Related Posts
House
October 8, 2021 Part 1
Shepherd [00:00:20] I invite the members, staff, press, and guests in the galleries to stand to be led in prayer by Rep. Lane Jean and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance to be led by Rep. Lane Jean.
Jean [00:00:33] Let us pray. Our most gracious, heavenly father, we’re thankful for all the blessings this day. We’re thankful as this body we’re able to come together and do the business of the state. We ask that your blessings and favor be on us today. Dear Lord, we ask that you watch over the first responders of this state, this nation, the military personnel that protect us every day. We pray that your guidance, your love and your care will be on them. Dear Lord, we just ask that you be with us today as we do the business of the state, that we do it in a kind and Christian like manner. Let us not lose our sense of love for one another. Forgive us for our sins of shortcomings. In Christ’s name we pray, amen.
[00:01:20] [Pledge of Allegiance]
Shepherd [00:01:44] Members, please indicate your presence by pushing a yellow present button. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. With 90 members present, the chair sees a quorum. Are there any requests for leave? Rep. Brooks, for what purpose?
Brooks [00:02:31] Leave.
Shepherd [00:02:32] You’re recognized.
Brooks [00:02:33] Leave for Representative Perry.
Shepherd [00:02:34] Is leave granted for Rep. Perry? So noted. Representative Coleman, for what purpose?
Coleman [00:02:40] Leave.
Shepherd [00:02:40] You’re recognized.
Coleman [00:02:41] Leave for Representative Hollowell?
Shepherd [00:02:44] Is leave granted for Rep. Hollowell? So noted. Representative Gray, for what purpose?
Gray [00:02:50] Leave.
Shepherd [00:02:50] You’re recognized.
Gray [00:02:50] Leave for Representative Eubanks.
Shepherd [00:02:53] Is leave granted for Representative Eubanks? So noted. Rep. Cloud, for what purpose?
Cloud [00:02:58] Leave.
Shepherd [00:02:59] You’re recognized.
Cloud [00:03:00] Leave for Representative Barker.
Shepherd [00:03:01] Is leave granted for Rep. Barker? So noted. Represent Gazaway, for what purpose?
Gazaway [00:03:07] Leave.
Shepherd [00:03:07] You’re recognized.
Gazaway [00:03:08] Leave for Representative Mayberry.
Shepherd [00:03:10] Is leave granted for Rep. Mayberry. So noted. Representing Wing, for what purpose?
Wing [00:03:15] Leave for Representative Warren.
Shepherd [00:03:17] Is leave granted for Representative Warren? So noted. Representative Beck, for a purpose?
Beck [00:03:22] Leave for Representative Miller.
Shepherd [00:03:24] Is leave granted for Rep. Miller. So noted. Representative Vaught, for what purpose?
Vaught [00:03:29] Leave.
Shepherd [00:03:30] You’re recognized.
Vaught [00:03:31] Leave for Representative Cavenaugh.
Shepherd [00:03:34] Is leave granted for Rep. Cavenaugh? So noted. Rep. Milligan, for what purpose?
Milligan [00:03:40] Leave for Representative, Representative Rye.
Shepherd [00:03:42] Is leave granted for Rep. Rye. So noted. Rep. Frederick Love moves we dispense the reading of the previous day’s journal. Without objection so ordered. Are there reports from select committees? Are there reports from standing committees? Are there– is there any unfinished business? Are there any executive communications? Mr. Clerk, please read Senate Bill 731.
Clerk [00:04:34] Senate Bill 731 by Representative Bryant to establish a right of privacy concerning coronavirus 2019 vaccination status, to establish a grant program for COVID 19 relief funds or American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 funds and to declare an emergency.
Shepherd [00:04:48] Rep. Wardlaw, for what purpose?
Wardlaw [00:04:51] Objection.
Shepherd [00:04:52] Let’s hear your objection
Wardlaw [00:04:54] I object to the germaneness of this bill that was the ruling of the speaker when the bill was read yesterday.
Shepherd [00:05:11] Rep. Wardlaw, elaborate on your objection.
Wardlaw [00:05:15] Yesterday in committee, we heard testimony from DFA that the ARP funds could not be used in this bill, therefore, on its face value, it had the sentence in the bill, but cannot be used means it’s not germane to the call of this extended regular session resolution.
Shepherd [00:05:40] Rep. Wardlaw, I’ve already ruled on the germaneness. When the bill came to the House yesterday, I reviewed the bill and determined that on the reading of the bill that it was germane, given that it did reference the American Rescue Plan Act.
Wardlaw [00:05:57] I object to your ruling.
Shepherd [00:06:03] Are you asking to appeal the decision?
Wardlaw [00:06:05] Yes, appeal the decision of your rule.
Shepherd [00:06:12] The appeal is noted and is referred to the Rules Committee. The House will stand in recess for five minutes.
[00:07:07] [Recess]
Shepherd [00:07:07] The House will come back to order. Representative Eaves, you’re recognized for an announcement.
Eaves [00:07:14] The Rules Committee will meet in 15 minutes, 9:30 in Room 151.
Shepherd [00:07:19] Rep. Lowery, for what purpose?
Lowery [00:07:22] Point of inquiry.
Shepherd [00:07:23] You’re recognized.
Lowery [00:07:25] Could you clarify as to why on a previous appeal of the decision of the chair that it was a vote of the body, but this one is being sent to Rules Committee?
Shepherd [00:07:33] On the previous appealing of the chair, that was appealed when the bill came across the desk and the only information that was available was the bill itself. In this case, as I understand, Representative Wardlaw’s appeal, he is appealing it based on testimony and information that was presented in a House committee. That testimony information, there’s not a, outside of– there’s no real way in which the House could consider that testimony without sending it to a committee. The Rules Committee will meet and I’ve been advised by the parliamentarian they would make a recommendation as to the germaneness of the bill, specifically as to my ruling. That ruling will be– that decision of the Rules Committee will be reported back to the House and then the House will have the opportunity to vote on that on whether to– I still have to determine the exact wording because it gets kind of tricky. But, but basically there will be an opportunity for the House to vote on that. So the difference is now this is after a committee action with testimony and to allow testimony to be taken.
Lowery [00:08:32] OK, thank you for your clarification. Rep. Dotson, for what purpose?
Dotson [00:08:36] Inquiry.
Shepherd [00:08:37] You’re recognized.
Dotson [00:08:39] Should the ruling of the House Committee come back, what would the vote threshold for approving that be?
Shepherd [00:08:54] Represent Dotson, what I’d like to do is take that up when we come back to make sure that I don’t misstate anything because there is, there is– we want to make sure the question is correct as to what the vote actually is, whether it’s a vote in favor of the decision that I made or a vote in favor of what the Rules Committee may or may not do. So if, I will, when we come back, we will, we will deal with that. Rep. McKenzie, for what purpose?
McKenzie [00:09:20] Question.
Shepherd [00:09:21] You’re recognized.
McKenzie [00:09:22] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And that was part of my question. I also I did not catch what meeting, what room is the, and will it be online?
Shepherd [00:09:31] Yes. 151. And it will be online.
McKenzie [00:09:36] Thank you. Rep. Gazaway, for what purpose?
Gazaway [00:09:39] Point of inquiry.
Shepherd [00:09:39] You’re recognized.
