House Rules
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (13)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1192
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
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. |
|
HB1634
Act 305
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1634 Hawk TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DE…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Hawk | Notification that HB1634 is now Act 305 |
|
HB1044
· 2 mentions in agenda, transcript
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 3/4/2025 @ 9:30 AM) Moved HB1044 to Deferred House Select Committee on Rules Wednesday, Marc…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Hawk | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1455
Act 500
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1573
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…S TOBACCO, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, OR E-CIGARETTES TO PAY A FINE. 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 … |
|
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, transcript
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, agenda
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 |
|
SB231
Act 342
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY- RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB. 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 |
|
HB1143
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…rs and Staff Only'. 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. |
|
HB45
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…Bill 16341. House Bill 1192 2nd House Bill 1626. 3rd and uh HB 45 has been postponed until next week, this time. And so with…”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
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
The next order of business is with no objections, we will be hearing some of these bills out of order. Uh, and so I will give you the line up as it goes. I would like to hear first of all, House Bill 16341. House Bill 1192 2nd House Bill 1626. 3rd and uh HB 45 has been postponed until next week, this time. And so with that said, um,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
0:43
House Bill 1634, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative RJ Hawk, District 81. Mr. Chair, uh, I also have Representative Shepherd with me at the table if that's OK. Yes, sir.
You want to go ahead and Colleagues, today I'll bring you
House Bill 1634 to create the Arkansas sports Raffle Act. For many of you, a few weeks ago we we heard this bill that was House Bill 1044 and after that committee meeting, we, we had a lot of questions. We had, we had questions on age verification. We had, uh, questions about Amendment 84, uh, and we had questions about rule promulgation. So since that time, uh, I brought in former Speaker Shepherd, and uh we've been able to hopefully cure all those concerns with a brand new bill.
Some people have asked why, why bring a new bill and, and I'm always about having a fresh start, you know, having everything in a in a bill that's gonna uh it's gonna be easy to read, uh, and it's gonna have everything that we want without having a bunch of amendments on that. For those that don't remember, this bill is going to allow for our universities in the state of Arkansas to have raffles, to use them at their sporting events, uh, for NIL scholarships, um, general athletic, uh, revenue or even for construction of facilities or maintenance.
Couple of weeks ago when we had 10:44, uh, we had those, those questions come up and being that former uh former Speaker Shepherd ran the original NIL bill I got with him and uh we worked out some of this language and I'll, I'll show you the changes on the bill, page 4, line 35. It's uh we added universities shall conduct reasonable age verification. Page 5, line 3. We remove the prohibition of casinos and are now referencing Amendment 84,
and then page 5, line 6, we're gonna promulgate rules with DFNA. I want to remind you that um Raffles in the state in the country are nothing new. Uh, currently there's over 50 universities, colleges and universities across the country that are doing that and I just got word this week that there's another 10 that are looking to do raffles at their universities. So with that being said, I'll open that up for any questions. Members, any questions?
Singing no questions, we have one signed up in the public to
Speaker 10
3:30
speak. Carlton Napa 4. Please recognize yourself, please. Thank
Speaker 11
3:42
you, Mr. Chairman. It, it's nice to sit up
Speaker 12
3:47
here with you this time. I think Representative Hawk
began with a great line. Oh, I have to identify myself. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, could you Carlton Safa Saracen Casino resort. I apologize y'all, after the last time we were up here, um, I'm just excited to sit with my friend RJ and I got a little way from me. Representative Hawke's words about a fresh start made sense, and I think a new bill made sense. And you'll hear me talk about why here in a moment. One of the things that you will hear me talk about are some concerns that I think are very real, but no one would let me dogcatcher.
You all are elected to represent the interests of the state and of your districts. And I just think it's important because we're involved in something similar to this business that I point out a couple of things to you all. On balance, I think it's a good bill, and I think it does some good things, but I think we will talk a little bit about managing expectations, and we'll talk a little bit about things that I just want you all to be aware of that are in here. But in the end, I am proud to sit here with, with Representative Hawk and Representative Shepherd. Uh, I will also be briefer than I was last time. Don't worry. So
I prepared remarks to make sure I try to stay on topic. I want to thank the sponsors of this bill in particular Representative Hawke and Shepherd. After shes of thoughtful meetings and a lot of research, we are all here today together to support this legislation. Ultimately, I am here to speak for the legislation because as it exists today. It represents something significantly different than what we spoke about last time around. Gone are the discussions of whether our business with its massive database and technology
are preferable. This is no longer a Coke Pepsi challenge of whether we can do it better or whether they can do it better. The discussions of groups like a Canadian casino company operating for a percentage of the revenue are gone. Those are no longer relevant. You see, after thoughtful review, the bill now is clearly designed to exist squarely within the incredibly tight parameters of Amendment 84, which we're going to talk about here in a minute, the raffle amendment, including even language reinforcing this inside
the bill, Representative Hawke has brought to you. And I think because of the leadership of Hawke and Shepherd, we can better discuss what operating under Amendment 84 will do. And also what it can't do. And I think that's important, not just for those of you all in this room who in a few moments will be called upon to make a decision, but also to the public who was watching and the thousands of sports fans who are interested in what we're doing. So again, we're gonna talk about what we can do under 84 and what we cannot. To be clear,
We believe this is not the most effective or flexible approach. I realize that doesn't sound positive, but I want to be very clear. But what we are discussing today is not the flexible and effective approach that Saracen would prefer. We are talking about something under the strict parameters of Amendment 84. Of course, we propose to operate a drawing for free using the broad permissions of Amendment 100, and we believe it would be more effective,
Speaker 17
6:48
efficient, and raise more money. It would also allow the money to go to more places. But given the insistence
Speaker 12
6:55
that this ought to be Amendment 84 raffle bill. And today I want to speak to support that idea. I think it's important that we highlight the limitations that are inherent to Amendment 84 and to provide you some caution. About some concerns you may share at least the ones we share with regard to the bill. And as you'll hear in a moment, even after this passes, and I'm confident this will ultimately pass. We will still have an NIL problem, which is, of course, where this began with a phone
call from a senator from Northwest Arkansas to us. And so I believe ultimately this will be helpful, but I believe we will still have an
Speaker 17
7:35
NIL problem at the end of the day. First, this bill contains rule promulgation language, which I thought was great, and I understand people have differing opinions about agencies bringing rules before ALC, but with
Speaker 12
7:47
something as technical as this, I thought it was very intelligent when Representatives Hawke and Shepard thought about doing rule promulgation. So, big ups, right?
But it is a May. Not a shall. And that's my first caution. This bill has an emergency clause on it, and it has a May line for rule promulgation. So y'all know this. A bill with an emergency clause becomes effective almost immediately. And without a requirement that rules be promulgated, the only parameters to operate inside of are the ones that exist within the bill that's before you today. So be very careful about
considerations of things we can fix in the rules process because with an emergency clause on this bill, really the only guard guardrails we have are what are in the bill. The bill does not contain any real requirements on any of the following, all of which could be addressed by rule promulgation, but have not been addressed within the bill and therefore, These raffles could operate without any response to any of this. One, it has no real specifics for age verification. It simply says reasonable efforts.
And it notably does not require identity verification, and this is a significant concern. Be it the Treasury Department's Title 31 provisions or merely standard know your customer best practices, the shorts casinos, banks, and every other financial institution abides by. There ought to be some concept of real compliance in this bill, because again, what's in this bill is what they will be able to operate under. This month, because I'm confident it will pass, but just know that what's in this bill is all we're going to have when we operate these raffles. And there
is no identity verification and nothing more than reasonable efforts for age
Speaker 17
9:37
verification. Generally confirming identity is a component of confirming age. I would point to you as evidence of your recent legislative work regarding things like social media and adult websites. So the ways that we confirm
Speaker 12
9:50
that someone is not a child isn't just a reasonable effort to ask, are you a kid? We confirm age by confirming identity and the lack thereof of any identity verification gives me great concern.
