House Rules
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (15)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1573
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT SHIPPER LICENSE. HB1573 Ladyman TO REORGANIZE THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND THE SUBJE…”
|
TO REORGANIZE THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER INTERIM COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF … | Ladyman | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
SB231
Act 342
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB231 J. Dotson TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMP…”
|
TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY. | J. Dotson | Notification that SB231 is now Act 342 |
|
HB1192
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1192 Pilkington TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO P…”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND E-CIGARETTES BY STUDENTS; AND TO REQUIRE … | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1455
Act 500
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FOR OTHER PURPOSES. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1455 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE A PRIVATE CLUB TO PURCHASE ALCOHOLI…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN PRIVATE CLUBS TO PURCHASE CERTAIN PRODUCTS DIRECTLY FROM A SMALL BREWERY PERMIT … | Pilkington | Notification that HB1455 is now Act 500 |
|
HB1476
Act 675
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RTAIN PRODUCTS DIRECTLY FROM A SMALL BREWERY PERMIT HOLDER. HB1476 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR A…”
|
TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT … | B. McKenzie | Notification that HB1476 is now Act 675 |
|
HB1491
Act 874
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…t McKenzie RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1491 Wardlaw CONCERNING THE EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BEER AND SAKE;…”
|
CONCERNING THE EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BEER AND SAKE; TO CREATE AN EXCISE TAX CREDIT … | Wardlaw | Notification that HB1491 is now Act 874 |
|
HB1578
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MATTER INTERIM COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. HB1578 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT. HB1…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1626
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1626 Duffield TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS.”
|
TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSAL VAPOR PRODUCTS FROM A PROHIBITED FOREIGN PARTY. | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1645
Act 601
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1645 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROB…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY-RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1645 is now Act 601 |
|
HB1721
Act 394
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1721 M. Brown TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT…”
|
TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT GREYHOUND RACING AND SIMULCASTING OF GREYHOUND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1721 is now Act 394 |
|
HB1722
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1722 J. Moore TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PROD…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; TO … | J. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1730
Act 830
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1730 M. Brown TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRAN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRANSFER OF WHOLESALE PERMITS. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1730 is now Act 830 |
|
SB345
Act 421
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB345 Irvin TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY IMPROV…”
|
TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF THE PRIVATE CLUB PERMITTING PROCESS … | Irvin | Notification that SB345 is now Act 421 |
|
SB365
Act 488
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB365 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SMALL BREWERY ACT TO AUTHOR…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SMALL BREWERY ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THREE SMALL BREWERY … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB365 is now Act 488 |
|
HB1143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…ALL BREWERY LICENSE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1143 Wooten TO AMEND THE CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES ENABLING A…”
|
TO AMEND THE CHARITABLE BINGO AND RAFFLES ENABLING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT RAFFLES TO PROVIDE … | Wooten | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
She'll go to the table and identify yourself for the record. You
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
0:27
recognize to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, members, uh, This bill is uh HB 1573 is a bill to reorganize the House standing committees, and I know it's 63 pages long, but if you'll concentrate on the first
two pages, that's primarily the bill. The rest of those pages is just changing the names in all the codes, uh, if we change the names of the committees, we've got to change a bunch of codes. So The current committee structure was established in 1973 by the General Assembly. After an interim study. That followed the passage of Governor Bumper's executive reorganization bill, uh, in the 1971 general session. Uh, while that's important, I think we're in that same mode
right now. Uh, this is not. Uh, unprecedented. The committees have been realigned many times by the General Assembly. I researched, uh, changes in committees. Uh, historically, uh, the records only go back to 1931, but let me just real quick give you a list of when these committees were changed, what year and how many committees standing committees we had at that time.
So in 1931, we had 42, 1933, it was changed to 41, 1935, 1942, 1937, 1943, 1939, 1946, 1951, 1952, 1959, we had 59 standing committees, 1961, we had 55, 1969, 1923. And then as I said, in 1973 it was changed to the current. committees. Uh, as many of you know, in 1920, in 2021, we passed a bill
adopted by Governor Hutchinson's executive reorganization. Which reduced the executive direct reports to the governor from 44 to 14. In 2023. I put a bill in interim study to reorganize the standing committees. After a lot of discussions with legislative branch and executive branch. I filed HB 1573, which aligns our 10 standing committees with our 14 executive departments.
I did this because uh I was. Um I was in a public health. Joint committee and I saw 4 of our secretaries in the audience waiting to talk. That's not a good investment of our time and our money. I think that's very efficient, inefficient when we tie up our highest paid, uh, executives. So I thought I, I could make this process much more efficient. If we realign our standing
committees with our department secretaries, it would make our state government much more efficient. Department secretaries would only deal with one committee. And not sitcom committee rooms waiting for their turn. Also our committees could be more focused on the subject matter of our executive branch and dig deeper into that one department. So that's the reason I ran the bill.
Uh, and here, here I'll go over the committees as they're established in this bill. So There would be, there would still be 10 committees, so there would be a committee where there'd be more than one department because we have 14. Uh, but I tried to align it as close as possible to our executive. Uh, departments. So number one committee would be education. Number 2 would be public safety
corrections and inspector General Committee. Uh, number 3 would be public health and human services. Because those are very closely aligned. Number 4 would be commerce, insurance, labor, and licensing, and public transportation. Number 5 would be finance and administration committee. Number 6 would be veterans and military affairs Committee. Number 7 would be agriculture Committee number 8 would be state agencies and shared
services. Number 9 would be City County Local Affairs Parks Heritage tourism, and game and fish. Number 10 would be energy and environment and Arkansas Public Service Commission. So That, that would take in all 5 of our executive departments and our 5 non-department agencies such as transportation, fish and game. So with that, uh, I'll just say I talked to a lot of legislators
over the interim about this, uh, I think everybody I talked to thought it was a good idea. I know it's gonna be a change. Um, because we're used to this structure, it's been here for 50 years, but I think it's time to change, things have changed in 50 years, and I think we need to change to keep up with that. So I'd be happy to take questions. Members, any questions for Representative Leman?
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
5:54
Representative Paul, you recognized for her question. You back as well. So, um, I'll say that, um. Representative Ladyman, I I hear you on
talking with uh members during the interim, uh, has this conversation has there been any displeasure from our secretaries on the confusions or having to go to a different committees. I have the secretary said anything about this? Uh, yes.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
6:18
I mean, they don't like sitting in a committee waiting 2
hours to talk. They, yeah, they, they are for this. OK. Thank you. Any
other questions from committee? Representative McAlinden you recognize her question. Just
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
6:43
a quick question for you in terms of interacting with the Senate. I know we don't line up exactly right now. Do you see any potential changes or problems with the Senate?
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
6:58
Uh Oh sorry. Uh, I've talked with senators. Because I would like to align with them and ask for their input during the interim to change this thing to line up with them, uh, they like to do their own thing. I, I don't think that's gonna be a big problem. Thank you. Representative Lady man, I got a question.
Have you talked with BLR and seeing how the staffing would work if they'd be any problems, uh,
Especially as far as matching up with the Senate and the House committees.
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
7:34
Matthew Miller ran, uh, did this bill for me, and, and he worked on it a long time. Uh, got a lot of input from BLR on this and, and they think this is the best way to go. OK, well, I don't
see anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this. Singing none, Representative Ladyman, would you like to close
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
8:01
for your bill? Well, I just want to say that, you know, I think the people back home want us to be more efficient and sometimes change is hard, but, you know, I think we need to do things like this to make us more efficient, the people back home will
see that, so. With that, I'm uh closed and I asked for a good vote. I what's the will of the committee?
