State Agencies & Govt'l Affairs-Senate

a quorum were to call this meeting to order. remind our visitors if you are if you're here to speak for, against a bill to please sign the sheet over there. And first up we're going to go with Senator Hickey, and I believe you're going to be running SB 63, Senator. All right. Members that Senate Bill 63. And Senator, you are recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Jimmy Hickey, Arkansas Senate. Senate Bill 63. What this is is this was a this was a statute that we passed, I guess a couple years ago. Good intentions whenever this was passed, but I think it's one of those things after you've kind of seen it work, you see that maybe it wasn't the exact intentions that was supposed to be. What, what we had done is we had required that the secretary level level cabinet positions that they come before ALC and we put shall in there. And make a report to us. Well, what we have found out is, is that we have to schedule them in the full ALC committee. Well, after we've had a couple of 234 hour type uh meetings, then they come in and do like a macro type of type report. So the thing is, is we actually already have this ability to require them to come before a subcommittee or or Basically even assign it to a standing committee and actually give them more specifics of what we're looking for instead of this broad-based type report that they're doing that quite frankly, you know, some people are listening to and others are just probably tuning it out. So that's what this bill does. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Senator King, you're recognized for a question. So, I mean, I understand. But you're not doing it, but like we have this problem of like agencies literally not answering legislators, I mean. Everybody keeps hitting it, but years ago that wouldn't have happened, but now you have to say, I mean, what is the remedy to make an agency heads be forced to meet with you or have a meeting where they have to answer questions because a lot of times they're just ignoring you. As far as the individual, as far as the individual legislators, I think that's probably, you know, This, this is not even a cure for that or would affect that. But let's just say that there was a specific thing that, and I'm going to make something up here, but like DHS, so if we want to know specifically how much your Uh, FMAP has changed or you know why that's happened or what we think it's cost, then AOC itself could actually assign that to the appropriate subcommittee or ask the standing committee or the Joint standing committees to do that. And as long as we got approval through there, then at that point they would come for that specific thing for the committee individually, I think it's this affects that. This doesn't affect that in any way that I see, Senator. Just and I understand why you're doing it about the long meetings if you get into an issue that is supposed to be different or outside, but there's just this problem that needs if you have a chairperson that's wanting to help knock something in the head or keep it from happening, which happens up here, then it just, I mean, uh. It just can allow the concentration of power up here when they don't want to hear issue or don't want to talk about something bad. I mean, the prison issue is a great example, uh, then they just shut everything down where people can't hear anything or something. So, but I understand your point about like what's happening on council and stuff like that, so yes, sir. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senators regarding our questions from members of the committee. Senator Clark, you're really nice. So Senator Hickey, my simple understanding of this is that we're doing what, doing away with something we created, but, uh, doing away with reports that are taking a lot of time that aren't doing any good and meetings that aren't really doing any good. I is that basically what this does? That's, that's the way I see it yes and you know, uh. Again, it's more of a macro type, a macrotype report that is so broad-based that, you know, I believe that You know, it's not really what the legislators want to hear. And actually, you know, it's also probably taking a lot of time away from, you know, the agencies that they could be. Doing something else also, so I, I haven't talked to any of them, but I would assume that they're all supportive of this. Again, if we want to find specifics, we have that ability through AOC. So what you're saying is exactly right. Thank you for bringing the bill. Thank you, Center. All right, Senator Sullivan, you're recognized and motion at the proper time. All right. Numbers are Any other questions? All right, we got a motion from Senator Sullivan, second from Senator Dodson. Oh, Senator, I'm sorry. No, I'm OK, right, a motion from Senator Sullivan, 2nd Senator Dodson, all in favor. Say aye. opposed. Congratulations, Senator, I appreciate you. All right, members. Next up we're going to do Senator Sullivan, and that's going to be Senate Bill 3. Senator, if you want to go to the table over here and You're recognized to receive your bill, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the committee hearing this bill. I'm going to try to be very brief to allow for other testimony, you know, basically we considered this legislation last session. There was very little, if anything, has changed just to be sure we understand this does not affect veterans. That was true the last session. It's true this session also. I want to make it clear that also discrimination and preferential treatment exists. and they have existed for as long as, you know, forever and discriminate and preferential treatment is wrong and should not be tolerated in or by our government institutions. To make the case that I or this legislation pretends to eliminate all discrimination is an attempt to create a straw man. This legislation applies only to government agencies in areas of education, employment, and procurement. You know, so one might ask, what has changed since the last session. One thing that changed significantly on Monday was the president's executive orders, you know, previously we had executive orders in place that allowed for and set in place affirmative action and discrimination, which was sanctioned by affirmative action, executive orders. Those executive orders were rescinded, and it's now the government federal government's guidance that we at all levels of government, if you get money from the feds or take resources from the feds that we eliminate discrimination. You know, the president came up with Uh, these executive orders says to end illegal discrimination, and the restoration of merit based on opportunity. That's what SB 3 is, and folks, I could run through all the different executive orders that pertain to discrimination. I don't think that's necessary, but he eliminated those, especially the two, I think 65 and through Nixon 1965 and through Nixon that established affirmative action. And it specifically says in the in the president's Trump's executive orders to eliminate affirmative action at the federal level. I want to walk through the bill just real quickly to highlight a few things that are important. So when you look at at the bill itself. On page one. It prohibits discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin. The General Assembly does not intend for this act to affect any preferences provided to veterans under the law based on their status as a veteran, and that's also a part of the president's executive action. Um, on page 2 and line 10, it talks about more effectively meet their civil rights desegregation and nondiscrimination responsibilities. In the last session, it was reported that we were ending civil rights. If you'll notice the civil rights strike on line 10 does not reference any law. It's just a general statement about civil rights. But it's not changing the law, civil rights law at all, which was falsely reported when we ran the bill last time. You'll notice that beginning on page 3 we strike a lot of legislation. Um, that Again, it's that guidance of federal legislation that we end some of these reporting tactics and reporting practices. And you'll notice on page 7, We talk about critical needs. We scratch minority teacher scholarship, and as you read through the rest of the bill, we scratch minority in a number of cases and again, minority is not referencing any legislation. That's just a general term minority, and we replaced that with critical needs, and again that is in line with presidential executive orders that we base things on need, not on discriminatory practices, and you'll notice that in other places throughout the bill that we strike the word minority and replace that with critical need. So the, the term critical need is inclusive of minorities. It's not eliminating minorities is making that population larger, not smaller. Again, you can look throughout page 9 again references critical need over minority. Um On page 10, it talks about employee handbooks, so we're going to, if you have a law that stipulates certain practices, but there's no enforcement in there. The law really isn't worth anything. So we're talking about going through the the employee handbook and making that handbook comply with discriminatory practices are anti-discriminatory practices. Um, same thing on page 11. The prohibition of discrimination or preferential treatment by state entities. We just restate that. It defines what the state means the bottom of page 11 prohibits an actions necessary to establish or maintain. A subcommittees, it kind of lays out the definition of that. We also provide for a Reporting mechanism so that the legislature will receive reports from the agencies as they comply with this. You know, one could make the case previously that Uh Action that Senate Bill 3 really was um affirmative action was the case of the state and the state should enforce affirmative action. One could make that case. One could disagree with it, but one could make that case. It's not the case now. The federal government has said through the executive action that affirmative action is over and you're likely going to hear people come up and testify that we need discriminatory practices. need to discriminate and give preferential treatment to various populations based on their race, based on their sex, based on their country of national origin, and they're going to say we need preferential treatment. Yeah We're all created equal, and that's what our Constitution says. That's what the president's executive order says and essentially what those who will be testifying against this, and they're going to ask you to continue to give preferential treatment to certain populations. They're asking you for Arkansas to be a sanctuary state for affirmative action. Now let that sink in. Being a sanctuary state has been a big topic right now, and the federal government is taking aggressive actions that we are no longer sanctuary states for illegal immigration. And those that testify and come up here and and say we need to continue to be a sanctuary state. Only this time enforcing affirmative action, which the president has said an executive orders have said are no longer the case and not effective anymore. Thank you, and I'll be glad to answer any questions. All right, members, you've heard an explanation of the bill or questions from members of the committee, Senator Tucker, you are recognized for a question, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just kind of like to go through a few pieces of the bill like you did, Senator Sullivan, and ask you a few questions about different sections. The first question I had was one that you mentioned, which is on page 2. It's not just in line 10, but also in lines 19 and 23. Where civil rights was cut, and I'm not contending that you're ending this Arkansas Civil Rights Act. I'm not, I don't, I don't believe that, but I'm just curious, why is it necessary to cut civil rights, those words from code with this bill. Well, it isn't changing any code. It just references civil rights as a general generic term. My question is for Arkansas code annotated 6-10-111. Why are you eliminating civil rights from that section. Uh, tell me the page again. 2. Page 2 And on line lines 1019, and 23, you know, what's the purpose of cutting the words civil rights from that code section. Well, it's not, it is rephrasing that as desegregation and nondiscrimination. I mean, if you're, if you're trying to make the case that we are striking law. It's just not the, it's just not the case, and I can, you can say yes, you are, and I'll say no, I'm not. And as the chair said before, we're not going to go back and forth with that. So this lot that. Language does not reference any law. I understand. I'm just asking why you're cutting it, that's all. I decided to do that. OK. Um, so on, on page 3, section 5 in the next couple of pages, it's a this this portion of the bill eliminates the minority teacher recruitment plans, correct? Yes, so that program, who is harmed by that program in Arkansas. Who is harmed by. Ah Who is harmed by eliminating the program. Now, who's harmed by having it in place? Well, it's discriminatory. It's just, it is setting us giving preferential treatment to certain people. OK, I understand, but is someone being harmed by that? Well, if you're giving preferential treatment to certain population, then yes, OK, so who? The people that are being, I mean we're arguing in a circle who's being harmed if you're giving preferential treatment to somebody than the one who doesn't receive preferential treatment is being harmed, right? And so, and I'm not, I'm really not trying to argue in circles. I'm just trying to understand and get an answer to my question, which is that do you have any examples of anyone who's been harmed by that, OK, if you are, you know, I talked with the gentleman who I think is fine bluff and this was 2 years ago. That uh is charged with administering this program and asked him given two candidates, one who is more highly qualified, but one is minority and one is not, which one do you hire? And he indicated indirectly that he would hire the minority regardless of who had the the who was the most qualified. So that's an example, but again, I don't think it's clear that when you say minority. Preferential treatment to minorities. One could also ask who's being helped. And it's just a circular argument that I'm not going to have. The guidance from the federal government is that we end preferential treatment. That's the guidance. And this program clearly gives preferential treatment to minorities. Uh, and, and so do you believe that it it would require the gentleman that you mentioned in Palm Bluff to hire someone who's less qualified if they're a minority. Is that, is that what you believe the current law requires? I believe what the bill calls for is ending discrimination and preferential treatment. OK, um, moving on to page 6, section 7. This is, this eliminates the higher education minority retention program, which line are you on? starting on line 5, section 7 on page 6. His page 6 2nd sentence. 