House Rules Committee
January 28, 2025
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:00:02] Members, just so you know what we're going to be hearing today, we're not going to hear HB 1192 by Representative Pilkington. But we will be hearing the other four. Is Representative Wooten here? Okay. Representative Meeks, are you ready to run HR 1007. Okay. If you'll come to the table and identify yourself for the record. You're recognized.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:00:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, colleagues. So, as the senior member of the Arkansas House of Representatives for the last 12 years, by tradition, it's been my honor to be able to do the adjourned resolution for you every day. As part of that motion, I have to list out nine items that must be allowed to continue following the gavel for the business of the House to be able to continue.
And 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 nine items every day. Does every legislative body across the country list out those nine items like we do every single day? And so I had this house rule drafted. And what this House rule will do is it will simplify the adjourn motion so that going forward, the new adjourn motion, and Mr. Parliamentarian, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but the new adjourn 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 he won't have to endure having to learn all nine of those items. 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, 'In accordance with House Rule 33m, 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 that's my proposed house rule and I'd be happy to entertain any questions.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:02:35] Representative McKenzie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:02:45] You have to hit the button up there, Mr. Chairman, on your page. Go to the discussion tab. I had to do this about two hours ago.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:02:52] Got it.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:02:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative Meeks. I don't mean this to be tongue in cheek, but has there been an instance where we don't use the preamble that you use? I mean, how long in your history have we done the long listing of?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:03:09] As far as I know, we've done it all throughout the history. I've done that. And when I came in as a freshman, that was the script that was used. And so I don't know when that was started that we had to list all nine items out. But for my duration, it's always been those nine items.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:03:33] 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. From the Parliamentarian's perspective, does this protect the institution? Does this honor the institution? Similar to how rules changes in the past have come up and ebbed and flowed?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:03:57] You're recognized.
John Vines [00:03:58] I have only had preliminary basic conversation with Representative Meeks. It's what you touched on. It's been a custom and practice. I don't know and I probably am not the person-- I need to dig further how long that's been. But for as long as I've been here and as long as Representative Meeks has been here, that's been the custom and practice.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:04:16] Yeah, I'm for it. I appreciate it. I just wanted to make sure.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:04:20] 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 adjourn motion.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:04:32] Representative Dalby. Well.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:04:41] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Meeks, just one question that peaked in 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? You may be able to do that now. So if you can walk me through that process.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:05:11] Right. I get where you're going.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:05:13] See what I'm getting at on this question?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:05:15] Sure. Yeah. So when I 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 that might be needed for something like that to happen. And the parliamentarian can maybe opine further, but, we get to like the, not the last day of session, but the day before that, there are some things that we technically could leave out of that list because 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. I just wanted to leave that flexibility so that in case there was a need, that that flexibility would be there. I don't know that there would be. I'd just, out of an abundance of caution, allow that flexibility.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:06:11] Okay. Thank you. And I guess my question, just to drill down just a little bit, who makes the determination that something can be left off? Is that when the speaker says we're going to do this? I don't want-- not that you would do it-- but let's say Representative Cozart decides he's going to make these exceptions or whoever. I'm just curious.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:06:42] I mean, so technically, generally speaking, it's just going to be in accordance with the House Rule 33m, I move we adjourn until X, Y or Z. Right. If I wanted to add a modifier, we'll call it, either for or against, that is allowed in the rule as it's proposed. As far as who does that, as a person making the motion, I could just do it on my own. And I will admit there's been a time or two I did leave something out just by accident. But I did leave something out.
Generally speaking, what happens is 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 under normal circumstances, if I'm doing the adjourn motion, I'm going to do that default script unless recommended by either the parliamentarian or the speaker. And of course, I mean, theoretically, any of you could jump up any time, get the speaker's attention and make the adjourn motion.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:08:01] Represented Magie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Steve Magie [00:08:04] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This may be more of a comment than a question. Representative Meeks, as a member who came in after you, I want everyone and I think for the entire House that we really enjoy your motion that you make every day.
Representative Steve Magie [00:08:23] Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. 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.
Representative Steve Magie [00:08:37] Good. Thank you. Thank you for your indulgence.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:09:03] Who's in charge of technology? Representative Eaves, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Les Eaves [00:09:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is my mic still on? You've been doing this for a long time, so don't you want to go out with a bang and keep doing them? Why now? Because I think Representative Cozart might be the next guy up and that's going to take like 10 or 15 minutes.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:09:30] Right. Exactly. Exactly. And I love you all too much to leave that like that. So I've actually have been contemplating this for a couple of years now. At the end of the 23 session, I did approach the parliamentarian and the Rules Committee about doing it. Then 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 it could be done and that, of course, it was done correctly.
