner of the property which the city had either donated or given it to low-income housing in in the city. It did not give them a proper amount of time to redeem uh or come back and And pay the the interest are the fees are. Well the tax or the taxes on it so they just ruled that they didn't have this did not give them adequate time to do that. There's a property owner originally and then somehow that property gets to the land commissioner or explain the process that's right. And so then the Lane commissioner donates the land to somebody else, and that's a taking from the original owner because they're not giving them notice. I'm just trying to track the process the land commissioner, we understand it, donate it to the to the city. And they can use it for low income housing. Or anything, OK, and but the real issue is they weren't giving enough time to the original landowner. The original landowner, yeah, the original landlord. Property owner. OK. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Senator Payton, recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the property can still be taken. And still be auctioned or sold free market open auction to anybody. It's just that it can't be donated. In lieu of being sold. And it has, I mean this would apply to anything rather than just low income housing. I mean, the land has to be sold. At a fair market open market at a certain time, yeah. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Are there any other questions, Senator Dodson for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So You said it, it's the, the time that's the issue, not the fact that it's happening. Well, this, this hadn't happened since the Supreme Court ruling, and we had uh AG Griffin do an opinion on this, and you can read, I think each, each of you has got a handout. Well, this, this hadn't happened since the Supreme Court ruling, and we had uh AG Griffin do an opinion on this, and you can read, I think each, each of you has got a handouts opinion. And he basically said the same thing as the Supreme Court. In regard to The takings clause of Amendment 5. But from what you were saying, you're, you're saying though that. The issue was that it was a time frame issue, not necessarily that. That this was happening. No, this has not been, this is not happening now because once that Supreme Court ruling came out, uh, the land commissioner quit doing this, but it's still in the statute. So how, how I guess if this is deleted out of here. How can the The only way that the that this commissioner of state lands can donate or cannot donate the property, but they can sell it still. They, so as far as the process, if there's back taxes or for whatever reason, however it ended up in the commissioner state land's hands if they're paid back taxes and fees but they can still I guess, get rid of it off their books by some other process even if this is gone. Mr. Chairman, can I ask, uh, Mr. Boyd to come up, of course. He will, he will answer. I want to make sure you get the correct answer, Senator Dotson. Thank you. This has to do with excess. that Boy, if you give us your name and who you're with for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Kelly Boyd, Deputy Commissioner of State lands. Senator Dodson and Senator Tucker, this answer will go to both of your questions. What happens right now is if a property is certified to the, the commissioner of State lands. And we, we run it through the live auction the first time. And it does not sell, it goes to a post-auction list at that point, if the commissioner is asked by and this will also go to HB 1121. You'll hear the same argument in just a few minutes. Either of these bills, we have two types of deeds involved. Urban Homestead deed is an HB 1399 regular donation deed is in. 11:21 a regular donation deed is where we give property to a state agency, a city, a county. Urban homestead deeds go to the purpose of low-income housing. Um, there are a bunch of strict requirements you passed the bill and 2021 that had to do with relieving some of those restrictions. Actually, this bill will relieve them all because we eliminate all of it, but what we're talking about here is if we sell a piece of property and it generates more money than the taxes are owed on it, then the owner of that property has the opportunity to petition us for what we call excess proceeds, and they can claim those. What happened in Hennepin versus um Tyler versus Hennepin County is that the state just took the money. They didn't give the owner an opportunity to get the excess proceeds. We've always had a process for letting a purchaser, I'm sorry, a person that is giving up their property to to get the money. However, if we do a donation deed, that stops your ability to get it. We give it, we would not charge for it. So there is no possibility. You're going to be able to get any excess proceeds. We've taken it from you. If we sell it, then you may not get any excess proceeds, but you might, and that's the difference and that's what the Attorney general has opined that may be unconstitutional is us taking it from you without you getting a chance to get excess proceeds, doesn't guarantee it, but it gives you that chance. That's all this is. And this is strictly related to the The donation only, yes, it has nothing to do with the tax sale properties at the At the bid or in the list afterwards. You're correct, Senator, and to that point, if it doesn't sell, it'll stay on our books for some time and We don't have a problem with that. We just, to be honest, we used to have 30,000 of these things at any one time. This morning I looked and we have not All right, Senator Peyton, you recognize your question. Thank you. And so I realize you're saying that basically the Attorney General's office, or excuse me, the land commissioner's office has been operating under The procedure as it will be if this bill passes. Is that correct? That is