Have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Representative Hawke, you
recognized for discussion on the motion. Thank you,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
8:36
Mr. Chair, and I do agree that, that members back home do want us to be as efficient as possible, but I, I don't think that we've not been efficient with the current committees that we have. I think that everything has gone pretty smoothly with what we've got and, you know, I, I deal with a lot of our secretaries. I've yet to hear somebody say, golly, I, I hate the way that our committees work, right? I, I, I just don't hear that. And so with that being said, I, I like
the, I like the information, the time you put into it, but I just can't
be a, a yes vote. I'll be voting no on this. Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say I. Oppose nay. Sorry, Representative Laderman, your bill has failed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All right, members, we're now going to House Bill 1645. Representative Brown, are you prepared?
And I understand you have an amendment. If you'll identify yourself for the record, you recognize
Speaker 44
9:46
to proceed and explain your amendment. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Matt Brown, District 55. Uh, colleagues, we have an amendment to add one word to 1645, add the word events. So that the bill would read, including
Speaker 46
9:56
without limitation, the location, events and menu. This was a requested change by the constituent that brought the bill to me, uh, to clarify that if a, if the bill were to pass the microbrewery restaurant could put on their Facebook page, hey, we're having
Oktoberfest next week and that would not run afoul of the law. And I, I'm closed I
appreciate a good vote. Have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. I suppose now, congratulations, we've adopted the amendment. You can now proceed to explain the bill
Speaker 44
10:28
as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, uh, colleagues, y'all may remember last
Speaker 46
10:31
year I brought a bill to y'all for microgris restaurants. These are a unique creature and dry counties such as my county back home, uh, legislation was
done, I believe, 2 sessions ago that would allow these microbrewery brewery private club restaurants to exist, which essentially it's a private club, but they can actually brew a beer in-house and sell it in-house for consumption on the premises. Um, laws, as you can imagine, it's dealing with alcohol and B is dealing alcohol in a dry county, uh, are very restrictive and one of the restrictions in the law was, is that you cannot advertise. And I think you may remember last session we had some bills that had to fix some of those advertising laws to clarify things like if someone can see through the window of your restaurant, that doesn't count as advertising the consumption of alcohol, things
of that nature. I think this is kind of a similar cleanup bill. Uh, the issue that has arisen is for these restaurants in these dry counties, as the law is currently written, they believe that if they were to, for example, put their menu on their Facebook page, they would actually be violating the law. Or if someone were to call them on the telephone and say, hey, there's a beer I tried at your place last week. I really liked it. Do you have it this week? They can't say anything because they're afraid that actually runs foul of the law. I think the intent of the law as it exists is to prevent advertising in that.
They did not want an issue of these microbrewery restaurants putting TV ads on the local news or the local cable channel newspaper ads, billboards, things of that nature, hey, come down to our club, it's great, things of that nature. This bill, if passed, would exempt advertising that's done through your electronic means. The idea being is that in this case, the consumer has to take some affirmative action to get the information. They have to log on to your website. They have to search for the information. They have to log on to your Facebook page, they have to follow your Facebook page and this bill if passed would simply
allow the restaurant to be able to say, hey, this is our menu which includes the beers we have on tap or hey, we're having Oktoberfest, Oktoberfest next week, things of that nature. Um, and with that, I'll be glad to take any questions. Members, any questions for Representative Brown? I
don't see anyone signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill. Seeing none, represented Brown, would you like to, uh, close for your bill. I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate a good vote. Have a motion do pass as amended. Any discussion on the,
on the motion. Seeing none, all in favor say aye, pose nay. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
All right, members, now we're going to SB 231. Representative Cozart, if you will
identify yourself for the record. You recognize to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have someone
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
13:42
I'd like to have joined me, I guess, if we have a, do we need them now? We'll go ahead and we're gonna bring them up now just in case
there's a question that I can't answer, please. Is that
OK? Just, uh, identify yourself for the record, and when they get at the table, they can
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:00
identify themselves Representative Bruce Cozart, District 91, and here to present SP 231. And I have some people, I'll let them introduce their self. Good afternoon, Sharon Strong, executive
Speaker 62
14:12
director of the Arkansas Scholarship Lottery. Good afternoon, Blake Hudson.
Speaker 63
14:17
I'm the director of investigations and enforcement for the lottery.
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
14:23
All right, so I'm gonna try to, this is Senator Dawson's bill, so I am actually the house sponsor
on it, so I'm gonna try to give you a little bit of information on it. Uh, this is, uh, from the lottery and worked with and okayed through the governor's office attorney General, and Colonel Hager with the state police, the lottery truly is in a unique situation and needs two of their personnel to have the tools necessary to investigate lottery fraud and lottery issues. The only changes are on the last
page of this bill, and they're that we are giving them the authority to conduct investigations that are related to the violations of the lottery laws and lottery rules. Additionally, they will be required to report to the Attorney General and to the state police any investigations they conduct. One of the most unique problems in the lottery faces in dealing with a contract that all states that sell Powerball and Mega Million tickets are bound by. The contract requires that the lottery personnel are the only people that can access the back
office information without a subpoena. As you can imagine, if a lottery tickets are stolen, they need to be canceled quickly without that subpoena, uh, we're waiting on a subpoena allows the time for those tickets to be redeemed and therefore money is stolen. The agency has demonstrated to me and to the Senate state agencies Committee, the full Senate, and the governor's office that the Attorney General's office and the state police that they truly need the tools that will gain them access to to with uh what SB 231 to
maintain the integrity of the lottery. And we have tightened the language to where the lottery related issues are the only issues that will have authority to be investigated and also note that there is zero fiscal impact on this bill because they already have the personnel in place for this budget. I have, uh, both these people here. If you have any questions, we'll be glad to try to answer any questions. Represent Falk, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Who's currently doing the
Speaker 68
16:26
investigations for the lottery? Is it currently, we attempt to have a joint effort between us and whatever local law enforcement agency, uh, where the crime occurs, we kind of just help them out, but unfortunately in today's times. Most investigators at these agencies are overtasked with their own investigations and don't have the time to devote to any lottery issues, and that's leading to just these cases of fraud and everything else going
Speaker 71
16:56
uninvestigated and unpunished. So, so basically walk me through this so a complaint comes to your office, right? Or a violation comes
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
17:03
to your office, you then have to contact the local police to assist. When you guys could just go out there and do it yourself when you guys are the subject experts on the whole thing? Yes, sir. That is correct. Thank you.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
17:45
You're recognized too. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm just trying to wrap my head around this. Can you clarify for me because this starts with, and it looks like this is all Newly added language because it's an italics, um. The office of the Arkansas Lottery has all powers necessary. Um, blah blah blah blah blah, including without limitation, and then it lists a whole bunch of things, but I guess my concern is um that without limitation bit. So if we are giving, and I'm just thinking
about things that come through Judiciary Committee a lot where we are bestowing law enforcement, um, Powers on non-law enforcement. Um, is there a limit to what Isn't included, for instance, will this, um, could these people have the ability, have the right to make an arrest or will firearms laws that currently apply only to law enforcement officers apply to these people as well. Um, can you just clarify a little bit kind of what they are limited, what they cannot do under the law.
Speaker 82
18:50
So, the first couple of pages of the bill is. The current language that already exists, um, it was Included in the bill just basically for context. And so the only new language is that part at the end where it talks about, um, The executive director will, um, A point, yeah, starting at C,
Speaker 83
19:15
um, and so the director shall assign personnel and that the personnel assigned will be, um,
Considered law enforcement officers under CEST, the commission of on Law Enforcement Standards and training pursuant to 129101. And so these, um, These personnel will be sort of, will be certified and commissioned under class and they'll have all of the same rules and requirements that, um, That are required under Cu and Blake can probably talk more about that. So anyone
Speaker 84
19:50
commissioned under this act, uh, will be considered
Speaker 68
19:55
a law enforcement officer, uh, in, in the state. The, the language does narrow the scope of the investigations to just lottery-related issues, uh, versus just a full-fledged state law enforcement officer, uh, so, so we'll carry a firearm and we'll be authorized to make arrests, but we have no plans of going the route of having specialized cars or anything like that, so if. If it came to the point where we, um, sought a warrant with an affidavit. The warrant was
issued. We would then go to the local, uh, jurisdiction and say, hey, we have this warrant. Can you pick them up for us and they would transport them to their local facility. On our behalf. Recognized for a follow up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And you said state
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
20:43
police was good with this, correct? Yes, ma'am, it's been reviewed by state
Speaker 68
20:47
police and the attorney General's office and the governor's office. OK. Thank you. I kind of look at it similar
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
20:53
to what we have right here. We have Capitol Police here.
And they could do things on this site and but when they get off of the, that site, they have to rely to someone else such as the state police or something. Representatives recognize
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
21:12
her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Couple of quick questions for you, uh, Under the law enforcement, the scope of authority of the, you know, granting you law enforcement, uh, the power to arrest and I understood, I, I
think I heard your answer is, do you have full police powers? Is this being granted to you full police powers or, or how did you answer that?
Speaker 68
21:39
So the bill does grant us authority as law enforcement officers, but it also specifies specifically the scope of our investigative authority, uh, which will be limited to law enfor or excuse
Speaker 72
21:48
me, lottery issues. The, the individuals
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
21:53
that were granting this uh police authority too. What, what type of law enforcement training.
Do they have? So I would be
Speaker 68
22:03
the, the first one, that would be commissioned under this bill. I've got approximately 20 years of law enforcement experience at the city, county, state, and federal level, um, 10 years as chief of police and most recently special agent with the Attorney General's office and whomever I hire for the 2nd role, we'll also have extensive law enforcement and investigative experience. So they're already going to be certified law enforcement officers.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
22:30
Is that correct? Yes, sir. So there'll be everybody would have been through the law enforcement training academy and at some point they were certified as police officers and we're just, uh, extending this authority to those certified officers. Is that correct?
Speaker 68
22:42
Absolutely. In fact, to even be hired, they will have to have a current certification, non expired certification. OK, Mr. Chair,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
22:49
one last question, whose authority, whose authority would y'all be, uh, if we grant you that police power, whose authority are you operating under? Do you understand what I'm saying?
I can give you an example of what I mean,
Speaker 68
23:04
if that would help. So we would be recognized by ls as an agency. And so we would be operating in commissioned under our own agency. However, there are reporting requirements included in this bill for the
Speaker 63
23:16
Attorney General's office and the Arkansas State Police. So you're gonna work, you're gonna
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
23:21
work just like uh my question is this, I, I think we really need to understand this just like you as a trooper, you're working under the authority of the Arkansas State
Police. So if you've got an officer with the state police whose actions are unwarranted, unjustified, or excessive, then there's probably gonna be some disciplinary action taken. There could even be a civil suit and that lawsuit's going to include state police. Same holds true with the uh sheriff's department if you got a deputy, uh, same thing, they do. something they shouldn't, then you, you know, they're under that authority, same with the city policeman, same with the game and fish, same with highway police. I'm trying to make sure I understand whose authority if
you've got an officer and we grant these police powers and they, their actions are at least like I described unwanted, uh, obsessive or unjust but. Who, who are they accountable to and where would that chain of authority take someone that was seeking some type of uh reprimand or civil action against abuse of those powers. That's my question. I think the answer to your question would be the, um, they'll be under the authority of the Arkansas
Speaker 83
24:26
scholarship Lottery, which is an agency under the Department of Finance and Administration. OK.
Representative Ferguson, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
24:53
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, one of my questions have been answered uh by by Representative Tosh, but I
just want to be clear. So nobody but certified law enforcement, uh, individuals will be hired. If they're not certified, I mean, you're not gonna hire anybody and then send them to the academy. They got to be certified. OK, all right, yeah, all right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Ha, you recognize
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
25:22
her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What normally, like if somebody's found in violation, um, what is the penalties usually that
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
25:28
when if you guys find them and say they've done something wrong. I mean, are there arrests made or is it usually fines? What's that look like? So, um,
Speaker 82
25:39
lottery theft and lottery fraud are the class D felonies. And so if they do get prosecuted, that
Speaker 83
25:44
carries a, a maximum penalty of 6 years in the Department of Corrections. Um
The issue that why we feel the need for this is that because of the The lack of authority and the difficulty in coordinating with local law enforcement. A lot of these things aren't getting investigated and then prosecuted. And so, um, That's why we're asking
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
26:11
for this, so I'm sorry, um, I, I guess my, my question to that would be
like, so when you guys go into, let's just say some C store and that's not
doing the right things, right? Um, are you, are, are the local law enforcements making arrests like that day or is it more we we've investigated it and, and we're gonna find you or come back for an arrest later day. Like, what's that look like? Or is he just very based on accounts. So,
Speaker 84
26:43
primarily uh to your example, if there's a, a theft at a convenience store, the local agency
Speaker 68
26:49
is gonna go out and take a, take a report, uh, that
report then gets forwarded to their criminal investigators and due to Their priorities, it's generally just gonna sit on a desk and, and not receive any action. Um, and we can even, we can do as much as we can with the limited tools we have as far as investigating it. But again, we, we can't. Sign that affidavit and get that warrant. It's up to that agency and unfortunately, they just don't have the time or resources for a lot of our issues. One last follow up, sir.
Speaker 117
27:24
Um, so basically, if this were to pass, what we're saying is that you
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
27:28
guys are gonna investigate it. You guys are then gonna, you know, determine whether they've been right or wrong. Turn it over to the prosecutor at that point, correct? And so it's just a one-stop shop for you guys, so you're not waiting on somebody else to to be the middle man to determine whether this was a crime. Yes, sir, that is correct. OK, thank you. McClendon, you're recognized for
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
27:55
a question. Thank you. I just wanted to follow up on Representative Tosh. She said that
you, uh, reported in the Department of the lottery, but it, it also says that you, um, our division on the lottery, you, it says here that you will be making regular reports to the Attorney General's office as well as to the state police. Is that correct? And would that be promulgated in rules then on the. How frequent and what's in those. Reports.
Speaker 82
28:20
So, in having conversations with the Attorney General Griffin,
Speaker 83
28:25
um, he wanted to make sure that We're not overlapping in investigating something that they might be investigating or that. Somebody else would. And so this will ensure Communication, um, and if there is something that we can work together on, you know, that would provide an opportunity. Um As far as the, the, um, frequency that hasn't been determined yet. OK.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
28:57
OK, thank you. I think that's thorough. I appreciate it. Thank you. Representative McKenzie.