Representative Les Eaves [00:10:06] And you just wanted to do it to shorten the whole thing up a little bit?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:10:10] Just to make things more efficient for is.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:10:16] Any other questions? I don't see anyone signed up to speak for or against this bill, this resolution. Representative Meeks, would you like to close?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:10:29] Yeah. Colleagues, thank you for your time. Again, this is just an opportunity to 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 gets to be real time. So with that, I'd appreciate a favorable vote.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:10:48] What's the will of the Committee? I have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor. Representative Moore, you're recognized.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:11:08] I just want to say from the bottom of my heart, and having sat in front of you directly for the past couple of years, it has been an honor to listen to you adjourn every session. And while I made the motion do pass, I will miss your original motion.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:11:32] All right, members, we have a motion to pass. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. Ayes have it. Congratulations.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:11:43] I'm taking note of everybody who said no, and I'm going to make them do it. But thank you, Committee.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:11:48] All right, members, without objection, we're going to let Representative Meeks present his other resolution.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:11:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee. The next resolution, the next House rule I'm proposing is actually a little bit of a weightier matter. As a former member of the military, this is something that, unfortunately, in today's day and age is something come to concern me. For me, the most scariest day of session is the day we hold the state of the state address, because on that morning we have the entire General Assembly 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. Every one of us in the General Assembly, we are in the line of succession. 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 provision for that. Just by happenstance, you may remember when we had the State of the State address this year, Representative Wooten 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. That designated survivor will be in the top third of the membership as far as seniority. The reason why I did the top third 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. I think we all could understand that's not a position for a freshman to be stuck in.
So once the speaker designates who that person is, the speaker will contact the Department of Emergency Management and let them know who that designated survivor is so that in the event they are called on to step up to be our acting governor, that they know who that designated person is. Upon that activation, that person would become the acting speaker of the House. So in essence, the speaker would be choosing their successor in the event that this becomes necessary. The reason why that is required is under current Arkansas law, in the line of succession 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 that designate. It says that one hour prior to that meeting, this person will leave the Capitol. They will be at least five miles away. They can't be at home. So this is not an excuse to stay at home on that day. But they have to be at least five 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.
The member will be counted as present for purposes of quorum and for per diem. So as I said, God forbid we ever really need this, but given the times that we live in, I think it is prudent for us to be prepared that should such an eventuality happen, that the citizens of the state still have someone who can lead them through the crisis. And with that, I'll be happy to try to answer any questions you might have.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:16:04] Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:16:06] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First off, Representative Meeks, the TV show was awesome. I love it. But with that being said, are there any other states that do this? I mean, when I saw it on TV, I was like, well, it sounds like a good idea, but is it practical? I mean, does anybody else in the country do something like this?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:16:24] The federal government does do it.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:16:27] Well, I knew that. But state wise.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:16:28] As far as any other states, I've not researched that. So unfortunately, I can't answer one way or the other. And I don't want to belittle the question 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, again, I think it's prudent that we've got plans in place.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:16:58] Thank you, sir.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:16:59] Because 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 Jon Eubanks [00:17:19] Representing McKenzie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:17:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's my understanding that the next in line of succession after the governor, lieutenant governor is the Senate pro tem. So why is, respectfully, why is this not their problem?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:17:32] Sure. I would be all for them doing something similar, but of course, I can't dictate what goes on in that part of the building. So all we can do is on the House. And maybe as an answer to that, should the Senate have a designated survivor, which I would. I would support that as well and we were just left with one House member, I think it would be beneficial for us to have at least one House member survive. So that way, as you have a 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 of this works to be able to guide that new generation of replacements to come in and take up their duties.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:18:27] Follow up.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:18:28] You're recognized.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:18:29] Just a little bit of concern, because let's just say, for instance, a Representative Wooten on the Senate side misses the state of the state. I also missed the state of the state.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:18:37] Right. Okay. So yeah. So you would have been one of those survivors. Yeah.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:18:40] But if this doomsday scenario happens, that accidental non-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. Would you agree that that might create some kind of a constitutional crisis? Because we basically have two members.
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:19:05] Oh, no, no. Just to clarify a couple things. I don't know how constitutionally, if that member would automatically become the pro tem because I don't know if you only have one surviving senator, if they could elect themselves as the pro tem or if they would just by default become the pro tem. Yeah. But I don't know if that would constitute a quorum.
But regardless, 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 if there was a senator and in your scenario, say, if Senator Dotson was absent that day and he was the lone surviving senator and he became the pro tem, 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, but they would be responsible for helping to rebuild our institution in our legislative body.
So you'd have somebody to do that. And I'm trying to remember this because I actually passed legislation years ago to extend the line of succession to include the auditor and the land commissioner. But I think the pro tem, as I recall, they can serve as the acting governor, but they cannot be the actual governor. And so whoever that acting governor 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 pro tem is I think how that would play out constitutionally. 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 part of the legislature and, you know, like I said, if they were the only person that we do at least have somebody in place in the event that this scenario plays out.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:21:09] Representative Meeks, I have a question. If there happens to be 3 or 4 members absent, does your rule change stipulate that it's the senior member?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:21:22] No, so that the way the rule is laid out is whoever the speaker designates as that survivor, they would automatically ascend to the speakership. So, for example--.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:21:33] And it states that?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:21:34] Yeah, it states that. So for example if Speaker Evans designated you as the designated survivor and both of us were out that day, even though I'm the senior member you would take over as acting governor because by this rule you would be the new speaker of the House.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:21:52] Okay. Thank you. I don't see anyone signed up to speak for or against this. Would you like to close, Representative Meeks?