Gazaway [00:09:41] Is there a time period to appeal the decision of the chair? Because my understanding of how this process has worked was that an objection was made, a decision, a decision on that objection was made, the bill was sent to the committee, the bill has passed committee, the bill is ready for presentation on the floor, and then an appeal is made and is there– so my question is, is there a time period within which an appeal must be made or can we just do this at any point?
Shepherd [00:10:14] It’s the will and the decision of the body. Rep. Cloud, for what purpose?
Cloud [00:10:22] Clarification.
Shepherd [00:10:22] You’re recognized.
Cloud [00:10:26] Representative Wardlaw stated what happened in committee as far as testimony from DFA, and I’d just like for it to be on the record that we received, that members of the committee received a handout from the DFA that said they had sought counsel and outside body had said that those funds may not be used. They did not say those funds shall not be used. So I asked for clarification on that. So may not be used meant that the final ruling has not taken place yet. Those funds may be used. Just wanted to go on record.
Shepherd [00:11:00] Thank you Rep. Cloud. And that, and that would be information that can be provided to the Rules Committee. Rep. Payton, for what purpose?
Payton [00:11:08] A request.
Shepherd [00:11:09] Let’s hear your request.
Payton [00:11:10] We have many members who have signed pairs on voting on the bill. They have had no opportunity to sign pairs or present pairs for this type of vote that may or may not happen on the House floor. So I would request that we have a minimum of three hours for those members to get here to cast their vote.
Shepherd [00:11:58] Rep. Payton, that would be, that would essentially have to be made as a motion to delay action. Right now, there is no action. That’s a motion that could be made when we come back. Or– so at this point, there’s no action to be taken. At the point in time, there is action to be taken, we could take a motion to postpone action until a date, a time certain.
Payton [00:12:53] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I don’t want to disenfranchise those members who thought they’d be able to vote on this. So will you take that motion at the proper time?
Shepherd [00:13:02] Sure.
Payton [00:13:03] Thank you.
Shepherd [00:13:05] Rep. Lundstrum, for what purpose?
Lundstrum [00:13:06] Parliamentary inquiry.
Shepherd [00:13:08] Let’s hear your inquiry.
Lundstrum [00:13:09] This bill has been vetted for the Senate. It’s gone through the Senate Public Health. It’s gone through the Senate floor. It’s gone through the House Public Health. And now we’re sending it back to Rules. I’m wondering, are we setting a new precedent because we object to a bill and want to kill it, that we’re sending it to a different committee and doing this process?
Shepherd [00:13:30] In my view, it’s similar to when we have an objection on a fiscal impact. I know that that’s occurred at least once in my time as speaker, where we sent it to Rules for a determination and it came back to the floor. I believe it was a, I believe it was a request for a fiscal impact where we recessed and went for Rules. So I think it’s similar to that.
Lundstrum [00:13:50] Thank you.
Shepherd [00:13:52] Any other questions? Representative Bryant, for what purpose?
Bryant [00:13:56] Parliamentary inquiry.
Shepherd [00:13:57] You’re recognized.
Bryant [00:13:58] Is it a– are we able to appeal the ruling of the chair to send it to Rules and keep it here in the body.
Shepherd [00:14:11] Sure.
Bryant [00:14:13] Motion.
Shepherd [00:14:19] Rep. Peyton. All right. Rep. Bryant, let’s hear your motion.
Bryant [00:14:24] Motion to appeal the ruling of the chair to send it to Rules.
Shepherd [00:14:31] That’s a proper motion. It is debatable. My understanding is I get to explain my decision first and then you get to present your motion. So with this, with this objection, the question has been brought up as to the propriety of the reference to the American Rescue Plan funding, which has always been a concern. I’ve stated to the House that in my view, the bill had to contain both. Any bill on COVID 19 had to contain both information or provisions as to COVID 19, but then also had to contain a funding reference to the American Rescue Plan. On its face, it apparently did that. Now the concern, I think, has always been and actually there are bills that have come through that I had some concern on, is basically can someone just insert that language into the bill in order to make it germane? In my view, the bill satisfied those requirements. Now, based on the testimony yesterday and what happened in the Rules Committee, I received, I’ve received a number of requests from a number of members on both sides of the aisle as to this issue. Clearly, there was something stated in committee, testimony that was stated in committee, information that has been presented that calls into question whether the, whether the bill as it is presently presented actually can provide American Rescue Plan funding. In light of the fact that those objections arise from the testimony and information that was presented, I believe that it would be best to send it to Rules, to allow Rules to take that testimony, understanding that whatever happens there will come back to the House floor and the membership will be able to vote on that. And so that’s, that’s my reasoning for sending it there for the Rules Committee to consider that type of information and why I believe that’s most appropriate, as opposed to just merely taking it and allowing the House to vote at this point in time. I mean, that’s, that would be the other option would be the House vote right now on my decision. In this, in this instance, we’re able to take testimony through the Rules Committee. Again, I believe this is similar to what has happened, I believe, with fiscal impact statements in the past, but don’t hold me to that. But I believe that’s what’s happened in the past. And so it seems to be the best way to handle this. Again, the House will ultimately get to weigh in on that issue. That’s my explanation. Rep. Bryant, you’re recognized to explain your motion.
Bryant [00:17:26] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Thank you, members. I’m not going to make any assumption of what’s going to happen if it goes to Rules Committee. I think we all, even me in the first term know, there’s, there’s procedural things that happen and it is what it is. It’s part of the process of sausage being made. That being said, I think this body today right now should make this decision. This is an important decision that affects thousands of Arkansans. Initially, in concern with what Representative Cloud said, you know, DFA’s statement of may, there’s been no ruling on this. There’s been no understanding. And how ARPA funds work, just like any other funds that are given to the state, the state creates basically the rules. Now they got to follow a broad set of rules that the federal government gives you, broad. Almost so broad, they’re vague. Then we create and narrow down those rules, and then we’re subject to audit. So all the funds we’ve got have broad federal rules, narrow state rules subject to audit. So I know there’s, there’s probably states right now violating these laws, violating their own ARPA fund laws, but they don’t know that because the rules are so broad. So once the federal government comes in to audit, that’s when I know. So I’d appreciate a vote to sustain the ruling of the chair and keep this vote in the House.
Shepherd [00:19:12] Just a point of clarification. The motion, the motion, as I understand it, is to, is to overrule. I’ll let the parliamentarian clarify.
Parliamentarian [00:19:31] Thank you, Mr Speaker. The question before the House, when this debate concludes, will be to sustain the ruling of the chair. And the ruling to sustain is his decision to send it to Rules. That, that will be the question. So an affirmative vote on that would support the decision to send the ruling– I mean, send the question to Rules Committee. A negative vote would keep the debate on the appeal here on the House floor.
Shepherd [00:20:11] Representative Bryant has explained the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? Rep. Wardlaw, you’re recognized to speak against the motion.
Wardlaw [00:20:22] Thank you, Mr. Chair. It’s funny he mentioned that some of those other states are not abiding by the rules and they’ll fail an audit. Let me remind you guys, about a year ago we hired a company, CGR and Haggerty, and I’m probably not pronouncing that correctly, to watch our CARES Act money. We moved that contract over in council to also watch our ARP funds. That consultant has sent a letter to the DFA on this bill to say whether you can or you can’t use this money. They testified a very minute part in the committee yesterday that you cannot use this money for that. They’re willing to testify in Rules today to clarify their testimony. Since when do we not want to hear testimony from the experts or the public on a bill? Since when did we become the body that we make the decisions for the people we work for without their opinions? That’s, that’s not what we’re about, people. It’s not what I’m about. I’m about listening to the people that I work for and listening to the experts and making an educated decision. So with that, I’d appreciate a yes vote on this motion to sustain the rule of the chair.
