House Labor & Commerce, 5/11/26, 3:15pm

This meeting of the House Labor and Commerce Committee will come to order. The time is 3:33 PM on May 11th. Members present are Representative Carrick, Representative Freer, Representative Sadler, Co-Chair Fields, and myself, Co-Chair Hall. We have a quorum. Please silence your cell phones.

We're asking that staff and members of the audience not approach the table. If you need to pass a note to committee members, please get the attention of our substitute committee aide today. Thank you very much for joining us, Maya Narang, and she will take care of it. I'd like to thank Andrew Magnuson, the Labor and Commerce Committee Secretary, and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO for tech and teleconferencing support. We have one bill on the agenda today, and that is HB 386, Gaming and Electronic Pull Tabs, by Senator Bjorkman.

We will run through the remainder of the sectional analysis. Take public testimony, have committee questions and discussion. But we are for now going to take an at ease while we wait for Senator Bjorkman to join us. So at ease.

Okay, we are back on record. It is 3:39 PM, and we have also been joined by Representative David Nelson. Additionally, we have been joined by Senator Bjorkman, and we lost Conrad Jackson, but I'm sure he's on his way back shortly. So we are going to, um, instead of starting with a sectional analysis and finishing that up, we're instead going to turn to public testimony. Testimony first and then go into the remainder of the sectional analysis and committee discussion.

We have maybe about 45 minutes or so, uh, depending on what time we are heading back to the floor. So with that, public testimony is now open. Is there anybody in the room who would like to testify? It looks like Mr. Minors, if you would like to come forward and provide your public testimony, that would be great. Thank you for being here.

For the record, Mack Miners, Juneau, Alaska, 1120 Mendenhall Peninsula Road. I get 3 more minutes, so I will let her fly again. I have been involved in pull tabs for 27 years as both a designated member in charge with vendor relationships and as an operator. So what I have to say is, well, shall I really stir the pot right now and say that this bill was created by Mr. Fisher? And it seems to me that this is personal gain for Mr. Fisher, and basically we're playing for charity.

We're not playing for Minnesota. There's 5.8 million people in Minnesota and there's barely 750,000 in Alaska, and we're losing people every day. So this charity shouldn't be taken to pieces by this gaming stuff, this electronic gaming. When the gaming first came, they called me— Global called me and told me how it works. I'd already been to Las Vegas and talked to the guys from New Jersey.

Now I really don't trust them, and I saw that the percentages were very high and that the charities charities would suffer. And under this Minnesota bunch, the same thing's gonna happen. They're gonna take a large percentage. The charities are gonna end up not making so much money. It's really important to me.

I played this game for a long time for many of the kids, many of the organizations around the state. As I've had as many as 25 charities in a year and made sure that they all had money. And so when it comes to this game, I know a lot about it. So I guess what I'm gonna say is a couple more things. Broadcasting.

When I first started, there was no broadcasting. You could not get on the radio, you could not advertise, you couldn't— all you could do is play the best game you can, and honesty is the best policy, and word of mouth gets your game out there. So when the duck derbies, the rat race, and now we have the lotto, which is on TV all the time, where's, you know, it's kind of gone a little overboard. I've seen it try to put in the electronic poker game. I've seen, you know, all this stuff in the last 27 years come to light and get failed even on votes.

I remember when we voted to see if we could have gaming in the bars. And that went down in flames. Now, I think that was in 1992 maybe, or '94, somewhere in there. I was fishing in Kodiak Island at the end of the island. I flew to town so I could vote.

So that's how important it was to me. And the other thing is why, when you talk about the take—. Mr. Miner, you've reached your 3 minutes. I think I got some of my points across.

Yes, and I would also like to remind the committee and for those who are watching online that we already heard from you last week during invited testimony as well. Thank you. Thank you very much for being here again. You're welcome. Okay.

