House Convenes

I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand and be led in prayer by house chaplain, Brother Richard Hamlin, senior pastor of Faith Baptist Church Cabot and to remain standing for the Pledge of allegiance to be led by Representative Lane Jean. Let's pray Father in heaven, we bow in your presence today. We're thinking of the many times your word speaks to us of our minds, and We are especially thinking of the time when you told Timothy that, uh, you've not given us a spirit of fear. But a spirit of love and of power and of a sound God I thought today at the words of the speaker and the very first time this chamber was assembled this year as he called upon them to Be servants and to remember their role as servants and then that end, we remember the mind of Christ. Who took upon himself the form of a servant and therefore he became the author got uh just hold up this legislative pray that the Holy Spirit might work mightily, that they might be of one mind that they might have a sound mind that they might seek your mind, that they might be Members please indicate your presence by pushing your yellow present button. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Is everyone Made their presence. cast at the ballot, Madam Clerk. There are 97 members present. The chair sees a quorum. Are there any requests for leave? Representative Kavanaugh, for what purpose? You're recognized is leave granted for Representative Barker. Representative Mayberry, for what purpose? You're recognized. Uh, leave for Representative Gazaway. I leave granted for representative Gazaway. Representative Clowney, for what purpose for Representative Eaves granted for representative Eaves, so ordered. Representative Matthew Shepherd moves that we dispense with the reading of the previous day's journal with no objection, so ordered. Are there any reports from select committees? Are there any reports from standing committees? Is there any unfinished business, Madam Clark, is there any executive communications? Members, I direct your attention to the back of the chamber, I'd like to make welcome today our Arkansas state troopers, Sergeant Austin Ley of the regulatory Services Division and Corporal Trey Keller from the Highway Patrol Administration. Both of Little Rock, gentlemen, thank you for your service to our, to the house. Members, uh, joining us also today, our doctor of the day is Doctor Teresa Were, orthopedic Surgery from Little Rock, uh, Representative Andrew Collins' district. Thank you for being here today. And with us today in the back, also our nurse of the day, Ms. Lee Fazio. Miss Lee, thank you very much. Members in the North gallery guests today of Representative Jeremy Wooldridge is Matthew Collier. Please make him welcome. In the East gallery today, we'd ask you to stand. We have Stacy McAdoo and representatives of Teach Plus Arkansas. They are from areas all across Arkansas and they are guests of Representative Scott Richardson. Please make them welcome. Members looks like we have a great group of pages here with us today. We'd like to especially make notice and welcome Miss Presley Pennington, niece of Representative Les Warren and Representative Tara Shepherd's daughter, Alison, please make them welcome. Madam Clark, please read House resolution 1016. House Resolution 1016 by Representative Tara Shepherd who recognized February 10, 202025 as kids count day at the state Capitol and to recognize the Arkansas Kids Count Coalition for its advocacy on behalf of the children of Arkansas. name is Shepherd, you are recognized to explain your resolution. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker and colleagues is a great day to be at Arkansas State Capitol. Um, I am of course running this resolution to recognize kids count day at the Capitol. So there is a gentleman that is up in the VIP gallery, I think with a dinosaur on his head, and that is Ethan. And Ethan is 7 years old. He is a student at Gibbs International Studies, and he is with his sister Olivia, who is 10 years old. If you all will give them a wave or a round of applause, please. So really quickly, kids count, coalition is individuals concerned with policies impacting children around Arkansas. Uh, they serve as a voice for children, uh, made up of 26 different organizations and 14 individuals from across Arkansas and today myself and Representative uh Barnett decided that we were going to run this resolution and recognize those phenomenal. No organizations that are doing great things in Little Rock and along with Ethan and Olivia also in the gallery is Kessa Smith, who's the executive director of the Arkansas Children's Coalition, then also we have David and we also have attorney Brenda Stallings that are in the gallery, and they are here representing children throughout Arkansas. And with that, I appreciate a good vote. Madam Park, please read the resolution in name only. to recognize February 10, 2025 as Kids Count Day at the state Capitol to recognize the Arkansas Kids Count Coalition for its advocacy on behalf of the children of Arkansas. Representative Shepard has explained the resolution. Would anyone like to speak against the resolution? Would anyone like to speak for the resolution. Representative Shepard is closed for the resolution. The question before the House is the passage of House Resolution 1016, all those in favor say aye. Propose nay, the eyes have it. Congratulations, Representative Shepherd, resolution is adopted. Morning hour has ended. Members, we're going to first, uh, this afternoon, we're gonna go straight to our Senate bills. Senate Bill 58 by Representative Eubanks to remove the prohibition of non-profit tax exempt or governmental funded hospitals holding a licensed pharmacy permit for the sale at retail of drugs. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized to explain the bill. Speaker. If you get these folks in the back, to leave me alone. I'd be a lot more efficient. Current law prohibits nonprofit government owned or tax exempt hospitals from holding a retail pharmacy permit. This has been in place since the mid-1970s. In order to increase patient access, this limitation should be removed. Senate Bill 58 is a compromise bill that does not give non-profit hospitals the same freedom enjoyed by all profit entities, but it will increase patient access to help nonprofit hospitals with flexibility and options to address patient needs in changing healthcare environment. So members, what this really does and a real big problem here is IV infusion meds and the ability to offer IV infusion meds in local rural areas such as the district. Like mine. Right now, hospitals can't do that, nonprofit county-owned hospitals can't do that. This bill allows that, and we've worked with the, uh, stakeholders at hand and got a compromise bill here and appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Wardlaw is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 58. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Everyone voted So everyone voted, casts up the ballot, Madam Clerk. The vote of 95 yeah, 0, nay, and 1 present. The bill is passed. Representative Eubanks, for what purpose? Motion. Hear your motion. Uh, I have a motion to refer SB 142, back to Committee for Amendment. He's come to the well and explain your motion. Thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker. Uh, members, uh, Representative Shepherd being the attorney is, uh, read the bill and found, uh, one item that we need to correct. So, uh, with your indulgence, we'd like to send it back to committee for an amendment. Representative Eubanks has explained the motion. You would like to speak against the motion. Or the motion Representative Eubans is closed for the motion. The question before the House is a re-referral of Senate Bill 142 back to committee. All those in favor say aye. pose nay. The eyes have it. Madam Clark, please send that back. Madam Clark, please read Senate Bill 182. Senate Bill 182 by Representative Barnes to require a local government to continue to operate under the annual appropriation ordinance for the previous year until a new appropriation ordinance is adopted and to declare an emergency. Representative Barnes. You're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, chair. Uh, colleagues, just This bill is a bipartisan bill that's been supported. By a governor, senator. Gilmore, Senator Stephanie Flowers. State represented in King Ferguson, Mike Holcomb. Represented what law? It's also been to the municipal League and our association of County. The purpose of this bill. is to allow counties to or to require all local government to continue to operate under the annual appropriation orders for the previous year, until the new appropriation orders is adopted and to declare an emergency. Representative Barnes. I believe, uh, these gentlemen would love to join you in the well for this, uh, piece of legislation. Please. You may proceed. And so the reason for this bill is that uh in Jefferson County as of right now we have people some 300 people who have gone a month. And almost 2 weeks without pay. They are now losing their insurance. Men are struggling paying water like gas, house notes and rent. And they're in dire need of some legislation to act quickly. I want to read this. It's the legislation is necessary to establish order, justice and fairness within a society by creating laws that protect the rights of citizens, regulate behavior and set standards for business and organizations. Without legislation and laws, chaos and conflict will arise. If you ever seen Jefferson County meetings over the past month, it has been nothing but conflict and chaos. And they're looking to you and I to do something about it, I would appreciate A yes vote. Thank you, Representative Barnes. Representative Barnes has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? anyone like speak for the bill. Representative Barnes closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 182. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. As everyone voted. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. So everyone voted, cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. The vote of 92 ya, 0, nay, and 3 present, the bill and the emergency clause has passed. Members go over to your red calendar, we'll now go over to House bills, Representative Springer, for what purpose? Point of personal privilege. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Colleagues, today, we all, we have a number of pages here in the auditorium, but I would like to especially recognize some representatives from my district, we have Ryan Gilmea, and Lamaya. They're here today. Would you all please stand so that you can be recognized. The pages here representing District 76. Thank you. Members on the red calendar under regular house bills. Representative Pilkington asked we pass over House Bill 1372. House Bill 1373 today. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1374. Is 1374 by Representative Pilkerson concerning a report by the director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission concerning contracts awarded to business and operation less than 5 years. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, if, if the body will allow me a little, um, latitude in this. I want to kind of speak about the whole package and why I'm presenting some bills today and not presenting others. Um, so these come from a, uh, an entrepreneurship group trying to foster and encourage entrepreneurship here in Arkansas. And so 3 of my bills are regarding reports so that we get a good idea about what is ADC doing in the Department of Commerce doing with regards to funds and contracts. with, uh, entrepreneurs and, and new businesses. The others was encouraging uh those same agencies about awarding of funding. Those, um, the ones about encouragement I'm not running today. Uh, I've been in discussion with some of the groups, some of the commerce groups that have actually uh had some concerns about these bills, so trying to work that out. I'm, I'm gonna hold those for now, but the reports I think are pretty easy and to understand and I think we can all agree that, uh, what's get measured gets changed, and so I think it's important for us to have a better idea. With regards to ADC and the Department of Commerce, where are, what, what industries are participating and which ones are not. So this first bill, House Bill 1374, uh, as the title says, is an act concerning a report by the director of ADC, uh, the Artsdale Development Commission concerning contracts awarded businesses in operation, less than 5 years. So this regards just a simple contract or a report that we would get on state contracts, how many of those businesses have been in operation. For less than 5 years, which we would call new or entrepreneurial type ventures and how many are not. This would be a report that would go to the governor, the House Committee on Insurance and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Insurance and Commerce, and that's all that this one does. With that, I'll ask for a good vote. And I'll be back. Representative Pilkington has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative Beta, you recognized to speak against the bill. Members, I was, I risen to ask a question of Representative Pilkington to see if he had requested any of this information from AEDC or commerce prior to, uh, drafting a bill and filing a bill that requires an additional report. Several times during this session, we're already working to alleviate some of the reporting requirements of our secretaries. My contention would be this is information that if you're in, if, if you wish to have this information, make a simple request to the agency. I don't think we need a law that mandates additional reportings back. On our secretaries, uh, especially, um, something that I, I think they would provide on their own. So I'd ask you to not vote for this bill. Thank you. Representative Beatty has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? We would like to speak against the bill. Representative Piling, you recognize close, oh. You speak for the bill. Representative Wooton, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Against the bill. be this way. You're recognized to speak against the bill. Well, we're Colleagues we're, we're requiring Frivolous reporting. By agencies. And not only that, excuse me if I'm wrong. This smells of affirmative action. Which we did away with. I voted the other way. But You did away with. And here we are again. 5 years and thirdly, Why didn't we put this all in one report. And one bill instead of several bills, so I urge you to vote against it. It's a frivolous bill. Representative Wooden has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Would anyone like to speak against the bill. Representative Pilkington, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, on the chart that this is affirmative action for small businesses. I, I would disagree, all businesses start out as small businesses, um, I think we're just trying to foster a, uh, you know, an economy in a state that actually helps and encourages entrepreneurs to be a part of the system. The reality is there's a lot of contracts that we see time and time again, get a large corporations that can hire lobbyists that can have government affairs teams that can do all these things, and oftentimes the little men don't even try to apply because they feel locked out of the system. It's just a way to see if that is really true and all it is is a report. I find that asking for information should never be a problem. I think it's legislators getting reports and knowing what's going on within state government is important, so we can make sure that we're more efficient. So, um, You know, I don't have an, I don't have a problem making sure that we tell these state agencies that we would like a report once a year so that we can understand the state of entrepreneurship here in Arkansas, um. That's a problem. I, I don't really see why that would be a problem for you. So with that, ask for a good vote. Representative Pilkington is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1374. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. Everyone voted. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 29 years, 37 nays, and 18 present. The bill has failed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1375. Pass over that today. Representative Pilkington has asked that we pass over House Bill 1375 today. It's also a request that we pass over House Bill 1376. Representative Pilkington, would you like to run 1377 today. We'll pass over that today as well. At the request of Representative Johnson, we'll pass over House Bill 1184 today. We'll go to House Bill 1353, Madam Clark, please read the bill. House Bill 1353 by Representative Eubanks to regulate a vision benefit manager to amend the Vision Care Plan Act of 2015 to amend the healthcare Contracting simplification Act. Representative Eubanks, you were recognized to explain the bill. Members is a good bill. Appreciate a good vote. Uh Members, uh, this bill, House Bill 1353 was brought to me by the optometrist last fall, uh, We worked with BLR and got a draft. I supplied it to Grant Wallace at EBD also, uh, supplied a copy of it to the Arkansas Insurance Department and Nobody saw any issues with it as far as how it would affect, uh, either EBD or uh or the insurance department. Uh Over the last 10 years, we've seen a, uh, concentration of these vision benefit plans, uh, run by these, BBMs, managers, and what has taken place is that 2 plans, 2 groups, control 80% of the votes, 80% of the plans. And what else has happened is that they have Through the vertical integration, they have started concentrating all aspects of vision care. Uh They manufacture most of the eyeglass frames and lenses on on the market, and brick and mortar and online optical retail stores, own and operate most of the optical labs where lenses are made and the uh claim filing service that doctors used to get reimbursed. What this bill attempts to do is to end some of the unfair and anti-competitive practices that are being used against, uh, Arkansas eye care providers and their patients. We want to try to do everything we can to try to level the playing field. I don't know about you, but I'm uh access is very important to me, uh, Representative Wardlaw just ran that pharmac, hospital pharmacy bill and that, that had to do with access for our, our rural constituents and, you know, most of us have optometrists in our areas and I think It's our Responsibility, it's, that it's incumbent on us to try to do things to level that field so that these large Corporations conglomerates do not adversely affect their business because we want them to continue to be operating in our local communities. And I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Eubanks has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill, Representative Acer, you recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, so I heard the words benefit manager and came down here as fast as I could. Um, You don't get that joke, you will soon. Um, I'm excited about this bill, uh, to me, this is about