Arkansas Legislative Council (ALC)

Members would start finding your way to your seats or if we can get started. All right, members, if you would, uh, first things first. Representative elect Barnes, we're gonna go ahead and recognize you for our prayer. If y'all members would stand. Let us pray Father God, we thank you today for God, first of all to live in a state who still acknowledge you as king. We pray today for this meeting and the business will be conducted in a way that would give honor to you. You said if any man like wisdom that the max of you, God, today we ask wisdom that the decisions that are made will be for the benefit of all our Kansans. Again, in Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Thank God. Thank you, Representative Barnes. Members are gonna. Take a couple of things out of order real quick for uh respect of other members got to get to other appointments. First off, I'd recognize Senator Bryant or a point of personal privilege. Senator, you know the protocol. If you have your witnesses, introduce yourselves for the record. Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. uh, Joshua Bryant, State Senate District 32. Kylie Sutton of Rogers, Arkansas. Uh, Mike Hager, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. Thank you, members, members this morning, I'd like to start off by, um, saying this is a, a Senate citation for Miss Kylie Sutton. If you can recall in the news back in the summer, we had an incident on Interstate 49 in Rogers that involved a, a trooper situation with the motorists made national news. Within that was a citizen of Rogers, Arkansas, who decided to make things happen. So in life, we all encounter people that can watch what happens, people that wonder what happened and people that make things happen. And Miss Kylie Sutton is one of those that obviously can make things happen. Um, I, I'd like to hear from her, uh, before I read the Senate citation and let her give you a few words Ma'am, if you would get real close to that microphone. Sorry, I'm a shorty, OK, um, I appreciate all of you guys for everything you do for our state because I love Arkansas. I was born and raised here, um, it's, I've lived in Northwest Arkansas my entire life and I am an avid Arkansas person, um, and on that day, it's not something you see every day, um, two people. feet sticking out the side of a car wrestling around on the ground. And, um, it was just a natural instinct to Try and help. I didn't know what the situation was, but I knew on the side of the highway two people fighting, probably not great. Um, the odds of that turning out well were probably slim. And when I saw Miss Alex Duncan. I was even more worried and I wanted to make sure that everybody came out of it OK. And I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous, but that's good. I was just raised to. Take care of people when they need it, so. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members, uh. Thank you from the bottom of my heart for recognizing Kylie. Uh, we expect our troopers every day to put themselves in harm's way, um, to protect the citizens of Arkansas. We do not expect the citizens of Arkansas to put themselves in harm's way to protect the trooper. But to put this in, uh, Context On that day, uh, Trooper Alex Duncan. Who is One of my heroes, she's, uh, a heck of a trooper. But she's 5 ft nothing, weighs 1000, and she is in a fight with a grown man on the side of the highway, and if you watch that video. You'll see we counted more than 70 cars passed by as they're fighting on the shoulder of the interstate, uh, right on the white line of the interstate. And to say things were in a desperate situation is an understatement. And then out of nowhere, One car of all the cars that had passed one car pulls over and entered the frame of Cali and Kylie runs over who is also, if you paid attention when she walked up, no offense, 5 ft nothing, 1000. And Kylie runs up and jumps on the back of a grown man. Bear hugs him and starts trying to pull him off, uh, this trooper. And to say that we are proud of Kylie and she is now part of her family. Her mother Tammy Sutton is, uh, with us also today, um, it's been an honor for me to get to know, uh, Kylie and her mom. It's been an honor for me to get to see the best of humanity. You we say a lot of times in this job we have to witness the worst of humanity more days than not, but to be able to witness what Kylie did and the bravery that that took and the selflessness that that took for her to stop and intervene on that situation. I can't say enough about Kylie. She is absolutely one of my heroes, and I can't thank you guys enough for your continued support for our department. Your continued support for law and order and the fact that you're recognizing Kylie today means the world to not just me, but to the members of the state police. So thank you very much. I'd also like to note that, uh, Kylie is also the sole caregiver for her, uh, 94 year old grandfather who is a former United States Marine, so simplified to him. So therefore, Senate citation, whereas on Saturday, July 27th, 2024, Miss Kylie, Shaa Sutton demonstrated outstanding courage a rare selflessness of conduct and an unfailing attention to the needs of a fellow human in the face of extreme circumstances as she provided unprompted assistance to law enforcement officer. And whereas Miss Sutton, while driving along Interstate 49, chose to stop her vehicle and come to the aid of Arkansas State Police trooper Alexandria Duncan as she struggled in a physical altercation with a motorist, and whereas the quick actions of Miss Sutton taken without hesitation, played a crucial role in assisting Trooper Duncan and ensuring the motorist was apprehended. Miss Sutton decided to help, despite the obvious dangers when countless other passerbyers did not. Her actions, which made a tremendous impact, exemplify a true spirit of public service and a heroic regard for the well-being of others. And whereas the members of the Arkansas Senate wish to join Senator Joshua Bryant and commending Kylie Sa Sutton for her outstanding conduct in wishing her well and all of her future endeavors pursuant to the motion of Senator Joshua Bryant, the Arkansas Senate directs this citation be presented on the 20th day of December 2024. We all thank her. So. great. Thank you so much. she went. Thank you Miss Sutton, and thank you Senator Bryant for honoring her. So members do something a little different today. uh, we're at the end of a term. And end of an era. So, with that all non-returning members please join the witness table down front. We'll give a few seconds for you guys to make your way down front. If Speaker Shepherd. And Senator Hester could join me. So guys, this will be. Their last legislative meeting of their career. Of this era they may come back and join us because nowadays we can, but I think it's important that we uh honor them and honor their service. It's been awesome to work with you guys, and with that, I'll recognize Speaker Shepherd. Do you have a small speech from the house. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, I would just echo the chairman's comments. It's been an honor to serve, uh, with each and every one of you. Uh, I think that one of the things that I believe is somewhat unexpected probably when we all run for office is you don't realize, uh, how close you will become with your colleagues, uh, regardless of political ideology regardless of what part of the state we come from and that's one of the great. things I think about the Arkansas legislature and one of the great things that I think that, uh, that our citizens should be proud of is that unlike many other legislative bodies across our country that we can actually get along, we can disagree civilly and respectfully that we can take votes in the best interests of the people of Arkansas, but yet we can still remain very close friends and, and I for one, and on behalf of the house, I'm gonna miss, uh, each and every one of you. Thank you for your service. Thank you for your sacrifice. We all know that it's a tremendous commitment of time on your behalf, but also, uh, your families and so we want to thank you for your service and, uh, look forward to the, to all the things that you go on and do, uh, beyond your legislative service. So thank you. Yep. Uh, Senator Bart Hester. Well, uh, every member in this room and, uh, has been touched by Linda Chesterfield. Right, uh, and we Uh, I can tell you the, the amount of times that, uh, I as a freshman decided to challenge her on parliamentary procedure and lost and now enjoy watching freshman challenge her has always been, has been a fun time, but Linda is one of the best among us. Uh, she is, uh, she cares deeply, we disagree often, but she cares deeply about doing the right thing for constituents and Something that I believe is important. She understands what she believes and why she believes it. And Linda, you will be deeply missed. So members, the second part of this is. This is also the last meeting the Speaker Shepard will resign over the house. And we must honor him as well. And I might get emotional on this one, I can't tell you how big of a hunter it's been to serve under you. And if you would, we would like to hear a few words as you walk out the door today and, and guys he wasn't gonna be here today. I want y'all know it took me all week. To convince him to be here today and how important it was to give him this honor today. Well, I hope to be back January 13th. I don't, I don't know if, if he knows something I don't know but uh. No, it's, it, it's just been an honor to serve. Thank you to my colleagues in the house for entrusting me with, with, uh, leadership of the house, uh, certainly, as I've said many times, uh, when I first, uh, came to the house 14 years ago, never would have thought that I would ever be the Speaker of the House, uh, never set out to be the longest serving speaker, but that's just the way things developed, and I can say that it's, it's been a great professional honor, and I know that all the things that we've gone through and in every. One of you has, has been a part of that process, whether it was COVID or some of the political challenges we've had through the years. Uh, I'm really pleased with, with how we've conducted ourselves, uh, I just again, thank you for, for just a great honor. Thank you for your friendship and, uh, look forward to continuing to serve for another couple of years, but thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna take a point of personal privilege. Nobody else does. Um, Somebody told me immediate consideration, Mr. Chair. Um, you're out of order? I'm gonna say this and um I've said it before. Thank you so very much. Each one of you represents unique individuals. But the totality of the state of Arkansas depends on you to do the right thing each and every day. We don't do it the same way, we don't see it the same way. But I not only believe in each of you, I believe in the institution of the General Assembly. Both the House and the Senate, and it's been my honor to serve in both. We must protect the institution. Because it will be here much longer than any of us. We're supposed to be part-time legislators. Well, that went out the window some time ago, because we're here every day almost. But I hope we're here for the right reasons, and I think we are. I could have run again. But I was told not to miss my exit. I've done it for 20 years. I have tried to be faithful to the charge. I've tried to make sure that the relationships that I have developed over the years, we're not partisan. But personal. Knowing that Matthew and all of the speakers before him, the president pro temps who came before Bart. I get on his case a lot of times because I want him to be the very best. I want each of you to be the very best, and I have fought hard and worked hard to be the very best that I can be. I don't want to ever go without saying thank you to staff. Our staff makes us look better than we deserve. And I think we ought to give them a hand. Relationships matter down here. Relationships matter. Because they're gonna be times when you are going to get somebody's assistance just because of the relationship. And people don't understand it, but Mary Bentley and I have been friends for years and years down here. We are polar opposites on many things, but not friendship. And I say that to you because so many of you indulge in partisanships. Partisanship. You don't have the opportunity then to say to somebody, let's go have a talk. How are you doing? How's your family? Little things like that matter. And if you forget those little things and this place is not going to be. The place that it ought to be where each of us gets together, each of us loves on each other a little bit because this is hard work. I thank you so much for the opportunity to serve. I thank the people of District 12. I thank my family for the sacrifice and don't forget your family. So many times we come down here and people throw themselves at us because of what we do, and not because of who we are. Never forget family because when you do, remember you got to go home again and we want to be able to go home again. God bless and keep each and every one of you. It's my prayer. Members, we have one last. person that's changing positions and that is uh my co-chair Senator Rice, and it. It will never be the same in council again without him as chair. So members you would join me in honoring Senator Rice's last day as chair. And his birthday yesterday. Let me say quickly before Before he tells me I can or can't. Uh, it's been an honor to serve as the Senate, uh, chair of executive subcommittee as the co-chair, uh, to counsel with Representative Wardlaw for the last 4 years. I've been down here 16 years. I served vice chair for 10 years, so 14 out of 16 years I've tried to be here all ALC week. In, in all of that time because this institution means something to me. It means something to the people of Arkansas, and we, we each do our jobs in different ways. Central Chesterfield, my good friend, says it better but it we have deep meaning, uh, to relationship, so thank you for allowing me to serve you as chair. I'll continue to be on council, Lord willing and I lived 4 more years and uh uh it does mean a lot to me if I can be of help from any position I'm in, always let me know. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Ross. Some members with that. We still have one more item to take out of order. We're gonna move on to the report of the executive subcommittee, Senator Rice, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The executive subcommittee met on December 19th, heard a presentation from co-chair Wardlaw on the final recommendations for the firearm study. The subcommittee adopted the final report and draft legislation, all of which are attached to the report in your package. Mr. Chair. So do something a little different with this report. We're going to recognize Chairman Miller of the, uh. Game of fish and state police subcommittee Chairman Miller, you are recognized. As soon as you hit your button. There you go. all this technology, uh, Got smarter than me and I had to quit. Uh On October 17th I presented the final report and draft legislation of the ALC Game and Fish, State Police subcommittees, firearms study to the executive subcommittee. The report included multiple recommendations set out in 9 draft bills. The executive subcommittee voted at that meeting to adopt the recommendations and draft legislation. Under the procedures for this study that were adopted by ALC in August of 2023, executive subcommittee was tasked with considering the recommendations of the game and fish subcommittee, making any revisions they felt were needed and then providing final recommendations to the full ALC. Executive supplemented the recommendations of the game and fish subcommittee with the following two editions which are included in your packet. JLC 152, which is a bill to prohibit local government from regulating knives or knife making components and section 21 of JLC 174, which amends Arkansas Code 11-5-117 to allow an employee of a private employer. To store his or her handgun in his or her vehicle in the parking lot of a private employer. You have in your packet the reports of both the executive subcommittee and the game and fish subcommittee, along with draft legislation as the final recommendations in the firearms and concealed carry laws study of the ALC. Uh, move for adoption of this report. Thank you, Representative Miller. And included in this report, also the the subcommittee, executive subcommittee also heard from Pur night and approved release of two RFPs for uh selection of a captive manager and a broker related to the state property insurance study. Also, the subcommittee recommended approval of an amendment to the ALC rules, a copy of the draft amendment is attached to this report and was sent to all ALC members last Friday, December 13th. The amendment changes the name and jurisdiction of the hospital and Medicaid subcommittee to include developmental disabilities. Mr. Chair, I move adoption of this report, except for the ALC rules amendment, which will be taken. in a separate motion. It's a proper motion to have a second? I have a 2nd. Seeing no questions, all those in favor, say ah. All opposed. I have it with that, we'll move on to the second part of the motion. And Mr. Chair, I move adoption of the amendments to the ALC rules. Representative Senator Leding, you have a question on the rules. Yes, Mr. Chair, for those of us who weren't at the meeting yesterday and didn't hear the discussion, um, can you or either the representative of Ladyman just briefly explain why we're making this change. Um, the request was made by Representative Ladyman and Representative Wootton, Representative Wootton, would you like to answer that question for him? You recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, after the review after we went through and discussed it and several of the constituents and contacts have been made by people wanting to move, make sure that the disability people have a representation through a committee, so that's what we were desiring to do. And, and also to be able to advocate for those people and, and then for those uh members of that committee to evaluate those who are charged with going into the uh facilities and making sure that the disability uh people are taken care of. Alright, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Chesterfield, you recognize? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and thank you, Representative Wootten, for the explanation. Um I've received numerous emails and text messages concerning this rule. And I'm. I'm one of those who believes that our disabled individuals must have the oversight that's necessary for them. To um That's right. But nevertheless, are these individuals getting state money. Which seems to be a question. Explain that to me so that I'm able to explain to folks who are who are writing to me. I believe we need the oversight of them, but I'm, I'm trying to make sure that we are differentiating between the entity. The disability rights group and our responsibility to the disabled. Am I making any sense to you? And and help me get past that, please. Yes, ma'am. Uh, Senator, that's what we're attempting to do. I can't hear you, sir. Can, can you hear me now? Yes, I can. OK. Yes, we're attempting to make sure that those who have disabilities are taken care of and looked over and, and that the the rules and regulations that are in place for those institutions are followed and the, the what was your question about the state, the money I'm getting information from a disability rights group that says they receive only federal funding. Therefore, they're wondering why we are overseeing them, and I want the public to understand that it's not about that group. It is indeed if I am correct, Mr. Chair. It is about the disabled as a population rather than talking about a group of individuals that have taken on that responsibility. Am I correct that is correct. It's not just aimed at them. It's not just, it's to be sure in all areas that the disabilityities are being people with the challenge that they're taken care of properly and is seen. over properly. I've had a lot of constituents, several that have contacted me relative to some of the staffing situations, some of the compensation is paid to them, and then some of the construction um uh maintenance and upkeep that's needed for those institutions. So I would hope also that the committee would look look into that and not just the advocacy part of it. I would certainly hope so too, Mr. Chair, and I am speaking in favor of it, uh, having dealt with several family members who have disabilities. Uh, I am concerned that we don't have our rehab services fully staffed. And I think we need to be pushing for that as well because rehab services is is the entity in the state that provides so many services to individuals who have disabilities. So I would ask that we push to to make sure that that is fully staffed because more and more people are using it and more as more and more people become aware of it. So I thank you for the rule and I thank you so very, very much. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Seeing no further questions, I'll do I have a second? OK, so members, anytime we have rules, boats, and they'll see we have to vote House and Senate. So I will be calling on the house first. All those in favor, say ah. All those opposed, I just have it. Senate, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed. I just have it. Thank you. So we'll go back to our agenda. I need a motion on the minutes. I need a second. I motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. All posed, I have it. We'll go to the presentation of the revenue report, Doctor Silva. Mr. Chairman Carlos Silva, Bureau of Legislative Research. I'm your staff and to them presented November 2024 revenue report. Uh, adjusted gross revenues at $3,249 million. That's a decline of $74.5 million for for the last fiscal year today is at 2.2% decline as we move down to net available for distribution you have $2,737 million that is a decline of $25.3 million or 0.9% compared to the first five months of the last fiscal year, as we look into uh the near nearby states that should be a similar trend as there's a decline from the previous fiscal year, but the, the estimates tend to be um The actual stent should be better than the estimates by by a little bit as we move to page number 2 you're gonna see the cumulative deviation from DFA net general revenue available for distribution forecast, and that's the updated forecast from the agency provided in November 2024. Uh, as we look at they're gonna have a $10.9 million above the forecast that is uh 0.4% above the forecast, uh, that they have provided for November up to now. Uh, as we move to page number 3 and 4, we're gonna have general revenues and Front page number 5, page number 7, we have the special revenues, uh, for, for the month of November and for the fiscal year up to now. Uh, with that, I'll take any further questions. Thank you. Seeing no questions from the members. Thank you for your report. Our members with that, we'll move to the, uh, reports from the standing committees. Representative Evans. You are recognized for the rules committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members, the, uh, administrative rules subcommittee met on December 19th, subcommittee received agency updates on outstanding rulemaking from the 2023 regular session. And filed a written update relating to rulemaking from the 24 fiscal session at the joint request of the Departments of Agriculture, Energy and Environment, two rules were pulled from consideration prior to the meeting. The committee voted to not approve one rule from the Department of Commerce, State Insurance department, all of the rules were reviewed and approved as noted in the report. Mr. Chair, I move for the adoption of this report. Right That's proper motion in a second, but I've got Senator Johnson in the queue. You recognize you have a question or a motion, a substitute motion. OK, you're break. I move that we pull rule 128 from the report and vote on this rule separately. That's proper motion. Do I have a second? Have a second All those in favor of pulling 128 out. And to adopt the report. Say ah. All those opposed? No. Knows how it, your motion has failed. Need 3 hands. I have plenty. Starting with the Senate. Representative Dotson. Represent Dotson is a no. I'm sorry, Senator Dodson, my apologies. Senator Payton. Senator Peyton Senator Payton is a no. Senator Petty Yes. Senator Patius, yes, Senator Boyd. Senator Boyd is, yes, Senator Penzo, Senator Penzo. Senator Penzo is a yes. Senator McKee. Senator McKee is a yes. Senator Murdoch. Senator Murdoch Senator Brian Senator King. Yes. Senator King is a yes. Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker is a yes. Senator Sullivan. Senator Sullivan is a yes. Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer is a yes. Senator Leding. Senator Leding Senator Leting is a yes. Senator Johnson, Mark Johnson, Senator Mark Johnson is a yes. Senator Hill. In her hill is a no. Senator Davis. Senator Davis is a no. Senator Wallace, Senator Wallace is a yes. Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Blake Johnson is a yes, Senator Flippo Flippo is a no. Senator Hester. Senator Hester is a yes. Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey is a no. Senator Stubblefield. Senator Stubblefield is a no. Center English Center English is a yes. Senator Caldwell. Senator Caldwell is a yes. Senator Dismay. Senator Dimay is a no. Senator Irvin. Senator Ervin is a no. Senator Chesterfield. Senator Chesterfield is a yes. Senator Gilmore, Senator Gilmore is a yes. OK. Going to the house. Representative Peyton Pater. Represent painter as a yes. Representative McAlinden. Representative McAlin did not being here. I'm gonna go to her first alternate, Representative McCollum. Represent McCollum. Going to the 2nd alternate, Representative Hodges. Represent Hodges. Going to represent Mark Barry Mark represent Barry is a no. Representative Beatty. Yes. Represent Beatty as a yes. Representative Evans Evans is a no. Represent Collins, Collins as a yes. Represent Garner. Garner's a yes. Representative Crawford. Crawford is a yes. Representative Dalby. Representative Dalby is a no. Representative Pilkington. Representative Pilkington is a yes. Representative Danny Watson. Representative Watson not being here first alternate representative Stan Barry. Representative Representative Stanbury is a yes. Representative Gazaway. Represent Gazaway. Represent Kavanaugh. No. Representative Kavanaugh is a no. Represent Fortner. Represent Fortner not being here. Represented Steel. Representative Steinmel not being here, we're gonna go, he has no second alternate going to represent VAT. Represent is a yes. Representative Kenneth Ferguson. Representative Kenneth Ferguson is a yes. Representative Beck. Represent Beck as a yes. Representative Bentley. Represent Bentley is a yes. Representative Ladyman. Represent Lady not being here, Representative Long. Representative Long not being here, Representative Joey Carr as the 2nd alternate. Going on to the next member representative McNair. represents a yes. Represent Eaves. Representative Eaves has no idea. Representing yes, Representative Eaves is a yes. Representative Deborah Ferguson. Representative Ferguson not being here represent uh Moore as her first alternate. Represent more not being here representative Pierce. As a second alternate. Going on to the next member of Representative Whittaker, David Whittaker Whittaker is and I, Representative Charlene Fight. Representative Charlene is a yes. Representative Womack. Represent Brome Representative Miller. Representative Miller is a yes. Representative Eubanks, Representative Eubanks is a no. Representative Shepherd. I'm sorry, Speaker Shepherd is a is a yes. Representative Jean. Representative Jean is a yes. Represent Meeks Meeks is a no represent Cozart representative Cozart is a no represent Warlies a no. Motion passes. So Senator Chesfield, you're the last person. I thought I'd have to tell not to do that. So with that members, the the report passes, so we'll hear, uh, rule one pharmacy Rule 128 separately. So with that, if we could get the department to the table to present the rule. the They shouldn't have brought him back to the table. They should have their little. Uh-huh. Little attorney he did not do well yesterday. It's. Senator Irvin, you got a question before we start presentation. Members. Keep our discussion to a minimum. Mr. Chair, this point of clarification, are, are the membership going to have access to all of the handouts and the public comment that the insurance and commerce Committee had access to and the rules subcommittee had access to. Do we Do we have that in our packet or I, I feel like if we're gonna have this. 3rd debate that all members present should have access to all of the information that was presented at both rules subcommittee and Insurance and commerce Committee, so that they can make an informed decision. Do we have that all of that is in your attachments today from the committee and if in its own line for access by any member. It's, where is that in our packet? So it's not all on paper, Senator, it's all online under the committee selections. We can't print everything from every subcommittee for the election. OK. With that, uh, you guys introduce yourselves for the record and you're recognized to present. Um, Booth ran general counsel, Arkansas Insurance Department. Alan McLean, Arkansas Insurance commissioner Hatfield, chief of staff, commerce. Jake Winley, commerce director of Legislative affairs. So my board's already lit up. So members, here's the deal, we've done this 2 times already this week. I'm gonna recognize 2 more members. I'm pretty sure they have motions. I'm not going to decide anything in this thing, y'all are. So I'm not gonna not take any motions. So members, I guess, put your seatbelt on and get ready. Here we go. Senator Hester, you're the first one in the queue, so I'll come to you first. And members, we've had, uh, endless debate on this this week, we've had two opportunities in hours upon hours upon hours to rehash this, uh, with that, I make a motion to call the question right now for immediate consideration. That's a proper motion in a second. That's a simple majority of the quorum. All those in favor, say ah ah all post. Is have it. Some members, we are in immediate consideration on the issue at hand, on Rule 128. The motion is to adopt the recommendation. Of Rule 128. No, it's to. That's true. OK, members. Comes the caveat to this. The motion was to pull it out and adopt it separately, correct? The motion coming from the subcommittee is the question that Senator Hester has immediately considered that motion is to adopt the recommendation not to approve Rule 128. So that is the vote at hand. All those in favor say ah. All those opposed. Knows have it. Senator Chesfield, you recognize, I moved to adopt rule 128. That's a proper motion. That's 2nd. I have 2 questions in the queue for that motion or have one. I'll let you speak first. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I shan't belabor this. We've heard it over and over again, and we have the opportunity to look at all of the debates and all of that. We're losing pharmacies across the state. And we're losing pharmacies across the state simply because they are not reimbursed at a rate that will allow them to thrive. As one of those individuals who takes advantage of um local pharmacy. That's not big pharma. That is not a chain pharmacy that does not uh send stuff through the mail. I believe that we have got to save these pharmacies, and I would appreciate a good vote. Senator, you're willing to take questions on your motion? her dismay you recognize don't have a question. I'd like to speak to the motion when we get to that point. You reckon this is proper time. And, and, and really just because I think it needs to be on record and said and then I'm sorry that we didn't get to have a debate or more discussion, uh, as those that have said in both the insurance Commerce Committee and then also said in the rules committee are well aware, uh, this is not a very simple issue. One of the things I'd just like to say, but because I think it needs to be said and needs to be understood by the public is, I, I can see where this is going today, and I understand that. But false hope is a very dangerous thing. And we are giving pharmacists across this state false hope that a department that has not been able to do its job in the last 5 years in regards to many issues related to PBMs are somehow going to be able to better create contracts between PBMs and pharmacists. The insurance department has the ability and has had the ability to gather the information needed to get a better understanding of what is fair and reasonable. And then also what is an adequate network. They have chosen not to do that. They purported to us that there had to be a rule to be able to have the authority to gather that information that was incorrect. It was uh specifically stated in the law that they had the authority to gather that information. I am afraid, and I firmly believe what's going to happen is. Again, we have given false hope to the pharmacists across this state that somehow something is going to be fixed by what we're passing. But what I guarantee you we have done. is we are intruding on contracts between businesses and individuals or companies. And we're, we are saying as the government we will know better. I've never really thought that to be my job here. But today we're saying that's what we're responsible for. I am all for and I wanna say this because I think it needs to be said, holding PBMs accountable when they need to be held accountable. We pass laws that allow our insurance department to do that very thing. The last time. The insurance department has taken on that task to look out how payments were being made to affiliated companies was in 2020, 5 years ago, a half a decade ago. And we're expecting. That we're going to give them unknown power. To intervene in contracts and there's somehow going to be able to satisfy that task. That seems ludicrous to me. And so I just like to say, I apologize to the pharmist across this state. What we're doing today is a disservice. The, the, your association that is putting forward this is doing you a disservice and they are giving you false hope with an outcome that will not realize what you're actually after, which is to hold PBMs accountable. In their own testimony, the insurer's department acknowledged that this does not tackle the issues that they're having with PBMs. Though we're passing it because we are being told it does. Those two things conflict, both of those things cannot be true at the same time. Either it does or it doesn't, and they sit at the table multiple times, it does not. So again, I understand where we're headed. And what you're doing. But it's an unfortunate situation we're in right now to be making a decision and doing something that will not accomplish the goal. Thank you. So members, bear with me. Senator Dodson, you reckon us. We have a new computer today, so I'm trying to learn this thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and I'm going to ask for. clarity on the motion at hand because I'm still not entirely certain, um, uh, where we're going, but that, that'll be at the end of um. The end of my, my. Statement here um looking through this, I have, I have read this rule backwards and forwards, um. And, and even asked the insurance department yesterday, uh. Basically, what the fee is going to be. What the fee is going to be on each prescription. That is put out in the state and the answer is they don't know. They don't know because they haven't reviewed the plans yet. The fee will be different, the, the. The um dispensing fee. Could be different per health payer. Per per insurance contract that's out there, it can range from 0. To $10.50 if I'm understanding correctly, that's the maximum amount. So for each prescription, it could be up to $10.50 but they'll make that determination year over year. And of course, We don't have a metric on how that determination will be made. So that's, that's not been determined yet. We'll find that out after the rule passes. But This will have real impact on each of our constituents every time they go to the pharmacy, every month. They will have to pay a dispensing fee, maybe. Next year, it might be different. And when I asked the question, what, what the insurance commissioner's successor would do, he could not answer that because it's a question none of us can answer. We don't know what the future holds, but we will be empowering one individual to make a dispensing fee. Determination annually on a plan by plan basis. It's literally government picking winners and losers, and I don't see how that's fair or reasonable to anybody and it doesn't solve the problem of access to, to pharmacies across the state. So I need to know from the chair, um, how to vote to be opposed to this rule. Is it a yes vote? Are we voting? Is this deemed? Approved without objection, and is this for an objection or is this an adoption? Is it a yes or no to be opposed to this. So the proper way to handle this is I will call. For without objection this rule stands, then I would need an objection and then we will take a vote on the rule itself. OK, well, I'll object. Well, proper time. I'll come to you. And for the record, on council day we only recognize members of council, and I do have some non-members with their microphones on. I will not be lighting those microphones up, so I'm just giving a heads up before we get there. Senator Irvin, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I think. I think it's really, really critical and important that people know what they're voting on in this rule. You are ceding your authority to an agency and a director to impose a penalty and a tax, a tax on your patients that you represent. This is a pharmacy tax that will be paid at the point of sale through An increased co-payment on every single prescription. So if you get 5 prescriptions. That's gonna be $50 just to Uh, for a dispensing fee on every single one of those medications. That is a tax that is going to be given and dictated to, not by legislative authority. But by one person's opinion. On metrics and data that we still do not have, and that is from testimony given by the insurance department that they agreed with the public comment of the many, many businesses that are private businesses who have self-insured plans whose cost is going to go up dramatically because of this determination, which is subjective. And that's gonna get passed down straight to the patient at the point of sale with an increase in co-payment or dispensing fee that they're gonna have to pay. So for a $4 generic drug at Walmart now, you're going to have to pay $4 for the drug and $10.50 for the dispensing fee. I think whenever I've talked to my constituents, they think that's ludicrous. I'm not going to vote for a tax increase on the people I represent without it being explicitly stated in legislation and I'm sure I'm not going to cede my authority as a legislator who can vote on these matters over to an agency director based on something I have no idea how they're going to make that determination or decision. It should be written explicitly in the legislation, if you know you're voting on a tax increase or a fee increase or not. That is not what we were talking about here. The legislative authority that they are trying to base this rule on is saying that You know, they, they can get there through a rate, a rate we understand this is not a right. This is absolutely something brand new. And where does it stop? What other industry out there that government is now price fixing and price controlling on for-profit entities to make another for-profit entity. A guaranteed profit. That is not the role of government. The government should not pick winners and losers. The government should not say you're a winner and you have to pay them a guaranteed profit. And I'm sorry, but to say that this is going to just help independent no, actually, I think it's gonna hurt independent pharmacists because you're gonna give so much more money to the box change through this, because they also get the guaranteed profit that in the aggregate they're gonna put those independent pharmacists out of business. I heard from a rural pharmacist who's opposed to the rule. Say no, you're giving them a huge market advantage, and that's not the role of government, at least not for me. I am a limited government free market enterprise person, and I don't believe that price controls and price fixing is the same as regulatory authority. And I am solidly opposed to this. I think that you can believe the spin that's been told to you, or you can look at your eye test and understand and read the rule and read the legislation and understand that this is not solving the problem of the PBMs. It's not. This is a direct tax on the people you represent, they're going to have to pay for it when they pick up every single prescription and for a state employee, case worker, and a social worker that's a state employee on our health benefit plan, which we got a fiscal analysis of which is going to cost EBD an additional 12 million maybe even more, that's gonna be a hit to the state budget. This is gonna infect all the Medicaid, two of the major Medicaid programs is gonna be affected. We don't know what that cost is going to be. They are not excluded from this. So you're going to have increased spend in Medicaid, you're going to have an increased spend in EBD. Where are you going to find that money? Guess what? You're not gonna be able to cut the income tax, guys, ain't gonna happen. When you start to pile up and vote for policy that's gonna have a huge impact to the EBD budget, leave a hole in it, and Medicaid budget. It's not gonna happen. So if you want to vote for a penalty, a pharmacy tax for every patient at the point of sale and a state employee making $36,000 as a social worker is now going to have to pay this dispensing fee every time they pick up a prescription, a prescription that's on you. I'm not voting for that, and I would. appreciate a no vote on this rule. Senator Hickey, you reckon. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair, um, members, I have to, I have to assume here that there's a, this is a large committee, and I'm just not going to make the assumption. Uh, that every one of you understand exactly what's going on. Mr. Cher's a lot of, a lot of talk going on down here. Could I get some, I'd like, I wanna make sure that people understand this. Carry your discussions outside, please. Keep, keep the respect level high. Thank you, sir. Senator Irvin hit on it, and I won't go, I, I'm gonna try to keep this brief, but in testimony, what we have heard is that this rule does not line up with the statute that the General Assembly passed while in session that I was part of. Really doesn't matter if you think that through, whether or not you're for this or against this. The people put a constitutional amendment on after the fact to make sure that we make sure that our rules align with statute. It's already been testified by the insurance department that they don't have the ability, they don't think under the current statute to do that. So what we are doing is we are totally we are totally circumventing the General Assembly while we were in session. In addition to that, I also know a lot of my members never want to think that there's a tax involved. As chair of revenue and tax, this may be a horse of a different color, but I'm gonna tell you right now, I know what attacks when I see a tax. Now you might say, well, it's not coming into the state or whatever, but this is a tax on your citizens, and it's just like special revenue that's gonna flow to those pharmacies. That's what this is. And Mr. Chair, if I've already heard that you're gonna get an objection to the way this is. If this body, which is not correct, in my opinion, well, I know it's not. If we're gonna act like the general assembly that I want it to be the same way that it is on the floor in the house and Senate. I want those votes to be recorded on this because whenever it comes time for me to tell my constituents, why they now have a copay that has went up on their prescriptions. I want to be able to show specifically Jimmy Hickey voted this way. Now, if some of you choose to do the other, that's up to you. That's the way we do it there. We should not be hearing this in this forum. So anyway, again, Mr. Chair, I'm gonna go ahead and make that request. I know it may not be the appropriate time, but I also don't want, want it to get lost. And whatever the process is that we need, I want to start that also whenever at the appropriate time. Noted, Senator Hickey. Senator Johnson, you're recognized for discussion or questions on the motion. Uh, discussion, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I think it's interesting that Senator Hickey brings up the Constitution and that our, our, uh, rulemaking authority and how it must jive with the Constitution. I, I can't help. I always go back when I read Article 2, section 19 of the Constitution says, and this is a quote. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a republic and shall not be allowed. And that is exactly what we're dealing with here we're once again fighting an antitrust battle. Against uh a, a very strong, powerful, wealthy, vertically integrated monopoly and through our system our statutes and our authority that we vest in the insurance department and the commissioner. To regulate this industry for the protection of the market and for individual consumers. And I've, I've, I've seen so many, I'm glad it's Friday with the fish because of, uh, all the red herrings that I've, I've heard on this issue, but, uh, the fact of the matter is we regulate at the state level. Probably more so than in any other industry that's not much regulated at the federal level, but at the state level we regulate insurance. And we have a commission, commissioner who has an excellent staff. We're not going to lower drug prices by this rule, make no mistake about it. We have an inflationary environment we have big pharma, we have the, the, the, the sky is the limit on all the things that we could do to maybe help bring a health care costs under control and drug prices. But this rule simply extends the emergency power that the commissioner has to protect the market. Until we can come back and I make no Bones about it this issue will be revisited. You've already heard from, from 3 members of the insurance and commerce Committee, the incoming insurance and Commerce Committee. I fully expect to see legislation and I look forward to vigorous debate because I think that's how we get a good product. But when I, I hear things that we've seen this week this has been a long week folks it's those of you who sat through all this, I, I applaud you for your, your tenacity. Uh, I heard a hominem attack on a member of the staff because he brought up an antitrust example of over 100 years ago with Standard Oil. Standard Oil was another vertically integrated monopoly that operated to the detriment of the general public. And literally to the detriment of the republic. And through antitrust laws in the Supreme Court's decisions, that monopoly was busted up now we're dealing with what I liken to whack a mole when we're dealing with the PBMs. We wrote a law that became the model for the nation. It went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and it, it was approved 80 and Arkansas won and we were the leader in this. I'm proud of us being the leader in this. But this battle won't end. You're dealing with, uh. Very wealthy. Monopoly that. is taking advantage of consumers and indirectly hurting. Some areas of our state and our nation more so than others. This is not a perfect rule. It doesn't solve all the problems. It's important that we do it. We continue, we're gonna keep playing whack a mole with these guys. And hopefully we will our net result will be not lower drug prices per se, but more fair and equitable treatment of each consumer when they go to a pharmacy and fair reimbursements that will keep our. Pharmacists who are on the cutting edge of, of, uh, health care, sometimes in some communities the only health care facility that we have. So I urge and I would ask Mr. Chairman, if you would, before the vote would clarify exactly parliamentary wise, what the rule is. I believe the proper vote will be to approve the rule, and that will probably be a yes vote, but Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I ask you to clarify that before the vote is called. I appreciate y'all making my last day as chairman maybe the funnest. Senator Chesfield, immediate consideration. That's not a proper motion, and here's why, because the procedures on a rule are to move forward without objection set forth in the Constitution. So you can't make a presumptuous motion to adopt a rule. I love that. I'm here for you. You go, Jeff. I'm here for you, but I appreciate your try and I really do wish we could take it, but I can't. So with that, do you have any discussion? Representative Eubanks I reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, first off, I want to say that I supported the legislation that we passed several years ago with regard to regulating the PBMs, uh, I truly believe they're predatory, and I don't support, uh how they conduct their business and how they treat our independent pharmacies as a, uh, contract poultry grower for 38 years. I'm pretty familiar with, uh, vertical integration and how That can be abused at times. Uh, at the same time, unless I miss some of the uh testimony. I have not heard of any PBMs that have testified in opposition to the rule, and, uh, I suspect that's because this is a pass through to the consumer. And so, I believe, uh, we're gonna pay for it individually through, uh, a higher cost that our pharmacy or through higher premiums or both. Um, I am sympathetic to the plight that the pharmacies are dealing with. I just don't believe that this is the proper way to handle this issue. I, I do believe it is, uh, you call it a fee, a tax or whatever, it's gonna be increased costs to the consumers. Uh, I do believe we gave the insurance commission uh department, the authority to investigate these PBMs and to hold them accountable. And so I would ask the members to vote no on this, and let us deal with this if necessary. in legislation or require the, uh, the insurance department to fulfill their responsibilities. Thank you. Representative Eubanks, I can't help it, but I'm gonna comment to your comments. I had staff go back and look through all the comments in the committees and the public comment period. And there were 2 Times that a PBM or PBM affiliate commented. Neither time. And you're welcome to the comments, neither time were those comments. Particularly negative. And here's the assumption that I draw from that. Anytime money passed through anyone's hands, they withhold a percentage of that money. So I think what you're doing here is you're actually letting the PBMs make more money because money will pass through their hands to the pharmacist. So that's my 2 cents. Senator Hammer, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of thoughts to add to the decision. First of all, uh, there's only going to be an increase in the dispensing fee if it's determined that they're breaking the law to determine if they're breaking the law, you got to have the data. Uh, if you look at a report that was handed out in the meeting, it was full of words such as incomplete, uh, etc. even though a conclusion was given as far as an opinion. So I think there's uncertainty on both sides of the issue as to who do you believe in this as to whether it's going to increase the cost. At the end of the day, also, I think that just because a pharmacy is allowed to add a dispensing fee, the free market enterprise will still work because if my fees increase at my local pharmacy, I'm gonna ask them, is this because you're charging me a dispensing fee and can you waive that? and we put that latitude in the hands of the local pharmacy. I'm not thinking about the here and now because we're gonna come into session, and I feel reasonably sure that PBMs are probably going to be somewhat prohibited from doing business in the state anyway, and we will address that within the next 30 to 60 days. This is a chess move, and this is a move on the chessboard to get the PBMs to be fair and upright because right now if you think there's free market enterprise, why our Attorney generals across the nation looking at suing the PBMs because of the unfair trade practices. That should communicate to us an underlying message that they are not playing fair, and if we want to see our independent pharmacies, and it's not just the independents had a CVS go out of business in my district, followed by a local large independent pharmacy that went out of business, reason being that they got choked out on their cash flow because of what the PBMs are doing to them. Will this solve the problem? No, but will this help keep our pharmacies in business. We've already seen 40 go out. I think there are a couple. that are on the verge of going out and I think what we're doing is buying time until we can get into the general session and send a message to the PBMs, uh, don't shut the door behind you. We'll shut it for you when we kick you out because hopefully this will send a message to them and we give our agency director the tools they need in order to be able to continue to put pressure on them until we can, uh, take the next move. Is it a tax increase? I would not framework it as a tax increase. I would framework it as an opportunity. For local pharmacies to survive and let them explain to their customers why they're adding that fee, but it will only be after it was determined that the PBM is breaking the law. Thank you. Senator Boyd, do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, I've got a few comments here. So first of all, this rule, this is what our insurance commissioner says he needs to enforce the current law. So that's why we're here. That's why we're voting on this is because this is what I understand that he says we need. Second of all, I'm disappointed with some of the misinformation that is being said by my colleagues there, to quote, this affects every single prescription. This in fact does not affect every single prescription. There are a lot that doesn't. For instance, if you have a $4 prescription somewhere, you go in and you pay cash for this. There's nothing in this rule that affects that transaction. There's nothing in this rule that says the cash market cannot work. This is only the market that is primarily self-insured. Plants, it does not affect Medicare. So if you're on Medicare, this rule will in no way impact you. I think that's very, very important for the public to know and understand if you're in Tricare, this rule does not affect you in any form or fashion. So to say that this affects every per single prescription is just false. It's misleading information. Now let me tell you about attacks. By not passing this and continuing the status quo, what will be a tax is the continued rise in prescription drug costs. We have the highest level of prescription drug costs in the entire world. And part of that is is the big part of that is the PBMs, the pharmacy benefit managers who are also either they own an insurance company, the big ones or the insurance company owns them, so they're one and the same. So as long as we continue to allow preferred networks directing our clients presumptively to what they think is the better deal to a higher price, that's what's driving up costs. So for us to sit here and call this a tax. I just think is. Incorrect. I think it's misinformation and it's disappointing. So a vote, a no vote, if you vote to not approve this rule, that's gonna continue to empower insurance companies to manipulate the markets in a way that's going to continue to raise prices. I fully believe that this rule is a step in the right direction to actually help control cost, not at a supposed tax on Arkansans. I agree that would be problematic. I don't believe that's what this does. I'm, so, um, The other thing is, is maybe PBM's pharmacy benefit managers, insurance companies don't testify because they don't want to be asked to produce their tax returns. I don't know, but that's something that's happened right here in this legislature we've asked our citizens to produce their tax returns, so I hope you will join me in voting to support Rule 128. Thank you. Representative Gardner, you're recognized for comment or questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll be brief because a lot of the comments have been made. Thank you, um, Senator Hammer and Senator Boyd, but I just want to reiterate that Rule 128 is an emergency rule for a reason. 40 pharmacies, 40 have closed in Arkansas in the last 2 years. The issues related to the contracts obviously are, uh, complex and We've got to pay attention and address these and likely will in future sessions, but it is an emergency rule for a reason, and doing nothing will ensure that our local independent pharmacies will be in jeopardy. Chain pharmacies will continue to close, reimbursements will continue to bankrupt our pharmacies and PBMs will continue to use their unfair advantage against the pharmacies that serve everyone of our constituents. So I just hope that. You will consider the comments that have been made by pharmacists, by folks that, that, um, work with these rules and vote for the rule to continue, the emergency rule to continue. Thank you. Senator Irvin, you recognize just for the record, wanted to say that the board of Pharmacy testified that there were 6 closures, not 40. That was the pharmacists Association that said the 40. The board of pharmacy said 6. There's a discrepancy. Go back and look at the testimony of what was given to insurance and Commerce Committee and to the rules subcommittee. That's important information that needs to be clarified. It was also in the testimony. Buy the insurance department and in the public comments that this would be passed down straight to the patient. It would be passed down to the patient. So, yes, that is a tax. You may disagree, but I see that a fee is a tax. I'm not for fee increases. I'm not for tax increases. I'm not for that. That is the way it is written. It is an introduction of a new assessment. It's not a reimbursement rate. Reimbursement rates are not something that is negotiated by a patient. If you want to penalize the PBMs, you have the ability to do that. Then they're riding the front side of that check, not the patient. I fully support what Representative Eubank said. This is not about the PBMs. They're not gonna be harmed by this at all. This does not affect any of that, but I just wanted to correct the record to say that the testimony was 6, not 40. Senator here, hell, you'll recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just gonna kind of go along with what uh Senator Irvin was saying just then about the number of pharmacies it was, uh, Reported one of our meetings that it was actually 6, a discrepancy between the two because the one that said it was 6 clothes, said they did not consider. Sails Mergers That they were looking at just pharmacies that were closed down. So, so thank you for bringing that up, Senator Irvin. I want, uh, all the colleagues here to think about uh. Their constituents out here who have high deductibles. Some, some have 2 300 $4000 deductible, some of them up as high as 12,000. When you have a deductible that's that high, the consumer pays 100% because all your expenses goes to your deductible. And so at that point, call it what you want to. We are increasing the fee, I'll use the word that everyone likes to use and they don't like the word tax. I'll use the word fee. We're increasing the fee on the working class people of the state of Arkansas. So the people who are paying. Tax dollars for us to be down here we're fixing to penalize them. With a fee On their medicine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So members, that's, that's the end of discussion. So I want to explain the process before we move forward because this is very confusing. I'm gonna do this one time, very slow, so everybody please pay attention. And I'm not being funny, and I'm not being mean, but this is very confusing. I am going to say without objection, pharmacy rule 128 is adopted. I have an objection already lit up in the queue. When he objects we have to take a vote on the objection. So whether we adopt the objection or not. If the objection is adopted. We will then take another vote. On the adoption of rule 128. Are there any questions on the procedure I have explained. Now OK Senator Chesfield, you're recognized for discussion on the procedure only. I, I got you. I'm not going anywhere. All right. Mr. Chair, let me be clear, uh, let me make sure that I'm clear. If there is an objection and I, and there already is. If the individual objects. The vote that we take, is that going to be to sustain the objection or not? It is going to be that exactly. You will vote yes to agree with the objection? No, to not agree with the objection. So we're voting no, we want to proceed with passing rule 128. So a no vote would be in order for those who support it and a yes vote would be for those who do not. Is that correct? It depends on what his objection is, but currently my, my, my future seeing of the ejection, we, you and I are correct. I just want to make sure, you know, senior citizen, I have to make sure I'm not as quick as I'm right there with you. All right, thank you. Sarah Hickey, you recognize for a question on the procedure. Yes, sir. My, my question is, is, could you do this? Let's move very slowly in this so that every member. Gets the vote the way that they want to vote, so my thing would be is before we do any vote, if we could just state to the members, so each and every one of them know, including me. Uh, yes means this, no means that. That, that will be done. Thank you, sir. So members. Without objection, pharmacy rule 128 stands approved. I have Senator Dodson in the queue with an objection. Mr. Chair, I object and move to request a vote regarding the issue of not approving this rule. There is a proper objection. So do I have a second on the objection? I have a second from Senator Hill. So members Senator Chesterfield, uh take the question first. There's one thing to object and there's one thing to object and then make a motion at the same time. And what he has to state his objection. I understand he stated his objection, but he also made a motion to not adopt. Rule 128. And that's a whole another matter, so if we vote yes on this. Uh, we're see. I need him to state that over again so that we make sure you'll have a little patience. I'm not going to take a vote without explaining it. So hold on one second, please patience is not. I understand. Grab you a piece of gum. His motion and his objection is very proper. It is listed actually the way he stated in the rules. So with that, a yes vote would mean That you agree with the objection. That's right. You're agreeing with the objection to then take a vote, as I explained earlier on the not approval of the rule. A no vote would mean that you don't agree with the objection and you want the rule to stand as it is. So as anyone unclear. I've already declared his motion was proper. And it's stated that way in the rules. Yes. OK, that's what I mean. Senator Hammer, do you have a question on the procedure? Chair, would you just repeat the motion, plea or could you have him read objection is to object to the rule and not for non-approval of the rule. Thank you. That is his objection. Sara Dodson, did I mess that up? Alright All those in favor of the objection, said I. All those opposed. I roll the nose have it. I see one hand. Two hands. I have the hand, so we'll call the roll. Represent painter. Represent painters, no. Representative McAlinden. Represent McAlinden not being here going to first alternate representative McCollum. Representative McCollum not being here going to 2 alternate Representative Hodges. Mr. Hodges votes no. Representative Mark Berry. Represent Mark Berry votes president, Represent Beatty. Representative Beatty votes no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans votes yes. Represent Collins, Collins votes no. Representative Gardner. Garner votes no represent Crawford. It was a Crawford votes no. Representative Dalby. I'll be votes yes represent Pilkington. Pilkington votes no. Represent Watson. Represent Watson not being here going to first alternate represent Stan Barry. Yeah Stanbury votes yes. Represent Gazaway. Going to the next member Representative Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh votes yes. Represent Fortner. Represent Fortner not being here going to first alternate representative Steinmel. Going to the next vote, represent a vote. Represent votes yes. Representative Kenneth Ferguson. Count Ferguson votes no. Representative Beck. Representative Beck votes yes. Represent Bentley. represent Bentley votes no. Represented ladyman. Represented ladyman not being here going to first alternate representative Long. Representative Long not being here going to 2nd alternate Representative Joey Carr. Going to the next member, Representative McNair. Represent McNair votes yes, Representative Eaves. Representative Eaves votes no represent Ferguson. Going to first alternate represent more? Go a second alternate represent Pierce. Going to the next member of Whittaker. Representative Charlene Fight. Representative Womack. Represent Miller. conferences Representative Josh Miller. Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubank's votes, yes. Representative Shepherd. Representative Shepherd votes no. Representative Jean. some votes yes, represent Meeks. sent to Meeks votes no.presentative Cozart. Represent Cozart. Representative Wardlaw votes yes. Going to the Senate. Senator Dodson. Senator Dodson votes yes. Senator Payton. Senator Payton votes no. Senator Petty. Senator Petty votes no. Senator Boyd. Senator Boyd votes no. Senator Penzo. No. Senator Penzo votes no. Senator McKee. Senator McKee votes no. Senator Murdoch. Going to the next member Senator King. No Senator King votes no. Senator Tucker. Sir Tucker votes no center Sullivan. Senator Sullivan votes no. Senator Hammer. Senator Hammer votes no. Senator letting. Senator Leing votes no, Senator Mark Johnson. Senator Mark Johnson votes no. Senator Hill. Senator Hill votes yes. Senator Davis. Senator Davis votes yes. Senator Wallace, Senator Wallace votes no. Senator Blake Johnson. Senator Blake Johnson votes no. Senator Flippo. Senator Flippo votes yes, Senator Hester. Senator Hester votes no. Senator Hickey. Senator Hickey votes yes. Senator Stubblefield stubblefield votes yes center English. English votes no, Senator Caldwell. Senator Caldwell that no center dismaying. Senator dismaying votes yes. Senator Ervin. Senator Irvin votes yes. Senator Chesterfield. Chesterfield votes no. Senator Gilmore. Senator Gilmore votes no. Motion fails, Rule 128 is adopted. Its members with that. find my agenda here and all the roll call sheets. We'll move on to claims review and litigation reports and Representative DA Volt. The claims litigation report, oversight committee met on Thursday, December 19th, 2024. The subcommittee reviewed two litigation reports and 1 litigation settlement, the subcommittee affirmed the ruling of the Claims commission as to 4 awarded claims, 3 denied and dismissed claims and one negotiated settlement agreement. The subcommittee reversed the decision of the Claims Commission concerning one awarded claims. The subcommittee amended and amended the decision of the claims commission concerning one awarded claim as outlined in the report, I move adoption of the report. It's proper motion. Do I have a second? I have a second. All those in favor. Say ah. All opposed I have it. We'll move on to the employee benefits division, Senator Hickey, it recognized. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the employee benefits division oversight committee met on Wednesday. The subcommittee reviewed and approved the following actions of the state Board of Finance, including EBD formulary and medical drug recommendations for December 2024, EBD contract with Catalyze Health. I hope I'm pronouncing that correctly, incorporated and employer contributions for plan year 2025. The subcommittee heard a presentation by Patrick Klein of the Segal Group regarding fiscal impact statements. for number one, United Health, Medicare Advantage prescription drug rate increase. Uh, removal of a specified budget on uh vacant positions and also this, uh, emergency rule 128 that was just heard. I moved for adoption of the report. They have a motions and no questions. I have a second. The 2nd, all in favor say aye. Pod Uh going to number 7 Highway commission review and advisory Center Blake Johnson, you recognized the Highway commission review and advisory subcommittee met Wednesday and uh her testimony on the efficiency study recommendation rules for implementation, quarterly land conveyances report, annual expenditures of revenues report, uh, proposed legislation, infrastructure investment and Jobs Act report and the report of the highway construction projects of 10. million dollars or more. I moved the option of the report, chairman. They have an adoptions, no question. Do you have a second? Second on favor I posed report is adopted, uh, hospital and Medicaid study, uh, Center Irvin, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Pursuant to Act 512 of 2023, the Joint Committees on Public Health, Welfare and Labor met over a period of months to discuss topics including but not limited to existing mental and behavioral health facilities. The status and future of crisis stabilization units. OK, sorry. The hospital Medicaid subcommittee met on Monday to review recommendations made by the Senate and House committees on public health, welfare and Labor to approve the prior authorization proposals submitted pursuant to Act 575 of 2023. The hospital on Medicaid studies subcommittee approved the recommendations. The subcommittee also approved a prior authorization proposal submitted by A Better without recommendation from the public health committees. I move adoption of the report. Thank you, seeing no questions. I have a second. paper I post thank you a lottery oversight Central Caldwell, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Lottery oversight subcommittee met Tuesday and her testimony regarding the office of Arkansas Lottery Commission and director's report, Arkansas Division of Higher Education scholarship recipient's report and received recommendations for the Arkansas Academic Challenge scholarship program. The subcommittee adopted the annual report and the report is attached. Senator Jimmy Hickey made a motion to direct bill our staff to draft a one-page report, uh, information sheet outlining the procedure for filing and considering lottery bills as set out in the code and the joint rules. The one-page report shall indicate that the passage of issue one by the people of Arkansas will impact this process and the information sheet shall be sent to all members of the General Assembly. The motion was carried by voice vote. I moved for adoption of this report. OK, I have a motion and a second all in favor. I Post. Thank you, Senator Caldwell. Uh, Pierre center dismay you recognized. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. The peer subcommittee met on Tuesday, December 17th. The subcommittee received reports, reviewed requests, and approved the following of various temporary appropriation various temporary appropriation CARES Act appropriation, American Rescue Act plan appropriation. Uh, infrastructure investment Jobs Act appropriation, restricted reserve fund transfers. I moved for adoption of the report. And a second all in favor I post report is adopted, uh, center flip over for review, you reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The review subcommittee met on Tuesday and reviewed the agenda items including MOFs, alternative delivery, construction projects, grants and contracts with the exception of the appropriation for legislative salaries, no items were held, and I move adoption of this report. I have a motion and a second all in favor I. Uh, post central flippo, thank you. The report is adopted. Just a minute got uh Central Petty you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just need to state for the record that due to, uh, personal involvement on one of the items that I will not be voting on, uh, that uh report. OK, thank you. Noted. uh, next up we have personnel, uh, Central Brian Davis, you'd recognize. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. The personnel subcommittee of ALC met Wednesday, December 18th in room A of the Big Mac building. The committee approved one special, one new special compensation incentive plan for Veterans Affairs and reviewed a miscellaneous federal grant for a forensic administrator at the crime lab. The committee also reviewed two reports. The first was from the Department of Higher Ed regarding the use of provisional positions by the four-year institutions. The other was the personnel actions report from the Office of Personnel Management regarding the use of special entry and labor market rates by state agencies, as well as the first set of special compensation incentive. Awards paid by DHS. Um I will take any questions and move adoption of the report at the proper time. And I also want to say this was the last, uh, meeting that I got to serve with my co-chair Representative Mark Berry, and I just wanna, I don't know if he's here, I don't know if I see him, but thank him for all of his efforts and work over the last year and a half. OK, thank you. I have a motion to have a 2nd, 2nd on favor. I thank you for, uh, anybody opposed. I hear anybody report is adopted, uh, members looking to your uh reports on the interim and special committees, uh, senior report for the joint, uh, public health, welfare and labor, uh, if you've got any questions on that, we'll take them. If not, we're going to, uh, Need a motion, uh for H3, which is the teacher requirement that standard require a motion to be reviewed and to have a motion. Have a motion in a second, all in favor. I. And opposed, there is none that is adopted. Also, for uh for a Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Uh, the questions on that. If not, I'll take a motion of a motion to have a second. Second, all in favor I. posed that is adopted. And my co-chair is back for uh 4C, I think. Remember in a motion on Arkansas Economic Development Commission for rural Services. I got a motion of a second. Have a second, all those in favor. Say ah. I opposed, I have it. Move on to item 7. We hear a report from Secretary Putton on the monthly report on assisted living facilities. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for having me here today. Um, This is the monthly report as directed by Section 15 of Act 213 of 2022. I'm reporting to ALC the status of our efforts regarding reimbursement rates under the Living Choices Assisted Living waiver. DHS completed the work necessary to implement Act 198 of 2023, which authorized DHS to establish cost reporting for Medicaid funded assisted living facilities. The agency is preparing to begin the next cycle of annual cost reporting in January of 2025. The first cost report analysis and public comment responses were compiled and posted on March 4th, 2024, and these can still be found at the website listed in the letter that we submitted to you on December 6th. On July 3rd, DHS received formal approval of the Living Choices waiver amendment from CMS approving the new proposed rate of $86.73 to begin on July 1st, 2024. DHS presented the proposed rate increase to public health on August 14th and received full ALC approval on August 23rd of this year. Assisted living facilities were reimbursed at the new rate retroactive to July 1st, 2024. The new rate was implemented effective September 1st for all new claims submissions. All claims submitted thereafter were reprocessed in a, in a, I'm sorry, submitted between July 1st and August 31st were reprocessed and an adjustment to those payments was made on October 4th, 2024. The annual cost reporting for state-funded assisted living facility providers will now be conducted annually in accordance with Act 198 and results of this annual reporting analysis will be shared with the ALC. Finally, as requested during the May 31st ALC meeting. were reporting that there were no facility changes of ownerships or closures for the previous month of November as part of this report, we will continue to provide an updated list of such closures or changes of ownership each month in addition to immediate email and text notifications we have been providing to ALC and the governor's office on an ongoing basis, and this concludes our report. Send Rose. Uh, thank you, Secretary Putnam, and as always, appreciate your communication. Uh, I won't be chair after this month, but, uh, I will be concerned always for our senior population, our AO population and uh we'll be bringing that to you if you have concerns and thank you for your report. Thank you for working with me. I appreciate you. Absolutely and happy to continue to communicate, chair or not, sir. Have a merry Christmas. Merry Christmas. Thank you all. Members seeing no further business. We done done it. We stand adjourned.