State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs- House

present. SB 3. Chairman and committee, thank you so much for allowing me to be here today to present a very important bill and I just want to uh tell you that Senator Sullivan is sick with the flu and he cannot join us today, so you are stuck with me. All right, let's begin with SB 3. In the early 1960s, President Lyndon Johnson with most of his supreme, with most of his support coming from Republicans passed the Civil Rights Act. That law reversed years of mandated discrimination. Johnson at that time recognized two distinct populations in America, black and white, and as a provisional remedy, Johnson signed a very limited executive order to affirmatively assist minors as they seek to enroll in higher education and to obtain employment. That's the beginning of affirmative action. I think that we would all agree that was a very good move at the time, the 1960s. Now, 60 years later, we're drama dramatically different than we were at that time frame. While we do have pockets of racism remaining in our nation. The notion that America is a racist country is simply false. For those specific instances of hatred that persist, we have powerful state and federal anti-discrimination laws that this law does not stop. It's time for us to look and to move forward. As you all know, the Supreme Court has aptly declared affirmative action is illegal and higher education, and on January 21st of 2025, President Trump rescinded Johnson's abused executive order because that executive order was limited and it was very much abused across our nation. I'm gonna read parts of President Trump's executive order. And this is from January 21st, 2025. The purpose of Section 1 longstanding federal civil rights laws protect individual Americans from discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. These civil rights protections serve as a bedrock supporting equality of opportunity for all Americans. As president, I have solemnly solemn duty to ensure that these laws are enforced for the benefit of all Americans. Yet today, roughly 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critical and influential institutions of American society, including the federal government, major corporations, financial institutions. The medical industry, large commercial airlines, law enforcement agencies and institutions of higher education have adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning and immoral race and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called diversity, equity and inclusion. These, these diversity, equity inclusion and accessibilities that violate the civil rights laws of this nation. These illegal policies also threaten the safety of American men, women, and children across the nation by diminishing. The importance of individual merit, aptitude, hard work and determination when selecting people for jobs and services in key sectors of American society, including all levels of government and the medical aviation and law enforcement communities, yet in case after tragic case, the American people have witnessed firsthand the disastrous consequences of illegal, pernicious discrimination that has prioritized how people were born instead of what they're capable of doing. The federal government is charged with enforcing our civil rights laws. The purpose of this order is to ensure that it does so by ending illegal preferences and discrimination. It is the policy of the United States to protect civil rights of all Americans and to promote individual initiative, excellence and hard work. That's the present has ended. Affirmative action in the United States of America. At this time for Arkansas to move forward. It's our time for Arkansas to catch up with the law and to eliminate state sanctions, discrimination, and preferential treatment, and that is exactly what SB 3 does. So if you guys will take a minute and pull out the bill, I'm gonna go through the bill. It's a very important bill. I want us to take the time to go through exactly what the bill says after reading the bill, I think you will all agree that, you know, our the Declaration of Independence in the United States, United States of America, all people are treated equally, all people are treated equally and so that's what we need to return to. We need to focus on those and critical needs areas and that's what I love the most about this bill is that we're focusing on critical needs areas, no matter what the color, the race or the sex of that person, we want to make sure that all critical needs are covered and that's what the bill focuses on critical needs in our state, and I would say it does not end any program. It expands every program to make sure all those that are critical in these areas can be addressed. So we'll start out just with the first, I'll read the very beginning of section one. The intent of this legislation is that the General Assembly intends for this act to prohibit discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. The General Assembly does not intend for the act to affect any preferences provided to veterans under the law based on their status as a veteran. So it's very important that last time when we ran this bill, we did not have that in there, so make sure that veterans are not covered or not, not affected by this bill. OK, so if we look there, um, the rest of sections 2 and 3 were really just getting rid of equity and replacing it with equality, again, in the United States of America and now in the state of Arkansas, we treat people equally, everybody treated equally. So as you can see, civil rights has crossed out and it's replaced with desegregation and non-discrimination throughout that section. OK, uh, section 4, we're just crossing out again. Anything that was with affirmative action and treating people unequally, that's what gets rid of in section 3, Section 4 and 5 throughout there. We're just removing affirmative action in Arkansas. Section 6, it gets rid of the Arkansas Higher Education Annual Report. Section 7 gets rid of the higher education minority retention program. Section 8 removes affirmative action programs. Now under section 9. Again, we have replaced minority with critical needs. I know that in my district alone I have high areas of Hispanics, uh, black students, um, all race of students, white students that are really in critical needs areas that need special help and so we're replacing that with critical needs so we can focus our attention, the state of Arkansas where it needs to be on critical needs. Same with Section 11 and growing through there. So I wanted, uh, on page 11. We'll look at section 21. Prohibitation of discrimination or preferential treatment by state ent entities as used in this section, state means the state of Arkansas, a city, a county, or an institution of higher education, a public school district, a public school district, a special public special school district, sorry, or political subdivision or governmental instrument of the state. The state shall not discriminate against a grant preferential treatment to an individual or a group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin and matters of state employment, public education. Interstate procurement. This section of this section applies only to an action taken after the effective date of this act. So it does not go backwards, it just goes forward. It moves Arkansas forward. So again, it's really important. This section does not this again on page 11. This section does not prohibit this consideration by the state of bona fide qualifications based on sex that are reasonable and necessary to the normal function of state employment, public education, or state procurement. Number 2, this section does not invalidate a court order or consent decree that is that is enforced as of the effective date of this act. And this section does not prohibit an action necessary to establish or maintain. eligibility for federal program if ineligibility would determine, would demonstrably result in a loss of federal funds to the state. Again, any affect, any preference given to veterans in matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement or preempt the state discrimination law or federal discrimination law. And then very importantly, if a person believes his or her rights have been impacted under this section, they may bring a civil cause of action at circuit court to enjoin a violation of this section, recover reasonable court costs and attorneys' fees, and an action brought against this section of the court finds that a violation occurred, the court shall award an injective relief and court costs. So, that pretty much goes over and the rest of us just uh making sure that our state agencies report to this body and how they're complying with this law. OK, Friends that pretty much goes over the law, and I will take questions from members of the committee. Thank you, Representative Bentley. Representative Bentley has explained her bill. Are there any questions by the committee, Representative Enne, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Chairman Gassway. Representative Bentley, I've sat through the Senate committee, and I also washed the, um, debate on the Senate floor and I just listened to your presentation. And I did not hear any type of statistical information showing that this is harmful, that this harmfully impacts our Kansans here. Can you speak to that? This is strictly a line up with federal, uh, what's going on on the federal level and we get rid of affirmative action, I can go, I know uh ambulancess of people across my district have reported that they have been negatively impacted um by our current laws that we have in place with. and school enrollment, scholarships, uh, multiple things over the years that I've been in here. I have uh my constituents are firmly in favor of SB 3, OK. Um, she can have leeway, can I ask another question? Of course, go ahead. OK, um, so I know, um, maternal maternal mortality is your, uh, one of the things that you're working on here in Arkansas, um, African American women in Arkansas are faced or disproportionately, um, our numbers are higher, um, if this, if this bill goes, sorry, if this bill goes into effect, how would this, uh Um, help efforts in solving the maternal mortality issue with African Americans here in Arkansas. Well, I think this bill again it focuses on critical needs, but I'm having a bill on the House floor today that will help uh get certified nurse midwives in our state. Arkansas has been the most restrictive state in the nation for certified nurse midwives. We have not allowed certified nurse midwives to practice and the states across the nation where they have a high rates of uh minorities that are struggling with maternal mortality, they have implemented certified nurse midwives and seen a huge traumatic uh effect so a positive effect. That's one of the biggest things that I've seen. So I have been to numerous conferences to see what can we do with maternal health here in Arkansas, and we are moving in the right direction. I think I'm very excited about the things that we're doing in this session. So that bill on the House floor will greatly affect uh that. So again, we're focusing on where our critical needs in the state regardless of someone's color or their race. We want to make sure that we get critical need areas. dress and I have a um one of the biggest awards I got was my uh from the maternal Health commission for being a legislative award. I have worked guilty to make sure that we address those needs across our state, and we want to focus and I think we will be able to focus those areas of critical need wherever they are in the state. Thank you. Representative Bennett, do you have more questions? OK. All right. Representative Cloudy, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Bentley, you mentioned, I think it was when you were reading the statement at the beginning that programs um like the ones that you're seeking to eliminate. Um, work against the values of hard work, determination, those kinds of things. I'm sorry, I'm, I'm probably butchering the quote, but I think you know what I'm referring to. I guess my question is, could you say a little bit more about how retention and recruitment programs that are aimed to help traditionally underrepresented populations, particularly when we are looking to mirror the populations that they serve, say, in a school district. How do those programs undermine hard work. I think every child in Arkansas deserves the best and the brightest, and we need to base things on merit. I want the best person there for those kids. It shouldn't matter with the color of their skin or what should matter is that they're getting the best and the brightest in those positions and we're addressing those areas of critical need. I think that we've seen that on a national level what the president was talking about was the recent crash we had of the helicopter pilot that was not trained and should not have been flying as she was there. I mean that's all under investigation now, but we need the best and the brightest. We don't need someone based on what the color of their skin are. Every child in Arkansas should have the best they can get for a teacher that's in their environment, and I think uh that's what it's based on. We want it all based on merit and on hard work and those, that's what those kids need to see. Thank you, and I certainly agree that all of Arkansas's kids deserve the best and the brightest. I'm thinking of school districts like ours in Northwest Arkansas, where there may be a need for, say, something like a Marshal's liaison or a Latino liaison between students and faculty, between families and staff and teachers. Um, when we are looking at creating a pool of folks who are going to be best at that job when we are looking at doing recruiting for those jobs. I'm having a very hard time understanding how recruiting based on, uh, you know, in those instances if we wanted to base it on national origin as something that would be helpful, right? We want to create a pool of folks who are going to be able to do this work. I just don't understand why that undermines hard work and it actually seems like we are going into communities and encouraging hard work. We are asking folks um to step up and do these roles, and I guess My, my fear is, um, there are certain jobs where I believe that in fact, national origin, for instance, is critical to your ability to do the job we are with this bill undermining school districts' potential to even consider that or to give anybody preferential treatment based on what I think would be considered a critical component of their ability to do that job, and I guess that's kind of my, uh, my question for you is how do retention efforts that are based on specific things like that. undermine hard work. I think again, I'm gonna go back to the statement that our kids need the best and the brightest. If there's a person that's qualified that is able to uh translate why would we color with care what color their skin is. We want the people that can translate and reach those children the best. I think we're, uh, we want the best and I'm just referring back to that. I think, you know, this is not something new. I, our nation has been a nation of immigrants from its beginning. I look back at the um what was done to the Irish folks back in New York City. I, I hope, I hope that all of you have seen the movie Cabrini and talk about what they did with the kids back there and the kids that were mistreated, and we've had this across our nation. We want the best and the brightest. I don't care what somebody's skin color is or where they come from or where they're born. Our kids deserve the best and if that person can translate, I think that's what the school can look at. It's not undermine anybody if they're doing a great job, they can be hard, and that's what it's about. And this is the United States of America, everybody should be treated equally, and that's what I want us to do. Thank you. And I certainly agree with that, I guess, um sort of switching, switching to uh maybe gender as a different example. Can you just explain how you see this bill impacting gender-specific programs. I'm thinking about things like Girls on the Run or My Girls Do A Girls in STEM program at their school. Um, how do you see this, providing those programs I think is ipso facto giving preferential treatment based on gender. How are those programs going to be impacted moving forward? If this bill goes through. I don't see the impacting things that we're doing with the girls in STEM. I think that we can still continue to do that. We're not stopping girls sports, but we're not, this bill doesn't stop girls sports. It doesn't stop things that we're doing there. And I can tell you, I think the best thing to do differentiate that was our former colleague Deborah Ferguson. I'm sure you remember her speech on the House floor, which is actually opposing this bill, but she said when she was at the same age as I was back in the early 1980s when she went to dental school, there were 5 girls in her class. Now, last year there was 50% of them were girls. So I think we've seen a great a woman moving forward and I think again it's we're all on equal plan base. We don't need anybody to be the victim. We only need to strive and to work hard and as a woman of of of my own business, I can understand it, you know, it's tough, but I have worked hard. I worked hard and we can all, we have a place that we're gonna reach out and read those critical needs area for all focusing on more critical needs areas are, we can bring all of our state up and that's what I want to do. Just one last question, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Um, one last question and then I will uh see to somebody else, but, um, I think everybody at this table appreciates the value of hard work. We wouldn't be here if we didn't do it and appreciate it, um, but, but I also think we all at this table can appreciate the value of having programs that are aimed towards specifically our young girls. I know that there are really important programs right now that are looking at getting girls more involved in science fields, technology fields, um, start, you know, maybe thinking about starting entrepreneurship skills at a young age. Girls on the Run isn't a sport, it's technically considered a club. I appreciate what you're saying, but I just want to go back to the language. of the bill. That is providing those resources for clubs like that, for groups like that is Preferential treatment based on gender, can you point me to somewhere in this bill. It shows me that that would give me some confidence that those types of groups would be allowed to continue to exist. I would say that the women in in that area need to rise up and give some money and help donate if it's important cause for a club, then we'll reach out to some um very substantial women in your area, let them be mentors and let them donate to the club. I think we look for the government for the answer for everything, and it's not. We need women to rise up and be mentors and to be mentors for those young girls. I mean, I would just uh start a program in Mayflower we're reaching out to women and to come and to be mentors and to be moms in the school, and we reach out and bring our community and let that be the answer. Nothing in this bill would stop that. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. OK. All right. Representative Collins, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, you, you talked about wanting the best and the brightest to, to do things in our society, and I think we agree with that. I think most everybody agrees with that, that merit should be the priority. What about opportunity though, because I mean, it's very clear and I don't think that you would disagree with this, although if you do, please let me know, um, that there are some people who are represented traditionally or otherwise in certain fields and in certain places and, and they don't have the opportunity oftentimes to show their merit. I, for example, women in engineering, they're traditionally underrepresented there. So if we get rid of scholarship programs that are support women in engineering, then someone, a woman who is very bright, is very able, has merit, might not ever have the opportunity to show that merit and demonstrate that in the field of engineering, and I think a lot of these programs that we're talking about simply doing away with are designed to increase. opportunity and then they would have the opportunity to show that they have merit and continue in their career and demonstrate that accordingly. So what do you think about that argument that in fact this is not supporting merit and this is anti-merit to take away these opportunities for people traditionally underrepresented. I think we have a female governor for the first time ever in this state, that shows that women are moving forward and women don't need preferential treatment. I'm sorry, I, I find that very insulting. I apologize. OK. Why do you think that the governor talks about being the first woman governor. Why do you think that matters, or do you think that matters? I think it's great. I think it's, I think it's, I'm very excited that I'm was the first woman ever elected in my district. I was the first Republican woman ever elected in my district. I think it's great. I don't know very many of the business owners in my state or in my district, but you know what I do? I reach out, I help young girls, I encourage young girls to be a page here all the day, that's reaching out and being mentors and reaching out and doing things. It's not always the government program. To fix things is as to reaching out as a community and being mentors and reaching out to women in our area. So I, I again, we want the best and the brightest and strong women can do great things, and that's what I'm telling you. We're in a day and age where companies are are looking and wanting women, not just because they're women, because they're, they see the value that women bring in a business. Women have a different perspective. Women bring great value, and we don't need to be victims and we don't need preferential treatment to get where we need to be. I think it's great too. I think it's great that you were the first representative who was a woman from your district, and I think it's great that the governors First woman governor, but I also think it makes my point is that they have been traditionally, women have been traditionally underrepresented in a great many areas over the years, and it is difficult, and I don't think that a program like this that encourages opportunity, it's something that we should reject. I don't think it's something that we should pretend it's not an issue. There are people underrepresented from different minority groups, including women in many different fields, and, and I just think that your experience in the governor. experience just drives home that point. I would agree to disagree with you. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw, did you have a question? OK. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So as Representative Ray reminded all of us yesterday, read the bill. I have read the bill in the past, looked over it, you know, because I was asking you some questions about it, so you know that this is not my first look at it today, but at 4 o'clock this morning I was up and I was reading it again and I was noticing. Um, on page 3. Um, it makes reference to this. Teacher and administrator, recruitment and retention plan, and it said that there's a report due by August of 22 and I went, oh. OK, that must mean that we must have been in this recently, um, by law, you know, in a previous session because we've updated it. So I went back and I found, sure enough, act uh 6:46 of 2021, it was a bill that was brought by Senator Sturch and Representative Vaut. And um. It passed the. Senate 34 votes in the House, 85 votes. So I voted for this bill and this language that that is being completely stricken out in page 34, and 5 back in 2021. So I went, OK, what were we doing back then and then what, what are we trying to do now and what has changed so I've gone on record back in 2021 that I support this language. So help me and other legislators. Understand. Maybe some other things that have happened since 2021, maybe even a Supreme Court decision that Helps us move the bar from where we stood in 2021 to now. Um, help, help us get there. I, I, I, I'm, I'm looking for some, some support and some help in getting from 2021 to now. I I'm sorry, I don't have that information for you Senator Sullivan is sick in bed, or maybe he would be able to help us with that, but I don't, I can get it back with you before we vote on the floor, but I don't have an answer to that question. I know that we're, uh, and I have not heard any objections from this from Secretary Lee and I'm sure if there was an issue that he would have reached out to me to make sure that I knew that there was an issue, but obviously there's not an issue. there. I've not heard any issue from the governor's office on this, so obviously there's not an issue at this point, so I'm sure you can reach out to them and verify that. OK. I, I just was looking at it. It's a lot of reporting. It's not so much the You know, you're going to hire this person over this person in that language. It's, it's a lot of reporting from the school districts and, and the, the universities. And so I was just kind of wondering maybe um we've heard that uh this reporting is very cumbersome. Um, it refers to hiring a part-time to a full-time person in that language and, you know, maybe this helps save some, some money, maybe that money could be used to do something else, um, you know, I is it, is it a cumbersome thing, um, the reporting. I'm sure that it is, but I would have to reach out to Secretary Lee, bring it back with you to verify that because I've not talked to him specifically, so I would not want to put any words in his mouth, but I know that uh All the legislation that I've passed for farm to school and for local food spill has been a very cumbersome report and we're trying to make that simplified so it very well could be that it's been um unnecessary, so a heavy burden for our districts, but I'm not gonna say that without talking to him specifically, and I apologize if I'd had time enough, I would have definitely reached out to him this morning, but I wasn't given that chance. I, I, I'm, I'm sorry again, this kind of all happened this morning. I was trying to gather my information as well, but if I had just had a phone call at 8 o'clock this morning, I could have had an answer for you, but I don't. Thank you. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Representative Ben Lee, I'm sitting here and kind of look retarded with two of these iPads, but I was trying to see from the bill last session to the bill this session, what was the big differences. Can you walk me through? The difference is because the bills are not similar at all to what I can see. So can you walk me through what this bill does different than the bill that was proposed 2 years ago. I cannot. You cannot. I, I was not the lead sponsor when Senator Selvin brought that before, that was Representative Gonzalez and it's been 2 years and I've not looked at the last bill. I have studied the bill that I'm presenting to you today. I do know that we're making sure that veterans are not included in this because we did, that was an issue by veterans and they were included last time and also there was a criminal penalty in that criminal penalty was taken. this based on some issues that Senator Hager brought to me, and I made that amendment before we brought the bill to you today, but I apologize, I was not the lead sponsor on it, uh, representing the world also I cannot tell you. I've just studied SB 3, so I'd be prepared for today. I'm sorry. So if you follow me in your bill to page 12, Mr. Chair, if I could have some latitude. You're recognized, of course. Line 15. It goes into injunctive relief and it talks about the court costs and attorney fees. And if you can kind of explain to me what line 17 through 19 actually means, it's as if the court may not award court costs, then are you saying that they can go to the claims commission to get their attorney fees back if they lose or what, what does that mean? That, that section doesn't mean they're going to get awarded or anything, but they may go to. That's, that's how I read it. I'm not a lawyer, so I will let some lawyers to to verify that again, I'm not a lawyer, but it says to me again, you know, once people go, it doesn't mean they get awarded, they can probably go before the claims commission. Because the state agency, so that, that's how I read it and that's how we adjusted it in this representative Wardlaw. I just, I'm trying to understand why the importance of putting that in the bill. Can you walk me through where that came from? Maybe people's concerns that the state agencies immune and they'll make sure that people can get uh injunctive relief from, from the state. Again, I'm, I'm guessing because I'm not a lawyer, but that's how I read it. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative Bentley, I guess my question sort of piggybacks on some of the things that um Representative Mayberry was alluding to a lot of the sections of this bill are just repealing various reporting requirements of some kind, um, you know, Section 5, for example, was the one she referenced regarding teacher uh teacher and administrative recruitment and retention. I would imagine that most school districts want to recruit teachers and retain teachers regardless of what race they are, right? They're looking for the best qualified teachers. A lot of these um sections that are being repealed say, you know, The the district shall prepare a report. Does repealing the requirement, is there anything that would prevent them from Continuing to develop a recruiting and retention report for our plan for all of their employees. Absolutely not, that you and I have been in uh meetings together with our superintendents in small districts that are really struggling to recruit and retain as always. I don't think we have attended a meeting with the superintendent's not talked about that and what they're doing is how what they're doing is retaining folks, all right? So we've got some schools that I went to 4 day school district, a 4-day week, and that's really helped them with retention plans, so they're They're looking at years ahead and what the retention is going to be and how they're going to keep people there because they know they're retaining good teachers is vitally important for the education of their students. So I would say this precludes them, not at all. It may remove some cumbersome reports so they can spend their time actually recruiting, I would say that. OK, thank you. Representative Hawk, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Representative Bentley, I'm gonna take you to page 9, line 23. And it's regarding the uh University of Arkansas Pine Bluff and the division of Higher Education shall jointly promulgate rules necessary for the proper administration of the critical needs that takes out the minority teacher scholarship program. I guess my question is I've heard from testimony today that we are not eliminating scholarships, but we're using it for critical needs, so you can tell me that we the the rules are still going to be promulgated. This, this scholarship is still going to be intact. There's still going to be a committee in place to be able to assign The scholarship, you're just changing the title of the scholarship. OK, thank you. And I think it's vitally important that we help those critical need areas. I think all of us want to bodily effect and use to take our money and use it wisely and effectively. That's very, I think our constituents expect us to make use of our tax dollars wisely and effectively, and I want us to do that. I have some very critical need areas in my district going to make sure they're taken care of. Thank you. Representative Bennet, you're recognized. Um, this is, um, in regards to section 5. Have we solved the problem of teacher recruitment and retention in only 3 years. I'm not sure, not at all. I'm not this bill is not saying that. Again, as Representative Ray was saying, our, our, my, my superintendents are continually making sure they can retain good teachers and do what they can to make it happen. That's why I never went to a 4 day week so they can and they've seen a great uh retention with doing that. So I think superintendents are constantly looking to see how they can retain the best and the brightest teachers I've got there. That's why we did the increase um in the Los Act of $50,000 to help, greatly help my small school districts I could not afford to Pay that amount there. So it's helped them immensely, so by no means are we wanting to stop that. OK. And I have another question. um You're in the committee, Senate committee meeting, um, another senator mentioned about um the need to have black male teachers in certain areas of the state so if we if this passes, how would that impact that population because that's a real issue. I think that we should do everything we can. I would hope that people in the community would do what they can to support uh black men that are going to education, help them with scholarships. I just don't think that everything, uh, we're not going to fix everything with legislation, right? I want us to do everything that we can and, and I think affecting things with critical needs will address that. I don't think it diminishes that, but one bit actually. No. OK Representative Collins recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I want to just ask a little bit more about why you put veterans back in this bill, so tell me why there's a difference of a preferential program supporting veterans, which I think is a good thing. It should be done. I understand that. Why is it OK to not treat all people the same when it comes to veterans, but it is for different groups. What's the veterans that are black, white, Hispanic, every, every minority you can think of women, male women, because veteran are a solid group, and they, they cover every, every type of Arkansan out there. That's why. Um, well, and they've also served their nation and put their life on the line and paid a big price. They actually when they sign up put their life on the line and I think we, they deserve uh every respect that we can give to veterans. OK. Do you think that black and women and other groups are not solid groups. Help me understand what that's I didn't say that. I said veterans comprise every type of minority and every ethnicity across the state, there's solid group, OK, just like I would say teachers, there's teachers of every ethnicity and every race, and so it's a solid group, is. not just picking out one section not preferring one race sex, that's what the bill does, stops preferential treatment based on sex or race. I guess I don't understand why the overlapping aspect is different from any other group. There are black Arkansans who were veterans and who were not veterans who were women and who are not women. So I don't really understand why that answer explains anything. I'm sorry, that's my answer. OK. Another question I have for you is in section 2, this is unrelated. Um, it talks about issuing permits by the alcoholic Beverage Control Division and it talks about how they, the existing language says that ABC shall consider lack of diversity and ownership and financial interests in the geographic area at issue, um, do you realize that this is uh diversity and ownership is not talking about racial diversity. This is about not allowing families to control permits, uh in a certain area. I don't, this may have been out to Joy. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I did reach out to Joey Leonard on that and to make sure this is not in any way change anything we're doing with the number of liquor licenses out there. So I, you can visit, we're happy for you to reach out to Joe Leonard if you want to on that. Well, no, it really wasn't about the number of liquor licenses out there, but it was, I was wondering if you realized that the lack of diversity and ownership is referring to control by families and And individuals that are related in a certain geographic area. I'll have to get with her and get back with you on that. Representative Clowney, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Bentley, I want to circle back. I appreciated Representative Ray's point about burdensome and Representative Mayberry's point about burdensome reporting requirements, um, I guess my concern is more with the language on page 11, um, which isn't about reporting, it's just about the prohibition of discrimination or preferential treatment by state entities. I agree with Representative Ray that a school is certainly welcome to come up with their own retention and recruitment plan. However, the way that I'm reading the language on page 11, any of those plans cannot include. What we're calling preferential treatment based on whatever race or national origin. So again to return to my example, I think that there are certain jobs where uh in public school districts in particular, but all over the state where say national origin is part and parcel of the ability to do the job, um, in other words, if you are looking for a Marshallese liaison, you would theoretically want that employee to be Marshallese. Um, we would want to Fruit, a strong pool of candidates, but under this bill, the way that I'm reading page 11, a district could not in fact come up with a recruitment and retention plan that even considered national origin, um, you know, that we would prefer, uh, somebody of one national origin over another to fulfill this job when in fact I think it is part and parcel of the job, I guess my question for you is, do you read that language on page 11 the same way. I would just say, I would agree to disagree with you that I want the best. and the brightest person in that that position regardless of where they're born. I want it based on their merit and what they can do, and I If they're going to be a translator, they're gonna have to be able to speak Marshallese. So to me it's gonna limit who you're going to be able to hire. So I again, I want the best and the brightest depend. I don't care where they're born, what color their skin is. We need the best people in that position, so it's not going to preclude them. If you're gonna require somebody that can translate Marshall please, you're gonna definitely limit who you can have in that position if you want to continue going back to that situation. So, well, with all due respect, these positions require a lot more than just knowledge of language, right? There are deep cultural differences between A lot of members of these communities, for instance, I'm thinking back to during the COVID pandemic where Marshalle's liaisons between whether it was schools and um and the community or the Department of Health and the community played a really critical role in gaining trust, right? Um, it's just, it's a lot more than knowing a language. So I just want to reiterate that I think there are some jobs where we have to acknowledge things like national origin are part and parcel of the job, and we should be able to give preferential treatment to who are going to necessarily be better at the job if they have those national origins. It's critical for building trust within our communities. But my, I have one more question, um, which is, uh, which I have forgotten now as soon as I open my mouth. Um, no, I, I, I wanted to go back to your point, um, you mentioned that you think that, you know, government shouldn't fix everything and certainly I agree with you on that. I think when we talk about government, especially at this table, we have an idea of like, this is the government, right, a big long scary table with rooms full of people making decisions, but your bills talking about public schools. So I guess is it your position that public schools have no role to play in encouraging, for instance, girl specific programming. I don't and I never said that. And I think that they could have a club that Of girls and that we should have clubs there specifically girls, and we could have people in the community help to donate to fund that club is what I'm saying. So there, that's what I was saying. I think it's great for the school to do things. I want girls sports. I'm an avid person, make sure we have girls' bathrooms. I want things specifically for girls, but also it's not our job to just to, you were talking about funding, so I think our funding could come from the community. I mean, I'm a member of our uh A lot of civic clubs were helped to donate and do great things in our community, apart from being a state legislator. So I think there's parts for the community again even with Marshall Lee, there's parts of the community to step up and do their part and make sure that things that are being, that are being taken here, we're all, I know you are. I am out there listening to my community all the time and making sure their needs are met regardless of their skin color or what origin they are. Can you tell me in the bill where it's limited to discussions of funding because I'm not saying that, I'm saying that no school should give preferential treatment. So what I'm, what I'm wondering about is things like offering a classroom for this club to meet in. I mean, that is giving preferential treatment to a group based on gender. It is. I mean, I know that that's not your intent. If we're offering the classroom to every club, then we're not doing preferential treatment. If we're saying every club, whether regardless of whether you're a boy club or a girl club or whatever you are, you can use the classroom. That's not given preferential treatment. I think you're destroying things a little bit, so. On that, and that's just my opinion. OK. If, if a school has a club and they have, say they have a girls on the Run club and or they have a girls in STEM Club, um, that club is By virtue of being for girls, um, giving preferential treatment. 2 girls. As long as the school offers them to have a boys on the run or a boys ste club. They're not offering preferential treatment. We're allowed different clubs for different interests. We're not giving preferential treatment. OK, again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Representative Bennett, you're recognized. Thank you. Representative Bentley, do you agree that black and white, do we, do you agree that we have different experiences, life experiences, no doubt. OK, so kind of piggyback to what uh representative Clowney was saying. In some instances, um, like having a black male teacher in classrooms help certain populations and with this bill, you're not gonna give any. Mention to that or you, it's gonna be against the law. Certain people have certain. abilities to do things in communities that don't look like the majority and so teach I mean students learn better. When they have somebody that look like them and that's something that maybe you can't relate to, but that's something that as a race, as black people, we can relate to certain things in this bill, you take away that voice and we should be trying to make bills, we should be trying to build up our education, our population, so we can be a more diverse. State and with this bill we're stepping backwards. It's certain things that you as a white woman, you're not gonna understand it's certain things that we understand and we can relate to our to black people better than what a white person can do. So in this bill, it takes that away. I would completely disagree with you. This bill stops you disagreeing, but you don't have the same life experiences like we do. I really, I really take offense to that. I really do take offense to that. I, I, you know, and my, and my children were growing up in school. We had two young black men, two young black boys, and that's class, and those two boys were in my home. They were treated, we, we, I never was racist in my home and my parents were never ready. We didn't allow racism in our home, and those two young boys, And Royce call me mom and they still call me mom and they still bring their kids to my house. I refuse to have racism in my house, and racism is going to be stopped when we one family at a time, stop racism in our home. This has nothing to do with racism. Racism is something hateful and evil, and I despise it and this bill does nothing to discriminate that. There's nothing to encourage us to make sure we have mentor young black men to be good teachers. We want good young black men to be teachers, and I really am offended by you trying to say we just, we're going forward with this bill and getting rid of discrimination and out cause discrimination. So that's where I stand on it. All right, thank you. All right, seeing no further committee questions. Representative Long, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Bentley, um, if I'm reading the bill correctly, this affects higher education in Arkansas too, is for public schools, correct, um, and I was just reading over the um Um, an article about, um, I guess it's in June 23 when the US Supreme Court ruled against Harvard College and University of North Carolina because they had uh affirmative action policies in place. Um, so they said that, uh, the court found that such policies violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Constitution as well as Title 6 of the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Um, Do you think if we don't pass this law, it will, it will open up the state of Arkansas to being sued because this appears to be settled by the Supreme Court and we have I think it very well could. I think it very well could, Representative Long without a that's exactly what we're trying to do line up with federal law. Things are not what they were 60 years ago. And again, we've read exactly about the Supreme Court case and the president's executive order on ending affirmative action. Thank you. Thank you. All right, seeing no further committee questions. We have a Long list of people signed up to speak for and against the bill. Thank you, Representative Bentley for your presentation. This time, I would recognize Preston Clegg. Speak against the bill. Preston Clegg. Once you take your seat at the end of the table, if you would, state your name for the record and any group that you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Good morning. My name is Preston Clegg and I'm the pastor of Second Baptist Church in downtown Little Rock. A congregation that cares about justice and equity and inclusion, and I appreciate your time today. We have learned as a church that we do not see all the truth through our two small eyes. Which is why we need a diversity of views and experiences and thoughts. This is the value that we see in DEI programs. We do not believe that DEI programs are antithetical to merit. We believe they seek to heal historical and persistent wounds so that merit has a chance. Historical, political, and legal wounds demand historical, political, and legal redress before, not after, we can speak of merit and equality. There is a temptation to want to move on from all this talk of injustice and harm and inequity, I know. But it's possible to move on without really moving forward. Moving on is a way of forgetting, but moving forward demands we remember. Moving on, wants to overlook historical harms, whose insidious impacts persist even in this present moment. Moving forward demands we look at the harm so as to heal it. DEI work helps us move forward, not just move on. There is a temptation to say that DEI programs are just another form of oppression, pitting one group against another. But that's a misreading of our own history. DEI works seeks the same intentionality and specificity in our acts of healing that we committed in our acts of harm. For most of my, my life, my privilege looked for all the world to me like merit. I have worked hard. But under all my hard work was a current of privilege I could not see and an inheritance of benefits I neither earn nor deserved. Those same currents swirled differently for different people. And so long as we refuse to be honest about these historical currents, privilege will continue to look like merit and equity will be unfair. There may be a day when DEI work is no longer necessary. I pray for that day. But it's probably not the day when not a single black legislator that I'm aware of supports this bill. Or when we're last in maternal mortality rates or when women make 78 cents for the dollar that every man does. This is not the day when DEI work does not matter. I want you to know that I pray for you, as does our congregation. And I'm asking you to do the right and hard thing today. And include in your deliberations the voices which have for too long been dismissed or ostracized. I ask you to vote no on SB 3. Thank you. Are you, are you, do you want to take questions? I can. Are there any questions? Uh, saying none, thank you for your testimony. Next we have um Robert Steinbach to talk for the bill. Please recognize yourself and then you're OK to go. Thank you, sir. Is it, is this song? Can you hear me? Yeah, my name is Robert Steinbach. I'm a law professor. I'm a columnist. I'm here in my individual capacity, of course, bear with me, I need to change the glasses. I Representative Bentley did such a wonderful job presenting the bill. I thought what I would do is just fill in some of the gaps that she had mentioned might require a little bit uh analysis from a lawyer and I am that. um, I apologize in advance. I'm going to try to address the questions that were raised by various representatives without recalling the specific names of most of you. One question was, uh, can, can we point to any statistical harm caused by preferential treatment. The answer is yes. Uh, you can look at two of my articles, one of which was cited by the US Supreme Court by Justice Clarence Thomas for precisely that point. Um, that article and another article highlight that when I examined for, for a group of law students, uh, we examined them based on race. And we uh were able to realize that the bar failure rate uh for the African American students for first time bar takers was double that. Of white. Let that sink in. The bar failure rate for blacks was double that. As for whites. Now clearly it's not a function of their race. It's a function of race-based admissions. That allowed students into a school that was above their level and had they gone to a properly matched school, they would have done very well on the bar exam. This is just one statistical example of why preference systems actually often hurt those they're designed to help. I do remember that Representative Clowney mentioned the point, I know because I I've spoken with her offline, um, and she mentions the point. That we a couple of phrases. We want to mirror our populations and say, our teachers. We want liaisons in schools to be of the same race or yeah, same race as the population that they are caring for and the example, of course, that she used was the Marshallese and then indeed uh when representative Bentley focused aptly on one aspect that is language, he said. Well, of course, you're going to have to speak the right language, Representative Clowney said, well, um, it's more than just language. Point I'm sure that Representative Bentley agrees with, but think about this for a moment. Representative Clowney's comments reflect her sound judgment that there are certain skills that are necessary to represent the Marshallese community. If she were to apply for that job, she would be a capable candidate at minimum. Imagine a Martian Marshallese point of order. It's recognized for point of order. Um, is it appropriate for the witness to be discussing committee members in this way and I think I mean at this point, I think he's uh Trying to make an analogy or make a Make a point I've not heard anything that I would consider to be offensive or abusive, but, uh, just be aware, uh, that we typically Try to avoid referring to committee members specifically and uh, and certainly if it any way could be deemed to be offensive or um. In any way, avoid that. Of course, Mr. Chairman, thank you. My intentions were to compliment uh Representative Claney on her would-be abilities to represent Marshallese. My point was that if she were to apply for a job, she would be very capable for that job. You could imagine that a Marshallese individual without any other skills and knowledge of his own community that could apply for that same job and under a preference-based system that would only permit the application of Marshallese, that latter candidate would beat the very qualified representative that goes back to the to representative um Bentley's Point, we need the most qualified people, those most qualified people may indeed. frequently be of that community, but to judge them first based on their race or national origin is a mistake. There is a former colleague of mine at the law school who had done a fellowship at UCLA. And he had done a fellowship on legal issues affecting the gay community. He was the the first holder of that very prestigious fellowship. And interestingly enough, he was not gay. He is not gay. Because they chose him based on his merit, based on his skill, based on his abilities. Um, there was a question raised about gender programs in schools amongst other um areas. We need to focus on the language as representative Ray has often pointed out in every bill we need to focus on the actual language of the bill, uh, the bill says that State state government, including localities, shall not grant preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex, etc. in the following categories and the following categories only hiring, contracting, and admissions. That's page 13, lines 18 through 19. That's where the preferences are prohibited. It speaks nothing about the issue of girls clubs and opportunity programs. Uh, another representative raised the point about a bill that was is being law, excuse me, that is being modified uh in this bill or would be modified when this bill passes, that was originally passed in 2021, and the question was um what major changes have taken place and the fact that the representative pointed out that there was a Supreme Court decision. It's important to focus on the Supreme Court decision just a bit, the, the US Supreme Court said that preferences are unconstitutional. In higher education admissions. The logic of that opinion. applies far more broadly, right? That only dealt with admissions because case law only deals with the case that is before the court, but the notion applies equally to hiring and contracting. And so if you think about it, it's all SB 3 does is catch up to what that Supreme Court opinion ultimately portends, but instead of being on the back end of history, we will be on the front of history. 