Senate Convenes

Senate will be called to order. Are there any requests for leave at this time, Senator Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. I'd like to ask for leave for the following senator, Senator Hill and Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Senator Boyd. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Boyd Brant Caldwell, Clark, Crowell, Davis, Des, this thing, Dotson, English Flippo flowers, Gilmore, hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill on leave, Irving, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, King letting love McKee, Murdoch, Peyton, Penzo, Petty, rice, Scott, Stone, Seerfield Sullivan On leave Tucker Wallace. Thank you, Madam Secretary. If everyone in the chamber and in the galleries would please rise. We'll first be led in prayer by Senator John Payton, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, Senator Payton, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Let's pray. Dear God in heaven, Lord, Creator of the universe, you are such an awesome God, and you've been so good to us, Lord, and And God, I just pray this morning that as we gather to take such a huge responsibility and doing the people's business, Lord, that you just let the spirit well up in us, give us wisdom, give us guidance. Lord just turned the volume up on the still small voice within us and that we may recognize your will today, Lord, that we'll follow it and that we'll do it. That our neighbors and our families, the citizens of the state of Arkansas would be, would benefit from it. Lord I just pray this morning that you'd forgive us where we failed you and where we've come short. Lord, just pray that you'd give us all a good spirit as we take care of our duties here today. We need wisdom and we need courage in Jesus' name. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God. Indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Senator Payton, for those words. Ladies and gentlemen, in the galleries, welcome to your Arkansas State Senate is our expectation that each of you will exercise proper decorum today and govern yourselves accordingly during today's proceedings without objection, the rules will be suspended and the Senate will dispense with the reading of the journal. The morning hour has now begun. Senator English, you are recognized to introduce our Senate pages for the day, Senator English. Thank you. I'd like to recognize our Senate pages that are joining us today, when I call your name, please come to the front to be recognized. Sabrina Jones is from Hall High School. Senator Tucker is her senator. Vera Canoe high school uh Hall High School, Senator Love. Joshua Morehart from Hall High School, Senator Love, you've got a number here today. Make a Moore Hall High School, Senator Tucker. Dalton Palmer Hall High School, Senator Tucker, and Jarek Witted Hall High School, Senator Love. Congratulations. We're glad to have you here with us today. Thank you, Senator English and thank you pages. Welcome to your Arkansas State Senate. We're glad to have you here today. Any announcements or introductions. Senator Scott, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Governor. Um, today it's the American Heart Association's lobby day, and I think they have a lot of individuals on the Capitol, um, outside our Senate chamber, but they also have some members in the West Gallery. Would you please stand and be recognized? Thank you for all you do. Ready? Thank you, Senator Scott. Any other introductions or announcements. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Like governor members, I just want to recognize the Drew County Judge from my district, Jesse Griffin back here with me. He's just gonna hang out for a little bit and watch you all. So please welcome him and then also offer condolences for him having to deal with me. Thank you. Any other announcements or introductions. If not, Madam Secretary, are there items at the desk? Symbol 204 by Central Pennzo to exempt the gross income of Income gain by a taxpayer resulting from the acquisition of property under the right of eminent domain or the threat of contamination. Uh, sent 204. Revenue and tax 05 Central Clark to amend the Arkansas Opportunity Public School Choice Act and to amend the public School Choice Act of 2015. Senate Bill 205. Education 206 by Senator Crowell to amend the right to React and to amend the amount of the tutoring grant awarded under the right to read Acts Senate Bill 206. Education. Thank you, Madam Secretary. If there's no further business to come before the body in the morning hour. The morning hour has expired. We will now begin the business agenda, beginning with Senate resolution 11. Senate resolution 11 by Senator Petty to commemorate the 100th anniversary on the 13th of February 2025 of the Robert W. uh Jack Veterans of For Moors post 1322 in the city of Van Buren, the oldest veterans of foreign wars post in Arkansas. Senator Petty, you're recognized. Thank you, Governor. Uh, members, we don't have any members with us, but we are having a celebration this weekend and so I wanted to have this resolution passed. They are 100 celebrating 100 years and they are the oldest in Arkansas, do a lot of good work with the veterans, so I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you, Senator Petty. All those in favor of Senate resolution 11 to commemorate the 100th anniversary on February 13, 2025, the Robert W. Jack Veterans of Foreign Wars post 1322 in the city of Van Buren, the oldest veterans of foreign wars Post in Arkansas, please signify by saying I. And he opposed as habits, Senate Resolution 11 is adopted. Thank you, Senator Petty. We will now take up Senate Bill 50. Senate Bill 50 by Senator Bowen to require a legislative study of workforce and social services reform and require consideration of legislation necessary to address issues identified during the study. Senator Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, Senate Bill 50, I appreciate the opportunity to present Senate Bill 50 to you today and FY 22, that's the latest numbers I have are state agencies received greater than $200 million in state, federal, and other funding for workforce development. This bill seeks to study the successes and potential failures of how funds like these are helping Arkansas navigate the government maze of programs and provide a clear hand up rather than just simply being a handout or unaccountable use of government funds. This bill seeks to bring the right people together with the best information to create a gap overlap analysis highlights the highlights the good worker in the executive branch and identify opportunities to engage the federal government in this these issues. This bill sets the structure for a study to be conducted in the ALC or legislative council, hospital and Medicaid subcommittee and a report to be completed prior to the next General Assembly. There are no plans to hire consultants. Any questions for Senator Boyd. Anyone wish to speak against or for? Senator has Senator has closed or yes, OK. Senator has closed. Any objection to rolling the vote? Madam Secretary, please roll the boat. Boy, Bryant, Caldwell, Clark, Crowe, Davis, Des, Dima Datsun, English Flippo flowers, Gilmore, hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill on leave, Irving, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, King letting love, McKee, Murdoch, Peyton, Penzo, Petty, Rice, Scotch, stone, sta afield, Sullivan on the leave, Tucker Wallace. Any senator wished to change his or her vote, Senator King not voting any other senator. Seeing no one, please cast up the ballot by a vote of 32 y, 0, nay, 1 not voting, Senate Bill 50 passes, please transmit to the house. Senate Bill 59, Senator, dismaying. Oh. Senate Bill 59 by Senator Dimay to provide each student with one breakfast at no cost, each school day upon request with uh consideration of the students' eligibility for a federally funded free or reduced price meal and declare an emergency. Senator, dismaying, you're recognized. Thank you, Governor. Members apologize. It's been a little hectic morning and I was walking with Blake Johnson. If you've done that, it takes a little longer to get somewhere. Sorry. members number one, I just want to say I I thank you for the support on this bill. I think it's evident by those that have signed on as co-sponsors at food insecurity is a priority for you as members, um, and that's something I'm very proud of as, as you're aware, the governor made this part of her legislative package when she made her say of the state of address, and I'm also excited about her commitment and, I mean, in fact, you can look at our leadership all the way to, you know, Senator Bozeman in DC, I am proud of what we're and the steps we're taking as a state to recognize the problem and to try to find solutions for that. The reality is there are 25% of our kids wake up food insecure every single day, uh, when they go to school, sometimes that meal that they get at school is the only nutritious meal they get in a day. Um, you know, there's been a lot of debate about what should our involvement be at this level. These kids have no way to feed themselves and if they have parents that aren't willing to sign the cards or send them with money. Those