15 section 7. Yes sir, you see that? Yeah, I think the same argument stands, you know, we are ending preferential treatment. OK, my question is this program doesn't actually have to do with hiring or admissions, does it not? It's just about retention of students and faculty. Is that right? Yeah, um, yes, it indirectly. Advocates for preferential treatment. I mean these are all reporting standards that are no longer um asked for required by the federal government. I understand and I understand. What's happening in the federal government, but I'm, I'm trying to My, my job is to work on what's happening in Arkansas, so, um, you, you believe it's necessary to eliminate a program that helps with retention but doesn't actually affect hiring or admissions in higher education. Yes. And do you know specifically what programs this section will eliminate if this bill passes. It eliminates all the programs that Provide preferential treatment. And do you know what? Do you know what those are? I know that the Attorney General has said that the bill stands as is, and he's prepared to defend it in court. So what do I know all the details there? No. And if your goal is to try to find the detail that I don't know. There are a lot of details I don't know. However, this bill stands to eliminate preferential treatment, and I assume your questions are based on the fact that you prefer preferential treatment. Otherwise you would stand behind the bill. Uh I'm not going to assume what your motives are, Senator. So, um, Senator Tucker, if you'll wrap up with this question, I've got a few members and you jump back in the queue. So I'll let you finish the question and then Go ahead. I'll I'll be back. Thank you, sir. Senator Clark, you're a regular for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The I'm going to go back Senator Sullivan to Uh Page 2 Lines 10 and 19 and 20 where Senator Tucker went and I want to thank you for bringing the bill. I'm not sure that I agree with all of it, but, uh. I think the idea is right. Uh Were crosses out civil rights and puts in desegregation and nondiscrimination as a replacement. That's to better define, is it not? OK. So it actually doesn't make it worse, but makes it better. And that was the intent to more be more direct in what the bill intended. And now page 3, section 5. Again, I appreciate what I believe you're trying to do. Uh, but I have a problem with this section, and I may be the only one, other than Senator Tucker, but let me tell you why. I'm a former youth pastor. I've spent most of my time here working on education and especially K-12 education. And I agree with Not having preferences. Based on Things other than ability. However, Unless it's preferences for Something that we really need, uh, for instance, special ed teachers, science teachers. Right? Well, one of the things we really need that we really have a shortage of at this state is black male teachers, and let me tell you why. The, the group that does the worst. In school in Arkansas, probably elsewhere, but, but we're worried about Arkansas is black males, considerably worse. Oh and now some In some political spectrums tend to want to let things go and well, they're just not as smart. Well, no, that's just not true. Uh, we're failing there. Uh, we're failing with black males. And it is a studied fact. That Uh And I'll just stay with that group, but uh that any group does better with a teacher, somebody in charge, responds better to somebody more like them. And I pray to God that we have a flood of black male. Black males come into the teaching profession because I can do things with a lot of kids that other people can't do because I'm good with kids. But I'll tell you in a hurry that. That someone can come along who just happens to be black. And can and can form. Relationships, etc. With kids of the same color, better than I can. And so what I'm looking at there is not a racial. Preference discriminatory, but something we need. Does does that make sense? And that's why I would have a problem with this one section in the uh in the bill. I understand what you're saying, and I um would agree with the idea that people learn best from people who are like them. There's, there's one can make that argument, not in all cases, but one can make that argument that it is applicable generally. However, guidance from the federal government says we cannot discriminate anymore. Because we can't do that. So if you are you, what are we discriminating if we're looking for people who will be good with special ed. No, we're, I mean there is, there's still discretion. You can't make the determination simply based on race. That's what the that's what the loss, that's what the, and so what I'm suggesting that here is that we're not doing it strictly based on race. It may look like that, but that we're not doing it strictly based on race, that we have a need for more minority teachers to relate to minority students. Yeah, I don't think this this section eliminates that. I mean, one can still. We can discuss that offline, but that, that, that's probably my only problem with your, I understand that and I would say, Yeah. Those positions were based on, on experience. And common sense and what people, what their lived experiences are. That's kind of the common phrase now. But one cannot discriminate based upon those characteristics that is now against the law. So if we, if one wants to say that the state of Arkansas is now going to not follow federal guidance, and we're going to be, as I would call it, a sanctuary state and allow for affirmative action. I think we're making a mistake, and I think what what research also shows is kids learn best with the best. teachers and if we are Focusing on merit, then we're going to hire on merit and who's the best for that area, and I think we've kind of lost our focus on what merit means and how we learn best, so one can make the case that one learns best from people that look like me, but the case for merit is higher in my opinion. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. All right, next up, Senator Hammer, you're recognized for a question. Um, there is, yeah. OK, Senator Payton. Thank you, Mr. Chair and thank you, Senator Sullivan. I'm glad I got to go right behind that line of questioning because that's what brought the question to my mind. So If school administrators believed And maybe it's true that A teacher that matches The color or the sex of the students is the most effective. Then in rural Arkansas, where it's a vast majority of white students. And they, and that administration would choose that we're only looking for a white teacher. Would they be violating the anti-discriminatory laws that we have in place at the federal level and state level, I mean. I understand what Senator Clark. is saying, but when you Convert the argument to where the majority of the students are different. Grace or a different sex. And you say, well, I need a teacher that matches them in order to do the best job. That's really only that has only been acceptable in one direction, not the other direction. So how would you answer that? I would agree. I mean, if you're saying if I understood you right, if it's a mostly predominantly white school that they're only looking to hire white teachers and eliminating Minority teachers of any other kind is that against, would that be a violation of federal guidance, and if this passes state law, I'd say yes. Thank you. So I mean, it's just pretty complicated to uh Entertain the idea. The color and race. Matter. I mean, we really just need to get the most qualified and so that brings me to my other question, um, When Senator Tucker was asking about who does it harm. If we're not hiring the most qualified people. To provide a service to the citizens of Arkansas, wouldn't the citizens of Arkansas will be the ones that are harmed by that. I would agree every again if we've kind of eliminated merit or moved merit down on the scale of how we hire and how we procure, how we admit to college. We've moved merit down in favor of these other races, genders are not gracious, sexist, national origin. it's been placed under those and the Supreme Court said in a case two years ago that we couldn't consider those and I think there have been multiple cases, more of them based on DEI, which is just another form of discrimination, but we're seeing that across the board with businesses who are walking that back and saying, and the term that kind of has replaced that, and I like it, is belonging. Everybody is equally important. What a unique idea. Everybody is uniquely important. I met with the Chancellor of the University of Ark of Arkansas State the other day, and they are putting that in place. It doesn't make any difference what sex you are, what, how you identify what race you are, everybody is equally important. I would think that would be the same true of teachers. Every teacher who's applying for the job in the state of Arkansas is equally important, and we want to find the best teachers in the state to teach our kids and these other other qualities immutable characteristics your race, your your sex, they're secondary to how qualified you are. Thank you. Thank you for bringing the bill. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Cha. I want to address some of the things I've got in the way of emails and just give you a chance to respond and would like to hear your answers as far as how this bill would adversely affect somebody that has a disability physical disability or a medical diagnosed disability. How is this going to impact them negatively or positively. This doesn't impact that population. They're a protected class. Why, why not? Why are they? Why would it not affect them. It's not mentioned in the bill at all. OK, so it's only based on those characteristics that are listed at the front. And those are the race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin. So other laws pertain to people with disabilities, OK, and veterans, that's one email I got was a little bit of fear and concern about how it would affect veterans. Can you speak to that? Yeah, that's specifically in the law in the bill that it does not affect veterans, uh. I had to find the exact part, but the, you know, the presidential executive order, excused, excused said veterans weren't impacted by the executive order and this bill specifically says it's not impacted for veterans. And then another one was individuals that might be of a, for example, Hispanic origin and affecting, say, Hispanic Heritage Month, how, how is this bill going to affect individuals that are of different origins. It protects them. In what way? Well, it says you can't discriminate against them or for them. You can't discriminate against them. You can't give them preferential treatment. And I, and that's specific to the language of the bill, that's, that's, that's what the bill does. It provides protection for people that you can't be discriminated against, nor can you, can one receive preferential treatment for and as far as heritage months that's not, you know, this only affects education, procurement, and uh uh those government entities listed, that's all those are the only three areas it affects it. doesn't affect those having special months, OK, so when it, I want to ask your attention on page 12 lines 7 through 16. The purpose and the reason for that being in there. I'm sorry, starting at line 9. person who believes his or her rights have been impacted under this section may bring a civil action in circuit court too, and it gives the list including injunctive relief, court costs, and attorney fees. Why did you put that in the bill? Good question. I was looking for this a while ago. You know, I had a lot of people ask me who are of a different political persuasion, you know, that we need to work together on both sides need to work together. This bill is set about to protect everybody regardless of your of the five things mentioned there and this gives Civil action If the state violates your civil rights violates desegregation gives disproportionate treatment too. This says that people, the citizen has a civil action to enjoin the violation. So if one group is given preferential treatment over another. Now I'll use the example you brought up. So if a teacher, it feels like they were their civil rights, their regulations were violated. Um, they have an injunctive relief. So if we're hiring a minority teacher over a majority teacher and majority teacher feels like they are the more qualified person for the job. This provides for injunctive relief. If a minority teacher feels like they're civil rights, they desegregation rights or if they were violated, they have injunctive relief. They can go to the courts to to resolve that. Does that answer your question? Well, I think so, but the reason, the reason you put it in there is so that if anybody is discriminated against either side of the issue, then this is the legal recourse for them to be able to get to the court and find an injunctive relief, correct? OK, a couple of quick ones. Another email I got. How does this adversely or negatively impact, if at all, anyone that is a gay or lesbian. Uh, lifestyle self-identifies how, how is this either protecting or removing the protections that they're afforded now and how would this bill undermine what they have now. It doesn't undermine anything. I mean, that's one of the. Why not? It's not listed in the bill as, I mean, this protects as it says in the beginning. And I'd have to know the specifically what it is they're afraid of or worried about. When the bill says in the beginning it prohibits discrimination by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin. That's what it's protecting. So there's nothing in the bill about LGBTQ sexual orientation. There's nothing in the bill about that. So whatever they one of that persuasion would say I'm protected uh for our I don't qualify as is not a part of this bill. So I don't see any. Uh action that could be taken to be discriminatory. Matter of fact, if they felt like they were discriminated against based on what they're doing. This bill allows for a course of action. Uh, for them to go to court to have injunctive relief. One last one. The other ones were limiting opportunities for education, scholarships, support programs. I almost wonder if you should have labeled this bill equal Protection Act, but um limiting that's, that's a concern that's been expressed to me is about limiting the educational opportunities, scholarships and support programs that are available out there. How would or would this bill not adversely affect those concerns, it actually expands them because it's based on need, which is a larger population than just minorities. So if there's a scholarship program for minority populations and now we're going to base that scholarship on need, it would be inclusive of and greater than a specific minority population, for example, if there is a poor white student are poor whatever you want to classify as majority that has the same need as someone in who qualifies as minority status, they would still qu al ify for those scholarships and those opportunities, so it isn't eliminating anybody in the minority population who is of need. Need becomes the criteria that we're going to judge things on, not your racial national origin, those things were no longer judging by that or judging it based on your need. So would that be your rationale for taking out what was mentioned a while ago as far as civil. Civil rights and replacing it with desegregation and nondiscrimination. Well, the basis for that is, I think was mentioned earlier that non-discrimination is a better descriptive term than civil rights. Civil rights is just a generic term, whereas desegregation and what was the other term, those are more descriptive, not less descriptive, than the civil rights, OK, thank you. Thank you, Senator Hammer, Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, I'd just like to follow, start by following up. I think it was a conversation you were having with Senator Peyton about how Merit has been subordinated to other factors, and I just want to take a look at some language, you know, that we're proposing to cut here. We'll start on page 11. On line 12. What's in the law right now. Page 11, line 12. What's in the law right now is to quote encourage their participation. Of small business enterprises, minority business enterprises and women's enterprises. And then if you look on, these are just a couple of examples. If you look on page 12, On line 21. Some language that's being cut. Is that um We are encouraging minority participation. And on line 25, it says, Qualification shall take into consideration minority inclusion. And so, my question is how encouraging something or taking something into consideration. Provides a mandate. Uh, that we should eliminate and that subordinates merit to other factors. So let me just first reference page 11, line 2, especially gives preference to veterans are excluded, so there's been several questions about veterans, so just to make make very clear veterans are not impacted by this. Um, again, I'll go back online 13 of page 11 when it talks about minority and women's businesses. Those are granting special consideration, preferential treatment to those two groups. That's what that does, and we're saying that we're no longer going to offer special preferential treatment. To to Groups based on their national origin, their sex were no longer going to do that. So for no longer going to give preferential treatment to those groups. Why would we then encourage the government to give preferential treatment to those groups. So on the lines following, we're not going to to encourage the government to do something that we're saying they're no longer we're no longer recognizing. That preferential treatment. Can we agree that encouragement is not a mandate. Or consideration is not a mandate. It's no longer necessary. You can, I mean, we could agree. Would you agree that it that why would we encourage something that's no longer the government responsibilities. Would you agree to that? Well, it's only no longer the government's responsibility if we pass this bill. Well, you know, we're just we're going to disagree on that. OK, so my, my next question is, um, you are including a preference for for veterans and don't get me wrong, I, I'm supportive of that. I, I'm for that. Um, but my question for you is Why this consideration for veterans different than some of these other factors. Well, first of all, it's in the president's executive order that they be excluded and part of the reason for this is to comply with what the federal government is asking us to do. The guidance that they're giving them excludes them, so I guess the main reason would be to comply with federal guidance. OK. Moving down on on page 11, Section 21, starting on line 20. You've got a definition for state there, and it