Shepherd [00:21:35] Represented Dotson, for what purpose?
Dotson [00:21:38] Parliamentary inquiry.
Shepherd [00:21:39] Let’s hear your inquiry.
Dotson [00:21:43] I’ve been here for almost 10 years, and I haven’t seen this done before, so I– and I haven’t been I’ll find it in the rules. So what is the vote threshold on this motion to sustain the ruling of the chair to send it to Rules? And also, if it goes to Rules and the body wishes to object to the ruling of Rules or whatever comes out, what is the vote threshold to overturn the ruling of Rules?
Parliamentarian [00:22:16] Both, both scenarios, you’re asking the same question. What’s the threshold to sustain the ruling of the chair? The threshold is that a majority or a tie. To overturn the ruling of the chair is is a majority in the negative. To overturn a ruling of the chair is the majority in the negative, is a majority of no votes of people voting, of a quorum. It’s not, it’s not of the of, of the membership. It’s, it’s of the quorum.
Dotson [00:22:53] So the, the ruling of the subcommittee– Rules subcommittee– if this goes to Rules and the– it comes back out with whatever decision is made, how much is it to affirm that report or how much is it to overturn that report? Are there– is it just a simple majority for each?
Parliamentarian [00:23:22] I think the report of the Rules Committee will be a recommendation to the House, and then the House will take that and that’s, that’s what is, will be the basis for the vote to sustain the ruling of the chair.
Dotson [00:23:35] Oh, so then there would be a separate vote to sustain the ruling of the chair based off of what the, what, whatever the Rules Committee decides or recommends?
Parliamentarian [00:23:45] Yes, sir.
Dotson [00:23:45] Thank you.
Shepherd [00:23:48] All right. Rep. Wardlaw has spoken against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion? Rep. Ladyman, you’re recognized to speak for the motion.
Ladyman [00:24:02] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I’m speaking for the motion. It’s confusing. But we need to vote on this in here. Yesterday, we heard over two hours of debate. DFA was there. They brought the form that said this may. Representative Cloud is exactly right. The forms said this may not be usable, but it also may be usable. DFA went to the end of the table. They passed out the form without even coming to the chairman and asking them. It was just passed out. He sat down. He went over his form. Zero questions. He didn’t get one question. This question was not raised in committee, the committee that is looking at this particular bill. So why didn’t, why wasn’t that brought up yesterday if that was an issue? The same people that are opposed to this now are in the committee. They were on the committee. And they were on the losing side of the committee. Now, let me move on to one other thing. If we’re going to debate this, we all represent 30,000 people. We don’t need to send this to a committee of seven or eight or whatever, how many people, and let them debate it. Let’s debate it right here in the public where we all can have input on where this is going. The experts, a third party who was hired by the person that presented the information to us, they’ve already had their opportunity to speak in a committee. So we need to debate this here on the floor. So I would ask for you to vote for this motion.
Shepherd [00:25:58] Rep. Ladyman has spoken for the motion. Just a point of clarification, again, I remind the membership, regardless of what the Rules Committee does, it comes back to the floor for a vote one way or the other. So I just, just to make sure everybody’s clear on that. Representative Ladyman has spoken in favor of the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? Rep. Gray, you’re recognized to speak against the motion.
Gray [00:26:25] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I was in committee yesterday, and I did vote no, in all transparency. But as we’re talking about what the DFA said or didn’t say, so I’ve got the the fiscal impact pulled up and it does say, may not be able to use ARPA funds to provide restitution. But it also says ARPA does not authorize the use of ARPA funds to reimburse an employee for economic losses due to failure to comply with an employer’s job requirements. So if one says that they said may, they did say may, but then they also says does not allow. So I think it should go, we should let the DFA come before us and say, is may correct, or does not allow correct. Let them come tell us which one it is. So I will be voting against this motion. Thank you.
Shepherd [00:27:11] Representative Gray has spoken against the motion. Would anyone like to speak for the motion? Rep. Payton, you’re recognized to speak for the motion.
Payton [00:27:25] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Colleagues I’d like to say this is a veiled attempt, but it’s not even a veiled attempt to kill this bill. I’m asking that you vote in favor of this motion. And then we’re going to move on to a vote on whether to uphold the ruling of the speaker when he originally ruled that it’s germane. You just heard from the parliamentarian. The difference in those two votes is one, a tie would go against the bill. But it takes a majority to go in favor of the bill. And that’s trying to simplify it as much as I can based on what he just said. You’ve seen a lot of votes in this House and in this body hinge on one vote. That, that’s changing the threshold if you’re in favor or against this bill. We have a lot of members of our body and our caucus that would be disenfranchised on both votes. They don’t have pairs for these votes. So one vote could make a huge difference in whether this bill survives or fails. So don’t think that you’re just voting on procedure. The bill says that those funds may be available and may be used. Originally, it was decided that the ARPA funds could not be used for PPE and could not be used for testing. And that changed. Regardless of whether today’s ARPA rules authorized this usage, though that can change. The federal government can change their rules on how the ARPA funds will be used. So this bill is perfectly germane, and it has language in it that allows the use of those funds should they become available. So let’s not try to convince the public that we’re voting on procedure here. We’re voting on the bill on every one of these votes. And I think we’ve all heard from our constituents. And you’ve got to ask yourself, are you going to represent the federal government or are you going to represent your people? I’d appreciate your vote in the affirmative on this motion.
Shepherd [00:29:50] Representative Payton has spoken in favor of the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? Rep. Flowers, for what purpose?
Flowers [00:29:57] Question.
Shepherd [00:29:58] Let’s hear your question.
Flowers [00:30:00] I was going to ask Rep. Payton, but I can ask you. Just for clarity, because I’ve heard a couple of references about this bill being killed. If, if we vote to affirm your decision to send it to Rules, when it gets to House rules, can the House Rules Committee kill the bill?
Shepherd [00:30:23] No.
Flowers [00:30:23] Thank you.
Shepherd [00:30:25] Representative Payton has spoken in favor of the motion. Would anyone like to speak against the motion? Representative Pilkington, you’re recognized to speak against the motion.
Pilkington [00:30:36] I know a lot of people speaking in favor of this motion were voting no. I voted yes in committee. Like Rep. Flowers stated, and like the speaker say, we can send this to the to the Rules and we’re still going to have to come back and vote on it. You know, we were supposed to be here for three days. And it’s been quite a long time. And I would rather not rush an important decision like this that has large ramifications. That’s why we spent two hours taking testimony and not limiting debate like we did, like we do in the past because we have created artificial deadlines for ourself here. We can take a little extra time. I know there’s people who are probably thought this was going to be a pretty normal day, and probably now they know that they need to get, get in their car and come back down here to vote on this. So I don’t want to disenfranchize anyone like Rep. Payton said, I’d rather send this to the Rules Committee, hear the testimony, give people time to get back down here. Thank you.
Shepherd [00:31:25] Rep. Pilkington has spoken against the motion. Rep. Tollett, for what purpose?
Tollett [00:31:32] Motion.
Shepherd [00:31:33] Let’s hear your motion.
Tollett [00:31:33] Motion for immediate consideration of the motion.
Shepherd [00:31:40] That, that is a proper motion. It’s not debatable. Representative Whitaker, for what purpose?
Whitaker [00:31:46] Clarification.
Shepherd [00:31:47] Let’s hear your question.
Whitaker [00:31:48] We have now had back and forth at least a dozen times and nobody knows what the precise question is going to be. Could you state what the question the House will be considering? Thank you.
Shepherd [00:32:00] The question will be, shall the– the parliamentarian’s telling me we need to take up this motion and then I can clarify what the next– if the motion is successful. All right. The motion is for immediate consideration of Representative Bryant’s motion. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? The ayes have it. All right. So the parliamentarian can correct me if I’m wrong. Representative Bryant made a motion essentially to overrule my decision to send the question to the Rules Committee. The parliamentarian has advised me, though, that when that is actually posed to the House, the question is, shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House? Thus, a yes vote is in favor of my decision to send the bill to Rules. A no vote is to keep that question here and not send it to Rules, and then it would be left for the House to make a decision on the germaneness of the bill. So a yes sustains my decision, sends the bill to Rules. A no is against my decision. It’s in favor. A no is in favor of Rep. Bryant’s position, and the bill stays here. Any questions? Yes, sends it to rules. No, keeps it here. The threshold? A majority in the negative keeps it from going to Rules. So it’s those voting. Therefore, a tie goes to the chair. Clear enough? Yes, to Rules. No, keeps it here. All in favor, say, aye. Those opposed. I say the no’s have it. I see five hands. Again, the question before the House, question before the House sends the bill to– is to sustain the decision of the chair to stand as the judgment of the House. A yes is in favor of sending the bill to Rules. A no keeps the bill here on the floor. Prepare the machine, Mr. Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr Clerk. By a vote of 51 yeas, 36 nays, zero present, the, the, the decision of the chair stands as the judgment of the House. Rules Committee will meet right now. Room 151. The House will stand in recess until adjournment of the Rules committee.
[RECESS]
House of Representatives
October 8, 2021 Part 2
Shepherd [00:02:41] The House will come to order. Representative Eaves, you’re recognized for a report from the Rules Committee.
Eaves [00:03:03] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the Rules Committee met just a few minutes ago. We heard testimony from DFA about the language in the bill as it relates to the germaneness. We heard testimony from many citizens and the Rules Committee agreed that the bill was not germane. So in this case, the Rules Committee disagreed with the speaker’s ruling. Thank you.
Shepherd [00:03:39] All right, members, we’ll now, we’ll now proceed with the question of shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House. Rep. Payton, for what purpose?
Payton [00:03:53] Favor of the chair.
Shepherd [00:03:55] Rep. McKenzie, for what purpose?
McKenzie [00:03:57] Question procedural. We’re now going to have discussion on the– thank you.
Shepherd [00:04:00] Yes, yes. So we’ll proceed to discussion on the motion. Again, it’s shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House. This is another one of those that a yes vote is in favor of my decision that it was germane and that would allow the bill to proceed to be voted on in the House. A no vote would disagree, would overrule my decision and would agree with the Rules Committee and the bill would not proceed forward. Given that this is once again a objection to the decision of the chair, the parliamentarian advises that I have an opportunity to explain my decision again. I would just reiterate what I said earlier, which was I made a decision based on the bill that was before me when it came over yesterday. I believe it came over yesterday while we were here on the House floor. I looked at it on its face before any testimony or other information was taken on the House end. And based on that, I made the decision that was germane. At this point, we would proceed with would anyone like to speak against, against my decision, against sustaining the chair? Rep. Wardlaw, you’re recognized to speak against the decision of the chair.
Wardlaw [00:05:30] Thank you, Mr. Chair. When we were in committee, DFA came and testified that it was not a may, it was a could not be used for this, for this purpose. If you look back, there was a Senate bill filed, Senate Bill 719 that was filed without ARP language in the bill that is exactly the same bill. The sponsor went back and filed it and plugged this in solely to be germane on face value. So it is our job as a body to make sure these things stay in line and stay that they are germane. This bill on its face value looks germane. When you look at the reasons it’s using the funds, it is not germane. So with that, I’d appreciate a no vote.
Shepherd [00:06:15] Rep. McKenzie, for what purpose?
McKenzie [00:06:17] Question.
Shepherd [00:06:18] OK, you’re recognized for a question.
McKenzie [00:06:20] And I’m looking for clarity here because your last statement just now confused me more because I thought that the ruling from the chair was it was germane. Are you– and yet your last statement, I thought you said that you, after looking at it, you ruled that it was not germane. So you ruling, your ruling is this bill is germane.
Shepherd [00:06:41] Yes. Yes. Yes, I made that ruling yesterday when the bill came from the Senate and I assigned it to committee, I determined it was germane based on reading the bill itself.
McKenzie [00:06:52] Thank you.
Shepherd [00:06:56] Represent Dotson, for what purpose?
Dotson [00:06:58] Question– or parliamentary inquiry. Thank you. If you could refresh our memory on what the vote threshold is on this? Is it a simple majority of the body, the quorum and what a tie does?
Parliamentarian [00:07:22] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Dotson, for that question. The vote threshold is that a majority or a tie will sustain the speaker’s ruling. A majority in the negative would overturn the speaker’s ruling. And it’s the majority– it’s the vote of the quorum. It’s not 51, and present would count in that determination.
Shepherd [00:08:06] All right, I think– Rep. Payton. Okay. Okay. Rep. Wardlaw has spoken against the ruling, against sustaining the ruling of the chair. Would anyone like to speak in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair? Rep. Payton, you’re recognized to speak in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Payton [00:08:35] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I agree that this is germane, and I’ve listened to the arguments in two committees about why it may not be germane. Because even if you concede that currently the interpretation of the guidance on ARPA would not allow the funds to be used for this, it’s quite possible, as has happened in the past, that the guidance on what those funds can be used for can change. It can change. It already has changed. So for us to try to argue whether or not this bill is germane based on what the guidance is today is just a false front to disenfranchise those that have paired. And that’s what it comes down to. You know, we have a lot of members who support this bill that are not here because they paired their vote. And somebody stayed up late last night– no, I give them credit for being smarter than that. They probably didn’t even have to stay up late last night, and figured out a way to disenfranchise our colleagues, who are trying to take advantage of a procedure that we’ve used many times in pairing their vote. So if you’re against this bill, vote against the bill. But don’t use procedure to try to disenfranchise your colleagues. And I’d appreciate you voting in the affirmative to uphold the ruling of the chair that this bill is germane.
Shepherd [00:10:11] Rep. Payton has spoken in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair. Would anyone like to speak against sustaining the ruling of the chair? Would anyone like to speak in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair? Rep. Ladyman, you’re recognized to speak in favor of sustaining the ruling of the chair.
Ladyman [00:10:31] Thank you, Mr Speaker. Colleagues, I think we’re debating the wrong thing here. I think we need to go back to the basics. So I went back and read the proclamation and I agree with the speaker’s interpretation because if you go back and read this, the motion about it being germane or not, is not about whether COVID 19 funds may or may not be used for this purpose. It’s about whether this bill is related to COVID 19 funding. So if you go back and look at the proclamation as it was written and approved by us, it says we will, we will reconvene to conduct business related only to the following. And there are five things listed there. If you look down at Item D, the fourth thing that is listed, here’s what it says. Considering legislation related to, number one, the COVID 19 public health emergency, and, number two, distribution of COVID 19 relief funds. You cannot say that this bill does not relate to distribution of the funds. That’s what it says. It does not say whether you can use it or not. But is the bill written related to funding? May or may not is not in there anywhere. So I’m under the opinion that that we should let people know we should vote on this bill. What’s wrong with voting on a bill? I don’t mind going home and telling my people I voted this way because this is what I believe you all want and this is what I believe we should do. Let’s vote on the bill. There’s no reason not to vote on the bill. We’re just mincing words. And I mean, it’s black and white right here. May or may not is not in the proclamation. Related is in the proclamation. So I would ask for a good vote on that.
Shepherd [00:12:51] Representative Tollett, for what purpose?
Tollett [00:12:56] Motion.
Shepherd [00:12:56] Let’s hear your motion.
Tollett [00:12:57] Motion for immediate consideration on the motion.
Shepherd [00:13:03] That’s a proper motion. It’s not debatable. The question before the House is the immediate consideration on– the question of shall the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House. This is a vote for immediate consideration. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. The ayes have it. All right. Just to be clear, members, the question before the House is, shall the decision of the decision of the chair stand as the judgment of the House? A yes vote sustains my decision as to the bill, and the bill would then, if, if there are equal or more votes in the affirmative, the bill would stay on the calendar for consideration. A no vote is in favor of overruling my decision. It would be consistent with the recommendation of the Rules Committee. And if the no votes are in excess, greater number of, of no’s, no votes and present votes than there are yea votes, then the bill would be determined to be not germane and it would– it would have– no further action would be taken in the House on that bill. To be clear, yes is in favor of hearing the bill, determining it to be germane. No is, is in favor of it not being germane, and the bill would no longer move forward. Any questions? We do have one pair on on the desk. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes’ Representative Gray votes no. Witnessed by Representative Vaught. Representative Gray is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote– hearing none, please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Again, to be clear, yes is to sustain and keep them– hear the bill. No is to overrule and not hear the bill. Prepare the machine, Mr Clerk. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the ballot, Mr. Clerk. By a vote of 48 yeas, 31 nays, and 2 present, the decision to the chair is sustained. Rep. Love, for what purpose?
Love [00:16:17] Inquiry.
Shepherd [00:16:19] Let’s hear your inquiry.
Love [00:16:20] What was the quorum?
Shepherd [00:16:25] 51 is the quorum.
Love [00:16:27] Well, wait a minute. We were talking about the number of of people here, so it would have to be 100 people being present for it to be a quorum.
Shepherd [00:16:57] The quorum on that vote was 83. There were forty nine yeas, 32 nays and 2 present. So there were more votes in the affirmative to sustain. Mr. Clerk read Senate Bill 743– 731.
Clerk [00:17:28] Senate Bill 731 by Representative Bryant, to establish a right of privacy concerning coronavirus 2019 vaccination status, to establish a program from COVID 19 relief funds or American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 funds and to declare an emergency.
Shepherd [00:17:45] Sen. Bryant, you’re recognized to explain the bill.
Bryant [00:17:47] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, colleagues for, for going through that exercise to make sure that we do this correctly. What you have before you is a bill that I imagine none of you thought you’d see today. I honestly myself didn’t think I’d see it. We had a good compromise bill. This chamber, I feel, worked great together to get that out, to get it over back to the Senate. Unfortunately, the Senate did not pass the emergency clause on that bill. And in their negotiations that happens on that side that are affecting us today, since the emergency clause went through, the sponsors of this bill decided that this bill needs to go through in order to give the state of Arkansas the ability a tool to push back against federal mandates. Would they admit that the bill was perfect. I doubt it. But are any of our bills perfect? They all have their own issues. However, what this tool does is allows the state to push back on the mandates that are coming. I’d like to read a quote that I read from the Associated Press last night. “Forcing people to do something they do not want to do is rarely a winning political strategy. Yet with industry on his side, Biden has emerged as the unlikely advocate of browbeating tactics to drive vaccinations.” Something else I read is he is very disappointed with all the religious and medical exemptions afforded to these individuals that have true fears about an untested gene therapy being forced upon them in order to stay employed. True fears. Now, if this was something that was normal, a normal vaccine that has years of testing, years of understanding, years of implication, or if it was something that had liability, liability against the employer requiring it, liability against the manufacturer causing these injuries. And I know the argument is well, millions of doses have been given. Millions of people have had the vaccine without reaction. Well, I am, I am elated that those injuries didn’t occur. But for the 750,000 people that are recording voluntarily in a system that hardly gets any activity, that are recording voluntarily that they’re having problems with this, and nobody’s pulling it back. Nobody’s pulling it back. Only one of these gene therapy drugs is approved by the federal admis– Federal Drug Administration. The other two are not approved yet, and they’re asking for emergency use to give to 5 to 11 year olds. So what’s next is the Department of Education has come down and mandate vaccines. Now do we have a religious, philosophical and medical exemptions? Sure. But could they say you’re not going to get this funding unless you allow this? I think they’ll say they have that power. OSHA’s saying they have that power. So what this bill does is give a tool to our attorney general to say, Hey, Arkansans have spoken. They have said, no, you are not going to ask our vaccination status. If the state wants to do that, they can. I believe this is a state’s right. Now does the argument go to the other bill? Sure, there’s arguments that the employer has rights, too. But when you have employers that collude together to form a corporate oligarchy that reaches out to the extent of their supply chain, to the extent of their suppliers producing goods for them, to where they have to make the decision that they didn’t want to be forced to make, this bill is a relief to them. Now is the bill we previously passed to do our job good? Sure, it was a great bill. Will the governor veto? I don’t know. Will he veto this? Likely. Will we be pushing over the next week to ensure if he does, that he’s that he’s not going to be embarrassed? Probably. But at the same time, this bill pushes the will of the people, my people, my 30,000 constituents. Now, do some probably disagree with this? Sure. But that’s a votes have consequences issue. I am elected to represent them, and they have spoken to me and said they were actually disappointed with the previous bill that I negotiated through the House with the help of many of you that hate this bill. And I get it. I wasn’t planning on standing up here today, but here I am. So I would urge my colleagues, when you look at this bill, take away the pressures of this pressure cooker, of this place. Ignore in the Senate. Just listen to your constituents. And make a good vote. Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Shepherd [00:22:39]]Rep. Beatty.
Beatty [00:22:39]Question.
Shepherd [00:22:41]Representative Bryant has left the well. Rep. Payton, for what purpose?
Payton [00:22:46] Motion.
Shepherd [00:22:47] Let’s hear your motion.
Payton [00:22:49] I move for immediate consideration.
Shepherd [00:23:00] [00:23:00]Rep. Payton, my practice has generally been on, when a bill has been brought up for the first time is to hold off on motions for immediate consideration until some debate can take place. So at this point, I’m not going to accept that motion.
Payton [00:23:13] [00:23:13]Could I give a reason?
Shepherd [00:23:16] [00:23:16]Sure.
Payton [00:23:17] The Senate is anxious to adjourn. And I don’t know how this would not be affected, but I think it’s good that we get our business over with.
Shepherd [00:23:31] I’m not going to accept that motion at this time. Rep. Bryant has explained the bill. Would anyone like to speak against the bill? Rep. Ray, you’re recognized to speak against the bill.
Ray [00:23:52] Thank you, Mr Speaker. I guess I’ll just go first so I can get, get my part over with. Colleagues, I voted for my friend Representative Bryant’s Bill, House Bill 1977, even though I had some reservations about it, and he and I discussed the bill at length. I voted for it because he worked hard to iron out some of the areas of contention. And like many of you, I know people who are likely to be terminated by their employer for refusal to take the vaccine. And Representative Bryant’s bill afforded them another option. And even though I had reservations about it, I wanted to afford those folks another option through a testing regimen if they choose to do that because we are living in extraordinary times. However, this bill is entirely different and I think it goes much further and has several problems. So first of all, I think this bill directly conflicts with House Bill 1977, the one we passed the other day. That bill affords a testing regimen if folks don’t want to take the vaccine. But inherent in that supposition is that your employer know whether you’re vaccinated or not, because how are how are they going to know if you qualify for the testing? So I don’t think these bills, these two bills are even compatible. Secondly, this bill is going to be a bonanza for trial lawyers. If you look around and think, you know, we just really, our society is just really not litigious enough, then, you know, this bill is for you. We heard yesterday in the committee from an attorney with the Friday firm that this bill is going to jeopardize the COVID liability protections that we passed earlier in the session for businesses because as part of those covered liability protections, you have to be substantially complying with CDC guidance. And if you can’t, if you’re forbidden by law from even inquiring about an employee’s vaccination status, then that’s going to jeopardize all of the important work we did earlier in the session. Third, this bill doesn’t contain any type of exemption for medical providers, which are fundamentally different, in my opinion, for most types of businesses. So I don’t know about you, but God forbid I had to put one of my loved ones in a nursing home. I would like to have some level of confidence that the workers in that nursing home were vaccinated if I had the choice. Likewise, if I had to hire an in-home health aide for an aging parent in my own home, I would at least want to be able to have the ability to ask them if they’re vaccinated. This bill would make that illegal, and that’s in your own home. It’s been talked about in the committee about how this bill undermines at will employment. I think somebody else is probably going to talk about that. So I’m not going to go into a lot of detail, but I think it’s important to mention that the Senate did not adopt an emergency clause on this bill. So the, the good intentions of this bill to help folks who are facing a potential termination, you know, this bill is not going to protect those people that are currently facing the prospect of termination because it’s not going to become law for 90 days. And we all know about the law of unintended consequences. I fear that this is going to have the opposite effect that’s intended, because employers are now going to know if this law, that if this bill passes, that the rules of the game are going to change 90 days from now. And so that’s going to influence their decision. You know, I’ve had people call me and say, Please help me buy time. I’m afraid this bill is going to shorten the amount of time that folks have if they’re currently facing this situation with their employer. You know, back during the session, we debated a hate crimes bill, and I heard from a lot of my colleagues that, you know, we don’t need to create more protected classes. I happen to agree with that. And so I was against that bill. But that’s what we’re doing with this bill is we’re creating a new protected class. A couple of years ago, we all got mad at the government for telling a business what kind of cake they had to bake and who they had to bake it for. And I thought that was inappropriate. And now we’re going to tell employers, you can’t even ask someone, even if they have an outbreak in their business for the purposes of contact tracing so that more people don’t become infected. I’m afraid this bill is going to lead to job losses. We’re already, we’re going to make it illegal for our federal contractors to comply with federal rules that already exist today. I’m not talking about the mandate rules that are already in place today. I want to close by saying I voted for the bill that prohibited the state from mandating the vaccine. I feel good about that vote. And I want to be clear, nobody is strapping anybody to a gurney to make them take the vaccine. I’m 100 percent opposed to President Biden’s unconstitutional, undemocratic mandate that he declared by fiat because he couldn’t win the support of a House and a Senate that are controlled by his own party. And yes, I think that a lot of what businesses are doing with related, related to the vaccine is overly aggressive. But we have passed a law just days ago that provides exemptions through a testing regime– regimen and that goes above and beyond religious exemptions and health exemptions. In summary, I just want to say I think this bill helps solve one problem, albeit in a very inefficient manner. But in doing so, it creates eight or nine or 10 more problems. We all know about the law of unintended consequences and what the road with good intentions is paved with. And I think that’s where we’re heading with this bill. And that’s why I can’t support it.
Shepherd [00:31:05] Rep. Ray has spoken against the bill. Would anyone like to speak for the bill? Rep. Bentley, you’re recognized to speak for the bill.
Bentley [00:31:22] Thank you, speaker. Colleagues, in a news release Wednesday from the Western Journal, The family of Jessica Berg Wilson said Wilson was reluctant to get the jab but relented due to a mandate at work. A portion of the obituary for her read Jessica Byrd Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Washington, passed away unexpectedly September 7, 2021, from a COVID 19 vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia surrounded by her loving family. Jessica was an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37 year old young mother with no underlying health conditions. Rep. Collins had asked, where’s the verification of death due to COVID vaccine? Well, there’s one for you. There will be more. What do you think the occupation that has the highest number resistant to the vaccine? It’s health professionals, because health, health professionals across our state have called me, have called many of you and said we are seeing adverse reactions. This is not a normal vaccine. This vaccine’s not even holding. So to say we have to know whether someone’s been vaccinated or not to protect other employees is irrelevant. It’s not even holding for months. It’s not holding. I am not saying that those people that are 65 and older and have health conditions cannot benefit from this vaccine. I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that there are risks, and each individual has a right to weigh those risks and benefits to themselves, not forced on them by their employer. Dr. Malone, who was one of these scientists who helped to develop the vaccine, stated that the best use for this vaccine were for those adults 65 and older and who had health conditions. That’s where the vaccine will be best. Those are the people that are dying. Your coworkers have a 99.95 to 99.9 percent chance of surviving this COVID virus. We have taken this so out of proportion. Dr. Malone said if we push this vaccine in mass population like we are, everybody get the vaccine, everybody get the vaccine regardless, everybody get the vaccine, that you’re going to push the virus to mutate. I didn’t say that. That’s what he said. And we’re not sure it did, but it very may well have if you look at some graphs that Senator Johnson put forth just this past week on how the Delta variant skyrocketed after the vaccine was given. Good public health policy comes through honest, open, transparent data and debate, not through fear, coercion and lies. We’re being told that the only way to beat this virus is through a vaccine. The only way we can do it is mask up and get your vaccine. That’s how we’re going to beat it. Well, that’s not true. We’re simply ignoring early aggressive treatment that has worked for physicians across the state and around the world. I have begged and pleaded to hear this in the public health committee that we could hear from physicians. They’re doing an awesome job of keeping people out of the hospital and keeping people from dying. And we can’t even get that heard at our own public health committee. They’re being silenced. People are dying. I’m mad. I’m mad as heck that people that I love in my district died because their families begged to get ivermectin. They begged, Please, please, let’s try. This is working elsewhere. No, sorry, that’s not the FDA approved. We can’t use it. Where are we at? Where are we living? This is the United States of America, and people cannot even get the treatment they asked for. We’re a right to try state, but dadgumit, don’t try to get ivermectin because you’re a lunatic. My gosh, you can look at study after study after study, where physicians are having excellent results across the world, across the world. This is a worldwide pandemic, not just an Arkansas pandemic, it’s worldwide. And look at India, Peru, Washington and Mexico, all over the place where there have excellent results and we’re just ignoring that. All I can say to you today is think just for a minute, just for a minute, think about your constituents back home. What are they wanting? What have they been saying to you, because that’s who are here for. I’m very thankful that we heard that we got this bill back and we were able to hear it because what happened in the Rules Committee, we shouldn’t even have gone there, wasn’t even in their purview. We heard the germane discussion in our health committee and we decided to hear the bill. I acknowledge that the Biden administration mandates on everyone have massive fines. That is what we have an attorney general for. That’s what we pay for all the attorneys that we have fought, to push back on federal overreach. The question today is, are you for vaccine mandates or are you not? That’s the question you have. Thank you.
Dalby [00:36:37] Representative Bentley. Representative Bentley has left the well. Rep. Bentley has spoken for the bill. Is there anyone to speak against the bill? Speaker Shepherd, you’re recognized to speak against the bill.
Shepherd [00:36:55] Thank you, Madam Chair. And just for clarity, for everybody out there that may think there’s tricks to be played, the decision to take that objection was literally as we were walking in here. There were members ready to make motions to amend, there were members ready to object, there’s all kinds of things. And what, what may or may not be known is that every single day we come in here, members will come to me right before with what they plan to do. We made a decision to accept that, it went to the committee, you had an opportunity to weigh in. All right. So I just want to set the record straight. Actually, what I spent my night doing, not, was not trying to figure out how to play games, but was to read the bill and work on what I would say. Because here’s the deal, I echo Representative Ray’s comments. When you read this bill, this isn’t about vaccine mandates. This is about whether you can ask if someone has had a vaccine. One overreach by the state does not eliminate the overreach by the federal government, and this is an overreach. Under the Civil Rights Act in Arkansas– somebody can correct me if I’m wrong– it only applies to employers with nine or more employees. This bill does not use that definition. My understanding is it applies to every employer in the state of Arkansas. And so just the other day, when my 94 year old grandmother was needing a housekeeper and my mom asked, had the housekeeper had a vaccine, if this bill passes and they decided not to hire that housekeeper? There’s liability. That is, that is, that’s really far out there. This, this does not have to do with the mandate. This guts the bill that you previously passed. It really does. What’s the harm in asking the question? What’s the harm if a hospital doesn’t have a mandate, but they just want to know, have you had the vaccine, because if we’re going to have you work in the COVID unit, we’d like for you to have that protection, because guess what? My recollection is that we made COVID 19 a compensable injury worker’s comp. Not to mention, not to mention the fact that we tried to provide protection– Rep. Ray touched on this, I believe. We tried to provide protection and immunity, and now we’re going to say, well, you can do some stuff, but you can’t, you can’t ask about the vaccine. That makes no sense to me. We should not pass bills based on just the title. We should read the bills. And by the way, for those that are all of a sudden concerned about the Senate pushing us around, allegedly pushing us around, what are we doing today? We should have been out of here yesterday. They’re trying to hold us hostage over an emergency clause. So this is broader in application than our current Arkansas Civil Rights Act. We’re talking about protecting employees. That’s fine if you want to protect employees. I am sympathetic to to the situation that so many people are in having to make a decision. But this bill goes beyond current employees. This goes to the point, if you’re considering hiring somebody — and Senator Ballinger already stated he’s doing that to try and set up litigation. And I agree with Rep. Pilkington that said that this is actually going to encourage employers to implement mandates right now while they can in the next three months so that they can beat the application of the laws that we’ve passed and particularly this bill. So if you want to do that? Go ahead. Representative Wing said, asked in committee if this was our club. Federal government has a club. We have a club. Well, this is our club. But this club is being applied to small businesses and individual employers, not just the big boys. So if you want to put them in a situation where they’re getting crunched by the federal government and the state government, then go right ahead. But I’m not going to come down here and just stand by and let that go without somebody calling it out. And if people want to think there were games played today, that’s fine. They can think games were being played today. I already told some of you that I was come down here and speak against it before even the objection was entered. There’s so many things that are wrong with this bill that I could go on and on and on, and you all can decide. You all can decide. But as for me, I’m going on record against this bill. If we had all the time in the world, maybe we could go back and rework it. But we need to vote this down and go home. And I can take the consequences of that. And I know that whatever you said here will be misrepresented on social media. I know that. But you know what? In the words of Bobby Petrino, I didn’t come here just to paint. I ask for a no vote.
Dalby [00:42:47] Speaker Shepherd has spoken against the bill. Is there anyone to speak in favor of the bill? Against the bill? Rep. Gray, you’re recognized to speak against the bill.
Gray [00:43:15] Thank you, Madam Speaker. I’m not sure that I should even be down here following that speech. I’d like to say, first of all, I will try to keep this as short as possible. Most of what I had to say and had written down here on all my pages has been said by Representative Ray and now by our speaker. Everyone knows that I work in healthcare and that’s what I specialize in. And so I will try to keep most of this to healthcare. We did not exempt healthcare in this bill. I say we, this is not my bill. I voted on the bill and I put my name on the bill that I thought gave businesses some protection while also protecting the employees. I thought it was the best way that we could protect all of our constituents because our constituents are business owners too. I voted yes and put my name on the bill that we already passed out of this chamber that no longer means anything if we pass this bill today. So I’ll try to stick to healthcare. Effective October 1 of this year, there’s a system, a hospital inpatient quality reporting system that all hospitals must report to you. You have to report for the duration of one week out of each month. So in October, you report for the second week of October. November, you’re going to report for the second week of November. You have to report not just the COVID 19 vaccination status of your employees, but the influenza vaccination status of your employees. If you do not comply, it’s a 2 percent cut to your Medicare reimbursements. And you know, people say, well, 2 percent, that’s not very much. Well, when Medicare comprises anywhere from 40 to 60 percent of your total business, your total reimbursements, that equates to about 1 percent of your overall operating revenue. Now there are hospitals across this state that have much less than a 1 percent operating margin as a profit. This hurts them. So what are we as a state saying? You must choose to either violate state law or not get funding from the federal. I’m not even talking about the mandate, right? The mandates, we think that’s coming and I’ve heard, well, we don’t know if it’s coming, we don’t know what it’s going to say. I can tell you what they’ve said. The feds have said it’s going to be 100 percent vaccination rate with medical and religious exemptions. So I can’t even ask my employees if they’re vaccinated. I’ll be violating the mandate that we know is coming, but I’ll also be violating what’s already here. So we’re already, what we’re doing about passing this is automatically giving hospitals roughly a 1 percent cut to their Medicare funding. Conditions of participation, they will require and that’s what we talked about. You have to sign something. All hospitals, all doctors’ offices, anybody that takes funding has to sign a conditions of participation. And in that conditions of participation with CMS, we expect there to be 100 percent vaccination status with those exemptions. Let’s take a hospital with 1,600 employees. This bill right here references the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. And so when I go and I pull up the statute under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, it takes me to compensatory damages. Compensatory damages start at $15,000 and they go all the way up to $300,000 if you have more than 500 employees. OK. Civil Rights Act wasn’t meant to be a class action. OK, but what we’re doing essentially is we’re going to start some kind of class action and I may be using the wrong terminology because I’m not an attorney. That cake baker, it’s one. It’s one cause of action for that cake baker. But as a hospital, when I have to ask my 1,600 employees how they were vaccinated, that’s 1,600 causes of action. Those 1,600 causes of action at $300,000 apiece equate to $480 million in damages. OK, I’ve got a family member whose daughter has leukemia. He has five employees. He’s a small time contractor. Daughter has leukemia. She’s also under age. So she’s immunocompromised and she’s under the age of 12 and can’t get the vaccine. He can now no longer ask the few employees he has, whether they’re vaccinated or not. Or he could get sued under this. So small time, doesn’t make that much money. Five employees. $75,000 he stands to lose. His daughter has leukemia. This bill goes too far.] Let me tell you who was included. It’s not just the hospital. Anybody that takes Medicare or Medicaid money, ambulatory surgical centers, dialysis centers, you know, people that actually need dialysis to live, kidney failure, home health, hospice, nursing homes, doctor’s offices, durable medical equipment offices, chiropractors, physical therapists, pediatric day clinics, those that take care of the kids that have disabilities from zero to birth to five, not only have them, but the bus drivers that drive them because it’s Medicaid funded, non-emergency transport. You have someone who has Medicaid that doesn’t have a vehicle. They can’t get a ride to their doctor’s office, their cardiologist, their surgeon. They have to get a non-emergency transport. Guess who pays for that non-emergency transport? Medicaid. Can no longer ask them if they’re vaccinated. This bill is so broad that it takes into account everyone. None of these people are going to be able to comply. And what we are saying as a boddy, what I’ve heard before. I’ve heard Senator Ballinger say it yesterday in committee. I’ve heard Representative Bryant say it: let’s let the court decide. Since when as Republicans did we ever think it was good to let the court system decide anything? Seriously, when did we decide? So what we’re saying is, let’s go ahead, pass this bill. Let’s hope the courts throw it out. But in the meantime, if you get sued and you lose and an award is handed down from a judge, there’s no going back. I’ve heard from Senator Ballinger well, we’ll come back in a special session. We’ll come back next year and fix it. We’ll take health care out. It’s too late for those people that have already had a judgment handed down. $480 million from my hospital if it were to happen. It’s too late. I know I’m passionate about this. I can keep going and keep going. I will say too, you know, it kind of dawned on me last night and I’m going to give my dad some props. He’s watching, I’m sure today, as he watches me every day. He’s 86. At some point in the near future, he’s going to need a caregiver. I’m not going to be able to ask the person I’m going to hire to come in and take care of my dad if he’s vaccinated. To come into our own home, I won’t be able to ask that or I’m in violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Now you tell me that’s not going too far. And a couple more things. OSHA is going to require that employees with 100 plus employees get vaccinated or test weekly. All federal contractors already, they’re going to have to comply with this. We have, according to the website, to the internet, which may or may not be correct, we have 13,470 federal contractors in the state of Arkansas. They would already be breaking state law. OK. Head start programs and early head start programs must comply. So I don’t know what we’re doing with this bill. I totally understand. I don’t agree with the federal mandates. I don’t agree with forced vaccine requirements, but two wrongs don’t make a right. With that, I’d appreciate a no vote. Thank you.
Dalby [00:51:03] Representative Tollett, for what purpose?
Tollett [00:51:06] Motion.
Dalby [00:51:07] Let’s hear your motion.
Tollett [00:51:08] Motion for immediate consideration.
Dalby [00:51:11] That is a proper motion. It is not debatable. The question before the House is immediate consideration. All in favor, say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. Members, the question before the House is Senate Bill 731. We have five pairs on the desk. Rep. Barker votes yes; Representative Ray is the present, is the present member and votes no. Witnessed by Rep. Haak. Representative Ray is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. The next pair on the desk, Representative Hollowell votes yes; representative Bragg votes no. It’s witnessed by Representative Coleman. Representative Bragg is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representative– we have another pair on the desk. Rep. Rye votes yes; Rep. Evans– Eaves– I’m sorry. Rep. Eaves votes no. It’s witnessed by Representative Cooper. Representative Eaves is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representative Miller votes yes; Representative Flowers votes no. Witnessed by Representative Scott. Rep. Flowers is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two voting machines. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes; Representative Scott votes no. Witnessed by Representative Vaught. Representative Scott is the present member. Are there any procedural objections to this pair? Please do not vote either of these two machines. Mr. Clerk, prepare the machine. Has everyone voted? Has everyone voted? Cast up the machine, Mr. Clerk. We have 41 yeas, 46 nay, the, the, the bill has failed. And there is one present. The bill has failed.
Shepherd [00:54:29] Mr Clerk, please read House resolution 1054.
Clerk [00:54:38] House Resolution 1054 by Representative Shepherd to provide for a recess of the General Assembly and to provide that the 93rd General Assembly will adjourn sine die no later than October 15, 2021.
Dalby [00:55:01] Speaker Shepherd, you’re recognized to present the resolution.
Shepherd [00:55:05] Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, this is the House resolution that would allow for us to, to adjourn. You can take a look at it. Basically, we’re going to afford the governor the time to make any necessary vetoes and handle any of those types of notifications. There is an identical resolution on the Senate end. I honestly don’t know what they’ve done today, but I really don’t care at this point. And so we’re going to, what I’m proposing to do is recess today. At the close of business, we would recess, and then at the proclamation of the Speaker of the House and the President Pro tem of the Senate, we by joint proclamation could reconvene at any time before 12:00 noon on October 15th to consider vetoes and correct errors and oversights. Or if there’s no need for that, then we will be adjourned at noon on October 15th. Now I know there’s been some question about that it puts that power in the hands of myself and the President Pro tem. This is the standard language that’s been used for numbers of years. Senator Hickey stated yesterday that if the governor vetoes any of the legislation, he’s committed to reconvening. I likewise am committed to reconvening if the governor vetoes any of the legislation. And, and so I’m giving you that commitment. Senator Hickey did the same, and so I would ask hopefully, you know me by now and hopefully you know that if I tell you I’m going to do something, come, you know, thick or thin, I’m going to do what I say. And so with that, I would, I would certainly appreciate a good vote. The reason why we don’t just automatically come back in is on the chance that there’s no vetoes and there’s no business to be conducted, it seems like it’s a waste of resources to bring 135 members down just to see us bang the gavel in and bang the gavel out. And so I’d appreciate a good vote on this resolution.
Dalby [00:57:05] Speaker Shepherd has voted– has presented the resolution in favor of the resolution. Rep. Tollett, for what purpose?
Tollett [00:57:14] Motion.
Dalby [00:57:14] Let’s hear your motion.
Tollett [00:57:15] Motion to recess for 10 minutes.
Dalby [00:57:22] What is– could you kind of give us a reason why?
Tollett [00:57:29] For processing pairs.
Dalby [00:57:32] You’ve heard the motion. The motion is there are some pairs that wish to be voted in this regard. This motion is not debatable. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The no’s have it. Speaker Shepherd has spoken for the resolution. Do I have anyone who is against the resolution? For the resolution? Speaker Shepherd, you’re recognized to close for your resolution. Speaker Shepherd is closed for the resolution. The resolution before the House is House resolution 1054. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The resolution has passed.
Shepherd [00:58:41] Members, hold on, hold on for just a minute. We’re just making sure we got everything in order here before we get out of here.
Dalby [00:59:03] Let’s just hang tight for a few minutes.
Shepherd [01:01:12] The House, the House will come to order. Rep. Meeks, for what purpose?
Meeks [01:01:18] Motion, please.
Shepherd [01:01:19] Let’s hear your motion.
Meeks [01:01:20] Mr. Speaker, in accordance with House resolution 1054, I move the House stand adjourned until such time as we are reconvened for certain purposes or until the regular session of the 93rd General Assembly is adjourned sine die.
Shepherd [01:01:35] Proper motion. It’s not debatable. All in favor say aye. Any opposed. The motion is adopted. The House is adjourned.