Ohio House Public Safety Committee - 6-2-2026

The Public Safety Committee will now come to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Abrams. Here. Vice Chair Miller. Here. Ranking Member Thomas. Here. Representative Brent. Present. Representative Brewer. Here. Representative Creech. Here. Representative Kimbari. Present. Representative Hall. Here. Representative Humphrey. Here. Representative Kishman. Here. Representative Luray. Here. Representative Palmer. Here. Representative Willis. Here. Okay, we do have a quorum and we will proceed as a full committee. Members, the minutes from the May 19, 2026 committee meeting are on your iPads for review. Are there any objections or changes to the minutes? Hearing no objections, the minutes are approved. We do have a hard stop today at 545. Testimony is going to be limited to five minutes. Members, please be mindful of your questions. We're going to be moving around the order of the committee here today to make sure that we have a quorum and all that for these votes, and members have to be other places with other votes. All right, here we go. I will now call House Bill 654 for its fifth hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to give testimony on House Bill 654 today?

Clerk, please call the roll. Chair Abrams. Yes.

Ranking Member Thomas. Yes.

Representative Brewer. No.

Representative Gambari. Yes.

Representative Humphrey. Yes.

Representative Luray. Yes.

Representative Willis. Yes.

Welcome to committee. Thank you. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the committee, Thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding House Bill 667. My name is Alex Serto, and I'm a Senior Associate Legal Fellow at the Buckeye Institute, an independent research and educational institution whose mission is to advance free market public policy in the states. Violent crime has tragic consequences. Those who commit such crimes must be held accountable and punished for the harms they inflict on our communities. But criminal laws must distinguish between predatory perpetrators and nonviolent offenders. For more than a decade, Ohio has demonstrated its commitment to prudent, common sense, public safety policies and reforms. Unfortunately, House Bill 667 takes a step in the wrong direction. The Buckeye Institute supported legislative efforts to create the Targeted Community Alternative to Prison TCAP program, which was designed to divert low-level nonviolent offenders from state prisons to treatment and other community-based alternatives. In an effort to reduce prison populations, curb costs, and rehabilitate offenders, the program requires those in voluntary counties sentenced to fourth and fifth degree nonviolent offenses to serve their sentences locally unless the offense was an offense of violence a sex offense a trafficking offense or other mandatory prison term The offender has a prior conviction for a sex offense or felony offense of violence or the sentence is to be served concurrently to a prison-eligible term. TCAP is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Offenders serve their terms in a county or municipal jail or workhouse, in a community alternative sentencing center, or in a minimum security jail. rather than in state prisons. House Bill 667 retreats from TCAP's success unnecessarily. The bill excludes currently eligible nonviolent offenders from TCAP if the person has previously been convicted of or pleaded guilty to two or more nonviolent felony offenses. The person previously was under a community control sanction for a nonviolent felony offense and the person's period of community control was unfavorably terminated, or if the person was under post-release control at the time the person committed the fourth or fifth degree nonviolent offense. Violent offenders are already ineligible for TCAP, but House Bill 667 goes further and it goes too far by failing to distinguish adequately between violent and nonviolent offenders. For example, suppose a nonviolent public official uses his influence in his office to illegally secure authorization for a public contract, and he pleads guilty to a fourth-degree nonviolent offense. If he later, while on community control sanction, helps his church hold a bingo without getting the proper licensing, that is also a fourth-degree felony offense, and he would be ineligible for TCAP because he committed it while on community control under the bill. Or suppose a mother uses her family member's address rather than her own to enroll her children in a better school district. Her deception is uncovered and she pleads guilty to a third degree felony. If she later has her community control terminated unfavorably, even for a minor technical violation, she would be ineligible for TCAP if she commits another nonviolent fourth or fifth degree felony offense. As written, House Bill 667 risks overreach that could significantly affect Ohio's incarcerated population without addressing the heart of the problem, which is violent offenses. The General Assembly should take a more nuanced approach that properly distinguishes between violent and nonviolent offenders without undermining the success of an effective program like TCAP. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

I'll be quick. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony in providing us even more context. I want to ask you a quick question. Outside of the revision to TCAP, how does the Buckeye Institute feel about the bill?

Okay. No follow-up?

Okay.

unnecessary incarceration So in this instance it would be sending people to state prisons when they could effectively be rehabilitated in a local system So either through the local jails or through the alternative programs which are treatment drug treatment stuff like that

Follow up. Okay, so there's a large portion of this bill, sir, that revolves around GPS monitors and the need for these type of ankle monitors for individuals that, you know, law enforcement needs to be able to determine where they're at. I just want to share something with the committee, Madam Chair, if I may briefly, that I believe illustrates why we need this type of legislation and to take a moment just to commend the bill sponsors for thinking this through. Madam Chair, just a month and a half ago on the beginning of April, a 63-year-old homeless man from Toledo was assaulted outside of the courthouse. All four suspects that assaulted him have been apprehended, and they were arrested in connection with the attack that was captured on camera footage. The incident happened Monday when a group of four people cornered the man against a wall and beat him. Surveillance video obtained by local news affiliates shows the man outnumbered, stomped, and kicked in the head. The victim swung a garbage can lid trying to defend himself, but the attackers kept punching him and hurling insults. Here's the key point I want to share with our colleagues. Detectives said Crime Stoppers tips poured in, and 20-year-old Contrell Henderson made himself easy to find because he was wearing an ankle monitor at the time of the attack. Henderson was released March 22nd, obviously previous to this attack, after serving time for assault, escape, aggravated riot, and vandalism. They said that his parole officer received the video of the attack. Officer used the footage to pinpoint the time and location of the attack. They cross-referenced his ankle monitor to place him at the scene. I just want to say on the record that, you know, these ankle monitors have a purpose. And we've seen individuals that have been on ankle monitors that have certainly not followed the rulings of the court. And unfortunately, we have cases here in Ohio where individuals should be alive, except for someone that had committed a violent offense simply being able to go out and walk free with an ankle monitor. So we need to have a way in which when violations come through an ankle monitor, when law enforcement is made aware of someone that's not following what has been prescribed by that judge, that law enforcement has the tool and the resources necessary to take those individuals back into custody. So we're not hearing about incidents like the homeless man in Toledo, Ohio, that was stomped on and kicked in the head, or constituents from my district that are no longer with us because they were murdered at the hands of a violent individual that cut their ankle monitor off and went about their way. So if you have any comment on that, I would be very much interested to hear what your thoughts are.

Yes.