protecting. Patient access. Um, obviously, anytime that you reintroduce our prescribing brethren into the dispensing of healthcare side, there can be an immediate increase in access. But that is not sustainable if that access is not protected. If that access is not protected against Infringements on a patient's freedom of choice, whether through financial coercion, whether through direct prescriber coercion or through some sort of systemic coercion. If we're not protecting access, then we run the risk of simply just replacing it, not actually increasing it. And today I'm excited to see a step forward towards protecting it and setting a standard. Healthcare is a unique commodity in that it should not be a race to the bottom in how it's funded, it should be a race to the top and the quality you receive for those dollars. And before we continue to go towards the providers who physically administer the healthcare and ask them, can you take any less? We need to turn around and look upward at the people managing the benefit and ask them how much have you already taken. And what is the return on quality for what you've taken. So I hope you'll join me today in setting a precedent that protection of access is a core component of increasing access. Representative Acer who spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like speak for the bill? Representative Lynch, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Colleagues, I have several small, uh, Offices in my district, uh, some of them are family owned, 2nd and 3rd generation. They're all part of this bill, and I hope you are too. Thank you. Representative Lynch has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representative Eubanks is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1353. Prepare the machine, Madam clerk. Everyone voted So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam clerk. With 96, 0, nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 127979 by Representative Lynch to amend the Arkansas Egg Marketing. Act of 1969 and to authorize repackaging of eggs by a retailer if certain criteria is met. Representative Lynch recognized to explain your bill. Colleagues 2 years ago, uh, we run a bill that was put forward by the ag department. To prevent the, uh, deceptive practice or repackaging eggs out of the original carton. That law had an unintended consequence. That what happens with when you all of us open up a carton and go in the grocery store. If there was a cracked egg in the cart. If they follow the letter of the law, they had to throw that whole carton out. So all this does is it allows the, the retailer. To clean the carton, replace that egg or 2 eggs, however many eggs, with an egg of the same size and the same lot, and then be able to sell the carton. So That's the bill. Any questions? If not Look for a good vote. Thank you. Representative Lynch has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Lynch is closed for the bill. The question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1279. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Everyone voted. So everyone voted, cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 94, 0 nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1222. House Bill 1222 by Representative Ra who required the Attorney General to review ballot titles for conflicts with the United States Constitution and federal statutes and to Prohibit the submission of conflicting initiative petitions and referendum petitions. Representative Ray, you recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, House Bill 1222. This bill amends our current statute dealing with the ballot title review process, um, I know some of you have got some emails about this bill, so I want to go through it real quick and explain exactly what changes we're making and, uh, the rationale behind those changes. So the ballot title review process has existed in our law for over 80 years. And it has served our state extremely well. It has protected the public from Innumerable ballot titles that are potentially misleading, and it's been affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, uh, who said that it quote aided in the proper use of the initiative process. But our current AG ballot title review process only allows the Attorney General to reject a ballot title if it is found to be legally insufficient, basically meaning that it's misleading. And that language, while I'm very thankful that it's there, is really not strong or robust enough to protect us from a lot of other types of extremely problematic ballot titles. So this bill would do two things. First of all, it would give the AG the authority to reject a ballot title if it were found to be in conflict with either the US Constitution or with federal statute. The reason for that is pretty straightforward. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It supersedes anything that we pass in this body, uh, and it supersedes anything that we put into our state constitution. We can't pass anything that is contrary to it and expect it to be upheld. Um, the voters of this state do not benefit, in my opinion, from having to weigh in on a measure that is very likely in conflict with the US Constitution. That doesn't further anyone's rights. And it also doesn't benefit the sponsors of a issue to have to go through all of the effort, the resources, the energy to get something on the ballot and passed, knowing that it is likely to be held invalid and unenforceable. A good example of this is the 1996 initiated Act on campaign finance reform. That was that ballot title was reviewed by the AG. It was found to be legally sufficient, and then the voters approved it. The only problem with it was pretty much the whole thing was unconstitutional. And so over the next several years, the courts found, I think it was 6 out of the major 7 things included in that initiated act to be unconstitutional. And so the process will work better if we simply screen for these things on the front end rather than passing a law that's unconstitutional, uh, and later found to be unenforceable. The second thing that this bill does is it prevents multiple conflicting measures from being introduced for review at the, at the same time. So, when a sponsor brings a ballot title to be reviewed by the AG, they are requesting a formal opinion. They're requesting a formal AG opinion. That is the form that it takes. And for all of you who have requested an AG opinion, you know that that can be a very detailed, involved process that can take months and months, depending on the legal complexity of your request and also depending on how many opinions are behind you in order. But these opinions are different. These opinions, the AG must render a decision on them within 10 days. He or she only has 10 days to determine whether or not they are legally sufficient. And so what that means is they are given the highest priority under law. They take precedence over your request for an opinion. They take precedence over my request for an opinion, um, they're fast tracked, they're prioritized, they're given, uh, the most expedited timeline possible. But what we saw last cycle is there were groups that became disgruntled when their title was rejected on the first couple of attempts, which is, which is normal. This is an iterative process that goes back and forth between the sponsor and the AG. It's worked that way for a long time. And so instead of just continuing to work through the normal process, they decided to try and short circuit the system by submitting 8 different measures at the same time, all on the same subject in general purpose. So it's for constitutional amendments and 4 initiated acts. And the problem with that is the AG still has only 10 days to either approve or reject the ballot title, regardless of how many are submitted. So if they submit 10 at a time, what they're effectively doing is watering down the Attorney General's office's ability to thoroughly vet each proposal. They're basically trying to short circuit, um, the system. And it would be sort of like, if you were a test taker in college, instead of just answering the question on the test, providing 5 different answers and then turn it in your test with a note to the teacher saying, hey, you tell me which one of these is correct. Uh, that is not the way the process is designed to work. Uh, the reason it doesn't work that way is because the courts have held consistently over the years that it is the job of the sponsor to submit an appropriately summarized measure, one that comports with all of the requirements in the law. It is not the AG's responsibility to provide pro bono legal work on behalf of the sponsor. And there's also a functional problem with allowing for this many uh measures, conflicting measures to be presented at the same time. And that is if the Attorney General finds more than one of them to be legally sufficient, then you have multiple versions of the same measure that can be circulated at one time, which would just lead to more duplication of signatures and make things more confusing for the voters. And on top of that, that practice wastes a lot of AG resources. So I'm sorry I took so long to explain that. But I wanted to cover it thoroughly because I know you had gotten some emails on it, and I'll be happy to take Representative Springer's question. Representative Springer, for what purpose? You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr Speaker, where in this does it say that uh AG is limited to this 10 days just what I think you said, or in this particular That's in the existing statute as it exists right