districts are required to them and they build up debt or as I will say we've got members in this room that pick up that debt. Uh, again, something I'm proud of. Uh, but this would allow every kid in the state of Arkansas to be entitled to have a free breakfast, we would ask that first that the federal dollars that are available be utilized in anything else that's remaining, the state of Arkansas would pick up utilizing the medical marijuana dollars to help make that district toll for providing that breakfast, again, something I'm excited about, I'm excited about your commitment to this and would be happy to take any questions. Any questions for Senator Dismay. Senator Mark Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Senator Dismay, it's a great bill. I'm proud to co-sponsor, uh is it possible that because this is coming from the marijuana sales in part, that in some cases some parents who maybe aren't taking care of their kids' lunch would now indirectly be taking care of their kids' lunch. I'll let Anyone else infer, I mean, we, we, again, my focus is on the kids. I'm gonna leave the parents on the conversation. I understand your point. Well, and you know we have responsible parents that are just have problems and then we have irresponsible parents and their kids have to suffer for it. I've just want to note that perhaps this is the best way to make sure that the kids have something to eat because I, I don't care their situation. I want the kids fed and then we'll figure out the details later. Thank you so much. Appreciate that one thing that I thank you, Senator. One thing that I mentioned in the bill and um and again, I think it just speaks back to the commitment here. We are going to prioritize the utilization of the medical marijuana dollars. The first will be for the summer EBD EBT program that the governor governor partnered or instituted this summer. The second will be the bill that we passed last session that covers the reduced portion of the reduced lunches and then the third priority would be this breakfast. portion. There's a cost estimate of about 14 million depending on utilization, I, I would say that's high in what we've seen with other states, but again, we want to be conservative and and go ahead and kind of outline how those funds were gonna be utilized. Or prioritized is a better way to say that. Any other questions for Senator Dimain? Anyone wish to speak for Or against Senator Clark, you're recognized to speak against. Senator Clark is recognized to speak on the bill. I want to compliment centered hismain for bringing the bill it's a compassionate conservative bill, uh, and, uh, it's something that our constituents no doubt support none of us want to see hungry children. I also want to remind us at the same time. Uh, that you cannot delegate. responsibility without delegating authority. And we continue to give the government more authority over families and more authority over children, and we do that by being compassionate and continuing to give the government more responsibility. And so again, I'm not going to tell you to vote against the bill. Your constituents support it, but I just want to remind you what we're doing as we do this for a good reason. We've also got something else going on at the same time. Anyone else wish to speak for, against, or on the bill. Seeing no one else. Senator Dismay, you recognized clothes. Union members, I'd like to thank you, um. Hopefully for your vote here in a few minutes, but one of the things that I thought was kind of interesting that happened and was a little confusing, I think some people in the audience when the bill was being presented, there were a ton of questions. Right? And uh so the people that were in the audience got a little bit nervous because there was so much question about this program or that program, programs that weren't related to this, and you know what I told them when we went back was, I mean, I think it was unanimous in the committee and those questions were just from people that had concerns and, and because they're interested and engaged on the subject of food insecurity, uh, which is a positive thing. They're trying to gain knowledge and information about all the programs out there and how they intertwine with each other and things that we've passed. In prior session that led to some of the issues that we even have, uh, so again, I, I thought that was an interesting Discussion appreciated discussion and also again I think it reflects on the commitment of the body. Thank you. Senator Dimay has closed. Any objection to rolling the boat. Objection noted, Madam Secretary. We have a pair at the deskent Irving, yes, Center Hill, no. Boy Brant Yeah Bran. Caldwell, Caldwell, Clark. Crawl Crawl Davis Days Days Dema Dotson. English. Flippo Flippo. Flowers. Gilmore? Hammer, Hester. Hester Hickie. Heke. Hill is no Irving, yes. Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson. King. King Laing love. McKee Murdoch. Murdoch. Hayton. Pennzo. And so, Patty. Rice, Scott. Stone Stone. Steerfield. Yes Sullivan It's on leave, Tucker? Wallace. Any senators who did not vote who wished to vote or change your vote. I see roll, yes. Stone, yes. These, yes. Hester, yes. Hickey present. But Caldwell present. Penzo, yes, Murdoch. Yes, yes. Murdoch, yes. Any other senators, please check the board. Please cast up the ballot by a vote of 26, 2 nay, 1 not voting, and 5 present Senate Bill 59 passes in the corresponding emergency clause is adopted. Transmit to the house. We'll now take up Senate Bill 134. Senate Bill 134 by Senator Irving to amend the law concerning the public school employee health benefit advisory commission and to amend the law concerning the state employee health benefit advisory commission. Senator Ervin, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. This is a very simple bill. I want to thank Senator Love for running it for me in committee. Basically, it just moves the public school employee health benefit advisory commission and the state employee Health Benefit Advisory Commission from meeting monthly to quarterly and reduces their um stipend from $500 down to $100. Any questions for Senator Urban. Seeing no questions. Anyone wish to speak against or for the bill. Senator has closed any objection to rolling the vote? Madam Secretary, please roll the boat. Boyd, Bryant Caldwell, Clark, Crowell, Davis, Des, Dima, Dotson, English, Flippo, flowers, Gilmore, Hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill on leave, Irving. Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, King, Latin, love, McKee, Murdoch, Peyton, Pennzo, Patty, rice, Scott, Stone, Saberfield, Sullivan on leave, Tucker, Wallace. Any senator wish to change his or her vote. Seeing no one, please cast up the ballot by a vote of 33 yeah, zero nay, Senate Bill 134 passes, please transmit to the house. Senate Bill 136. Senate Bill 136 by senator, Senator Boyd to create the right to try individualized investigational Treatment Act and to ensure that patients have access to individualized investigational treatment. Senator Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Senate Bill 136 in 2015 we passed the General Assembly passed the right to track. This is right to try 2.0. This bill updates our state law of right to try. And then individualized investigatingal Treatment Act means a drug, biological product or device that is unique to and produced exclusively for use for an individualized patient based on his or her his or her own genetic profile. This bill places parameters and guardrails around the use of. individualized investigational treatment for a patient with a life-threatening or severely debilitating illness in Arkansas. Any questions for Senator Boyd. Anyone wish to speak against or for Senator has closed any objection to rolling the boat. No objection. No objection, Madam Secretary, please roll the boat forward front, Caldwell, Clark K Crowell, Davis, Des, this man Datsun English flippo flowers, Gilmore Hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill on leave, Irving, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, King letting love, McKee, Murdoch, Peyton, Penzo, Petty, rice, scot, stone, stub. Sullivan on leave, Tucker Wallace. Any senator wished to change his or her boat. Seeing no one, please cast up the ballot. By a vote of 33 ya, zero nay, Senate Bill 136 passes, please transmit to the House. Senate Bill 137. Senate Bill 137 by Senator Bowen read health care providers to maintain medical records and electronic format. Senator Boyd, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam President. Senate Bill 137, this bill makes it clear that in 2025 and beyond the electronic re that electronic health records are legally sufficient substitutes for hard copy healthcare records in Arkansas, except where federal law might take precedence. This bill was based on language and ideas in place from other other states. I've run it past several organizations with intent that would have an interest in this and they all are good with it, and I know of no opposition. Any questions for Senator Boyd? Seeing no questions. Anyone wish to speak against or for the bill. Senator has closed. Any objection to rolling the boat. Hearing seeing none, Madam Secretary, please roll the