Next we have one person online, and that is Jerry Lewis. And if this is the same Jerry Lewis as previously— as heard previously last week during invited testimony, we are going to be limiting your testimony to 3 minutes. Mr. Lewis, if you are there, and can hear me, will you please identify yourself for the record and begin your public testimony? Yeah, thank you. My name is Jerry Lewis.

Again, I'm an operator in Anchorage. It's not my first time testifying on the bill because it affects my charities that I contract with greatly. During the last invited testimony, several representatives from Minnesota were invited. Hearing all of the testimony, I'm surprised that no one asked them the two questions that would have validated or invalidated most of the other testimony. And no one asked if the bill modeled around the Minnesota model— and Minnesota is doing so well— then what are the manufacturers charging for games in Minnesota?

You know, the answer is 20%, exactly what we've been saying for the last year, that HB 386 would allow the manufacturers to charge 35%. Secondly, they didn't ask what do vendor locations in Minnesota receive when they play a game. The answer is 15%. Again, what we've been saying for the last year. But HB 386 allows it to be 25%.

And the final question nobody asked was how many tablets can a bar in Minnesota have in play? And the answer is 6. Exactly what we've been saying again for the last year and a half. But HB 386 allows a minimum of 10. There's several other issues with the bill.

The fact is that it took 3 readings to get through should be enough to scare most people. In closing, you realize that the bill eliminates the sale of lottery tickets in bars. I want to thank you for my time, and that concludes my testimony. Thank you for joining us again, Mr. Lewis. With that, I'm not seeing anybody else online, not seeing anybody else in the room.

With that, I will close public testimony. Public testimony is now closed. Senator Bjorkman, would you please join us at the table? And I see that your trustee staff, Mr. Jackson, is not in the room. So maybe do you want to start with questions from committee members, or before we get to the sectional?

And also, it looks like we have a question here from Co-Chair Fields. Thank you, Representative Hall. For the record, my name is Senator Jesse Bjorkman. I represent the northern and central portions of the Kenai Peninsula. I can continue with the sectional or do whatever the committee wishes.

Thank you. Let's start with Co-Chair Fields. Uh, just a quick question. Um, one of the things that I— where I don't remember offhand what's in the bill. Number of tablets in a— in an establishment.

I thought the bill capped it or capped the density of tablets. And yes, Representative Fields, that is correct. Um, the bill caps, um, the number of tablets at, uh, 1 per 6 occupancy. So if you have a building with the occupancy of let's say 42, then if my math skills are correct, you could have 7 tablets. Okay.

Um, or, or 10, whichever is greater. Okay. Uh, follow-up, follow-up. And could you just remind us— I know we've gone over this, um, division, uh, in terms of money received by charities versus the player versus the manufacturer and distributor status quo in the bill, please? [Speaker:MR. BOLL] Yeah, very good.

No, that's an excellent question. Currently, there is no cap on what a manufacturer can take as a cost of their contract to provide paper pull tabs. There's none at all. Zero. Unlimited.

The bill before us establishes a manufacturer cap. At 35%, and that is a cap that charities can negotiate down from, but it's a ceiling. And I think that's, that's an important realization. And so as we look at what, what can happen, I understand that people are afraid of change. A lot of the negative testimony that we've heard are from for-profit businesses that are afraid that the current law, which provides them some monopolistic abilities through the way our laws currently work, those things are going to go away, and rightfully so, because that will drive more price competition and more ability for charities to negotiate better deals so that they can bring more money in for their charities and nonprofits.

Also, to follow up as to splits on bars, currently A bar, if they sell pull tabs, paper pull tabs, they are entitled to a 30% share of the take. For electronic pull tabs, that share is reduced from 30% to 25%. Again, more money for charities and nonprofits. Thank you. Okay, I'd like the record to reflect that we were joined by Representative Calom at 3:46 PM.

Next in the queue, we have Representative Carrick, followed by Representative Sadler. Representative Burke. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So Rep Fields asked the question I was going to ask about the cap on tablets, but then you had mentioned it would be by square footage essentially, or 10, whichever number is greater. Does that mean that a small bar could have, even though they would not meet square footage requirements, could have up to 10 By default?