Number 2, it has no reference to a legitimate random number generator to determine a winner. It doesn't seem like a big deal, but we are doing our first version of a digital online raffle. And we don't have any real way of knowing how the winner is going to be chosen. There's a million things I will not get into today about things like a system clock and other very important components that are necessary to make this real and legitimate, but there are no references to how that will occur in here and given the emergency clause and only the May provisions for rules, we will be operating without any
determinative factor on who is the winner. I will tell you that in an effort to try to help this as much as I can. Um, I've spoken to GLI, which is gaming Laboratories International, the sort of Universal expert, they've been working with the state since before we even had casinos and um I'm pleased to tell you they're, they're ready and they're standing by. If the state would like to seek their assistance in writing standard rules and regs. I can tell you that even the much maligned bump 50-50 operating in Florida is using a GLI certified random number generator. So even in
Florida, we're seeing GLI's role and a certified random number generator, but absent any references to it, I'm concerned because we don't know
Speaker 17
11:14
how the winner will be drawn. It has nothing about geolocation, and once again we can
Speaker 12
11:22
argue about whether that is a must. But there is a reason it is a part of the requirements in Kentucky. There's a reason geolocation is a requirement in Florida. There is a reason that it makes a difference. Remaining intrastate and not going interstate is absolutely the safe call. We open ourselves up
to all sorts of problems when we look to move across state lines with
Speaker 17
11:42
gambling on the internet and respectfully, we can call this a fundraising bill or a gambling bill, but all sorts of things like the unlawful Internet Gaming Act come into
Speaker 12
11:53
play. Brief aside, just in the last two weeks, we've seen the state of Texas go gangbusters after so-called lottery couriers. In fact, the lieutenant governor himself did an almost impromptu investigation with a live stream of his camera to go after
lottery couriers. So we could begin to just think how Texas,
Speaker 17
12:11
who is famously anti-gaming outside of the lottery might feel if folks in Dallas were purchasing these tickets. I can't know, we can't play what ifs, but I can tell you when you Open yourself up to Interstate commerce, you open yourself up to people
Speaker 12
12:25
who are outside of our state and outside of this building having a say in what we're doing. Were we to be running this, which we're not. We would never under any circumstances recommend allowing out of state transactions to occur.
And also this is notable. Perhaps most notable, by creating a new code section for sports raffles. Our attorneys have indicated to me that these raffles will now occur outside of all existing rules DFNA has in place for Raffles today, for paper raffles. So you have an entire set of rules and regulations that apply to a church basement raffle, and they're good, they're really good. I mean, they talk about uh what are allowable expenses. Um, they work, if there's attorneys in this room, and I know there are plenty.
They work much like the IATA trust accounts. You have to have
Speaker 17
13:15
a raffle account where you have segregated funds and the money that comes in and out is segregated so that it can be audited and so that we can tell that the money is being used for permissible functions. And by the way, these are not crazy asks. Everything that's done in the casino space is fully transparent with the FNA and
Speaker 12
13:33
we're asking this right now of a church who is running a raffle with the drum in the basement, but we have exempted the online raffles from all of this scrutiny by not applying the existing rules.
So bottom line, I hate to be repetitive. We have tougher rules on a church than we do on a school doing this online. I
Speaker 17
13:53
just want you all to be aware of that. Keeping a raffle in account in a separate account makes sense and it avoids commingling of funds. And
Speaker 12
14:01
if I could guess, I think we will hear some testimony today if there is any additional testimony about uh NIL and how this party is not affiliated with that party, and we'll use this account and not that account, and this guy isn't with
me and that gives me great concern. I'm
Speaker 17
14:16
not accusing anyone of anything criminal, believe me, but these sound almost like structuring or money laundering or, and I'm I'm not, don't use those with the criminality of it. But what we're talking about here is this strange game of twister, where we're gonna use this account to pay this guy and this guy's not affiliated with this, and we can use this to go over here and without any ability to audit what is going on inside of these accounts. And again, I'm not trying to impose an audit to be difficult. I'm saying you already require an
audit of a church, spinning a drum in the basement. We're opening ourselves up to a can of worms. The ability for DFNA to to review and audit these funds is huge, and I don't want to be ugly, but I've never been anything but real and I will be real here. I think most everyone in this room knows how famously secret the foundations in Fayetteville are, and they will do everything they can to go to court to avoid sharing information. Look it up, it's on Core Connect. You'll find millions of FOIA case laws
directly related to the foundation. If there's any press watching this, they're
Speaker 12
15:19
probably shaking their heads because they're familiar. I am concerned that without an audit function, we'll never know if these laws are being followed, we'll never know if Amendment 84 is being followed and the universities will do everything they can to ensure that no one ever knows, including going all the way to the Supreme Court as is necessary. If we are going to require audits in a church basement, we should require audits with an online digital raffle.
Finally, I want to speak And this is really more for the public who may be watching to this overall notion of NIL, which is where we began and where my interest really lies as a graduate of the university and as someone who knows that people like my friend Coach Sam Pittman, do not have the tools they need to equip a team for us to win. We have crystal clear language in Amendment 84 about who cannot be compensated by a raffle, crystal clear, easy to understand language. And there are very broad words
Speaker 17
16:16
to further the definitions with regard to this concept. So there are two phrases that are critical to understand here. In any way affiliated. Compensated in any manner. Those are extraordinarily broad. And in fact, we have the Attorney General's opinion from 2007, and I realized that was 2007, but that is on the record, and that is the historical precedent we have for interpretation of '84 that says we should construe in any way
affiliated in the broadest of sense. The idea that a player who would have a contract or an agreement with any of the associated entities on the Fayetteville campus or Conway or Jonesboro. To be paid a sum of money in exchange for playing football for a school is not affiliated, it's crazy. I mean, a plain reading of the language. You're wearing a jersey for a school. That school is paying you one way or another, out of this foundation or that account or this area,
you're not affiliated with the school and you're being compensated, and that is clearly not what 84 meant. 84 meant you can't pay people out of the raffle. And that's exactly what I think would be proposed if we were to misuse this for NIL. It goes against the very clearcut language in the historical precedent of Amendment 84. Again, the AG opinion that we have says in any way affiliated should be read to the broadest context possible and perhaps people will say that opinion is
Speaker 12
17:50
irrelevant, but to me, it's as obvious as it can be. That is where we've been for almost 20 years with regard to what this language
Speaker 17
17:56
means and to claim otherwise would be a transparently convenient rewrite of history, just for the purposes of today. It's reasons like this though that Saracen, when first approached about the idea of raising funds for NIL believed Amendment 84 was not a
Speaker 12
18:09
good fit. We still don't believe this is the best way to raise money for NIL, but I do believe what my friend has said, this is a good way to raise money for general athletic needs of a program.
Speaker 17
18:22
And I'm here to speak for this bill. I realize that sounds weird after everything I just read out, because I think in the end, it's a good bill, but you need to be aware of these cautions and these concerns, and for whatever reason, uh, I'm
Speaker 12
18:35
here today to speak to them to you. Let's talk about what the bill will do. Despite its technical shortcomings and an absolute end around on the rules that otherwise apply to Raffles in our states. One, it's a good bill because it would allow an organization to conduct in-house a digital raffle.
Speaker 17
18:54
And not by any limitation we set by law, but rather by Amendment
Speaker 12
18:58
84, these in-house raffles cannot be conducted by any third party. And no such third party can be paid a percentage of the revenue. For running it. I think everyone agrees with that. I know in our working group led by these two gentlemen, that was in total agreement that the university has to have its finger on the button to conduct. It's in-house and they can't share the revenue with the vendor. Number 2, that means that organizations will need to themselves acquire the ability
Speaker 17
19:25
to do this entirely in-house. That's not anything we're setting up to sabotage. That's what Amendment 84 says, and I think everyone
Speaker 12
19:34
agreed to that. And I believe that such raffles will be absolutely productive for general fundraising purposes. Representative Hawk, I think you made a couple of great references to uh gas for the bus and equipment on the field and new turf. I think this is a phenomenal vehicle to fund those sorts of general fundraising initiatives. But because the scope of what
Speaker 17
19:55
we're discussing here is so far away from where our organization first began, which was entirely
Speaker 12
20:00
about NIL. This is an apples and oranges conversation about what Saracen proposed versus what Representative Hawke proposed. And because we're supportive and has been said, this is simply another tool in the tool kit. I stole your line, I've heard you use it, and it makes sense. This tool would be beneficial in the tool kit for general fundraising purposes. This bill has flaws, but
Speaker 17
20:20
it can do good for collegiate athletics. But please do not expect this to
be some sort of NIL windfall. Remember, the plain language of the Constitution in any way affiliated may not be compensated in any manner. And after all, to close, Think about this. These players, players are paid. They receive tax documents like a 1099 or something similar for NIL. To claim that someone being paid a taxable income isn't an affiliation or compensation is beyond any reasonable reading.