now. So this bill does not change the 10-day requirement. So for, for uh in another portion of that, but it But it's not here though. Yeah, I, I don't think it it it appears in this the yours Reese, the Attorney General shall reflect all initial violation of the section, but it doesn't say specifically how long that he has and he or she has to do that it does say that already in the statute, uh, but it's not listed in this section of the bill. Well, don't you think that'll be kind of, it's it's not a conflict at all because that 10 day requirement, that's already in statute and this bill does not change anything related to the 10-day requirement. Representative Carr, for what purpose? Question, you're recognized. If you would, Representative Ray, kind of clear up, uh, concerned about how, you know, typically it goes at the end of the Supreme Court. How this could, how this is not compromising. Sure. So, to the question on checks and balances, every constitutional officer takes an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, people can have different interpretations of what that means. So anyone who disagrees with the Attorney General's interpretation, they have the right to appeal that determination directly to the Supreme Court, just like they do now with the ballot title review process. If the Attorney General, let's say you're a sponsor and you submit a ballot title to the AG's office, and they say it's misleading, and they reject it. You can appeal that directly to the Supreme Court. You could, you could still do that if it were rejected on different grounds, and then the uh Supreme Court would have the final determination on that. You're recognized for a follow up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, this is streamlining process. Yes, this is just removing, this is just taking that review and moving it to the front of the process, because currently the only way you could challenge the constitutionality of something is if it were passed into law. And then it will put into our state constitution or into our statute through an initiated act, then you, you could bring challenge then, but that's only after it's already been passed into law. Thank Representative McCollum, for what purpose? Question, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, uh, Representative Ray, wouldn't you agree and maybe in regards to some questions that were asked earlier that it's fair to say if something is already in code just because myself. Yeah, that's right. It's, it's already, it's already part of the ballot title review process. It's just not listed in the section of the bill. Representative Darby, for what purpose? You recognized apologize. I got sidetracked listening to your answer to, uh, Representative Carr over there. People still have the ability to appeal the initial determination. Under this bill, they don't have to wait for it to Get approved or not approved, they can still appeal an interim appeal. Is that correct? That's absolutely correct. If someone, uh, submits a ballot under this bill, if someone submitted a ballot title, and the Attorney General said, Hey, I'm sorry your proposal conflicts with the First Amendment to the US Constitution. They would have two options at that point. They could either resubmit a, uh, another ballot title, you know, they could modify the language and try to, um, You know, fix whatever infirmity, the Attorney General pointed out, or they could appeal that rejection straight to the Supreme Court. With that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Representative Ray has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill. Representative Clowney, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, we had a pretty long, um, debate about this in committee, and so I just wanted to, none of this will come as news to Representative Ray, um, but I just wanted to come and express a little bit of the concern that we had as a committee when we heard this bill. Uh, this bill, as Representative Ray explained, does do two things. The first thing that it does is give the Attorney General the ability to decide the The text of a proposal conflicts with the United States Constitution or a federal statute. And the nearly 200 years in the state of Arkansas's history, the Attorney General has never had this particular power. We all grew up learning about the separation of powers, right? The job of the executive branch, the job of the legislative branch is to make the laws, the job of the executive branches to administer the laws and the job of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. This bill gives the Attorney General, a member of the executive branch, the ability to interpret the law. Of course, the Attorney General, um, currently interprets the law the time. We have Attorney General's opinions that we get, right? The difference is those opinions are not binding on those of us who get them. Um, this decision about constitutionality or statute conflicts would be binding. Yes, they could be appealed, but they are binding decisions, binding interpretations of the law. That is something the Attorney General's office has never been able to do. Um, so I wanted to point that out. This is a big change. The second thing that this does is, well, sorry, just, just to go back very quickly because I know Representative Ray just answered the question about appeal, and it's true that these can be appealed, but I want us to think about how the courts work. We all know this, right? This all takes time. Um, stopping at this point in the process to go through the process of an appeal is gonna take a lot of time, um, and I want us to keep that in mind as I move on to the second point, because I think these two things in conjunction with one another, will really serve to gum up the works in terms of getting everyday Arkansans getting things on the ballot. So here's what the second bit of this bill does. Um, Representative Ray mentioned all of the reasons why we wouldn't want conflicting member measures to be submitted to the She's office at the same time. Um, I actually agree. I don't have any problem with that in theory. My problem is the actual language of this particular bill. So, We have in our minds, I think, a particular definition, when we hear the word conflicting, right? We think of two things that are in some sort of opposition to one another. This bill defines conflicting measures as the following. Um, any two petitions. That cover the same subject matter. are for the same general purpose. And have different language. So by my reading, we could have Two petitions that were submitted, say one was to cut the income tax to 0 and the other was to get rid of a grocery tax altogether. Well, I don't see why an attorney General couldn't look at that, those two petition measures and see, oh, they cover the same subject matter, taxes. They're for the same general purpose, lowering those taxes, and they have different language. That's all that's required for the AG to be able to boot these as conflicting measures, or at least have to wait to hear one at a time. Again, slowing down the process, gumming up the works. I think that language really can and should be tightened before we get it out of here. Um, that's it. That's my, those are my two objections in a nutshell, you know, things have been, the Attorney General has had the specific, um, powers that he has had. It has not included this ability to issue binding opinions based on constitutionality in nearly 200 years of Arkansas history. This has worked for us so far. I don't see any reason why we need to mess with that today. And that's why I'll be voting no on this bill. Thanks. Representative Clowney has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Against the bill Representative Ray, you're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, I appreciate the debate on the bill. Um, I want to try to address the topics that were brought up real quick. First of all, on the question of separation of powers, I would point out that under our ballot title review process, the Attorney General already interprets the statutes, interprets the case law to determine whether or not a ballot title is legally sufficient. So the AG is the idea that this is some novel concept that the AG is now going to be in. interpreting the law. Now, that's what already takes place on the topic of legal sufficiency. This merely expands it to ask the AG to also review for conflicts with the Constitution and with federal statute. Uh, the second thing that was brought up was that this, this is just designed to gum up the works. Uh, I would respectfully disagree with that. Um, asking Arkansans to sign a a ballot, a petition for a ballot measure that is unconstitutional, doesn't further anyone's rights. And the review process was contemplated under Amendment 7, and allows the General Assembly to pass laws that the court says, quote, facilitate Amendment 7's operation. So, uh, I think it's anyone can see that. Moving this review up to the front end, helps more smoothly facilitate the ballot measure process so that we don't run into a situation like we had with that 1996 ballot measure that 6 out of the 7 things have been struck down as constitutional because nobody could vet it on the front end. Um, the third thing that was mentioned was the language in the bill regarding conflicting measures. Here's the deal. All this does is codify how the practice has worked for the last 80 years that we've had AG ballot title review. The process is real simple. The sponsor submits a proposed ballot title to the Attorney General. The Attorney General has 