correct. We started that there was one in May 23 of last year. So if we can just down on the difference between If the bill passes or doesn't, in other words, right now they could donate it and keep excess proceeds? There would be no excess proceeds. If we donated a piece of property, we would donate it free and clear, and there would be no chance for the previous owner to recoup any excess proceeds. When we found out about this case, When we found out about the Supreme Court result, we ceased at that point doing it. So currently, Before it can be donated. Does it have to be offered for sale, correct? So currently the protection is it has to be offered for sale, but if it doesn't sell, then you can donate it. When we offer it for sale, who determines whether or not it sells above or below or at the. Taxes owed. State law for the first when it goes to the what we call the live auction the first time it goes, it has to sell for a minimum of taxes owed, costs, fees, whatever. Then if it does not sell that day, we maintain it on inventory for 2 years and during that two-year period, it has to sell for that minimum. In fact, on our online website, that becomes the minimum bid at the end of that two-year period, it becomes a negotiable property. And we start the bidding at $100 so there's no chance that that we could be offered. A figure that would create excess revenue during that two-year period. In other words, if there was an offer made that had that was had excess in it, it would be accepted, right? It would not be declined. No, sir, it well, yes and no. The, the bidding stays live for 30 days. Once a person places an online bid on a property, it stays live for 30 days at 8 o'clock at night on that 30th day, provided it meets the requirements of the minimum. Taxes, whatever that parcel sells for that amount at that time. Anything over, let's say it's $1000 or are due on it and it sells for 2000, then there's a $1000 pot. That's available for the previous owner to apply for. After 2 years I'm just saying that under current law where it may be contradictory to the Constitution, under current law where it can be donated. First, it would have had to have set stagnant for 2 years sitting for sale. And if at any point during that period of time, somebody offered an amount equal to the taxes owed on it, it would have been so. Nobody's turning down the excess so that they can donate it. OK, thank you. Senator Tucker, you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair and. Thank you, Mr. Boyd. I understand, especially after Senator Payton's questions the process much better now I appreciate it. What percent of the sales generate surplus value for the original property owner, approximately. It's an interesting question, Senator. I wish I had researched that. I can probably find it. um, almost all of them at our live auction. Uh We don't. We don't sell that many at live auction, but almost all of those do because we're all sitting in a room getting excited about what we see the person next to us bidding online, there is that. Also, typically if a pro a parcel has reached. The two-year stage to where we can sell it as a negotiated parcel. It's probably been there for a while and it's less attractive, and it may well sell for the $100 minimum. Uh, I wish I, and I, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll put that number together for you. I'll be glad to get that this afternoon and I'll email it to you, if you get that to staff, and they can send out to members of the committee, that'd be great. So here, Here's my concern about this. Um, it's only the surplus value that's arguably unconstitutional, correct? If we donated, it's all surplus value, right, but as far as the the holding in Tyler versus Cinnamon County, I haven't read the case, but I've just scanned this attorney General's opinion. It's only the surplus value that the original property owner doesn't have a chance to claim. That makes this process arguably unconstitutional, correct? So I'm for the owners of property rights to get their surplus value back and I'm against the state of Arkansas doing anything that violates the US Constitution, so I recognize the issue, but my concern is that the solution is bigger than the problem. Um. Like just for example, again, I know you're going to get those numbers to us, which I'm grateful for, but let's just take the example of all the properties that don't sell at live auction and then don't sell for a two-year period. Just take that category of properties. The chances of there being surplus value on those is almost none, so far as my understanding based on your explanation. And if we repeal all of these, then we're precluding the ability of the land commissioner to make a donation that would be, you know, valuable to communities in Arkansas in a way that's not going to be unconstitutional because there's no surplus value at that time, so That's, that's my concern with the way the bill is written, and maybe we could write, I don't know if we're open to amendments at this point in the process, but if we restricted it only where The land commissioner is restricted from donating it for a two year period after a live auction. And then after that they could donate it either to low income housing or to a state agency under your other bill. I just think that would be a more narrowly tailored solution to the actual problem. My senator, please, just to possibly alleviate some of your concern since 1998, we've done 238 of these. This is not a widely sought after since uh 2019 when Commissioner Land came into office. Um, the deed that we're talking about in this bill we've done 30 of the deed we're talking about where we donate to a city, county, or state, what's called a donation deed. We've done 22. It's not a widely and in the last 4 years of that 6-year period, I believe we've done maybe 11 total. So I understand your concern. I understand what you're saying. But with the