And compensation in any manner could even be construed to apply to a scholarship because the courts have held
Speaker 12
21:08
that scholarships have value. This can help athletics as we know it in-house. No third party raffle. is gonna be in place. That's what the bill does. Those are the problems with the bill, but I am proud to sit here with you all at the table today and say despite all of this and despite all of my cautions. We are OK with this if it matters.
Thank you. I'm open for questions. You're free, you're free to close for your bill. And thank you, Mr. Sale. Um, there's no one else signed up. Am I correct by saying that?
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
22:02
That said, again, you're free to close. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, Matthew Shepherd, District 97. I'll close for the bill. Uh, I'd like to thank, uh. Mr. Saffa for speaking for the bill, um, and. I appreciate the work that has gone into this bill, uh, as Representative. Hawk mentioned, um. After the bill felt in committee last time, he reached out to me, of course, since I'd carried the, the previous NIL bills,
there were a lot of questions that had been directed my way, um, as to the raffle and what my thoughts were and the idea of, of a raffle in this space has been something that's been out there for several years. It actually, uh, was kind of floated two years ago, and that, you know, at least from my perspective, I felt like it wasn't the right time. We had some other things that were going on. Um But, um, you know, when Representative Hawke asked if I would get involved, I was, I was glad to help and I, and I wanna
thank, uh, Mr. Safa. I want to thank the AG's office, the governor's office, um, we've talked with a number of different folks that have been interested in this bill and ultimately, uh, the bill that you have in front of you is kind of a fresh start. Um And, uh, even, even in raising some concerns that Mr. Safa did, you have to keep in mind that he was here to support the bill. And the bottom line is that we are confined under Amendment 84. You recall previously that there
was some effort to try and maintain a raffle under Amendment 100, which is casino gaming. And it's based on the information that was provided by the, by the Attorney General's office and also working with the governor's office and others, it seemed pretty clear that Amendment 84 was the, was the provision of the Constitution that actually most likely applied. And I've said in in those meetings and I've spent, um. Uh, far more time talking about a raffle over the last two weeks than I ever would have thought, uh, I would spend in my life on
this subject and going back and forth and, and as you all know this has become an issue that kind of took on a life of its own, and that's one reason I was willing to get involved is because I think from the committee's perspective, uh, from the membership's perspective, we would like this issue to be resolved because it, it has been an issue that many people are interested in. But when you look at Amendment 84, there's some there are some constraints on what can actually be conducted in the raffle, and I agree with Mr. Safa that you know the expectations have to be
somewhat tempered, um, this is not the bill if you were going to write a bill on a blank piece of paper as to how to raise money for, for, uh, sports through a raffle this wouldn't be the bill you drafted. But You're writing a bill that complies with the Arkansas Constitution, then I believe that this is the best bill that we were able to come up with. And as to the issues and concerns that Mr. Saffa raised, I, I believe those can be addressed in rule making and you also have to keep in mind that
from one institution to another, we don't know exactly uh uh a smaller college may use a more simplistic version of the raffle, a more manual version of a raffle selling tickets, something that we would be familiar with, uh, in, in the normal uh space of a charitable raffle, but then obviously the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville. They're raffle, they may decide to utilize the, the technology that's available. And so that's one of the reasons why we included the rulemaking authority is because we didn't
believe that we could legislate every eventuality and every restriction that could be in place and we also felt like the the need for rules, we needed it, we wanted the bill to be effective immediately because one of the things that's gonna be advantageous, particularly as we head into the next school year is going ahead and hopefully being able these institutions to take advantage of the legislation. Here in the spring semester. And there is emergency rulemaking authority that DFNA
could utilize if the need arises and also you have to understand that are these institutions gonna look to, to, to defraud customers? Are they gonna look to violate some kind of federal law. There was reference to identity verification and geolocation and that might run afoul of federal law, as we all know these institutions have plenty of lawyers. These foundations utilize attorneys not to mention that the attorney general's office has been involved in this process as well. And so, uh, we included
the age verification because the committee brought that up. I think that that was brought up in the last meeting and so we felt like that was something that needed to be in there. Um The idea of, of some of the other verifications, quite honestly, I spent about 24 hours of my life at the end of last week trying to figure that out and I just don't believe that there was a way to get that done in this bill right now, but that is something that the that the interested parties can work with DFNA to write those rules. And
if there's a decision later on that needs to be tweaked, that certainly can happen, but what I believe is we have a bill, there is no one speaking against this bill today. There's no known opposition to this bill. Representative Hawke, who brought the original bill, has come back with this bill. The governor's office supports it. The attorney General's office supports it. Uh, I would imagine that the institutions of higher education are supportive. We've worked, uh, certainly had conversations with, uh, with the University of Arkansas as
they're, they're, I mean, obviously they're the one that that might have uh some of the most significant challenges just because it would, you would expect that it might be the. one that would be most utilized and so, again, I just appreciate the committee's time. I believe that this is If we're gonna have a raffle bill this session, this is the bill. And I would uh just appreciate a good vote. I appreciate the committee's work on this. We, and I went back and watched the committee meeting from several weeks ago and we tried to
address those concerns and I believe that working together once we pass this legislation with the involvement of DFNA, the governor's office, the attorney general, and higher education that we can have raffles in Arkansas. It's not gonna solve everything if it were, you know, I know that, uh, a lot of people have strong feelings about NIL, uh. But this is the world we live in today. And this is something that will be of some help and so I would, I would appreciate a good
vote. What's the wishes of the committee? I, I'll make a motion
to pass. motion to do pass all those in favor say aye. He wants to Can
Speaker 10
29:01
we do that? We won't, we, we don't back up and discuss
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
29:07
the most. Yes, which one? You reckon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I, I, the, the Actual chair, not vice chair is the, I thought I had the
quickest gun in the West, but you do now. But uh thank you
I appreciate just a little bit of latitude. I wanna, I had a lot of those questions and concerns in the last uh meeting following testimony. I want to commend the bill sponsor. I want to commend Representative Shepherd because, uh, I think this bill accomplishes a lot of the, the object of that existed, um, and I believe this does what most important with any bill that we pass is do no harm. Um, this does no harm to our Constitution. This does no harm to our institutions of higher education, and it does no harm inevitably to the students who are going to benefit. from gaining an IL fund. So I appreciate it. With that, I'll
end discussion. I'm sorry again. Anyone else? Yeah, uh,
hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Aye, that was posed likewise. Congratulations, your bill's passed. Thank you. OK. House Bill. 1192 Representative Pilkington, you're recognized.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
30:37
You recognize, sir, if you'll state your name. Thank you, thank you, Chair. Thank you committee for allowing me to present House Bill 1192 today. I'm Representative Aaron Pilkington District 45, uh, Johnson in Pope County. Um, this is pretty simple, Bill. Uh, it regards vaping on school campuses. There's two really main main points of the bill. One is to make sure that possession as well as use of tobacco or e-cigarettes, uh, are not allowed on school property, and the other is a fine, uh, to the parents for students who are who, uh
vi o late this issue. This uh bill came to me, uh, via meeting with my, uh, administrators at Clarksville, um, we had a lot of discussion for years. We've met and talked about the issue of vaping and have only progressively seen it get worse and worse. And so after meeting with them, uh, various times and working on this, we, we developed this bill together and so, uh, unfortunately, my superintendent was not able to be here today to testify, but he did give me a statement I would like to read. The rise of vape and marijuana use among juveniles in school. rules is a serious issue that
demands stricter laws to protect students' health, academic success, and overall well-being. Despite existing regulations, there's no change that can be placed on offending juveniles and many young people still access these substances easily, leading to addiction, cognitive impairment, and disruption in learning environments. Weak enforcement and lenient consequences fail to deter use, allowing the problem to escalate. To combat this growing crisis, stronger penalties for possession and distribution on school grounds must be enforced, including fines and legal accountability for parents and guardians. Just as consequences exist for
truancy, parents should be held responsible if their child is is repeatedly caught with vapes or marijuana at school without immediate action, schools will continue to face rising health concerns, disciplinary issues, and a culture where substance use is normalized by implementing tougher laws holding holding both students and parents accountable and enforcing financial consequences, we can create safer schools that set up students on a path forward to healthier futures. The time for stricter regulations now and our children's well beings depend on it. Um. And I wholeheartedly agree with that statement from my
superintendent. I, like I said, I've, I've met with my schools every year and I constantly hear time and time again about the issues of vape and now it's only getting worse. And this is an issue that not only affects um affects any particular type of student, regardless of gender, uh, class, um, or, or race. This is, this is pervasive throughout our entire um Entire school. So, uh, with that, I'm, I'm opening questions and I, I would appreciate a good vote no one
signed up to speak for again. We got a question.