Okay, follow-up. Just a brief follow-up. Look, I'm giving that example to say, broadly speaking, this is a real-time example of why we need ankle monitors. And I believe the chair and the authors of this bill have worked diligently with the subject matter experts to hone in on the TCAP language. And it's my understanding that your institution is one of the only ones that have opposition to the language as written. And I think at large law enforcement and the others that have been involved in reviewing the bill and understanding truly what the outcomes are from a viewpoint in which they're trying to take their personal feelings out of it and just look at the facts and the data of what's happening here in Ohio have supported the bill as written. And so I will continue to support the legislation as written and submitted to the committee. Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. Thanks for coming in today. Your organization obviously favors TCAP, but do you guys ever interview the police officers in the room, the police chiefs in the room, the prosecutors in the room to see what their true opinion is? Because my opinion is it's a major failure, one of the biggest failures of the state of Ohio. You guys bring an example of somebody getting charged with a bingo operation at a church. Wrong example. Tell me some good examples where you think TCAP really works. Thank you.

Follow up. So you guys come up with a policy stance without talking to the boots on the ground to see if this policy works or not. I'd suggest you guys talk to the people in this room. They'll tell you it's not working. I mean, it's the constant drug addict that gets probation or, you know, treatment in lieu of conviction. the constant repeat offenders they have to deal with all the time. They never go to prison, so we do need to include this in this bill. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for coming in today. You know, I'm a big fan of second chances, but at some point we have to draw the line, and I look what we're doing in this bill. I mean, we're excluding folks with two or more felony offenses. Those that were under community control for a felony offense, and the person had community control sanctions for that offense unfavorably terminated. A person under post-release control at the time they committed another felony in the fourth or fifth degree. You know, when someone goes into community control or probation, they sign a piece of paperwork. and at every level, whether it's at the county level, I agree that I will obey all local, state, and federal laws. Our state conditions, the first thing for that is I will obey all federal, state, and local. At the federal system, I must not commit another federal, state, or local. local crime. So at some point, you know, it's not working and people have to be held accountable. So I guess I ask, what do you say to my constituents, you know, to these repeat felony offenders, whether it's a repeat thief that continues to offend at a felony level, my constituents expect if they got their one freebie, it's time for them to go to big boy jail, to the state. What do you tell my constituents who that's what they think?

Follow up? Nothing further.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for being so gracious. And again, thank you for being here. I want to ask you, because you touched on something that I actually wanted to ask you in the first place. In your testimony, you said some argue that House Bill 667 grants judges more discretion to send repeat and problem offenders back to prison. But you also mentioned in many cases the bill actually restricts judicial options and forces judges to send nonviolent offenders to prison. Can you tell us, I know lots of us on this committee have already read the bill, but for folks at home who may have questions about it, et cetera, et cetera, if you could explain why per this bill you feel judges' discretion is kind of stifled, if you could explain that, that would be great specifically for folks who are at home.

Follow-up? No follow-up? Okay.

Thank you, Chairwoman, from the Chairwoman to the Witness. Thanks for coming before our committee. I feel like every day I'm learning something new, particularly being here in public safety. And I think I used to call it something else about people having outside, making sure people, we don't just put people inside jail, but outside services. And now I have a final name to it, TCAP. So particularly when it comes to this bill, and I want to always say stuff for the grandmas, like my colleague always likes to say, because grandma's probably sitting at home not really understanding. We have a bill that's dealing with Reagan-Tokes, and why are we talking about this when that Reagan-Tokes bill was more of a violent offense? But we're not. We're talking about nonviolent offenders with the TCAP bill. So in a perfect world, and you can just entertain me with this, how much does it cost for people to, not in a perfect world, but in a reality, how much does it cost for people to be incarcerated? And how much does it cost for people to be part of the TCAF program?

I do. It's about $40,000 just for us to incarcerate people on the low end. but normally for the TCAF program, it costing about per person on average I ask that because in a sense of like where we so concerned about the economy of things I just really concerned about some of these questions that are coming up When it saying that the effectiveness is really isn it how high is the effectiveness of using a TCAP program compared to when people don

You can follow up. Thank you, Chair.

Is that a comment to me, Chairwoman?

No, ma'am.

Thanks, Madam Chair. I move that House Bill 667 be favorably reported and recommended for passage.

Vice Chair Miller. Yes.

Representative Brent. No.

Representative Creech. Yes.

Yes.

Representative Kishman. Yes.

Representative Plummer. Yes.

With 10 affirmative votes and 2 negative votes the bill passes, the bill will be reported as a substitute bill. Members, please make sure you sign the report as it comes around, and please indicate if you'd like to add your name as a co-sponsor. I will now call House Bill 677 for its fifth hearing. is there anyone here that would like to give testimony on House Bill 677? The chair recognizes Vice Chair Miller for a motion.

Clerk, please call the roll. Chair Abrams.

Yes. Ranking Member Thomas.

Representative Brewer. Yes.

Representative Gambari.

Representative Humphrey

Representative Luray

Representative Willis

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move to amend Senate Bill 273 with Amendment 1362563.

Sure. This amendment will modify the description of a person who may voluntarily store a firearm with a federally licensed firearms dealer or law enforcement agency from a person who holds legal title to a firearm to an owner of a lawfully possessed firearm.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Senate Bill 273 be favorably reported and referred to the Committee on Rules and Reference.

Vice Chair Miller. Yes.

Representative Brent. Yes.

Representative Creech. Yes.

Representative Hall. Yes.

Representative Kishman. Yes.

Representative Plummer. Yes.

With 12 affirmative votes and zero negative votes, the bill passes and is re-referred to the Committee on Rules and Reference. The bill will be reported as a substitute bill. Members, please sign the roll as it comes around and indicate on it if you'd like to add your name as a co-sponsor. I will now call House Bill 346 for its third hearing. The chair recognizes Representative Kishman for a motion.

Okay, please explain the amendment.

Without objection, the motion will be agreed to. Hearing no objection, the motion is agreed to and the committee accepts the amendment. I'm going to go ahead and pause this bill right here because we are going to come along and we are going to go out of order really quick here. Okay. I will now call House Bill 849 for its second hearing. The chair recognizes Representative Plummer for a motion.

Okay, explain the sub-bill, please.

Okay. Are there any discussion or questions on the amendment or on the sub-bill? Without objection, the motion will be agreed to. Hearing no objection, the motion is agreed to and the committee accepts the amendment. Again I going to pause this bill here I will now call Senate Bill 214 for its first hearing The chair recognizes Senator Kaler for sponsor testimony Oh he just walked out Of course he did We'll give him five seconds. Got to keep on schedule today. We're on your time, Senator. I'm kidding.

Floor is yours.

Thank you, Senator Kaler, for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions? Representative Brent.

Well, it has to do with the fact that we are preparing ourselves to be ready for the federal government to remove these from the National Firearms Act of 1934. If we don't do it and they remove them, then our laws will be in conflict with the federal level. We are basically doing what's right and removing something that we created in 1934 when, you know, Bonnie and Clyde movies were, you know, Bonnie and Clyde was big, movies you've seen as young folks. But the fact of the matter is we're just trying to reclassify something that is as dangerous as these earplugs. They don't do, there's not a power of fire. There's no explosion or anything that happens with a suppressor. It literally dampens the sound that comes out of the end of a firearm.