Representative Stephen Meeks [00:22:00] Yeah, I'll just make one or two closing remarks. First off, I did run this past our sergeant at arms, make sure he looked at it and didn't see anything. He did recommend one small tweak, which I did include in the bill. Again, like I said, I pray to God that this is never, never necessary. But out of abundance of caution and prudence for the citizens of our state should the unthinkable happen, I think it is contingent upon us to make sure we have plans in place to make sure we have some continuity of government in the event that does occur. So with that, I appreciate your time this afternoon and would ask for a good vote.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:22:44] What's the will of the committee? We have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor, say aye? Opposed. You have passed your resolution. Representative Wooten, are you ready? All right. If you would 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.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:23:34] Jim Wooten, House Representative, District 59. Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late. I got caught. I let time get ahead of me. Committee, I thank you for the opportunity to present this bill this afternoon. And let me give you a little background. The reason that I introduced the bill was because of the fact there's been a bill introduced to permit a raffle at the universities throughout the state.
But what really struck me as 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 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 have control of it. But what even enticed me more to respond 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 they also have budgeted $20 million for NIL.
I want to be very, very frank with you and straightforward. NIL 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 Notre Dame University, and I like Notre Dame. But he made $1 million last year. And there are colleagues of mine that are willing and wanting to move this down, the NIL part of it, move it down to the high school level.
What you will wind up with, you will wind up with students making more than high school coaches because most of them make around-- most of them, the highest paid ones are somewhere between $110,000 to $120,000 a year. So this has all come together. But the foundation has made it to where so many people can not afford to attend and go. And not only that, but tickets cost $90 for the Texas ballgame this year. $90. A family of four was almost $400 for them to be able to go.
And then they have to sit up in the upper level because the lower level is controlled by those that give more money in order to buy their season tickets so that they can have better seats. And then the premium people that pay the premium 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 and whether 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 State is the same way. The same thing is true for Southern State University, for Monticello. And then stop and think for just a moment. What's next? Are we going to put slot machines in the corners 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 NIL and the transfer portal are 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. And then not only that, but you got to look at the total picture. When any state can pay a football coach $6, $7, $8 million a year and only pay teachers a halfway decent wage, something's wrong somewhere. And I'm all about public education, as each one of you know. But that's not right. We pay them five times, six times more than we pay the president of the University of Arkansas. So something's wrong with this. Then I probably 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 the subtitle reads to amend the charitable bingo rifle enabling act and to prohibit raffles to provide funding for student athletes under the Arkansas student athletes publicity rights. It's a paragraph, one paragraph. It's a simple statement of fact.
And I urge you to look at the total picture of where we are today with a price of $90 to attend one football game. One ticket, $90. And then I challenge you to look at some of the actions that are being taken now. The foundation, 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 $1 million a year or $400,000 or $300,000. So that's the reason and the purpose for my bill. Well, thank you for your time, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:30:55] Representative Hawk. Representative McKenzie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:31:00] Thank you. Mr. Chair. So Representative Wooten, I agree that there's a myriad of options out there to resolve the deficiency in NIL funding. How will this bill help $90 tickets? How will this bill help the charitable contribution minimums for seats at athletic initiatives? In my estimation, and wouldn't you agree, this hurts the University of Arkansas? This hurts ASU. This hurts Southern Arkansas. 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.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:31:46] If we have the resort-- and this is against the lottery, too. But if we have to resort to ill gotten gains in this state to be able to support our athletic program, then I say we don't need it. And the raffle money is not going to support the university. It's going to support the football team and the foundation to be able to pay the student athletes. And it's not going to benefit the university. If it was, then maybe they would have wanted the casinos involved in it because it might bring in more money.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:32:31] Thank you. Representative McAlindon, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Mindy McAlindon [00:32:36] Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Representative. 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're allowing 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 in order to help their favorite college team, why is that a negative?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:33:05] The university has nothing to do with this. This is all through the foundation. They're not paying any money of the state's taxpayers money. It's not involved in the NIL. It's the foundation. Do you think the foundation benefits the University of Arkansas when there are charging people who have 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. And then we turn around and put a paragraph in his contract that says, we're going to pay you $17 million to leave when we get ready to get rid of you. That's not right. You know, I don't think you need to get paid to leave a job. If you stop doing the job, fire him. But then you got the coach down at Texas A&M last year, just two years ago, he got 90 million. So you see where we're headed.
Representative Mindy McAlindon [00:34:21] Can I ask a follow up, Chairman?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:34:25] You're recognized.