10 states have passed this. already. We won't be the first. None of those states have fallen off the continent. They're doing just fine. But we will be at the vanguard. Um A point about the issue why in this bill, uh, is there a commentary about veterans. Uh, because the last time this bill was introduced as SB 71 2 years ago, there was no mention of veterans. Now to be clear, the old bill did not take away preferences for veterans either, because I just read you the section that dealt with the removal of preferences and you heard no language for me, as no language existed that removed any statutory preferences for veterans. Nonetheless, the objection had been raised 2 years ago and as a consequence this bill put into place um language that made clear. What was already in the last bill through implication that veteran preferences are unaffected. Now, it strikes me that nobody objects to veteran preferences. The bill objects to other types of preferences, and the question was asked why one preference yes and other preferences, no. And it's a fair question. ultimately a question for you all to decide as all is all of this, but as Representative Bentley pointed out. We have veterans specific individuals who have done specific things in their lives and as a consequence of those actions. This body has decided that they're entitled to certain preferences. You want to change your mind on that? Fine. I'm not suggesting you should, to be clear, but that's the basis for veteran preferences. The basis for race and sex sex preferences are merely what you're born with and that is incongruent with what the Constitution requires as stated by the Supreme Court and the direction that this country is going towards in having a color blind society. There was a um. Question about the ABC uh permits, the alcohol, um, uh, um, ABC uh beverage control uh permits, um, and the claim was made that the diversity reference in that language did not refer to racial and sexual uh diversity. I'm not sure that's right, but in any event, the subsequent language that was put in place in this bill deals specifically with competitiveness. So if there is a concern regarding ABC permits in terms of ensuring that one family doesn't own too many liquor shops the replacement language better addresses it in any event. Oh, that's it. Those are all, I apologize. That was my last point, uh, based on the, uh, the comments and questions that were raised and should anyone have a question, of course I'm happy to answer. Thank you, Mr. Steinbach, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Professor Steinbeck, can you please point me again to the language, um, I just missed it, um, where you were, where you said that this would not apply to any sort of clubs, right, so it's page 13 lines 18 through 19. I think you may be looking at, or maybe I am looking at an old version you're right, I pulled the SB 3 off of the Senate site and um represent Bent. has made some minor changes actually that were raised by Representative Wardlaw, and I wanted to address those, so bear with me. Here we go. Uh, page 11, uh, line, um. Lines 24 to 27. The state shall not discriminate against or grant grant preferential treatment to an individual or group on the basis of race, sex, and the other factors, um, in matters of state employment, public education, or state procurement. OK, and I think my questions really had to do with public education, which is why I considered them falling under that section. I was just curious. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I, I understand your point. I see. All right, any other questions by the committee, Representative Bennet, you're recognized. Mr. Steinbach is is that, yes, ma'am, um, do you agree that black that black and whites have different experiences, life experiences. Absolutely. OK, so I guess my next question is when you said that the other states have passed this and they're that they're fine. How do you measure what fine is and what's the matrix there and knowing that it's fine. Well, I'm not sure does the, does the first part of your question there on the second part, meaning that fine I guess why I'm asking too what makes you an authority on these things, um, OK, that's a different question. I'm happy to answer that. I'm, I'm well published in these issues in legal journals. I was cited by the US Supreme Court, um, so I don't know, I think that's OK in terms of authority. OK, and so I guess my question would be, do you agree that black and whites have different experiences in life. I, the short answer is yes, but if I may just expand slightly, and that is, I think we can refer to populations in general and say that populations have different experiences, uh, overall as a collective and that's why in sociology we refer to different groups, but I think when it comes to Hiring contracting, education, we always look at the individual, and that's what we need to look at. So yes, I think on average as representative Clowney aptly pointed out, you're more likely if you're hiring a Marshall liaison for the Marshallese community to wind up hiring someone from the Marshallese community because of those differences in experiences, but predetermining that is what this law would prohibit. OK, and I have another question. So when you said that the other states that have passed this are doing fine. How do we measure what fine is and what what matrix or what, what, what are we basing this on? Well, my focus will be uh not exclusively has been in the education context and we've seen that when we remove um uh preferences in higher education, we don't uh wind up with a significant change in the number of minorities attending um higher education. What we see is a redistribution and that redistribution produces a better outcome, not a worse outcome, because students are better matched to the school they attend instead of attending a school that they were giving given a very large preference on and they are put into a situation in which they cannot often uh flourish. And that's documented where where I mean you can see my article written with um Richard Sander from UCLA cited in the Supreme Court decision, talking about those issues, um, a, a I'm trying to remember precisely the title and it and and I can't, it's published in the Journal of Legal Education, um, 2 years ago or so, 1 year ago, something like that. I can happily get you a copy if you like. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Steinbach, I have a question. You mentioned the 10 other states. Can you give us a list of what those states are. Not at the moment. I can tell you that one of them, I wish I had it with me, um, one of them is California that enacted this law through plebiscite, meaning not through the legislature, but through the people over 20 years ago and there was an attempt to actually to repeal it more recently, which failed and as we well know, of course, California is a very left-leaning state and yet the people of California enacted this, uh, and, and it remains the law. Um, notwithstanding an attempt by the legislature, which is more liberal than is the the populace to clawed back. But I'm afraid I don't have that list in front of me and I would do no justice to it by trying to guess. All right. Uh, one of the points that's been brought up is. Basically, the historical perspective. On how different groups have been affected over the course of American history. I think it goes without saying what some of those examples are. Uh, how do you square, how do you square that? Given the history of how certain groups in this country have been treated. Uh, as Recently, as the 1960s, we didn't pass the Civil Rights Act, Civil Rights Act of 1964. Um Wasn't really in the grand scheme of things that long ago. So how do you square? What you're trying to do with today. Given the history of our country, I'd like to hear your response. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. So, of course, Uh There hasn't been hundreds of years of discrimination. There have been thousands of years of discrimination. Um, and the evolution of humankind um. Goes in large leaps and small leaps. And it's much like technology. The years of of the lack of technology, uh, um. are huge and the time in which um ah thank you, uh, and the time in which uh um technology has improved our lives is relatively short. So, that's all to say that In the 60s we had truly a diverse separate as Representative Bentley pointed out populations black and white. And we did two things. One, we passed the Civil Rights Act and Arkansas has a state version, of course, of that as well. Which prohibits discriminatory behavior in in addition, President Johnson put into place the executive order which somewhat mirrored one created by President Kennedy a few years prior that used that language that representative Bentley, uh, aptly quoted about affirmatively acting. And the, and the notion was that at the time, uh, our populations were so disparate that we needed to, as the phrase went, put a thumb on the scale so that we could have people who are entering schools or employment or contracting. Some slight benefit to offset what is would be a very hard way to compare candidates. Over 60 years, that notion uh became became what is today affirmative action, and I say that meaning it was never designed to be affirmative action was never designed to be what it is today, which is an overwhelming benefit, and I've seen it in my studies of higher education admissions, an overwhelming benefit given solely based on race. Now to certain individuals who as a function of their may have suffered some detriment, but solely based on race and in fact, as Justice Thomas references in his opinion in that Supreme Court case that I referenced, uh, he says, often these benefits are going to very wealthy minorities because it's solely race that is a factor. And so yes, we've had hundreds, thousands of years of discrimination in the 60s, we moved into a different environment um in which we prohibited this discrimination. We separately set up this preference system that was designed to be limited minor and short term. It became large long term and dramatic and it's only that last part of what has transpired over the last 60 years that we are saying it's time to end. It's time to end because 60 years is an eternity in the advancement of humankind. If you look back to where we were 60 years ago, it's like looking back to the caveman times, if you were comparing technology. We have made an advances that are profound in our society and as representative Bentley points out it's time to look forward, not backwards. And may I just a representative um Bentley uh pulled that list about the states, uh, California, Washington state, Florida, Michigan, Nebraska, Arizona, New Hampshire, Oklahoma and Idaho. All right, thank you very much. Any other questions of the committee of Mr. Steinbeck. All right, seeing none, thank you, Mr. Steinbach, for being here. We appreciate your testimony. Next, I have signed up to speak against the bill. Janie Janocchio. I hope I said that correctly. Close enough. Um, Mr. Chair, if I could ask for your indulgence, I'd like to switch slots with uh Mr. John Kelly. He's a, a liquor store owner who is very confused about section 2, and he also has to go hear a bill in house rules at once, so I want to make sure he has the opportunity to speak. I don't have any objection to that, Mr. Kelly. If you would, uh, state your name for the record, identify any group you're here representing. And you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you. My name is John Kelly. I, I'm on the board of URA and association of Retail Beverage owners. I'm from Little Rock, um. And um I want to be real brief. Um, it's section 2 and of the 470 odd lines it's only 6 lines. Um I would just say that you know the the the critical thing to me is really, it's two things. Uh, one has to do with the fact that there's an elimination and then there's an interpretation and I believe both the uh the three items including the two that are eliminated, they're, they're, they're all statutory. And, and as I understand it, and I, I could be wrong, but statutorily, that means that there's um it's a law, and as I understand the way law moves, it, it has to what, what is actually done is going to be based on, uh, case law. So, um, I, I just want the committee to understand that that there's a lot to the possibilities depending on How that is interpreted. And I, I just want the committee to be aware that that that the that there's opportunity for the whole dynamic of how applications are issued and how what is being considered, that could be affected by this. Uh, the other thing that I would say is, is that, you know, I'm not quite sure. I found out about this bill last night. And I, I, I'm sure there's some logical reason why it ended up in state agencies, but it was certainly to me, uh, uh, a bit of a, a bit of a surprise to have had something that dealt with alcohol to not go through the rules committee or not go through um CC uh City County Local. And I, I really think that is it. I certainly don't want to take up any more time with this very important discussion, but as a liquor store owner, uh, I, I believe that in, in reading this in my interpretation of all this is that it could have a dramatic impact on uh our, our business, uh, and I will kind of close with saying um there's a whole bunch of other bills that are coming along, uh, 97 and 98 are mixed in. And, and this, this, what's being done here in my opinion. Could have dramatic impact on my, the industry that I am in and the industry that I represent. All right, thank you, Mr. Kelly. If any questions of Mr. Kelly by the committee. Saying none, thank you, Mr. Kelly for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. I'll go back to Miss Janie. Janocchio. Have I mispronounced that? Please correct me if you would, uh, identify yourself for the record, state any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your testimony. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Janie Ginocchio, and I'm the co-founder of the Arkansas Nonprofit Initiative and ARC Leg Billtracker.com. And I'm also here to talk about section 2. We've been trying to raise the alarm about Section 2, since it was section 1 of SB 71. So I wanna be very clear today. Section 2 is a direct attack on small businesses, local communities, and the very principles of transparency and fairness that this body is supposed to uphold. Sex section 2 of SB 3 shifts the focus of liquor permit approvals from ensuring a balanced market that protects small businesses to prioritizing consumer benefits that like lower prices and convenience. What does that mean? It means large corporations, big box stores and chains will dominate the market, while small independent liquor stores are pushed out. And it means that residents will lose their voice in shaping their own neighborhoods as public input and community concerns are sidelined in the favor of corporate profits because I want to make it very clear to you that the benefit of of competition for consumers, it's referenced in this change is the benefit of competition for consumers of alcohol. Not just consumers generally, only consumers of alcohol. So you are creating a preferential class in this bill with section 2. But what's even more outrageous about all of this is that this provision is buried in a bill that has nothing to do with liquor. I spoke to so this, this is amending Act 23, 23 of 2005. I spoke to former Representative Tim C. Hutchinson, the sponsor of that bill, and he very clearly told me that the intent of that when he was, when he put diversity of ownership in there was whether it was a monopoly or not. It had nothing to do with the identity, the race or gender of the owners of the company. That is not the type of diversity that this is referring to. This is not, this section is not germane to this bill at all. So this bill was buried in um in a bill that has nothing to do with liquor. It's not in the title, it's not in the legislative intent, it's not being discussed in the appropriate committee. And it wasn't shared with the people who would be most impacted, as you heard, the liquor store owners didn't find out about it until last night, and this is the 2nd run at this, at this. They've tried this for 2 sessions, and this is the first time they're hearing about it. Sorry. I'm, I'm just very angry at the lack of transparency and what's being done to the people of the state of Arkansas here. This isn't about good policy. This is about sneaking something in without scrutiny, without accountability, and without debate. So the committee has a choice today. You can vote for backroom deals, corporate favoritism, and the erosion of local control, or you can stand up for small businesses, for transparency, and for the communities that you were elected to represent. I urge you to vote no on SB 3, reject this blatant power grab from the Senate. Send a message that this kind of secrecy and disregard for the people of Arkansas will not be tolerated. Thank you. Ma'am, before you leave, we do have a question from the committee, Representative Rose, you're recognized. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. um. I was following I, I feel like most of what you were saying, I guess I kind of took issue, um. With the accusation of lack of transparency in a bill that was publicly filed, um, has gone through the Senate. is in the house, um. Not, not hidden. I just was curious if you could, if you could speak to why you believe that there's a lack of transparency. Um, well, as I said in my testimony, alcohol is never referred to in the title or the legislative intent, Senator Sullivan has said repeatedly that this bill is about education, employment, and procurement, liquor permitting has nothing to do with any of those. He has refused to discuss section one, when it was section, uh, I'm sorry, Section 2 when it was section 1 of SB 71. It went through the entire process. It was never discussed or explained to any of the bodies, it was never. Discussed in the Senate committee, it was never discussed in the well, and we specifically texted Senator. I'm just talking about I'm just telling you I'm asking about SB 3, I'm telling you about SB 3. It is not in the bill title. It's not in the legislative intents, let's not argue. OK, no, no, no, no, no, no, OK, I apologize just everybody calm down. We texted Senator Sullivan directly and asked him to explain the bill, and he said that he was gonna leave that to committee debate. Listen, listen, let's just not talk over one another. Let's be respectful. If she's, if she's answering a question, let's let her answer, and, and if he's asking a question, let's let him ask his question and let's let's try to do this orderly. So I'm not sure where it left off. Had you completed your answer? No, I hadn't. OK, go ahead. And as I said, he did not discuss it during the Senate committee. He did not explain it during his, uh his, his explanation in the Senate committee. It was not explained in the well in the Senate. We texted him directly and said, Senator Sullivan, can you tell us about Section 2? He said I'm gonna leave that before the Senate committee meeting. He said, I'm gonna leave that to committee debate, and then he specifically did not talk about the bill. There was never any discussion of it. Again, and this, this section is not being routed through proper committees. If this was so, I mean y'all have a super majority. Why isn't this a standalone bill? Why is this buried in a bill about affirmative action. It's not about affirmative action. Why can't it be with SB 797 where it's germane. That's about liquor permitting as well. Why is this Anabel about affirmative action. It has nothing to do with affirmative action. All right, Representative Rose, did you have another question? I do. Go ahead. Is the information in Section 2 publicly available in this bill that went through a Senate and House committee. Yes or no? Yes. OK, thank you. That's all, Mr. Sher. All right, ma'am, do you have any other remarks? Yes, it's publicly available, the sponsor has a a responsibility to explain all sections of his bill, and he has refused to do so, multiple, multiple times. Looks like we do have one more question. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, did you testify to this, to this section of the bill on the Senate side we were waiting for Senator Sullivan to do the right thing and explain the bill and, and have a committee debate about it and he didn't, so we're bringing it up now because we feel like y'all weren't made aware of it and that something is being passed through, flown under the radar for you legislators, um, in the house and for the people of the state of Arkansas. OK, um, my follow-up. question, and I apologize if I'm putting you in a difficult spot. I had to step out for a second and I missed what the previous person had said, I understand he was a liquor store owner. Can, can you summarize what he, what he said because I think it was on the same point. Yeah, he he basically found out about this section last night when I told him about it. That that's all I said. Well, and that he had grave concerns about what this would do to his to the industry. What were, what were his concerns? I mean, why, why am I being asked to summarize somebody else's testimony. I'm, I'm sorry if you don't want to, that's fine. I said I apologize if I'm putting you in a difficult spot to summarize something someone else. If you don't want to, it's totally fine, he, he, he reflects industry concerns that this bill was not put in the proper committee and that this is the first she's heard of it and that he has concerns about what impact he's, he's afraid that negatively impacts, but he doesn't know because nobody's told him about it. All right, any additional remarks, transparency. This is not Germaine, you shouldn't vote for this bill. All right. Thank you very much. Next we have Haley Schaffner to speak against the bill. Ms. Shopner. If you would identify yourself for the record and in the organization you're here representing. You'll be recognized to present your testimony. Yeah Hi, good morning. Um. My name is Hallie Schaffner. Uh, I'm a Farmer in Jackson County, uh, just outside of Newport. Where I farm soybeans, corn, rice, and wheat. Um, I'm here representing myself. I'm here to express my deep concern in opposition to SB 3 because I am part of a group that does receive and will continue to receive preferential treatment, um, from the government, including in the code of the Arkansas Department of Agriculture, and I understand that that code is not referenced in this bill, but I believe that my experiences are relevant to this discussion. You see, I am a young beginning farmer. There aren't that many of us in agriculture. The average age of a farmer is 58, and that's because young farmers face significant barriers in starting their own operations. They lack the resources or establish credit and assets to get operational loans, and the government recognizes these barriers and write specific language and programs to help them overcome these barriers. They recognize the importance of young farmers as the future of agriculture. So the programs that they've written are low interest loans, grants, training programs, and I cannot help but wonder if you stripped the code of this language, this specific language and these programs, if young farmers would not be overlooked because of their lack of resources. I say this to illustrate the importance of specific language and programs that help Arkansans who like young farmers at no fault of their own are Because of their situation or birth, forced to begin 15 ft behind the starting line. Groups like people of color, women, young people, young farmers, seniors, people with disabilities, and yes, veterans. Under the guise of equality, SB3 will make it harder for these groups to succeed in careers as teachers and as public servants. Laws like this push us backward and not forward. And as a young woman farmer. I do not support efforts that strip my neighbors of opportunities. Vote no on SB 3. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Schaffner. Are there any questions by the committee? Sing Nunn, thank you for being here and thank you for your testimony. Next we have signed up to speak against the bill. Anna Beth Gorman. Ms. Gorman, if you would identify yourself. And any organization you're here representing and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony against the bill. My name is Annabeth Gorman, and I'm representing the Women's Foundation of Arkansas. I greatly appreciate your time, so it's not my intention to take up too much of it. The concept of merit has taken center stage both nationally in our state legislature. SB 3 aims, as we've heard um today to prohibit discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, and national origin. Instead, only merit should be considered. But we the WFA believe that merit and background go hand in hand. And it is neither discriminatory or showing preferential treatment to consider someone's background, but a necessary strategy to ensure that all Arkansans have opportunities to reach their full potential. We believe that every woman and girl in Arkansas deserves a chance to be seen as a woman or girl of merit. But we also know that historically women and girls have been excluded from opportunities that help you earn merit. Does Business count? Business success count as merit. Arkansas ranks forty-eighth in deals and capital for for women entrepreneurs and thirty-ninth in women entrepreneurial success overall. Is this because women are bad at business or still playing catch up from years of codified discrimination. And the ability to establish and build credit. Does a high paying job at a competitive field count as merit if only 15% of engineering degrees, 28% of computer science degrees, 20% of construction degrees and 29% of agricultural degrees are held by women in Arkansas. Is this because women lack the skills to succeed in these fields or because they're continuously continues to be barriers to entry, making women feel unwelcome and that they don't belong. years of experience in the workforce count as merit. Most Arkansas moms are working moms, many of whom cite balancing workforce participation in motherhood as one of their greatest challenges. Should women have to choose between working and being a parent. Despite these challenges and barriers, Arkansas women and girls can succeed when given access and opportunity. A Girls who or girls who code club or girls in STEM program in middle school can inspire and empower girls to pursue those high paying meaningful jobs like engineering and computer science that they haven't been introduced to before. And let's not kid here. Those are state resources encouraging participation in those clubs. Formal designation of a woman owned business can open doors for a new entrepreneur or a farmer who lacks the capital and connections to get off the ground. A woman's mentorship program in a school district or a city government can motivate and encourage working women who are struggling to balance it all. In all of these would be considered preferential treatment by Senate Bill 3 and therefore outlawed. The Language is open to interpretation, as y'all have clearly discussed today, there's not been thoughtful consideration in the interim study of how to understand the unintended consequences of what we are proposing. It's precisely these opportunities that several representatives have asked about that give women and girls the chance to be seen as women of merit in our state. That's why our organization formally opposed the Senate Bill 3. Our work is centered around expanding opportunity, not limiting it. Not only is Senate Bill 3 bad for individual opportunity. It's bad for our state's economic opportunity. SP3 is written could eliminate programs that are critical to preparing women and girls for the high demand jobs that Arkansas needs to fill. This would handicap our state's ability to meet the needs of its workforce and now and in the future. A recent Heartland forward report found that Arkansas will have nearly 58,000 open STEM jobs by 2028. If the state doubles its STEM graduates by 2038, we could see an almost $4 billion economic impact, but only if we have. Ens ensured that all students, including young women, have access and are encouraged to pursue these non-traditional career pathways. Legislation like SB 3 weakens Arkansas's ability to compete by diminishing our talent pool and hindering industry growth. Supporting women and girls isn't about taking opportunities away from anyone else. It's about ensuring that our Arkansas has a strongest workforce possible to meet the needs of a changing economy. Workforce development and fueling our small business economy is one of the most pressing economic challenges Arkansas faces. Now is the time to double down on investments in our people. Not dismantling programs that help them in our state grow respectfully, I'm asking the committee to vote no on Senate Bill 3. Thank you, Mrs. Gorman. Is there anyone here who has any questions, anyone on the committee has any questions. Representative Rose, you're recognized. Thank you for sharing your testimony, um. But While you were discussing women in the workplace, workforce, STEM, uh, I was just curious if you could speak to any industry where maybe there's a larger sampling of women in those industry. If you're, if you're advocating, if I understand correctly, for um Opportunity for, for I don't want to put words in your mouth. Level playing field, even opportunity for everybody. Would you advocate then to reduce Women in certain career paths or in certain industries where there is a much higher sampling of women compared to men. Um, thank you for that question, Representative. I'm a I'm a long term advocate for women and girls, and in, in my world, we talk about pink collar jobs where you see disproportionate number of women and girls represented and, and there are several healthcare industry, banking industry, teaching industry. These are disproportionately Held by women, and we actually advocate that those women, those professions get continuing education so they can actually break the ceiling because when you look deep into those professions, you see women serving in Rolls that are on the front lines, but they aren't getting paid as their real counterparts in those same roles and also in leadership positions. So yes, we actually have significant areas of industry in our country where women are disproportionately represented. I would also argue that those are, those are the Those are professions that we said were critical during the pandemic, and we were forced to go back to work, um, but they are not proportionately represented when it comes to pay equity or even in roles of leadership in those industries, those are still disproportionately held by men. So, not to get too specific into the field itself, but in like the nursing industry where it's like 90%, 10%. Women to men, right. Am I understanding correctly, you'd like to see that be more like 50/50. Absolutely, because actually too, when you see that, uh, that. A lot of people have argued and I and I agree that you want to see diversity that I'm arguing that I want to see more women in the underrepresented fields. We see women in these areas, again, pink collar jobs, but women are disproportionately paid less in those as well. Then their male counterparts in those same jobs I think this will wrap me up on this, but Um So as the father of daughters and a man who has sisters, uh, women who have gone to uh nursing school, BSNRSNs, your position is if they have taken that, that's been their goal, they're working in that industry. You think if there's 90% of that field that is are, are women employees in Arkansas, that that should be reduced down to 50%. And those people who Went to college that's been their dream, you think you should tell them, hey, this isn't for you, we should let more men into that career. I want to see women flourish in all roles. I would never tell women not to pursue with they're passionate about. Um, my own grandmother was told by her father that she could only become a teacher because um Women from East Texas couldn't become nurses, and that's a STEM field. So actually, sir, we, we advocate for women in science, very regularly, uh, part of the programs that we sponsor with, with money that's raised not by the state is to talk about nursing because there are great jobs there. So no, I'm not arguing for that. I'm arguing that um in these jobs, they're still disparity and so we just really do our the best that we can to show women there are lots of opportunities because For years, again, You're told there's only a few pathways in medicine. There are more than there are more pathways in medicine. There's actually computer science and medicine. There's different ways, there's different avenues, but if you're not showing that, if you only see one example historically over and over again, you don't see the opportunities in front of you. So just to be clear, you think 50/50 in nursing is better than 9010 female to male. I don't understand what that has to do with this bill. I'm just trying to follow your line of thinking. I was just curious if, if you're advocating for increasing women in the workforce and other arenas, are you also advocating for parity in other fields where they're overrepresented maybe. Sure, absolute teaching. We've had heard a lot of that today about the necessary to have male teachers, uh, again, it would be great. I would tell you that when you look at um male nurses, again, you see that male nurses uh dis proportionately rise to the ranks of hospital administrators than their female nurse counterparts, and that's a problem still that my organization and advocates for women, we try to understand why in pink collar jobs that you get to a certain point and then you stop. OK. Uh, well, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. All right, any other questions by the committee? Seeing none, Ms. Gorman, thank you for your testimony. Thank you all. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Daisy Onerrobi. So you would identify yourself for the record stating your organization you're here representing and you'll be recognized to present your testimony. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to speak. Good morning, members of the committee. My name is Daisy Honoiae. I'm currently a student at Philander Smith University and I'm here as a representative of the Young Democrats of Arkansas's black caucus and Women's caucus. The supporters of this bill say they want a merit-based system that opportunities should be awarded purely on qualifications with no consideration for race, gender, or background. That sounds fair in theory, but there's a fundamental problem with this argument. Merrit only works as a fair measure when the playing field is already level and it isn't. SB 3 does not prohibit discrimination. It dismantles policies that were designed to ensure access to opportunity for those who have historically been denied it and here's what that actually looks like in practice at the University of Central Arkansas, the minority recruitment and retention plan was created to ensure that black, Hispanic and other underrepresented students don't just get accepted into college, but they have the support they need to stay succeed and graduate. Minority students have a higher dropout rate, and this is not because they lack the intelligence or drive, but because they don't have access to the same resources others have. to succeed even before they get to a college campus. This bill will prevent colleges and universities from being able to provide this targeted support that such students are in need of. Representatives, before you cast your vote, I ask you to think beyond this room. If you say yes to this bill, you're not just taking away policies, you're taking away opportunities for those who have fought to reach the same rung on the ladder that others have started on. And that representatives that will be your legacy. Vote no on SB 3 because leadership is not about comfort. Leadership is about courage. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions about the committee? All right, seeing none. Thank you so much for your testimony. Next we have signed up to speak against the bill. Deborah Springer Suter. Sutter Suttler, all right, 3rd time's charm maybe. If you would identify yourself for the record stating the organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Thank you. Thank you. I am Deborah Springer Sutler, and I am here to speak against the bill. I hate to speak behind who I just heard because she did a great job, said some of the same things that I wanted to say today, but I first need to uh say that. The black community of which I am a part of, we are insulted. This bill is ungodly and unjust. It's unnecessary and actually for Representative Bentley to use DEI in reference to the horrible. crash In DC and related to diversity, equity and inclusion is an insult. Not only for minorities but for women and anyone else who's involved because we don't know what happened there. So to use that is what is always been done to use us as the problem. Why I'm against this bill. Because affirming action, affirmative action is needed. It is a set of procedures that promote equal opportunity and eliminate discrimination. The purpose was intended to ensure that people are treated fairly. And have access to opportunity based on their merit, not their race, gender, or other protected class and what is the protected class, race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability. When you talk about this bill, especially about it being a problem. For other people, where white people are the majority in America. The minority of black people are only 15% in Arkansas. How can we discriminate? Against white people. It is mathematically impossible. We are not taking any jobs from anyone. We are not taking scholarships from anyone, we are not taking anything from anybody because we get a job, we are qualified for positions, just like white people are qualified. We never asked for preference preferential treatment. We asked to be treated equally. We're the ones who were considered 3/4 human. We're the ones that were considered not human. And not equal. Then you talk about veterans being excluded. My husband is a veteran of the US Marine Corps for 23 years. When he puts on that. Marine Corps camp He gets all accolades when he walks around without it. He gets not one word. He gets discriminated against, just like all the other black people in our lives. He's from Mississippi. Imagine what he went through as a little boy growing up. what he went through in the Marine Corps itself being discriminated against. Do I need to remind you that Arkansas has a history of discrimination and racism. We have statutes right to the right of this Capitol to prove it. Those Little Rock 9, everybody is so proud of now in the hell they went through. They deserve more than a statue. 1957 was racist and ugly time for Arkansas, which demonstrated to the world that America continued with serious race and humane issues. People with color. have always been targets in America. And the current state in America. And today that we're in today just proves it. We have 3 types of people that we're dealing with that this law. Will give a right to continue those that bully because they abuse power, selfish people. Who refused to share in are in caring and evil people who do not respect and oppress. People. Two wrongs don't make a right. But staying right doesn't make it wrong. When will Arkansas mature? When will they grow up and learn? We don't need another bill we don't need this bill. God created diversity and he has commanded in scripture that we must provide equity and inclusion. He says it do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I'm pretty sure. That most of the white people would not want to be black for a day, you wouldn't be able to handle it. But this is what I want you to know. This bill is segregation 2025. So I'm here today not only to give you some information and remind you of what we have but also to give you a warning. Just like Moses told Pharaoh and his followers. You're not gonna last. And this bill only proves that we don't need it. We need to treat people fairly and give people an opportunity. And that's why I'm against this bill. Thank you, Ms. Sutler. Before you leave, uh, committee, were there any questions of Ms. Sutler? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Deborah Temple. Oh yeah 123456789, 1011. Well. Hello, I'm Deborah Temple. I'm here representing myself. And I'm against the bill. I agree with everything I've heard today against the bill. I think one of the things we all agree on is that nobody wants to discriminate or be discriminated against. I think equality sounds excellent. Equality without a path to achieve it is just not really the same thing. I believe that um Arkansas has several laws on the books now that provide equal rights, but if people are not given the opportunity to achieve those rights, then there, it's not equal. Ensuring access is not a preference. And it is not um It does not offer preferential treatment. It offers a path. It begins to pave the path for people who do not have those opportunities. Annabeth mentioned that um, A statistic about women in college and I've got a statistic about women and businesses. Women are the fastest growing business owners, and yet women get only 15% of the loans that they apply for. They generally start smaller because they're starting with their savings, any kind of help that they receive is not taking away from anybody else. It's just ensuring that they're able to meet those goals. We've heard about the critical needs rather than DEI, but I haven't heard critical needs defined, really what we do, what we propose is that DEI meets critical needs. Um Currently in Arkansas. 4 Arkansas ranks forty-seventh in education attainment. I just wonder if more people had a path to higher education, not just the opportunity, but a path to get there and the tools they need to support them through that process. If we could move out of the bottom 10. Uh, we are ranked 4th highest in poverty in the United States. If more businesses had the support they need. To succeed and could pay higher wages, could we improve that ranking. 47% of households in Arkansas are Alice, which is asset limited income constrained employed. Many of them are employed in 2 or 3 jobs trying to make ends meet. If we could reach a place where we had fewer working poor. Could we reduce that number. True equality to me means more than an opportunity or availability. It means that you have real access. You have real opportunity for individuals, families, communities and regions. And I think that is uh brings me to a final question of I really don't understand how this. Bill would help achieve any of those goals. I don't understand the goals. I don't understand the statistics behind it or the goals that this bill seeks to accomplish that would Reduce any of those issues that we're currently facing. And I would appreciate a vote of no and I appreciate the opportunity to speak. Thank you. Thank you, Mrs. Temple. Looks like we have at least one question from the committee, Representative Rose, you're recognized. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Uh, you mentioned more opportunities for higher education. Am I interpreting that correctly? I was looking at some statistics and I think it was in 2022. 22.2% of Arkansas women had bachelor's degrees compared to 20.8% of men, and this is from the Women's Foundation of Arkansas. So my question is, do you think that you need a greater sampling of women with bachelor's degrees over men, or do you think that where it stands now is actually a pretty good thing. Well, I didn't mention women in the discussion about education. I just said that Arkansas ranks forty-seventh. And that I think if more people had a path to higher education, I didn't say women in that. I think really. Assuming that everybody has the opportunity to go to college is not. A good assumption or that if they go with the same. Tools to succeed. I know people who have gone to college who are very smart, but they couldn't make it because they weren't prepared. I know people who have not gone to college that probably should have because they were smart, but they didn't have the tools to get there. We need more people going to college and graduating men, women, black, white, Hispanic, we need more people going to school. If we can If we can ensure more people have the tools that they need to take advantage of the opportunities that equality should provide. Then imagine what that would do to our economy. We might be 37th in educational attainment. We might be You know, not so high in poverty. We might drop our Alice households considerably. We need the tools to help us achieve these opportunities and, and I'll just be honest, my pastor quoted a tool that I wish I had had, and that's the amount women make now compared to men. It's always been that way, so we say this is uh. I was, I listened to the last hearing. And it was repeatedly about equal, equal, equal equality, equality, equality. How is earning? 74 cents to $1 or $78 or whatever it is. How is that equal? If your merit hired and you're doing a good job, how is that equal? So to me it's not about. Who, how many of what sex should be? Educated or in business or receive loans. It's that everybody should have the tools they need to get there in and succeed. So thank you and I think, I think you asked a question and, and, and I don't have all the statistics and I don't know the 74 cents or 78 cents on the dollar. I do know, I think women are in the workforce for an average of less time, predominantly due to giving birth, taking care of children, spending time at home, and so that would lend some credence if you've been in the workforce workforce for 10 years versus 20 years, the person who's been in there 20 years on average is going to make more than the person who's been in the workforce for 10 years, um, that was just in response to the question. I guess the only other thing I would make mention of is. I think you and I both agree that more opportunities for people to do better is great. I don't necessarily know that more people going to college is necessarily the best path, I think work workforce development, trade schools. A lot of things we're saying from the Learns Act and the direction the state's going may lead to even higher paying jobs. Um, so, and I apologize for mischaracterizing uh the direction of your comments and higher ed. you had spoken about women. I thought those two were. married together in that, so, but thank you for your testimony. I appreciate your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Oh, we had you down as having a question. All right. Ms. Temple, thank you very much for your testimony. Appreciate you being here. You're excused. OK. Next we have Lance LaVar signed up to speak against the bill. Varp you would state your name and any organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Yes, my name's Lance LaVarr. I'm speaking on my own behalf as a citizen. Um, uh, so I, I, I come to this having been employed by the Arkansas Department of Education in the office that was formerly known as the Equity Assistance Center. Um, having been part of the group that helped write and uh monitor monitor the teacher administrator er retention plan law. Having taught districts about that and how to do that law throughout, um, and I will tell you that probably no reason that there is a question from the secretarial lever concern is the Department of Education has basically been ignoring the legislative intent of that law for the last couple of years. They've avoided talking about uh diversity, equity, inclusion in there and focusing on minority people. They've even removed the minority report on colleges that are that are graduating instead just reporting on everybody that's graduating each semester. We've had these discussions and so there are a couple of points that I wanna to hit, so I I'm giving you that to know my background. I left the Department of Education, uh, in July when the office of the Secretary of Education no longer allow the Department of Education and specifically my role in office to fulfill what you have asked us to do in this bill that's being adjusted, which is to provide guidance and support. The schools on their their civil rights duties and specifically we weren't able to do what was in the governor's executive order to provide guidance to the school districts on Title IX when I was not allowed to help the school districts out anymore, I left and decided to do that directly on my own. Um, I'm gonna hit a couple points and I'm more happy to take any questions that you have, uh, you know, it's interesting they talked about DEI and, and it was even mentioned uh at the helicopter and an airplane accident that there's some accusation of that being DEI. I want to make sure you understand where this DEI from the federal government is going to. Because in that same speech when President Trump said it was about DEI hired, he said, Can you believe the FAA is hiring people with disabilities. And I heard him Those are his words, and then he went on to disparage people with disabilities as not being able to work properly in the FAA. In the internal memos of the Defense Department, DEI adds the A, which is diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility. The, this is the beginning of where it continues to go, um, and I wanted to make sure you understand that because I also do work with section 504 in disability law. The administrator recruitment retention plan was very clear. Its purpose was to increase the opportunities and increase the diversity, and it's based off some specific ideas and, and, and um details and statistics. You've got the majority of 96% of major employees want employees who are comfortable working with colleagues, customers, and their clients from diverse cultural backgrounds. Negative effects associated with insufficient racial diversity extend to members of non-minority groups, white students in particular benefit broadly from the ethnic diverse of learning context. That's the American psychology Association studies. Uh, students develop improved civic attitudes. Civil War Democratic participation and result from diverse learning experiences. That's how racially diverse schools and classrooms can benefit all students research and work. In Arkansas, there's not a single district that does not have a minority student. Yet there are a large, a, a large percentage. Of students of districts that have no nonwhite teachers. That's why the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan was about diversity. Students do better when they are exposed to diverse groups. Another thing that's been referenced is the, the study that that states that low income black student with one or more male black teacher between the 3rd grade and 5th grade are 39% less likely to drop out in 29% more likely to pursue a four-year degree. That law was necessary. And as the Department of Education has not fulfilled the intent of that law. We've also come to see that we have not decreased. And our teacher shortage, but it has increased. Um And then the last point I think I want to hit on this because you've heard a lot of stuff today and I want to give time for anybody that wants to ask me a question. Um, is Understanding the difference between equity and equality. Simply put, Equality is um giving, let's uh example I give equality is giving people a parking lot that we make sure there's enough parking spaces for everyone. Equity is ensuring that those who have struggled getting into the building, have sparing, parking lots that are closer and access to ramps. Equality is saying, hey, this assignment was due on Wednesday. I know you were sick that day, but you should have found a way to turn it in. equity is recognizing and giving that child a chance to turn it in later. Equality Um, is about assuming that everything is equal to begin with, and equity is recognizing that there are barriers. Equality is saying, I worked hard for this and holding to that only equity is acknowledging that I worked extremely hard for where I got, but recognizing that others had to work harder. That doesn't diminish my efforts, and it never has. But it helps me recognize and be humble to God. For the privileges he has blessed me with. And my responsibility to use those privileges to help others. Equity is the prodigal son's father. The quality is his brother. I am more than happy to take any questions on the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan or any of the other parts of the law, um, and that's the end of what I wanted to address immediately. Thank you, Mr. Lavar, any questions by the committee. Seeing none. Thank you, Mr. LaVarr for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak. Against the bill, Deborah Halbert. You would state your name in any organization you're here representing and you're recognized to present your testimony. My name's Deborah Halbert, and I'm here representing myself. I want to clarify a couple of things about affirmative action and DEI programs that have not been discussed enough. First of all, these programs are not about hiring unqualified people because of their skin color. They simply are not. They're about teaching businesses about the added value that a diverse workforce brings to the business. Several database studies are available online by heavy hitters like Deloitte, McKenzie, and Harvard Business Review. That have found many statistical benefits to having a diverse workforce. For example, diverse companies have a 32% increase in productivity. Our 35% more profitable. And have a 68% improvement in employee retention. It is simply good business to recognize the value of a diverse workforce and management team. DEI and affirmative action programs teach businesses, how a diverse workforce will benefit the business. How to expand application pools. How to foster an inclusive environment in order to increase retention. And how unconscious bias may be limiting, hiring and promotions. Businesses care about the bottom line and the data shows that diversity is a smart business move. Qualified employees with diverse backgrounds enrich a team's decision making and innovation. That is an added value that the qualified person brings to the table, recognizing that added value is the point. My hope is that those of you who support this bill did not realize that there is a measurable benefit and diverse perspectives and life experiences. Now that you know, I urge you to vote no on SB 3. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Halbert. Are there any questions by the committee, Ms. Halbert? Sing Nan, thank you for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Doctor Gail Cho. If you would please identify yourself for the record stating the organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Doctor Gail Choate. I'm here representing myself. And I need to. Maybe not explained because it might be obvious, but to point out that my testimony represents the breadth of my identity and my experiences. First of all, I'm here because I am a PhD. I hold a PhD in political science with uh specialties in political behavior and American government. I was at the Senate bill meeting. I was also um had the opportunity to listen to testimony from the floor, and one of my major concerns was that during the debates that ensued around Senate Bill 3. There was no data presented that indicated the impact of the laws that are on the books today, nor looked at the unintended consequences of this bill. You're being handed right now by staff a white paper that I prepared for your review that addresses the role of affirmative action and DEI on our society in the areas of higher education, um, employment and business, um, along with a list of references where this information came from. Overall, rather than reading this report to you word for word. I want to point out that my recommendation at this time as a scientist is that you do not have enough information about the both intended and unintended consequences of this bill and how it will impact Arkansans of all races, genders, and socioeconomic status. There are many pieces to this. And when the uh representative Bentley presented, she indicated that her reason for running this bill was largely in response to the president issuing an executive order repealing affirmative action. While I do not argue that that was outside of the scope of his responsibilities nor privilege. I want to point you to the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution. That gives power to the states. The reason it does that is because the Constitution recognizes that states have variations, and that states have a responsibility to look specifically at what is good for the citizenry within its states. Education, for example, is not a power that's afforded to the US government. It is a power that is reserved to the states and therefore you have a responsibility to understand how laws that you enact. May impact the populations that have elected you. The paper that I presented to you points out a couple of things that I'd like to just make mention of. Number one, as has been testified earlier, DEI initiatives and affirmative action are not synonymous. They are often conflated, but they are not terms that represent the same information. Affirmative action was designed to increase minority representation. DEI is designed to give equal opportunity and to create an inclusive culture. Further, I'd like to just point out that SB 3 is broad language would eliminate DEI programs, which are not affirmative action, but rather efforts to create fairer workplaces, school, and public institutions. I'm gonna take off my, my scientist PhD hat, and I'm gonna put on my mom hat. Because I am also a mother. I'm also a white woman. With 4 children. And I thought I understood, much like Representative um Bentley has explained. That all children are afforded equal access and equal opportunity. And the chance to be treated the same. My oldest child is my biological child. He looks just like me. He's got green eyes and white skin. My other 3 children are adopted and they're black children. When those children Went into the school system in a very racially diverse part of this country. I very quickly understood. That the experience that they were faced with in the classroom. In the admission to extracurricular programs. In the opportunity to participate in things like magnet programs, we're not afforded to them equally. Their experience, even growing up in the very same home with the very same parents. We're not the same for my 3 children. They were different. I believe very strongly as a mother. And as a scientist, I present you with data that supports the idea that creating opportunity is a responsibility that we all must take. And you as legislators in voting no on SB 3. Have the opportunity to consider the opportunities available to all Arkansans. I also just want to point out one other thing that I think is important. We often think that uh as representatives, we can talk to our individual constituencies and perhaps they can tell us what they need. And while I am a firm believer in representative democracy, which says that you are here to listen to the voice of the people. And in fact, that constitution claims that it is we, the people who establish our government. Oftentimes our districts, our territories, our constituencies are narrowly defined and therefore do not represent the state as a whole. I don't envy you because your job is to represent those people directly in your districts who elected you to office, but I ask you to also take on the mantle of what is good for Arkansans as a whole. Just to give you an example about the racial disparity that exists. If we were to only listen to the voices of the constituencies in Senate District 20, which is represented by the sponsors of this bill. We would be listening to an area that is 95% white. 2% Hispanic and 0.8% black. Yet if we look at Arkansas as a whole, we have 15% black, 7% Hispanic and 73% are Kansan, um, excuse me, white, notice how I just conflated that, that was a Freudian slip, um, sorry about that, but the idea that I want to point out is that we have to look at it on a broader picture. We sometimes think that offering or removing DEI removing preferential treatment will enable all people to um benefit by their merit, but I'd like to point out another example. When affirmative action was removed from higher education, MIT reported the results of the in that policy. And what they reported that was the removal of affirmative action, reduce their black population from 15% of their student body for a specific class to 5%. The Hispanic representation went from 16% to 11%. The white population. What do you think happened? It was reduced 1%. It went from 38 to 37%. How can that be? Because the Asian American population rose from 40 to 47%. I tell you that just to point out that there are unintended consequences that you may be unaware of. I urge you to look at the white paper that I presented to you. I urge you to vote no on this bill to allow the legislature to have the time to do the appropriate research to understand what is truly needed by our community and to understand the data that will support the decision and give us the best opportunity to weigh who will benefit. From this legislation if there is a benefit at all, or in fact, will it take us backwards. I thank you for your time, and I welcome any questions that you might have. All right. Thank you, Mrs. Chair. Is there any question about the Doctor Cho, sorry about that. Representative Ray, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Um, Doctor Cho, I guess I'm just, I'm wondering about this chart that you created in your paper here on um where you break down the Percentages of various racial groups and Senate District 20. Yes, sir. What, what's the purpose of including that? Because I think it was important, uh, not so much in this committee, it didn't come up, but in the Senate committee and as well as on the floor debate, there was a lot of reference to the constituencies, um, and in fact today when it was presented as well, part of the anecdotal information that was presented was from the constituencies of the sponsors of the bill. So I thought it was important for us to understand that perhaps those constituencies were not representative of the entire state. OK, you're not suggesting though that we shouldn't listen to Senator Sullivan's perspective on this because his district is not. As representative of the state as a whole. Is that, that's not what you're suggesting, right? No, I'm not suggesting that, sir. What I am suggesting though is that we have the previous people that have spoken have asked whether or not the lived experience of the black population uh might be different than the lived experience of the white population, um, and we have, I think pretty much uh heard consistent, yes, there may be differences. So I think it's important for us to understand that those lived Experiences may vary depending upon the overall makeup of the constituency in different areas. OK, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you for asking. All right, seeing no further questions, thank you very much. Thank you for your time. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill. Marcella Garcia. If you would identify yourself for the record and state any organization you're here representing, you'll be recognized to present your testimony. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Excuse me, my name is Marisa Garcia and I'm with Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families for more than 47 years, Arkansas advocates has advocated for research-driven proven policies that have improved the lives of children and families in Arkansas. I'm not here to talk about the morality issues of SB 3. Those issues are already very clear. As an attorney, I do want to talk about how this bill is poorly written, um, and does not do what the sponsors think that it does. It's not drafted to comply with the Supreme Court decision that deals only with affirmative action in higher education admissions, nothing else, um, and it doesn't go, this bill goes well beyond that. Dead, it's also not dra it was not drafted to comply with any of the executive orders because this bill is the same as SB 73, except for it adds the provisions about veterans will not be affected. The bill is gonna put the state and other entities in a very precarious position. When you look at section 21, it's overly broad and it applies to not just state employment and public education and state procurement, it defines the state to include a city, a county, an institution of higher education and a public school district or a public special school district or political subdivision of a government instrumentality of the state. This means that all of those entities are subject to SB 3 because they all hire employees and procure services. This will create civil causes of action against those entities with a very low burden, meaning most cases that would be previously thrown out, um, now we'll reach uh a likely into the litigation phase as opposed to a pre-trial phase, meaning the costs will increase to defend against such a lawsuit. This is not about a lawsuit if it's, if the law is constitutional or not, this is the lawsuits that the bill. itself is going to allow people to have when they feel that their rights have been violated that. Feel makes it so that they reach easily the initial stages of the lawsuit. Even if people are unable to recover attorneys' fees and court costs, um, at the stage of the with the court, they're then referred to the commission and it says they must award the fees again, there's not a decision on whether or not they should have the fees, whether the lawsuit was valid or invalid, it says must and must means they have to do it. This is, these costs are gonna put cities, counties, and these other entities, including state agencies in a very serious bind when you consider a lawsuit that costs maybe $3000 but 100 of those in a year to these entities do not have a budget allocated for that, because the idea is that normally, the state would be able to say sovereign immunity, this doesn't matter, but because we've lowered the and so far, these people are gonna get further with their case than they normally would. You can expect these suits to be anywhere from thousands of dollars, 200s, tens of thousands of dollars, 2 hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on how long these cases take and how they're drawn out, um, not only are the agencies gonna be put in constant threat of uh jeopardy of litigation, but again, it's an exorbitant amount of money you can expect to be impacted here. And um You know, if we consider maybe 30 of these lawsuits, we're reaching $100,000 right there. If these lawsuits are not easily disposed of, and they won't be because of the low burden, the costs easily are gonna reach higher. The bill is convoluted. It puts together lots of different things under the assumption of equality, but it doesn't actually do anything, bring forward any new program or amend any program to make equality happen. So we, we've heard the difference of equity and equality, but again, even though the bill says It strives for equality, it doesn't put forward anything that will in fact achieve that. It's overly broad and likely to harm not only children and families, government workers, the adminis administration of government, localities, counties, and the state itself, um, and for these reasons, we would urge you to vote no on SB 3. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Garcia. It looks like we have some questions that the committee, Representative Clowney, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your testimony. Um, just a very quick question. So the question was asked earlier, um, will not passing this bill put Arkansas at risk of A lawsuit, uh, because of the Supreme Court ruling. I guess my question to you is, do you see passing this bill, this overly broad bill, as you say, as putting Arkansas at a higher risk. Yes, thank you. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and really it was the gentleman, probably 2 before you that, that brought this up, but, but you kind of are mentioning the the um equity and equality part of this and so I thought maybe I'd ask you, even though the other gentleman brought it up. How would something like this affect a student who has a 504 plan in school since that's a federal 504 plan. Does this change anything? Do they, do they have the same protections, um, in the school, like he gave the specific example of, you know, extra time on a test. Um, does this change that? In any way, do you, do you see that? I think, I think there's the potential because um. Schools are more likely to be cautious in how they approach um any kind of extra access, right? Because that will potentially give someone else the opportunity to say, well, I didn't get extra minutes and that was unfair. Um, so my rights have been my, you know, a parent can say my students' rights were violated. So I, I think that what we will see is that people will self censor and um that in and of itself becomes like a, a bigger issue, yes. Even though it is federal law that they would be under you, you have concern about this really didn't come to me until he said that, so I, I'm, I'm just looking for clarification. If you follow through the end of the bill after section 21 where it, it talks about the lawsuits, um, before it talks about the lawsuits in that same section, it gives you a list of things that would Exclude, right? It, it will only exclude um You can exclude certain portions of complying, complying with the bill if um you might lose federal dollars. So If federal dollars are directly tied to, if you can show that the federal dollars are directly tied to that student, um, then you could exclude portions, however, but um, It's gonna, that's, uh, it doesn't, for example, give, you know, if, if you're complying with federal requirements. It does not say that. It says federal money. OK. Thank you. All right, seeing no further questions of the committee, thank you, Ms. Garcia for your testimony. Next, we have signed up to speak against the bill, Scott Perkins. Scott Perkins, Scott Perkins does not. Seeing that Mr. Perkins appears, so we'll move next. Really The only name listed on the sign up sheet is Willie, um, hoping this person. is here All right, seeing no one, we have one other person signed up to speak against the bill. Daphne Macbeth. Miss Macbeth, if you would identify yourself for the record stating the organization you're here representing, and then you'll be recognized to present your testimony. I am Daphne Macbeth. I am here representing the Little Rock alumni chapter of Delta Sigma Theta sorority Incorporated. Delta Sigma Theta sorority Incorporated was founded in 1913 on the campus of Howard University to promote academic excellence to provide support to the underdeserved, underserved to educate and stimulate participation in the establishment of positive public policy. The sorority boldly confronts societal challenges through its 5 point programmatic thrust, including political awareness and involvement. We are committed to promoting leadership, advocacy, and empowerment to affect social change and public policy. Recently, Arkansas Senate bill SB 3 passed in the state agencies and governmental affairs Senate Committee, the full Senate and moving through the legislature. The passage of SB 3 would effectively eliminate a f f ir m ative action, minority recruitment or any specialized programming that considers race, sex, color, ethnicity or so or national origin in public schools. Higher education and state agencies. We are rising to express our concern for the detrimental effects SB 3 will have on state entities such as the Arkansas Minority Health Commission and the Arkansas Mosaic Templars cultural center. Not to mention the community at large. The Act of 19 of 12 of the night of the 1991 Arkansas General Assembly created the Arkansas minority Health Commission, AMHC. The mission of the AMHC is to ensure all Arkansans. equitably equitable access to preventative health care and to identify ways to promote health and prevent diseases and conditions, especially among vulnerable at risk populations. Health inequities exist because of an unequal distribution of social, economic, and environmental resources. Across different populations, leading to systemic differences in the, in health outcomes based on factors like race, ethnicity, income, education, and geographic location, which are often rooted in structural inequalities and systematic discrimination. Essentially, some groups have significantly less access to quality health care and healthy living conditions compared to others. HMHC serves as a catalyst to ensure that all our Kansans have fair and just opportunities to be healthy and well. Arkansas continues to show examples of disparities in health outcomes for people of color. For example, a recent report to released by the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families indicates that women of color in Arkansas have an increased rate of morbidity for several conditions, including stroke, diabetes and heart disease. Black women are also at a much higher risk for maternal mortality with 71% of maternal deaths in our state being black mothers. Arkansas Act of 1176 of 2001, established the mosaic templars of America, Center for African American culture and business enterprise. MTCC. The MTCC is a museum that is part of the Arkansas heritage division. MTCC is a nationally accredited world class department of Arkansas Heritage Museum. And cultural center in Little Rock, Arkansas. The mission of the mosaic is to collect. Preserve Interpret And celebrate African African-American history. Culture and community. In Arkansas from 1870 to the present and to inform and educate the public about black achievements, especially in business, politics, and the arts. In the case of MTCC SB 3 is a direct and immediate threat to the center's mission, accreditation, funding, and partnerships. Specifically, if SB 3 passes, it poses a risk of weakening prestigious partnerships with institutions such as the Smithsonian and the loss of vital federal funding. We want to see every Arkansan thrive. We believe that AMHC and MTCC make Arkansas a better place to live, work, learn and play. SB 3 will not eliminate discrimination. In fact It will do the opposite. If SB3 becomes law, it will remove opportunities and protections for populations that have historically and continue to face systemic discrimination. These health and cultural initiatives cannot exist solely on the principle of equality, which is giving everyone the same thing without regard for their socio-historical circumstances. Equitable opportunities must be insured. And protected. Equity is the fair and just treatment of all members of a community while at the same time, ensuring that multiple perspectives are represented. Equity requires commitment. To strategic priorities, resources, respect, Civility as well as ongoing action and assessment of progress toward achieving specified goals. Therefore, in good conscience, we stand against. SB 3. All right, thank you, Ms. McBeth. Are there any questions at the committee? Seeing none, we appreciate your testimony. Thank you for being here today. And with that, that concludes all of the witnesses who were signed up to speak either for or against the bill. I want to commend the committee for the excellent questions that were asked, um. Of the witness for the bill and also those who came to speak for and against the bill and also all those who appeared today. To offer your perspective about what is a very important bill. So with that Representative Bentley. You are recognized to close for your bill. Chairman and committee, thank you for your time. I know it's been a long morning and I appreciate it, but this is a very important bill and it's worthy of the time that you guys have given it. So thank you again for uh for being here this morning and for the time that you've given. I just wanna again just go over what exactly does SB3 do, OK. I think it's important to look back at the bill and the reason why we're bringing forth the bill again, the Supreme Court has aptly declared affirmative action is illegal and higher education, so it's important that we line up with with the Supreme Court has decided, and also the president has rescinded affirmative action with his executive. order on January 21st of 2025. And so SB 3 is aligning with those things as well. I know there's been some concerns brought up on um section 2 with a liquor licenses. I will say that I visited with Joey Leonard and I think Joe is an outstanding lawyer and I really kind of insulted with the folks saying it wasn't really well drafted. I think she, we'd have outstanding staff and BLR, and I think she does a great job and actually the section there on the liquor licenses gives more more protections for smaller businesses. It doesn't take anything away, and I think it's a very Telling that the folks that were here speaking against that did not show up in the Senate committee hearing when they could have had their voices heard to Senator Sullivan, who was there presenting the bill. So anyway, I was, I found that very, um, anyway, insulting also they did not show up to voice their concerns there, but I visited with Joe Leonard on that specifically and it gives those small businesses more protection does not take any of them away with a liquor licenses and um as far as small farmers, this is nothing to help or prohibit what our small farmers are getting the special funding they're getting, and I have been actively pursuing and helping farmers across our state, especially small farmers and passing legislation for farm to school, and I have worked diligently and hard to make sure a small farmers can succeed and there's nothing I would do to stop that. So this bill um will do nothing and hinder what's going on with our farmers across the state. Um trying to think of things. I want to look again. I think it's really important if we look at page 11, was representative Mayberry's question about federal, you know, this does not, this section does not stop with federal funding, so it's not something's federal funding or and uh implementing this will stop that. It does not do that. I think it's very important to read that. So again, lines 18 and 19 on page 11, we prohibit any discrimin discrimination of preferential treatment by state entities. So thanks, that's what we're trying to do is eliminate discrimination. I think this gives people more Power to make sure they're not being discriminated against, um, And I think this bill will stop girls clubs or boys' clubs at a school just allows them all to have uh equal access. I am as a woman and a business owner in this state, I think that we have a great deal out there to help every business owner in our state. Again, it's about making sure those kids that need help are getting help, those critical need areas in all of our districts was small kids that are in drug addicted homes that have need help. We want every child and every section of the state to get the help that they need and those critical need areas. Let's give them all the help that they need, let's end discrimination in our state, and I'm not taking lightly. What happened in the state's history with segregation. It was a horrible thing. What's happened in the past, was a horrible thing, and we're not ignoring that. We're just saying that what's the treatment is, I think Senator Payton said it very well in his, uh, statements in the Senate in on this bill. We we had a treatment for an illness and the treatment has gone too far. At some point we're gonna see and realize the treatment is not helping, it's making things worse. So we also have very, I'm really excited with the Les Act has done to help to make sure we have extra access for our kids. It's going to do a great deal to make sure that there's opportunity for women in STEM and so many things, there's more going now, um, it's amazing with superintendent this past weekend and what we're doing for girls in STEM specifically with the Lawrence Act. This does not stop any of that. I think we have great access in our state. I'm ready to see Arkansas move forward and to make sure that every student in Arkansas has great access to helping every woman in our state does as well. So thank you with that committee. I'd appreciate if you pass. Representative Bentley has closed for her bill. What are the wishes of the committee, Representative Long, you're recognized. Representative Long has made a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion, Representative Collins, you're recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I won't take long. I know we're, we've been in here a while, uh, respect your time. I just wanna kind of drill down on this idea of merit because merit's important to the sponsors of the bill. They've said that several times, and I appreciate that and merit's important to those of us who oppose this bill like me, um, I believe in merit, and I also understand that people don't get the opportunity to demonstrate their merit, and that is what so many of these programs and initiatives do. is they create the opportunity whereby someone can show that they are of merit and they should be able to be in the room or have the position that they deserve, um, years ago I worked at a large law firm, and you know, I was just an associate, but there were partners and there were not a lot of partners of color. And so you can think about this two different ways. You can think, well, I guess they're just weren't any partners of color who were, had the merit. There were no black people who uh deserved to be a partner at this law firm. It's a problem because, first of all, it's a good high paying job. It's important for people in the community, um, it shows an example of someone being a high achiever, a lawyer, and shows that example within uh you know, an entire community. People achieving in that community of color is important for people of all races. Um, but I think that that is a simple and simplistic way of looking at merit because you have to think about The situation that led to the appointment of partners. There were not a lot of associates of color in that firm, and why was that? Because there were not a lot of law students of color because there were not a lot of College students, high achieving college students at top schools of color. All downstream we see the effects of lack of opportunity. Um, it was mentioned that California put this very controversial version of this very controversial bill in place years ago. It did. It didn't go nearly as far as this, but the black and Latino um percentage of students at UCLA and UC Berkeley plummeted by 40% in one year after it was put into effect. And so that means 40% fewer students who have the opportunity to again advance through the ranks, getting into college is not the end of it. It's everything downstream from there is affected when we don't think in a broader way about merit and about opportunity. Um, there are other issues with the bill. They've mostly been discussed, but that's the biggest one to me, rethinking this as about opportunity rather than simply a simple simplistic version of merit. Thank you. Representative Clowney, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will also keep this very short. I just think at the end of this long um Thorough committee meeting. Where I sit, I have heard nothing concrete about how any of these initiatives have made life worse for one Arkansan. I've heard a lot of abstract arguments. I haven't heard anything concrete from my constituents or anything I heard today about how this is actively making life worse. What I do know is that many of these initiatives that what we're we're about to peel back if we vote this through have made life better. I heard a lot of that today, not just for people who are directly impacted by these programs, but all of us who, uh, who Work in any workplace or any school, um, that utilizes them. We are all made better by these initiatives. We heard that today. We heard nothing about how these harm everyday Arkansans and so for that reason, I'm a no, thanks. Representative Mayberry, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am. I came in today wanting to vote for this bill. I have talked to so many different people. I've sent it out to lots of different friends who I value. Who I think think like me. I've prayed about this and you know I've read this bill many times. But I can't move forward. Because of what one person said, and I need more time to think about it. That doesn't mean I can't get there. But the changing of the word from equity to equality? In that section. Does bring up the idea. That an IEP Or a 504, a student who might and and may maybe some women can address this and can help me, me get over this, this little stumble, stumbling block that I'm in. But If someone has that IEP and they, they need extra time on a test. That is giving them an advantage over someone else. And that is federal law, so I, I'm, I'm, I'm wrestling with how to Process that And I need time to think about it. It doesn't mean that I can't get there, but I need more explanation on, on that, and I, I do know that you said look at page um. Look at page 11. I'm getting there. Thank you. Sorry, my husband is gonna yell at me for crying today. Um It says that this section does not and then it goes on. That's in section 21 though, and this section I'm concerned about is section. Section 3, so I don't think that would apply. I, I, I get where you were referring to, but I don't think it applies to the same thing. So I'm Again, maybe I'm breeding way too much into this, but I need to feel confident that this does not Inadvertently affect our students who have 504s. And IEPs. Um, I was planning on voting for this because as a female, I don't want a job. Because I'm a female. I didn't run for office and ask people to vote for me because I'm a female. I asked them to vote for me because They know I work hard in my district. They know that I have experience. They know that I, I. listen to their concerns. and I can't inadvertently just vote for this whole big thing and have that one little thing change. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Representative in it, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't belabor this. I have a hard time with this bill, um, the sponsors who Do not share some of the same experiences that this bill will affect. I have a hard time listening to you all saying what is best for people that don't have the same experiences, um, and I wanna thank all my constituents and all the people in the state of Arkansas who reached out to me um to vote no on this bill, um, nobody can make me understand these things, um, we do live in a racial society until you have walked in my shoes s ho es and the shoes of my husband, who's a 25 year vet. My son who have disabilities, my mom and all the people that came before me. You cannot sit there and sit and sponsor, sit there and tell me that this is needed. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion, we have a motion on the floor of DuPass on Senate Bill 3. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? No. The eyes have it. Congratulations. Representative Bentley, you've passed your bill. And with that we have uh several bills by Representative Ray that are still on the agenda. We're gonna come back this afternoon and take up those bills, uh. likely 15 minutes upon adjournment. So with that, we will be adjourned until 15 minutes after adjournment or recess, I should say, until 15 minutes after adjournment of the house. Thank you all very much.