includes What page are we on now? 1 page 11 what? Take your time. Section 21. OK, 20. OK. You've got a definition for state there. And you know, generally that definition includes pretty much all public entities in Arkansas. Yeah, I'm relying on the Attorney General's office that has reviewed this closely, helped draft part of it, and they're fine with that language. I'm just curious whether you contemplated including a private schools that receive public funding. Means the state of Arkansas City can. I would assume that I would. If it's state law, Then we're going this complies with state law. And if the state recognizes Public private institutions in this bill does. OK. I don't think that's what it says, but, but I, you know, I respect your interpretation of it. Um. It I noticed in moving down to subsection B. That you didn't include religion here and I was curious about that. Are you OK with preferential treatment on the basis of religion? The bill states earlier that we're not, are not going to discriminate based on that, on religion. I mean if that uh Part of the OK, so that's not in the first part of it, so can we discriminate based on religion if it's not part of the bill, then it's not part of the bill. Right. And so I was just wondering why you, are you OK with preferential treatment on the basis of religion with what the language is in the bill, OK. So I'm, I'm, you know, I'm just trying to understand why you didn't include religion. I chose not to. OK. So this subsection B. You know, this, this subsection, the earlier sections, they eliminate specific programs. This subsection really has broad application and it's kind of hard for me to know before I vote on this what all this is going to impact, and I'm curious if if you know whether this will, for example, eliminate the minority Health Commission in Arkansas. Will it what now? Eliminate or impact in any way the minority Health commission. The populations that are impacted or expanded. Because we're basing it on need, not just minority status, so the argument that we're trying to discriminate against more people. It's just a false argument. I mean this actually expands the population that qualify for programs. Now it's simply minority based and that is eliminates that. I'm not making an argument. I'm just trying to figure out if this, if this applies to the minority Health commission if you know or for example, mosaic Templars, cultural. Center where they celebrate African American history in Arkansas, and the art pieces that they put up and the items that they put for sale in the store are generally created, designed or whatever by black Arkansans will this impact their ability to celebrate where we went through this last session and the Attorney General said no. OK. And I know you disagree with the Attorney General, and you're certainly welcome to, but you're also welcome to disagree with the president and the executive order and make Arkansas a sanctuary state for affirmative action. I'm opposed to that. Do you know whether this will impact the state's ability to certify women-owned businesses or minority owned businesses with a minority and women owned business enterprise division of AEDC. I think we could come up with a million specific examples. The Attorney General has reviewed it. They are prepared to defend it in court if and when somebody files a lawsuit based on some of the very specific examples you give, and I'm not going to try to defend every specific example. I think the law stands for what it stands. for. Fair enough. I think you Uh, you've made my point in a quicker way. We really don't know. There's a million examples of what this could possibly apply to. That's true of every law. OK, moving on to page 12. Starting on line 9, Senator Hammer asked you about this section. Are these sorts of claims not already covered by the Arkansas Civil Rights Act? Say that again now. Are the sorts of claims that you're creating in this subsection here. Are they not already covered by the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. I don't know the detail of that. This, if it does, this restates it, but this allows for uh civil action if someone feels like they're their rights have been violated. Are you saying is it redundant? Right. I don't know the answer to that. I'm assuming this stands as it stands and allow if if the civil rights Act already allows for that, then this does too. Um OK. Uh. If a lawsuit were brought against the state of Arkansas. Would that not be prohibited by sovereign immunity? This allows for injunctive relief, and if it, if we people violate that law, then that will That will happen as it comes up to the court. OK, sovereign immunity as pertains, and the court will say sovereign immunity pertains. If not, they'll judge it based on each case. So you, when you present a very generalized point and say, is this not covered, but you don't define what this is, and I have no way of defining specifically uh what they will or will not allow. I'm referring very specifically to all cases where the state of Arkansas is a defendant. So that that's what my question is about. Well, the court will decide that. Do we have a concern about creating expectation that we won't be able to fulfill if people sue the state of Arkansas and the lawsuit's banned by the Do I have that expectation? No. Are we creating that expectation for the public? Well, you're asking me if I think it's going to create that expectation, I'd say no, you could probably ask everyone in the room and they'd have a different expectation. It says that they can recover attorneys' fees. I assume that you mean from the defendant, but it doesn't actually say that in the bill. Is that, is that what you think the judge is capable of determining what fees are allowable and what are not allowable. A lot of the testimony that you know we've had is to comply with President Trump's executive orders and this bill was introduced. I don't know, back in November before President Trump took office and issued any executive orders. So I'm just, what's going on? What's going on with that? Were you, were you anticipating what President Trump was going to do or what's the thought process there? I anticipate that the President executed executive orders, eliminating um Previous law regarding discrimination and preferential treatment. And that that law will filter down as he has said that it will affect everyone who receives federal assistance, so I anticipate. That it will impact the state. Cities, counties, local government, colleges, universities. I anticipate it will filter down and what it will mean at every level. I don't, I don't know yet, but I know that the state of Arkansas needs to do what we can now to end discrimination. Preferential treatment. In favor of being color blind, um. Neutral as far as sex is concerned and merit-based. All right, Senator Tucker, I'm gonna give you this follow up and one more question and we're gonna try to wrap this up and I won't take both. I'll just take this one. How about that? All right, I'll take you up on that. Alright, I understand that a federal executive order, this is an overgeneralization, but it really applies to the federal government only. It's not a law. It doesn't apply to state governments, municipal governments, or private citizens. It takes an act of Congress signed by the President. At the federal level or an act of the legislature or some by the governor at the state level to actually make law, but a federal executive order in and of itself is not law. Do I understand that equally true of the executive orders that have put affirmative action into place. It was never law. So if you want, if one wants to say that affirmative action is the law by your definition, it wasn't. There were never any affirmative action laws passed in the US is your the executive orders were never passed as. But they were not ever took the form of law. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Alright, members, I don't see anybody else in the queue for a question. So with that we're going to move to public comment, um, Senator Clark. Yes, uh, we not just I but we all know that those that have come to comment have come from the four corners of the state. Some have driven a long ways, and we would like to be able to hear them all and in order to do that, we're going to need to put a time limit on each speaker because there's a number that have signed up, uh. The I'm going to make a motion of 3 minutes. If that's acceptable to the rest of the committee if you want it longer or shorter, tell me, uh, let's see here. 12 12, so that's 36 minutes besides questioning and answers. All right, so I got a motion from Senator Clark to comments to 3 minutes and then questions a second Senator Payton. All in favor. Say aye. opposed. Alright, so, Yes, we're going to be eliminating public testimony to 3 minutes, and then if you're willing to answer any questions the committee that's going to be at your discretion. You're not required to. So with that, um, Then we've got Lance Lavore. Speak Lavar, I'm sorry, Lance, come on up here, and he's going to be speaking against. And when you all come up here, if you just introduce yourself and if you're representing an organization, if you, you know, notify that organization or if you're just representing yourself or speaking for yourself and you just say speaking for myself. Uh, my name's Lance LaVarr. I am a private citizen. I was until this July when I resigned I was employed by the Department of Education in the formerly known office, formerly known as the Equity Assistance Center. One of the roles I had was to train teachers and provide and create the template used for the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan and so in addition, I was this last year the point person in relation to disability discrimination. And sex discrimination. Um, I want to appreciate the desire, Senator O'S Sullivan, to address equity versus equality, but as it reflected what he did two years ago and what it is now, there's a misunderstanding of those two terms. There's been a lot of leading that equity somehow means that we're saying we're going to give you something you don't deserve. or give you something you can't do on your own, and that's not what it is at all. What equity says is it takes and it looks at everybody and recognizes the merit that everybody's done, the work that they've taken and they've done, I said, you are good at what you do. You have worked hard to get there. And it recognizes That others have to work harder. And that sometimes we need to address those needs. A teacher that tells you the or an administrator that says the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan was designed so that they would hire. Unqualified minority candidates overqualified majority candidates has not paid attention to any of the training that we gave. The entire time. And to infect that the reason that we're we can't hire qualified applicants is because somehow minority applicants aren't qualified? In and of itself is a discriminatory statement. Our job is to help reflect. So the comment that was made about teachers that look like me, understand the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan would require, as it was written, those in a majority white district do have majority white teachers. It would require those in a majority black teacher to hire some white teachers, because it says to at least reflect because diversity is key. It was designed to ensure that we reach out and make sure our pool is deep enough. And then we hire the most candidate from that pool. Our pool is too shallow. Um, equality is about helping people. Equality is the teacher letting your student turn the paperwork paper they missed in the next day because they were sick that day. Equality is saying, I'm sorry, you could have figured out a way to do it on that day. Maybe your parent could have brought it to me. Equity is providing equality is providing everybody a parking lot with parking spaces and making sure they can all park. Equity is making sure we have spaces for those who have disabilities that have more struggle getting into those buildings. Equity is the prodigal son's father. Equality was his brother. Alright, I will take any questions about any of the work that I've done or any of the questions I have, especially the teacher administrator recruitment retention plan that was so important in this discussion. Thank you for testifying, Mrs. Lavar. Are there any questions from members of the committee? All right, Senator Hammer, how long did you work for the department? Why did you leave the department? I left the well, the reason I left the department was because Uh I had disagreements and and they were not allowing me to fulfill what was legislated and my job to do in relation to helping out school districts, um, because of executive orders that weren't law. And therefore I left to help districts directly. OK, those executive orders been reversed through the courts or are they still stand that you executive orders are are haven't been reversed through the courts. OK, all right, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you, Senator. But they don't have to do with this particular topic. Any other questions from members of the committee? All right, so no further questions, Mr. Lava. Thank you for your testimony, sir. All right, we're gonna have next up, Mr. Robert Steinbach's going to be speaking for. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. Thank you, Senator Tucker being my senator. Let me address a few points. Can you introduce yourself get your you're just fine. I apologize. Robert Steinbach, a professor of law here in my individual capacity. The there was quite a bit of discussion as to why the term Senator Tucker brings up why the term civil rights was replaced with more specific language and of course Senator Sullivan did a good job at explaining that, but I'll be a little less politic, being a little less of a politician, and that is civil rights has become a catch-all phrase for ideas including affirmative action, and this hearkens to what you often see on business and school letterheads, this phrasing of affirmative action equal opportunity employer. The problem is there's no such thing. Because either you're an affirmative action employer or you're an equal opportunity employer. You can't be both, and that's the point of SB 3. We are moving to merit. We're moving away from priorities for particular groups based on their skin color, based on their plumbing. It's time to move towards merit. um, I'm good friends with Senator Clark, but Senator, I respectfully offer that I disagree with your proposition. The best teachers make for the best learning. I'm a Jew from New York and I teach a bunch of Arkansans law. Could you imagine if people were to tell me, sorry, Rob, give up your spot for a local Arkansan to teach law to these Arkansans because that person looks or sounds or acts more like that, those students. So I, I respectfully disagree with you on that point, and so does the bill. The bill says we go for. merit. We go for the best teachers that we can find. Um, Senator Tucker, you had asked what is the impact of this law? It's a great question. Let's look at the 10 or so other states, including liberal California that has that has enacted this law. You were talking about the general section, not the specific modifications of various commissions and committees. That language is directly adopted from California and it's been in place for decades, I believe. I assure you the law is well developed in this area. And so far, California hasn't fallen off the edge of the country. I think we will be equally fine. Um. An additional point you raised, um, was about the injunctive relief against the state. Well, I think you're aware that the Supreme Court has ruled that notwithstanding sovereign immunity, injunctive relief is available against the state. The Supreme Court has said there's a distinction between monetary relief and injunctive relief. So in those cases in which someone were to sue the state and seek injunctive relief, that would be available. What might not be available are the what likely would not be available in fact would be any attorneys' fees because that would be financial compensation. Baker. 2 seconds. 