fact that the AG told us that this part. The difference in us and Tyler versus Hennepin County is Tyler versus Henneman County gives no option for any person to recoup any excess proceeds. Our part of selling parcels was real constitutional according to this letter, to this opinion. It was only the part where we took away the citizens' possibility of getting it. That's the only thing that we went after and. To that point, we've stopped doing them, and we won't do them again according to this commissioner. And, and so I think, you know, I agree with, with, you know, your assessment of the situation. I just, I just worry that we're eliminating we're going too broad with with the repeal. That's, that's my and those 22 deeds may have made a big difference in those 22 communities, you know, I just don't know the details of those donations, but anyway, thank you. Thank you, Senator, Senator Peyton, for a question. Thank you. So as I sit here and try to reflect on on this attorney General's opinion what apparently took place in that lawsuit. Was it, was the keeping of the excess, was that the taking or did they determine in the in the Supreme Court's decision that the taking of the land. was the taking that was in violation of the US Constitution. Was it And, and I don't have that court case to read it, but I mean, from what I'm thinking in my head, there's a difference between taking the land, which we do all the time because of the debt. The tax debt, past due taxes, so you're taking the land. But when, when the state kept the excess, that was another taking. And that was the taking of an asset or something of value without being compensated for it. So I mean, I don't know that. That we would have a conflict with Once a property has been marketed. And proven not to have access. And then that land is donated. I don't see where it would come under this decision because this decision seems to me that it was a taking of the excess. It was unconstitutional. You're correct, Senator. It was a taking of the excess, the difference is there's always, as long as we have it for sale, there is always the chance of an excess. I understand we're taking that option away from the property owner, and that's what was ruled unconstitutional. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Hammer for a question. Long and short, everything that you're intending to do with the bill that the AG is now saying would come in line with what is constitutional is creating the pathway forward to be able to give the extra back to the rightful property owner from whom the land was taken, should there be any excess to be returned. Is that a fair summation of it, or am I missing something, Senator Hammer, we have that pathway. What we are eliminating is taking that pathway away. Donation deeds eliminate that pathway. So you're actually creating a greater opportunity. By addressing the issue. Is that correct? Yes, sir, we believe so. OK, thank you. All right, are there any more questions from members of the committee? All right, so no for questions I don't have anybody speak for against this bill. Senator Stubblefield, do you recognize the clothes for your bill? Thank you, Chairman, uh, all I can say is this bill will just remove the the length Senator, if you turn your microphone on, there you go. This bill will just simply remove the language that would allow the language that would allow the COS uh The ability to use this process. That's basically all it does. Alright, members. You've heard an explanation of the bill. Do I have a motion. I got a motion from Senator Payton, second from Senator Sullivan. All in favor say aye. post. Congratulations, Senator, your bill passes. Um, next up we'll do. 1121. you recognize to proceed with House Bill 1121. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, really, I don't even have a copy of this big woman I left at my, but it simply put, it just does the same thing as the other, the other buildings, we get you a copy of it. Yeah, this, this bill is just simply does the same thing the other, the other bill accomplished. In regard to tax forfeitu in lands. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Any questions from the committee? All right, not seeing any questions, don't have anybody sign up to speak for or against this bill. Senator Stubblefield, you're recognized a close for your bill. I'm closed, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it's closed. Do I have a motion? Got a motion from Senator Payton, 2nd, 2nd Senator Sullivan. All in favor say aye. Post. Congratulations, your bill passes. I could buy it for 100 bucks and donate it. Next up we've got Senator Blake Johnson. with probably some of the most pressing business facing this state, allocating and coming up with a state duck. I don't know how we haven't done this already, Senator. I'm gonna get a staff with this mess. Alright, Mike. All right. Introduce yourself and you'll be recognized to proceed with your bill, Senator Blake Johnson, District 21, uh, members and chair, I appreciate the opportunity to come for you. This is not replacing the state bird. This is creating the state duck. And the Mallard is the most common duck species found in Arkansas and across the country, according to the Arkansas Game and Fish. They're, uh, There's estimated in 2022, 36 million over $306 million. Uh, which breaks down to 44 million uh and I'm sorry, members of House Bill 1417. My apologies. 4 million and $250,000 per day over the 72 day Arkansas waterfowl system or season. This, uh, this duck is, is what folks come to Arkansas to duck hunt, and I'd appreciate a good vote. I All right, Senator Peyton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So by making the Mallard the target here. Is it possible that some of those mallard ducks would avoid the state? You know, there's, there is some logic in that because after duck season there seems to be a lot more ducks, and I don't know if they've got a calendar somewhere just north of us, but Alright, you just one follow up. Can you name the state bird and flower and state bird is a mockingbird and a flower is the I don't know. Dogwood, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right, there are any other questions from members of the committee, Senator Hammer. Hey, I'm just curious from time to time, you know, they come out with stamps, postal stamps, so will this give a preference to that being the duct that would be on those stamps or possibly could. The quarter, the state court, our quarter in Arkansas had to duck on it or the mallard on it. Have the Mallard on the corner that was Arkansas and that's without this designation, so OK, thanks. Thank you, Senator. Any other questions from the committee? Alright, so you know for questions. I don't have anybody sign up to speak for against the bill. Senator you're organized closed. Thank you, Chairman, members, I'd appreciate a good vote. Uh, members senators close his bill. Got a motion from Senator Sullivan, second from Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? All right, see none. All in favor. Say aye, opposed. Congratulations. Bill passes. All right, see you, Representative Ry, are you still here? Do you want to run a house bill 1368 Johnny, do you want to run 1368? OK, come on up. Representative, you hit the button there. Right there on your microphone right there. There you go, and if you'll introduce yourself and you'd be recognized to proceed with your bill, sir. Yes, sir. By District 2036. Basically, uh, gentlemen, this bill is an extension of what began in 20019 with Johnny Cash, um, Glenn Campbell and others, and we are just basically adding 5 people to that list, which is JR Rogers. Frank set sails, roll white coms, Justin Moore and Albert King. And that's basically what this bill is about. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are any questions from members of the committee? All right, see no questions, don't see anybody sign up to speak 4 against the bill. Representative, you're organized a close for your bill. I'm close, sir. All right, Bill, do you have a motion, a motion from Senator Sullivan. 2nd. Second from Senator Payton. Any discussion on the motion? Say none. All in favor, say aye, opposed. Congratulations, Representative your bill passes. Thank you. All right. Is there anybody else in here that's got a bill to run? All right. Uh All right, so no further business to come for this committee. 00, do you have something? Oh yeah, come on, sorry, excuse me, yeah, go ahead, Senator Hammer. It's got to concur a House amendment on Senate Bill 207. And you're recognized to proceed, Senator, if you don't mind, we'll bring Secretary of State up in case there's any questions. But as long as it's not mat pitch. Don't like that guy. I know him well. Alright, Neil, y'all introduce yourselves and tell us who you're with for the record, then Senator you'll be recognized to proceed. Mr. Chair, I'm Leslie Bellamy, the Secretary of State's election director Nathan Lee, chief counsel, Arkansas Secretary of State. All right, great. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kim Hammer, State Senator, just 16 when this bill got down to the House, there was a friendly amendment worked out to put on here previously, you may remember, said it was a felony, detected that there was actually a conflict in the code as a result of the discussion that happened down there and so we have agreed to an amendment that is back here, has cleared the house, and it just simply says that they would have to inform the one for whom the petitioner who is getting the sure that it is a strictly a criminal offense. It takes out any reference to misdemeanor or to felony. It just presents the obligation to inform them that it's a criminal offense. I'd be glad to take any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Senator Tucker, you're going to ask for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Last session in the 20 in the 23 session, we actually ran technical corrections bills coming out of the code of revision commission to get rid of any generic references to criminal offenses in the Code. Because they're unclear. An ambiguous, um. There was a discrepancy in class A misdemeanor versus felony, um, In the House committee, we just thought that this would put the person on notice that it was a criminal offense and still get to the point of the bill. In section. So there's there's two sections of the bill. The first is when The canvasser is notifying. The person to sign. Right? And then section. Well, and then section 2 deals with Canvasser's obligation. Uh, or the liability to the canvasser for failing to fulfill their obligation. Are you, are you tracking with me? Yeah So section 1 of the bill. That's when the canvasser has to say to the potential Signatory Hey, just so you know, if anything goes wrong, I'm I'm paraphrasing. If anything goes wrong in this process, it's a criminal offense, OK, right, you're with me so far. So you can make it, I think you can make an argument there, they're just notifying them. And then it's on the person. I'm not, I'm not saying I support this because I really don't, but, but it's on the, it's on the person to, to find out what their criminal liability may be at that point, OK? But moving to section 2. Then it says that if the canvasser fails to inform the potential signatory about that, then they're guilty. Correct? And in section 2, are you tracking with me so far? Yes. And then, but, but in section 2, it says they're guilty of a criminal offense, so it does not actually tell the canvasser. What they're, I mean, I think that's Unconstitutionally vague. They need to know what, what, what level of crime they're committing if they fail to fulfill that obligation. Senator in section 2 and it's referring to criminal offense there, it's, it's, um, referring to again if the canvasser had failed to make that notification to the signer. I don't think it's, it's not saying criminal offense. As to the canvass are there, that's referring back to that notification. Is, is the uh And then subdivision A A 7 of 7-9-103. Uh, which we don't have in the bill, that's that's what lets that person know that it's a class A misdemeanor that they've committed if they fail to notify. That is a list of the violations and is that section of the code specify that it's a class A misdemeanor. Yes, it does. OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator. Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right, you know, for questions, I do have somebody signed up to speak against Ms. Carol Egan. I'm gonna see if you'll just give us your name for the record and then tell us if you're here on your own behalf, if you're representing any group or organization, and then you'd be recognized to proceed with your remarks. And there's a little button right there on the There you go. Got it. Thank you. My name's Carol Egan. I'm a citizen. I'm speaking for myself. I do have some background working with grassroots canvassers, but I've not been anything other than somebody who counted things as they came in, so I've had a very minimal role, um, but I know a lot of these people, so Um My problem, I have two problems with this. The first is that if I'm a person in a parking lot, somebody comes up to me and asks me if I would sign a bill for something I, you know, agree with, you know, increasing minimum wage or, you know, something like that, and then they say, well, you know, It petition fraud is a criminal offense. And I would be without having not um read all this stuff, I would be like, well, What does that mean? If I signed this before, is that a criminal offense because I don't really remember. It seems like I might have. I'm old, um, or, um, what if I put the wrong address down? Is that a criminal offense, so I think I'll pass, even though I, you know, good luck. I hope this works out for you. Um, so I have a problem with that. I really think it's going to suppress people signing, and I also think it will suppress canvassers, especially volunteers like these volunteers spend their personal time doing this. They don't get paid for it. They're passionate about their, their issue, but they don't want to go to jail and and Par petition fraud at one point in the code says it's a class D felony. Which is subject to as much as when you're in jail. So we, we need to straighten this out and be clear on what we're trying to do here. The second thing that really concerns me is I sat in this room and listened to women testify about petition fraud on earlier ballot bills with Senator Hammer, and I talked to some of the people who were associated with that petition, and they denied the truth of what those women said. They actually stood up here and said one thing and the people who were associated with their collection. Of signatures said another thing. It's a he said she said type of situation already and we're going to exacerbate that because if I'm trying to stop you from raising the minimum wage. I may call my representative or call the police and say this person. Didn't tell me it was a criminal offense. And who's there to witness it? Right? It's, it's me against you. So I think this needs to be thought out a lot better, and I'm not even sure that it's necessary, but that's my concerns. I take any questions. Thank you, Ms. Eagan. Members, are there any questions from the committee? All right, so no questions. Thank you for your testimony. All right, Senator Hammer. You go back up there and Close. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What we're trying to do here is heighten the responsibility of the signature gatherers to inform the general public that in the event that they commit an action that would rise to the level of being charged that they would be notified of it at the time of which they're signing it. The reality is if this gets in front of whichever law enforcement agency that's going to investigate it, they will determine whether or not it was a malicious act or whether it was an unintentional act, that's going to be left up to those that are going to be prosecuting, but what it will do is for those that are deliberately out there misleading individuals or that are multiply signing documents intentionally. It will give to our law enforcement and to those that have the responsibility to protect the integrity of the initiative process a greater Opportunity to be able to convict them because they will have been made known that what they did is actually a violation of the law. The other thing that I think that it will do is give the general public an awareness that if they have signed a petition already, it will allow them to have a pause button to where they will not be signing those petitions on multiple times and as far as the criminal offense that would be left up to the to the prosecutor or whoever it is that's going to be handling processing these cases should they rise to the level where it needs to be investigated for prosecution and the applicable offense would be applied based on the severity of what they determined the person was doing, so I think there's a little bit of reason to keep it at the criminal offense level instead of making it something as harsh as a felony or as light as a misdemeanor. We're going to leave that up to the to the prosecutor. We're gonna leave that up. To the individuals who are going to be investigating to make that decision. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to pass. All right, got a motion to pass as amended to concur uh a house. And see a second. A second from Senator Dodson. Any discussion on the motion. All right, all in favor say aye opposed. Congratulations. You're bill passes concurred House amendment. All right, members, not seeing anything else to become for this committee. We are adjourned.