House Rules

Uh, just so you know what we're going to be hearing today. We're not going to hear HB 1192. Uh, by Representative Mil Pilkington, but we will be hearing the other 4, His representative Wootton here. OK. Uh, Representative Meeks, are you ready to run HR 1007. OK. She'll come to the table and identify yourself for the record, you recognized. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. Um, so, um, as the, uh, senior member of the, uh, Arkansas House of Representatives for the last 12 years by, um, tradition. It's been my honor to be able to do the adjourned resolution for you every day. Uh, as part of that motion, I have to list out 9 items that must be allowed to continue following the gavel for the business of the house, uh, to be able to uh continue. And, uh, over the years, I've wondered, surely there's got to be a better way to do this instead of me having to list those 9 items every day. Does every, you know, legislative body across the country list out those 9 items like we do every single day. And, um, so I had uh this house rule drafted and what this House rule will do is it will simplify the adjourned motion so that going forward, the new adjourned motion and Mr. parliamentarian, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but, uh, the adjourned motion will simply be that in accordance with House rule 33M. I move we adjourn until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. So it'll shorten it down to that nice short, sweet sentence. And so the benefit to the members of the house, it means you all get out 10 seconds earlier than we would have otherwise. And it also means that when I pass the torch down to Representative Cozart that, um, he won't have to endure having to learn all 9 of those items, uh, the way the rule is. drafted if for any reason those items need to be modified. That can be done through the motion. So, I could say, um, and accordance with House Rule 33M, uh, except for the fact that we're not going to lay the calendars on the desk. I move, we adjourn until 1:30 the next afternoon. So, uh, that's my proposed, uh, house rule and be happy to entertain any questions. Representative McKenzie, you recognize for a question. Thank you Yeah. You gotta hit the, you have to hit the button up there, Mr. Chairman, on your page. Go to the discussion tab. I had to do this about 2 hours ago. Got it. OK, thank you. Thank you, Representative Meeks. Uh, I don't mean this to be tongue in cheek, but it has there been an instance where we don't use the preamble that you use, I mean, how long in your In your history have we done the long listing of, as far as I know, we've done it all throughout the history. I, I, I've, I've done that and when I came in as a freshman, that was the script that was used. And so, uh, I don't know when that was started that we had to list all 9 items out, but, uh, throughout my duration, it's always been those 9 items. Follow up. Thank you. I just wanna make, I mean, I'm for it. I love the Meeks rule. I think it's a great tradition and legacy to leave. Protecting the institution is often something we hear is this the parliament the parliamentarians perspective is just protect the institution, does this honor the institution similar to how rules changes in the past have come up and come and ebbed and flowed. You recognize Only had preliminary basic, uh, conversations with representative meets. It's, it's what you touched on. It's been a custom and practice. I don't know and I, I probably am not the person I need to dig further how long that's been, but it's as long as I've been here and as long as you're representative Meeks has been here. That's been the custom and practice. I'm for it. I, I appreciate it. I just wanna make sure thank you. And I have no doubt that after my term of service is done, everything that I do down here, the one thing I will be remembered for is the adjourned motion. Representative Dobby. Well Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Representative Ms, just one question that it peaked when you my mind when you said you would give that motion pursuant to Rule 13 or whatever it was, except we're not going to lay the calendars on the desk. Where would that determination be? I mean, who would have the power to then Except out something. I, I guess I'm just, I mean, you may be able to do that now, so if you could walk me through that process because you don't wanna, not that. I, I, right, I, I, I, yeah, I get where you're going. Sure, sure. Yeah, so, um, when I, when I had the, had the rule drafted. I can't think of a reason why we wouldn't do that, but I didn't want to take away the flexibility, uh, that might be needed for something like that to happen. Um, and, and the parliamentarian can maybe, maybe a pint further, but we get to like the, not the last day of session, but the day before that, um, there are some things that we could take. te ch n ically could leave out of that list because, uh, you know, after that last day, nobody is going to be amending a bill at that point because there's no point to do it. So theoretically, you could leave something out. Um, I just wanted to leave that flexibility so that in case there was a need that that flexibility would be there. I, I don't know that there would be. I'm just like out of an abundance of caution, allow that flexibility. OK, thank you, uh, I guess my my question just to drill down just a little bit. Who makes the determination that something can be left off. Is that, is that when the speaker says we're gonna do this and don't, don't, I mean, I, I. Yeah, yeah that I don't want, not that you would do it, but let's say representing Cozart decides, you know, he's gonna. Right right exceptions or whoever down the road. I'm just curious as to how that would go. Thank you, I mean, so technically, you know, generally speaking, it's just gonna be, um, in accordance to House Rule 33M. I move we adjourn until X, Y, Z, right? Um, if, if I wanted to add a, uh, a modifier, we'll call it, either for or against that is allowed in, in, in the rule as it's proposed as far as who does that, um, as a person making the motion, I could just do it. You know, on my own. And I will admit there's been a time or two I did leave something out, right? And, and just by accident, but I, but I did leave something out. Um, generally speaking, what happens, uh, is, um, I take my cues and direction from the speaker because obviously, he's the one who plans the day and the calendar and all that. So, uh, under normal circumstances, if I'm doing the adjourned motion, uh, I'm gonna do that default script unless recommended by either the parliamentarian or Speaker And of course, I mean, theoretically, any of you could jump up anytime, get the speaker's attention, and make the adjourned motion, but Representative McGee, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, it's maybe more of a comment than a question. Uh, Representative Meeks as a member who came in after you, um, I want everyone, and I think for the entire house that we, we really enjoy your motion that you make every day. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you kind of a follow up on that some worthless trivia for you because of that motion, I think I hold the record for the most motions ever passed by the Arkansas House of Representatives. I could be wrong, but I think that's right. Good. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence. OK. OK. Jesus. He's in charge of technology. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Eas you recognize for a question. Is my mic still on? Um You've been doing this for a long time. So, don't you want to go out with a bang and keep doing it. I mean, why, why now? Because I think Representative Cozart might be the next guy up, and that's gonna take like 10 or 15 minutes, right, exactly, exactly, and, and, and, and I love y'all too much to leave that like that. So, uh, I, I, I've actually, uh, I've actually have been, uh, contemplating this for a couple of years now, um, at the end of the, the 23 session. I did approach the parliamentarian and the rules committee about doing it then, uh, we just ran out of time with everything, you know, how crazy end of session was, and it kind of dropped to the end of the priority. And so with the start of a new session, a little more time, had a chance to make sure that, uh, it was a, that it could be done and that, uh, of course, it was done correctly. And you, you, you just want to do it to shorten the, the whole thing up a little bit just to make things more efficient for us. Any other questions? I don't see any anyone signed up to speak for or against this bill, this resolution, uh, Representative Meeks, would you like to close? Uh, yeah, colleagues, thank you for your time again. This is just an opportunity to uh make the house more efficient and to let all of us go home about 10 seconds earlier and over the course of the session, that could add up to like 5 or 10 minutes and, you know, that, that gets to be real time. So, uh, with that, I, I'd appreciate a favorable