10 business days to determine whether or not that ballot title is legally sufficient. Once the, the attorney General has 3 options. He or she can approve it. They can reject it, or they can substitute and certify. Those are the three options. And so, if, if your ballot title is rejected, the solution is really simple. You just submit another ballot title. You can submit another ballot title immediately as soon as one is rejected. And oftentimes, this is how people get their ballot titles approved. They just remedy whatever is pointed out by the Attorney General in the opinion, and then they resubmit it. So What the practices never allowed for before. It's just sending in. 5 or 6 or 8 different versions of the same amendment or initiated act and try to short circuit that 10-day timeline. So that's, that's really what the bill is designed to do. I hope that addresses everybody's questions, and I would appreciate a good vote on this important. Representative Ray is closed for the bill. The question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1222. Repair the machine, madam clerk. So everyone voted. So everyone voted Cast up the ballot, Madam clerk. The boat of 62 years, 30 nays, and 4 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1383. I was 1383 by Representative Ladyman to amend the petroleum storage tank trust fund Act and to modify the amount of the payment for corrective action. Representative Ladyman, you're recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, colleagues, uh, this is just a cleanup bill, uh, last session, this body, uh, proved a change to Arkansas Code 8-7-907B to increase the maximum payment. For a petroleum storage tank cleanup from $1.5 million to $2 million. That was basically because it had not been changed for many, many years and the cost had gone up. When we made that change, uh, we didn't realize there was another code in that same section code E, uh, that had the same language. So we need to change that. So it's just a cleanup bill, be happy to take any questions. Seeing no questions. I appreciate yes vote. Representative Ladyman has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like speak for the bill? Representative Ladyman is closed for the bill. The question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1383. Prepare the machine, Madam Clerk. So everyone voted Everyone voted Cast up the ballot, Madam clerk. With a vote of 96 ya, 0 nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1049. Representatives to amend Arkansas law concerning criminal offenses and to criminalize unlawful squatting. Representative Tosh, you are recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is a bill to criminalize. Unlawful squad. Criminalizing all all unlawful squatting. I Something that is extremely necessary in this state. One of the objectives I've had when I started, uh, putting this bill together was to be able to do two things. One was to criminalize Unlawful squatting, but at the same time to make sure. And this legislation did not infringe. Upon landlord. And tenants disputes. And I think Without a doubt that this bill accomplishes. What I set out to do. I've had a lot of great legal minds look at this. Our judiciary committee passed it out. With all yes votes. And in judiciary, I even had uh Some of them to review it before I presented it, Representative Shepherd, Representative Gazaway, and Representative Hudson. And I appreciate your input. But what really this bill is constituent driven. And what I mean by that is I had a constituent that called me last spring. And told me about a confrontation. In a situation he had encountered. With an unlawful squatter. But before I get into that story, I just want to tell you back in November when I filed this bill, I had no idea at that time that this bill was gonna attract the kind of attention that it has. As soon as I filed it, I started getting calls from TV stations. Media outlets all across the state wanting to do an interview. And then that word spread across the state that we had filed a bill here in the General Assembly to criminalize. I started receiving a lot of text messages, emails and phone calls for support, support, support for this bill, but not only did they offer their support. They offered up Their stories of how they had had to deal with someone that had come in and taken possession. Of their property. And what they had to go through to get those individuals removed from their property. Now back to my constituent. I'm not going to share all those stories with you because they are all similar in nature. But the one story I wanna share share that's actually the reason I'm standing in this world today that caused me to pursue this legislation came from a constituent friend of mine. And he said that He had a career opportunity. And he decided to take advantage of that, but it will require him to have to move. So he made the decision to pursue that career opportunity, but he also made the decision that. His home or his house that he had there in his hometown. That he decided not to sell it, nor was he going to rent it, but he left it intact. Left a utilities on. So that when he returned to his hometown to visit with family and friends. He'd have a place to stay. Then he shared with me and I don't remember how long it was, but he returned. To his hometown and when he pulled up in the driveway. He noticed things were kind of out of place. But he really was unable to wrap his mind around what was really going on until he got to the door. And he took his key, and he tried to unlock the door and he realized, That the lock had been changed. But he could hear people on the inside. So he started knocking on the door and The individual opened the door and my friend, constituent, Try to tell him, this is my house. This belongs. To me He said the man looked at him and said, Not anymore. We live here now. And slammed the door in his face, and he heard him lock it. My friend did what any one of us would do. He called law enforcement. When law enforcement arrives. They talked to the Individuals inside the house. The law enforcement officer came back out, told my friends said, look, I can't help you. They're squatters. They're squatters. And this is a civil matter. And he directed my friend. To the civil courts. Colleagues, I caution you not, don't be confused. I know a lot of you have asked me, don't we already have laws on the books to deal with this type of situations and the answer to that is no. We do not. So don't be confused with trespassing. An unlawful squatting. You see trespassing is individuals that come on to your property and they come and go, but they really have no intent. To stay An unlawful squatter. Seeks to move on to your property. With the intent to take possession of it. And claim it If possible During judiciary Committee. Sheriff Bradley, The sheriff's association. And Chiefites both testified before our judiciary committee. That unlawful squatting. is a civil matter. It's not criminal. And that's why law enforcement has to direct someone to the civil courts and cannot remove them. Immediately They both testified to that. And said How disheartening it was for law enforcement had to look that property owner in the eye and tell them we can't help you. But presumably most property owners, their first instinct is to do just that. is to call law enforcement. The colleagues therein lies the problem because law enforcement has already said they can't help them and they direct them to the civil courts, civil courts that are already overwhelmed and has a slow civil eviction. Procedures Can you imagine? Being the owner of a property. And you go home today and you find someone else in your house, and then you have law enforcement to tell you, hey. We can't help you. You're gonna have to go to the civil courts to get this resolved. Have you ever looked at the procedures that you have to go through in a civil court. I'm not gonna read each one of these, but I'm gonna give them to you in bullet form because I want you to understand this is what we're placing property owners subjecting them to. First the property owner. With these squatters inside their residence, they had to go to the court. They had to gather evidence. The property owner does gather evidence to against the squatter to prove they're unauthorized residents. Then they have to issue a notice to quit. Then they have to file a complaint, a forcible detainer, then they have to attend a court hearing. Then they have to obtain a writ of possession. Then the property owner. Must contact the local sheriff's department. Which this could be months. And months later, while these people are in the property owner's property. Then once they contact the sheriff's office, and the sheriff's office goes out, and they serve the writ of possession to the squatter, but then even then the squatter still has 24 hours to vacate. The property Before the police Can intervene and forcibly remove the squatters. From the residents or from the property. I've been asked by several Well, can we not self evict? Can we not just self evict these squatters, and the answer to that is no. In Arkansas, it is illegal. To self evict. As a property owner and the owner of that property, you cannot change the locks. You cannot shut off the utilities. That's against Arkansas law. Now, the squatters can change the locks. But the property owner can't. So let me tell you what I've been told. By some authorities and law enforcement that some property owners are doing. It's called cash for Keys. And what you're doing, they realize that the civil process It is long and the headaches that they