2 seconds. Well, thank you. How's that? Alright, members, are there any questions from Steinbach? All right, Senator Clark, Senator Tucker, do you have a question as well? OK, Professor. Good to have you here today. Thank you, sir. The You know, as I've looked at this section. That uh I brought up and When you referenced me reference that section. Definitely Understand what it's in the bill. It needs to be rewritten. Uh, to explain why. Uh And, but are you arguing, let me say this race is not important, except when race is important. I'm saying is not important, period, and I understand what you and Senator Sullivan are saying, but what I have said, and I don't have the facts and figures here today. Uh, but what I have said, is that Black male students do better. Overall, generally, because we may have a professor Steinbach, we may have a Senator Clark. Who's just exceptional, OK? We do. We have lots of great teachers, but overall, Respond better To leadership, same gender, same color. And one, we don't, we have a shortage of teachers. It's not like somebody's losing a spot. Uh, because somebody else gets a job because uh and the the teacher shortage is going to get worse and worse. Uh, and I respect what Senator Payton had to say. We should not have we should not. Have an all white school in North Arkansas trying having having the law to recruit black teachers, uh, that being said, it appears to me that this bill does not allow me. As a superintendent who knows what I'm doing. OK, and no any specifically because the biggest problem we have That we've had at Center Elliott and I hit the beaches on and now this governor is taking it and done a yeoman's job is is reading. Is K through 3 is the time for kids to learn to read and if we miss it, then they're hurt the rest of their lives. If we, if we teach them to read and and poor kids, and we teach poor kids to read, they're going to do uh so much exponentially better in education and in life. The second problem I see and I saw this before I was a senator when I was looking at local schools, school choice. For my son. And I was looking, but and it's it. Separates things by race, and I was shocked that even the best schools. We're doing poorly with black males. And so to recognize that we got a problem with teaching kids to read and then to recognize that we're, we've got a problem with teaching black males who are not, you would agree with me, are not less intelligent. Indeed, so we're doing something culture or education or both are doing something wrong. And so I'm afraid this bill As much as I like the idea behind it as a as a like the bill overall. Does it not keep me? From doing what I need to do if looking at those facts and figures. Well, to be honest with you, Senator, we have a fundamental disagreement. I agree there is a black male education deficit. I don't believe the problem is that there aren't enough black male teachers to educate those students. Those students will do best by having the best teachers. My sister, for example, is also a teacher. She's a great school teacher and she teaches at a magnet type school. I don't know. Precisely what you call it. She teaches minority students, and she teaches white students as well, and she's just as white and Jewish as I am, and she's very good at that as well. And so my point is we should be focusing on the pigment and the plumbing of the potential professor, we should be focusing on the ability of the teacher to get the job done. The and I will agree with you. I've never had A child of A junior high student, especially it's my specialty of any of any race or any gender that did not respond well to me. That being said, The The fact and And having someone who looks like you is not the only piece of the pie. That's not the only place we're failing. It's not, but if it's one of, if it's a key piece. And and you've told me you don't recognize it and I think I kind of got the same answer from Central Soul and I do recognize it, uh, and know that it's a fact. So it would though then in answer to my question, prevent me. From from actively doing what I needed to do if I had a school with a lot of black males and thought I needed to hire black male teachers because they were black. Yes, indeed it would. OK, thank you, Senator Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. First of all, thank you, Professor for making that distinction. I was referring to referring to the attorneys' fees, but, but you're you're right, injunctive relief is possible, yes. My question is, it's really kind of a two part question. The first part is how do you define merit? Well, of course we define merit every day, right, and I, I can't give you a discrete set of words that applies to every situation, but I worked at a law school. We admit students based on merit. You work at a law firm. You hire associates. You do so based on merit, so I appreciate the question as um academic as it may be, but ultimately It depends on the context. What's the merit for a good attorney, someone who can engage in logical reasoning. How do we measure that? Well, we usually look at their law school grades. We may indeed look at their undergraduate grades. We look at what work experience they have, so every context has a way to measure merit. How do you measure the merit for a schoolteacher, Senator Clark, Aly brings out that would be something different again would probably go back to that potential teachers' grades in college, what work experience that she or he has had as well. So there, there are various ways we measure merit. One way that we don't measure merit is the color of your skin or the plumbing in your body, and that's what this law, this bill seeks to enact to prevent people from equating merit with biological characteristics. OK, I got the second part of my question, maybe we'll help flesh that out because in your conversation with Senator Clark, you were using the word effective, effectiveness, and how does that relate to our merit and effectiveness the same thing in your mind or or could effectiveness maybe take other factors into consideration. It's a bit abstract, but I would think that a good attorney would be an effective attorney. I'm not sure that answers your question. Let's talk in the context specifically of teachers that you and Senator Clark were discussing. Yes, so would a good teacher be an effective teacher? Yes. or would, would, would we measure the merit of the quality of a teacher based on his effectiveness, yes, OK. OK, fair enough. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right, members, any more questions for Mr. Steinbach? All right, see you, sir. You're excused. Thank you, sir. All right. Next up we're going to have Mr. Jimmy Cavin speaking against. Hey guys, I'm Jimmy Cain acting as a citizen. And I'm going to testify against this bill, not for the reasons everybody else is. It's because I don't think it has enough teeth. It's not bold enough. The language in it, I love. Senator Sullivan, I love what you're doing with the language. I think it's great. The problem I have with it, and I'll start with section 2 through section 25 is the repeal of the laws, the establishment of new laws are great, but we're, we're not backing it up with teeth. We say a class A misdemeanor. Good luck getting a prosecutor to prosecute that case. We've seen this movie before, uh, with other legislation and other state laws when you depend on a prosecutor. To hold people accountable. It's not gonna happen. The other issue I have is in section one and then when we get down to section 23 is codify means to put into code to mean put in the statute to mean put into law. Do not codify defined means to not arrange or systematize something into formal written code essentially leaving it without a clear structured set of rules or guidelines. That's what we're doing with the legislative intent. And that's what we're doing with section 23 on what we referred to the Legislative council. You put in charge of legislative council to oversee compliance and implementation. Of these laws, right? So in that section, you'll see that the legislative councils can say, hey, you got to come to me for this. You got to show me this. You got to show me how you're complying with this. We're going to call you before us to show this, but there's nothing in the law that makes them do that. It seems to me it's a suggestion. So when you look around the state, if you look at the mayor of Little Rock, do you really think he's going to apply to this, or do you think he's going to thumb his nose at it like he does everything else. When you look around certain sections of the state, do you think they're going to adhere to this? Do you think the North Rock School District's going to hear to this because they already don't need here to what's in the Les Act because there's no teeth. There's no teeth. I love what is in this bill. But until we start making laws that have teeth and accountability, you're putting in those on me as a citizen to hold people accountable, which I try to do. Joey McCutcheon, myself and others, Robert Steinbach. Uh, we go out and I have to find anorney. Thank God I've got Joey McCutchen who will do this stuff for free. But you put it on the citizen to go sue people because they won't follow the law that you create. Now you put the onus on the citizen to go hire an attorney to push back. And the citizens don't have those resources. What the citizens in this state are looking at y'all to do is put teeth, put this language in there, but put teeth in it it to protect me. To protect the citizens from this. That's what we're looking, so Senator Sullivan, I'm out of town, but I would say I love this language. The only thing I would ask is that you amend it the language with teeth and take any questions. All right, members, are there any questions from the committee? right see enough questions. Thank you, Mr. Ka. Thank you guys. All right, next we're going to have Ms. Deborah Springer. Ms. Springer. Su. I'm sorry, Settler. Good morning. Thank you. Good morning, Ms. Sutter. My apologies. That's OK. My name is Deborah Springer Sutler. And I hate the bill. I want to be specific about that. Uh, I want to say that Arkansas has a history. Of being discriminatory toward blacks and minorities, and this includes white women. Arkansas ranks 4-seventh in education. And if black people make up only 15.6. of the population of Arkansas. Then that means it is mostly white people who make the decisions. Act 151 of 1859 was part of Arkansas's history. In which they voted. That free black people had to leave the state by January 18th, 1, 1860 or face being sold into slavery for a period of one year. At that time there were only 700 black people in our. Do I need to remind you of the 1957 crisis. We are here today because history is being repeated. With biased laws and policies against people who are in a minority and who are no threat. White people make up 78.4% of the population in Arkansas. How can we discriminate? Against the majority. It's insane. You talk about a preference for veterans. There are preferences for different people in this country. It always has been. Legacy admissions at colleges. If your grandparents or relative went, you can get special treatment. Why do we have to change the law when we know racism and discrimination exist. It's ridiculous to say that there is no racism, especially in the state of Arkansas. I want to be clear about that. Some people cannot be trusted. That's why we have affirmative action. Because when we walk in the room we are seeing. For the color of our skin before you even know if we're qualified for a position. What a tangled web we weave when we attempt to deceive. Because this is a deceptive law. Being put into place because you want discrimination. To continue. And it will continue if this law goes into effect. I don't know what God you serve. But he requires us. To a justly Love, mercy and walk humbly with him. If you don't know it, God created diversity. Man created hate. God commands equity and inclusion. I'm here because it's a horrible bill. I don't care what a professor says about it, because you know what, Supreme Court has been wrong before. And Arkansas has been one of the states to talk about supporting the president. What about 1957. We had to bring in federal troops just to go to school. And now you want, don't want us to get a job. Or go to college. Or do anything. This is what this bill is all about. Thank you, Ms. Settler. All right, members, are there any questions from this? All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, Pam. Right Guys And to ask everybody to hold your applause. We're still moving through the public comment period. So next up we have Mr. Steve Grappe speaking. I don't see a for or I want to use notes so I can stay within Mr. Grap, I'm sorry I mispronounced your name. That's my apologies. No problem. Good morning members of the committee. My name is Steve Grapp, and I'm here today representing Stand Up Arkansas. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. It sounds like Senator Sullivan thinks we need affirmative action and to protect certain marginalized groups, but he wants to decide what groups are worthy or not. And he definitely is in favor of religion. Also, just because an executive order is written doesn't undo the law. There are checks and balances, and this can and will be overturned by the judicial branch. Please don't make Arkansas law based on an unconstitutional proclamation by the president without allowing that law to be properly litigated. Senator Sullivan kept referencing the Attorney General and in support of the language. We as the people were also told by the Attorney General that he would defend any ballot initiative bill if his office approved the language. He said he did not follow through on that promise, and the Supreme Court overruled what he had approved. Why would we listen to that just to base on what could be a just turned over by our Supreme Court. I'm not saying this bill reverses anything, but there is a lot of indirect consequences intended or not. I'd like to begin by taking us back to that moment in September 4th, 1957, the day the Little Rock Nine walked through the doors of Central High School. On that day, Arkansas became a battleground for civil rights, and the courage of those non-students forever changed the course of history. Not just for our state, but for our nation. Their fight for equal access to education was the beginning of progress, we've seen through generations in Arkansas. Programs designed to open doors, affirmative action initiatives, scholarships for underrepresented groups, and efforts to diversify workplaces and schools have helped countless individuals achieved what was once out of reach. These programs didn't just lift individuals, they strengthened entire communities and helped build a more inclusive Arkansas. Senate Bill 3 threatens to undo decades of that progress. It claims to create equality, but in reality it ignores the systemic barriers that these programs were designed to address. If we erase these tools. For opportunity, we are not leveling the playing field. We're paving it over and pretending the uneven ground beneath no longer exists. Look around our state today. We have more women leading businesses, more first-generation students earning degrees and more diverse voices shaping policies than ever before. The progress didn't just happen by accident. It's the result of intentional action and programs that addressed inequities head on. To pass SB 3 would be to turn our backs on this legacy of progress. It would signal to our children that we no longer value inclusion, diversity, and opportunity for all. We cannot afford to progress and we certainly cannot afford to move backwards. I urge you to vote no on SB 3. Let's honor the courage of those who came before us and let's commit to building a future where every Arkansan has the chance to thrive. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, Senator Hammer, you were recognized for a question, sir. Thank you and thank you for coming and speaking today. The comment you just made. So the individuals that have been successful And I don't want to make sure, I want to give you the opportunity to clarify your statements. The reason I'm asking this because part of the impression I got from what you said is that the people that have gotten there that have been successful, whether they're in the legislature, they're doctors, their business people. They're people that pulled themselves up by the bootstraps. They, they didn't get there because of their own individual God-given merit. They got there because of what else. Well, first of all, I want to quote Martin Luther King, when you're talking about pulling themselves up out of their bootstraps. He says it's kind of hard for a man to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. If you ain't got boots if he's barefoot. And right now, that's what some of these programs have done is just help make people see that there is other people out there other than the people that's the same color of their skin or same gender or same religion. So I do think that this, there have been things that have been put in. play to help marginalized communities, and I think we should continue to do that. What about those individuals that didn't utilize any programs they got there without the use of programs. Amen. Good for them. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. All right. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Alright, see you. Thank you, sir. All right. I'm not going to get this last time, so I'm not going to try Austin starts with B. All right, sir. Good morning. My name is Austin Porter Junior. I'm an attorney, practice a civil rights lawyer, very proud to say that I am. I grew up in a little place called College Station, which is right there by the airport. Graduated from McClelland High School in 1978. I went to college, University of Arkansas Little Rock and uh I decided to go to law school at University of Arkansas Little Rock and Professor Steinbach, if you have been the director of admission back then, I would have never been able to get in. So I thank God that at that time, the law school had an affirmative action minded. Um, my mentor, the great John W. Walker, I was fortunate enough to spend a great deal of time with him. I practiced law, and I still do a lot of civil rights litigation. I read SB 3 and I did a deep dive into the bill. The bill is entitled An Act to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment by the state of Arkansas and other public entities and for other purposes. In looking at the language of the bill, it is one that is in wolf. It's a wolf in sheep clothing. Senator Dan Sullivan is simply trying to implement Project 2025 Arkansas style. It is clear that Senator Sullivan believes that white men in particular have been victimized by diversity, equity and inclusion. It is clear that Senator Sutherland believes that white men have to share just a small piece of the economic pie, roughly 5% and have somehow lost power in the state, but yet I'm in a room. That's full of nothing but white senators. Senator Tucker, I thank you for your question and Senator the Clark, I thank you for yours as well. I don't really understand what the rub is uh whites in particular are in power in this in this state. Ronald, you know, um, Ronald Reagan felt the same way and and he came into the office by saying we must take our country back. Donald Trump told white folks that we must make America great again, which is really a dog whistle that that we must make America white again. SB 3 no longer takes the lack of diversity into consideration when handing out liquor license and Sullivan don't like the word equity. So that word has been replaced with equality, uh, yet when I look at our Arkansas Supreme Court. The court that's been in existence for over 150 years. There has never been an African American who's been elected to as the Arkansas Supreme Court, and we're in this building right today. Um, Senator Suer no longer believes that there is a need to have diversity when it comes to our educational system. Because SV 3 will eliminate the need to have African Americans as certified teachers and administrators. Under the current law, the Department of Education is required to set goals for the recruitment of minority teachers and to encourage minority students to go into the field of education. FBI will eliminate that. Senator Sullivan and his Republican colleagues no longer believe that it's necessary to recruit qualified minority teachers to the delta, SB 3 strikes the word minority, also SB3 would also eliminate scholarship opportunities for minority teachers. You know, it's, uh, when you, when you're talking about employment issues. I have tried numerous of jury trials in this state and federal court involved in employment discrimination. I have tried some against the state of Arkansas. One of my clients is here today. She worked for the Arkansas Military Department was well qualified, had been there some 15 years, had served in the role as the assistant director of Human Resource, went to college, had a master's degree in human resources, but yet when it came time for her, she applied for the vacant director of administration human resources position at the Arkansas military division. They brought in a white woman. With a GED and promoted her over my client. I tried that case in federal court, we won that case. Another case that I had, Doris Smith, we've already gone over the 3-minute timeline, so I want to take some time to open this up for questions for many members if they have questions. OK, Senator Hammer, you're for a question, sir. Thank you. Thank you for being here, sir. I appreciate your personal successes in life, um, That court case you just cited, what was the merits of the decision as to why Your client won that court case. Why she wanted it because I was an effective lawyer who presented her case. So it didn't have anything to do with who was white or who was black. Was it on the basis of it was, it was on the basis of the fact that she was discriminated against on the basis of her race, and a jury that consisted of 6 whites, 1 African American, and one Hispanic, all agreed that my client had been a victim of race discrimination, but yet I don't see Dan Sullivan trying to get, you know, that the law at that time required that any state government official who was guilty of discrimination should be terminated, but yet that same person stayed in that position. He wasn't terminated. OK, so the basis of the court case and the outcome. It was it was proven That it was discrimination or it was proven that somebody with a GED who was white. was given the job. Over somebody who is more qualified that was African American racism, Title 7 is, you know, I don't understand why this law is even needed. Title VII protects people from discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, and religion. 42 USC section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act protects people based on race. And so this particular law is really designed to give basically white people who feel like they've been victimized by some preferential treatment that's non-existent. It gives them really reparations and black people have been yelling for reparation for years. Now a white person and a white person who's who believe that they've been victimized by race discrimination, they can file a lawsuit under Title VII. I have represented white people who have felt that they have been a victim of this reverse discrimination. I have had a couple of cases like that. I represented Hispanics. I've been practicing law again for 38 years, and this is what I do. You know, I make money on stupidity. I don't mind that. I made a lot of money on people who have insisted on discriminating against people based on their race. That's how I make my money. And I guess the last thing I would say is a question I was asked is there was a comment made a while ago. I mean, There's a comment that was made a while ago that when we walk in the room that were looked at differently based on your presentation today, even your tone and body language. I feel that you look upon us differently. No, I don't. What I see here, sir, you know, Senator Sullivan is obviously concerned that white men have been somehow disadvantaged because of diversity, equity, inclusion. But yet all of the senators here are white. Men You're in power. So what is your problem? Why do you think there's a, there's a need to, to have, now, now you want to have a bill passed where um minority contractors are no longer able to get those contracts. Hey, minority contracts is probably only get about 3% of the state contracts in the state, yet this bill by Senator Sulomon will totally eliminate that. You know, it's, it's, it's a situation where white men are not satisfied with. 98% of the pie or 95% of the pie, they want the whole damn pie. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any further questions? All right, Senator Clark. Thank you for being here. Uh, and uh uh I don't know if you described him as a mentor but if that however you describe him, he was my mentor John W. Walker. I enjoyed serving with him, uh. had to Early on, had to director, he presented an education bill and he called me a racist, and I raised a point of order because it was absolutely not true. And from that point on, I don't know you, sir, and I don't believe that in you, but and but we, I'm not gonna say we became friends, uh, but we became friendly and a lot of times you use the term friends too loosely, uh, but I very much respect. What he came through, what he did, I respect you. What you've dealt with, uh, but is it not possible? Uh, I appreciate your rhetoric, but is it not possible? That there are those like me. That supported In the past Affirmative action, uh, and I can give you good reasons. I'm a small employer I have employed at times 25 small business 25 people, uh, when I go, I run ads. But the first thing I do before I run ads is I go to employees and I go to, I'm looking for somebody. Well, most of my friends and family. Or what, not all, but most. And so I realized In my mid-thirties that that created a dearth of black applicants, so I started, you know, unusual. I started going to black pastor friends and saying, hey, do you know, but, uh, but I can use a better example, Reynolds. was the best job in Hot Springs for manual labor. You could make a really good living and you also couldn't get a job there, uh, and it didn't matter what your race was, I had a friend that I graduated high school with, and he went straight to work there because his uncle was there. Well, that's more likely to happen if you're white because of history. Not as many black people in those positions, so see a reason for affirmative action. Is it not possible though that some of us are saying we like what Martin Luther King Jr. said about my hope for my kids. is a society, a country that doesn't see color. That and that that that then that's not the word to use, that you could quote them better than I can. Everybody can quote it better than I can, uh. But that it doesn't matter and that that a lot of us are saying who happen to be white. That that's where we want to go. We want to go to a place, and I have already said that. We've got to be careful when we do that, so that I have some problems with this bill, but can you not see that that's possible rather than me wanting a bigger piece of the pie. Well, Sarah went out when I was walking to the Capitol walking down Dr. Martin Luther King Avenue. Here to fight against the bill that's designed to set this state back and designed, designed to set even black people back. And so when you're talking about and and you made a conscious decision in your employment that you wanted to try to seek out a qualified African American African, and that's great. Just like University of Arkansas, Little Rock made a conscious decision that they want a more diverse student body. I was one of 4 African American students out of 100 when I went to law school, we lost two and then only left myself. and another young lady. I worked hard, I passed, but once I got into law school, I proved that I belonged there. And I took the bar exam and I passed it on the first time. Because I studied hard and I'm one of the top civil rights lawyers in this state. And, and just think if I had not ever been able to get into law school, a lot of people would have missed out on the opportunity to have quality representation when they have been victimized by race discrimination because it's still exists today, even in state government, when you go into all of the state governments around this, this state, you will see in the upper echelons of management people are white. Donald Trump claimed that he hires on merit, but yet when you look at his cabinet, it's nothing but white men, a white women, and he got one black person. That merit in a lot of people's minds means simply white. And I have been in a situation where individuals have gone in front of a hiring committee consisted of 5 people. And they're all white. My client is black, and they are asking subjective questions. Why do you want this position. Nothing objective, and they base the decision clearly on the interview scores that are given. Well, obviously if you have white candidates, those white candidates are going to get the higher score. The black candidate against the lower score. It's not based on merit, it's based on discrimination. And that's why when you look at upper management and state government and a lot of private companies, you would The upper management, those people who have power positions, those people are making more money, they're white. I appreciate your point of view. I appreciate your experience. Thanks for being here. Thank you, Senator. Are there any further questions? All right, see you now. Thank you very much for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Alright. Next up we've got Marsella Garcia. He's going to be speaking against. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today. My name is Marisa Garcia. I work for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families for more than 47 years now we have advocated at the legislature for research-based proven policies that work to improve the lives of children and families here in Arkansas. Uh, there's been a lot of random buzzwords today that are irrelevant to this bill sanctuary, legal and ration DEI, the bill does not address any of those things. Um, I want to be clear that we're not here to talk about moral arguments. As an attorney, what I want to talk about is how this bill is poorly written and doesn't do what the senator believes it does. It takes many pieces of unrelated legislation and lumps them together under an idea of equality, but it doesn't have any concern for what the ultimate harm is in making little changes to the law and where it will impact further. Um Especially for the children and families of our state and the state agencies themselves. Um, it targets education, hiring, housing, alcohol licenses, and more without any evidence that issues exist in these programs, and for that reason we would ask you to vote no on SB 3, Arkansas is already struggling, as Senator Clark has said, to recruit teachers of color and in particular by deleting the word minority, what we're doing in the Because in the bill, uh from the minority, uh, uh, scholarships is making sure that that students of color who are qualified who have to actually have a higher GPA, then the other equal scholarship that we have for the same type of programs that is open to anyone. Um, will not be eligible to have these scholarships and be able to be accessible in the pool, right? If they don't have access to funding for school, we will not have access to those quality teachers who are bybo, but that doesn't mean because they're black indigenous Latino, Hispanic people of color that they are unqualified. They have to be qualified to meet the requirements of the scholarships and by deleting the word we are simply duplicating an existing scholarship that exists for everyone. Also, uh, you know, we know that when students of all colors are taught by teachers of color. They do better. Johns Hopkins University study showed having one black teacher in elementary school, not only makes black children more likely to graduate high school but more likely to go to college. This is important because Arkansas has very low rates of black students entering college and and being able to stay in college and the more teachers they have, the better it will be. Further, this bill puts the state in very. precarious position, Section 21 is overly broad. It addresses Education, which is a huge department on itself, but it also applies to any state agency because it's hiring and procurement and all divisions have to do that. We fit the 3 minute mark, Ms. Garcia, members, are there any questions from the committee? All right, Centra Clark, you're recognized. Just as a matter of philosophy. Uh, and I'm sorry I missed your name. Marisa Garcia, Ms. Garcia, uh. As a matter of philosophy, I want to ask you this question. I created Scholarships A few years ago, uh, for those, this legislature with creative scholarships with uh bills that I ran, wrote and ran, uh, for those who would serve in areas where they were needed, which I was specifically thinking the delta as I think others were, and to that was one and the other was to teach that we're going in to teach subjects promising to teach subjects, uh, that we needed them to. seas like special education or science. Why is that not an equal or better approach. Then saying, if you're this race. Well, so we know that as you said, black male students do very poorly in Arkansas. We are not addressing the issue that they do not see people like them. In schools, so they don't see how that can be a positive that I should be able to go further. The fact that having one black teacher in elementary school means that that those students are more likely to graduate high school and go to college means that we need to encourage those groups that don't historically have access to funding. For university and so that's why we have set aside not just the minority recruitment scholarship, but also, yes, we have an underneath underserved need in the Delta. We need to have more scholarships there fundamentally to be able to bring people in. We are not doing well by our students overall in the Delta, but right now, um, I think it's, it's been stated that, you know, if you are black, you can sue for affirmative action. Understand that the law protects everyone on the basis of race and color already. And so What the lawsuits have gone to the Supreme Court that have been developed and they have stated that similar discriminatory actions against white people. It's illegal under Title VII. You can't make a decision that I'm just going to hire whoever because people right now are not in equal positions to get into college, to have the funding. That's why there were separate decisions with those scholarships. OK, I'm not sure that you responded to my question, but uh I appreciate you being here. Thank you, Clark. All right, numbers, are there any further questions from the committee? All right, see you now, Ms. Garcia, thank you for your testing. All right. Next up, speaking against, we've got Kwami Abdul Bay. Good morning. I'm Kwame Abdulbay, Political action chair of the Arkansas Conference of the NAACP. last legislative session. Senator Sullivan introduced and co-sponsored SB 71, which he admitted was a model bill given to him by California special interest group. Amid the outcry, he met with the Arkansas NAACP and several other groups. When we all compared notes, we learned that in addition to him being very condescending to all of us. He was totally unclear with us about the true intent of SB 71. In reference to the section on teachers, Senator Sullivan literally told us that seeking black teachers for Delta counties was wrong because, quote, such teachers have no merit, unquote. After he pulled the bill and placed it in a room study, Senator Sullivan agreed to work with us to fix the bill where it does not potentially weaken the protections that all our Kansans have under the Declaration of Rights in our Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. However, he's never reached out to us between that session and this session, nor responded to any of us reaching out. To him. Now we're here with SB 3, which is essentially the same bill with added poor attempt to protect preferential treatments only for veterans when the wording actually leaves out black veterans, Latino veterans, women veterans, and disabled veterans. I am a black disabled veteran who wonders if there's this added language will even benefit me. There's no documented in a room study that resolves the complete lack of data that this bill, uh, uh purports to solve. The only indication that we have of if anything that this uh bill deals with is during inter room study during the Legislative council hearing, a Virginia special interest group testified that the real intent of this type of legislation was to create a conservative question sanctuary while admitting with a smirk that is an essentially reverse discrimination. This probably explains why Senator Sullivan chose not to include religion in the bill. The Arkansas NAACP is against this bill, and we are for uh the goal of having all ourkansans. Feet uh compete fairly in the race of life, but we also understand that everyone needs to eventually get to the same starting point. As such, we oppose this bill in any other legislation, uh, that, uh, Does not solve any of the challenges that Arkansas, Arkansans face, such as food deserts. Banking deserts, healthcare deserts, passing bills into law just because you have the power to do so and we've hit the 3 minute mark. So are you open for any questions? Members, are there any questions from members of the committee? All right, see you then. Appreciate your testimony, sir. Thank you. All right. Next up, we've got Miss Gail Chok. Speak against Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Doctor Gail Choate, and I work with a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization called Arkansas Civic Action Network. We do civic education to the community because we believe that all Arkansans' voices should be heard in our in their governance. We're here because we the people established the constitution both federally as well as within this state. I am here to bring up just a couple of points that I think that you should consider. Number one is that Senator Sullivan in your testimony today very succinctly talked about the need to present this legislation because of executive orders that were coming out of Washington. Yet we know two things. First, Our form of government does create a system of checks and balances, both on a federal level, as well as through the interaction of federalism, which merges federal legislation with the power of the states to make sure that those bills that are passed meet the unique needs of their citizens. I urge you to reconsider passing this bill at this time because number one, I believe that the testimony that's been presented today clearly demonstrates that Arkansans are concerned about how this bill would impact them in their daily lives. Ignoring that because an executive order, which is only issued by one man in one position in one branch of our federal government would disregard your responsibility to Arkansans to make sure that the bills that are being passed by this body meet their needs and are reflective of the unique culture, history, and people that live here. I also want to echo because I am a PhD, so I'm all about data, so I want to echo the concern that we have heard no data presented that supports this bill. In fact, yesterday when 3 executives from Walmart presented testimony to another committee within this body. They were specifically asked, do you have any data that demonstrates the impact of DEI. On your business. To which they answered no. I put forth the idea and the argument here today that passage of SB 3 is solving a problem that we don't know exists. And that before any action be taken that you prudently consider, number one, is their data to show that there's an issue at all. Number 2, is there data to demonstrate that this bill specifically will solve any problems, and number 3, does it meet the needs of Arkansans. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Choate. All right, members, are there any questions from the committee? All right, see no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Next up, I believe I'm going to get this Reverend Amika Whitfeld. I get that. Well, You got that Reverend Amika kind of close together there. And she'll be speaking against SB 3. Yeah, if you just hold it down, yeah, if you just wanna maybe that if you're not, you can try the other one. Yeah, see that there you go, yeah. Sure My name is Reverend Doctor Anika T. Whitfield. I am a Little Rock native. I am an Arkansan, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Arkansans who want to be here and aren't able to come because they are at work or they are at school. Uh, regarding Senate Bill 3. That was proposed by Senator Sullivan. Discrimination cannot be eliminated by passing legislation into laws that actually create discrimination. Arkansas needs to be embracing of its history. of denying access to persons with greatest needs by using laws that have permitted the public lynching. Of persons who are not a visible European descent. Senator Sullivan, lynching of African Americans and or blacks in Arkansas. Denying health care access to persons who are not visibly of European descent. Discriminating against and denying equity and education to children because of the color of their skin. Redlining and denying voting rights to persons because of their identity, gender, ethnic origin or background, not only has harmed over 40% of Arkansans. To include people who are indigenous to this land. Persons of African descent, persons of Hispanic culture. Women. And they're unborn children, veterans. Of their civil rights and they're inalienable rights are all examples in Arkansas law not only of persons who have been and are being harmed by our state, but a persons that you want to continue harming. SB 3 appears to be legislating preferential treatment for persons who have used their preferential abilities to preferentially discriminate against persons based on the color of their skin, their ethnicity, their gender, and their identity who do not align with the persons with preferential power. I urge each of you to create a healthy and equitable history and her story of Arkansas moving forward by refusing to pass Senate Bill 3 and to no longer legislate discrimination of any type in any. Of these houses. Thank you. Thank you. All right, members Are there are any questions from the committee, Senator Clark here for her question. You Pastor Uh, you may or I understood you to make several charges. Can you show me in this bill. Uh, where. It does any of the things that you said? There was a question asked earlier of Senator Sullivan about who was being harmed and he didn't have an answer for that, and I was offering an answer of who has been harmed by bills such as this one. I'm not talking about bills such as or 100 years ago or even yesterday. I'm asking about this bill. Yes, and my reference is that when he was asked the question, how have people been harmed. He did not have an answer, and I just offered how people have been harmed. This bill has not become law yet, so not directly by this law or by this bill because it's not law, but what in this bill Causes that harm. The elimination of words and replacing of them by using discrimination that is actually discriminating against the very people that I described. OK, well, I'm going to help you. Since you don't have the Bill there. The only words that I can think of that you're talking about is that Cen Tucker and I asked Senator Sullivan about page 2, line 10. Uh, enable the school districts of the state to more effectively meet their and crossed out civil rights and put in desegregation desegregation and non-discrimination in its place responsibilities. Uh, I'm trying to, one second, it's page 2. I'm familiar with where he is. I was going to point to him to where I'm talking. Got you. Go ahead. I'm 1920. That's the only places I could think that you were talking about, and I'll tell you where I where I would start for if if you want. To answer that question. Her Whitfield, we'll let you proceed, and if she needs her and I would love an attorney Porter's assistants as well, but I just wanted to start with the basic front page that says for an act to be entitled An Act to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment by the state of Arkansas and other public entities and for other purposes and then the subtitle to prohibit discrimination or preferential treatment by the state of Arkansas and other public entities. The state of Arkansas has been discriminating against the very people that I described that that has already been happening and this particular bill is suggesting that it's going to do something else, but I would offer that it's not going to do something else that is going to make the matters worse. I will yield to Attorney Porter who can make it clearer to you, but I, I'm, I'm very well studied. I have 3 degrees, a doctoral degree and 2 bachelor degrees. I'm very well studied. I've read this bill and I I'm saying to you very clearly that when he was asked a question, who has this harmed? I was describing to you who it has already harmed. OK, and again, I never questioned anything about your education. Well, you said you needed to help me and I was just sharing with you. I didn't really need any help. That that was my point. I was talking about that's all I need to know, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. I think you want me to answer your question good. Alright, members are further questions? All right, thank you all. All right. And last up we've got Mr. Antoine Phillips. Speaking against Mr. Phillips. I guess I'm the first one to get to say good afternoon. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee for allowing me to speak today. um. I won't talk about the spirit of this bill we just get your name for the record, if you can just, I was going to go there, Antoine Phillips is my name. I'm gonna talk first about the spirit of the bill and then a little bit about the letter of the bill, um, as chairman just asked me, I'm Antoine Phillips, Little Rock native, a partner attorney, partnered uh defense firm here in the city of Little Rock, and I'm also elected member of the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Uh, someone who grew up in Little Rock also went to college in Maine, Bowden College, which is the number 5 ranked college in America. Came home and went to law school here. The reason why I bring up Bowden and his ranking is because I was afforded an opportunity. To go to Bowden and it was on me to take advantage of that opportunity to succeed. The reason why I bring this up because this bill, uh, although framed, uh, effectively for its passage is not about preferential end and preferential treatment. It's about ending opportunities. I think that's important and I want that to sit with you for a second. Without the opportunity, Antoine wouldn't have went to Bolton without the opportunity. Antoine wouldn't have had the the chance to go to law school and become a lawyer at Rylands and Jennings become an elected official in his hometown. Opportunity, this bill ends opportunity for folks who need it the most, uh, that goes to the spirit of the bill. Secondly, as it goes to the letter of the bill. There's also a financial impact. To institutions that promote the history based on the pigment of people's skin because of how people have been treated based on the pigment of their skin. So this bill will take away the funding to protect their history for specific institutions like mosaic, which I think uh mosaic Templars Cultural Center, which I think was mentioned earlier. This bill will end that, that's a problem. Um, thirdly, this bill continues preferential treatment for veterans, and I guess based on testimony earlier, also based on your religious ideology. That's needed. That's important because of what veterans have endured for this country. I will submit to you. That the minority groups that are affected by this bill have endured things by this country and that's the reason why you need these opportunities that are currently in law that this bill Um, well, erode the spirit of the bill is bad. I'm also a legislator in the city of Little Rock and not just vote on the letter, also vote on the spirit. What are we trying to do? What message are we trying to send? How are we helping people? How are we harming people. The spirit of this bill is bad and I, and for that reason I will request each of you to vote no today and make sure that this bill, this bill does not become law in the state of Arkansas. Thank you, Chairman. Mr. Phillips. All right, uh, Senator Hammer, recognize for a question? Yes sir, and thank you for your service and thank you for your successes in life. Have you've presented on the argument that discrimination is there and that And your fear is that this bill is going to remove those protections. I, I'm just curious as to how did you get to such a successful place in life if discrimination is so prevalent that you have arrived at such a successful place in life. Where were you discriminated against personally and specifically that it held you back from reaching such a successful place in life. I, I appreciate the question. I, I'll, uh, reject the premise on one ground that this bill does allow for Preferential treatment or opportunities for veterans, and I think again I think that's important. It's taking away from other groups, so I just want to make sure I'm clear there as it relates to me personally. The spirit of this bill, the things that are currently in place to give people opportunities is how I got to where I am in life and what this bill does with its financially related to institution whether it related to teachers where it's related to who's employed in state government. takes away the opportunity for people to be successful and whatever success I have and I just said that because I know that's how people Qualify success, but whatever that was because I had a chance. And the way this country has worked, I didn't always, people who look like me didn't always get a chance. And what this bill does is take away the chance. It takes away the opportunity for someone to go to an institution and learn about their history, to go to a classroom to see someone that looks like them to work with people who look like them or look different from them. It's ending that. I, I was able to get a a door open and then it's on me to do the work. So what opens the door. I got to walk through it and prove that I'm, I'm, I can do it. And I did it and I think there's a lot of people in this state who've also had the same opportunities who've been able to walk through that door and show and prove to be successful. What this bill does is close that door. And there's a lot of people who won't get that chance, won't get to work with or be taught by or see people in positions that look like them. Because of the history of this country, and that's what I meant by saying this is important for what people who look like me. And I know the word pigment was used earlier with my pigment have endured by this country. And that's why you need to do, that's why we