Thank you. Um, I see a tremendous need for this and. I don't know why, but a newborn, I'm not sleeping a lot. I'm checking out a lot of legislatures. Texas is going through a significant ordeal with their lottery. Um, there was collusion at the the leadership level. So Right now, the Texas legislature is running around like a chicken with its head cut off, trying to determine who has responsibility to investigate. And again, it's It's unique scenario and that
there was collusion between a courier and what seems to be the, the office of the lottery, uh the agency of the lottery, um. But I support this bill, and I do have a question relevant to it. I just got to build up in a preamble is. I, I, I want there to be a lot some investigatory powers, some ability to go in and, and find the, the The, the folks that are doing bad deeds, it's not like someone walking up and stealing a lottery ticket. It is more often than not, more coordinated collusion and fraud, um, either on behalf of a courier or on
behalf of an organization that tries to play games, um, with high win percentages. Uh, I just would love to see or have an answer to. Who this law enforcement, I know you just mentioned it goes through DFNA um. If there's any issue with leadership within the lottery, I'd love for this investigatory group to be able to go directly to Secretary Hudson, directly to the governor's office, so that, you know, at all levels, um, whether that be someone as small as running a C store here in Little Rock or someone that's colluding with, you know, multinational courier for
lotteries, is found to have done wrong and can be. You know, held to account for that is there, is there an answer to that in terms of the chain of command for this investigative unit? I mean, you just said it, but I want to make sure that everyone can catch it if
Speaker 83
30:45
they're doing wrong. Anytime we issue a report, it goes to, um, The Department of Finance Secretary Hudson, as well as the governor's office, as well as our, uh, lottery oversight subcommittee. So I think anything, you know, we report
Speaker 129
31:01
monthly to our subcommittee. So I think anything Of A critical nature.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
31:08
I guess it's more to my point. I, I, if, if someone, anyone either in the agency or a courier in a, you know, weird little shop on the other side of Little Rock is doing wrong is this investigative unit ever going to be held up by, well, ALC hasn't met in the interim, so we can't submit a report for, I mean, I just want to make sure that if you guys have found bad guys, you're gonna go get the bad guys. OK, thank you. And I believe that's exactly what this bill does. It gives
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
31:32
them that authority right then to go make that investigation or arrest or whatever they have to do at that time instead of waiting on another agency to pull in and we know how, you know, doc, uh, Mr. Tosh over there, or Captain Tosh, how slow he drove, so it would take him a long time to get there. Just kidding. I, I just like to pick on my friend over there, but you know it, it is about expediting the things to get there to keep the fraud down and keep the money from rolling out to the wrong people. All right,
members, no other questions. We do not have anyone signed up to speak for or against this bill. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
32:16
what's the will of the committee. Uh, I, I'm close.
I think I just made my closing statement Have a motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none all in favor, say aye. Congratulations. You've passed your bill. All right, members, we're going
to House Bill 1721. Representative Brown. Please identify yourself for the record. You recognize
to proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District
Speaker 44
32:57
55, Conway. Uh, colleagues, I have brought to y'all a House Bill 1721.
This is a bill that essentially I like to think it's a cleanup bill. What we're really doing is getting rid of some obsolete provisions
Speaker 46
33:12
in the code regarding greyhound racing, um, as y'all are aware, Southland Casino got rid of Greyhound racing. I don't know, 678 years ago, something like that. They were the only track in Arkansas that did greyhound racing, and that's actually following a national trend and that just over the last several years, greyhound racing has just not really become popular, uh, and every track in the country has closed except for two in West Virginia and there's actually pending legislation there. It looks like they're winding down, uh,
effective, uh, January 2028. So greyhound racing is just no longer a thing in the country, uh, this bill does two things. The first thing it does is it cleans up the code to get rid of the authority for greyhound racing. Uh, this is in line with the racing commission has already done by rule, they've already gotten rid of it and taken that out of their rules. We're simply just amending the code to follow that and get rid of it. Uh, the second thing, uh, this bill does is it also gets rid of simulcast racing, so where they do it by television or whatever at, at,
uh, you know, for example, at Oak Lawn or at Southland, um. Because again, the only track left in the country is these two tracks in West Virginia and it looks like they are both going to be shutting down in 2020 as well. You'll notice that the very last line of the bill, this bill actually does not kick in until 2028 to sync up with those dates that that track is gonna close, um, as we sit right now, greyhound racing has gone by the wayside in 43 states. We'd be the 44th, uh, as far as the simulcast, uh, racing of greyhound racing, um, they've
already repealed it in 5 states. There's about 11, if this bill passes, there'll only be 11. left and I expect that number to trend downward as well as states are amending their code as well just to get rid of this because it's, like I said, it's just no
Speaker 136
34:50
longer done. Um So really, it's a little old bill that doesn't do a whole lot. I'd be
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
35:02
glad to take any questions. Represent McKenzie, you recognized for her question. Um, what other simulcast games or gaming have we actively disallowed or barred.
Speaker 46
35:10
I'm not aware of anything that we've disallowed, uh, of course, you know, horse racing is kind of the big one everyone thinks of this bill does not touch horse racing
Speaker 49
35:17
at all. This is simply just getting rid of the greyhound racing because starting in January 2028, there will no longer be
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
35:23
any greyhound racing to simulcast. I appreciate that and I'm sorry to follow up, um, I appreciate the sentiment of, you know, matching up. With another state that is planned to, I mean, we can't control West Virginia, we can't control. Casinos that operate in those states we can't control their gaming division. Um, to, to sync up with what the
plan is, but I just, I have a little bit of concern about. Banning consumer choice for which we have previously allowed for any type of OTB or simulcast gaming. So, um, Yeah, I know, I, I, I guess it's not necessarily a question, but I just wanted to, you know, get more information about if there's anything else we're actively repealing, um, or have repealed since the onset of gaming, but not, not to my knowledge. All right, thank you. I would mention
Speaker 46
36:05
too that as to that, uh, racetrack in West Virginia that's working on the, uh, appeal. You are correct, the
legislation is not passed yet, but it is supported by that racetrack up there. They are winding down their operations and they want it to be appealed, similar to how when we got rid of it here in Arkansas, it was the racetrack wanted to get rid of it here in Arkansas, because again, you just, just no longer the market had changed and it longer made sense for them to do it. Um, I would mention too, I forgot to mention my presentation that both Oak Lawn and Southland have reviewed and are neutral on the bill. Representative Faulk, you recognized her question.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
36:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Brown, like I guess I'm gonna
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
36:44
piggyback off of representative McKenzie's question, like, Why, why do we have to have a bill to say we're going to get rid of simulcast racing. Is there money tied to it? Like, what's the point in having it in here to say we're
Speaker 148
36:55
not going to do simulcast racing if it's not gonna be offered anymore. But I
Speaker 147
36:59
wanna make clear when we say someone catch racing this only dog races, correct, yes, and I think my answer to that is, is that since there will no longer be any simulat, any dog racing to simulcast we're simply just mopping up our I guess so your neighbors can't
Speaker 148
37:10
go up and start having dog races and simulcasting it. So we, is that
Speaker 44
37:15
why we're saying we don't wanna have simulcasting anymore? Well, I think that if your neighbors are simulcasting they've got a lot more problems we're gonna run into, um, uh, there's several code sections, of course, in terms of the franchise racetracks, and that is a something I
Speaker 46
37:27
would not want to touch with a 10-foot stick, um, like I said, this bill was simply just, just cleaning up the existing code to match what is happening on the ground, and I would also point out that there is that 3-year delay on the effective date. So if, for example, let's say West Virginia did a 180, which is not anticipating they kept it, but we can just go in and put it right back in if we needed to.
Sounds good. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, uh, we didn't have anyone signed up to speak for or against. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill. Seeing non-representative Brown, would you like to close for your bill? Uh,
Speaker 44
38:02
thank you, Mr. Chair, committee members, like I said, Southland and Oak Lawn both reviewed this. Those were the
Speaker 46
38:06
only two entities that can do the simulcast racing. They're both neutral on the bill. Um, I would also point out this is not in any way affect or touch horse racing because I would bow up on
that because I do love horse racing. And with that, I'm closed and appreciate
a good vote. What's the will of the committee? I have a motion due pass. Any discussion on the motion, seeing none all in favor, say aye. Bona Congratulations, Representative Brown, you've passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. All right, members, we're now going to HB 1722. Representative Moore. She'll go to the table and
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
38:48
identify yourself. You recognize to, uh, explain your bill. I believe you have an amendment. Yes sir, uh, Jeremiah Morehouse District 61. I do have an amendment to this bill, um, the amendment is very brief and short, um. It simply adds language that if the federal law preempts the sale of hemp derive THC products. It will be illegal here in Arkansas as a trigger. That I'll take any questions for
the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment. OK, I have a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. pose a congratulations, we've adopted the amendment. You can now explain your bill as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
39:33
Um Members, I apologize. I'm a little bit under the weather today, so I'll read this this statement as opposed to ad libbing it, um, last session, I ran a very similar bill to regulate hemp derived products before this committee. It passed out of this committee.
Multiple discussions were had and it was agreed that we would try to ban this product instead across the board. I held my regulation bill and I was proud to vote in favor of the ban. As we sit here today, 2 years later, children can still purchase this product at convenience stores across the state. Very shortly after the ban was passed, a preliminary injunction was issued. That injunction remains as this is still being litigated in federal court. I'm grateful to the Attorney general for fighting the good fight, and I appreciate his great service to the state.
The only reason I am running this bill is because I believe meaningful regulation. is the only surefire way to get this out of the hands of children. At the end of the day, the most important issue is keeping it out of the hands of kids and this bill does exactly that. There is no real general revenue impact on this bill. Tobacco control will have fees from the permits in this bill that will cover any additional expenses. House Bill 1722 creates a three-tiered regulatory system
similar to how alcohol is regulated. All products will be required to test for product safety and labs approved by tobacco Control. This is incredibly important because many of these products aren't even derived from hemp. These products are oftentimes. Called hemp derived THC in in actuality, they're synthetic drugs that can be lethal. 1722 will also require age verification for those in order to buy this product. Individuals much.
Individuals must be 21 years or older. This is urgently needed. Every week in Arkansas school resource officers are finding these gummies and vapes on kids in school. There is nothing the resource officers can do because these products are currently legal for minors to possess. The language in this bill also tells tobacco control to promulgate rules to control the marketing of these products. Currently there is zero regulation and some companies are actively marketing to kids by making their products appear to similar to children's candy.
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
41:57
Um, with that, I will take any questions. Representative McKenzie, you recognize her question. Um
Question. So, obviously we had the band bill and it's been boogered up in the courts. um. I'm supportive of this legislation because it's going to address something we need now, and I appreciate the efforts that the executive branch and the attorney General
are doing to, to try to advocate for the ban. Um, I would love to know what states have entered into a regulatory scheme similar to this. Uh, and if there's been any holdup, because again, most pro or some prohibitions across the state, namely Kentucky. Um, have been held up by federal courts. We're still waiting on, you know, total jurisprudence to wash out and us to get a figure if it's truly a violation of the Commerce Clause or not, but I'd love to know what states have this regulatory scheme.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
42:59
Um, and if there's been any issues or any challenges to them. So, Without I'm not sure exactly which states have regulated this. I know several have, um, I believe Tennessee is one of them. Um, I do know several states have tried to ban it, including Kentucky and Texas and those bands have both been stricken. Thank you.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
43:29
Representative Faulk, he recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. um. Representative Moore, I just have a lot of concerns, I guess. I, I, I don't know if it's concerns or, or just, you know, we, we did the Delta 8
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
43:44
bill this last session, right? And we thought we were doing a good thing and it's literally still in court today, as you mentioned just a moment ago. And so we're, I'm sitting there going like, well, we tried that and the courts are saying, no, we, we may, may have done something wrong and it may not be totally
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
44:00
legal to ban that. How is this bill different than that bill that The Tower de ran last time. Or that you ran
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
44:10
last time, I apologize. Thank you, Representative Hawk. Are you asking how is this bill different than the one, ran my regulation bill last time. So there are a couple of
minor adjustments. First of all, it, it now has the mirror language for federal statute, um, secondly, uh, it adds a liability portion for those who, uh, may operate heavy machinery or equipment and takes that
basically says if you have an employee, you can mandate that they do not use this product.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
44:37
Does that help answer your question? No, it does, it does. Uh, when you're talking about follow up. I apologize, um. When, when, when we're talking about these, these gummies and stuff like that. I it's funny you brought this up because just the other night in my neighborhood, I've got a guy that goes, he's got his card and he, he was like, guess what? I just got this at the smoke shop and it was some, it was some, um, like gummy Skittles or
something like that or or whatever they are and he said it's 2000 mg aren't they all
Speaker 112
45:08
these things just to get people high. Like, I mean, there's no real health benefit to any of this stuff, is there? So
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
45:16
I can't speak as to the health benefit or not. I don't
know that there is and I'm not proclaiming that there is. What I will say is when we tried to ban it, I voted in favor of the ban, um, I held my bill to regulate. But at the end of the day, children are still purchasing
this product in our state every single day. And I want
to get that stopped. I mean, this solves an immediate problem, and that's why I've presented this bill. Thank you, sir. Representatives,
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
45:52
you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair, represented, and you may have mentioned this, and I apologize if you did, but I, what do we know what the attorney general's position is on this. Did you mention that a while
ago? What's the AG's position on this?
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
46:09
So I cannot speak directly for the Attorney general, um. I know
they're doing a good job fighting it in court, uh, but to this day. Again, I'm solving an immediate issue.
OK. Representative Tosh, we have a representative from the AG's office here if you would like them to come to the table to answer that question. That'd be good. Mm
Please identify yourself for the record
Speaker 172
46:46
and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, Alex Benton, uh, Attorney General's office. Uh, Representative Tosh, I
Speaker 173
46:51
think, um, I, we, we very much appreciate what Representative Moore is attempting to do here. I think we just differ on the approach that we'd like to take, um, we feel very confident that we will be successful in our
lawsuit, uh, to dissolve the preliminary injunction and for the ban to be upheld, we feel very confident in that, uh, oral arguments were, were held, uh, in the winter. Um, we anticipated an order coming down, hopefully in February, that did not occur. I, I can't look into my, my My Crystal ball a magic wand and and and tell you what a court may or may not do, but we feel extremely confident that the ban will be upheld, and we would prefer
To wait for that case to be resolved, um, and we would prefer a total ban now, and I would also note for the committee. That the previous ban, um, That was passed in the 2023 session. It had trigger language in it, and it had a backup regulatory scheme in there. And the court also enjoined that regulation as well. So.
I think that the AG's position would be, we prefer a band, we would prefer to see the case, the order come down. Um, we are nervous about supplementing. Where we think that we see a light at the end of the tunnel supplementing that this, this bill would probably moot out that litigation, uh, And then coming in with a regulatory scheme that could also probably be similarly enjoined and we start this whole process all over again and we're left with nothing again for another two years, and we go fight in federal court again, um.
That's a very long winded answer to say that we respectfully would go a different route from our, from Representative Moore, who I think is trying to do a really good thing. We just differ in the means by which we would approach it. I appreciate you answering. You're
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
48:59
correct. He is trying to good, do, do a good thing, and I understand the legality of it and I appreciate your responding like you did. So, thank you for that. Representative Hawke, do you recognize her question? Thank
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
49:14
you. This is for Miss Benton, um, and, and.
Speaker 117
49:19
Sorry, I didn't know if I said something, uh, and, and I don't think there's anybody
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
49:26
in this room that doesn't think that Representative Moore is doing a great thing by trying to get this out of the kid's
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
49:32
hands. My question though is when we're, when we're talking about hemp is, how is this different than medical marijuana that's already existing
Speaker 181
49:41
right now? Oh yes, that it's a, there's a very scientific
Speaker 173
49:45
answer, but the, the short answer is that medical marijuana.
Is something that is in a cannabis plant and Delta products are synthetically. They're derived out of out of the hemp plant. Uh, it's And and currently under federal law with the farm bill that, which is still being held over from the 2018 farm bill. Uh, it's yet to be reauthorized. Um. The farm bill has a loophole that has a, a very odd definition of hemp products. And that definition means that it
must be 0.03% on a dry weight basis. And what that dry weight basis phrase means is that is what's in the plant when you're taking it off the, out of the ground. Um, it does not look at the percentage of the Delta and THC Delta 9 THC in the final product, once it's on the shelf. So they're essentially the same thing. They are as equally.
Unpalatable to the AG's office in terms of we would, we would prefer not to have any psychoactive substances on the market whatsoever, um, there are, there are chemical differences, um, but they are both psychoactive substances. Thank you for your I'm sorry. No, you're fine. You're fine. Representative
Speaker 184
51:10
McKenzie, you recognize her question. Thank you. Hi, uh, I
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
51:19
know we talked prior to this, but I just want to,
I want to get it out there because I voted against the Delta 8 ban.
I thought it was a bridge too far. I appreciate and I have full faith and credit the Attorney General's going to win any fight that he walks into, and I appreciate him upholding the law that this legislature passed, even if I don't support it. There's a lot of we, we talk a lot about sentiments down here about we make our own laws and um Uh, we don't wait around for DC to tell us how to enact laws that promote the welfare of our of our citizens. I am concerned because The waiting, I understand the, the, the circuit.
Schedules, I guess, better than the average bear. But How much longer we would typically have to wait for a directive or. You know, curveball, no opinion out of the 8th Circuit, you know, sitting it back down to a lower court. And joining portion or not, how long will we have to wait for that decision. I think any lawyer that tells
Speaker 173
52:23
you they know what any court is going to do is being uh.
Too cute by the half, uh, so I'm not gonna sit here and profess to have a, a magic 8 ball that I can tell you exactly what a court is going to do, um. We thought that we would get a ruling in February. That has not occurred yet. We, we think that something will come down anytime because oral arguments have concluded on a very specific issue about whether or not the preliminary injunction should be upheld and whether or not it's preempted by the, the farm bill, um, very narrow. It was twenty-minute oral arguments in front of a three-judge panel, um,
Based on the questions that were asked of, um, the attorneys that did the oral argument, um, we think that we have the votes just based off of what the, the questions were, that were asked. Uh, it's just a question of when is it going to be handed down? And I couldn't in good faith tell you when that is going to be, um, I hope and pray that it will be before session is over, but
Speaker 181
53:20
I cannot sit here and guarantee that with a straight face to you. Thank you. All right, so you no other questions, uh, Alex, you're,
you're excused, uh, before we go to those that are signed up to speak for and against. Do you have anything else you want to add at this time, Representative Moore? I'll wait till closing. OK. All right, looks like we have one person signed up to speak against Kelby Cross. If you'll come to the table
and identify yourself and who you're with, your, uh, Recognized to proceed.
Kelby Cross
Unverified
54:11
Hello, my name is Kelby Cross. I'm the national vice president of manufacturing with Good Day Farm.
Speaker 189
54:17
I have been in the legal cannabis space for over 10 years. I started my career in Colorado. I have consulted and stood up facilities in 8 different states, uh, as well as working in Canada under the Health Canada regime. Um, I would like to speak against this bill today, um, because while I appreciate the intent to regulate hemp. I unfortunately don't believe that this bill, uh, contemplates the
level of complexity that goes into regulating a controlled substance like uh cannabis, um, there are several deficiencies that I see with regards to the addressing of child safe packaging, the testing regime that products in the uh medical marijuana space must go through. in order to be considered comp compliant, uh, tracing traceability, uh, so seed to sale tracking, batch tracking, recall efforts, any of the other requirements that we have in
this, uh, highly regulated space aren't necessarily contemplated by this bill. Furthermore, the definition of hemp as defined by the FDA is, um, Deficient when it comes to controlling the proliferation of intoxicating substances that are in these hemp derived products. So stating that a hemp drive product is any product that is made from hemp that contains less than 0.3% delta 9 THC does not account for isomers of that THC. It doesn't account for
other psychoactive substances that can be created from a hemp-rid cannabinoid like CBD, uh, for example, um, tetrahydro cannabi cannabierol, excuse me, that's a mal. Uh, THCP for short, is not uh uh uh tetrahydrocannabiol, but it is between, or it is several times more psychoactive due to its increased bonding affinity for your CB1 receptors. Um, so while I appreciate the intent of this bill, I would like to speak against it because I don't
believe that it has the, the rigor that would be necessary to effectively uh regulate hemp products. Yes, sir, of course. Representative McKenzie, recognize
for a question. Thank you. Um, I just
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
56:37
want to say you'd probably be a really tough Scrabble opponent with all of the long technical scientific
words, you know, uh, I, like you, were probably waiting over the last 18 months to figure out, you mentioned the FDA definition of hemp dry products. We've been waiting for the new farm bill because that is the vehicle in which that definition typically will get punted into, um, from my understanding, and I'd love to know from yours that that definition has not been changed even in the most recent draft of the farm bill, even though it's not up. an appropriation yet. We're still in a continued resolution cycle. Um, is it your estimation that that definition by the FDA has not changed from the previous 2017.
Kelby Cross
Unverified
57:15
I could not say. I, uh, my. The world is not um legal. My
Speaker 189
57:20
world is scientific, uh, so what the, the legislation is going to do there. Um, I know that there are multiple groups lobbying for the change of that, uh, definition for the inclusion of multiple psychoactive compounds, uh, or the, uh, addressing of psychoactivity within a compound. So my hope is that yes, that will change my, uh, awareness of what's happening in
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
57:45
Washington is, unfortunately limited. We all try to turn a blind eye, a follow up. If you
could rub a crystal ball or if you were tomorrow put into the FDA in your estimation, what would the appropriate definition or level of, um, THC effective or derived product B. And if you could shape the future of the, the marijuana industry or the hip derived product
Speaker 189
58:07
industry, what would it be? I would have personally break the, uh, THC content. Uh, into uh modes of ingestion.
So when you eat THC, any of its forms, Delta 9, delta 8, THCP, your metabolizing that product through your liver and it transforms into another product. It is no longer delta 9 THC. It's 11 hydroxy THC. 11 hydroxy THC is between 2000 and 1,200% more psychoactive than Delta 9 THC. So the regulation of an edible product or a beverage, I think needs to be separate from the regulation of inhalable product. So I would say that if it were
up to me, I would break a total package size, uh, total package content and serving size for edible or ingestible products separate from the 0.3%, uh, Delta 9 content. I would also remove or adjust the. Uh, I, I broaden the scope of Delta 9 THC to include all forms of THC, for example, there is flour that's available in gas stations today that has 26% delta 9 THCA. Well, the cannabis
plant doesn't grow delta 9 THC. It grows delta 9 THCA. So we are treating this product as if it were hemp, when in fact, if this were in a legal dispensary, it would be considered marijuana. Um, so the broadening of that definition, the inclusion of multiple forms of intoxicating substances would be my goal
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
59:39
on the inhalable side. Just as a follow up quickly. So the 0.3, you would still keep that definition for uh inhalated.
Speaker 189
59:48
products. Yes, sir. And while in expanding the, uh, forms of THC forms and
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
59:53
formats aside adjustable so that but it doesn't need to fluctuate up, fluctuate down, it's fine where it is 0.3% delta 9 THC in an inhalable product
Speaker 189
1:00:02
is, uh, difficult to become intoxicated with. OK, perfect. Thank you. Seeing no other questions, Mr. Cross, I think
you're excused. Thank you for your, uh, input.