have to go through to get someone evicted. They're offering these squatters money in exchange to voluntarily leave. Their property. Think of it like this, colleagues. If you saw a stranger. Setting in your Vehicle You would call the police. And the police would arrive. And they would remove that stranger from your vehicle and then they would check the vehicle registration, and they would determine that you're the owner, then they would return that vehicle back to you and they would arrest that individual, but they would not. They would not let that individual drive off in your vehicle. So Someone can Immediately be removed from your vehicle. But they can't be removed. From your house or from your property. Current law and that's what hopefully we're here today to change. Its current law is stacked against the property owner. I read an article where in May of 2024, a Texas public safety official testified before the Senate committee. And his statement was that squatting poses a threat to property owners everywhere in the United States. Testimony was given in that meeting of a TikToker from Venezuela. Who had posted a video with detailed instructions on how to invade homes. In the US. The squatters undermined the fundamental value. of property by exploiting and abating the law. And as I said in committee, Unlawful squatting. is a small scale invasion of property owner rights. Colleagues When I filed this bill, there's a group. That an attorneys that are property owner rights advocates. They reached out, I guess they're kind of watching every state as Florida has already passed this bill in Georgia. But they reached out and they offered some suggestions and sent me some information and some of it I used and some of it I didn't. But this attorney Bluey in the night before we met last week in Judiciary flew in and testified before the judiciary Committee, and I think everybody was on that committee would agree she did an outstanding job. But she also said that. The legislation that we had put together here in Arkansas was model legislation. And she said that This bill she had already sent to 12 other states. And told them if they were looking at criminalizing unlawful law, law squatting. That this was what they need to use what we've done here in Arkansas. So I'll close by saying this. With the passage of this bill, We can return and restore those rights. So the right pull on. And that's the property owner. And with that, I'll take any questions. no Representative Tosh has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? No one likes to speak for the bill, representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Colleagues, first of all, I'd like to thank Representative Tosh for his diligence and listening to all the landlords and concerns and the stories that we've all had. I'm a small landlord with a small shop, and this is a serious issue. When you go into a duplex or you knock on the door thinking you're gonna talk to a renter who's just behind on the rent, and they, and you open the door or they open the door, and you see a total stranger on the other side. You have no idea who these people are and what's going on. The other side of the duplex might have a small family with children, come to find out. The bad guys have moved in and are selling drugs. And you've got 0 property rights in a zero way to protect your good renters. This is a good renter protection bill as well as a good property rights bill, and I want to thank you for your diligence. And ask you for a good vote. Representative Langton has spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Anyone like speak for the bill, Representative McGrew, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is a great bill and a very needed bill. Some of the experience that he's talked about, I'll give you a short one that I had. I had a lady that was attendant in an apartment. She invited a young man in. He stayed there a couple of nights, and he abused her. She left Scared of him. And would not press charges, and when the police showed up, And I said, he has no rights here. They said his clothes in the closet, his shoes are in there. We're sorry. Mr. McGroom, but you're gonna have to follow the eviction process. So a few weeks later, in $1500 later, he was gone. If I have to do that several times, who do you think pays for that $1500. The other tenants, the good tenants. This is very needed, Bill. I want to thank Representative Tosh for bring it and also I want to say that he was very concerned with being very fair with this bill. If a property owner. to false claim, they're gonna get the same treatment the squatter did. It's a very fair bill. It's a very needed bill, and I hope you will support it. Representative McGrew spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representative Tash. recognized the clothes for your bill. Like Mitch Baker, colleagues would be remiss of me. This, there was so much work that, uh, Went into this bill. Trying to get it Just right, and I obviously, I, there's no way I could have even come close to accomplishing that. So I just want to take a brief moment, Mr. Speaker, and I want to thank The following people that really contributed to this legislation. I want to thank the sheriff's Association, the Chief of Police Association, the prosecuting attorney's office. I want to thank Representative McGrew and Representative Lundstrom. I want to thank all the 60 plus sponsors, co-sponsors on this bill, and many of you that said you, you know, we just ran out of time and those of you who said I support the bill. I just didn't get on as a co-sponsor. Thank you. I wanna thank my judiciary committee that Really did a great job and, uh, listening and, and working through this as we passed it out of the judiciary. And, uh, I wanna thank our speaker. I know he rarely does this, but he signed on as a co-sponsor and I was honored to have him on as a co-sponsor on our bill. I want to thank Shafer and Josh out of the governor's office who reached out to me after the governor spoke right here in her state of the state. Uh, speech to this General Assembly and said in her priorities that one of those was. Doing something about squatters, so I appreciate their input, and I wanna say thank you to the governor for reaching out to me and saying that, uh, I had her 100% support in her commitment and each one of you, I appreciate you and thank you for allowing me the time to explain this bill today. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Tosh has closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1049. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. So everyone voted. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 89, 2 nays, and 5 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 12631263 by Representative Unger to create the offense of unlawful removal or failure to charge an electronic monitoring device. Representative Unger, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I will try to be as short and sweet as I can possibly be, this bill does exactly what the title says. Uh, believe it or not, there are some people who get booked out of jail, and if they could only mind their manners and keep their monitor on, they could actually drive their own car, sleep in their own bed and eat their own food. But some people cannot be trusted to do that. People often say we need an alternative to incarceration, electronic monitoring is one alternative. Electronic monitoring is a privilege when you consider the alternative. The condition is that the courts are trusting this person to keep the device charged, not to cut it off or not to break it. Now, while this seems like common sense, as my late father used to say, If common sense were so common, there would be more of it. In the absence of common sense, we have to make keeping the device charged. Not to cut it off, nor to break it against the law. This bill came at the behest of my county sheriff. I had many people ask me, isn't this already against the law? And I said, no, you would think so. I had also asked, is it needed? Yes, because it's really a problem. People are cutting off their monitors, deliberately failing to charge them or even breaking them with no penalty. That's right. If you break this thing, the sheriff's office doesn't even have the ability to recoup the cost. If you do not agree with this, I would say that your sympathies are misplaced. Please recall that for every person wearing electronic monitoring device, there's at least one victim who's been injured. One who has been robbed. A woman who lives in fear of an abusive ex-lover. What they have in common is they expect their state legislator. The courts and law enforcement to do their jobs. The sheriff's Association and the Chiefs Association have highly endorsed this bill. I ask you for a good vote. Representative Unger has explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill? Representative McCullough, you're recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, Representative Unger, I ask you a few questions in committee. And, um, I hope I'm not misguided. I just am still kind of digging in to get some answers. So, um, I feel like I'm fairly law and order person also and don't think people should destroy things and not have to pay for it, but I have a couple of questions that I wanted to ask. Um, uh, there's already a penalty for this from what I understand. And when you get one of these, most of the time, I think if you don't do what you're supposed to do, your bonds revoked. So you, you go back. Also, my question was, when you get one of these on the front end. Is it, don't, don't you, do you put down a deposit and do you pay weekly for this? And my question about that is, if you do, Does that go toward the payment of that object if you destroy it, because I've also heard from some judges that sometimes Juveniles wear these so that they can keep them in school. And, um, so I have a question about that. And then my other question is, how do you prove that someone knowingly didn't charge their device. And um Anyway, I guess right now I'm speaking against, but I, I'd, I'd just like to know the answer to those questions. Thank you. Representative McCullough has spoke against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Lundstrom, you're recognized to speak for the bill. I was shocked last session when this bill failed in committee. I heard a lot of weeping and wailing and the dog ate my homework, that type of thing. And folks, it's a privilege to get to sleep in your own bed. We have jail overcrowding right now. These people can have a life, sleep in their own bed, and be monitored at the same time. It's a privilege. We had a, um, gentleman in Springdale, who cut his bracelet off, threw it on the back of a truck and the police watched it go all over the country trying to figure out where this guy was. No It's a privilege. Otherwise, you can go and sit your happy rear end in jail. So this is an opportunity. And we offer opportunities in the state of Arkansas to get your life back together. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Representative Lundstrom is spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Moore, you're recognized to speak for the bill. Speaker. Representative, I applaud your efforts with this piece of legislation. I want to put it very simply. If you're incarcerated in a county facility and you try and break out of that county facility. There are certain penalties and measures that will be tries to escape that jail. This is the exact same thing, but these folks have the privilege of sleeping in their own beds at night. And if they cut their ankle, their monitor, and they ought to say. be upon them Representative Morris spoke for the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like speak for the bill? Representative Unger, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, to pay a deposit on the thing, I don't know the answer to that. I just know that I've heard from many people in law enforcement that this is really a problem. Knowingly, you know, if you've ever taught a class. I know we got some teachers in here. You can tell who's absorbing the material. And who just hates being there. Uh, some of you know about this, this about me, but some of you don't. After I retired as a Navy chaplain. I actually was an instructor at a halfway house for felons on parole up in Springdale, a class of 25 guys every Thursday night. I did that for a year and a half. And let me tell you, some nights it was a great group. We, we shifted people through every 90 days. Sometimes it was literally the spiritual equivalent of kickboxing. And I gotta tell you, you can tell who is contrite. You can. You can tell who's contrite, and you can tell who just doesn't give a rip about any of this. Now, some people have asked me, you know, aren't most parole officers, and I, I really did try to be brief, but that just didn't happen. Our parole officers just itching to take people back to jail. And I can tell you, I have never met one like that. Because taking some guy back to prison or even the county jail means doing work. And they don't really want to do the work, like cop stuff, like filling out forms and putting on your gun belt. I have never met a parole officer who was like amped up like Batman. Or on a quest for vengeance, like, Inspector Javert from Les Miserables. They're actually a lot more like, My brother-in-law, Kevin. Who is good at talking to people, but when it comes, but we'll do work when there's only no alternative. And so, let's keep our minds, sorry, Kevin, you know it's true. Let's keep our minds on the victim. And not the perpetrator. Thank you. Representative Unger has closed for the bill. The question before the House. Is the passage of House Bill 1263, Prepare the machine, madam clerk. So everyone voted, so everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. The vote of 86 ye, 3 nay, and 6 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clark, please read House Bill 1282. 1282 by Representative Richardson concerning the unauthorized practice of law. Representative Richardson, you are recognized to explain your bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is really a, a simple bill. We're changing, well, let me give you the backstory. So, recently in my community, we had a couple of people, a husband and wife, who were operating, providing legal advice and portraying themselves as attorneys to some people in our community. They were doing this because of what they thought was a loophole in the law that says shall not obtain a direct Economic benefit. This bill does nothing but strike a direct and change it to any benefit. This was brought to me by our prosecuting attorney, and that's the only change that's made in it. I appreciate a good vote. Representative Richardson has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone I speak for the bill. Representative Richardson is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1282. Prepair the machine, Madam clerk. So everyone voted. Everyone voted Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 97 yeah, 0 nay, and 0 present. The bill is passed. Madam Clerk, please read House Bill 1387. Representative Cooper to require members of the board of directors of a public water authority to publish their contract information under the Water Authority Act. Representative Cooper, you're recognized to explain your bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker. House Bill 1387 is a constituent-driven bill. It will require the members of a water authority board of directors to have their names and phone numbers displayed on the water authority's website. Water authorities are created under the Arkansas Water Authority Act, and when formed, they become political subdivisions of the state. With oversight provided by the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission, which is part of the Department of Agriculture. The way these board members are selected depend on the bylaws of the water authority. Some are chosen by the sitting members of the board. And some are elected by the members or the customers of the water district. That makes these board members public officials. And you may be asking yourself, why does Cooper want to make this, make this, uh, change? Why does he want the contact information on the website. Well, I mentioned this is a constituent driven bill. Last winter, a water authority in my district had issues with their system. Your system shut down, which resulted in customers having no water. Constituents didn't know what was going on when they tried to call the water authority's office number. The phone just rang off the hook or the Citizen Zim began trying to contact me, one of our state senators, the mayor of a small town in the area. I believe a constituent of mine even called the, the houses down to find out what was going on. Of course, we couldn't answer these questions because we, we don't have authority over that water system. We didn't know what was going on. So I started looking for contact information for the board members of the water authority, and I couldn't find any board members were the ones who could answer these questions and address these issues for our constituents, but unfortunately, Our constituents were unable to contact them. In my research on this issue, I've looked at several of the water authority's websites, and it appears that there's no consistency when it comes to available contact information. So already list the names and the phone numbers of the water board members. Some only list names but no contact information. And some don't say anything. This change I'm trying to accomplish with the bill will simply ensure that these board members' contact information will be accessible to the people they represent. This bill is about transparency and good efficient government. It's also about, about making government accessible. Um, I'll go ahead and address a question that I was asked, do Do we require Any other board members I can only speak to my personal experience in local government. I served on the Quorum Court in Wat County for 14 years. Mine and my uh colleague's contact information, our phone numbers and addresses were posted. Personally, my home address, my email address, my cell number, my home number, all available for my constituents. So my question would be, if you want to be a public official, Wow. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Question, please. You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So my question actually goes to the last statement that you just made. Uh, does the bill stipulate what kind of information needs to be included in that contact information and by putting that information out there, do we potentially create a security concern for these individuals. Are they, for example, if they had to post their home address, uh, personal phone number, things like that. The bill specifically says name. Representative Cooper has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Cooper is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1387. Prepair the machine, madam clerk. So everyone voted. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. With a vote of 87 y, 1 nay, and 5 present, the bill is passed. Members will now go to the yellow budget calendar. Representative Gene, you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, Uh, the governor's office. As I asked that uh we we refer house Bill 1089 back to joint budget. Madam Clark. House Bill 1089. I apologize, I didn't ask for what reason. We're just gonna send it back and we'll find out. That's a proper motion. It's debatable. Do you want like speak for the motion. Against the motion Representative Jean is closed with the motion. All those in favor of re-referral of House Bill 1089 back to committee, please say aye. Po, the eyes have it. Madam Clark send that bill back to committee, Representative Juan, you're recognized. Famous Speaker, colleagues, we're gonna Passover for another day, House Bill. 1285 UALR. Well, 65. You're right. We're gonna pass over House Bill 1265. Uh, we're gonna pick up at uh Senate bill. 80, this is the governor's liaison. This is uh, for this session only, it's no increase, um, any questions? Your one vote is for the bell, the mercy clause, Mr. Speaker, the clerk read the bill 3rd time. and clerk read the bill for the 3rd time 80. Representative Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? anyone like speak for the bill. Representative Jean is closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 80, Prepare the machine, Madam clerk. everyone voted. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot. The vote of 95 yeah, 0, nay, and 1 present to build and the emergency clauses passed, Representative Jean. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, we're gonna batch these next Senate bills. We're going to start at Senate Bill 105, Senate Bill 107, Senate Bill 108, Senate Bill 109, Senate Bill 112, Senate Bill 113, Senate Bill 114, Senate Bill 115, Senate Bill 125, Senate Bill 126 and Senate Bill 129. These are all 2 and 4-year schools. We did the house batch. Wednesday, uh, these are the, the Senate match, once again, uh, this is part of the governor's balanced budget overall on the house and, on the, uh, 4 year, 2-year. It was about a $200,000 decrease on the higher ed budgets. Any questions? Representative Rose, for what purpose? Question. You're recognized. Uh, could we pull out SB 125 for a separate vote, please. Yes, sir. Thank you. All right, members. We're gonna vote this batch with the exception of Senate Bill 125. Remember, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. Mr. Speaker, the clerk to rebuild 3rd time. Madam Clark, read the bills for the 3rd time. 105, 107, 108, Senate Bill 109, Senate Bill 112, Senate Bill 113, Senate Bill 114, Senate Bill 115, Senate Bill 126, Senate Bill 129. Prepare the machine, Madam clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause on the back. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. voted 95 ya, zero nays and 1 present, Bill's in the batch have passed. Representative Jean. All right, Senate Bill 125, UCA. Any questions? You want vote for the bill, the merchant clause, Mr. Baker had the clerk read the bill a 3rd time. Madam Clark read the bill for the 3rd time 125. They would like to speak against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill. Representative Jean's closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 125. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. Has everyone voted? everyone voted. cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. The vote of 72 ya, 16 nays, and 8 present. Bill has failed. Representative Jean. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, we're gonna pick up on these house bills. We're gonna start. And we're gonna have several of these already pulled out of the batch. We're gonna start at, uh, House Bill 1088. We're gonna Pull out of the batch for a separate vote, 1093. 1094. And 1259, those three will be pulled out of the batch. What will be in the batch? Or house built 1088. 1096. 11:20. 11:23, 12:01. 1262 and 1267. Any questions? Representative Jean, would you please Restate the bills that are in the batch. House Bill 1088. House Bill 1098. House Bill 1120, House Bill 1123, House Bill 1201, House Bill 1262 and House Bill 1267. Madam Clark, read the bills for the 3rd time. House Bill 1088. Hospital 10998 House Bill 1120, House Bill 1123, house 1201, House Bill 1262, House Bill 1267. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Remembers your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause of each item in the batch. Has everyone voted? Everyone voted, cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. Vo of 95 yeah, 0, nay, and 2 present, the bills and the batch have passed along with the emergency clausespresentative Jean. All right, Mr. Speaker, we're gonna pick up these bills and his vote, each one of them singly, house bill 1093. There's the Department of Health. This is the permitting, this is not the big budget. This is the permitting uh, phase for the Department of Health. Any questions? You're one vote is for the bill, the emergency clause, Mr. Speaker, the clerk read the bill a 3rd time. Madam Clerk, read the bill for the 3rd time. 1093. Representative Jeans explained the bill would anyone like to speak against the bill. For the bill Representative Jean is closed for the bill. Question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1093. Prepare the machine, madam clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. Everyone voted So everyone voted, cast up the ballot. The vote of 85, ya, 1 nay, and 11 present, the bill and the emergency clause have passed. Representative Jean. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The next one is House Bill 1094, Department of Health tobacco Prevention and cessation program. Any questions? Your one vote is for the bill, the mercy clause, Mr. Speaker, the clerk read the bill for the 3rd time. Madam Clerk, read the bill for the 3rd time. 109. Representative Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Me when I speak for the bill. Representative Jean is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1094. Prepair the machine, Madam clerk. Remembers your one vote is for the bill in the emergency clause. So everyone voted, everyone voted. Cast up the ballot. Voter 72 ya, 18 nays, and 6 present to build in the emergency clause has failed. Madam Clara, Representative Jean, you recognized. Thank Mr. Speaker, the last one we're voting out separately on this batch is House Bill 1259 University of Arkansas Division of Ag. It's the booscience Institute. Any questions? Your one vote is for the bill and birch clause, Mr. Speaker, have the clerk read the bill the 3rd time. Madam Clerk, read the bill for the 3rd time 1259. Representative Jean has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Representative Jean is closed for the bill. The question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1259, repair the machine, Madam Clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergency clause. So everyone voted. So everyone voted. Cast up the ballot, Madam Clerk. About a 96, 0 nay, and 1 present. The bill in the emergency clause are passed. Representative Jean. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This next set of batches are house bills that are re-appropriations, and I've already had one asked to pull out of the batch. We will pull House Bill 1390 out for a separate vote. So the batch now consists of House Bill 1391. 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397, and House Bill 1406. Do I need to pull any of these other out, Representative Beatty, for what purpose? Request that, um, we hold and pull out 1390 and 1391 for another day. For another day. And you said 90 and 91. OK. The batch now consists of House Bill 1392, 1393, 1394, 1395, 1396, 1397 and 1406. Any questions? Your one vote is for the bill and the mercy clause, Mr. Speaker, have the clerk read the bills the 3rd time. Read the bills for the 3rd time. House Bill 1392. House Bill 1393. House Bill 1394, House 1395, hospitals 1396, house 1397. Pray the machine, Madam Clerk. Members, your one vote is for the bill and the emergence clause of each item in the batch. Everyone voted Everyone voted Cass up the ballot, Madam Clerk. Voter 97, 0, nay, and 0 present, the bill and the emergency clause of each item in the batch has passed. Representative Meeks, for what purpose? Motion please. I'll hear your motion. In accordance with House Rule 33M. I move we adjourn until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. It's a proper motion, it's non-debatable. All those in favor say aye. Osna Guys have it. Have any announcements from any committees. Committee announcements, Representative Underwood, for what purpose? You're recognized. Judiciary will meet tomorrow at 10 a.m. and then we'll take our committee picture on Thursday at 9:45 on the house steps. Representative. Wooldridge for what purpose? Announcement you're recognized will meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m., room 1:30. Representative Brooks, for what purpose? Announcement recognized. How education we meet tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. We will meet at 9:50 on the house steps for our photo. Representative Vaut, for what purpose? You're 15 minutes upon adjournment. Representative Milligan, for what purpose? Announcement recognized Transportation will meet tomorrow at 10 a.m. and MacB. Any other committee announcements. Seeing none, the desks will remain open as needed for the reading of the bills and upon completion of the items named in the adjourned resolution. The House will be adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon.