Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vapor Products Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate debates vape‑product restrictions and then tables bill after amendment battle
Summary
The Senate debated House Bill 10‑69, a vapor‑product regulation bill, and after lengthy floor debate adopted a substantial amendment and then tabled the bill on March 3, 2025.
The Senate considered House Bill 10‑69 on March 3, 2025, a measure aimed at regulating vapor products, including a requirement that manufacturers certify compliance with federal consumer‑safety processes. The measure’s sponsor, Senator Davis, said the bill was intended to stop illicit imported products and protect consumers and retailers that sell legal, compliant devices.
Floor debate centered on the bill’s reliance on the Food and Drug Administration’s premarket tobacco product application (PMTA) determinations. Opponents argued the PMTA process has been the subject of litigation and currently leaves most non‑Big‑Tobacco products off the market; critics said the original bill would effectively bar most products and consolidate market share with a few large companies. Senator Vojta and others argued that an amendment was necessary to preserve state control and avoid creating a de facto big‑tobacco monopoly.
Senator Vojta offered Amendment G (described on the floor as 10‑69 G) to remove reliance on the FDA PMTA as the sole authorization path and instead create a state licensing approach with ingredient disclosure, packaging limits (no cartoon or toy‑like designs), and inspections to better control youth‑targeted products while preserving pathways for state‑certified products. The amendment passed on a roll call (19 yeas, 15 nays). Following further floor action, the sponsor moved to table the bill; the motion to table carried on a roll call (27 yeas, 7 nays). The clerk announced the bill was lost after tabling.
Supporters of the original bill said the change was needed to stop illicit products “made and sold in violation of our U.S. consumer protection laws.” Opponents said the original text would allow a handful of large manufacturers to dominate the market and that the amendment preserved a state‑based enforcement path and protections on packaging and sales to minors.
Outcome: After the amendment was adopted, the Senate tabled the bill; the transcript records both the amendment roll call (19‑15) and the subsequent tabling vote (27‑7).