Representative Mindy McAlindon [00:34:27] So. But I guess I go back to the original question of how does stopping this raffle prevent us from paying $70 million for a coach to leave?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:34:38] It doesn't. But it sure keeps them from doing the raffle and bombarding people who are paying hard earned money to go to a football game and then to be hit up for a raffle.
Representative Mindy McAlindon [00:34:53] Okay. Thank you.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:34:54] A lot of people disagree with this.
Representative Mindy McAlindon [00:34:57] I got it. Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:35:07] You're recognized. What's your point? [Off-mic] Yes. Representative Hawk.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:35:16] Representative Wooten, you are a legendary football coach in this state. You've done high school football. How many fundraisers did you do when you were a football coach?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:35:27] We did a lot and I raise $25,000 a year currently for the Beebe Badger football team. But it's not illegal. It's not ill gotten gain. And I'm not a promoter.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:35:42] But 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-- just a second. You said that you do not want a raffle. A raffle is a fundraising mechanism. High schools in Arkansas are doing it right now. As long as there's a 501c3 attached to it, the limit on a raffle right now is $5,000. And so what we're saying from this bill is if we eliminate and we do not allow our higher education universities to not allow for a raffle, then we do not support their fundraising efforts. True or false?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:36:30] No, that's false.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:36:33] Well, that's what the bill says.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:36:35] No, the bill says 'student athletes.'
Representative RJ Hawk [00:36:41] To run a raffle because NIL is now part of college--
Representative Jim Wooten [00:36:44] It says student raffles for the sole purpose of NIL. It affects nothing else that universities are doing or want to do. It does not affect high schools.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:36:54] 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 work for NIL. So this would be a funding--
Representative Jim Wooten [00:37:08] I realize that. But I just say they're not going to be able to have a raffle.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:37:11] Okay. No more questions.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:37:13] Representative Moore, you are recognized for a question.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:37:16] Representative Wooten, I've heard you call it twice-- you used the term twice, ill gotten gains. Are you calling raffles ill gotten gains?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:37:24] I guess I am.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:37:33] How many universities have reached out and asked you to run this bill?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:37:36] What?
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:37:36] How many universities have reached out to you and asked you to run this bill?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:37:41] None. And I've talked to the University of Arkansas and I've talked to the ASU people. ASU said, they don't care, doesn't bother them. And the University of Arkansas, I didn't get in touch with them till yesterday. And they are in the process. But I hadn't heard pro or con either way. And again, Representative Moore, what sparked my interest was the fact that the University of Arkansas said they did not want casinos involved in the bill that has been put forward.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:38:30] Follow up, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:38:32] One.
Representative Jeremiah Moore [00:38:35] So under this legislation, even raffling off a duck call in order to support the foundation for NIL, you want to ban that?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:38:44] For student athletes. That's all that's involved. They want to have a raffle, that's between them--
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:38:51] Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:38:57] Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is, and it may be for VLR, there was a few sessions ago that I got interested in trying to pass legislation concerning a raffle to do something here in the state of Arkansas for St Jude Hospital. And I was told at that time that in the Constitution I couldn't run that bill, that it was prohibited from me doing that under the Constitution. That was not allowed under, I can't remember, I guess it was Amendment 100 or whatever, best I can recall. So I guess for just clarity, are we debating something that's prohibited under the Constitution to start with?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:39:52] Representative Tosh, I'm not familiar with that.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:39:55] I know you're not. And I was just trying to think this. And I understand that. And I wouldn't have been either if it hadn't been my attempt to run legislation to do a raffle for that hospital.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:40:10] Representative Tosh, I don't have an answer for that. I know we passed some legislation a number of years ago regarding raffles and I can't recall the the details of that. But I believe we have other members in the queue. So if we could move on, I can't answer that question.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:40:32] Appreciate that, Mr. Chair. I just didn't want us debating an issue that's going to end up being a moot point anyways, especially if it was prohibited. I'm just trying to save some time here. But if it's allowed, then I might have to go back and revisit what I attempted to do a couple of sessions ago. But I just wanted some clarity on that.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:40:50] Representative Eaves, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Les Eaves [00:40:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Wooten, I don't totally disagree with you about NIL. 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 the 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?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:41:28] Yes.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:41:31] Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:41:33] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Hi, Representative Wooten Thank you so much. 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 UA was against Representative Hawk's bill that was previously filed. As the state rep for the U of A, I've never heard that. Everybody, I think, has been in support of it. Can you just clarify? Maybe I misunderstood it?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:41:56] No, ma'am. I did not say that. I didn't. If I did, I was wrong. I'm not saying that.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:42:03] It was my misunderstanding, I'm sure.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:42:05] What I did say was that they were against the casinos being involved in any way.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:42:13] Okay. Thank you both.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:42:14] Not the university. But the president of the universities were against. And so the bill was changed before it was introduced.
Representative Nicole Clowney [00:42:23] Thank you. I'm sorry about that.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:42:23] Was what sparked my interest. And why would they not want, so they don't want any relationship with gaming, I would assume.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:42:35] Seeing no other questions, there's no one signed up to speak for or against this. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Representative Wooten, would you like to close for your bill?