We have no one else signed up to speak for or against. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against. Yes, sir,
if you'll come to the table and identify yourself, you recognized. Give you your
Speaker 201
1:00:41
name and who you're with, please. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Larry Page with the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council. I really came here today to speak to House Bill 17
or 1578, the hemp beverage bill, but the principles that I want to share in that I think are applicable to this one, in the larger context of him, hemp derived products. Thank you for the time. I will honor it as best I can. I know you're busy, your plates are full, and I will try to bring this as quickly as I possibly can to you. I want to relate to you 3. Uh, states experiences with hemp derived products and what they
have chosen to do. I want to begin with Washington State. And for purposes of brevity, I'm just gonna really quickly share some excerpts from articles and news accounts, uh, to make this a little faster. Uh, July 5th, uh, 2023. Like other states across the country, Washington has been grappling with how to regulate intoxicating hemp derived catabonoid products that are being innovated faster than state lawmakers can respond. The state has decided on a
solution that prohibits products containing any amount of THC. Uh, from being, uh, a sold within the state. Uh, unless at a facility where uh marijuana or cannabinoid products. Or so the 2018 farm bill unintentionally created significant legal loopholes for hemp products, and this untidy draftsmanship has facilitated the explosion of intoxicating products that contain delta 9 THC.
These intoxicating hemp products are now widely available online and been found in their way into the convenience stores, markets, and other retail stores. So the bill bans that Massachusetts. On May 29th, 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health in the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources issued a joint notice regarding food and beverages containing hemp derived CBD and or THC. Please be advised that it is unlawful
to manufacture or sell food or beverages containing hemp derived CBD or THC. This applies to alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages. These products must be taken off the shelf. uh, immediately. Again, I'm doing this as quickly as I can. California on September 6, 2024, Governor Gavin Newsom announced emergency regulations to protect Californians, especially youth from the adverse health effects of dangerous hemp products. The regulations proposed by the uh
California Department of Public Health were approved on September 23, and so the uh the uh executive order that Gavin Newsom, uh, uh, issued. Prohibited. Uh, the sale of any hemp deprived products containing even a traceable amount of THC, uh, uh, uh, emergency declaration was challenged in court, uh, the court upheld
Governor Newsom's uh uh actions and uh the band that he issued was to expire at the end of this month. But there was uh a question about whether or not it should be continued. It's been continued. It's been extended which uh to me I think tells us there are some significant problems, uh, with these products, uh, there's more, but I, I'm gonna go ahead and cut to the chase on, on this, uh, look, if California's going to ban this, uh, we ought to take notice, there's no drug crazed
state like California. Uh, they haven't found a drug at this point that they don't provides that flavor Because a drink without THC is not a very sexy drink. You can't get high or get a buzz, what's
the use in drinking it? H C THC is an intoxicant. It can't impair you. That's why these three states, and by the way, these are the most liberal states in the United States. Washington state, California, uh, and, uh, in Massachusetts if they have chosen to ban these products, maybe we ought to slow
down, take a look at that and see maybe it's something to emulate. Now there are other states that haven't banned it. But they have strictly regulated it. Many states only allow these products to be sold in liquor stores or where marijuana or other cannabinoid products are sold. So I think it behooves us. To, to look more into this, I want to know more about this issue, uh, with all due Tell us they're safe, ought to
know more and we need to understand or try to understand why those three very liberal states have rejected the laissez-faire approach to these products. Uh, I'll be glad to take any questions. I do appreciate your time. Seeing no questions, you're excused. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Moore, you recognize
the clothes for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:07:11
systems. Moreover, 1722 does prohibit direct shipping and mixing with these products with alcohol. Um, despite what you have heard today, this is not a controlled substance. This is not medical marijuana. Unfortunately, it was legalized in the 2018 farm bill. There's a reason this has been in the judicial system for 2 years. It's the new farm bill makes hemp derived THC illegal, then it will be illegal here in Arkansas. Um It has also been stated that there's a lot we don't know, but I will say this, this bill gives broad authority to tobacco
control to promulgate rules in order to regulate these products, uh, and final, I'll just close with this. I'm looking at two pictures right here on my computer. Um, the first picture is a Delta 9 50 mg gummy that is labeled as toasted flakes with Tony the Tiger smoking a joint. This product can be purchased at the convenience store on Cantrell just outside of the Heights. It can be purchased today by your children. The second picture I'm looking at.
Is a high potency disposable vape pen, 2000 mg, that's advertised as nerds, gummy clusters. This can be purchased today. Right across the school on Markham right across from the school for the deaf. This product is currently available. Now I know there's a court case ongoing. And I hope the Attorney General gets in a perfect world that court case would be settled, um, but I'm called to act in my
immediate capacity to do what we can to help protect these children today, uh, this bill does exactly that. It takes it out of the hands of children and make sure that this product is tested in state accredited labs and it puts it in a three-tiered system that regulates other vices that we have here in the state and with that I'm closed and I would appreciate a good vote and motion to pass at the right time. All right, members, we have a motion to pass as amended, any
discussion on the motion. Representative McKenzie, you recognized for
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:09:25
discussion on the motion. And this is the last time I'll hit my button today. Uh, I'm gonna be in support of
the motion to pass. Um, again, did not initially support the ban bill, but um it's, it's incumbent upon us to to do something. This, these products are too readily available, um. They are, is, is a former, uh, uh, someone who's worked in the consumer package good space, the, the blatant trademark and
and copyright infringement that we see on these products is mint, meant to advertise to children. It's in a regulatory wild west where kids can walk into any C store, package store and buy them. Um, we need a resolution now, uh, and as much as, again, I go back to my comments, I hope the Attorney General wins his case to support the laws that we pass, um, but ultimately something needs to be done. Today with the emergency clause on this bill, I think it will create a framework that, you know, remove the bad actors out of the state of Arkansas. It'll create a regulatory process that allows for these things to be
tested and scrutinized and rejected, um, but more importantly, like a lot of the bills we passed down here. I'm tired of waiting on the feds. I'm tired. I'm tired of waiting on the federal judicial system. I'm tired and I'm waiting for courage in DC for the farm bill to say something of any note or definition, so I think with this bill, it's, is it the best scenario? No, but it is. is the way to get these products out of children's hands today. So with that, I appreciate it, yes. Representative Ha, you recognized for.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:10:51
Discussion on the motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, look, I, I said this a minute ago, I, I don't think there's anybody in
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:10:58
this room that says, we don't want these products in our kids' hands like, but we also said that two years ago, when we did the Delta 8 bill and what that, what that wine does up with. It's currently in litigation and nothing can be done with it right now. And I think if we rush to this and say, Yes, we've got to do it today because we don't want to wait on the federal government or we don't want to wait on this, we
don't want, we've got to give the attorney general the tools that they need. To battle the current litigation that's on the table right now. The one that this body passed last session that would ban all this. And so, When the Attorney General sits up, well, not the Attorney general, but when a representative of the attorney General sits up here and says this may not have been the path that we wanted to go down. Because we're currently in a fight that you guys put us in. I think we gotta back them a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:11:52
little bit and so I look, I, I, I like the bill, but I just don't think now's the proper time to battle that bill, so that's, that's mine. Representative McAloon, you're recognized for
discussion on the motion. Thank you, Chairman. I have to agree
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:12:10
with Representative Hawk. I think that, um, I would love to see these products out of the hands of kids. I'd love to see them out of the hands of kids tomorrow. And I think that's really important and I commend Representative Moore for bringing that, um, and caring so
much about the kids because I think this is a it is a sticky issue. But I think the, I think Representative Hawke had it right when he said if the Attorney General is fighting this battle right now, um, it's really important that we let that play out because if this passes, it's a really good chance that we reset that clock to another 2 years, and it's in the hands of kids for an additional 2 years or however long that takes. I think what I would have liked to maybe see is not an emergency clause on this and at least give a little bit of length of time to try and
get, um, get the 8th Circuit to give its, it's ruling before having this gone into place, so I am a no on this because of that, because I'd like to get it out of kids' hands sooner, and I'm afraid we'll be in a lawsuit if we pass this.