vote. What's the will of the committee? I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? All in favors. Representative, uh, more you recognize. I just wanna Say from the bottom of my heart and I just want to say from the bottom of my heart and sitting, having sat in front of you directly for the past uh couple of years. It has been an honor to listen to you adjourn every session and While I made the motion due passed, I will miss your original motion. Thank you. All right, members, we have a motion to pass all in favor say aye. Opposed. Eyes have it. Congratulations, you've passed I'm taking note of everybody who said no, and I'm gonna make them do the, but thank you committee. All right, members, without objection, we're going to let, uh, Representative Meeks presented other. Resolution. All right, thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman and committee. Uh, the, the next resolution or next House rule I'm proposing is actually a little bit of a weightier, um, matter, um, as a, uh, former member of the, the military, um. This is something that, uh, unfortunately in in today's day and age is uh come to concern me. For me, the, the most scariest day of session is the day we hold the state of the state of the state address. Because on that morning, we have the entire General Assembly is in the House chamber, along with all of the constitutional officers and all of the judiciary. So the entire membership of the central government is all in that one room. And what would happen in the event that something catastrophic happened that claimed the lives of everybody in that room. We would now be in a situation where we had a state of emergency with no defined leader. Uh, every one of us in the um general assembly, we are in the line of secession. However, if everyone's gone, who is going to be the one that takes up the mantle as the acting governor of the state. As of right now, there is no provisions for that, um, just by happenstance, you may remember, uh, when we had the state of the state address this year, uh, Representative Wooton was out due to illness and flu, and he didn't realize it, but he was our designated survivor in the event of a catastrophic event, he would have become the acting governor of a state in crisis. And so what this bill does is this bill or this resolution would require that whenever we have one of these meetings when the entire central government is going to be located within the House chambers that the Speaker of the House will designate a designated survivor, if you will. Um, that designated survivor will be in the, uh, top third of the membership as far as seniority. Uh, reason why I did top 3 is because God forbid, this become necessary. You want a member who's got experience, who has been around, who has the relationships and is in a position to be able to take over as the role of acting governor. Uh, I think we all can understand that's not a role you want a freshman to be a positioned for a freshman to be stuck in. So, um, once the speaker designates who that person is, uh, the speaker will contact the Department of Emergency Management and let them know who that designated survivor is, so that in the event they're called on to step up to be our acting governor, that they know who that designated person is, uh, upon that activation, that person would become the acting Speaker of the House. So in essence, the, uh, speaker would be choosing their successor in the event that this becomes necessary. Uh, the reason why that is required is under current Arkansas law in the line of secession, uh, when it comes to members of the house, it is the Speaker of the House who is the one who fills that role. And so this would make them become the um that designate. It says that one hour prior to that meeting, this person will leave the Capitol. Uh, there will be at least 5 miles away, they can't be at home, so this is not an excuse to stay at home on that day. Um, but they have to be at least 5 miles away from the Capitol. They have to stay away for the duration of the meeting and up to an hour after that meeting has concluded. Um, the member will be counted as present for purposes of quorum and uh for uh per diem. So, as I said, uh, God forbid it we ever really need this, but, uh, given the times that we live in, I think it is prudent for us to be prepared that should such an eventuality. happened that the citizens of the state still have someone who can lead them through this crisis. And uh with that, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might have. Representative Hack you recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, first off, Representative makes the TV show was awesome. I loved it. Um, but with that being said, uh, are there any other states that do this? I, I mean, I, when I saw it on TV and I was like, well, it sounds like a good idea, but is it, is it practical? I mean, does anybody else in the country do something like this? The, the federal government does do it as far as any state, uh, as far as any other states, I've not researched that, so unfortunately, I can't answer one way or the other. Um, and, and I don't want to belittle, you know, the question you're and you're asking. I think regardless of if anybody else does it, we need to make sure we're doing it so that we're prepared should the eventuality come up. Like I said, my hope is it's never needed, that this is a complete waste of time, but should something happen, uh, again, I think it's prudent that we've got plans in place. Thank you, sir, because I, I think, and I could be wrong on this, I think if we don't have anything in place, And this were to occur so that the entire central government was decimated. I think at that point, you're looking at a situation where the federal government would have to come in and take charge of the state, and I don't know that we want that. to happen. Representative McKenzie, you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's my understanding that the next in line succession after the governor, lieutenant governor is the Senate pro tem. So why is respectfully, why is this not their problem? Sure. Um, I, I, I would be all for them doing something similar, but of course, I can't. Dictate what goes on in the, and, you know, and that part of the building. So, uh, all we can do is on, on the house. And uh maybe as an answer to that, should, um, should the Senate have a designated survivor, which I would, I would, you know, support that as well. And we were just left with one House member, um, I think it would be beneficial for us to have at least one House member survive. So that way, as you have a new basically all freshman body coming in, you have at least one person who has experience and understands the traditions and the role and how all this works to be able to guide that new generation, uh, of replacements to, uh, you know, come in and take up their duties. You recognize it just, it just a little bit of concern because let's just say another, for instance, with a Representative Wootten on the Senate side misses the state of the state. I also miss the state of the state. OK, so you would have been one of those survivors, yeah if this doomsday scenario happens. That Accidental, non, uh, uh, doomsday scenario, the designated survivor in the Senate would ascend to the role of Senate pro tem, but yet our house rules reflect that we have the designated survivor. Can you not that, would you, would you agree that that might create some kind of a constitutional crisis because we basically have two members. Oh no, no, no, no, no. Um, so, so, uh, just clarify a couple of things. Um, I, I don't know how constitutionally, if, if that member would automatically become the Pro 10, because I don't know if you only have one surviving senator if they could elect themselves as the pro tem or if they were just by default become the pro town. Yeah, yeah, well, yeah, but I don't know if that would constitute a corm but, but, but regardless, um, our designated survivor would not be the designated survivor for the state per se. It would just be the designated survivor of the house. And so There was a senator in, in your scenario, say, if, uh, you know, Senator Dodson was absent that day and he was the lone surviving senator, and he became the pro town, then yes, he would become the acting governor of the state at that point. And then whoever our survivor was, they would become the Speaker of the House, and then they would be responsible, not for being the acting governor, uh, but they would be responsible for helping to rebuild our institution and our legislative. body. So you'd have somebody to, to do that. And, and, and I, I'm trying to remember this because I actually passed legislation years ago to, to extend the line of secession to include the auditor and the, the, the land commissioner, but I think the pro tem, uh, as I recall, they can serve as the acting governor, but they cannot be the actual governor. And so whoever that acting governor is is at some point would have to call for a special election to elect an actual governor, and then they would go back to being the Being the, the, the pro town is I think how that would play out constitutionally. Um, but again, no guarantee, like I said, if the Senate were to do something like this, I would be all supportive, but we have no influence over there, just for continuity within our own half of the legislature and, you know, like I said, if they were the only person that we do at least have somebody in place, uh, in the event that this scenario plays out. Representative Meeks, I have a, uh, I have a question. If there Has to be 3 or 4 members absent. Does your rule change stipulate that it's the senior member. No, so, um, the, the way the rule is, is laid out is whoever the speaker designates as that survivor, they would automatically ascend to the speakership. So, for example, and it states that, yeah, it states that, yeah, so, um, for example, Speaker Evans designated you as the designated survivor and the both of us were out that day, even though I'm the senior member, you would be, you would take over as acting governor because you would be by, by this rule, you would be the new Speaker of the House. OK, thank you. I don't see anyone signed up to speak for or against this, uh, would you like to close, Representative Meeks? Yeah, I, I'll just make, uh, one or two closing remarks. Um, first off, um, I did run this past our sergeant at arms, make sure he looked at it and didn't see anything. He, he did recommend one small tweak, which I did include in the, uh, in the, in the bill, um, again, like I said, I pray to God that this is never, never necessary, but out of abundance and caution and prudence for Citizens of our state should the unthinkable happen. I think it is intended upon us to make sure we have plans in place to, uh, make sure we have some continuity of government in the event of that does occur. So, uh, with that, I appreciate your time this afternoon and would, uh, ask for a good, uh, good vote. What's the will of the committee? Motion to pass Have a motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say I. Pod No You passed your resolution. Represent Wooton, are you ready? All right. You come to the table and identify yourself, you'll be recognized to present HB 1143. Members, we have an impact statement on the desk. If you want to take a look at that. Jim Wooton House of Representatives District 59. And Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I got caught thought at 15 minutes, uh. A lot of time get ahead of me. Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to present this, uh, bill this afternoon and uh let me give you a little background. The reason that I introduced the bill was because of the fact there's been a bill in her dues to prevent a raffle at the universities throughout the state. But what really struck me is different was the fact that the university presidents told the sponsor of the bill that they did not want the casinos involved in any shape, form or fashion. Well that immediately told me that something was not right or that they didn't want to be involved in a gaming activity on a campus that where they had control of him. But what even enticed me more to sponsor was when I saw in the paper. One day last week where the foundation has doubled their premium membership from 20,000 to $40,000. And there also have budgeted $20 million for NIL and I want to be very very frank with you and straightforward. You know he is the death of college football as we know it. And the coach, if they're honest with you, will tell you that you cannot build a team in a year's time as a result of the transfer portal, and they're all tied together. And the quarterback last year at the Notre Dame University, and I'm, I, I like Notre Dame and but he made a million dollars. Last year and there are colleagues of mine that are willing and wanting to move this down. You know, part of it, move it down to the high school level. You, what you'll wind up with, you'll wind up with students making more than high school coaches because most of them make around or not most of them, the highest paid one are somewhere between 1010 to $120,000. A year so this has all come together, but the foundation. Has made it to where so many people cannot afford to attend and go. And not only that, but tickets cost $90 for the Texas ballgame this year. $90. A family of 4 was almost $400 for them to be able to go. And then they have to set up in the upper level because the level is controlled by those that give more money in order by their season tickets so that they can have better seats. And then the premium people that pay the premium of, of 20,000 a year. They have to pay $40,000 a year and they budgeted 20 million. So I do not feel that the people who are going to the football games of the state of Arkansas should have to foot the bill for NIL. Now you say, well, it's for the students. That's well and good, but let me share something with you. If you don't know what, what did you do? But the fact that we're giving them a scholarship that covers 100% of their education, and they're getting an education from the University of Arkansas. Arkansas states the same way. The same thing is true for Southern state, um, Southern University State university for Monticello. This is this, this does not to me and then stop and think for just a moment. What's next? Are we gonna put slot machines in the corridors of the stadium. It just does not make sense to permit a raffle specifically aimed for NIL money for students, and again, I want to tell you that in NIL and the transfer of posal. Or the death of college football as we know it. We had one well known coach. To retire and to leave the University of Alabama. Because of the NIL. Now we, we, and, and then not only that, but you've got to look at the total picture. When any state Can pay a football coach 67 $8 million a year. And only pay teachers a halfway decent wage something's wrong somewhere. And I'm all about public education is each one of you know, but that's, that's not right we pay them 5 times, 6 times more than we pay the president of the University of Arkansas. So something's wrong with the society that does that, and I probably uh said too much, but this bill simply states, it's an act to amend the charitable bingo and Raffles enabling Act to prohibit Raffles to provide funding for student athletes under the Arkansas student athletic publicity rights Act, and for other purposes. And tires to amend the charitable bingo. Raffle enabling act and to prohibit raffles to provide funding for student athletes under the Arkansas student athletes publicity rights. It's, it's a paragraph, one paragraph, it's a simple statement of fact. And I, and I urge you. To look at the total picture. Of where we are today with the price of $90 to attend one football game. One ticket, $90 and then I'll challenge you to look at some of the actions that are being taken by the foundation. They've got to the way, uh, and they can give $20 million and we have to force or provide a raffle to pay for some of the athletes to be able to make a million dollars a year. Or 400,000 or 300,000. So that's the reason and the purpose for my bill. Now thank you for your time and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Representative Paul. Representative McKenzie, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so, Representative Wootten, I agree that there's a, there's a myriad of options out there to resolve. Uh, the deficiency in NIO funding. What How will this bill help $90 tickets. How will this bill help the charitable contribution minimums for uh seats at athletic initiatives in my estimation and wouldn't you agree, this hurts the University of Arkansas. This hurts ASU. This Hets Southern Arkansas. I, I'm, I'm, I'm failing to bridge the gap between the testimony you've given and then how we get to solving, giving the university the resources it needs in a post NIL world. This is If we have to, if we have to resolve, and this is against the lottery too. But if we have to resort to ill-gotten gain in this state to be able to support our athletic program, then I say we don't need it. And if, if the raffle money is not going to support the university, it's going to sports the football team and the, and the foundation. To be able to pay the the able to pay the student athletes. And we, and it's, it's not gonna benefit the university. If it was, then, then maybe they would want to casinos in involved in it because it might bring in more money. Thank you. Representative McAloon, you're recognized for her question. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Um, so I agree with Representative McKenzie. I had some questions about this. I actually think that in some ways this could help the $90 ticket because what you're doing is you're allowing people to participate in the raffle, which is fundraising, right? You want people to participate in that instead of putting all the burden on the university, so I'm just curious why if people choose to participate in a raffle, um, in order to help their favorite college team. Why, why is that a negative? has nothing to do with this. This is all through the foundation. They're not paying any money of the of the state's taxpayers' money. This not involved in the NIL. But it's the foundations you think the foundation benefits the University of Arkansas when they're charging people who pay, had to pay a premium in order to have a ticket to attend a football game. In order to be able to get a ticket, they have to pay a premium to the foundation. That's not right. And then we turn around and put a a a paragraph in a football coaches sell and his paragraph in his contract that says, we're gonna pay you $17 million to leave when we get ready to get rid of you. That's not right. I've, I, you know, I don't think you need to get paid to leave a job. If he's not doing the job, fire him. But then you got the coach down at Texas A&M last year, just 2 years ago, got 90 million. So you see where we're headed. I do ask a follow up. Chairman. You recognize. So, uh, but I guess I go back to the original question of how does Stopping this raffle prevents us from paying $17 million for a coach to leave. Like what? But it sure keeps them from doing a raffle and, and bombarding bomb bombarding, uh, uh, uh, people who are paid hard-earned money to go to a football game and then to be hit up for a raffle. OK, thank you, and a lot of people disagree with this. I got it. Thank you. You recognize? What's your point? Yes. Representative Paul. Um. Representative Wootton, you, uh, you were a legendary football coach in this state, um, you, you've done high school football. How many fundraisers did you do when you were a football coach? I did, we did a lot, and I raised $25,000 a year currently for the BB Badger football team, but it's not illegal. It's not ill-gotten gain. And, and I'm not a promoter. But, but what I'm, I guess my question is, going back to the bill, it is a fundraising bill, right, that you want to eliminate from the universities from being able to fundraise. For whatever purpose that they want to do, you want, you want just I'm just a second, you, you said that you do not want to, uh, a raffle is a fundraising mechanism. High schools in the in Arkansas are doing it right now as long as there's a 501c3 attached to it. They could, the limit on a, on a raffle right now is $5000. And so what we're saying is from this bill, if we eliminate and we do not allow our higher education universities to not allow for a raffle, then we are not allowing them, we, we do not support their fundraising efforts, true or false? No, that's, that's false. Well, that's what the bill says student athletes. To, to, to run a raffle to because now NIL is part of college sole purpose of NIL. It affects nothing else that the universities are doing or want to do, it does not affect high schools, but that's part of the program now. That's what I'm saying that's part of the program, the athletic departments are essentially working to raise money to, to work for NIL. So, this would be a funding OK that but I just say they're not gonna be able to have a raffle. OK, no more questions. Representative Moore, you recognize for a question. Mr. Chair. Representative Wootten, I've heard you call it twice. I use the term twice, ill-gotten gain. Are you calling Raffles ill-gotten gains, I guess I am. Um How many universities have reached out and asked you to run this bill. Do what? How many universities have asked you to reach, have reached out to you and ask you to run this bill. None. And I've, I've talked to the University of Arkansas, and I've talked to the uh ASU people. ASU said No, they don't care, it doesn't bother them, and the University of Arkansas, I didn't get in touch with them till yesterday. And they are in, they're in the process, but I hadn't heard pro or con either way. But what again represent represents him more, what sparked my interest was the fact. That's the University of Arkansas said they did not want Casinos involved. And The bill that's been put forward. Follow up, Mr. Chair. One So under this legislation, even raffling off a duck call in order to support the foundation for NIL. You want to ban that. For student athletes. That's all that's involved. If they want to have a raffle, that's between them and. Representative To she recognized for her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, uh, and, and it may be, uh, for, for BLR, you know, I, there was a few sessions ago that I got interested in trying to pass legislation concerning a raffle for, uh, to do something here in the state of Arkansas for Saint Jude Hospital. And I was told at that time that uh that in the Constitution, uh, I couldn't run that bill that, uh, that was, it was, you know, prohibited from me doing that under the Constitution that, that was not a law, not allowed, uh, under, I can't remember, I guess it was Amendment 100 or whatever best I can recall. So I guess for, for just clarity, are, are we debating something that's, uh, that's prohibited under the Constitution. start with Representative Thomas, I, I'm not familiar with that you're not, and I'm just trying to think this is and I understand that and I wouldn't have been either if it hadn't been uh my attempt to run legislation to do a raffle for that, uh. Uh, for that hospital Representatives. Don't have an answer for that. Uh, I know we passed some legislation a number of years ago regarding raffles that I can't recall the, uh, the details of that, but I, I believe, uh, We have other members in the queue, so if we could move on, I, I can't answer that question, Mr. Chair. I just didn't want us debate an issue that's gonna end up being a mute point anyways, especially if it was prohibited. I'm just trying to say from time here, but if it's allowed, then I may have to go back and revisit uh what I attempted to do a couple of sessions ago, but I've just wanted some clarity on that. Thank you. Representative Ease, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Woo, I don't Totally disagree with you about NIL, but I think. That's having an effect that we may not all like in college athletics in general, but I think that horse has left the barn, so to speak. So in order for universities in Arkansas to compete with other universities, I think it's important that we have that, but my question really is more about a private university in my district if they wanted to have a raffle to help with their NIL since they don't have the giant big donors that some of these big universities have. This bill would prevent that, is that correct? Represent Clowney, you recognize her question Mr. Chair. Sorry, I'm back here higher percent of gluten. Thank you so much, um, I, I just wanted to clarify one thing. I think you started off the presentation by noting that part of the reason why you brought this bill was because the UVA was against Representative Hawke's bill that was previously filed as the state rep for the UFA, I've never heard that. Everybody I think has been in support of it. Can you just clarify, maybe I misunderstood what you meant, I did not say that. I mean, I didn't, if, if, if I did, I was wrong. I'm not saying that. I just, what I did say was that they were against the casinos being involved in any way. Not, not the university, but the presidents of the universities were against and so the bill was changed before it was introduced. Thank you. I'm sorry about that my interest in why would they not want it's so they don't want any relationship with gaming, I would assume. Thank you. So no other questions, uh, there's no one signed up to speak for or against this. Uh, is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against this bill. Uh, saying Nan represent Putin, would you like to close for your bill? I'd just like to say committee give this a chance to be voted on by the total house. Let's put it before, and this gets cleared up and the minds of, of the taxpayers of this state what we feel would be the right thing to do so far as, as uh uh student athletes being paid. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you committee members. What's the will of the committee? But Have a motion due pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say I opposed. Sorry, uh, Representative Boot, your bill's failed. Loud and clear. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you committee members. Representative Brown. Are you ready to present the House Bill 1173, I believe, uh, there's an amendment on this. I also, we have a fiscal. impact statement on our desk. We're gonna hand out the amendment if you want to identify yourself for the record, and then you can explain the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Matt Brown, District 55, and with the chair's indulgence, can I ask Mr. Steve Good to join me at the table, uh, Representative retail grocers, uh, retailers and grocers, certainly. Just in case I get into the weeds on to identify himself for the record. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, Steve Good, I represent the Arkansas retailers. We're addressing the amendment. We need to Deal with the amendment before we get into the crux of the bill. Yes, Mr. Chair, um, the amendment that's being passed out after we had the bill drafted, we, uh, heard from some industry folks and also heard from ABC board and the amendment will make some changes to the bill in terms of the definition of what is malt, malt beverage, and then beer. Um, the issue that has arisen is, uh, Most of our alcohol laws were started with Act 108 of 1935. It was done two years after prohibition and in the act they use some terms kind of interchangeably. There's beer, there's uh malt, uh, I think malt beverages in other parts of the act and there's also malt liquor. This amendment just clarifies that definition. And actually, I guess it goes to the substance of the bill, which is the 14% which I'll talk about later, but it just makes some technical clarification to that. Also, the other amendment, and this was from industry to tighten up our bill is under the original 1935 Act, um. Malt is or beer is defined as being brewed from malt or any substitute. We are changing that to malt substitute. The reason for that being is I think a clever lawyer could try to argue, since it says malt or substitute, I'm now substituting potatoes for malt. Well, we all know you're making vodka, but that's not the intent. It's still to be malt. So these two changes would just tighten up those definitions in the, in the bill. Thank you. Any, uh, questions, members? Have a motion to pass the, uh, amendment. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. I suppose nay, we've adopted your amendment. Now you may present the bill as amendment. Amended. So this is the alcohol bill, um, after 12:04 a few minutes ago, I think we could all use a good stiff drink. But, um, this bill, uh, I've always been told to say it's a little old bill, don't do nothing. Well, it does actually do something. The intent of this bill is to change the legal definition of beer to increase the ABW that's in the current cutoff in the holds a, a retail permit such as grocery store, things of that nature that can sell beer to be able to legally sell craft beers. Um, as I mentioned on the amendment, uh, our alcohol laws really all traced back to Act 108, 1935, so about 90, well 90 years ago on the dot, actually. And this again was 2 years after prohibition, and it set the legal definition of beer at that time to be anything with 5% ABW. And before I get too far out in the weeds, I would like to point out, I think we've all heard ABV, alcohol by volume, our code is based on ABW alcohol by weight. So it's just a, there's a conversion factor, uh, to change it, um, but so if I accidentally say ABV and that's what this bill has often been referred to. It's actually ABW. I just wanted to clarify that. And in fact, in doing some research in other states, their code is the same way. Maybe they didn't have alcohol by volume back in the 30s when they were setting these laws up. So anyways, this bill, uh, or back in the 1930s, we set beer at 5% ABW. Anything above 5% ABW was essentially considered to be liquor back then. Um, but since that time, uh, we've had things like, uh, our wine permits, you know, native wine, things of that nature, and the code now creates essentially a distinction in alcohol where from 0.5% ABW to 5% is legally considered to be and brewed from malt, which is grain, is considered to be beer. From 5% to 21% is considered to be a malt beverage, so like a malt liquor. And then anything above 21% is pretty much considered to be liquor regardless of where it comes from. Um In increasing the ABW of beer from 5% to 14%. The intent of the bill, like I said, is to cover craft beers. One thing that we did not have back in the 30s were craft beers, but in the past 1520 or so years or so, we have seen a huge, uh, blossoming, I guess for lack of a better word, of this industry. We have these all these local breweries making craft beers. But the issue is, is that mini craft beers usually come into that 6 to 9, maybe 10% ABW weight. Uh, they're just a little bit. Heavier beers. And so what that means is, is they cannot legally be sold as beer in Arkansas by someone with a beer permit, they have to be sold by a liquor store. Um, industry estimates that this probably affects about 1% of the market out there in terms of these craft beers are over this limit. And this bill, if approved would change the definition of beer from 0.5 to 14%. ABW Malt or malt beverage malt liquor would now be 14% to 21% ABW and then the 21% would take off just like it does right now. Um For people who may be concerned, I know alcohol bills are always tricky, but one thing that's important to point out in this bill is that 1, this is aimed for grocery stores, retailers, people of that nature, who already have beer and wine permits. Under the wine permit, they are legally able to sell wine-based products with alcohol up to 21%. So right now when you go into a grocery store on the left-hand aisle, you have your beer products, which are legally capped at 5. But on the right hand aisle you have your wine products which can go up to 21%. And one thing I did not realize is that as these more drinks are coming about, they have now invented different kinds of wine-based alcoholic ready to drink drinks, which can now be legally sold as wine in grocery stores, including something that some sort of a fruit punch concoction. That I kind of looked like a high C box, but with booze in it, I guess, up to 21% I think it's coming in at 12% or so ABW. So these are all perfectly legal to sell under current law, but we can't sell our craft beer that clocks in at 6, you know, 6% ABW 6, that'd be about 7.5% ABV I believe. Um So this law would essentially change that, uh, again, this is only 1% of the market out there. I don't see this being a huge impact really other than to give retailers more options. This is designed primarily to, to, uh, help our Arkansas brewers. So think of your North 40s, your Ozark brewing companies of that nature, making these craft beers. These aren't big national brands. These are local brands here in Arkansas. One thing I would also like to make clear is that this in no way touches any non malt-based beverages. So things like the seltzers that have gotten very popular on the market. This has not touched that. You still have to go to a liquor store, uh, your High noons, things of that nature, you're smirnoff ices, you know, vodka base, that's still all liquor stores. We're not gonna have that in the grocery stores. Um, I think I've covered everything in the bill, and with that, I'll be glad to attempt to answer any questions the committee might have. Representative Paul, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I, so I hear you on the, the craft beers and, and things like, and I guess I, I just don't, maybe I'm not a, a beer connoisseur like I thought I was, but like a shiner box that I see in every grocery store, that's, I've always considered that more of a craft beer type, type thing. Is that not what is considered in that craft beer content. If it clocks in under 5% ABW and it may be sold as beer, uh, and there are several cra like for example, when I was looking at North 40, just don't know what they have on their website. They had, I think it was 26 beers advertised that I could find their website. Of those 26 beers, 9 came in over the limit, and so they would not be legal to sell in a grocery store on a beer permit, but some of the others were and um. And another thing, uh, Like I said, because that ABV versus ABW, uh, and ABV of 5% ABW of 5% equals an ABV of 6.33%. And so that you'll see that's kind of the cutoff on those craft beers that you see in store 6.33. Thank you, sir. Representative Darby recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is more for Mr. Good, uh. When we're talking about grocery stores, big box stores, are we also talking about convenience stores. So this would bring that craft beer into the convenience store market also. Yes, ma'am. Those that have that permit that is the, the grocery store beer and wine permit. Yes, ma'am, they would be allowed to as well. OK. Does it exclude anybody? OK, thank you, ma'am. Represented McKenzie, you recognize her question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a quick question. So this is, it's germane but kind of, uh, is there a need for unification of our code language to go to ABV. Um, I think my personal thoughts on the matter is that having dug into the ABC regulations, and I want to make clear to the ABC regulations are very complex. I think I'm kind of spaghetti noodles, but that is not ABC's fault at all. That's because our statutes that they're having to rely upon are just a complete mess. Um, in fact, the 1935 act, the only reason I even knew about it was because I came across a 1939 court case where the Supreme Court was trying to figure out what the heck the leg the legislature did back then because the differing definitions. Uh, I think it would make sense to convert everything to ABV, but since our statutes are ABW, I think there would be some unintentional things break if we did that. I think it would probably take an effort to essentially sit down and recodify all of the alcohol laws, you know, one fell swoop, which was probably a giant undertaking. Um, I would point out that doing my research, the ABW does actually appear to be very common though in other states, so it seems like kind of all of us are in the same box. I follow up, please. Uh, how many, uh, how many retailers, how many different permits or licenses exist that this, if this were to go into effect, would it go into? How many doors, uh, how many chains? Do you have an estimate? Um, Uh It would be an estimate, so let me make that clear. uh, potentially what you're looking at is, uh, you know, anybody that's a supermarket, uh, a supercenter type store, uh, to Representative Day's Point, convenience stores would also be allowed, uh, and then just your local mom and pop grocery stores. So if they have a a a grocery store beer permit retail off-premises beer permit, this would allow them to sell, uh, you know, uh, think of it as Walmart, Harps, Kroger, Edwards, uh, uh. On those lines and then the Cors your circle K's, your big reds, um, double B's, any of those that are in wet counties rough number. I, I, no, sir, I'm sorry. That's fine. I appreciate it sir. Representative Brown, I don't see any other questions. Is there anything you'd like to add before I go to those that have signed up to speak for and against this. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One thing I would add that I forgot to mention was that our current level of 5% on ABW is, we are tied with Utah with the second lowest in the country, uh, other states have raised theirs, all of our surrounding states have raised theirs as well, such that we're in a situation where it's legal to buy a Lost 40 crossed the line in Oklahoma, but then you crossed the line in Arkansas and it's no longer legal to buy in the grocery store. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, the first, uh, person signed up to speak against this bill is Theresa Ballew. If you could come to the table and identify yourself and who you're with. You recognize. To proceed. Good afternoon all. My name is Teresa Ballou. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about, uh, this beer bill today. You know, could you get a little closer to the mic, please? Yes, thank you. We have seen unrelenting growth in alcohol consumption and a lot of it is funded by these new beverage types that had the um high ABW. Rates and also um have these ready to drink cocktails. I, I, I think you all have a handout in front of you. Y'all, I went to 6 different liquor stores, uh, to research all this and as, um, working with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other injury and alcohol related, um, Organizations I had to park 3 parking lots away because my car says mad on the back of it. And I really got an education about how these higher BAC or I'm sorry, these high alcohol, um, Beverages look, if, and I, I do have, I, I actually did buy some cans to bring and show you my concerns, but I'm not able to use those and so I'd like for you to look at the handout that you were given, and just kind of show you how dramatic. Um, the differences are just, um, when you look at these cans, and I think everybody's probably familiar with Budweiser. I have a ruler there, just a regular 12 ounce can of Budweiser is one serving with the 5% weight of alcohol. The 25 ounce can, of course, is 2. I know, um, Captain Tosh is over here from state police, and I'm in and out of courts a lot, and the answer to most people who've been arrested when, when you ask them the question, how many did you have was a couple. And you can pretty much count on that, and if you turn the page there you'll see that the large Budweiser, too small, equals the large, and that's 2 servings, um, and then we have this, um, 10% alcohol weight that I found called snake party, and that 112 ounce can that is exactly the same size as the Budweiser small can. Is 10% and so you're getting a double shot of alcohol. You can hold those next to each other and they are identical. Budweiser, if you look on the next page, the 25 ounce can with the 2 servings, snake party has 10% in one serving, so those are actually very comparable. There's just a few more to show you. Snake party comes in a 4 pack with 12 ounce cans, 10 ounce, 10% alcohol in 4 servings compared to a 6 pack of Budweiser. And as as we look just a couple of more, we have the snake party with 12 ounces and 10 ounce of alcohol in the serving compared to the Budweiser with just 5. Founders all day is 19.7 ounces. With 4.7 alcohol. It's less than one can of Budweiser, and it's on the left, but the voodoo ranger. It's 9.5%, same size. And if you could see these cans, you would see I had to take my glasses off and look real close, even the people that worked at these liquor stores had to help me figure out what was 10%, what was these other rates. I think that the point, you know, to to make here is this, we have um. An advertising problem with it to educate our public about, first of all, the dangers of conceiving, consuming a couple, but consuming a couple that is double what they're used to consuming and consuming it very quickly can lead to as much as a 0.08 BAC very, very quickly. Um, it really becomes a binge drink in a can. Several regular servings are in these drinks. Um, I think that. We need to consider our young people, how many of them are beginning to consume alcohol and particularly young women like the flavored drinks. This is, um, something that. As someone who's worked for. 30 years in the field, um, and still do. I go to court, I manage the Arkansas impaired drivinging Prevention Task Force. I go, um, and meet the nicest people I wish I'd never met. Because they made. Someone made the mistake to overconsume. I believe that these are dangerous products for us at this time. I believe that, um, our young people are being drawn into this. The last page on your handout is a survey of 50,000 of our students. And if you will look at that, they are telling us that their first consumption of alcohol is at age 12. And if you will look further, they are getting their alcohol at home and from adults that they know, these are unsupervised by shopkeepers. They're put in beer fridges out in the garage. These things are barely, barely labeled. And I think that providing a binge drink in one can to our young people and having them either get out on the road or or engage in risky behavior is something that we really can live without. And I'd be happy to entertain any questions. Saying no questions, uh, thank you for your testimony. And I could show you my beer cans out in the parking lot. The next individual signed up to speak against this bill is Larry Payne, Page. If you will identify yourself and who you're with, you recognize. Larry Page with the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council, um, always pleased to come into rules and fall on my sword, so thank you for having me and I know it's been a long day, please indulge me. I'll try to be as, as brief as I, as I can. You know, why was our limit set at 5% and, and why is it remained? At 5% there have been 3 attempts to change that, and it hasn't been changed, so maybe there's a good reason. That it has not been changed and why is cold beer sold in convenience stores. Convenience, right? Yeah, well, it's pretty convenient for Billy Bob to stop in a quick stop, picks up a six pack for his drive home, he kicks back 2 or 3 beers. And uh The 2 or 3 beers at 5 ABW maybe give him a good bus. What do you think 2 or 3 beers at 14%. Would do to Billy Bob. It might result in the DWI or a vehicular homicide and please keep in mind one quick fact about ABW and ABV ABW beers are alcohol by weight, alcohol is lighter than water, and water is the main component in beer, so our 5% ABW if we use the ABV standard that most states do would be 6.25%. So it's higher than you might think that it is. And at 14%, If it's raised to that or ABV would be 17.5%. That is extremely strong, uh, and large alcohol, uh, content. Now, several sessions back, the grocery stores came into this body and they were upset because they couldn't sell high-end wine. They can only sell wine that was uh uh produced in small cap wineries like Whittaker here in Arkansas, and they said, look, if, if, if, if you'll grant us the right to sell high end wine. We won't be back. We'll not seek to expand the array of alcoholic beverages that we sell. This is all we want. Well, they're back. For the 3rd time. And they just didn't keep their word, did they? And so we need to ask ourselves why. They should be granted that. Now, I, I hear them say we just want to be able to compete. With liquor stores, with stores in other states that have a higher alcohol content. We just want a level playing field. Well, that might make sense if there weren't so many compelling reasons not to do it, and there are compelling reasons and that's why again, they've been rejected on 3 occasions. Look, grocery and convenience stores are different than the liquor stores. There's no, nothing that says they should offer the same products as the liquor stores. Liquor stores don't sell eggs and flour. In Ma And they're different and it's OK to be different and in this case, the difference is probably good. And who says we have to follow the leads of other states just because others do it doesn't necessarily make it right. I'm gonna, I'm gonna close because I know it's again it's been a long day, but listen, obviously the impetus for this bill, uh, involves the economic interests. And when alcohol is at issue, there really needs to be a cost-benefit analysis done is a threefold near a threefold increase in alcohol justified here and the downsides that occur and there will be those who bears the cost of those, not those selling the beer. They won't, it's the citizens of Arkansas, uh, that will bear that cost. Some thoughts should be given to that. Look, the, the 5% limit was right back then. It's right now. There's nothing broken that raising the alcohol content nearly threefold is gonna fix. How can there be justification for that. Perhaps we should leave well enough alone. And perhaps we should make the stores keep their word that they made to this body. Thank you. I'll be glad to take any questions. Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Chair So, who do you represent? Arkansas faith and ethics council. Since 1991. We were founded in 1899 as the anti-Saloon League of Arkansas. OK, that's my answer. Thank you. So no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. And I wasn't the original director. Next on the sheet is Bill Pascal. Come and identify yourself. And who you're with, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bill Pascal. Today I'm here representing the United Beverage Retailers of Arkansas, um, our organization has about 70 members scattered across the state we're independent retail, uh, liquor store owners. Um, I guess that I see many of you that have been on this committee, uh, for a number of years. So, um, I say, here we go again, as, uh, some of you know, we had a similar bill, uh, to this one in 2021, uh, which was unsuccessful and again in 2023, which was unsuccessful, and today we come back, uh, with a bill that goes, uh, from 5% to 14%, which is, uh, higher than the uh bills were the last two sessions. Uh, but to my knowledge, the, the retail liquor landscape has not changed dramatically in those years. There are a few new, uh, products that are out there, um, but the industry has not changed, uh, uh, dramatically in those days as, uh, in those few years as, as Mr. Page mentioned, um, Retail liquor stores, uh, can only sell a few products are really just sell one, alcohol. We can sell some cigarettes and some, uh, cokes, but we cannot sell tires or gas or diapers or groceries. So the only thing we have to bring people into our stores or alcohol products. Um, and exclusivity matters to us. It's how we get some folks in the doors is we have products that other people cannot offer. Um, and this is one, and it's very important to our industry, uh, to main maintain exclusivity so that we can get those consumers to walk in the door, um, as some of you recall, we had a nasty fight in 2017 over, uh, wine and grocery. Um, we lost the right at that point in time, uh, to exclusively sell fine wine. And that was a big hit. It cost, uh, my retail liquor. stores, especially those in, um, more urban areas. It cost them big. I mean, it was a 10 to 12% hit, um, this bill will not be as big. I won't. Uh, maintain that today, but it will hurt and it will have an impact on these folks. So. We ask you that, uh, um, you know, you, you think about that again, or we had a decision point now where it makes sense for us to jump from 5 to 14. Um, I say no. Uh, and the other thing I want you to, to think about is who, who do you want to stand for today? Do you want to stand for that independent local. Retailer in your neighborhood, or do you want to stand for the big national beer brands and the corporate, uh, grocery stores. And I ask you to stand and vote locally today and reject this bill. Thank you. Represent you recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd just like to answer your question. I appreciate you being here before this committee, but you asked the question, who you're gonna stand for and uh I just couldn't help but think that, you know, at some point, we, we need to stand for those that have been victims of drunk drivers for those that, uh, They, they can't stand for themselves because somebody got behind the wheel of a car, had too much to drink, and, and I can just see this happening, uh, like. Uh, Ms. Blue said a while ago, this takes on a whole new meaning of when you ask someone how much they've had to drink when they say two beers, that's usually the answer I've heard thousands of times, but, but I'm just trying to answer your question. We do need to, to stand for those folks and it's been devastating and, and, you know, I'm not trying to give us, uh, I guess I need to be asking a question, but I've witnessed all that. I know the devastation of what drunk drivers do. I know the impact it's had on innocent families and so to answer your question, don't you, I guess I asked you a question, don't you think we need to be standing up for them as well. Yes, sir, and this bill makes that product more uh accessible to young folks and, and, and others when you put it in convenience stores and grocery stores. Right now it's sold only in liquor stores, which are, you're, you're gonna see fewer kids in a liquor store than you do see in in a store or a grocery store. Representative Hawke, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mr. Pascal, I, when you say do, who, who do we want to support, you know, um, we're talking about craft beers so. There's a lot of craft beers in Arkansas that are local, right? Do you know the number of how many of those there are in the state of Arkansas, uh, specifically the state, no, but they're probably in the neighborhood of. 70 to 100 skews of high alcohol content beer, which is what we're talking about today, because I'm with you. I understand what you're saying and the fact that I, I want to support local. I've said that. I mean, I think we all have said before we want to kick China out of the, out of Arkansas, and we want to support local and all this other stuff. I want to support local, but I also when I look at this, I, I, I also want to support the, the local breweries and, and, and people of that nature as well. So that's, that's the decision when you, when you make that, that mention, I want to make sure that we're supporting all local in in this situation. Thank you. And, and, and to your question, I guess there are, um, a number of skews, uh, from craft beers in Arkansas, uh, craft beers take in, uh, below 5%. So everything's 6.3 and below, it can still be a craft beer. And if you all have been in liquor stores, grocery stores, you see all the, the lost 40 products and all the others. There's, there's, you know, a whole shelf spaces full of, uh, craft beers that are being sold. Arkansas in the grocery store now. Representative McKenzie, you recognize for a question. I just want to make a note, uh, a point that'll lead into a question, Mr. Pascal. You made mention about the 2 years where we had similar legislation that failed that your clients had hadn't seen much innovation in this, in the space of spirit of beverages. Do you know offhand you 70 clients or so. I don't expect a full answer. How many of your clients sell alcohol-infused delta 9, delta 8, THC or hemp, alcohol or non-alcohol based products. Actually don't know. I, we haven't survey surveyed them Reason to believe or reason to say is that that that is an innovation and one that I think this body or some iteration of this body is going to resolve this year, make some opinion on it or legislate to that effect. That's a massive innovation. So, uh, uh, you know, I understand let's let's shop local and our representative Hawks Point breweries are local. Who do we support? I mean, at the end of the day, the, the, the seal is off the lid in terms of alcohol laws in the state of Arkansas. We want to support consumers and their choices, um, I mean, this is an increase of points distribution and to the previous testimony, we have to be responsible. Everyone that owns the store, everyone that is at a point of sale, they have to be responsible and who they sell to and how they sell to them, but I, I hope. That we're we're trying to make the choice, the best choice for our consumers, all 30,000 of our constituents that we represent and the choices responsible choices they make at home or wherever they may be. So, uh, wouldn't you agree? To your question, uh, remind the body that, uh, this General Assembly actually passed a bill last session to ban those products, um, and now it's in federal court and hung up in federal court, and we have one member here that was quite active on that bill, so, um. I, I can't answer how many of my stores are, are, are selling that, but it's a gray area. So no other questions. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, sir. Thanks, committee. Next on the list is John Kelly. You'll come to the table and identify yourself and your re and who you're with and you're recognized. Thank you, sir. My name is John Kelly. I am an owner of a local liquor store in Saline County. Um, let me address something that came up just a minute ago to your question, Representative Hawk. You know, I, I just sit in the chamber listening to the, the folks talk about what the ramifications of these bills are and fully understanding them. One of the things that Bill, uh, and I have talked about is. When you give more power. 2 Convenience stores and grocery stores that are national chains. You're giving them power. And those the store across the street from my my store Circle K is owned by a Canadian company. Most of the time, those grocery stores and big chains are looking for national brands with big, big known names. And so an indirect. Speaking of the selling of local breweries because believe me, if you've been in my store and you look at what's the lineup is we really highlight local brands. Now, the question is, if you give more power to a convenience store or grocery store. Are they going to continue, are they going to focus on local brands. I don't think so. Uh If you come into my store, there's lots of local brands. I want to continue to do that. But if I'm, if I'm being hurt, And, and I am being hurt. Bill spoke to the wine thing. There's a lot going on with this whole liquor industry. There's a lot, lot more to all of it than perhaps y'all are aware. And when you give a slight advantage, you hurt local stores. And I, I think that needs to really be considered because the end game is, is that they begin to focus on national brands and, and move away from. I mean, who I think we should be supporting local and as a local person. And in this community, I support the people that lost 40. I have family that worked there. So I'm committed to doing, to doing that. I just hope that you will keep that in mind, um, there's a whole lot I have to say about this. I'd be glad to share with you all individually, but I know it's been a long day, it certainly has been for me listening to all the things that have been going on, but I want to just say very cleanly and precisely. I think two things. I have a 17 year old son who's a, a junior at Catholic High. And when he came home from being invited to a party, we started talking to him. And he told me, I asked him. Were their parents what was going on? Well, a lot of drinking. Oh, did the parents provide the alcohol? Said no, they didn't provide the alcohol. I said, well, where do your friends get their beer from? He said, I didn't ask the question. I didn't tell him where it was. I didn't converse with him about this, but it's from convenience stores. If you go into the circle K across the street, you walk up, you put a beer down, a a beer down and you scan a license. Uh, anybody that looks close to being underage, we look them and get their license and look at their license. So I think it's a, it's a critical safety issue. And it certainly, it hurts my small business that is Arkansas grown and where all the revenues go to people that live in Arkansas and employed by in, in, in the employees all live in Arkansas and I really hope that you'll. Dig deep before you make these decisions. Saying no questions. Thank you for your testimony. Uh. There's no one else signed up on this sheet to speak for or against this bill. Is there anyone in the audience? Representative Brown. Would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, colleagues, I think that Representative Hawk hit the nail on the head. The intent of this bill is to help out our local folks, our fo, our local brewers of these craft beers, our local retailers, you know, this bill is designed to help like say your Edward's food giants on a wet county that has a beer permit. Your harp's grocery stores, you know, centered right here in Springdale. Uh, I'd like to address a few things that were mentioned during the discussion. Number one, there was some discussion about ready to drink. I want to make it clear to the committee that this bill in no way, shape, or form touches ready to drink, which is defined as those drinks that are based off of spirits. So I think it's gonna be more like you're smearing off ices, your hard seltzers, your mic's hard lemonades, things of that nature. This bill doesn't touch that. Number 2, there was a comment made that, well, this bill's been brought 3 times before and was killed. I'd point out that this bill was filed last session. It was pulled to work on it. And, uh, the, the time before that it, that it was killed and the time that it was pulled, the reason for that was because it did include some ready to drink, which has now been eliminated from the bill. So there's actually a new bill limited only to beer itself. Nothing to do with actual spiritous liquors. And finally, there was some mention made about the Circle K and big companies owned by out of state or out of country outfits and they're the ones selling this. I would point out to you that yes, if they have a beer permit and it's owned by someone, yes, they can sell beer, but who's that beer being bought from? Wholesalers are based right here in the state of Arkansas. You can't buy the beer from outside the state, so you're buying it from Arkansas wholesalers, being brewed by Arkansas brewers. Uh, with that, I'd appreciate a good vote. What's the will of the community of the committee. I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? Representative Tosh, you recognized for discussion on the motion. And we're, we're have a due pass as amended. Correct? OK. Representative Tosh, you're you're recognized. OK. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. And I understand there been a lot of testimony here today about, uh, who's gonna, who's gonna have power, who's not gonna have power, who's gonna reap the benefits of this who's not, and, and all that's fine and well, I mean, but, but I tell you what concerns me is who's got lost in this conversation today, and that's the people that's affected out here by those that uh Or driving while under the influence of alcohol. And, and that's why I have to oppose this bill for an example, right now, under the way it's set up now that, uh, 4 cans of beer for an average individual of about 180 pounds, uh, that would probably put them at right at the point of 0.8, which is the, uh, level for DWI, uh, under this proposal here, a can and a half or a can. And a 4th, whatever that figures out to be, that puts them at DWI and you know as well as I do, people that get a stop at a store, and they get a, a couple of beers or a six-pack of beer and if they open that 2nd 1, uh, you know, it's got 14% in it, uh, they're not gonna stop when they're halfway through it they're gonna continue to drink that until it's all gone. That's just the nature of it. That's just what people, that's what we, what people do. So, you know, speaking up for those that are victims of these fatality accidents out here, those have been injured, those that have been, uh, crippled for life because someone uh consumed too much alcohol and got behind the wheel of a car, uh, I'll be voting no for them. Thank you. Seeing no other discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Eyes have it built. It's passed. As amended. Representative Wang, are you, are you ready to run, uh, SCR one please identify yourself and you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carlton Wing, Representative District 70, North Little Rock and Sherwood. This is just, uh, SCR one is the joint rules of the ninety-fifth General Assembly. Uh, it's a 21 page, uh, rule sheet. We've just made 5 changes, none of them are very major. I'll just kind of very quickly go through them if you have any questions, uh, one regarding non-procedural resolutions in a special session. Uh, the next one clarifies the bill filing deadline for EBD bills. There's uh EBD bills that do have a bill filing deadline, other bills that were regarding health, medical plans that do not, and so it's just clarifying which do and which don't. Uh, we've got some clerical efficiency as far as strike through language, uh, just to make it easier, um, on the uh drafting. Uh, let's see, we've got, um, interim committees, uh, if we are in recess for more than 30 days, they can conduct normal business. And then the last one regards fiscal impact statements for state and public school life and health insurance programs, uh, they've got language that already exists, so this is bringing it into compliance with existing code. Those are the 5 differences. The rest of the 21 pages are exactly as before. Seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? I have a motion to pass any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, Representative Way. Thank you. I've enjoyed. Uh, committee, seeing no other