Representative Jim Wooten [00:42:51] Yes, I'd just like to say to the committee, give this a chance to be voted on by the total House. Let's put it before it. And this could clear it up in the minds of the taxpayers of this state what we feel would be the right thing to do so far as student athletes being paid. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, committee members.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:43:18] What is the will of the committee? Have a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed. Sorry, Representative Wooten, your bill has failed.
Representative Jim Wooten [00:43:40] Loud and clear. Thank you, sir. Thank you, committee members.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:43:46] Representative Brown, are you ready to present House Bill 1173? I believe there's an amendment on this. We have a fiscal impact statement on our desks. We're going to hand out the amendment. If you want to identify yourself for the record and then you can explain the amendment.
Representative Matt Brown [00:44:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. And with the chair's indulgence, can I ask Mr. Steve Good to join me at the table representing retailers and grocers?
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:44:22] Certainly.
Representative Matt Brown [00:44:24] Just in case I get into the weeds on anything.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:44:26] He needs to identify himself for the record.
Steve Good [00:44:35] Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Steve Good. I represent the Arkansas retailers.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:44:39] Now we're addressing the amendment. We need to deal with the amendment before we get into the crux of the bill.
Representative Matt Brown [00:44:46] Yes, Mr. Chair. The amendment that's being passed out, after we had the bill drafted, we 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 beverage and beer. The issue that has arisen is 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 malt.
I think malt beverage is used 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 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, beer is defined as being brewed from malt or any substitute. We are changing that to malt substitute.
The reason for that is I think a clever lawyer could try to argue since it says malt or substitute, I am 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 bill.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:46:02] Thank you. Any questions, members? Have a motion do pass the amendment. Any discussion? All in favor say aye. Opposed nay. We've adopted your amendment. Now you may present the bill as amended.
Representative Matt Brown [00:46:17] So this is an alcohol bill. After 1204 a few minutes ago, I think we could all use a good stiff drink. But this bill, I've always been told to say it's a little old bill that doesn't do nothing. But 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 cut off in the state law. And the reason for this change is to enable someone who holds a retail permit such as grocery store, things of that nature, that can sell beer to be able to legally sell craft beers.
As I mentioned on the amendment, our alcohol laws really all trace back to Act 108 in 1935. So about 99 years ago on the dot actually. And this again was two 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 there's a conversion factor to change it. But so if I accidentally say ABV, and that's what this bill is often referred to, it's actually ABW. I just want 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, back in the 1930s, we set beer at 5% ABW. Anything above 5% AVW was essentially considered to be liquor back then. But since that time we've had things like our wine permits, you know, native wine and things of that nature. And the code now creates essentially a distinction in alcohol where from .5% ABW to 5% 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. 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 15, 20 years or so, we have seen a huge blossoming, I guess for lack of better word, of this industry. We have all these local breweries making craft beers. But the issue is that many craft beers usually come into that 6 to 9, maybe 10% ABW weight. They're just a little bit heavier beers. And so what that means 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. Industry estimates that this probably affects about 1% of the market out there in terms of these craft beers that are over this limit. And this bill, if approved, would change the definition of beer from .5 to 14% ABW. Malt beverage, malt liquor would now be 14% to 21% ABW. And then the 21% would take off just like it does right now. For people who may be concerned, I know alcohol bills are always tricky, but one thing that is important to point out in this bill is that, number one, 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's some sort of a fruit punch concoction that kind of looks like a High C box but with booze in it, I guess, up to 21%. I think it's coming in at 12% 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% ABW. I think it would be about 7.5% ABV, I believe. So this law would essentially change that. 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 help our Arkansas brewers. So think of your North 40s, your Ozark Brewing, companies of that nature that are 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 in the market, this does not touch that. You start to go to a liquor store, your High Noon and things of that nature, your Smirnoff Ices, vodka based. That's still all liquor stores. We're not to have that in grocery stores. 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 Jon Eubanks [00:51:13] Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:51:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I hear you on the craft beers and things like. And I guess I just don't-- maybe I'm not a beer connoisseur like I thought I was. But like a Shiner Bock that I see in every grocery store, I've always considered that more of a craft beer type thing. Is that not what is considered in that craft beer content?
Representative Matt Brown [00:51:33] If it clocks in under 5% ABW, then it may be sold as beer. And there are several craft-- like for example, when I was looking at North 40, just what they had on their website. They had I think it was 26 beers advertised on their website. Of those 26 beers, nine 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 another thing, because that ABV versus ABW, an ABW of 5% equals an ABV of 6.33%. And so you'll see that's kind of the cutoff on those craft beers that you see in stores - 6.33.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:52:11] Thank you, sir.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:52:13] Representative Dalby, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:52:16] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is more for Mr. Good. 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?
Steve Good [00:52:31] Yes, ma'am. Those that have that permit, that is the grocery store, beer and wine permit. Yes, ma'am. They would be allowed to as well.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:52:37] Okay. Does it exclude anybody?