Thank you. All right, so ain't no other uh discussion on the motion. We have a motion to to pass as amended, all in favor say aye. opposed, sorry, uh,
Representative Moore, your, your bill's failed. members, we're going to try to get one more bill
in SB 345. Representative Darby, if you'll go to the table and identify yourself, you're recognized to explain the bill. Or present your amendment.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:13:57
Members, the amendment, oh, sorry. Carol Darby, state representative, District 100 I have with me, uh, Senator Missy Irvin, who is the Senate sponsor of this bill. Members, the amendment that's before you is simply, uh, deleting lines 25 through 27 on page 7, which is to remove language that had previously been, uh, attached to it on the Senate end, but ABC has indicated it would be near
impossible to enforce and so we're we're uh moving that and with that I would make a motion to adopt the amendment. All right, members, we have
a motion to adopt the amendment. All in favor say aye. I pose an A. Congratulations, we've adopted the amendment. Thank you,
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:14:44
members. Mr. Chair, this bill of 345, quite frankly, we thought might have gone to a reven tax because we view it as a reven tax bill, but I understand why it's in before rules because it does deal with alcohol. All this
bill is doing is the current scheme, uh, in a dry county if uh say a restaurant wants to have a private club in a dry county, they have to set up a nonprofit and the nonprofit has to be in. existence for a year. This is saying that no longer is there the requirement of nonprofit to have uh a private club in a dry county. I want you to, uh, understand that this is no way changing the regulatory scheme. This does not, uh, everything you'd still need all the
government approval that you have now currently, you'd still be the required to, you know, buy the liquor in retail, there'd be a prohibition against advertising, it just everything remains the same. All it's doing is saying we're no longer going to require that a business set up a nonprofit. To have a private club and with that, that's the simple part of the simple of the bill, and I'd be happy to take any questions.
Speaker 209
1:15:59
Representative E, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
1:16:02
you, Mr. Chairman. So this doesn't in any way make it easier for anyone to purchase or consume alcohol at restaurants. Absolutely not. Thanks.
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:16:10
And the other thing this bill will allow them to do instead of having to file an income tax return for every
nonprofit, the business or corporation can file one corporate tax return. That's all it does. Representative McKenzie, you're
recognized for a question. I lied. I thought we
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:16:26
were done with the bills, so I have a
question. I apologize. Um. How did we get to the, the 35% of revenue derived from alcohol sales bit. We have that, that's
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:16:39
what we that's what we just amended out. That's OK. That's weird. Yeah, it was just something that some senators and not Senator Irvin necessarily, but they thought that'd be a good mechanism
and then ABC said, well, what if one month you had 36%. So that was it. Shame on me for not paying attention during the portion.
Speaker 220
1:17:00
Thank you. Easy question. Representative McGee, her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I had some constituents that somehow is this limited to businesses or nonprofits with more than 100 seats or Can you say that one more time? I'm sorry. Someone asked me and I hadn't seen this in the bill, but what it's and asked me why was it limited to, to businesses with over 100 seats. What's, what's actually,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:17:32
actually, so it, it is, but because of the input from some of my senators
and Senator Petty, I am intending to run a 2nd bill. To address for any private club permit owner because to me this is over burdensome and regulatory and should have never been put in place. So, uh, it's gonna be a second bill that's going to come behind to clarify that. OK, thank you. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative
Speaker 220
1:17:55
Harker recognized for question. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
1:18:02
Chair. So since it's not gonna be a private club anymore if this passes, will they still have to fill out the book if you're in a
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:18:09
dry county. I, I, I'm just trying to remember because I remember when I was in Conway in college, you had to fill out the book and they gave you a little piece of paper and, and to, to say you were legal to be in there. Are they still gonna have to fill out the book when they come in, or is it
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:18:24
just open it up. Every everything is gonna remain the same everything remains the same all this is doing is just saying that you don't. have to have that nonprofit
Speaker 151
1:18:33
entity established for a year. That's OK, that's easy enough then.
Thank you. Seeing no other questions. Uh, we don't have anyone signed up to speak for against the bill. Represented Dobby or recognized the clothes for the bill. I'm
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
1:18:48
close the bill and make a motion to do pass as
amended. Members, we have a motion do pass this amendment, any discussion on the motion. Seeing none all of them favor, say I. Posing a, congratulations, you passed your bill. Thank you, Mr.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
HB1491 Wardlaw CONCERNING THE EXCISE TAX ON CERTAIN BEER AND SAKE; TO CREATE AN EXCISE TAX CREDIT FOR CERTAIN BEER AND SAKE PRODUCED USING ARKANSAS RICE; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
REGULAR AGENDA
HB1455 Pilkington TO AUTHORIZE A PRIVATE CLUB TO PURCHASE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FROM WHOLESALERS; AND TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN PRIVATE CLUBS TO PURCHASE CERTAIN PRODUCTS DIRECTLY FROM A SMALL BREWERY PERMIT HOLDER.
HB1476 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT SHIPPER LICENSE.
HB1573 Ladyman TO REORGANIZE THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER INTERIM COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
Ladyman
HB1578 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT.
HB1645 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY- RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB.
Brown
SB231 J. Dotson TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY.
Cozart
HB1192 Pilkington TO PROHIBIT THE POSSESSION OF TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND E- CIGARETTES BY STUDENTS; AND TO REQUIRE THE PARENT OF A STUDENT WHO USES, POSSESSES, OR SMOKES TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR E-CIGARETTES TO PAY A FINE.
HB1626 Duffield TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS.
HB1721 M. Brown TO AMEND SECTIONS OF THE ARKANSAS CODE TO PROHIBIT GREYHOUND RACING AND SIMULCASTING OF GREYHOUND RACING.
Brown
HB1722 J. Moore TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS BY THE ARKANSAS TOBACCO CONTROL BOARD; TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW TO ALLOW THE REGULATION AND PURCHASE OF HEMP-DERIVED PRODUCTS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Moore
HB1730 M. Brown TO REPEAL THE LAW CONCERNING THE ISSUANCE AND TRANSFER OF WHOLESALE PERMITS.
SB345 Irvin TO PROMOTE TOURISM AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF THE PRIVATE CLUB PERMITTING PROCESS OF HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, AND LARGE-EVENT FACILITIES; AND TO REMOVE AN OVERLY BURDENSOME TAX REQUIREMENT.
SB365 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS SMALL BREWERY ACT TO AUTHORIZE THE OPERATION OF THREE SMALL BREWERY TAPROOMS BY A HOLDER OF A SMALL BREWERY LICENSE.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — HOUSE RULES, Mar 12, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Jon S. Eubanks Chair
Unverified
Representative Jack Ladyman
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 46
Representative Bruce Cozart
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 63
Speaker 68
Speaker 71
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 82
Speaker 83
Speaker 84
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 72
Representative Kenneth B. Ferguson
Unverified
Representative Sonia Eubanks Barker
Unverified
Speaker 117
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Speaker 129
Speaker 136
Speaker 49
Speaker 148
Speaker 147
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 172
Speaker 173
Speaker 181
Speaker 184
Kelby Cross
Unverified
Speaker 189
Speaker 201
Representative Carol Dalby
Unverified
Speaker 209
Representative Les D. Eaves
Unverified
Speaker 220
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 151