boat. Boyd Bright Caldwell, Clark, Crowell, Davis, Des, Dismay, Dots and English flippo flowers, Gilmore, Hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill on leave, Irving, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson, King letting love McKee Murdoch, Peyton, Penzo, Petty, rice, Scott, stone, Stubberfield. Sullivan on leave, Tucker Wallace. Any senator wish to change his or her boat. Seeing no one, please cast up the ballot by vote of 33, 0 nay, Senate Bill 137 passes, please transmit to the house. Senate Bill 1204 rather house built 1204. He spoke 1204 by Representative Eubanks and Senator Irving to establish the recovery of damages for necessary medical care, treatment or services rendered. Senator Irvin, you're a recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, members of the Senate, uh, this is a very simple bill. It's very succinct, and it's really just based on balance and fairness. And the scales of justice symbolize an impartial weighing of evidence and facts in a legal case that's represented the idea that justice should be balanced and fair by considering both sides of a dispute equally.s essentially that means that decisions should be made carefully considering all the information without bias. The scales of justice represent the need to balance the evidence and arguments from both sides of a case to reach a just outcome. The language of this bill is very short and very simple and very clear. It seeks to ensure that these scales are balanced based on facts and the exchange of actual damages incurred and paid. That's it. We know that rates are negotiated. We know that contracts are signed based for those rates that are negotiated. That's how medical billings, that's how medical claims, payments from third party, um, payers function in the healthcare world. So it's unreasonable then to ignore that this reality of negotiated payments, legal contracts, and actual receipts of bills paid with the ability to seek damages for a payment or claim that virtually never existed, that that would be fair because it's, it's not. They're not balanced when you're seeking a monetary ward that never existed and was never paid. This is highlighted in several court cases. And we have those examples. In Dale versus White, the plaintiffs claimed an amount of $8900 and some dollars in medical expenses for an emergency room visit, but the statement from the hospital showed an amount owed of $0. The plaintiff didn't make any payments toward that amount and testified that they had no intention of ever paying that bill. But when the, the Arkansas Court of Appeals ruled they actually ruled that then the hospital would have to pay uh that $8,937.95 because of the ruling in the previous case of the Montgomery Ward in 1998, and that's exactly what this bill addresses. So the actual loss to the hospital was $17,875.90. Again, because those were never paid for the actual services rendered. The hospitals never paid for the actual services rendered, and they had to pay the medical expense that appeared on the paper, and that's a flawed ruling. I don't believe that's fair. And this bill seeks to change that. Currently, one size of the scales is out of balance. There's this added weight when damages that were never paid are allowed to be considered for recovery. What this bill does is rebalances those scales to ensure fairness. It's a mathematical prin of equality that we all accept to be truth. 5 equals 5, A equals A. Literally, that's what we're talking about. And that's the exact principle represented in this bill, stating clearly that recovery of damages for past necessary medical care past necessary medical treatment or past necessary medical services included received includes only those costs actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party. is legally responsible. What this bill does not do. It does not impact other categories of damages. It is only specific to the category of damages of medical treatment, medical services, and medical care of what was passed. So we should have exactly a receipt to shows what was paid. It does not impact all future medical costs as established at trial. It does not impact all lost wages past and future. It does not impact all property damage. It does not impact all non-economic damages including past and future pain and suffering, scars and disfigurement, a survivor's mental anguish, loss of life, or punitive damages. This bill does not impact subrogation or the maid. doctrine or the categories that I just mentioned, it is simply succinctly focused on what was paid. And what was that you can only recover what was paid of those medical care and medical treatments. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions for Senator Ervin. I see Senator Hammer and Senator Peyton. Thank you, Madam Governor, Senator Irvin, just a few questions if you would please. I'd like to hear the answers in public format here. The issue of the uninsured and the insured being treated differently. I'd like to hear your explanation on that or your, your what's your reasoning on that, please? I think that was really good testimony and and in in the committee meeting about this. We want those cases to be treated the same. And right now they're not. And so I think what we're seeking here is the ability for whether you're insured or uninsured, you're actually going to be treated the same in those, in those cases because we're basing it on an actual receipt and exchange of what was actually paid. and not some inflationary number that just exists on paper, but that was never realized monetarily. The current cases that are in court now. This is not grandfathering anything and this is going to be to the future. Is that correct? Again, this bill is super small and short and sinct, and there's no language that reflects that. And then the last question I've got is this Is it the position of the insurance company I wrote these down, by the way, they weren't handed to me, OK? Uh, is this the position of the insurer? Is it the position of the insurance companies in that through passage of this legislation, how are they rationalizing that it's actually going Lower insurance rates because that's one of the comments made out there or would you speak to that, please? I will speak to that, and I think that you and I, we've all lived through insurance and how rates are determined and how premiums are determined, and it's very rare that you ever see premiums that decrease, and I'm not here to pretend that, you know, this, this is one thing that's going to make a dramatic change, if that were the case, I'd love that, but, um, but I think it's important that it reduces the cost of business. That's why the NFIB, small businesses, support this bill. That's why the Healthcare Association supports this. bill. That's why the Chamber of Commerce supports this bill because the state of Arkansas needs a climate of being business friendly. We know that's important to attract jobs to our state, and this is one piece of that puzzle. And so, yes, it is very, very critical and important, and there's all kinds of impacts. If you don't have guardrails in place, there's all kinds of impacts in the, in the litigious nature that is created in the state of Arkansas. There's all kinds of consequences from that. It's hard. To put a monetary value on it, to be honest, but it is true. OB-GYNs, we, you do know we have a maternal health crisis in the state. One of the reasons why is because we have a shortage of workforce in OB-GYNs because they are the 3rd, they are sued more. I think it's the 2nd highest I have the statistic here, but OBGYNs are are sued, you know, I think it's, uh, their 2nd most frequently see class of physicians in the country, resulting in exorbitantly high malpractice insurance rates. So we are finding a lack of people going into OB-GYN because of those malpractice insurance rates. And so having these guardrails in place, will it reduce insurance premiums? I can't say that and I won't make that guarantee. I mean, we, we do all kinds of work in EBD to try to lower premiums as much as we possibly can, but we also know that we do what we can to pass those bills with those hopes, those hopes, and I think that's what we're here for. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Senator Payton, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam President. Senator Irvin, I love short bills. I really appreciate the love your vote. I got out of committee, our committee and went to my office and decided to pull up. Judiciary, I guess is what y'all were in and uh obviously a short bill did not mean short debate, but I'm going to try to ask a new question that may have been asked before I tuned in and started watching the committee, but one that I'm not sure anybody has asked, and that is even though it's a short bill, Sometimes one word can matter and there's a word that appears 3 times in here. That caught my attention, and that is necessary necessary medical care past necessary medical treatment and past necessary medical services. And so I thought, OK, well, do we define necessary anywhere, so I pull up LexisNexis and start looking, and I don't see where it defined in anywhere in this section of code. And so just thinking about it, I'm, I'm trying to figure, are we creating an argument, a new argument for them to have over what's necessary or not, because From my understanding, you have somebody injured. They go to the doctor for treatment for that injury. Nobody's gonna argue with the medical providers as to whether it was necessary or not. But when we put this word necessary in here, I think we could be creating an argument by the, by the lawyers who, I think after we've been down here 10 or 12 years, we should be able to take the bar and hang our shingle out, but Lawyers argue as much as legislators do and and I just, I fear, I guess I'm questioning why are we using the word necessary so often here and medical services are not, or medical damages are not even mentioned individualized in this section of code. No, it's actually a really good question, and it is an important word to use because when you are looking at claims that are filed and bills that are and how those are paid, it goes back to medical necessity. Medical necessary. So because of our prior authorization landscape and all those kinds of things, things have to be considered medically necessary in order for them to be paid. So who defines that or who determines it? Well, it's determined most likely it's through your, your payers are determining that, which is why I've done a ton of legislation on prior authorization to uh limit those prior authorization policies and procedures because it is determined medically. necessary, but we do that in Medicaid. It, it happens in Medicare, Tricare, any third party payer. I understand what you're saying, but in this case, A payer has deemed it necessary and paid for it. Now we're arguing over whether or not Somebody else is going to pay for that and it seems we're creating room for that third party, the liable party to argue, hey, that shouldn't have been done. It wasn't necessary. Now, well, that's that, that should have already been decided and resolved when the payment had occurred, so you're talking about past. I mean, and I think the the important word in here is past. We're talking about something that we can see on paper. This is what was, this is what was claimed, this is what was billed, but this is what was collected the insurance companies, all providers, and all payers always agree on what's necessary. Oh gosh, no. I mean, of course not. We've got to pay that. it and said it was necessary, but we got, we're asking somebody else now to pay for the same thing. They're gonna have a different interpretation. No, I disagree. I mean, I hear you. I disagree. I think I, I totally, I, I disagree. The word is in there based on what is actual billing practices and, and it doesn't have anything to do with uh what you're seeking stating and thank you, Madam President, I would feel better if it was used in other places, but this is the only place it's going to be if we pass this bill. Well, I would disagree. They, they're actually places all through our legislation as it relates to, to Medicaid, where it's medically necessary and EBD. We we use this term quite frequently. OK, thank you, but I appreciate the question. It's actually a very good point. OK. Any other questions for Sinder Urban. See no questions. Anyone wish to speak against the bill. I see Senator Stubblefield to speak against. Uh, you know, it's been mentioned that this bill was a simple bill and it appeared so on his face because it was just a couple of lines, but uh And a whole lot of ways it was simple, but it's not simple. Uh, in the fact that it helps the big insurance companies, but hurts the little guy when he has to fight them. If you watch some of the testimony, the two-hour testimony, are more than 2 hours yesterday. You heard some extraordinary stories about people who had been injured by someone else and who had to fight for their insurance and then the other person come around and they discounted their, her insurance, so she would have to pay for part of his his bill, and he was the one that caused the accident, so there's a whole lot of talk about of things of this bill that it doesn't deal with either. It doesn't deal with rural healthcare, doesn't deal with inflated hospital billing doesn't deal with lowering medical malpractice insurance. Uh, families already spent a huge portion of their monthly income on premiums. They're paying for Lord bill that their insurance company is supposed to negotiate for them when something Bad happens to them. That discount they prepaid with their premium should, shouldn't go to the guy who was at fault for injuring them or to the guy's insurance company. Right now under current law that that the benefit of that discounted amount belongs to the injured party because they paid for it and they are the victim. If we change this, Then the insurance company on the other side is going to get to use what the victim paid in to reduce what they pay out. That's as simple as I know how to put it, and that's the simple part of this bill. It's a pretty good deal for the insurance companies. Uh, collect and keep the premiums and now lower what they pay out. They say other states have done this, well, there has been a couple 2 or 3 other states on it. In fact, I spoke with one of the heads of one of the states the other day, Louisiana, he vetoed this bill. And you know why I vetoed it? He said, because it's gonna hurt my people. We're here to take care of, of the people that elected us. I've learned this over a long period of time. There's a whole lot more of those people than there are in insurance companies and, and rich people and logistics and all that, um, they say that Texas has done this, yet Texas insurance rates have continually went up. They're malpractice insurance rates have gone up. They continue to go up faster than almost any other state. There's a reason there's not a groundswell of hard working constituents here because most of them don't know about this. They, they haven't a clue about this. Um, and there's also a reason that room was full of trucking companies, insurance companies, Because there's a big reason that out of state insurance companies want this bill. Let's put our, let's put our constituents first. Let's put those people that voted us in the office and we represent, let's just put them first. Because they don't understand a lot of this. They're out working. And we're here to represent them. So I ask you for a no vote on this. Anyone wish to speak for the bill? I see Senator. Are you wanting to speak again, I, I see Senator Tucker, Senator Scott, and Senator Payton want to speak against. And ener Penzo. Senator Tucker, you're recognized, followed by Senator Scott, Senator Payton, and then Senator Pinto. And Senator Clark. Thank you, Madam President. Now I know I'm gonna Surprise everyone in here with this disclosure, but I'm a practicing attorney. So that's my disclosure to y'all today and to, to more fully disclose, I have handled personal injury cases in my career. Uh, I've actually defended more of those cases than I've been on the plaintiffs side for what it's worth. So in my view, that doesn't give me a bias. What it does give me is expertise and experience, and what that expertise and experience has taught me is that no one in this room, none of y'all want to trade places with an injured person, even with the the law the way it's written right now. I'm gonna talk a little bit about the way that this works. The first way is, and Senator Gilmore used the word in committee yesterday that I think is helpful, and that word is profit. Senator Irvin referenced the made whole doctrine. What the made whole doctrine means, which is the law right now is there's no way for an injured person to profit off of their injury. Once they have been made whole, if there's someone, their health insurance carrier or whoever the case might be. If there's someone who has overpaid them some amount then the extra amount goes back to the person who overpaid them. That's the way the law is written right now, so there is no profit to be made by getting injured. Now, the advocates for this bill will tell you that that money almost never goes back to the health insurance carrier, and that's true. The reason for that is because injured people are almost never made whole. Because there are costs that go along with filing one of these lawsuits. Now, I wish we lived in a world where when you're injured by someone else and it's their fault, they, they did the right thing every time, but that ain't the world that we live in, and people have to hire lawyers in order to pursue their claims, and those lawyers have to get paid. Those attorneys' fees are not reimbursable. That's just one big example of the type of costs that you can't recover. And which inhibit your ability to, to be made whole and to make sure you don't make a profit. Now I know attorneys' fees are part of the conversation in this. I just want to say, uh, Most of these cases are contingency fee cases, right? And you all know that means that the lawyer takes a percentage of the recovery. Couple of things. Number one, if you think lawyers get paid too much, that's not really what we're talking about, but by definition, if a lawyer's getting paid on a contingency, if their fee goes down, then the injured person's recovery goes down. By definition, and the reason why we have the