Judiciary Committee - Senate

House Bill 1407. That's before I got the, we started up Wait. I'm glad you guys semi-like me, otherwise I'm really in trouble down here. plus Senator Clark, uh, Senator Gilmore has handed me Senate Bill 234 to run while I'm down on the end of the table. So when I finished 1407, if we can go to Senate Bill 2342. I'm the house sponsor of Senate Bill 234. So if you want to take that one after this one, I'll be happy to do it. Is it going to be quick to? Yes, Your Honor. I mean, yes, sir. Sorry, yes, Mr. Chairman. He likes that, Carol, you know what you're doing. Uh, Representative Dalby, if you would, uh, Recognize yourself and we'll get started. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Representative Carol Darby, District 100. I'm here today to present House Bill 1407, House Bill 1407 is a bill that will be a companion bill to another bill that Senator Clark and I will be filing soon, but as you will recall, just as a little bit of history, uh, the state of Arkansas passed Amendment 80. And after Amendment 80, there was a move to move. all the various little uh judges, municipal court judges, district court, all of that to where now that they are state district judges, so we've moved from over 100 judges to 70 and to help make that over the last 25 years, the state had allowed the administrative office of courts are the judicial counsel for the district judges to hire an administrative assistant to help with that move. That move is now complete or as you are all aware, January 1st of this year, they are now all state district judges and back in January, the Supreme Court issued a procurrium order, ordering or directing the administrative office of courts to assist the district judges informing the Arkansas district judge's judicial counsel, which is like the circuit judge's judicial counsel, and for them to help them in setting up all of their stuff. So with that there is no longer the need. to have uh The excuse me, the executive director of the district judges counsel. So all this bill does is over on page 3 line 11 strikes that language. With that, I'll be happy to take any questions. Questions from committee. What Saying no questions from committee. Is there anyone here that hasn't signed up to speak for or against this bill. See none representative Dalby, would you like to close for your bill? I am close for my bill, and I would ask for a good vote, Senator Gilmore, motions do pass. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion. See none, all for the bill signified by saying aye, all against. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Dama, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you members of the committee. We'll here Senate Bill 234. With the chair's permission, may I have Judge Smith joined me at the end of the table. Uh, you may. You, but I judge a few would identify yourself for the record. Yes, Mr. Chair, committee, my name is Tom Smith. I'm Ben County circuit judge and the administrative judge. Good to have you. OK, represents a W are recognized to present censure Ds in your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. As previously stated, I'm Representative Carol Day District 100. I am the house sponsor of Senate Bill 234, members, this is a bill requesting that the General Assembly authorized the establishment of one additional circuit judgeship in the 19th Judicial District west of which Judge Smith is the administrative judge for that district. The 9th 19th Judicial District West is up in northwest Arkansas. I think this committee is well aware of the fact that there has been a growth in population in that area. The filings have for the for the courts in that area have likewise increased and after the judicial resource and assessment committee reviewed, which they do every year they review how many filings there are. They look to see what is needed to help for the efficient administration of justice. They have Our requesting that a new judgeship be established in that area to help with the caseload and as always, a judge would be elected by the same qualifications of any other judge and as my understanding that the county is in the counties are in favor of it, certainly the judiciary's in favor of it, and I will ask Judge Smith if he has anything else to add that he Please do so. Yes, uh, Tom Smith again, actually the representative covered everything very well, but we have worked together on this, all the different uh branches of government up in Bend County. Uh, if you had noticed, uh, and let this judge would actually not take the position until 2027. The election would be in 2026, where currently having a courtrooms built to be prepared for that just because we've all acknowledged. Uh, where the growth is not slowed down, we're just trying to keep up with it so we can serve the citizens. Take any questions on that? Questions from the committee. See none. The only one I believe we have softened up to testify is Judge Smith anyone else here? wish to testify for or against see none. Representative Dalby, would you like to close for your bill? Yes, Mr. Chair, I'm close with Bill and I would ask for a good vote. Do pass from Senator Johnson, 2nd from Censor Tucker, all for the motion signified by saying I all opposed, ocean carried. Congratulations, Representative Dalby, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee, and thank you for taking me out of order. I appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Is Representative Perrier. House Bill 1007. He And there's an amendment. OK. Representative Perrier and Senator Ross would you identify yourselves for the record. Representative Chad Perrier, House District 25. Mr. Chair, Terry Rice, District 5. Representative you are recognized or senator. To present your amendment. Let me make one. Uh, I, since this is representing Perrier, I'll let him do that, let me thanken Tucker for finding uh uh lower your sharp eye catching a. A flaw where it had been amended before on page 2, number 30, that line was supposed to be completely struck, and that's what we did and we explained the bill the other day, but I'll let Representative Berger go through it quickly for the committee. Uh house Bill 1007, simply grants some liability protections to OK, hold on just a second, we're still on the amendment I, I will move adoption to the amendment, OK, discussion. It says page 2 delete line 31, so we're deleting capital B, the signs required under subdivision B1A. Of this is what's getting deleted. It is yeah, I think I said 30, but 31. So that's just it's basically got the same thing from the above line twice. OK. All right. Any discussion? Uh, well, I had a motion from Senator Gilmore in a second. We were discussing, so. Uh, any further discussion? Harry no all for the motion signal probably saying ah all post motion carried. Your amendment is adopted Representative Pertier, would you like to present your bill? All right, thank you, Chair. Thank you committee. Sorry for getting ahead of us. Um, House Bill 1007 just simply grants some liability protection. Excuse me just a second. Present your bill as amended. Go ahead. I didn't say it. So, um, House Bill 1007 simply grants some liability protections to uh property owners who choose to open up their land to um some of our students that participate in the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission shooting sports and the 4H shooting sports program. programs I mean, it's really that simple, um, it, I opened any questions on that. Any questions from the committee? Center Stoveville, you're recognized I'm, I'm certainly for this. I just wondered, uh, is there any, anything extra as far as uh Doing something with the land in order to have these shooting events building. Certain backstops or they, they have to have the signage that mirrors the equine um, yes, sir, just, you know, just set up for this type of organization or this type of event versus the equine event and the, the other requirements would be set, that that would be up to the Game and Fish Commission and the 4H. So they would, they would have different parameters to for all the safety and backstops and all that depending on which shooting sport program they were doing, OK. All right, thank you. So this is only protecting property owners. Uh liability if it's game and fish. And, and 4H, sir and 4. But not if you had the exact same shooting about, and it wasn't them. Still be liable. No, this, this particular bill only pertains to programs with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission and the 4H. OK. Other questions from the committee. OK. Uh Representative Per you are recognized. Well, no, no, no. Nobody signed up to speak for or against, but is there anybody here to speak for or against? See none represent a party you are recognized to close for your bill. I believe we're closed for the bill and I'd appreciate a good vote from the committee. Senator Gilmore as motion to pass, uh, Senor Stubblefield. Second motion to pass do pass as amended. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all against motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Perrier and Sena. You have passed your bill. All right, thank you, Chair. Thank you. OK, I see. I see, uh, Let me look at what order they're on here, uh, see, represented Duffield and Representative Bentley and Duffield's bill is first, so House Bill 1437. Unless whole represent Bally is your bill real short. I think Representative Hills will be, but it may not be. So let's take Representative Bentley first if you don't mind, Matt. House Bill 1292. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, colleagues, this is a very simple bill to allow our DCFS director Tiffany Wright to do uh a waiver of the residency requirement and adoption on two very specific cases. The first one is his House Bill 1292. Hold on, House Bill 1292 Bentley. I'm having a hard time finding 1292. It's on the very, very last bill of your agenda. Mm I'd be happy to share my copy with you if you like I can't find it in my packet. OK, let's step back a moment, Representative Bentley. Would you identify yourself for the record. State Representative Mary Bentley. OK, you are to your bill. House Bill 1292 gives the director of division of Child and Family Services the ability to waive the residency requirement for two specific cases. The first one would be an infant under the age of 6 months old and 6 someone over 16 as partic ip ating in a life skills technical vocational program through DCFS. OK, and so, Well, Questions from the committee. So can I explain a little further this currently is a 6 month residency requirement. So yeah, so we're just removing that waiver just two specific cases doesn't happen very often, which has given her the ability to do so. Can you explain those top cases, how they come so sometimes we have an infant that's given up through safe haven law maybe in the hospital, the fire department, whatever, so the infant we have folks ready to do permanency with that child, so it would be much better if we could permanently put that child into. home instead of waiting for 6 months, and the other time we do have a foster care kids that are older, 16 or so, and they still want a permanent home, right? No one wants to get to be 18 and not have a permanent home, so that we're still giving them if they have someone that wants to adopt them at a later age and they're in life skills are just waves that 6 month requirement for those two specific groups and so in this. This case residency means So right now they would have to live in a certain specific area for 6 months, so she's waiving that residency requirement for where they were living for 6 months. Who would have to look this allows the DPS DCFS director Tiffany Wright to wave that 6 month requirement, but just play like we're dummies, uh. They The parent, the adoptive parents is who were waving the requirement for? No, the the child, the child, the child, I'm sorry, yes, for the 6 month old child or less or the 16-year-old. So yes sir, for the for the child that's being adopted, OK, so we're waiving residency requirements for them. Yes, yes, sir. Sorry about that. And you know, the judge still has complete overviews, so it's nothing that's going to be done without the final approval of the judge in the case. OK, Senator Stubfield, did you have a question? I just said This, uh, Representative Bentley, this would mean a child that's never, that's not been on the custody of. The Department of Human Services is correct. Yes, until so you know the child when they're safe here at a safe haven baby box and the mother, they gave up their parental rights and they go, they do at that point go into the custody of DCFS, but they have parents that are willing to adopt. And so if we can get that child into a permanent home at that time instead of having to wait 6 months, we just want the opportunity to waive that requirement because right now they have a 6 month residency requirement, but if they're under 6 months' age, they're not going to be able to meet that requirement. I understand. OK, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the idea is if you're under 6 months old, we don't want you to have to wait in foster care for 6 months before you're permanently placed, correct? And then on the older side, there's two exceptions. The first one is under 6 months. The other is on the older side, 16 or older. The concern there is we don't want you to turn 18 before you can be adopted. Is that that's exactly right. Thank you, Senator. Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Senator Gilmore Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Representative Bentley, um, great with Bill, loved the bill. Um, so, but I'm assuming that all of the vetting process for the prospective parent is still being done by the department prior to all of this, right? So that, that 6 month waiting period that's not going to encroach on them having done the proper vetting, so Tiffany Wright, we trust will do her job and do all the proper vetting. And Again, the judge has full purview at the very end that they still have to go into the judge for final approval, so they will have worked together to make sure those parents were appropriate for the adoption. Thank you, Senator Johnson. So I see the 6 month, but also a stepchild of the petitioner, so that's another one, another case, right? Right, so also with this spill, and thank you for bringing that, we divided um private adoptions from those with DCFS, so we wanted to leave the private adoptions where they were before, so we actually had some testimony with in the House side where private adoption agencies came. I wanted to make sure that we were leaving the language of them exactly the same. We've not changed anything at all with private with private agencies is just those kids that are in a. CFS. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Say nonrepresentative Bentley, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, there is no one here. There is no one signed up, but is there anyone here who's not signed up who would like to testify for or against this bill. Seeing nonpresentative Bentley, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed. Thank you, chair. Gotta do pass from Senator Tucker. Got a 2nd from Senator Gilmore, the any discussion. All for the motion signified by saying I all opposed motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Bentley, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you committee. I appreciate. Representative Duffield. House Bill 1437. So Right. Representative Matt Duffield, District 53, Russellville. Thank you for recognizing yourself or the record represents a Duffield you are recognized to present House Bill 1437. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members of the committee. Colleagues, this, uh, this was a matter brought to my attention by the Pope County Sheriff's Department. They had an issue with some sex offenders that were hanging out at our public splash pad there. And so once this bill was filed, it became apparent that this was an issue not just in Pope County, but in other areas as well. The hot springs, uh, Hot Springs Village Police, they came, they testified in favor of the bill. They'd had issues with this as well. And so what this bill essentially does is it prohibits registered, uh, sex offenders that are of level 3 and 4. It keeps them from coming 100 ft. Within these areas. And um just as a Reminder, um, level 3. Or 4 sex offenders. These people have committed But are not limited to aggravated sexual assault. Rape, sexual abuse of a minor, possession or distribution of child pornography, kidnapping with intent to commit sexual offense, any sexual offense involving the use of force or threat and repeat offenses of indecent exposure. So these are the, the worst of the worst of this of the uh. Sex offenders. And I would entertain any questions the committee may have. Questions from the committee, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative, hanging out at a local water park if you're at level 3 or 4 sex offender. That's against the law currently, isn't it? If it's a, it's a swimming area. Yes, sir. It's my understanding. So I believe Representative Jack Fortner had a, had a bill similar to this that was brought to my attention in 2017. And from my understanding and my discussions with our local law enforcement, they needed more teeth to be able to enforce this. I believe they had some issues with some sex offenders as to, to where exactly they could go or could not, so this bill we we inserted the 100 ft. Um, which we felt was a reasonable distance, um, so they would know exactly where they could or could not go within the, the range of a water park or swimming area. How many level 3 and 4, I was going to ask some of these questions of the prosecutor's office, but I guess the weather kept them away today, so my apologies, you're going to, you're going to get these questions, and if I don't know, I'll tell you how many level 3 and 4 sex offenders do we have in Arkansas? I'm not sure. And I, I think this is It was made clear by part of your testimony. Some level 3 and 4 sex offenses are committed against children, but really the majority are committed against adults, correct? They may be. I'm not sure. Yeah, at least the types of crimes that you recited. The bulk of them. You have adult victims for I'm not sure. It may be. Um All right, um, I understand these are very serious crimes and people need to be punished. I guess my question is, you know, where these folks allowed to go? You know Well, I, you know, they stay in their mama's basement for the rest of their lives when they get out of prison. Senator, I understand your, your, I understand where you're coming from. And I understand that these people have to be somewhere. It's just my view that they do not need to be within 100 ft of where children are playing in water. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Representative. Thanks, Senator. Senator Johnson, you're recognized on page 2, I mean, it goes beyond just a water park. Am I correct? And from lines 10 through 16. Yes, sir, it does to a certain extent, for example, We added the language political subdivision, which would include some areas in Hot Springs Village where they had had an issue with a sex offender there at their water area. I mean, it looks like a public park. Not just a water park, I mean it any, I mean, are we going to restrict them where they can't walk on sidewalks. I mean, I get the water part. But the water park is handled in lines 20 through 23, but this is, this is adding not just the state park, this is at an all, all parks in the cities or counties and Not just a water park. Am I correct in saying that, Senator? Yes, it's my understanding that they wanted to make sure that the language is broad enough to protect the children at the water park, so I believe that's why they included that. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to follow up on Senator Johnson, I mean, this means they couldn't hike Pinnacle Mountain, for example, correct? If this bill passes. I'm not sure, Senator. And that the state is included in the definition of public park, so I would, I would think so. All right, thank you. So Ross. You reckon? Uh, thank you, uh, Representative Duffield for bringing this, uh, uh, you know, we In past years in judiciary and especially Senate Judiciary. have had many bills, sometimes just seem to dominate the session, but you, you covered it, but I will remind my colleagues, it, it is extremely serious. To be able to be convicted of level 3 or 4. Sex offenses. It is and if you know the judicial system, the bargaining and, and the things that go on, uh, sometimes we see where people actually may slide down a little lesser charge to plead guilty or whatever may not be that and everything. And I, I listened to testimony from both sides on this and the comment was made where did these people go? Uh, they chose the offense they did. And they were convicted, tried and convicted of that. We have some on my 16 mile drive home. We have some people living in one of these little Little storage sheds that they turn into a house. They, they have bought a little piece of ground that's not good for anything else, and that's where they live. They're out away from people. And that may be tough, but they chose their violations, so I, I, I, I try to be open-minded on these things, but again, level 34 is awful serious. Would you agree with that Representative Duffield? Yes, sir, Senator. Thank you, sir. Uh Representative, I want this well. bedded before I take it to the floor. The I hated the prosecutors are not here today, but can you answer what Level 3 and level 4, sex offenders what that entails. Yes, sir. says a specific offenses that may result in a level 3. Our level 4 classification classification include but are not limited to. Aggravated sexual assault, rape, sexual abuse of a minor, possession or distribution of child pornography, kidnapping with intent to commit a sexual offense, any sexual offense involving the use of force or threat. Repeat offenses of indecent exposure. The specific classification of an offender is determined through a comprehensive assessment by the sexin screening and risk assessment program coordinated by the Arkansas Department of Correction. OK, so a center right said these are serious offenses, but we're uh I have to tell you, I don't think I'm ever going to have to worry about. Being in those categories, I would certainly hope not, but next to, next to being public shame, I think would be the first. thing that I wouldn't want the second would be incarceration, but then the third would be not being able to walk on trails and in our parks, uh. The Oh And again, these are serious enough offenses. I think that that could be warranted, um. But, uh, that's a little different from A water park. Center Gilmore. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Duffield, do you know how many offenders we're talking about generally. Any idea ballpark? No, sir, I don't, but I can get that information for you. Well, I think I have a good idea. It's about 5500 people to fall into the 3 and 4 category, um. Would you agree that in our public parks, water parks. There's children playing. Yes, sir. And would, would you agree that it's probably good practice that we keep these level of offenders away from children and or adults, arguably, but specifically children, let's talk about children. um at all possible costs. Yes, sir. And do you think this bill does that? Yes, sir. Yeah, look, I think at the end of the day, Our goal should Always be to try to rehabilitate and help these people um to the best we can, but there are some people that we just can't do that with, um, especially those I think that prey on our children. And so, and I understand some of the sentiment that's been voiced in here, but do you think that it is good practice for the state of Arkansas to the fullest extent that we can to protect. The public Our children and all of those from people who could potentially seek to do, um, violence or harm against them. Yes, sir, Senator, I do. Thank you. Uh, I will go to Senator Johnson, then McKee, and then back to Central. So, I'm, I'm kind of coming to a Be realization if If this individual's in the parks system. And comes across a mother and And child in the same park system. And that, it gives me comfort to have that. In here because of a situation like that but it gives me pause also. To, uh, to say that they can't be, you know, enjoy the. The wilderness, but also I want to protect that possible situation where there's a child and mother and could be taken advantage of. by an adult male enjoying the outdoors that triggers is triggered by a situation like that, so it's not much of a question, but, but it helps me resolve something in my mind. In, in the scenario, so thank you sir. Senator McKee, you reckon? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this bill, Mr. Duffield, Representative Duffield. Are these Class 3 and 4 convictions they're convicted by a jury is that, that's not always the case, Senator Tucker's shaking his head. OK. Would you agree that our state parks, water parks, public parks should be places that people can go with a sense of security, knowing that Their representatives and their law enforcement are doing everything in their power to Keep individuals who have been convicted. of these offenses. Yes, sir, Senator, I do, and I'd also like to say that this was an issue that was brought to my attention in this bill was to solve an issue, not create more. Well, I appreciate that and I know that anybody here that has wife and kids Uh When we know that they're going out in the public, we already have concerns because we know the state of our society. Uh, but to think that we would, we would let people who've been convicted of these things put themselves in a situation where they could be alone. With the most vulnerable people that we represent, I think that would give me pause, but I appreciate you bringing this bill. Do you foresee anything uh With the most vulnerable people that we represent, I think that would give me pause, but I appreciate you bringing this bill. Do you foresee anything that we missed? No, sir, I don't believe so. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker, you're recognized? Thank you for sure. Representative, what are the recidivism rates for sex offenders relative to people convicted of other types of crimes. I don't have that information, Senator. Well, I think we're making some assumptions with this bill about people who are dangerous, and I think it's important for us to know. Uh Someone's Likelihood of recommitting a crime if we're, people go to prison and they deserve to go to prison if they commit these crimes. There's no, no argument there, um what these bills do is they impose a life sentence against these folks for various aspects of their life, right? Is that right? I understand, yes. And so I, I think it's important information for us to know, uh, what, what their likelihood of reoffending is before we impose a life sentence against them for for these, so do you not, you don't have that information. I don't have that information, Senator, but I'd just like to say that these these offenses, I mean, when these people have committed these acts that I've listed. Right. Well, if that's true, like what should we include movie theaters in your bill? This bill is to address a specific problem that was brought to me by law enforcement for a specific area, right, these people have committed horrible crimes, and we don't want them. Around children, so maybe we should add some other places. Well, it's one step at a time. Uh I think it's fair to say two things in common with some of the discussion, there needs to be a rational relationship between the crime that someone's committed and the punishment that's imposed against them in my view, and if someone commits a crime against a child, send them to prison and keep them away from children forever. I'm good with that. Um, if they've committed a crime against an adult. Which is a terrible crime, and they go to prison for 15 years. Is it rational to keep them out of a park for life. In your view, In my view, Senator, the crimes that these people have committed, I don't, I don't know if there's a crime that's too harsh. That's my opinion. Our penalty that's too harsh, right? OK, um, and again, just to reiterate, Because we talk about protecting children, which I'm 100% for. Not all of these crimes are committed against children, are they? No, sir, they're not, but you know how many are committed against children? I don't, but the crimes that were committed against children are going to be covered with these level 3, and I'm for that and I'm for that, but there's also others, correct, correct? It would be, yes. All right, thank you. Center stubble field, do you recognize? Like Richer along the lines of Senator Tucker, I was going to ask the same thing, but because I had talked to some law enforcement in my area several years ago about the recidivism rate among these type of offenses and they, they told me that it was higher than average of other criminal offenses. And, and when you take into consideration that these individuals are taken advantage of of One of the most vulnerable segments of our population. And these kids Will be forever. Not 2 years, 10 years, 15, they will be forever scarred. Their lives will never be the same. By the act of one of these individuals. So, uh, this is a very serious thing, and I think sometimes these individuals, uh, I don't know if it's a mental issue or what, but they can't seem to stop it. They get out, they go back and they repeat the offense. And uh I, I see nothing wrong with the With the chart with what you've got with this bill. So I, I appreciate it and I'll be voting for it. Thank you, sir. Uh, so, Center Ross is next, it was covered. OK, Johnson, like, do you mind if I make a point of clarification? Sure. Do you mind this chair? No, go ahead, gentlemen. I, so I just asked the good counselor on the committee if I was right, because I think we may have neglected to read the bill correctly, Representative. Um, would you agree in section 2 where it talks about code section 5, 14, 134. It has added water park, comma, swimming area, children's playground contained within strikes Arkansas State Park and adds a public park that would then Mean that within the rest of the bill where it says public park, it is referring to only the water recreational areas of those parks. Is that not correct, Representative? That is my understanding, Senator. Yes. Thank you, Representative gentlemen, I think that we probably need to just take a second and read that so that we're a little more comfortable with um some of the concerns that were raised. However, I'm good with the bill and I would offer a motion at the proper time, Mr. Chairman. Senator Johnson kind of like. What Senator Stubblefield said, you know, about imposing a life sentence whether it be a child or an adult. They've been sentenced to a life. The, uh, Always having a remembrance. Of this situation where this person had criminalized them. Is that correct? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Center. Well before this meeting began, I told Senator Gilmore that I don't claim to be perfect, and he just proved that to be true. He saw something in the bill that I missed, and it was an important distinction that that his clarification brought out. I just want to say that. Most say Centra Tucker, I believe today you took us down a rabbit trail in a state park rabbit trail, but the uh I do, I do have one question Senator Stubblefield, you're just a short question, uh. Representative, would this include places like the Buffalo River, the White River. Other water facility. I mean, we're talking about rivers that these people float down and is that included in these water or did it have to be a an actual water park. I believe it has to be an actual water park, Senator. I believe that is correct. OK. It would include center stufffield the way I read line 27, a swimming area on the Buffalo River, uh, hard to get a 100 ft away from that swimming area. Yeah, it's 100 foot's not very far. Senator McKee, Mr. Chairman, I think the qualifier comes after that on line 28 contained within a public park, Buffalo River is a public park, as is downtown Hot Springs tricking out. Uh, that's why I was concerned, but it does because we were reading it as it Applied to public parks, period, but it was just defining public parks of what this does is If I'm not mistaken, one. Well, just 24B, it is unlawful for a person who is required to register under the sex offender registration Act of 1997 and has been assessed as a Level 3 or Level 4 offender to knowingly enter a and all that language was already there within 100 ft of a water park. Um, is added to swimming area and children's playground, which was already there contained within, but it was an Arkansas State Park, not all public parks, is what's changed, so it's adding 100 ft of a water park in any public park, including state parks, we swimming areas and children's playgrounds