Speaker 57
33:13
I question. Here we are. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
33:33
Representative Pilkington, I'm looking at this fine. I mean, this is a lot of money to charge parents for the behavior of their children, um, I'm assuming
a lot of parents who would be targeted would be lower income just based on statistics that I know about, about these populations. um, can you explain why Do you have any data that that finding parents for the behavior of their children is a good way to address this problem. Can you just speak to that a little
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
34:00
bit because it's an awful lot of money. Um, yeah, I'd be more than more than happy to speak to that. I mean, obviously, it's, it's a fine that starts with $100 then goes to $500 then 1000. So I, in my opinion, I think we keep it pretty low to begin with, but obviously, I
mean, we, we pretty well understand that if you want to um de-incentivize certain behaviors, finds like this, and fines that are impactful and. meaningful are the way to do it. Um, and so that's why we, we set the number at this level. I, I don't necessarily believe that it's um, you know, that it affects 11 particular group than the other. I mean, the reality is I think it's pervasive. You've got, you know, kids from really good high-income families that are, um, you know, vaping and distributing these products and selling these products on
campus and so as well as low-income families as well. So, um, well I, I can understand the concern. I would say I, I think we need to hold accountable regardless of the economic status of the family. I mean, I reject the soft bigotry of low expectations. And I think we should hold parents to a higher standard for their children who are participating in being part of the public school. Um, you know, we've already, you know, had a lot of campuses have, you know, no tolerance policies on, on having these here, but unless there's
some sort of fine that really puts it, um, put some oomph behind these restrictions. I just think you're going to continue to see them breaking because they're currently with what's Working is, are currently what's on the wall
Speaker 68
35:32
is not, it's not actually working. Yeah. Yeah. Representative Moore, you recognize.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
35:47
Thank you, Mr. Chair. uh, Representative Pilkington, I appreciate you bringing this issue to the table today. I think it's a very important issue, but I, I do have some concern as to what, uh, Representative Clowney. talked about regarding the high price of the fund. I'm just curious if it's already illegal for these miners to Uh, possess or use these. tobacco or nicotine products, uh, what current penalties do they face if they are caught with them in their possession.
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
36:17
Well, um, if you look at the bill, we're actually adding possession as
being an offense. So currently it's used but not possession, and that's part of the The difficult parts of actually enforcing current law is because they have to catch them in the act of actually using it, but if they have it on their pockets, especially there are a lot of these times they're 18 year old students who are seniors in high school. And so they say, well, I'm 18, I'm legally allowed to have this, um, and so, uh, the possession aspect is, is what we're adding to the law. So, and then
Speaker 55
36:40
there's a second part of your question, sorry, I was trying to answer that part, but I want to make sure I answer the
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
36:48
second part as well. I'm pretty sure, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm pretty sure the state law says 21 is the age of of legal use. You're correct. Sorry. You're correct for You're correct. Sorry. You're correct these children or school children, uh, getting caught with this. So, uh, once again it or in their possession because I'm sure the school has certain policies that says they're not allowed school property. A lot of times it's, it's,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
37:08
uh, in school suspension, things like that, but a lot of times they say that's just to them, it's a
slap on the wrist and a reason not to be at school. And so they come back and they still try to
hawk these products and, um, so sorry about the 18 to 21, but uh yeah, currently there is some to, um, To stop this, but they're
just weak and they're not fully, they're not. They're not punitive enough to stop
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
37:40
the behavior. So. Representative, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I will also kind of,
uh, Go behind representative Clowney. So I know.
Probably yourself even as a teenager, you did things that your parents didn't know you were doing, I'm sure, I mean, we all do, right, so I'll use a Boy Scout. I like it. So, um, in this though, we're fining them for things that they might not even realize their kids are doing. So Um That That part of it kind of bothers me a whole lot because I know my kids did stuff that I didn't know that they did. Whether it was speeding or whatever it might be, um, that I may not realize that they were
doing, but yet we're going to find them for
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
38:25
something that they may not even realize is going on. Sure, well, um, obviously truancy, you know, sometimes you assume that
your child is gonna get on the bus and, and go to school and they don't, and then suddenly you're getting a ticket for truancy. I mean, so clearly we have a set of
precedent of, of. Um, so, you know, that, that I'm using that as the kind of the
precedent to set to using this. I mean, I understand that parents won't, may not know everything their their child does, but um I think this has become such a pervasive issue that we need to hold parents accountable. Um, I think the reality is, especially, um, The kids who are selling these types of products. I mean, it's very, you know, I'm, it's hard to understand that the parents wouldn't have some sort of idea that they are buying and selling these and running a, in some ways a small business, uh, hacking vapes in, in our
schools. So I think we're just asking them to be a little more involved and a little bit more aware and I think the reality is if, uh, like you said, there's things that we probably
did as kids that we didn't want our parents to know about, um, there's a lot of things I did in a random field somewhere that I'm glad only God was watching, but, uh. Um Um, Sorry, sorry, I probably should have said that differently. Um, uh, anyways, um. To the point of saying I, I think though this
has become such a problem that we, that we
need to ask parents to be more involved and, and be more and also have a conversation with your kids, hey, if you do this, you are going to cost this family a fine and that it's gonna, that is gonna be detrimental to us. So, you know, be a part of this family, be a team player, and, and don't do these things. And I think that's just part of getting them more involved because a lot of times what we find is these parents are just like, oh well, in school suspension, oh well, detention, oh well, there's, um, they're suspended and they just They don't seem to care, but suddenly it starts hitting their pocketbook and then suddenly
these parents will start carrying a little more and I, I think that's just what we have to do to To pull us out of this nosedive of of of vape in our schools because it is, unfortunately just getting worse and worse. We're using vape detectors in bathrooms and all sorts of things trying to stop it, and it's just, it's coming more and more and more. So I think that's why he's seen a lot of vape bills, uh, this session is because we're all desperately
trying to find a way to fix this issue.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
40:52
To Representative Tosh, recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative, I'm gonna follow up what, uh, the line of questioning that, uh, concerning the fines, and I noticed that you, you know, in your bill, you did put a fine, but there's no classification of what the criminal offense is. So, I guess what I'm concerned about, have you created a new criminal offense or if not, is this a class, uh, class C misdemeanor, Class B. What criminal offense did you, uh, did you use, uh, when you established this fine in you, in this piece of
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
41:23
legislation. You know, I don't have the entirety of the
code with me right now so I can
adequately answer that question. I'm sorry, Representative Tosh. That's OK. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, Represent
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
41:39
Tosh basically answered my asked my question,
but I guess I'll go a little further. If you look on page 2 line 25. It just says all fines are paid to the local police department in which the school resides in. I, I don't know of any other fine we pay that way.