So thus far, we still are in compliance. Ohio's never normally ahead of the federal. We're normally following in the federal of things. And I'm just getting to my question, Chairwoman.

Well, the fact of the matter is these devices, I'm using this because I can't bring a suppressor in here because it's a dangerous ordinance currently under Ohio law. Basically, we're changing it so that it is classified as what it really is. It's an attachment to a firearm. It is not a dangerous ordinance. It is not a torpedo. It is not nitroglycerin. It is not a grenade. So we're changing it in preparation for what the federal government may do, but we're also doing it because it's just the right thing to do.

Madam Chair and to the representative, what I can tell you is this. I have five suppressors. Two of them I made myself. I used the ATF to serialize them and get them made. But I can tell you they're very, very easy to make. This law change does not change the fact that if somebody wants to create a suppressor, it is extremely simple. They are extremely simple devices, and it is not going to change the fact that if somebody wants to break the law, they're going to get one, they're going to make one. This doesn't change how we process them. If a federal law changes, it means you're going to go get a background check to get one. You're not going to have to send in a stamp and fingerprints. You're going to buy it just like you would buy a gun. To be honest, if you ask me, that's too much as well. But I'm not asking for that. I'm just asking for this to change the law so that when the federal law does change, we don't have to go through this process. And one, the Ohio law will no longer reference this as a dangerous ordinance.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I guess I'm just from a law enforcement perspective, two things. With today's technology, we use shot spotters as one of the tools in our toolbox to get to a scene as quickly as possible simply because the shot spotter pinpoints where the sound came from. Well, obviously, this law currently does not allow for someone to possess or carry a sound suppressor, if you will. It's identified as a dangerous ordinance. So it allows a person to, this law will allow them to carry that particular piece of equipment. Under current law, they're not allowed to. So my question is, did you give any thought to the fact that this may create a situation where individuals start carrying the sound suppressor attached to their firearm? I mean, it just creates a whole new ballgame. To the chair and to the representative, it's my belief that someone intent on breaking the law with a firearm and shooting someone could care less what Ohio Revised Code says. They're going to carry it. They're going to get one, whether we have a law that says they're bad or good or bombs or nitroglycerin. They're going to go get a suppressor if that's what they want to do. If they're going to go shoot somebody, I think violating the laws of suppressors is the last thing they're thinking about. Follow-up? Madam Chair, follow-up? So I do understand that. Individuals are going to get their hands on guns simply because they're so available out there. The suppressor is not available out there. And in order to have one, someone would have to get a background check, and as you just indicated, you created your own. But if it's readily available, then it's not going to be long before they easily decide, well, okay, now I can shoot at the cop with a silencer, if you will. I'm just concerned that this might open that door up. Because most guns are stolen out of cars and things of that nature. And if there a gun in there with this sound suppressor attached to it now that on the street That all Right To the chairwoman and to the representative as someone who uses a suppressor on his farm I can tell you that they don silence the gun Shot spider is still going to work. Somebody takes an AR-15 and puts a suppressor on it, it's still going to make a very loud sound. I still wear ear protection when I shoot my AR with a suppressor on it because it still makes a loud sound. It doesn't make one that affects my neighbors as much, but it still makes a loud sound. It's still going to work with the shot spotter. I would assume that is also the case with a 9mm or a .357 or anything else. I don't know. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, whether or not this suppressor is considered a dangerous ordinance or not has nothing to do with the current required background check. Is that correct? To the chairwoman and to the representative, right now, to get a suppressor, you buy it, you leave it at the store, you submit your normal background check paper. You go and get fingerprinted at the BCI, two sets, well, you used to pay a $200 stamp, now you don't, passport photos, and you apply, and you wait. It's gotten a little bit quicker than it used to, but that's the process today. It's going to be the process if we pass this bill tomorrow. The difference is this is not a dangerous – the suppressor is not a dangerous ordinance. It is simply attachment to the gun that helps mitigate the sound that comes out of the end of the firearm. Many sportsmen use it. It's something that is not – it's not as uncommon as you would think. People have them. Again, people who are intent on breaking the law can easily make one. I've made two. I've serialized them. I've got them to be stamped by the ATF. They're easy to make. This doesn't create any kind of easy way to make them or have them. If you're going to violate the law, you know this as well as I do as a former police officer, somebody's going to violate the law. Follow-up? Follow-up. So just to simplify this, this bill will not change anything in the current process of obtaining the stamp to get a suppressor. It's just business as usual. To the chair and to the representative, no.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this to us. I have two questions. The first one is, and someone was asking me, literally texted me two people, what do people need a suppressor for? What is the use of them for? Why do people need them? To the chairwoman and to the representative, I use mine on my farm to silence the sound of the gun that's coming out of my gun, to mitigate the sound. It is one of those things where if I go out on my range in the back of my farm and I shoot my gun, it is a little bit quieter. It doesn't scare the animals, doesn't scare the neighbors or have an issue with the neighbor's pets. It is something people use when they go out sports shooting like I do with an AR-15 or with a 9mm short barrel rifle. I use that to mitigate the sound. Follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you know, Ohio has repeatedly declined to advance legislation for safe storage and things like that nature. Why should suppressor deregulation be prioritized over legislation such as that which we know safe storage things like that will help maybe keep kids alive in Ohio? Why should I support this over safe storage things of that nature Why are we advancing this versus safe storage in Ohio Thank you Madam Chair To the Chairman and Representative I not in charge of how we advancing anything This is a bill that I think is important It has the support of the NRA the Buckeye Firearms It came out of the Senate with a vote of 30-some to 1. It is bipartisan support. It is one of many things we work on. I just submitted a bill to allow recycled material to be used in teddy bears. That is, sometimes we just work on what's in front of us and we hope to pass as many good things as we can and stop bad bills. Okay, follow up. Someone told me to ask you, does it apply to bazookas? Senator Kaler, we're grateful that you're following the law and not bringing anything illegal into this room.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you, Senator, for being here. I'm going to kind of tie in. I guess I want to ask this question because I know a few of my colleagues have have sort of asked it. And I know you said that this bill has the support of the NRA and et cetera, et cetera. But I always when I think about bills, I always want to think about, like, what's the foundation? What happened? What why is this bill being brought forth? And I know you have guns and have done some things or whatever the case from your testimony, but, like, why? Why is this necessary? Like, I'm genuinely just asking. I think to the chairwoman and to the representative, I think a lot of people agree with me that a suppressor is not a dangerous ordinance. It is not a bazooka. It is not nitroglycerin. It is not a grenade. It is not a torpedo. And, therefore, we need to make sure the Ohio Advice Code is clear on what it is. I think we passed this back in, I think it's many years ago, 1934, when bootlegging and things like that were happening. It was a knee-jerk reaction to what was going on. I think changing the law and making it appropriate is what we need to do in all cases, on all issues in the Ohio Revised Code. Follow-up. Thank you, Senator. I guess let me rephrase, and I get 1930s and all of that, but was there something that happened that caused this to be a priority? To the chairwoman and to the representative, absolutely. With the passage of the big, beautiful bill that originally removed suppressors from the NFA Act of 1934, it reduced the fee from $200 down to zero. Again, as I've said before, the reduction to zero means it no longer pertains to something that should be taxed. The federal government and the courts are going to settle that. So that is the genesis of this issue. Okay, thank you. Okay, you're welcome.

Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Merrill-Oder, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the House Public Safety Committee. House Bill 830 creates the Violent Crime Reduction Grant Program within the Department of Public Safety. This legislation is designed to help local law enforcement agencies reduce violent crimes solve more cases and make Ohio communities safer. While Ohio Police Departments and Sheriff's Office work tirelessly to protect our communities, many agencies face resource constraints that limit their ability to implement proven crime reduction strategies and dedicate personnel to investigating violent offenses. House Bill 830 creates a competitive grant program that allows municipal police departments and county sheriff's offices to apply for funding to support evidence-based violent crime reduction efforts. These include focused deterrent strategy, crime gun intelligence centers, forensic resources, investigative staffing, real-time crime support centers, cold case investigations, and other initiatives that have demonstrated success in reducing violence and improving public safety. grant recipients will be required to report outcomes and the department of public safety will evaluate the effectiveness of the funded programs taxpayer dollars should be invested in strategies that work and house bill 830 is structured to ensure that funding decisions are guided by measurable results and evidence-based practices house bill 830 supports law enforcement prioritizes victims and invests in proven strategies to reduce violent crime across Ohio. This legislation will provide local agencies with additional tools to better protect the communities they serve and improve the outcomes for the victims of violent crime. I know that our police sheriffs and prosecutors know more so than anyone how important this is. Thank you for your consideration. I'll now turn this over to my joint sponsor, Representative Brewer.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for this piece of legislation. My question is, I don't see an appropriation, so what grants is this applicable to? Is it to new Fed grants that are coming in or any current state grants that are currently out there? How does this work? Madam Chair, Representative Miller, this is no new funding, right?

Okay.

Thank you, Chair. and thank you members for bringing this bill. Could you provide, because I would have known, I probably got my grandma at home too, who want to know too, what are some particular programs that this program, this could actually be used by law enforcement so they know where our tax dollars are going if it's implemented? Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you both for your testimony. The Chair now recognizes Jason Olin. The Niskanen Center for Proponent Testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions for the witness? All right. Seeing none, thank you very much for being here. The chair now recognizes Sean Lane, Mission Science Incorporated. Sean Lane, welcome to committee. Okay, maybe not. Sean, we're not here today? All right, we'll come back if you are. Sarah Henry, Prison Fellowship. That's all right. Welcome, Sarah, to committee.

any questions thank you Sarah for your testimony members do you have any

Chair Abrams and Representative, thank you for that question. Just to be sure that I I understand. Are you asking how this bill would specifically help with witness programs? Yes.

I'm happy to get some more information on that and get back with you on that question.

Okay. Any further questions? That's okay. Thank you, Chairwoman. Okay. Seeing none, thank you for your testimony today. Okay. The Chair now recognizes Kevin Ring, Arnold Ventures. Kevin Ring. Welcome to committee.

Members, do you have any questions for the witness? Representative Plummer.

Arnold Ventures has supported in New Jersey and other states risk-based bail programs, programs, which we think, just like the federal system, it does not matter to us whether you have cash in the system or not. It's just we think that the decision about whether somebody is released or not should be based on public safety and not how much money they have. So I know there's been, you know, people can agree to disagree on that, but in our view, the public safety threshold should be the one that is considered and not wealth.

Yeah, and I mean, I don't view it as different sides of the aisle. We worked with Governor Chris Christie in New Jersey on a risk-based system that's been in place there now for over 10 years. They're seeing less crime. The prosecutors who work in that office were federal prosecutors and were used to the federal system where they were allowed to keep people that they thought were a threat and not have to offer them bail that sometimes people would buy their way out of prison. And so I know there's a disagreement. I know bail is a contentious policy, but I just want to be clear that our value is for keeping people who are dangerous behind bars and not out on the street.

Okay, Representative Humphrey.

Yeah. I mean, I think this is, you know, and there's some areas where we say, you know, more money isn't the solution. As Jason said, in terms of investigations, more money in a lot of times is the solution. We're conducting a randomized controlled trial in Denver where they're trying to treat nonfatal shootings the same as homicides because what happens in a homicide is all resources go to that. Nonfatal shooting, they act differently. And if you want to stop shooters, you're going to have to solve more nonfatal shootings. And so part of that is just more resources. And so in this bill, look, there's a resource issue and there's a will issue. We work with John Skaggs. There's a great book called Gettoside. He was an L.A. police detective. You have to have the will to want to solve some of these crimes. And I think that the police do want to solve crimes. And I think there's sometimes that happens in some communities where, you know, the person who was killed was sort of an unsavory character in the community. And so that life is discounted somewhat. And so I think that that's just a human nature thing that happens, but what happens is it allows a perpetrator to stay on the street. And so you have to have the will to, like, treat every life as one we're going to save so that we can save everybody else. So the bill can take care of the resources thing, and then we've got to put our hope in law enforcement to treat every life equally.

All right. Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you for your testimony today. Members, direct your attention to the iPads for additional pieces of written testimony. That's going to conclude our first and second hearing on House Bill 830. The first hearing, sorry, just the first. Thank you, Grace. I will now call House Bill 346 back up for its third hearing. The chair recognizes Rick Lucas, Ohio Nurses Association. Rick Lucas, thank you for your patience.

We are trying to get through a lot in the next two weeks. Certainly. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Rick, for your testimony today, and thank you for coming here and actually offering another suggestion to this issue because this committee is listening, and I can assure you that we are going to continue having discussions. Are there any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you very much. The chair now recognizes Mary Wachell, PCSAO. Thank you for your patience, Mary.

Okay, thank you. Oh, yeah. You have three seconds left. Just kidding. I'm kidding. Okay.

Thank you again, Mary, for being here, and that's exactly what this committee is going to do. We're going to keep working on it. That's just what we do. Members, do you have any questions? Okay. Seeing none, thank you for being here. That will now conclude the third hearing for House Bill 346. I will now call Senate Bill 321 for its second hearing. The chair recognizes Officer Steve Laird, FOP of Ohio.

Thank you, officer, for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions? Representative Gambari.

Through the chair to the representative, yes, sir. It's a difficult situation to be in as a peace officer because there's a certain level of expectation, I think. The people who come to our facility, the residents and staff, all have that we're there to protect them. And it really causes us to be in a difficult situation because I can't really do that if there's ever an active shooter or somebody from the community that comes into our campus and decides to do harm to people. And that's, I think, the spirit of this bill. And what we're really trying to do is be able to provide the complete resources for the residents, the staff, the people who come in to visit us. So that way we're doing our jobs that we took an oath to do. Right now I think there's language that kind of tells us to not put ourselves in situations that would maybe cause us to be injured or would be dangerous. And that's very, you know, subjective language. It makes it difficult to operate when you don't have the tools that we need to do our jobs. And so we're just asking that we would get this restriction removed so that we can provide those services and protect the people we need to protect. Madam Chair.

Through the chair to the representative, yes, sir. I think a lot of the people at the FOP and my coworkers within the police department share some of those frustrations, and we've been trying to work for a long time to get a clear understanding of what the expectations of our positions are so that way we can perform those duties and not put ourselves at risk, but also be able to perform the duties that we took an oath to do and, you know, provide that safety and security for everybody there. Some of the circumstances that really cause, I think, the most concern is that sometimes we'll have individuals who will AWOL from our facility. They'll elope. We don't have any locked doors. And essentially now they're in the city of Columbus, and we have a duty to go try and get them back. We have to try to retrieve them because they're now in a dangerous situation. So I'm pretty much out in the city of Columbus, you know, trying to find the individual who is probably at risk. You know, some are more higher functioning than others, but I definitely want to be able to try and do that. And being out there in those environments, even outside of our facility, creates a bit of a risk, you know, to our officers. We're asked to do it. I think there's, you know, some concerns about our safety, but also we're also concerned about the residents. So we're trying to find that fine line that we're not going to put ourselves in a bad situation where we get harmed, but also trying to provide that level of care and safety and security to the individuals we're there to serve.

Representative Brent.

Through the chair, to the representative. Yes, ma'am. And there's another scenario, I guess, a circumstance that I can talk about. One of my coworkers was approaching one of the people who we have cut through our facility. We don't have any gates or anything that restricts access. So our facility is open to the public. It's a very appealing campus. It's very nice, very beautiful. It looks like a park. We've got people who cut through all the time. We do have posted no trespassing signs, but a lot of times people miss those. And so unfortunately, most of the time, we'll just approach people and ask them if they could just take their business, you know, elsewhere. And most people are compliant. But every once in a while, we come across people who, you know, are a little bit more dangerous. The specific situation I'm talking about, the officer was trying to approach the individual, identify him so that way, you know, we can give them that trespass warning so that they won't continue to trespass on our campus. and the individual pulled out a firearm and tried to turn around and shoot our officer. Luckily, he was able to deploy his taser, so he pretty much brought a taser to a gunfight, and he won. And it's just a miracle that he was able to come out of that situation alive. The individual was interviewed later on and apparently had a lengthy criminal history. He made a statement that he said he was willing to do whatever it took to get away from that officer while he was on that campus. and the firearm he was carrying was traced back to three homicide cases in the city of Columbus. So this is somebody who's had a history of, you know, making bad decisions and harming people. And that's just one example of many that I could give of different things that we deal with. So having the available tools to deal with people like that, the individuals that go AWOL, and those different circumstances that we kind of find ourselves in is why we're asking the committee so that way we can get the tools that we need to do our jobs. I hope that answers your question.

All right. Sounds good. Ranking Member Thomas.

Through the chair, to the representative. Yes, sir. So there's been, I guess, concern for the residents and the people who we're there for. Like everybody who works there, I'm what could be considered a support staff. You know, I support to make sure the campus is safe so the maintenance, the food service, the business administration, the TPWs, the direct care staff could all do their jobs. And I think, you know, the likelihood of, you know, something happening to the residents is something that the people who make those policies and decisions take into consideration. And I think we've tried through the years, working with the FOP, trying to talk to the director's office, trying to go through the governor's office. to try to get some balance between our safety and the safety of the people who reside there, because we understand that concern. And when we get new officers in, we try to let them know that there's a distinct difference between when you're dealing with one of the residents who resides there and somebody from the outside who doesn't work there, they don't live there, and they probably shouldn't be up there on that campus. And there's different levels of risk that we're taking when we're dealing with those different people. So having that ability to, you know, make those quick decisions can be kind of difficult because who you're dealing with, you know, matters a lot in those situations as well. So I understand that their concern is for the residents that live there, and I agree with that. I don't think that we should be carrying these weapons. Even the tasers, the policy that's already in place for the less than lethal devices that we have shouldn't be on those areas. It is inappropriate, and I'm glad that those policies are there. And I'm one of the officers who've been there for a while, so I help train the new officers when they come in so they understand this is a very unique niche position in law enforcement. And we have, you know, special duties. That's why we have a special police officer designation, and we want to do that and fulfill those duties. But we have to be able to discern very quickly who we're dealing with and why we're there so that way we act appropriately.

Through the Chair and Representative, yes, sir. It's very much specific on what we can carry, where we can have it, and where we're not allowed to have it. And those are very specific in the language already.

Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Officer, for your testimony. Thank you for being here. Thank you. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Officer Robinson Fester, FOP of Ohio. Welcome to committee. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Chair Irbams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas and members of the Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of Senate Bill 321. My name is Robinson Fester and I am speaking on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and its members employed by the Department of Behavioral Health who are directly affected by this legislation. I am a police officer with the Department of Behavioral Health, Toledo Campus, and I have proudly served in this role for 10 years. Senate Bill 321 would ensure that the Director of Behavioral Health cannot prohibit special police officers employed by the agency from carrying firearms in specific circumstances Under Ohio Administrative Code 5122 Section F DBH officers are currently prohibited from possessing firearms under any circumstances DBH police officers are fully certified OPATA peace officers who undergo the same rigorous training as every other certified peace officer in the state of Ohio. We wear full police uniforms, operate marked police vehicles, and are entrusted with maintaining the safety and security of the patients, staff, and visitors, both on facility grounds during off-site patient transports. Despite these responsibilities, officers are limited to carrying only tasers and batons during on-ground patrols and are prohibited from carrying any defensive tools during patient transport off facility grounds, leaving officers completely defenseless. Since the passage of Senate Bill 2 in the 134th General Assembly, DBH hospitals primarily housed forensic patients referred from local correctional facilities are ordered by criminal courts, many of whom have committed violent misdemeanors or felony level offenses prior to admission. Officers are expected to escort these individuals off facility grounds without any means of protection, despite the fact that many of these same individuals were originally transported to and from our facilities under armed escort. Current agent policy relies heavily on local law enforcement agencies and the Ohio State Highway Patrol to respond to serious incidents where risk of harm may exist at our facilities. This approach diverts officers away from their own communities and responsibilities instead of allowing trained DBH peace officers to handle situations within their jurisdiction. In dangerous situations where seconds matter, having an armed officer already on scene rather than waiting for one to arrive can mean the difference between lives saved and lives lost. Senate Bill 321 provide DBH officers with the tools necessary to effectively protect themselves, staff, patients, and the public. We'll allow trained law enforcement officers to carry out the duties that they are already trained to perform while strengthening safety and reducing reliance on outside agencies. In response to questions raised by this committee during the previous meeting, the majority of DBH officers are crisis intervention team certified, receive annual de-escalation training through the agency, and utilize these skills daily while working with the patients in our facilities. Under current policy, DBH officers already have access to tasers and batons for defense during exterior patrols of the campus. The introduction of firearms would not mean officers rely solely on lethal force. Rather, we would expect DBH to implement an appropriate use of force policy that prioritizes less lethal options whenever possible before escalating further if necessary. Currently, 10 other states utilize some form of armed security, armed police presence within their state-operated psychiatric facilities, including California, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and South Carolina. There have been multiple serious security incidents involving DBH officers over the years, and I'd be happy to provide specific examples if the committee wishes. For these reasons, the Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio and its members directly affected by this legislation respectfully ask the committee to give favorable consideration to Senate Bill 321. Thank you for your time and attention. I'd be happy to stand for any questions that the committee may have. Thank you, Officer, for your testimony. Representative Plummer has a question. Thanks. So I'm here, and you guys are fully certified peace officers. You've been through a potty, you've got everything except a gun, and you don't even have one bullet. Nothing. And the FOP stands with them. This is a good idea. But this could be changed in policy, but nobody listens to you, so we have to put it in law, correct? We have to put it in law. Through the chair to the representative, we have approached the agency, and they haven't chosen not to make any changes in the past to the code, the administrative code, in regards to it. So Senator Schaefer introduced a bill that would change the law so that the code would be had to be applicable to the law. Follow up. Yeah just a statement Thanks for bringing this forward You have my full support We kind of do this with the prison system since the employees are getting beat to death and nobody wanted to listen to them either so we trying to put some of that in the law to protect them as well So we hear you and you have my support. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Ranking Member Thomas. Thank you. Just one question. Okay, now I'm speaking from down my way, Cincinnati, Hamilton County. We have behavioral health centers down there. The policy applies down there as well. Is that what we're talking about? Through the chair to the representative, the administrative code that governs it would govern, and your district would be Summit Behavioral Health Care? Yeah. And then the Cleveland region would be North Coast. Appalachia would be Athens. Twin Valley or Central Ohio Behavioral Health Care would be the greater Columbus area and then Northwest Ohio Behavioral here where I'm at in Toledo where I work at. Okay. So its administrative code governs all those facilities, and those restrictions are pretty uniform across the board. Okay. No, that's fine. Okay. Representative Willis. No? Okay. Never mind. Thank you for your testimony today. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Members, direct your attention to the iPad for written testimony, and that will conclude the second hearing for Senate Bill 231. The chair will now call House Bill 852 for its second hearing. The chair recognizes Chief David Herron, Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police. Thank you, Chief, for your patience today, and the floor is yours. Thank you very much. Chief Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the House Public Safety Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on House Bill 852. My name is David Herron. I serve as the chief of police for the Heath Police Department. Today I'm testifying on behalf of the Ohio Association of Chiefs of Police. Under current Ohio law, there is a technical loophole that allows for the appointment of a chief of police who is not a certified police officer. To the average citizen, this sounds impossible. Most Ohioans assume that the individual leading the police department authorized to oversee the use of force policies, internal investigations, and the powers of arrest is at minimum legally qualified to perform the duties of a police officer. Unfortunately, this is not the reality. We have identified across the state in park districts, hospitals, universities, and some municipalities where chief roles have been filled by civilian board members, non-certified individuals for an extended period of time. When an agency is led by someone who cannot legally answer the call for service, make an arrest, or testify as a sworn officer, it degrades the entire profession in three distinct ways. One, the title of chief should signify a mastery of the law enforcement craft, allowing a non-certified individual to hold the title devalues the hard work of every officer who has earned the APADA commission and has worked towards the goal, working way up to the top. Two, it inherently is difficult for the department to follow a leader who has not stood in their shoes or met the same rigorous state standards required of a rookie patrolman. This disconnect can damage the agency's culture for years. Three, the public expects the chief of police to be a true law enforcement professional. Discovering that the chief is a civilian and all but the title could weaken the community support and the public trust in the agency. House Bill 852 is a cleanup bill that fills the The Ohio Revised Code that few realize existed. Our proposal is straightforward. No individual may serve in a permanent capacity as the Chief of Police without a POTA certification. We recognize the need for a national talent pool. The bill allows for out-of-state candidates six months to obtain Ohio credentials. This is more than sufficient. The qualified out-of-state chief typically only needs a very limited training and the ability to pass a written equivalency test exam to receive a pot of credit. OACP has consulted with the Ohio Peace Officers Training Academy, and they fully support this measure. They are aware of the current inconsistencies, agree that this is a necessary step for the statewide standards. leadership in law enforcement requires more than administrative skill it requires legal authority to stand alongside officers house bill 852 ensures the position of the chief of police remains a role of law enforcement professionals we believe this is a common sense fix that protects the integrity of our police agency and the safety of our communities they serve i urge favorable report for house bill 852 i'm happy to answer any questions of the committee thank you chief for your testimony today. Members, do you have any questions? Representative Brewer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for bringing something to the attention of people who are watching. And I want to make sure people think when they think of chief, they think it's just police departments. And like you said, hospitals, municipalities, districts, universities also have these type of entities as well. So I just want to say thank you for bringing that to people's attention, because when we think of chiefs, we just think of police departments. So thank you, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. Representative Plummer. Thanks, Chief. Thanks for bringing us forward. I agree with you 100%. We had a guy in Dayton who came from North Carolina and never got a certification, but he wore a uniform, carried a gun. I guess he could open carry. But he was the director of police, which is just laughable. Couldn't arrest you. Yeah. Where does this fall in line with directors of public safety? You know how they do that, where you're the police chief and the fire chief. Any idea how we should handle that? This doesn't touch that in any way, I know, that I saw in the legislation. Follow up? Follow up. So we'll just focus on the chief needs to be OPATA certified and carry a gun and gets the title of chief. That's what this legislation addresses, specifically on the chief's police position. Gotcha. Thanks, Chair. Okay, thank you. Vice Chair Miller. Thanks, Chief, for coming in today. It just dumbfounded me that this already wasn't in code. I didn't realize that when the Chief's Association brought this to me, and I thought, you've got to be kidding me. Chief does not even have to be certified in the state. So more of just a comment. Thank you for your leadership from the front. I will tell you folks that just the other day I was driving through Heath, and who did I see helping with the arrest of an individual but the very chief? If the chief wasn't Opata certified, he wouldn't have been able to do exactly what our chief was doing. But he leads from the front, does a great job. Thank you for everything you do. Thank you. All right. Thank you again for being here, chief. We appreciate your patience. Thank you. That will now conclude the second hearing on House Bill 852. I will now call House Bill 849 again up for its second hearing. The chair recognizes Roderick Creamer as an opponent to House Bill 849. Welcome to committee. Thank you for your patience. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today. I know we strapped for time and there some industry professionals in here So I will cut myself brief My name is Roger Kramer I a lifelong Ohioan born and raised by working parents in rural Ohio I a small business owner here in central Ohio who spent more than a decade working in Ohio vape industry I'm here today in opposition of House Bill 849. Before I explain why, I'd like to be clear on some things. I support responsible regulation. I support keeping nicotine products out of the hands of minors. I support penalties for retailers who knowingly sell to underage customers. I support removing bad actors from the marketplace. What I do not support is legislation that punishes responsible or how businesses alongside these bad actors. I've worked hard to build my business through determination, sacrifice, and time. I went from working in the industry as a cashier all the way up to owning my own store. Along the way, I created jobs and opportunities for people from all backgrounds. I hired without discrimination and worked to provide wages people could live on. My business has also given back to my community. We have supported food banks, women organizations, youth sports programs, and local charitable efforts because I believe businesses should strengthen the communities they serve. Today, businesses like mine, very similar to mine, are struggling under the increasing number of state and local regulations. But we have adapted, we've complied, and we've invested time and money to follow the rules. Yet House Bill 849 asks us to bear even more burden while placing enormous power over the marketplace into the hands of government agencies and a limited number of approved manufacturers. The sponsors have stated this bill is about accountability and creating a directory of approved products. I understand that that's the goal. However, when government determines which products may remain available and which products become contraband, the consequences extend far beyond enforcement. The reality is that many small retailers, similar to myself, do not have teams of attorneys, lobbyists, and compliance officers. Large corporations can absorb regulatory costs, while small businesses cannot. When legislation like this reduces product availability, increases compliance costs, It increases uncertainty about what products can and can't be sold legally. It's not the multinational corporations that suffer first. It is the independent Ohio business owner. It is the family-owned vape shop. It is the employee weathering they will have a job next year. It is the customers who lose access to the products they rely on and instead turn to online retailers and unregulated markets. The sponsor of this bill argued that this bill creates clarity for responsible businesses. Respectfully, many of us who are responsible business owners see the opposite. We see a system where our livelihoods become dependent on decisions being made far away from our communities by people who do not understand the realities facing small retailers. I agree that Ohio should target illegal products. I agree that we should aggressively enforce age restriction, and I agree that youth-oriented marketing should not be tolerated. But for those objectives, they can be achieved without creating a framework that threatens the survival of small, law-abiding businesses that have spent years following the rules. As legislators, you have a responsibility to protect public health, but you also have the responsibility to protect economic opportunity, entrepreneurship, and the small businesses that form the backbone of Ohio's economy. I ask this committee to consider whether House Bill 849 strikes the proper balance between these goals. From where I stand as a business owner, employer, taxpayer, and lifelong Ohio, when it does not, I respectfully urge the committee to reject House Bill 849 or substantially amend it to protect responsible small businesses while still addressing legitimate concerns regarding youth access and illegal products. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Roderick, for your testimony. Members, do you have any questions? All right. Vice Chair Miller, you have one question, sir. Come on back up here real quick. Sorry, one question. We'll make this quick. Not yet. Because I believe you hit home on some of them. So which portions of this bill would you be supportive of? I am supportive of punishing bad actors, people who sell illicit products, and people who sell to miners. Basically what I don support is the restriction of free market commerce Follow up No Okay All right Representative Plummer Thanks. Thanks for coming and testifying. So I really don't know what you do at your business, but my goal is to pull Chinese vapes out of the market, which have been tested, proven to be safe for our kids. So we pull 80% of the market, the Chinese products, out. We have better products. That's a stretch. better products have been approved by the FDA where we know what our kids are ingesting. Wouldn't that help improve your Ohio business model? Correct, but in a certain sense, I would still be in the same boat as, you know, people who sell to minors, bad actors, and that sort of thing. We would still, you know, kind of all be punished in that sense. Basically, if this were to go through and it restricts regulation, me and the gentleman, I'm not trying to say that I'm some great upstanding citizen. We all have our flaws, but me and the gentleman who specifically breaks the rules and continues to break the rules would be in the same boat, except he would be hundreds of thousands of dollars richer than I who tried to follow the rules and regulations this whole time. Follow-up. Follow-up. Yes, I'm not reading you here. So you're telling me you're both going to be bad actors, but you're going to be held more accountable than this bad actor? No, I'm saying that with this bill, it does nothing to punish the bad actors. it simply lumps us all together. I guess maybe I'm a little confused on the line of question. Well, Chair, if you don't mind. Go ahead. It's going to be illegal to sell to minors. So you won't sell to minors, correct? Correct. So the bad actor that continues to sell to minors, we're going to pay the Department of Public Safety to enforce the bad actors that are selling to minors that will cost them fines and maybe put them out of business. But if you're doing the right thing, I don't see how this policy is going to affect your business model. because my business model is a lot smaller than a larger corporation. If this were to go through, larger corporations essentially are able to secure the best deals. You know, that's capitalism. I understand that. But they are able to secure the best deals on limited brands, and then they're able to offer it to their customers at a lower price, effectively driving me out of business. One more, Chair. So do you sell Chinese products? Yes. Is there a pretty good profit margin in those? Sometimes, yes. Okay. No further questions. Okay. I will let you know, sir, that we are working on the bill, and this committee process is ongoing, so there may be changes coming down. We're still having conversations with interested parties, so thank you for your testimony today. We appreciate you. Thank you for having me today. The chair now recognizes Moe Dayum, Ohio retail establishment opponent. Welcome to committee, Moe. Thank you for your patience. Chair Abrams, Vice Chair Miller, Ranking Member Thomas, and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Mo Daim. I am the president of the Ohio Retail Establishment, and I am here representing hundreds of Ohio retailers and distributors who would be directly impacted by House Bill 849. Let me start by being clear. Responsible retailers are not against regulation. We support strong age verification, inspections, penalties for businesses that sell to minors, and enforcement against counterfeit, adulterated, or illegally imported products. But House Bill 849, as written, is not the right solution. This bill would create a state vapor registry that effectively turns Ohio into its own tobacco product approval system. Congress already gave that responsibility to the FDA through the federal PMTA process. The federal government, not 50 separate states, is best positioned to create one consistent science framework And right now that federal system is unstable For nearly six years businesses were told to submit PMTA applications spend the money follow the rules, and wait for answers. But the process has remained stagnant, dysfunctional, filled with delays, denials, lawsuits, shifting standards, and uncertainty. President Trump and his administration have made clear that they were not satisfied with how the FDA handled vapor products. He publicly promised to save vaping, and reports show his administration pushed the FDA to move faster after years of delays and inconsistent treatment. The FDA commissioner is now out after conflict and pressure over the agency's direction, including its handling of flavored vaping products. So my question is simple. If the President of the United States is saying this system needs to be fixed and the FDA is moving in a new direction, why would Ohio rush to build a state law around the old broken system? If the foundation is cracked, you don't build a house on top of it. That is exactly what House Bill 849 does. It freezes Ohio's market based on federal decisions, even though those decisions may change under new leadership, new guidance, new evidence, or new court rulings. The federal direction may be better or more fair, but it has not been fully established yet. Ohio should not lock itself into the old system while that system is being reworked. It also creates a dangerous patchwork. If every state creates a different registry with different products lists and different rules, that may be manageable for the largest corporations with legal departments and compliance teams, but it is devastating for small Ohio businesses. This bill will not hurt the biggest companies the most. It will hurt family-owned retailers, Ohio workers, distributors, Ohio consumers, and Ohio tax base. It will also push more sales into the black market and online market. If adult consumers can no longer buy the products they use from licensed Ohio retailers, those products will not disappear. They move online, out of state, or underground. During proponent testimony a couple weeks back, the superintendent of Cambridge City School raised a serious concern. He said students are telling him that they are buying vape products online. That should concern all of us. But HB 849 does not meaningfully solve that problem. If students can go online, click a button saying that they are 21 years old and have products shipped directly to their door, then why are we creating a bill that mainly punishes licensed Ohio retailers that are physically present, inspected, taxable, and accountable? Ohio should focus on enforcement on the real problems, online sales to minors, weak delivery verification, counterfeit products, illegal imports, and bad actors who do not follow the law. I also want to show the committee a real-world example of why this bill does not make sense. So I brought a couple examples with me. This is a Juul device. It is a small, discreet, easy-to-conceal device. It can fit in the palm of my hand, in my sleeve, or in a pocket. It can even be mistaken for a USB-style device. It also produces a small cloud which makes it harder for parents, teachers, or school administrators to notice. Many of you remember this product became face of the youth vaping controversy in America. It faced investigations, lawsuits from attorney generals across the country, major settlements over allegations tied to youth marketing. Any responsible Ohio retailers, including my own business, intentionally do not carry this product. Now look at this device. This device is a much larger, harder-to-conceal device. But this device would be banned while this device would be permitted if we followed the old system which this bill is telling us to do. So I ask this committee to respectfully re-evaluate this bill to slow down and allow the new federal system that the new administration in Washington is working on. There's no reason to come up with an Ohio-based system that follows the old FDA system that our president has clearly stated that he will no longer follow and that he's working on a new system. It just doesn't make sense. And I don't want to see time and resources wasted, and then we have to go back and create new bills and file lawsuits. It creates a big mess. We've seen it in other states. Kentucky, North Carolina have the same issues where right now they're going backwards on their registry system that they created, which is the same bill that pretty much what Ohio is looking to create with this bill. bill. So I'm just saying let's slow down and let's figure out an appropriate way to regulate this industry. Thank you. I'll take any questions. Thank you, Mo, for your testimony today. Members, do you have any questions? Vice Chair Miller. Thank you. Thanks for coming in today. Same question I asked the other gentleman. Which portions of the bill would you support? And I'm going to give the ones that I wrote down that you gave me and see if there's anything you want to add. You said you support doing away with obviously sales to minors, counterfeit products, online purchases by minors, and then illegal imports. Did I miss anything or is there anything else that you would be supportive of? Yeah, I would say packaging requirements. Any packaging that resembles anything that could be enticing to children should be banned. There's no need for it. Our products are for adult consumers only. So that's a big issue for our industry We would love to see regulations that take care of that issue And I would also like to see age verification systems Becoming a mandatory thing in retail settings And also online Where someone can just easily click