Steve Good [00:52:39] No, ma'am.
Representative Carol Dalby [00:52:39] Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:52:42] Representative McKenzie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:52:44] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just have a quick question. So it's germane, but is there a need for unification of our code language to go to ABV?
Representative Matt Brown [00:52:59] I think, my personal thoughts on the matter is that having dug into the ABC regulations-- and I want to make clear, too, the ABC regulations are very complex. I think it is 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.
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 legislature did back then, because of the differing definitions, 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 the alcohol laws in one fell swoop, which would probably be a giant undertaking. 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.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:53:52] Mr. Good, how many retailers, how many different permits or licenses exists that if this were to go into effect, would it go into? How many doors? How many chains? Do you have an estimate?
Steve Good [00:54:06] It would be an estimate. So let me make that clear. Potentially what you're looking at is, you know, anybody that's a supermarket, a supercenter type store. To Representative Dalby's point, convenience stores would also be allowed. And then just your local mom and pop grocery store. So if they have a grocery store beer permit, retail off premises beer permit, this would allow them to sell. You know, think of it as Walmart, Harp's, Kroger, Edwards, on those lines. And then the C stores, your Circle K's, your Big Reds, Double B's, any of those that are in wet counties.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:54:44] But no rough number?
Steve Good [00:54:47] No, sir. I'm sorry.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:54:47] That's fine. I appreciate it.
Steve Good [00:54:48] Yes, sir. Sorry.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:54:53] 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?
Representative Matt Brown [00:55:00] 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. 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 across the line in Oklahoma. But then you cross line Arkansas and it's no longer legal to buy it in a grocery store. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:55:23] Okay. The first person signed up to speak against this bill is Teresa Belew . If you could come to the table and identify yourself and who you're with, you are recognized to proceed.
Teresa Belew [00:55:57] Good afternoon, all. My name is Teresa Belew. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this beer bill today.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:56:05] Could you get a little closer to the mic, please?
Teresa Belew [00:56:08] Yes, Thank you. We have seen unrelenting growth in alcohol consumption and a lot of it is funded by these new beverage types that have the high ABW rates and also have these ready to drink cocktails. I think you all have a handout in front of you. I went to six different liquor stores to research all this. And as working with Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other injury and alcohol related organizations, I had to park three parking lots away because my car says MADD on the back of it. And I really got an education about how these higher alcohol beverages look.
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 the differences are just 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 5% weight of alcohol. The 25 ounce can, of course, is two. I know 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 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 Budweisers, two small equals the large. And that's two servings. And then we have this 10% alcohol weight that I found called Snake Party-- and that one 12 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 two 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 four pack with 12 ounce cans, 10 ounce, 10% alcohol in four servings compared to a six pack of Budweiser. And as we look just a couple of more, we have the Snake Party with 12 ounce and 1- ounces of alcohol in the serving compared to the Budweiser with just 5. Founders All Day is 19.7oz with 4.7 alcohol. It's less than one can of Budweiser and it's on the left. But the Voodoo Ranger is 9.5% same size. And 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 to make here is this. We have an advertising problem with it to educate our public about, first of all, the dangers of consuming a couple, but consuming a couple that is double what they're used to consuming. It very quickly can lead to as much as a .8 BAC very, very quickly. And it really becomes a binge drink in a can. Several regular servings are in these drinks.
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 something that as someone who's worked for 30 years in the field and still do. I go to court. I manage the Arkansas Impaired Driving Prevention Task Force. I go and meet the nicest people I wish I never met because someone made the mistake to overconsume. I believe that these are dangerous products for us at this time. I believe that 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 engage in risky behavior is something that we really can live without. And I'd be happy to entertain any questions.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:01:34] Seeing no questions, thank you for your testimony.
Teresa Belew [00:01:43] And I can show you my beer cans out in the parking lot.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:01:51] The next individual signed up to speak against this bill is Larry Page. If you will identify yourself and who you are with, you are recognized.
Larry Page [00:02:07] Larry Page with the Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council. 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 brief as I can. You know, why was our limit set at 5% and why has it remained at 5%? There have been three 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? Well, it's pretty convenient for Billy Bob too. Stops in a quick stop, picks up a six pack for his drive home. He kicks back two or three beers and the two or three beers at 5 ABW maybe give him a good buzz. What do you think two or three beers at 14% would do to Billy Bob? It might result in a 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% AVW, 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, ABV would be 17.5%. That is extremely strong in large alcohol 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 could only sell wine that was produced in small wineries like Weiderkehr's here in Arkansas. And they said, look, 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 third 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 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 three occasions. Look, grocery and convenience stores are different than liquor stores. T
here's no nothing that says they should offer the same products as liquor stores. Liquor stores don't sell eggs and flour and milk. They're different. And it's okay 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 going to close because I know it's been a long day.
But listen, obviously the impetus for this bill involves economic interests. And when alcohol is at issue, there really needs to be a cost benefit analysis done. Is nearly a three fold increase in alcohol justified here? And the downsides that occur, and there will be those who bears the costs of those. Not those selling the beer. They won't. It's the citizens of Arkansas that will bear that cost. Some short thought should be given to that.
Look, the 5% limit was right back then, and it's right now. There is nothing broken that raising the alcohol content nearly threefold is going to 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 Jon Eubanks [00:06:42] Representative Wardlaw, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Jeffrey Wardlaw [00:06:45] Thank you, Mr. Chair. So who do you represent?
Larry Page [00:06:50] Arkansas Faith and Ethics Council. Since 1991. We were founded in 1899 as the Saloon League of Arkansas.
Representative Jeffrey Wardlaw [00:07:02] Okay, that's my answer. Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:07:06] Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Next on the sheet is Bill Paschal. Come and identify yourself and who you're with. You're recognized.
Bill Paschal [00:07:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Bill Paschal. Today I'm here representing the United Beverage Retailers of Arkansas. Our organization has about 70 members scattered across the state. We're independent retail liquor store owners. I see many of you that have been on this committee for a number of years. So I say here we go again. As some of you know, we had a similar bill to this one in 2021, which was unsuccessful, and again in 2023, which was unsuccessful.
And today we come back with a bill that goes from 5% to 14%, which is higher than the bills were the last two sessions. But to my knowledge, the retail liquor landscape has not changed dramatically in those years. There are a few new products that are out there, but the industry has not changed dramatically in those few years. As Mr. Page mentioned, retail liquor stores can only sell a few products or sell only alcohol. We can sell some cigarettes and some Cokes, but we cannot sell tires or gas or diapers or groceries.
So the only thing we have to bring people into our stores are alcohol products. And exclusivity matters to us. It's how we get some folks in the doors is we have products that other people cannot offer. And this is one. And it's very important to our industry to maintain exclusivity so that we can get those consumers to walk in the door. As some of you recall, we had a nasty fight in 2017 over wine and grocery.
We lost the fight at that point in time to exclusively sell fine wine, and that was a big hit. It cost my retail liquor stores, especially those in more urban areas. It cost them big. I mean, it was a 10 to 12% hit. This bill will not be as big. I won't maintain that today. But it will hurt and it will have an impact on these folks. So we ask you that you think about that. Are we at a decision point now where it makes sense for us to jump from 5 to 14? I say no. And the other thing I want you to think about is 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 grocery stores? And I ask you to stand and vote locally today and reject this bill. Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:10:43] Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:10:46] 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 are you going to stand for? And I just couldn't help but think that at some point we need to stand for those that have been victims of drunk drivers, for those that they can't stand for themselves because somebody got behind a wheel of a car, had too much to drink.
And I can just see this happening. Like Ms. Belew said a while ago, this takes on a whole new meaning of when you ask someone how much they've had to drink. They say two beers. That's usually the answer. I've heard that thousands of times. But I'm just trying to answer your question. We do need to stand for those folks. And it's been devastating.
And I'm not trying to give a-- I guess I need to be asking a question. But I've witnessed all of that. I know the devastation of what drunk drivers do. I know the impact it had on innocent families. And so to answer your question-- I guess I asked you, don't you think we need to be standing up for them as well?
Bill Paschal [00:12:00] Yes, sir. And this bill makes that product more accessible to young folks 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 going to see fewer kids in a liquor store than you do see in a store or a grocery store.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:12:19] Representative Hawk, you're recognized for a question.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:12:21] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Pascal, when you say, who do we want to support? You know, we'll talk about craft beer. 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?
Bill Paschal [00:12:37] Specifically the state? No. But they're probably in the neighborhood of 70 to 100 SKUs of high alcohol content beer, which is what we're talking about today.
Representative RJ Hawk [00:12:48] Because I'm with you. I understand what you're saying and the fact that I want to support local. I think we all have said before we want to kick China out of Arkansas. And we want to support local and all this other stuff. I want to support local, but also when I look at this, I also want to support the local breweries and people of that nature as well. So that's a decision. I want to make sure that we're supporting all local in this situation. Thank you.
Bill Paschal [00:13:13] And to your question, I guess, there are a number of SKUs from craft beers in Arkansas. Craft beers take in below 5%. So everything 6.3 and below can still be a craft beer. And if you all have been in liquor stores, grocery stores, you see all the Lost 40 products and all the others. There's whole shelf spaces full of craft beers that are being sold in Arkansas in the grocery store now.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:13:46] Representative McKenzie, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:13:48] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make a note, a point that will lead into a question. Mr. Pascal, you made mention about in the two years we had similar legislation that failed that your clients hadn't seen much innovation in the space of spiritous beverages. Do you know offhand these 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?
Bill Paschal [00:14:15] I actually don't know. We haven't surveyed them.
Representative Brit McKenzie [00:14:20] Reason to say is 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 I understand. Let's shop local and to Representative Hawk's point, breweries are local. Who do we support? I mean the seal is off the lid in terms of alcohol laws in the state of Arkansas. We want to support consumers in their choices. I mean, this is an increase of points of 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 who they sell to and how they sell to them. But I hope that 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 wouldn't you agree?