already being included. Senator Gilmore, yeah, and just, just to your point, Mr. Chairman, I think that was good to point out. I would, I would point out, um. Tucker and I were just talking about those areas are defined within the bill and there is a new definition added for water park. So to the point about swimming areas. It it could be swimming areas that are defined, excuse me, so many areas that are defined as it as it is in this bill. Um, that would, that would be they would be those places on the Buffalo like the State Park and the Pruitt for those of us that are familiar with the buffalo. Yes, Senator Tucker, you're swimming areas already defined on the law, not in the bill, but, but the language is in the bill, just just not new language and it's, it's defined as a place with a specific design for people to swim, so this expands the way I understand the bill, and I'd read it 2 or 3 times, and we got on trails and I'm like, whoa, uh, But It changes state part to all public parks. Uh, and in ads. Within 100 ft of a water park, not it's, it's more defined there water parks were included before, but This, this says you can't get within 100 ft of those areas. It wasn't that clear in previous law. Am I correct, Representative? Yes, sir. That's my understanding. See some still studying, so I'm going to wait on discussion. Senator McKee, Representative Duffield, would you say that We treat Individuals convicted of these types of crimes differently. In that we have them register. After they've served a sentence. Then perhaps somebody who's committed a different kind of felony. Yes, sir. Do you suppose that there's a reason for that? Yes, sir. I believe that it's because they have potential to, to continue to harm people in these manners. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Just one clarification. Now this doesn't cover federal parks, the bill, does it not? No, it does not, and Buffalo National is is a national river. I just, well, because when I read public, but how does it define public? Means any property owned or maintained by this state or a county, city, town, or political subdivision in this state. So in that excludes national parks. Unless it's maintained, but I, I know the Buffalo River is maintained by the federal park system. I mean, that's my belief. That's my understanding is that that's not true, Senator? we would have a force Could you share that with the rest of us, Center Gilmore? Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I was conferring with the counselor here on the committee answering and I wanted to hear that well, yeah, so I, I think that one could argue that he might be correct. However, the state of Arkansas would have no enforcement mechanism because it would be federal property. um, so I mean, I, again, I'm not the lawyer, so I, I presume that would be the case. So I'll quit playing a lawyer on TV. And it doesn't really impact the bill one way or the other. We were just talking about the Buffalo River, so I just wanted to. Mention that. OK. So it seems to exclude national parks. Simply because we have no jurisdiction. Any other discussion from the committee. I'm not so sure we don't have some jurisdiction there. Anyone I'm not so sure we don't either, but something to say after all. I'm betting they call us in sometimes. uh no one has signed up to speak for or against the bill, but would any of you in the room will like to speak for against the bill. We're going to be sure we get that covered. So none representative Duffield, you are recognized a close for our bill. Yes, sir. I'd appreciate a good vote. This is to solve an issue that is not just in Pope County, Hot Springs Village, but I'm sure around the state, and this will greatly help law enforcement in protecting our children. OK, will the committee do pass Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator Johnson discussion. Represented upfield. I want to say that it appears this committee was willing, not necessarily Centra Tucker and me, but we're willing to go much further than your bill goes that did, that did come out of the discussion. I appreciate the discussion. So, uh, any other discussion? Well, for purposes of discussion, that, that's, that's not an encouragement nor an admonishment to bring a bill that goes further than this representative, but I am good with the bill and I'm I'm glad that we had the healthy discussion that we did. I think that's the process that the people of Arkansas expect, and I'm glad that we were able to do that sometimes, um, Senator Tucker, as I know well after spending several hours being questioned by him on particular bills. Uh, can, can be a nuisance at times with his questioning, but at the end of the day, I think it is valuable for the process and so I, I, I appreciate it and I just would like to point out that the prosecutors do support this bill, as was said to me by, by them, so I just, I think that would be helpful to know, but thank you, Representative. I will use that. I said I'll use that. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Duffield, you have passed our bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Appreciate it. Representative Bentley, I see that you are still here. Is there, do we have other legislators outside the committee here to run bills. Uh, well, Representative Bentley, do you have another bill? No, just OK, good, good place to hang out. Um. The, uh, OK, Senator King's not here. Someone here to run Representative Gazaway's bills. OK, Senator Tucker, if you will go to the end of the table, I assume you're starting with the House Bill 1355. If you can we entertain a motion to batch 1355 through at the proper time your motion will be concerned. This may be one of those days where I just don't see you. Senator Tucker, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes, Mr. Chair, Senator Clark Tucker, District 14. I was hoping to go through each of these bills line by line this morning. I know that's tongue in cheek, uh, so the House Bill 1355, uh, you are recognized to present House Bill 1355. Just a reminder, and I'll, I'll, I'll yield to Senator Johnson in in 30, 20 seconds. Just a reminder, these are technical corrections only if there's anything substantive, the code revision commission is very carefully about pushing that out to a legislator to run the bill separately, just, just as an example on the first page of the first bill, just one example, it strikes Class A misdemeanor, no such crime, no such punishment for that crime. exists. Any sexual indecency with a child is a felony, so there's, there's no need for the Class A misdemeanor language to be right there, so that's just one example of the technical correction and and with that I'll yield to Senator Johnson. OK, well, before we do that, are there we've got House Bill 1355 before us, uh, are there any questions from the committee on House Bill 1355? Say none Senator Tucker let's be clear on what bills we're talking about 1355, bottom of the page is 1,363 with about 7 or 89 bills going down to there in 1364 on my second page is, are we, if we were to batch these or we talking about 1,355 through 1364. That's the exact range, Mr. Chair. OK. Uh, and you're assuring us before a motion is made, you're assuring us that there is nothing accidental in here. That's not a technical correction. That's, that's, that's my representation as a, as a reminder, it's not just me on the code revision commission. There's also Senator Bryant and the House legislative members are Representative Jimmy Gazaway and Representative Matthew Shepherd. We have an excellent staff at the Code Revision Commission led by Mr. Kuhn over here who does an outstanding job and, and these have all been thoroughly vetted, not just with one set of eyes, but with with multiple sets of eyes, and they're all technical and Well, we are all very conscious of our duty, and I think if there's any committee that that our colleagues expect to vet bills solidly. It's this one, and I think we have a reputation for that, Senator Gilmore. Well, I just want to point out that it does give me great comfort that not only are his eyes on it, but a lot of other people. As case in point today with the other bill. That being said, Senator Johnson, you recognized to present a motion motion is suspend the rules and take up House Bill 1355 through 1364 as a batch. And we have a 2nd, I think we have just enough votes to suspend the rules. Am I correct? No, it takes 6. No need to suspend the rules, so, uh, we're just Uh, making a motion, motion motion to batch House Bill 1355 through 1364 is a match and your seconds still good. Any discussion. Senator Ross, uh, as we did before, and I'm sure the chair probably was going to do this just for clarification for, for those watching that uh the chair as we do in full Senate call that each individual bill. Thank you for the final vote, but I didn't, didn't, didn't think he wouldn't do it. I don't want to be in make sure. Uh, the, I will do that, uh, any other discussion? The, at the moment we are not voting on the bill. We are voting on the motion to batch the bills. Any other discussion. Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. I didn't see or you say ah Censor Tucker. I said, yes sir. OK, I just want to be sure since you're the one presenting the bills. Anyone against. Say none motion carried. Would you like to close for your batch bill, Senator Tucker, only to say I'm happy to give Senator Gilmore another opportunity to state on the record how it's good for more than just me to review bills. And with that, I'll I'll close for the bills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are voting on. Well Now we need a motion. I moved to pass on the batch Center do pass on the batch 2nd from center Gilmore. We are voting on House bills 1355, 13 House Bill 1356, House Bill 1357, House Bill 1358, House Bill 1359, House Bill 1360, House Bill 1361. House Bill 1362. House Bill 1363 and House Bill 1364. All of those bills, no other bills, uh, was what we be voting on. OK, we have a motion to pass any further discussion on this group of batch bills. See none all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Tucker. You have passed representative Gassway's bills. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. OK looks like we have covered everything on our agenda except the SB 143 to 145 in Central King is not here 244 Senator Bryant's not here. Take a look at 244. Mr. Sherman, yes, I did find something concerning the previous bill, not the one we just voted on. Uh, when it comes to Forest Service, uh, the federal government follows state law. OK, so. All right. Well, I would be all for that. I would be for it, including swimming areas within the national park, so and the forest areas if that if that be the case. So I appreciate you uh looking that up, Center Stubblefield. Any other business? For the committee. Sean is there any reason for us to meet on Monday? See none. We will meet here again next Wednesday at 100 a.m. No meeting on Monday. Thank you for being here. Thank you for your service. We're ajar.