10 Tablets in play through the chair to Representative Carrick. Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you. I have a clarifying question on that. Senator Beyerock-Manath, you said it was by occupancy?

That's correct, ma'am. Not to be— so, so by, by SWRF. Okay, understood. Thank you. Um, follow-up?

Oh, on this? Co-chair Fields. Through the chair, um, Have you thought about, to the bill sponsor, having an upper range, like no more than 10 in an establishment? Do you have an— if the concern is an ever-proliferating number of tablets, is there a number that would be reasonable as an upper range? Or is that not reasonable given the widely variable size of facilities?

I would accept that. Some of the people who are now advocating against the bill had indeed advocated for there to be more tablets available. Which is an interesting kind of turn for some of these for-profit businesses as they see a changing landscape and now are advocating against the change. So yes, if we wanted to have a maximum limit of tablets in play at one time, I think that's entirely appropriate. Follow-up?

I don't, I don't have a particular strong opinion. I'm just trying to figure out if that's a good idea. If we were to do that, what would be a good number? It's a policy call. I think if we look at some of the bigger places that have capability of having additional tablets under the bill, it would be bingo halls.

So the cap on, on them having limited amount of tablets, I think, I think 25 would probably be a reasonable number. Tablets in play. You could have other spares on the premises if something breaks or something doesn't work.

So, but I think 25 would be a fine number for a maximum if people are interested in that. Okay, thank you. Okay, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Senator Bjorkman, I just want to clarify, you talked about the status quo that there's no cap right now on the manufacturer's take for paper pull tabs.

And you said HB 386 would cap or, yeah, would cap at 35%. Did you mean 35% for paper or 35% e-tabs? For electronic pull tabs. Through the Chair, Rep. Sadler. And having not digested the entirety of the bill, I'm not sure.

Does the— I understand there's an alternative, e-tabs are an alternative. Bar establishments could still sell paper. Does this— does the legislation change the take of this distribution, any factors for paper? RIPAs, or does it leave them entirely alone? Through the chair to Representative Sadler, I'm trying to digest— I'm trying to think about your question.

The answer to your question is I don't think so. I don't recall us attempting or contemplating to change any percentages having to do with paper pull tabs. I'm simply changing those as regard to electronic pull tabs. Right. Follow-up.

Follow-up. Just to make it real clear, yeah. I understand that there's no— this is a potential alternative. If an establishment wants to keep offering paper, they can sure do that. But— and so we've seen a lot of comparison between that status quo now and what this would change, but it would be different just for e-tabs.

Paper would stay the same status quo? Paper would stay the same under the bill? Through the Chair to Representative Sadler, yes. As far as the percentages that go to different places, with operator, manufacturer, and permittee or charity nonprofit, as well as a vendor, which is a bar. Those things would stay the same for paper.

We add additional provisions in the bill to take away some monopolistic availability and activity with paper pull tabs and requiring sell-all provisions and other things for paper. And that would provide for additional competition, which could provide more money available for charities. That's the design of that. And just last one. Follow-up.

Could you point to which sections address that? Yes. Thank you very much, Representative Sadler.

The section addressing— That is in this version of the bill in Section 30.

Oh wait, hang on, let me— I'll find that for you between different versions of the bill, Rep. Sadler. Um, we will, we will, uh, we'll locate that. I can tell you that in, in the current version of the bill that we're working on, um, it is in Section 25. Okay.

Of the— of a committee substitute that will be rolling out shortly, and we can review all of that when we look over the changes. Great, thanks. Okay, next we have Representative Kulum. Thank you, Chair. Through the Chair, so there seems to be an issue with some of the testifiers around that 35% cap, and I know that there's no cap now, and— but it does appear that seems to be higher than what they're paying for paper now.