contingency fee structure is because and the reason I say this is because I want y'all to think about who these lawyers represent. You think about the lawyers. I want you to think about who the lawyers represent. The reason why we have contingency fee cases is because people can't afford to pay out of pocket upfront. If they could, then they would, and this is the only way they get access to justice. Another way this works, Senator Irvin mentioned this. Medical expenses, right or wrong, this is just the way that it works in real life, right or wrong, medical expenses are really the baseline for the value of these cases, and they impact every other element of damages, particularly non-economic damages. Now Senator Ervin is right and that this bill doesn't directly affect those other elements of damages, and I know she believes and I trust her with. all my heart that this won't affect those other elements of damages, but I also trust with all my heart that in the real world out there, this is going to affect all the other categories of damage, including non-economic damages. So the vote that we cast today if this bill passes, it's going to lower the value not only of the medical expenses but of other categories of damages as well. Now, what we are hoping happens if we pass this bill is that costs will go down. Right? Uh, if, if you believe that costs are going to go down if we pass this bill. I got some things that I'd like to sell you when we go back into into room 309 or the quiet room when this debate is over. Just talk about that for a second. In Arkansas, I pulled these numbers from the Arkansas Insurance Department. Over the last 5 years, private pay passengers, insurance companies, profit. This is combined over a 5 year period, $3.5 billion. That's the difference between the revenue they collect from insurance premiums and the cost of the claims they pay out. Now Senator Deess made the point in committee yesterday that, you know, companies should be able to make a profit. Fair point. So let's look beyond just the raw number. That's a 49% profit, 49%. On private pay auto over the last 5 years. Pretty steep on the backs of the people of Arkansas. You go to commercial auto. The total number over a five-year period is just under 900 million. Profit margin on that 63%. 63%. And that's what we're talking about when we look at the macro of this, the costs of society are too high. It's indirect costs and we're really talking about insurance costs. So if you think that costs are gonna go down. It's like spitting in the ocean. What we're counting on in this bill is hope. We're gonna hope, I said this in committee, maybe this is a bad example. What we hope is if we pass this bill is that Ebenezer Scrooge is the same thing that happened to him after he saw the ghost of Christmas Future. That's what we're hoping on. And also just for the record, this law has been in place in Texas for over 20 years, right? Medical malpractice rates in Texas higher than they are in Arkansas. So Senator Irvin talked about the scales, so on the one side, that's who we have. These insurance companies on the other side we have people who have been injured through no fault of their own. And I want to talk for a moment about what a tort is because we talk about tort reform. I think it's important that what a tort is does not get lost in the discussion. In 100% of tort cases, not 80% or 95% or 99%, 100% of tort cases, someone was injured and someone else was at fault. If those things aren't true, there's no liability. And when we think about torts, a lot of times we think about the most common example is a negligence case, and the most common example of a negligence case is a car wreck. That's what we think of. But there are all kinds of tort cases. There are strict liability tort cases, most commonly with products liability. So you're in a car, you don't have a wreck, your car catches on fire because of a defect in the product. Your family's in the car, they're caught in a burning car. That's a tort. This bill applies to that claim. There are also intentional torts. A fancy name for kidnapping is false imprisonment. That's a tort that this bill applies to. Battery. I can beat someone with a baseball bat or shoot them. That's a tort. Now it creates criminal liability, but it also creates civil liability. This bill applies to that as much as it does to a car wreck. Child sexual abuse, that's a tort. This bill applies to that just as much as it does to a car wreck. So, On the one hand we have these Insurance companies or these big conglomerates, and on the other hand we have people in every case who have been injured and it's someone else's fault. Now you might there's an argument Senator Irvin's making an argument, and you may agree with her that the scales are currently in balance, but whether you believe that or not, there's no question that what we're doing is changing those scales. The ledger in this bill is moving in one direction only and it's moving away from the people who were injured through no fault of their own, and it's moving toward the people who injured them. And their insurance carriers. Now there are people outside this room right now who really want this bill to pass. They're doing their job. They're representing their industry. I've got no problem with what they do. They've got a job out there. We got a job in here. Our job in here is to sift through. Who we want to be winners and losers. On the bills that we pass. And On the one hand, you've got the insurance companies with the billions of dollars in profits and in the faint hope that something may happen if we pass this bill. And on the other hand, we have our constituents in every single one of our districts who have been injured through no fault of their own, and that's who I'm going with, so I'll be voting on. Thank you, Senator Tucker, anyone wish to speak for the bill. And then we have several. To recognize, to speak against anyone wish to speak for at this time. If not, Senator Scott. You're recognized. Colleagues, I rise today in firm opposition to House Bill. 1204. Not at a partisanship, not at a personal gain, but out of a deep and unwavering commitment to the people who sent me here, the everyday Arkansans who deserve justice, dignity, and fairness under the law. For 6 years, I was on the judiciary committee in the House of Representatives and I fought to reform, tort reform every year because I've seen firsthand who wins and who loses when we chip away at the rights of the people. For the favor of the powerful interest groups. I didn't run for office to protect the corporate bottom lines or to make it easier for businesses to avoid accountability. I ran for office to be the voice of my neighbors, of my constituents, of my veterans of the families who have loved and lost a loved one due to negligence and for the students who will inherit the state we shaped today by the decisions and the votes we cast. House Bill 12. for. It's not about fairness, it's about shifting the power away from the people and into the hands of those who already have enough. You just heard the margins from Senator Tucker. It limits the ability for Arkansans to seek justice when they've been wrong. It tells the workers who've lost a limb on their job that their suffering has a price tag and that is convenient for the company but it's not for Arkansans. It tells the grieving mother that no matter how gross the negligence, there's only so much accountability, we're willing to pay and allow for. It tells our most vulnerable that their pain is just the cost of doing business and that is not the Arkansas that I believe in and that is not the justice system that I swore to uphold. Let me be clear, Arkansas deserves better, and I will stand up for Arkansans even when it's not politically convenient. I am not beholden to any corporation and I will fight. Even though I'm in the super minority in this chamber, even when the odds are stacked against us. I will not stop raising my voice because our Kansans deserve a quality of life that is not dictated by corporate interests in the state. I urge you, do not turn your back on the people who trusted us to do what's right for them. Reject this effort to weaken their rights and limit their justice and silence their voices. We are elected to serve them and not corporate. interests and with this I ask you to please consider voting no on this bill. Thanks, Senator Scott. Anyone wish to speak for or on the bill. If not Senator Payton, you're recognized to speak against. Thank you, Madam President, colleagues, uh, you're gonna want to pay attention because I'm a say something really stupid down here. Uh, I've been down here a long time and like as I said a moment ago, maybe we should all be able to get a law degree after being here for a while, but uh The bottom line is, I, I don't want to be repetitive and I, I don't want to be redundant. We don't like to sit there and hear the same thing over and over again, and this may be really stupid, but this is what I see that is different from what has been in the conversation. I've become aware of this bill while it was still over on the House side because a couple of House members were asking me what I thought about it. I didn't hear from the lobbyists first. I got the bill, read it, it's short. I love short bills and I didn't understand a thing that I was reading. I have an attorney that done business with for 20 years. He's own retainer, takes care of business law. I sent it to him. He didn't. He read it at 9 o'clock at night and he replies to me and says, Well, I don't know exactly what it's doing. It's not taking a very big bite of the apple. It doesn't look like to me. The other thing is for 1012 years I've been down here, uh, if you said tort reform, I was automatic, yes. Uh, that's my default position for tort reform. And here's what I've learned. If I ask my constituents, do they like politicians? They hate politicians. But they're like me. And if you ask somebody, do you, do you like attorneys? They hate attorneys, but they like theirs, right? And regardless of what we do with this bill, There are attorneys on both sides. The businesses or whoever it is that that's liable has attorneys and, and the attorneys that are fighting for whoever was injured. Some of those attorneys are paid on a commission, some of them are on salary or own retainer. Is that what we should be looking at when we're, when we're trying to decide yes or no. So after listening to the committee on my computer rather than eating lunch, and I really appreciate those committee members that sat there and allowed this bill to continue for 3.5 hours and get it done, rather than putting it off. But anyway, I pulled up the bill and as you heard earlier in my question, I saw some word, a word that I didn't like being in there and I thought, well, if they took that word out, would I like the bill? Should I ask for an amendment? Because I really think we're creating more jobs for more attorneys, more hours for more attorneys when we put the word necessary in there and let them argue about what's necessary and what's not. I really believe we're gonna drive the cost up more than we drive it down because now those attorneys are going to have something new to argue about. But I couldn't vote for this bill even if you took the the word necessary out. I'm gonna tell you why. If you pull up your Lexus Nexus, this is 1664, 120. That's chapter and verse, OK? When I'm reading my Bible and I'm trying to figure out, I'm stumped on a verse. I'm trying to figure out exactly what it means or whatever God's saying, I have to back up and read a couple of verses in front of it and a couple of verses behind it. So that's what I did. I, I pulled up 1664, 120, which is the section. That this deals with and I was pleased it's one sentence. If you look at your bill, it's there. It's before we modify it, before we amend it. It says whenever damages are recoverable. The plaintiff may claim and recover any rated damages to which he or she may be entitled for the cause of action established. It says whenever damages are recoverable. It doesn't say medical damages. It doesn't say property damage or whatever. I mean, it's just lumps it all together, damages. You look at your bill and the paragraph we're adding is all about medical damages. And I thought, well, do we define the necessary? Do we define the medical damages, so I back up to verse 19, and you know what it says? It's all about how the jury's going to reach a verdict. The verdict has to be unanimous when they come back in and hand down their verdict. Either side can ask for the jury to be polled. They'll be asked right there in front of God and everybody. Do you vote yes or no on the verdict? Are you, are you in agreement with the verdict? And if it's not 100% unanimous, then it's it's not a verdict. Now here we are sitting in the legislature. And we're going to try to influence How that, how that, how that jury decides. You go to the verse just passed it, 121. Now it just got through saying any damages. And then in 121, it says when by the verdict. Either party is entitled to recover money of the adverse party, the jury in their verdict must assess damages. So the jury has to be unanimous, and it gives the duty of assessing damages to the jury. And I don't think as a legislator, I want to sit down here and throw a blanket over that. I want the jury to have the ability to look at each case on its merits and decide what they're going to award. They have to be unanimous. It's not arbitrary and I just don't think we should be weighing in on it. But if we do, We need to get that word necessary out of there so we don't create new grounds for new lawyers to make more money, arguing over what's necessary. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Yeah. Anyone, thanks Senator Payton, anyone wish to speak on or for the bill before we go to the next senator to speak against. Anyone would speak on for, not Senator Penzo, you're recognized to speak against. Thank you. I've got a, got a friend that's uh a bit of a character and he said, this is a real simple bill. But you need to, need to change the title. It's wrong. And I said, what's it need to be titled? He said, you need to change the title to the Insurance Enrichment Program. Cause that's exactly what House Bill 1204 is. I've had a lot of calls from constituents on this, and not a single constituent has called me and said, hey, I think it's a good idea that we take money out of the pockets. Of the insured parties and put them in the insurance companies' pockets. Because that's exactly what this bill does. The bill sponsor mentioned a couple of the associations that have supported this. Those those special interest groups do not represent our constituents. That's our job. We're here to take up for the people that don't have the millions of dollars to spend on lobbyists, marketing, we're here to take care of the people, the people that elected us. And put us down here to make the right decisions for them. A lot of people spoke before me and a lot of things were touched on. It's not going to lower insurance rates. Several states that have this have higher rates than we do. We've got a great economy in Arkansas. And I really think this is a bad piece of legislation and I won't go into too many details, Senator Tucker did a great job lining out that this will affect, you know, everybody rape victims, victims of human trafficking. Those are the people we need to stand up for. We've got we've got a choice here. On one side we've got corporations and on the other side, we've got our constituents, and I hope you will vote no and side with your constituents. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Penzo, Senator Clark. You're recognized to speak against. Oh, I'm sorry, Senator dismaying. OK. Thank you, Governor. Colleagues. No, this is a long debate. I hope you'll, sometimes it's a mistake to be at the end. I hope you'll hear me. I have learned to my dismay in my time chairing judiciary. That the courts are for the rich and big corporations. I'll be glad to debate anyone on that. I wish it weren't true. Being in the well today, I put a target on my back. Because of the industry that's within my district. The sponsors are sincere. They want to do something good. Those of you who uh who are supporting this or think you're supporting this. Our sincere and you think you're doing something good. And when we hear tort reform, Unlock Senator Scott, we jumped just like Central Payton said. We're, let's go. You know, in football, there's a reason we run reverses. And there's a reason we run screens because if the other side's over anxious. We trickle and we take advantage of them. I can't blame you for supporting the bill because I did not know how I was going to vote until well into the committee meeting yesterday. Lobbyists as especially as chair of the judiciary lined up to visit with me, and I listened to them all, but I just didn't want to think about it, you know, we've got so many things going on, and I knew that this was a much deeper thing than what's on the surface. I knew I would think about it. I knew that I would get into it and, and Uh give it everything that it deserved, but I just didn't want to. And so I'll listen to both sides and both sides made good points. But as a person who makes a living buying. I know it is as important to listen to what is not said. As to what is said. And I want to talk to you about some of the things that we did not hear. Because salesmen, if they've got something good, they're going to tell you about it. If they got a warranty, they're going to tell you about it. If they got a good record, they're going to tell you about it. If they've got facts, they're going to present them and when they don't, That raises questions. We heard that several states including Texas, have enacted legislation like this. Just as many have not. What we did not hear in 3.5 hours and what I did not hear in all the lobbying. is how this has caused any improvements in any of those states. Never heard it once. No report of any decrease in insurance rates, just the opposite. No report how it even mitigated a rate increase, you know how, although rates went up because I try to be fair, you know, even though rates went up, but this kind of helped them stay down. Didn't hear that. No reports that justice and tort suits was better. And these lawsuits and court cases, the goal is supposed to be to make the victim whole. As Senator Tucker brought out, if a jury awards more than the amount the