Uh, so are the police department set up to be able to receive those monies and then where do those monies go so the schools in the county and they pay at the sheriff's office. Where, where is that? is that money just go to?
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
42:08
County general, does it, uh, my, my understanding is it would just go to County General. I talked to the, the school if they wanted that money to get redirected to them and, and they did not want that. They thought it, it looked like they were somehow. Trying to use this as a way to generate additional income for them and that they did not want that. They're, I agree with everything in your bill. I think
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
42:28
it's a great idea because it is a huge problem
in our schools, but I wanna make sure we have it all. Uh, Representative Hock,
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
42:42
you're recognized. I, I, I like the bill. I, I think it's a, it's a good start. I do have one question, and I know there's some people in
this committee that may give me a, a weird look, but Since we're making public schools do this and there are some private schools that take
tax dollars, and we wanna make sure this is affecting all kids, wouldn't we say something to the effect of if a private schools taking tax dollars that we,
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
43:06
they'd have to enforce this bill. Um, you know, I, I, I would say I
would generally agree. I think that's good policy. I think, um, I would think that, uh, if you operate a private school and you're trying, you're probably dealing with a very similar issues of faith that you would probably already be falling this policy, um. And, and, and honestly, I would have no problem if there was a bill that followed this that did the same thing because I do think it's an issue, um, and I,
I think, I think the private schools would actually welcome it because they're having a very similar issue if they pass policies, but getting them to. Now, on the other hand I would say about pup, the reason why you're not hearing as much from private schools as a lot of times, uh, you know, parents are paying for this and, and there is this engagement because it's, hey, I'm paying extra money, we are foregoing a nicer car, foregoing another family vacation, and the last thing I need you to do is be kicked out of school and I'm losing this money because you can't get
Speaker 55
43:55
your act right and stop selling and using vapes on school property, um.
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
44:02
So, I, I agree. I just, when I look at
it, I think that, and look, I, I don't want to turn this into a Jim Woo and Keith Brooks fight, but, uh, I, I just, at the same time, I just want to make sure that we, we
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
44:17
cover everybody. Thank you. I appreciate that. Representative McKenzie, you. Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd love to know who the Jim Wootton in that one is, um. So the question
was asked, but I don't know if we got the, uh, a direct answer because I, I I like the bill and I'm not doing the, the standard preamble. I like it, I'm not
gonna support it. I'm supporting this bill. I do want to know what the current capacity is for schools. You said use. OK, so use is currently um use is currently what's allowed in law. Our school districts, because, you know, of flexibility
and local control, are they able to assess fines right now? This is a multi-part, so I just would
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
44:50
hope for some latitude, Mr. Chair. My, uh, my school district seem like they would be able to easily, uh. Basically give these
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
44:58
fines out so they assess any kind of monetary funds is our state law prohibit that right now?
I don't know that answer. It's fine. Um, I, and again with latitude, I appreciate it, Mr. Chair. It when we start talking about These types of punitive because, you know, talk about criminal statute versus this is, this, in my mind reads like an education policy bill as opposed to setting some type of a criminal statute. It's a punitive bill just allowing permissively for public schools and and charter schools to, to. Run their uh school as they see fit and then creating the regulatory guideline. We just
get bum fuzzled when we start talking about consequentialism, because if this were a bill about students under the age of 21 walking down the street. I don't know, 98 of us that wouldn't co-sponsor a bill, but To your benefit, I think that, um, When we start to introduce consequentialism in schools, we all, uh, I don't know about that. I get a little bit tense about it. The fact of the matter is, as was illuminated by Representative Moore's comments. These are not the, the, the weird place of people being 18 or 19 and being in a public school still. These are now outlawed by 32 or 3 years per
student. So I'm just trying to understand. You know, does the current level do enough? I mean, or should we, would it be a better bill if it were to say, allow for a public school to assess a monetary fine for the purposes of uh vape and tobacco cessation, and you, do you, would you agree or do you think this is not only just based on what your superintendents want, all superintendents
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
46:28
would want. Um No, I, I would agree. I mean, I, I, I, I think the reality is, is we're just trying to find a way
to help them address this issue and obviously being able to levy a fine is the best way to do it and to um To hold these students and their and their parents accountable. Um, I, I would be more than happy if there was a different bill that did this. This is what I came up with, uh, left to my own devices and a drafter at BLR, uh, but if there was a, uh, and I'll be honest, I mean, obviously there's quite a few concerns of this. I'd be more than willing to take this down and work on it to get better language that would make this committee feel more comfortable
with it. Um, I just think this is an issue I've heard about literally for the whole 8 years I've been in office, and yet it has somehow gotten worse and worse, and I've got I've got every superintendent in my district wants a way to say, hey, how can I actually fix this problem because it's not going away. So, but, but I'm happy to do that. I mean, I think from the, uh, I would say the smothering of questions I've got. I, I'm, I'm happy to pull this down to maybe work on better language to maybe get some of the committee. More comfortable with this. I'm not encouraging you to take the bill down. I, I would make a
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
47:39
motion to pass on the bill as written. So thank you. Thank you. Representative Tosh, you reckon? Thank you, Mr. Chair, and, and Representative, I just want to follow up on, uh, on my question a while ago and why I felt like it was so important. I understand what people are saying about this is just a fine, it's just some type of punitive damage, but that's not what it says in the bill. And when you're assessing fines of $1000 that has to fall somewhere under the criminal code under some type of classification and
whether it's an A, B, C, misdemeanor, whatever it was that you used to uh define this usually as associated with that is, is a jail time, whether it be 30 days, 60 days, or all the way up to a year for a misdemeanor. So I just wanted to make sure that, you know, that that classification, what you used and that we understand along with that sometimes does also, uh, some people could be incarcerated up to like I said for 30 days to a year. So I think that needs to be very well
defined in this bill, so people know exactly if they violate this, exactly what you're facing and. just some rule from a school that says it's $1000 fine. Yes, uh, well, it would
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
48:52
not be just a rule from the school, obviously, because, uh, this would be state law across the board, but I understand that and I actually would like with the permission of this committee, I'd like to take it down, like to get your answer. I'd like to make that more defined, um, because I do, I mean, obviously, I remember we had this conversation with drafting the bill. It's not in here. I don't
feel comfortable as a member asking you to vote on a bill with that still lingering out there. I appreciate, I know I have a decent amount of support on this bill, uh, but I'd rather get it. I'd rather, I'd rather do that than ask you to vote on something and be on record voting against ways to help prevent vaping in schools because I know that it's very close to all of us that we've heard this from all our superintendents. It's a problem. So I, I, with permission I'd like to do that, I'd like to get some clarification on that and then bring this back and then have us, uh, have us pass it out so.
Speaker 53
49:43
I, I see no reason you cannot do that. Yeah. pull the bill down on the calendar. All right. I'll be
back. But not today. Thank you, Representative. Uh, next bill is House Bill 1626 Representative Duffield, you are recognized.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
50:41
If you would, so I recognize for the
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
50:56
record. Matt Duffield District, 53, Russellville. My name is Scout Stubbs. I'm a small business owner in Arkansas,
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
51:03
uh, for a vape shops. I'll tell you the story about how this constituent driven legislation came here today and
I'll start by saying I've, I've learned more about vaping. Over the past month or two than I ever
thought possible yes sir I apologize, but I had Miss Stubbs signed on the sign up sheet. Does she? Here with you, is she going to want to speak at
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
51:27
the end for or against, yes sir, Mr. Chair, uh, Scout Stubbs is, is gonna present with me today. She's the constituent that brought the legislation. Thank you. That was my mistake. No problem. So colleagues, I'll say that.
I'm for freedom of choice. Free market. What people choose to put in their bodies what they choose to eat, what they choose to drink. That's their decision, and I think that's what makes the United States of America great is that we have those decisions. I never thought when I ran for office or become a representative that I would run a bill to ban anything. But the issue here is, Deception
And false advertisement. And products that are being smuggled into our country. From China And it's brought here under false pretenses, it's being presented as something that it's not, and I believe where you draw the line from big government overreach. Versus good government. Good government.
is when we see a deceptive practice. That is harming. Our citizens who are unaware of what's in the product. And we step in to take action. In my view, that's good government. I don't think it's happened very often. I think in the United States, our freedom of choice is what makes this country great. But when we have a product that we have identified.
That has poisons in them. That our youth is using. And we have the stats to show that. And not just our youth, but our adults. Who want to quit smoking cigarettes and they see vaping as a way to wean themselves off or as a a a lesser of the two evils, if you will. So what this bill does essentially. It bans
Disposable vapes. So the question is, what is the single use disposable vape? And that's where My constituent friend Scout Stubbs, who's a vape shop owner from Conway, Arkansas. Can discuss that as well as The test that she ran that showed the poisons in these products. And the results of that. So I'll turn that over to um our constituent scout at
Speaker 128
54:11
this time. Thank you. Uh, good morning, everyone. My
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
54:17
name is Scout Stubbs, um, as Representative Duffield said, my husband and I founded our small business vape shop and juice manufacturing business in 2014, uh, and we've been here advocating for our business and consumer sense disposable vapes are relatively new, um, they arrived here in the US market only about 3 years ago. Unlike traditional vapor products, which are open systems, popular among adults seeking to quit smoking, disposables are closed systems. They're manufactured, filled,
and sealed in China, leaving no option to refill them with American-made e-liquid. Open systems by contrast consist of rechargeable batteries and refillable tanks using e-liquids produced here in the United States. Uh, these have been available since 2007, falling under FDA regulation in 2016, and soon after under Arkansas state oversight. In 2020, President Trump enacted a ban on flavored pre-filled pods. Uh, they were targeting dual use among young
people, and it was a necessary step, but it created a vacuum. Uh, that band excluded the all in one system, so like the small blue e-cigarettes that weren't yet popular with uh youth. Chinese manufacturers seized this, uh, flooding the market with flavored, colorful all in one disposables. So what started as a workaround has now evolved into the products we see today, some with video game screens, Bluetooth, even designs mimicking highlighters or slurpees. I was so sick of seeing the
headlines about him. But when my customers began reporting, coughing, coughing up flavored residue after trying them. My concern turned to action in doing just a little research, I discovered that only one disposable vape is made in the United States, just one. The tens of thousands of other brands are all from China. I sent a handful of these disposables to a local lab that I rely on for my own product testing. Uh, the results were staggering.
Every sample showed nicotine levels at least 50% off from what was advertised. Um, and one contained an alarming amount of lead. So that prompted a broader investigation. We purchased 19 more popular brands from local gas stations and tobacco shops this time testing for
Speaker 132
56:41
heavy metals and residual solvents. The findings were infuriating, all but 1, 95% of them had dangerously high levels of ethanol, 3 contained lead and 1
even tested positive for arsenic. If these were medical marijuana products, Arkansas law would deem them unfit for sale. They're simply too hazardous. Local school districts report that disposable vapes account for 100% of the vapor products they confiscate from students. Their small size and ease of use with no child resistant packaging make them a problem. On the other hand, my products have required child resistant packaging for nearly a decade, and I submitted my ingredients to the FDA in 2018.
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
57:26
The Chinese disposables just slipped through the cracks under the Biden administration, the FDA would target a single brand only for manufacturers to change the name
Speaker 132
57:34
and then ship out again. They come here in containers mislabeled as flashlights or light bulbs to avoid detection and sometimes are just distributed from the backs of trucks. Neither store owners nor consumers can
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
57:45
tell if they're real or counterfeit, and honestly, they could all be coming from the same place. There are so many that federal authorities can't stop them. Even in the UK, uh, a longtime
supporter of vaping as a smoking cessation tool has already banned disposables simply due to their environmental toll, and estimated 42
Speaker 132
58:03
million end up in landfills each month in the United States. That's like throwing away 1.5 million cell phones a day. Normally I'm not one to favor banning anything. However, these are special circumstances. First, Arkansas should be able to make, Arkansans should be able to make an informed decision for themselves. If I go to the grocery store and I want
to buy a cereal without red dye 40. I can look at the ingredients and I can
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
58:34
choose for myself. I won't support a company that I don't agree with. But what if they're lying? I'm required
Speaker 132
58:40
by law to to list my ingredients. The Chinese disposables are obviously deceiving American consumers. They aren't even allowed to be sold in China, and I can see no legal recourse if someone becomes sick or harmed. Second, all but one brand of disposable are made in China. So targeting and enforcing against these products should be
relatively straightforward and shouldn't require any additional manpower, as we are already inspected twice a year by the ATC. Third, the impact of vape shops like mine isn't going to be much. The shop owners that I speak to do not want to sell disposables, but they have to compete and to feed their families. They were not aware of these dangerous ingredients until we release the test results. last week. There are lots of refillable American-made options available at the same cost that are regulated and less appealing to
youth. The solution is simple, direct, and has little negative effect on our small businesses in the state, as Representative McKenzie pointed out, it's do no harm. Thank you for hearing this bill today. I am hoping to work together to make Arkansas a safer place to live and also do
business. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, this committee have any questions? Oh, they do.
Speaker 99
1:00:02
OK, what they what? Right, OK. Representative award law, you're
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:00:12
recognized. over there, ain't we? I tried. Now it's on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Technology, it's, it's hard to get
up to when you're at our age. So Question for you when I read this bill, it seems to outlaw the single use. And I guess my issue with that is, is we've seen some other states that have done this and the same.
Bad actors that you just named out the same bad actors that had those awful ingredients. Far is a good example. They now make A multi-use vape. So at the end of the day, what are we doing here with this bill, if they're just going to change the vape they're making, so these stores that you alluded to that have to sell the product to stay open or to be competitive, they're just gonna sell the same vape in the,
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:01:01
in the other containers, correct? I'm familiar with the device
that you're talking about, uh, when Trump outlawed flavored prefilled pods in 2020. That was like a jewel pod and so legally, these gear manufacturers that make these new products, they know that. So what they do is in the refillable pod, it's not refillable, it's a closed system. It has a tiny battery in it, that way they skirt around that they get around that 2020 ban, and they're still able to call it an all in one single use disposable. So technically it
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:01:37
still is an all in one single use disposable. I understand that, but you didn't answer my question. We're gonna outlaw the single use disposables. The same companies are already making products that are not single-use disposables. They're multi-use. Are you still going to offer them for sale in your store if they change that mechanism, because that's all this bill does is it
Speaker 143
1:02:01
bans the single use of it, not the multi-use.
Speaker 144
1:02:08
The multi-use are you alluding to a product that the only one that I've
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:02:12
seen are, they say it's multi-use, but it's not refillable. It's just rechargeable. And so it has a tiny battery in it so they can get around the 2020 band, but I guess I haven't seen the product that you're alluding to. Most open systems are, are American made e-liquid. Do you sell Far system? No, sir, I do not. OK.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:02:34
Thank you. Representative Wardlaw, if I may. Add to the answer a little bit
as well because when, when I took this journey, I had some similar questions such as what you're stating, I believe. This is a page and a half bill. A simplicity bill. The issue The major issue at hand are these single use vapes, so for Committee members who may not completely understand that or people watching, a single use disposable vape is pre-loaded. With the nicotine. So it's made that way in the
factory. It's not a multi-use or an open or closed system style vape, which many people use. These single-use vapes. They're on the shelves now and they are primarily what our youth is using at the schools. The teachers I've spoken to, they have told me that 100% of what they confiscated the single use they're smuggled in the country and they're from China, the single use vapes. So what this bill would do. We would take these off the
shelves this, this bill gives the vape shops who do carry these, it gives them 90 days once the passing of this, and ATC would then come in. And get these off the shelves which would get them out of the way and out of children's hands, and these are products that are out there in mass and outs representative. I just wanted to try to clarify some of that to hopefully answer your question. I appreciate
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:04:05
you. I, I appreciate that effort, but my problem is, if they've got lead in them, or they've got these other ingredients in them,
and they move it to a different mechanism so that it's now legal under your new statute or bill that you're proposing. We didn't do anything. Yeah, we may have taken the little small one out of their pocket and made it bigger and, and I know nothing about vas, by the way. I've seen more pictures today than I've ever seen a vape in my life, but, but all we're doing is changing the carthage with this bill, if we're still putting those bad ingredients in. We're not fixing anything here. And I think we got to fix it to get rid of those ingredients. So
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:04:45
how do we do that? And maybe she's better to answer that. So I, I've been doing this a long time. I've over 10 years, um, I thought about this a lot before I came to Representative Duffield, and I thought, what, what is different about the Chinese products that separates them from American products, because the only ones that are that are skirting the law, pretty much. I mean, we've been regulated for 10 years. The only ones that aren't are from China. So how do we target those?
All of them, all of the disposables are made in China. Now, that's not to say that tomorrow they're not going to come out with something that tries to get around it, but I don't see them making an entire new line of products coming out of a Chinese factory just for the state of Arkansas. I feel like this is the best way to target the bad actors, while also leaving the good actors alone. I got into this business because
I wanted to help people. My husband makes all of our e-liquids, so I know what's in it. And that's my initial problem with the disposables because I, I didn't know what was in it and that. Prompted the testing and, and everything, but I wanted to come up with something that got rid of
the bad actors and left the good guys alone, if that answers your question. OK, so there's no surprises. We're gonna have to recess at about 120. It's, uh,
at 120, not about. It's 107 now, so I hate to do it, but I didn't
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:06:27
want any surprises. With that said, uh, Representative Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um. I appreciate your testimony, and look, I, I,
I'm a co-sponsor on this bill because I, I believe that we've got a problem, but I, I don't wanna, I mean, when we sit there and say that we're, we're vapes are helping people. They're not helping people. But this is just another, it's another trigger for people to,
to have their nicotine and do everything like that. So I, I mean, I think that's a false thing to say we're helping people with these things. But I also hear, you know, I, I hear what you had to say and I had two smoke shops in Bryant called me, uh, and said, If this bill were to pass, this shuts me down altogether, because while we want to take out the Chinese vapes. And I agree, we, we want to get rid of the Chinese vapes, but there are, there are US vapes that do single, single shots of
this that are on my shelves that it will shut me down. We'll have, he said, I've got a 90-foot wall of nothing but but nothing but vapes, and I take all but about 3 of them out. So to help me understand, like, we keep talking about China, we keep talking about foreign made, but there's nothing in the bill that talks about foreign-made and there's nothing that protects the ones that are in
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:07:41
the United States that are doing the right thing. Sure, thanks, Representative. I appreciate your question. So China manufactures over 90 90% of the world's vaping devices. So they're all coming over here.
And I understand your, uh, Constituents' concerns with their business. I'll say this from my perspective. I, I did not have that response from, from. From folks in my district have these businesses, um, the response that, that I have received from the businesses is they were. They were happy to have this information because I believe that most business owners, They want to sell the product. That they are advertising as such to the consumer.
Mm-hmm. That it has 10 amount of nicotine, it has that expectation. I can speak for myself as a business owner. If it was brought to my attention that the product that I was selling was not what was intended, and it was being smuggled over from China and it had poisons in it that were harming people, I would get
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
1:08:44
in a new, new business. Follow up You reckon not so my question in the bill, rather than taking
away a, an adult's right to choose because, I mean, we, I think we would all agree adults choose to smoke cigarettes, you know, which we've determined were bad, but they still do it, um, rather than just saying
we're gonna ban this, right? Why, why wouldn't we just say we have to provide a list of what's in the, the ingredients and
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:09:13
have it posted and they can make their own decision. I think the short answer to that representative is these products, they being smuggled in don't have the ingredients listed. The consumer has an assumption
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:09:31
they're not gonna abide. by that in my view. We, we are legally required in the United States to list all of the ingredients in our products, uh, my products are
Speaker 128
1:09:42
legally required to. Is it posted? Yes, yes, on, on each package, yes, yes, um. But they're, like I said,
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:09:48
if I went to the grocery store, I expect it to be true, what I'm reading on my breakfast cereal, but what if it's not?
And that's, that's what bothers me about all these products that we tested, it bothers me. And, and to answer your question about what's going to be left on the walls of all these shops, all the shop owners that I know, and I know a lot of them. None of them really like disposals, but they're having to compete and there's lots of open systems available. Look at 2 or 3 years ago before these things were around, vape shops were around then too, and I, I anticipate people migrating back to, uh, what vape shops used to be like before these.
Chair
Unverified
1:10:29
Chinese disposables were here. Thank you. Representative McKenzie, you recognize, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Chair. Um,
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
1:10:35
I'm a fan, so let me start by saying this, there, I've run a lot of legislation relative to the CCP and outline China's undue influence. I've never run a consumer ban, uh, and I see that there is, there needs to be a line in between that. We all can have
our thoughts on, on China, but in terms of what this means to consumers is, is entirely different than what it means for our state government to own or operator or function.
And I'm a fan of metaphor and analogy and allegory, allegory, uh, the metaphor you make is fine except we're gonna take All red dye 40 cereal out of Walmart. That's what this bill does. It's not a matter of I'm gonna look and see and compare notes. This bill would mean that you walk down the 64 linear feet of side counter at Walmart, and it's just Kellogg's Special K. So I, I just wanna make sure that we're, we're getting that correct. The vape shops in my district, they don't hate
selling disposable vapes. They love selling disposable vapes. Um. The the main one that I've spoken with has 90 linear feet in a, in a 5000 square foot shop. Um, Uh, so the general, like the generalization that a lot of them don't like it. I, a lot of them do like it because not only is it the profit margin good but leaf tobacco has its own problems because of shelf life. Um, back to the point that Mr. Hawk, that Representative Hawke made about the bill. You know, I
could probably get closer to supporting this type of legislation if it was a covered entity ban. If we did say, hey, you know, disposable vapes from China, no, still probably not there, but that bill doesn't do this. So let's just say there's a dawn or resurgence of. Disposable vapes in the United States. This bill bans them. It bans all the single-use disposable vapes. It, it, this is a, in my opinion, in my estimation, this is a protectionism bill for open system vapes, and I understand that, that, you know, because you're first to market and that's how consumers chose to,
to, to take cessation products when they're initially, when vaping initially started, um, that is what people Uh, new, and that's what people chose. The market has chosen disposable vapes. So doing anything now would, would seriously and significantly hurt the, the consumer choices that people have made away from a system that might be too laborious, too expensive, not readily available, and it is something that is. And again, in terms of a cessation product, I kinda agree with, with Representative Hawke. It's a nicotine delivery system. That's all it is. We're not
really we could say it's it's sad or it's creating cessation away from leaf tobacco, but it's still, it's a nicotine delivery product. So, uh, I understand and appreciate it. I'm, I love beating up on China where it makes sense. Um, but this bill doesn't beat up on China. It beats up
Speaker 160
1:13:18
on those who've made the decision to choose to smoke a disposable vape, so. Wouldn't you
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:13:23
agree? Representative, I can answer those first two, I believe. On the serial analogy or serials list the ingredients that are on there. So if someone chooses to consume that or give that to their children.
They have the ability to read what's in that product. Second thing you mentioned about actually mentioning China in the bill, perhaps a preference with that. In my discussions with the AG's office, if we specifically list China in this, that will be thrown out of court and it won't solve the problem that we're trying to fix. So that is why we did not specifically list China and again with the data, China manufactures 90% of the world's vapes. So that's my two comments on that and, and when it comes to your, uh, to the stores in
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:14:07
your district, that's, that would be, uh, her expertise and Representative McKenzie, I used to sell these products until I found out what was in them. And it, it bothered me, and I didn't want to sell a product that was going to be on the news one day, and that's why I don't know if the vape shops in your district are aware that. What's in these, and if they want to be associated with the product that might poison somebody one day and there's no legal recourse because you can't really take a Chinese company to court.