Bill Paschal [00:15:12] To your question, I remind the body that this General Assembly actually passed a bill last session to ban those products 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 I can't answer how many of my stores are selling that, but it's a gray area.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:15:37] Seeing no other questions, thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Next on the list is John Kelly. If you'll come to the table and identify yourself and who you're with and you're recognized.
John Kelly [00:15:54] Thanks, sir. My name is John Kelly. I am the owner of a local liquor store in Saline County. Let me address something that came up just a minute ago to your question, Representative Hawk. You know, I was just sitting in the chamber listening to the folks talk about what the ramifications of these bills are and fully understanding them. One of the things that Bill and I have talked about is, when you give more power to convenience stores and grocery stores that are national chains, you're giving them power.
And the store across the street from 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 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. If you come into my store, there's lots of local brands.
I want to continue to do that. But if I'm being hurt, 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 you all are aware. And when you give a slight advantage, you hurt local stores. And I think that needs to really be considered because the endgame is that they begin to focus on national brands and move away from.
I think we should be supporting local. And as a local person in this community, I support the people at Lost 40. I have family that work there. So I'm committed to doing that. And I just hope that you will keep that in mind. 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, 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 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 what was going on. Well, a lot of drinking. 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, and you scan a license. Anybody that looks close to being under age, we look at them and get their license and look at their license. So I think 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 and the employees all live in Arkansas. And I really hope that you'll dig deep before you make these decisions.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:20:03] Seeing no questions, thank you for your testimony. 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?
Representative Matt Brown [00:20:26] Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 local brewers of these craft beers, our local retailers. You know, this bill is designed to help, like, say, Edwards Good Giants in a county that has a beer permit. Your Harps grocery store centered right there in Springdale. I'd like to address a few things that were mentioned during the discussion.
Number one, there were 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 that's going to be more like your Smirnoff Ices, your hard seltzers, your Mike's hard lemonades, things of that nature. This bill does not touch that. Number two, there was a comment made that, well, this bill's been brought three times before and was killed.
I'd point out that this bill was filed last session. It was pulled to work on it. And the time before that, 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 spiritus liquors.
And finally, there was some mention made about this 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 that are based right here in the state of Arkansas. You can't buy the beer from outside the state. So they're buying it from Arkansas wholesalers. It's being brewed by Arkansas Brewers. With that, I'd appreciate a good vote.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:21:56] What's the will of the committee? Have a motion to pass. Any discussion on the motion? Representative Tosh, you're recognized for discussion on the motion. And we have a do pass as amended. Correct. Representative Tosh, you're recognized.
Representative Dwight Tosh [00:22:33] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I understand there's been a lot of testimony here today about who's going to have power or who's not going to have power, who's going to reap the benefits of this, who's not. And all that's fine. But I'll 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 are driving while under the influence of alcohol. And that's why I have to oppose this bill.
For example, right now under the way it's set up now, that four cans of beer, for an average individual of about 180 pounds, that would probably put them at right at the point of 0.8, which is the level for DWI. Under this proposal here, a can and a half or can and a fourth, whatever that figures out to be, that puts them at DWI. And you know as well as I do people that stop at a store and they get a couple of beers or a six pack of beer, and if they open that second one, you know, that's got 14% in it, they're not going to stop when they're halfway through it.
They're going to continue to drink that until it's all gone. That's just the nature of it. That's just what people do. So, you know, speaking up for those that are the victims of these fatality accidents out here, those who have been injured, those that have been crippled for life because someone consumed too much alcohol, got behind the wheel of a car, I'll be voting no for them. Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:24:22] Seeing no other discussion on the motion, all those in favor say aye. Opposed. Ayes have it. The bill is passed as amended. Representative Wing, are you ready to run SCR 1? Please identify yourself and you're recognized.
Representative Carton Wing [00:24:54] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Carlton Wing, Representative, District 70, North Little Rock and Sherwood. SCR one is the Joint rules of the 95th General Assembly. It's a 21 page rule sheet. We've just made five changes. None of them are very major. I'll just kind of very quickly go through them if you have any questions. One, regarding non procedural resolutions in a special session. The next one clarifies the bill filing deadline for EBD bills.
There's EBD bills that do have a bill filing deadline, other bills regarding health, medical plans that do not. And so it's just clarifying which do and which don't. We got some clerical efficiency as far as strikethrough language just to make it easier on the drafting. Let's see. We've got interim committees. 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. They've got language that already exists, so this is bringing it into compliance with existing code. Those are the five differences. The rest of the 21 pages are exactly as before.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:26:07] Seeing no questions, what's the will of the committee? I have a motion do pass. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor say aye. Opposed. Congratulations, Representative Wing.
Representative Carton Wing [00:26:20] Thank you.
Representative Jon Eubanks [00:26:24] Committee, seeing no other business on the agenda, at this time, we are adjourned.