have things in place that are currently in place now in this bill will take those opportunities away. What doors would have been shut. That you would not have had the opportunity to go through if this bill would have been in place when you began the path to your success. What, what specific doors would have been shut if this bill was in place then. Well, the doors I'm referring to. Um, I, I, I have to share this with people a lot of times I think I'm older than I look, so I'm talking about doors that have 2030 years ago, um, but I'm referring to the opportunity for me to go to The University of Arkansas Little Rock. Where I was admitted, as I understand it, based on my racial status and my marriage, I received scholarships to go to that school. I received funding from the state so I can go to law school based on what I did in undergrad and based on what I looked like it gave me an opportunity to become a lawyer. That was state funding that allowed for me to go to a public institution in my hometown. So I could have the opportunity. This takes this, this takes those type of opportunities away from people like me, whether it's in, like I said, state government jobs, institutions, or in the classroom, you're taking that away. And I hope that answers your question directly. I appreciate the dialogue and the street for you Senator. Thank you, Senator. Excuse me, Senator King. Question. Yeah thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know this is one of those issues. It's almost like a custody battle, you know, the child that that both sides can look at to see and, you know, anytime you do that, you get all this emotion that comes out on both sides and it's very hard to, to, uh, you know, decide those things, but so I grew up in Green Forest, a small rural town, so I graduated in 1986. It was literally like Mayberry, I, I think, uh, I mean, to quote Bill Maher when he was talking, I mean, it was as wide as the Hallmark Channel. I mean, to be honest with you, uh, so, you know, later, uh, you know, I graduated in SR town has changed, and more recently my wife and I went to New York where we've been visited the Tenant museum down in the Lower East Side where you had a lot of multicultures and later, and I meant to ask the other lawyers because it's probably more age thing if you remember, uh, US Senator Patrick Monaghan, who wrote Beyond the Melting Pot, and he spoke at my brother's graduation at the UFA. But Green Force now has, we speak 8 languages at Green Forest. I mean, it's really like when we were in New York, they were like, where are you from Arkansas small r town where you kind of look, but you could just talk. I mean, we speak 8 languages there now. I mean, Green Forest is probably 50 60% Hispanic. So you see in agriculture when I went through agriculture and FFA, there were almost, I don't remember any females going through there may be very rarely. Now, you know, we have Hispanic young women who are officers in that. I mean, they talked about how they thought, you know, when we first started this, you know, we wondered how we didn't look like everybody else, but you see that, you know, they have overcome it and I'm sure not everything's been perfect, and I mean, and I certainly, uh, I was teasing Senator Flippo about announcing names. I did the PA at the home basketball games at Green Forest for years. So now, you know, I had to introduce kids from Micronesia, from Burma, uh, you know, all over, so, you know, I think when you see the melting pot thing, I mean someone like yourself that, uh, you know, I do think that this is maybe not the era that even I grew up in, and I think it's a little different now. I'm not saying there's not challenges, and I think that, uh, uh, I, I think. That as Green Forest has shown, you know, we've seen Kids be valedictorians, I mean, uh, different, I mean, it's very difficult and there's challenges, but I mean, I've been very proud of my hometown to see that. A lot of diverse people of different races of achieved things and, and accomplish things. So, you know, it's, it's, it's a unique perspective to be and so I appreciate the attorneys, uh, examples of fighting that and so that's why, you know, I'm want to support Senator Selvin's bills is because I think that when you look at it, I think achievement and merit, even though there's still cases that we have that we don't agree with, but I, I think that You know, you yourself by your drive and ambition can succeed in about anywhere with whatever challenges, so I appreciate you coming and I know uh I just see it from a different perspective is all I can respond to that 3 points. One, I appreciate the the progress Green Forest is made, but if I'm understanding the lay of the land correctly, they've made it under the current structure of the laws in the state of Arkansas, and what you all are deciding today is whether you want to change. that structure and maybe green forest isn't what the green forest that you like now or love now maybe won't be that same green forest in 5, 10 years from now if you approve this bill, that's point number 1. Point number 2, Anyone who knows me knows that I'm, I'm a confident person and I appreciate your kind words saying that I could, uh, no matter the situation, I would have been whatever. Uh, I disagree, um, I, I know that as a person who graduated from Little Rock McClellan High School, um, There were people in the classroom next to me, just as smart, just as driven, who didn't get the opportunity to Antoine get. That's why I'm here today. That's why I ran for office, because I know that I was afforded opportunity that everyone else didn't get, and I'm trying to represent for those people. So I disagree that if you put Antoine anywhere under any circumstances, it just works out for him. I had opportunities that other people didn't have and I'm trying to fight to make sure that they have those, and I think this bill goes away from that. Thirdly, I want to go back to the uh metaphor that you use as a custody battle and if to extend the metaphor, if you would, Senator King, um, when you, when you have a custody battle and I'm not a family law lawyer or attorney, but I did learn in law school, you got to do what's in the best interest of the child. That's the number one rule. And I guess in your example, um, The metaphorically, the child or the minority groups who would be harmed by this bill and I will submit to you that this bill passage is not in the best interest of the metaphorical child in the example you gave, um, to extend it even further, if this is a custody battle and you have one parent who has a history of abuse and discrimination against a child. Do you want the child to go into that home or go to a home where they're protected and afforded opportunities to be the best that they can be. This bill is not in the best interest of the child. So, uh, that was my 3 points. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, sir. Hammer. Those people that you were sitting in school with that weren't afforded the same opportunity as you. Why weren't they afforded the same opportunity? I don't know that's Senator Hamm only thing I can say is a spiritual man, God's grace afforded me certain opportunities that other people didn't get and I also think under God's grace, now I had the obligation to try to ensure that they, those folks and folks like them do have the opportunities, but my question is why, what was it about those people sitting next to you Were they white? Were they black? Were they from what, what was the difference that you said they didn't get that opportunity. I don't know why they didn't get the opportunity. I didn't provide the opportunity for myself. Other people provided for me other institutions provided for me. I went to McClellan. My school was 98% black, so most of the people that sit next to me look like me. So I, I can't, I'm sorry, Senator, but I can't answer why someone opened the door for Antoine and not the person next to him. I don't know that. I just know it was open for me. And I took advantage of it and now I'm trying to open it for others, but if they were If if they were, you just said 98% black, then that would tell me that they had the same opportunities you had. They just didn't take advantage of it. No, we were all in the same classrooms. I learned AP English with 30 other kids. I was in calculus with 30 other kids. They didn't get the opportunity to go to bo. They their grades were just like mine. There were other people that didn't get the opportunity to go to law school on a full ride. I can't tell you why I'm not I'm but I can't tell you I'm not smarter than them. I can tell you that. I can tell you my opportunities were different from theirs. I guess what I'm trying to get my mind around then we're Were they discriminated against. I, I don't think I can accept the premise of that question. I don't because I don't understand it. Well, what I'm trying to get my mind around is you said they weren't afforded the sameportunities. But if they were in the same environment as you. They were And you know, I mean, I don't, you said 98%, and I'm using that generally. I don't have, I didn't, I don't have the actual stats. I just wonder what was in place that maybe you got something that they didn't, and they were discriminated against while you were given the opportunity that they weren't afforded. Otherwise, if that's not the case, it boiled down to You by your own initiative took advantage of the opportunity that they chose not to, and I guess the only reason I said that was because you made that one of your main arguments, and I don't know we could answer that question. That's why I asked. Yeah, and I don't know if I, I don't know if I can, I, I think I understand your question on why something happened to me that didn't happen to someone else. I can't answer that Senator hammer. I'm sorry if I, if that's not acceptable, but I don't have an answer. I just know it was for me and, and I think this bill will prevent it from happening to others. It's a point of my testimony here today. I really don't know why it didn't happen to them. Do I know why it didn't happen you don't really know why it didn't happen for them. You, I'm just, you made that a key point of your response. All my points were key points, Senator Hammer. I said I think all my points were key points. Yeah, just trying to defend why it was that you said that they Didn't have the same opportunity as you. I was just trying to, I think we understand each other. Thank you Clark. I appreciate you being here and I appreciate your point of view. I appreciate that Arkansas law requires that we hear citizens when we're uh Looking at legislation, I didn't know that before I was a senator. I didn't know I could come and testify. What year did you enter college? 2002. OK, so I wanted to get an idea. So considerably after I would have. I think what, what we're trying to Hm Get to is that you believe, obviously very much so, that there were opportunities afforded to you because of your racial status. That allowed you to be successful and so do you, would your test scores not have allowed you to get into college. Bowden College is a standardized. Tess blind school, so they don't look at test scores and that was kind of cutting edge back in 2002. I know a lot of schools have moved towards that now, uh, I was admitted to college on the totality who I am as a person, which you cannot divorce me being a black man, that's part of who I am. So it was, it was all those factors, Senator Clark, but another college anyway, you had the scores to get into college. I didn't go to another college, so I can't speak to that. OK. The You relate those opportunities and I'm sitting here. are not going to get an answer, and I hope you appreciate that I'm just as tough on everybody. I don't think this is tough, uh, because I'm white, I'm really white. I. Uh, without sunscreen, you know, I used to try to tan and as I got older, I figured out it's better for me to stay inside or keep my clothes on. Uh, but the, I went to an all-white school. Two all white schools actually I changed schools in 11th grade. I was valedictorian. I was a national merit semifinalist. And I was what. At all white school, but I didn't have anybody to tell me. That I had a, I didn't go to college, not one day of college. Uh But didn't have anybody tell me that I had a full ride. To University of Arkansas. And any other college in this public college in this state because of my test scores. Nobody, the counselor evidently didn't know, nobody else in my visits to colleges bothered to tell me that and I didn't go to college because I didn't have the money. Uh, And Yet the opportunity was there, uh, had somebody been there to tell me not only that, but being a national merit semifinalist. I could have gone to Stanford, etc. we can't say that school, but a school like that, uh. Had I known I had that opportunity. I But I wasn't denied those opportunities because I was black. Well, you're not black, Senator Clark. I've made that clear, but I, so I wasn't denied that those opportunities because I was Native American because I was black or because I was any other minority. I denied those opportunities because nobody Uh, bothered to tell me and I didn't care enough, evidently. To find out myself. Uh But So what I'm, I'm trying to get to is I understand, I think from what you've said your understanding of the bill, but No We want opportunities. For people based on merit and certainly you had merit as I'm sure a lot of your classmates did, uh, we want opportunities. Uh Based uh There's nothing in here that that disallows scholarships based on need. Uh, regardless of the color of your skin, uh. And Why does it do more than why does the bill do more than that? Other than the sections that I've said that I oppose, what, what does it do more than that? why it does more than and I'll pull it up, um, if you can bear with me just a second, Senator King. Central Clark, Senator Clark, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm trying to get the bill. Uh, I, I, I think the, the simple example without going through all, I have a copy on my phone. OK, all right. Uh, instead of going through all, I think. 14 pages of the bill is section one, subsection B. The General Assembly does not intend for this act to affect any pres provided to veterans under the law based on their status as veteran. So clearly, where did you just read from? I'm sorry Section one subsection B. under the legislative intent. So clearly the intent of this is to Continue preferential treatment for a certain group because of what they've done for our country. I support that. was also being stated without it being written in the words here because it's being stretched uh stricken in other areas is that we know that some groups need it based on what they have endured. I.e., veterans. And this bill ignores the other groups may need that same type ofunities based on what's happened to them in this country, historically. That's, that's, that's why it does more than that. In my opinion, OK. I appreciate your answer. Uh, I would disagree on the veterans' part. There may be need, but I think the veterans, uh, and I'm not one, I think the veterans is based on merit. It's based on the fact that you were willing to put your life on the line for this country, not because you need anything, uh, uh, that it's just something that we choose to do uh for those people who are willing to take. job, but thank you for being here. Thank you, Senator Clark. Thank you, sir. All right, any questions? All right. Thank you very much, sir. Senator Sullivan. You're to go back on the closer your bill. We're good to go, Mr. Chair. You appreciate the testimony today and everybody that patients of the audience and the membership and listen to the testimony. It's very important. It's also clear that there's a lot of disagreement here, and I want to remind the committee that I ran on this issue in my election. And was overwhelmingly elected. The governor and the legislature ran on this type of legislation that all people are created equal. We've had a lot of testimony today, very little about the about the Constitution that says we are all created equal. It doesn't allow for preferential treatment or discrimination and when either of those occur, it's a violation of our state law. It's also, um, you know, when, when that The Constitution was drafted and they said all people are created equal. I would have signed that. I said, absolutely we're created equal and everything that's happened since then, whether we are litigating and making discrimination legal our preferential treatment legal. It's a violation of what our basic principles are, and this law takes us back to our basic principle that all people are created equal, even though we've delved off of that in many ways. I want to address a couple of things. One, it was said that that a group of Californian from California brought this bill to me. That's a, that's just as false as it could be, and that testimony that was