Okay, Ranking Member Thomas.

For the chair, to the representative, absolutely. You're absolutely right. I just don't want to see us rushing into this and leaving all these unanswered questions and, you know, all these problems, you know, keeping them unresolved. I would, like I said, I would love to see regulations, but the right regulations, the regulations that will actually protect the youth in our state, there's nothing in this bill and as you heard from the proponent testimony you know from superintendent of a school who came up here and said literally the students are telling him that they are purchasing these products online and when I looked at the bill there's nothing in there to to solve those issues so what I'm saying is you know the industry leaders including myself we're here, we're willing to speak with you all and get to a resolution here, get to an agreement of what needs to happen and make sensible laws that actually have sensible results that we can actually say, hey, you know what, we solved the problem, not create more legislation and more laws that really don't solve any problems but hurt Ohio businesses.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chair. Yeah, we're having another meeting Thursday about it, so if you want to submit your ideas to me, I'll be happy to look at them. But at Newsflash, you can order fentanyl online and have it mailed to your house. So I don think we ever regulate you know the underground illegal trades I don think we will but that a good talking point for this bill Do you agree with us that these products should be FDA approved So I agree that these products should be approved by a government agency

I don't legislate through fear of lawsuits because I don't believe the vape shops have won a single lawsuit across the country. So we have separation of powers for a reason. We do our jobs, and the courts will do their jobs. Do you or your associate members sell Chinese vapes that are not FDA approved?

Okay. So we're not worried about the health of our kids that are ingesting something that could be killing them. We're just worried about profit margins. That's absolutely not correct.

We should focus on making sure the products don't end up in the hands of children on the state level.

Thanks, Chair. Okay. Thank you for your testimony again, Mo.

The chair now recognizes Carrie Arblaster, the tobacco-free kids for opponent testimony. Thank you for your patience, Carrie.

And, of course, we want to be a resource to you all as you work through this. Okay. Thank you for your testimony, members. Do you have any questions?

Yes, through the chair to Representative Thomas. I am not an expert at online sales. It's a very, as Representative Plummer alluded to, a very kind of wild, wild west environment. I do think that we see some other policies as really effective at limiting youth access and deterring initiation, such as comprehensive and substantial tax increases. Tobacco retail licensure, which is in this bill. I'm not going to speak to it today. I've been in conversation with Representative Plummer's office on suggested changes to make that a little stronger. We love strong TRLs. I think that's a great way to keep product out of kids' hands. And then, of course, we fully support ending the sale of all flavored tobacco. As you probably know, upward of 90% of the products that youth are using are flavored. So those are some of the policies that we would point to rather than this.

Okay. Thank you for being here today. Thank you for your testimony. The chair now recognizes Scott, LA. I'm totally, Ely. OK, there we go. I'm going to jazz this up. It's late. Thank you for your patience. Long day. The floor is yours.

Thank you for your testimony today, members. Do you have any questions? All right. Seeing none, thank you so much for being here and for your patience today. It's been a long day.

Members, direct your attention to the iPad where there are multiple pieces of written testimony. That will now conclude the second hearing of House Bill 849. I will now call House Bill 846 for its second hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to give proponent testimony on House Bill 846? Okay, that will conclude the second hearing of House Bill 846. I will now call House Bill 82 for its third hearing. is there anyone here that wishes to give opponent testimony on House Bill 82? All right, that will now conclude the third hearing on House Bill 82. With no further business before this committee, we are hereby adjourned.