judge. Uh, it's a, that makes the victim whole. The judge is supposed to cut that judgment. You know how many of those judgments have been cut? 0. So I would, well, we heard about medical malpractice and the belief that this will help. Thanks to Senator Tucker, we heard that medical malpractice is 0.45% of tort cases. That's less than 10%. What we didn't hear is how this in the states where this has been implemented that it mitigated the price of malpractice insurance one cent. It's gone up. We did hear when asked if this would lower insurance rates from the experts who I happen to like who were testifying for this. No. That was their answer. I can't tell you that insurance rates are going to go down. Victims don't want to sue. Why do people go to lawyers rather than accept the settlement they're offered. A lawyer in most cases is going to take a 3. Let me tell you, in retail that means you got to add 50% to what you were offered just to break even going to court, and you've been hurt. You've been damaged. You, you've been, you've been out of work. You don't wanna, you don't want any more emotional. Turmoil. You don't want to wait. You need the money. So you've got to expect that you're gonna get way more than 50%. More than what the insurance company was willing to offer you. you wouldn't do this. And if that wasn't the case, if that wasn't people's experience, they wouldn't continue to go to lawyers. These are victims or their lives have been great. They've been gravely injured and their life has been turned upside down. Many forever. Many don't get better. We can blame the trial lawyers. But let's pretend for just a moment there are no trial lawyers. Only the insurance company lawyers. You have a life-altering injury, you get offered pennies or dimes on the dollar for what you deserve and need and for what's happened in other cases just like yours, not one or two, hundreds, thousands. If there are no trial lawyers, you're in trouble. Cause you get what you get. But folks, the folks who instead of offering common folks a fair settlement. For the victims to pay someone else a third of what they should get in order to get a fair settlement. It doesn't appear that they are fair at all, and yet they ask for fairness. That's their whole argument, fairness. Well, let me give you an idea of a bill that would be fair. A bill that indexed the offers that insurance companies have to make to what, to actual settlements and actual court cases. And stood of lowballing, that'd be fair because most of y'all aren't here smart enough not to be lowballed, but how many people do you know that aren't. There aren't good business people. The proponents said that this bill only affects one silo of costs, just medical damages, but yet it came out. In testimony that in actuality, Um, usually in these cases, if it's, if it involves medical damages, the whole thing is decided on medical damages. There's a formula that's used. And so when we lower medical damages, we have lowered whatever victim gets, and if that's what you want to do. And the idea that this will lower insurance rates. Go ahead. I've already covered that maybe the victims are receiving too much. But not only has the judge not ruled that somebody was more than made whole. Here's what we didn't hear. Not one case was presented from any state showing how the victim got a ridiculous amount of compensation. Not a graph showing thousands or hundreds or even dozens, not 20, not 10, not 1. You want to convince me, show me. Help those of us paying insurance rates are suffering because These are settling way too high. It wasn't done. No facts, no statistics, no results, just leading us around with blind philosophy that we ought to be more fair. But when we offer settlements, at least according to what the victim finally gets, 2/3 of what When the dust settles, wasn't fair at all. Oh well. I'm not even gonna ask you to vote no. If you simply have not had the time and thought to really get down to the real truth. Just vote present. Just say you might have a good idea, but Senator Clark raised some good questions, and I'm not quite convinced yet. Come convince me. Trust me, if this doesn't pass, we'll see some version of it again. Thank you Thanks, Senator Clark, recognized to speak for Senator Dismay. Thank you, Governor. I would agree uh with some of the discussion. I think we're trying to say to me something that is fairly simple and making it very complicated, and I do think that there has been a practice of utilizing the inflated number, the number that's not actually been paid for medical care and part of the overall equation, and maybe that shouldn't be the practice, and that's probably where Senator Clark and I would probably disagree, which is perfectly fine. But to me, the simple way to understand it is through an analogy and that, and so I'll just take Senator Payton, OK? You sell used cars, there's a price tag on that car. It may be $100. Someone comes in to the negotiation, whatever it may be, and they end up paying $60 for that car. Right? If, if something goes wrong or whatever it may be, would you pay them $100 back? No The value of that car is set at $60 not the $100 that was the price tag, but the $60 that was truly paid for that car. To me that's the conversation that we're having. I don't think it's a whole lot more complicated than that. All of these other issues can still be reconciled to be able to make that individual whole. It doesn't prevent that. I think if I'm understanding Senator Clark's discussion, right? It's just been historically that this number, this number that's not been actually paid but billed. Y'all look at all your insurance or your medical bills, you'll see it. This amount that's actually been, you know, at the top but not paid has been utilized as one of the components and multipliers for the other factors. And with that again, I don't think this is an overly complicated subject. I understand the discussion. I understand there's angst about doing something different. And and for that I appreciate a good vote. Senator dismaying anyone else wish to speak on or against, against Senator Bryant, you're recognized. Thank you, Governor. I would like to just echo what Senator Payton said. When somebody asked me about tort, my ears perk up. I'm, I'm listening and whenever I was asked for this, and I said I'm struggling with it. The answer was much surprise to those that know how they think I would vote. But one thing that came out of testimony yesterday in the Judiciary was the thought about common law. And that this goes back to settled common law of 1854 when I looked it up. So that's how our state has been operating on this understanding, on this principle. So I consider that if not a cornerstone of what we do and how we set policy and how we encourage industries to set rates, but definitely a foundational piece of that. And so while I'm all for looking at addressing tour, we have built our house on collateral source. Built it. We've allowed industries to negotiate to change structures all upon what we have laid as subtle wall through common law of the foundation. So ask yourself what happens whenever you remove the foundation of your house. Things start to collapse, crumble. If you set up the house knowing this is coming and anticipating it's going to happen, you've probably changed how you strategize and how you're structured, and I believe that's what's been done and that's what's being asked of us. So while all the debates for and against are excellent, and I think we need to continue the debates. I think this language goes too far. I'd appreciate a no vote. Thanks. Thank Senator Bryant. Anyone else wish to speak on or for? Anyone wished to speak against. Send Irvin, you're recognized clothes. Thank you. I appreciate all of the debate on this issue. Um, I think I agree, it is based, we need to, we need to think about the reality we live in. I think that's what Senator Tucker said. The reality we live in, reality we live in can't just ignore. These contracts and these rates that are negotiated. You can't just ignore. The example that Senator Desma gave, the one that I gave in committee. If I go to Walmart and buy a $100 sweater or Dillard's and buy a $100 sweater, and it's on sale for $50 and I only pay $50. I don't get to go back to Dillard's and say, hey, I bought it for 50, but you need to give me 100. That's not fair. It's not reasonable, and I would argue, That yes, we had this foundational principle in place, and the scales are unbalanced because that added weight is now here based on the 1998 court decision. That's what we're trying to rebalance, so we started a fair and balanced position in weighing the evidence. One of the attorneys yesterday said, we need to base it on data and information that we can see and trust. I 100% agree they spoke against the bill, but I agreed. The data and information that I can see and trust is, here's the receipt, here's what was paid and so here is what you should be able to recover. As for unnecessary, necessary, that is current law. It's in the Supreme Court rules of what you're paying for is necessary. Why would you reimburse for something that's unnecessary. That's in Arkansas Supreme Court law. That's why those words are this bill. This bill is very it is very simple