given after that was basically false information or out of context, and I reject that completely. Also, and in closing, I'll say that you know this issue that people try to make that this bill eliminates preferential treatment is not true. It expands preferential treatment to everybody, and I'll use that as an example the University of Arkansas and Arkansas State University. They, they were compliant with many of the DEI uh principles and rejected those just like you heard about meeting with Walmart yesterday and many businesses throughout our country. Those companies are rejecting that in favor of preferential treatment for everybody. I mean, Walmart is essentially saying everybody's important. We don't care about your sexual orientation, your gender, your race, we don't care about that. You're important and our universities are saying the very same thing and taking steps to make sure every student has preferential treatment and is treated that way. And I suggest to you that that's the reason for this bill. Um Again, I'll close with this. I think I understand that the testimony here today has been a lot of folks that are opposed to the bill, and Senator Clark, I recognize your opposition to one part of that and respect that, and I think that's true, but I think the overwhelming part of the bill says that everybody In the state of Arkansas should receive preferential treatment, whether you're a teacher, a store clerk, or working in any other sector of our state, you're important, and we're going to base your hiring or purchases and your schooling access to schooling based upon your merit and your need. You know, you didn't hear people talking about the gentleman that just spoke discounted what the need is and if you have a need, then we recognize that this. recognizes that. So if you're a first year student or a student coming out of a poverty situation and you need some assistance from the state. Just bill allows for that. So the idea that we are restricting things couldn't be further from the truth, committee, I appreciate your patience and make a motion do pass. All right, got a motion from oh hang on, Senator Clark, do you have something or Senator Tucker? OK, I'm working on Senator Tucker real fast. Just discussion on the motion on the motion. You're recognized. Thank you, Mr. and thank you Rudol a second just discussion on the motion. Senator Sullivan made a motion. OK, second. Senator Payton now discussion on the motion. Thank you, Mr. and thank you for your patience. I know we've heard a lot of testimony. I'll be succinct, but there's just a couple of points that I think need to be made before we vote, about 20 years ago, I heard a presentation by Doctor Terrence Roberts, and he was a lot more eloquent than I am, but his underlying point was that black people began arriving in this land before it was a country in the mid 1600s, and black people in this country didn't really have equal treatment under the law or equal opportunity until the Civil Rights Act was signed in 1964 and the Voting Rights Act was signed in 1965, so that was over 300 years of oppression, abuse, enslavement, imprisonment. And worse and, and the same for women, the same in some instances and in some instances different and you know, the, the Declaration of Independence, which Senator Sullivan was just quoting, it doesn't say all people are created equal. It says all men are created equal, and it just shows how far we had to we had to come as a country over a long period of time. Well, the point that Dr. Roberts was making in about 2005 was that we had over 300 years of oppression and that about 40 years to that point, about 60 years now of opportunity and equality under the law, and his The question was whether that's long enough. And you know, his answer was no. If you don't know who Terrence Roberts is, there's a statue of him in 8 of his classmates on the north lawn of the Capitol a couple 100 yards from here, and when he speaks, I listen. Now there's a couple of ironies that I just want to mention before we vote to me. The first is that for 300 years, discrimination was not only tolerated, it was emboldened and once finally at long last we universally recognized that racial and sexual and sexist discrimination is wrong. Are we now saying we cannot provide opportunity on this basis. So for 300 years racism was OK, you were oppressed. When it comes time to make up for that, we can, we say sorry, we can't do that because now we see that racism is wrong. The second irony which Mr. Porter already pointed out is, you know, that this committee Whether this bill lives or dies today, this committee consists of 8 white men. And 2 years ago when this bill passed off the Senate floor, there were 18 votes in favor of it. All 18 votes were cast by white men, 0 by women, 0 by racial minorities. Now all the 300 years, and some of which perpetuates today, all that history of racism and sexism, I'm not laying at the feet of the members of this committee because that's simply not true, but what I am laying at the feet of the members of this committee is how we vote on this bill here today. And in order to do that, we really have to ask, in my view ourselves a couple of questions. One is Can we appreciate the life circumstances and life experiences of people who are different from us. Now I'm far from perfect, but I endeavor to do that. With every day that God has given me on this earth. And the second question I'm I'm wrapping up, Mr. Chair. The second question is, is the question that Terence Roberts posed. Have we done enough? Can you honestly say that you believe that a black child born in Arkansas or a little girl, little girl born in Arkansas today has the same opportunities as everyone sitting at this table. All you have to do is look at the members sitting at this table to know the answer to that question, or the members of the Senate. So, Again, to me, the answer to that question is obvious, and while all that history is not on us. What we do here today is not on what we do here today is on us, and I'm not going to perpetuate with, I'm not going to perpetuate it with my vote, so I'll be voting now. Thank you, Senator Tucker. All right, we've got a motion by Senator Clark. We're gonna ask for discussion. The Uh I have complimented privately Senator Sullivan on the bill. I did not catch section 5. Until today. Uh, and I don't, and a big part of section 5, it's a long section, uh. I would be in agreement with, uh, but that one part I think is key, uh, and obviously what's in the law needs to be rewritten so I don't fault you for bringing it as it's brought, but for that reason I have a problem with voting for it today. Thank you, Senator. All right, members, we've got a motion from Senator Sullivan and a second from Senator Payton. All in favor, please say I opposed. Bill passes. Congratulations. Alright, numbers, um, I'm gonna just say real quickly, I do know that Centra Hessler is not going to be here today to run SP 44 or House Bill 1056, but I do see we've got some veterans out here that ci to speak on this. I don't know how far you all have come, um. But we got um Senator King, I'm not gonna do any better. I'm not saying the names here. Carter Ferguson, Or Jack Atkins signed up and a few OK, well, I appreciate that. So the bill's not, we, we heard it last week, you know, Senator Hatcher is still working with Speaker Evans on an amendment on this, I think, but I don't know how far y'all came to be here today, but, uh, given that we're not going to hear that bill today, if you're are already here and you'd like to speak to it, I will allow that. Y'all have a seat. Introduce yourselves. There's a little button there on the microphones. Tap those and give us your name and what organization you're with and you'd be recognized proceed with your remarks. Chairman Flippo and Senators. I'm Carter Ferguson. I'm with the uh Arkansas Veterans Coalition. And one of the things I'm here is to talk about House Bill 1056. Next to me is one of our members, which is Chuck Aikins, and he's also here from Little Rock. I'm actually from Fort Smith, so I did have a drive to come here so did not like the Little Rock traffic, but that's OK. So we'll get there. So I want to explain a little bit about myself and then what we'll talk about for House Bill 1056. As I said, uh, I'm Carter Ferguson, a military veteran. I spent around 22 years of service from active duty and also in the Arkansas National Guard. I had 2 deployments. In the second deployment of 2004. I was hit by a mortar round. I got hit and I turned around and received a Purple Heart. So one of the things I always tell everybody. I got that because I didn't run fast enough or forgot to duck. So now that you know the speed of me, bear with me through the rest of this. I'm here on behalf of the state of Arkansas throughout the veterans Arkansas Veterans Coalition. Part of my experience that got me here is being involved with several other veteran groups where I spent most of my time with the military order of the Purple Heart. And eventually through several years, I became the national commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in 2023 through 2024. So I think I have some knowledge of what the veterans' needs and their issue. The main thing is I'm not here by myself, but it was a team effort. Commitment. Commitment of paying it for it to the veterans. I want to re my strong support for the establishment of the standalone committee within our state legislature to dedicate solely to the consideration and debate and initiative legislation for veterans. Military personnel and their families. House Bill 1056 acknowledged the critical needs to address the unique challenges and opportunities faced by the segment of our population. So let me share you some thoughts about where it comes from, about veterans and to develop the freedoms that we enjoy today. The veteran's commitment. When a person comes into the military, they're told they'll be taken care of. This has been said through the patches of time. This is explained in detail in the DA form 4. Our enlistment and re-enlistment contract. In Section C, we are required to be all lawful orders and perform all assigned duties. When it's time to leave the service at the end of enlistment, if my behavior fails, and is not me acceptable military standards. I may be discharged and given the certificate for dishonorable service. This will hurt for future jobs and claims and veteran benefits. So in section 3, also I'm subject to military justice. That means I could be tried by court martial, uniformed Dakota military justice. Required on orders to serve in combat or other hazardous situations. And most important, Entitled to receive pay and allowances. And other benefits provided by law and regulation. We signed this into a contract with us, that's your. I know many visits and corporations kind of have the same guidelines on how they operate and move things through. So as an individual, when you're starting to plan for the future, you want to know where you're going to be and what peace of mind that you're going to have and that you're taking care of. This will be the same as individual signs up in the military in our contract. So we as a military have done our part and honoring the contract. So let the state legislators do their part for Arkansas veterans. commitment As veterans were taught as past leaders develop us where we're at today. They teach mentor, guide, and form that commitment. To each otherless that to bond would do especially when your deals with your life. In life with other fellow soldiers in Arkansas, the biggest veteran population is Vietnam veterans. When the veterans come home, they were treated poorly during that time. And they were not welcome and some of them were told that their service was not recognized. Senior leaders teaching us. So the trust level has not been high with them, especially in with the government. I know things have changed now. And that we're especially looking for the young person, make sure when they sign up in the military, they know that somebody's got their back, especially here in Arkansas. It's a concerned citizen, I believe that the specialized committee to ensure focus and attention resources are allocated to effectively address the distinct needs of veterans, military personnel and their families here in Arkansas. The committee will provide a structured platform and stakeholders and concerned purposes in collaborate in the innovation and policies that would enhance and well-being empowerment of the citizens. House Bill 1056 represents a significant step in moving forward and recognizing the importance of a tailored legislative framework and cater to the diverse needs of veterans, military personnel and their families in Arkansas. Veterans, military personnel and their families bring home. Around $4 billion in federal funds to the state with return investment in economic impact of 11 billion. We paved this way for exclusives and governments that truly represents the interests of all citizens. I urge you to lend your support in House Bill 1056 and champions for the formation of a central committee. Your leadership and commitment will cause undoubtedly and make a lasting positive impact in our committee. Sean continued support for House Bill 1056, maintaining a moment monument moment through this we'll follow up in additional key resources. It is need to send a clear message to the veterans that you are being heard and acted upon in honoring the contract. We can turn around and help out mobilize if any support is needed for this, such as Garret testimonial from veterans, partner and veterans organization, providing fact sheets and data. And lastly, a veteran who's gone to combat, who's got injured, should never worry about when they come home. Does the country have their back? Thank you for your time and I'm here for any questions. Thank you, sir. Members, are there any questions for Mr. Ferguson? Senator Clark, you recognize her. Look this way. I think I just had a problem. I always want to look right. They put me on your blind. The uh thank y'all for being here. I, I don't, don't remember there being a great deal of opposition to the committee, if any, uh. military puts great store with good reason. And Logistics We can have the best fighting men, best trained, etc. etc. and we can't get on food and fuel and ammunition. They're going to lose. Right? We have different types of committees and you don't have to get into that, but would you rather us have a committee. That's so big that it can never meet. For a committee that Works in such a way that we can be often and when needed. So again, the Senator Clark way I would look at is maybe I don't understand the structure of what your committee is going to be if you're saying so big, you know as well if you make your committee too big, it's hard to get decisions and you'll be on that. Keeping the committee small, I do agree with that, but I also think a committee for military and Veterans Affairs is important because one thing about it, there are so many things that pop up in front of us and if we don't keep on top of this and have this, uh, you know, I'm not to try to say anything. I looked at everybody on this committee and I know none of y'all are veterans and, and I understand that you came and you served the country that was here. For you guys, you made it possible for us to come back here and have a place here. So I thank y'all for that. But I also understand there are ways that veterans think. There are ways that military things. Look at the military bases that we have here in the state of Arkansas from Pine Bluff, Little Rock, and Fort Smith. So those veterans are needing some help and we're expanding. And Fort Smith, how much did we turn around and fight to get a mission there. So again, I, I think, I don't know if I'm dressing your direct answer, but I will say yes, we need to have that and I have, if you believe we need a committee and leadership believes we need a committee. I'm all for a committee, but I want a committee that will actually work and so that that's part of what we're dealing with technical things in the bill, not, not being opposed to it. Thank you for being here. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for that point, Senator Clark. members, are there any further questions? All right, gentlemen, oh, Senator Tucker. Sure, you need to learn to look left, not learning that lesson the hard way today, Senator. I just wanted to thank you gentlemen, very much for your service and for waiting patiently in the test throughout the testimony here today. It's very important for us to hear what you have to say. So thank you very much. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Appreciate it. Thank you all, Senator, thank you all and thank you all to the men behind you. Thank you guys. Mr. Chair. Well, thank you for that catch of recognizing that they were here. Thank you, sir. All right, members, seeing no further business come before this committee, we are adjourned.