But thank you for your comments. Representative Mo, you're recognized if you can do it quick, please. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:14:48
Chair. Thank you, Representative Duffield. Uh, ma'am, um, My questions have already been covered for the most part, but the one thing, just with a quick search and, uh, I did some corroboration among different websites. I found 77 different companies that manufacture these vaporir products that are based or claimed to be based here in the United States, um, wouldn't you agree that this cuts down on
the competitive nature of free market capitalism for
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:15:17
our homegrown vape companies. The vast majority, I'm talking thousands of brands are coming out of China, and I do, I do know one. I actually know, uh, 50 bar. They're made in the US. I'm not aware of another one, and I believe you that when you did your research that there might be some that I missed, but the only one that I'm aware of a 50 bar, and they're an American company.
And I do understand the concern, but if we're going to address the problem in our schools, and the problems that these are going to maybe cause in the future by poisoning people. I think this is the best
approach to do that. Uh Representative McLendon quick, please. I'm trying.
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:16:08
Follow up on that. So you've said that 90% of the vapes come from China.
So the other 10% that aren't from China, do we just say you don't get to compete anymore. We're going to put you out of business because that's what it, again, following up on what Representative McKenzie sounds said, you were definitely saying this is an anti Capitalist anti-competitive bill as opposed to saying, um, let's make a list of the, of the vapes that we can accept here and have a positive or what we call a green registry, right? In order to have that. So I'm, I'm concerned about two things. One is just it being anti-competitive, that you're saying there are companies that
are going to go out of
Speaker 169
1:16:48
business to representative Jeremiah's point, um, sound like. My fault. Um, that it will, that you will be putting companies out of business, um, can you answer that in
Speaker 141
1:17:00
less than a minute. Yes, I believe you're referring to the registry bill, which was Senate Bill
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:17:06
252, which failed in committee yesterday, um, the registry bills, they look good on the surface, but if you really want to talk about free market capitalism, the registry
bills knock out 97% of the market, uh, the only ones that are approved to be sold in The United States, according to the FDA, are the big tobacco companies, uh, vapor products. It leaves you with about 6 devices with their refills. If you want to go with a registry bill approach. Uh, as far as free market. That's really a worse way to go about it than our Bill
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
1:17:44
HB 1626. not apply to be on that registry. So anyone can actually
apply to be on that registry where this is saying, I don't care where you originate from, if you were a disposable vape, then you're not allowed. And I think that, I think that is very anti-free market, whereas if I have the ability to apply to be a legitimate product, then that is a free market because
even China could apply for that and they could fail, right? So that becomes much more free
Speaker 141
1:18:08
market. But according to uh that bill, all you have to
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:18:11
do is be on the list. All you have to do is apply and you'll be allowed to be sold in the state. And so that opens the door for a lot of
these Chinese products to be sold until the FDA denies them. Um, another problem with the registry bill is the FDA denial process, uh, 26 of 26 million applications that were submitted to the FDA since 2020, all have been denied except for 34 plus Joel, so it's, it's less than 100 out of 26 million. The only other products that are not approved or denied are the ones that are
caught up in a court battle right now, which could be decided as soon as tomorrow. We're, we're just waiting to see the outcome of that, but that's about 400 products. Now, when I say 400 products, really, that's just different sizes and strength of the same product, so it might only be
40 products. Thank you, Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
1:19:13
Chair. It's just a follow up to earlier, you made a comment, they wouldn't do that just for Arkansas as far as changing.
It's my understanding from looking online, the little research sitting over here. Come June 1st, 2025, which is this summer, the UK government has banned the single-use vapes. So they're already manufacturing these same ingredients into a multi-purpose thing. So it's not just for Arkansas. Everybody's moving to ban the single-use vapes. So the same ingredients that you're concerned about with the lead and the different things that are in them, the heavy metals, they're coming just in a different vape. So I mean,
How do, what are you going to do two years from
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
1:19:58
now, when you're sitting with a store full of the same ingredients. I think that they're competing with open systems vapor products at that point. And I think the average American consumer, if they're the same price, they're gonna choose an American made e-liquid as opposed to a Chinese-made e-liquid, especially after seeing all the publicity from These test results, this phone book list of test results. If they're the same cost and the same price, which most of the time they are.
And I'd buy a, I'd buy a blender from China, but I won't buy the blueberries that
go in my smoothie. that it's the e-liquid that I'm concerned with. Yeah, see no more questions. Are, are
you ready to close or can you do it? OK. Well, no, there's no one signed up. OK.
OK, you was the one that signed up for the public and have not. I can ask anyone else has to speak or signed him to speak. If we can, we can do it.
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
1:21:02
Let's begin what we can all agree on, vaping, especially with the kids of Arkansas is a problem. We hear it from the parents and the teachers. We know this is real. According to the CDC 55.6% of students are vaping are using the disposable vapes that are being smuggled in from China, the skgu is light bulbs that this bill addresses and will handle that problem. So again, I know we can agree on the problem. And I think we can agree that these disposable products are
the biggest part of the problem. Of course these products aren't just the preferred offering of kids. They're also often made by countries who hate us. And contain all sorts of toxic chemicals. This bill has 79 co-sponsors. It's a bipartisan supported in the House and the Senate, and I've had a lot of conversations about this around the Capitol. Some say it goes too far.
Some say doesn't go far enough. There's another plan floating around. The one big tobacco prefers. It didn't come out of committee this week. The best feature of this bill is its simplicity. We know the disposable products are the ones that are most likely to be made by our country's enemies, disposable products are most likely to contain all sorts of poisons and the CDC tells us they're the ones most likely used by our kids.
There's no registry here, no list. If it's disposables we're saying no because the disposable products are most likely to cause the harm and most likely to contain toxins. It's that simple. We're not asking our tobacco control agents to check. An ever changing dossier of sound alike names to ensure a product is OK or it's not. It's just simple. We're looking to eliminate the product that represents the biggest risk now.
There is no perfect bill. Certainly not with something like this. I think we can agree. On much the problem and the data showing we're the biggest part of the problem is coming from. Committee, I ask you today. Do not let perfect be the enemy of good. With that in mind, I'm asking for a good vote. And I make a motion to pass.
Proper motion I any discussion say none. All those in favor say aye. Island I posed like. Thank you. We are adjourned.
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 A PRIVATE CLUB TO ENTER INTO AN OPERATING AGREEMENT WITH ANOTHER PERMIT HOLDER FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PRIVATE CLUB.
HB1476 B. McKenzie TO AMEND THE DIRECT SHIPMENT OF VINOUS LIQUOR ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH A WINE DIRECT SHIPPER LICENSE.
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.
Pilkington
HB1573 Ladyman TO REORGANIZE THE STANDING COMMITTEES AND THE SUBJECT MATTER INTERIM COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
HB1578 Pilkington TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS HEMP BEVERAGE ACT.
HB1626 Duffield TO PROHIBIT THE SALE OF DISPOSABLE VAPOR PRODUCTS.
HB1634 Hawk TO ESTABLISH THE ARKANSAS SPORTS RAFFLE ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
Hawk
HB1645 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING ADVERTISING BY A MICROBREWERY- RESTAURANT PRIVATE CLUB.
SB231 J. Dotson TO CONFER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ON SELECT EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF THE ARKANSAS LOTTERY.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — HOUSE RULES, Mar 5, 2025 | Agenda | 2 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Shad Pearce Chair
Unverified
Representative RJ Hawk
Unverified
Speaker 10
Speaker 11
Speaker 12
Speaker 17
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Representative Brit McKenzie
Unverified
Representative Aaron Pilkington
Unverified
Speaker 57
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 55
Representative DeAnn Vaught
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Jeff Wardlaw
Unverified
Speaker 53
Representative Matt Duffield
Unverified
Scout Stubbs
Unverified
Speaker 128
Speaker 132
Speaker 99
Speaker 143
Speaker 144
Speaker 155
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 160
Representative Mindy McAlindon
Unverified
Speaker 169
Speaker 141