and it is very easy to read, and it is not about all the arguments that have been put forward. It really is about exactly Recovering only those costs actually paid by or on behalf. Of the plaintiff or that remain unpaid and for which the plaintiff or any third party is legally responsible. That is super simple and easy to read and understand, and that is all we're doing here today. None of those other categories are Impacted by this legislation. You can seek and recover damages for pain and suffering. You can seek and recover damages for non-economic damages, lost wages, past and future, property damages, future medical costs as established by trial. Go after it. Great. Let's do that. And I would argue actually that if you actually decide and vote for this bill to create this fairness and this balance. Of what was actually rendered and actually paid that it would actually maybe increase those other categories. You don't know, juries wrangle with this every single day and every case is different. What we're asking here today is the principle that the people I know I represent understand of what I paid for something is only what I should be able to recover. That is an easy, easy, simple principle. of fairness and balance, which is what our justice system is supposed to be about and what it was founded on. And with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you for the time. I appreciate your consideration. Senator has closed, Madam Secretary, please call the roll. I would remind members to please speak loudly and clearly. We have Paris at the desk, seem to flippo, yes, Centra Sullivan, no. Senator Hill, yes, Center King, no. Boy Brant. Caldwell. Clark, Crowe, Davis. These. This man. Dotson? English. Flippo, yes. Flowers? Gilmore. Hammer. Hester. Hickey. Hell, yes. Irving Like Johnson Mark Johnson. King, no. Laing. Love McKee. Murdoch. Hayan. Penzo. Patty Patty Rice. Rice? Scott Stone. Stabil. Sullivan, no. Tucker. Wallace. Any senator who did not vote, wished to vote, or who wished to change your vote. Senator Rice, no. Any other senator, please check the board. Senator Petty, yes. Any other senator. We should change your vote, seeing no other please cast up the ballot. By a vote of 1817 nay House Bill 1204 passes, please return to the house. I Senators, we will now take up the budget calendar, Senator dismaying. Right Oh, I'm sorry, Senator Bryant. You're recognized. Thank you, Governor. Members on your desk, there's a budget calendar. She'll pull it out, I'm gonna go through each one of these. I ask that you, if you have uh if you want a separate vote or have questions, we'll pull it out of the batch. The, these are all the House bills, the majority of them are appropriations for colleges, the two that stand out is House Bill 1128 for appropriation of leg audits to have extra help for the rest of this fiscal year and House Bill 1153 is appropriate for the boards and promotions for the Department of Agriculture. So going through these, please just let me know if you want to pull these out. I 11:28. Hospital 1153. House Bill 1225. Is 1226. Hospital 1227. House Bill 1228. House Bill 1229. Is 12:30. 1231. Hospital 1233. 1234 1247. 12:48. 1249. 1260. 1261. 1264. In 1266. Is there any member that wants to take any of these out of the batch. See, Madam Secretary. Secretary, please roll the boat. OK. 1228. A joint budget, an act for the Arkansas Legislative audit of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee supplemental appropriation. House for 1153 by joint budget, an act for the Department of Agriculture Promotion Board's appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. 1225 by joint budget and act for the Black River Technical College Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. 1226 my joint budget and Act for the Arkansas State University Mountain Home Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House Bill. 1227 by joint budget and act for the University of Arkansas Pullaki Technical College Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 your house Bill 1228 by joint budget, and I for the Northwest Arkansas Community College appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House Bill 1229 by joint budget and I for the Ozarka College Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. 12:30 by joint budget, and I for the North Arkansas Community Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House 1231 by joint budget, and I for the Phillips County Community College of the University of Arkansas Preparation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. Haville 1233, but you want budget and act for the Arkansas Northeastern College Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House for 1234 by joint budget, and I for the University of Arkansas Community College at Pope, Texarkana Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House full 1247 by joint budget, and I for the Casta Community College at the University of Arkansas Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House 1248 by joint budget and act for the Arkansas State University, Mid-South Appropriation for the 2025, 202. 6 this year. has 1249 by joint budget, an act for the National Park College Corporation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. Has 1260 by joint budget and Act for the Southern Arkansas University Appropriation for the for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. Household 1261 by joint budget and act for the Arkansas Tech University Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year, has for 1264. budget and act for the University of Arkansas-Fort Smith Corporation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. House 1266 by joint legend, and I for the Henderson State University Appropriation for the 2025, 2026 fiscal year. Thank you, Madam Secretary. That opposition, Madam Secretary, please roll the boat. Boyd Brandt Caldwell, Clark, Kroll, Davis, Des, Dismay, Dotson English flippo flowers, Gilmore, Hammer, Hester, Hickey, Hill, Irvin, Blake Johnson, Mark Johnson. King letting love McKee Murdoch, Peyton, Pennzo, Petty, rice, Scott Stonefield Sullivan Tucker Wallace. Any senator wish to change his or her vote, Senator King, not voting. Any other senator. Seeing no one please cast up the ballot. By a vote of 32 yeah, zero nay, 1 not voting, the batch of budget bills passed and the corresponding emergency clauses are adopted. Are there items at the desk? Oh, return to the house, budget bills, Madam Secretary, are there items at the desk? Yes, Cen Bill 207 by Senator Hammer to amend the law concerning initiative and referendum petitions to require a canvasser to disclose that petition, uh, fraud is a class A misdemeanor and declare an emergency Senate Bill 207. State agencies by Senator Hammer to amend the law concerning initiative and referendum petitions to view a canvasser to request photo identification before obtaining a signature and clear an emergency symbol. 208 State agencies symbol 209 by Hammer. To disqualify signatures obtained by a canvasser under certain circumstances and declare an emergency 209. State agencies 210 by Senator Hammer to require the signer to read the ballot title of the petition in the presence of a canvasser and declare an emergency, send Bill 210. State agencies 211 by Senator Hammer to amend the law concerning initiative petitions and referendum petitions to require a canvasser to submit an affidavit before signatures can be counted and declare an emergency 211. State agencies 12 by Senator Hammer to create the document validity, division, and declare an emergency symbol of 212. State agencies. Senate Resolution 12 by Senator Gilmore. Come in retired member of the board of directors of the Arkansas Rural Endowment Fund incorporated. Chris Lamkin, and to approve and confirm the appointment to the board of the Honorable S. Reed Herod Junior. Senate Resolution 12. calendar Any announcements. Senator Caldwell, you're recognized. Thank you Madam President. Senate Agri we'll meet 5 minutes upon the adjournment in room 309. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you Madam Chair, I want to remind you that the Arkansas treasurers are providing lunch today at the Arkansas Association of Counties, so before you leave town run by and grab dinner down there with your treasurer. Yeah. Senator Hester, you're recognized 130 on Monday. Sender Flippo, you're recognized. Thank you, Governor, members of state agencies, we are meeting in the old Supreme Court 10 minutes upon adjournment. Oh You Senator Penzo, you're recognized. Uh, Alzheimer's Awareness Day is Tuesday, February 11th, uh, wear your purple. Thank you, Senator Penzo. Any other announcements, senators, if you see some young kids for uh Senator Murdoch and I have some folks from the Marion School District here today. They couldn't make it to the the gallery in time, but if you see some young people, please say hi, Mr. Sean Gray is. With the Herbert Carter Global Community magnet Elementary student Lighthouse team from the Marion School District, and they're here in the Capitol today, so make them feel welcome if you see them. With that, the Senate will stand an adjournment subject to the clearing of the desk until February 10, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. like