So I was just wondering where the 35% number came from, and is there any flexibility in that cap? Thank you for the question, Representative Colon. The 35% cap number was created to create some space above an announced agreement between a distributor and a manufacturer at 31%. There was a distributor that had a free market negotiating with the manufacturer, and they came to an agreement on and published kind of their, their number that they had agreed to of 31%. And so the cap of 35% allows there to be some space above that.

If people need to negotiate above that, but it's a cap. And charities, nonprofits, operators, multi-permit beneficiaries, they should and have every benefit to negotiate the number down to obtain a contract through a distributor and a manufacturer for their gaming equipment so that they can secure any number of of options, 3 essentially, for equipment below that, that cap. So it's a protection, it's a protection for the charities and nonprofits to say you can come to an agreement, but that, that agreement cannot be more than, than this percentage. Follow-up? Follow-up.

Yeah, I'm just wondering why not 31% or, you know, kind of lower? It feels like you would protect it if you lowered that then keep it up at 35. And I just ask because there's been some input that some concern around the rural areas. So if you're a big organization, you have more negotiating power, but if you're a small place in a rural area, they probably don't have as much power to negotiate it down. Through the chair to Representative Colon, um, that may be.

However, the, the market forces that are, are at play in costs of getting equipment out to those areas as well as servicing it. All of that has cost. And you, if you— anytime you're going to essentially create a price ceiling there, you, you run the risk economically of creating deadweight loss in the market. So a charity and nonprofit can be profitable in these games by having a cap still at 35%. If we lower that and then we shut off the availability for a manufacturer to provide games to charities and nonprofits because they can't, they can't or will not do it for so little margin, then we have created a loss to the charities because they can't engage in that economic relationship because of an artificial cap.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, not seeing further questions from the committee. Senator Bjorkman, shall we attempt to finish the sectional analysis today?

Surely.

We left off on Section 31.

We're going through version Q.

Section 31 amends the distribution of pull tabs, and it ensures that all pull tab series have a serial number in it that is sealed or in an encrypted manner, and it allows for the distribution of electronic pull tab games to a vendor by electronic transfer. So this is a, this is a change, and this makes things more secure and easier for permittees. Some critics have pointed out that charities, nonprofits would be cut out of this process. That's entirely not the case, and that's a misrepresentation of the facts. This simply just makes it very simple for a distributor of electronic pull tabs to send games to a bar, a vendor, without having to go through the middleman of the permittee.

The permittee, the charity nonprofit, they're still guaranteed all of the money. This just cuts out a lot of legwork for that charity and nonprofit, and they still get all— they still get their full 25% that they have coming to them through those games. Yep, we have a question from Representative Kulum and then Representative Settler. All right, so Senator Bjorkman said version Q. That's the Senate version, right?

Oh, my apologies. I'm trying to figure out which—. It's this. Yep, my apologies. Um, I have version A in front of me.

Great, they should be the same. Okay. Yep. Okay, they're the same. What's the same, A and Q?

So A is the House version, Q is the Senate version, and they're the same. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Sorry about that. That's right.

Representative Sadler, was that your comment or question as well? If we're on— um, gee whiz, different pages here. Yeah, the pagination is kind of hard to follow. They're all page 2. Yeah, I confess that I'm not sure.

I thought you were talking about distribution, and which to me means, you know, mailing them out or distributing them. And then you made comments which did not appear to me to relate to distribution. I just— it sounded like there was talking about the, the take distribution again. I wonder if I can ask you to summarize again what Section 31 does. Section 31 ensures that pull tab series have a serial number, okay, that are sealed or in an encrypted manner, and it allows a distributor to send an e-pull tab series to a vendor, a bar, by electronic means.

Okay, makes sense. Yeah, you were saying something else. Okay. Yep. Section 32 amends 0515.185, Distribution of Pull Tabs, by adding 3 new sections.

It establishes additional requirements for ETABS. It limits ETAB games to a maximum of 1,500 tickets— 15,000 tickets, apologies— and requires the cost of each ticket for a paper pull tab to be disclosed on the invoice.

Okay. So, Representative Sadler, thank you. Establishes additional requirements— that's a little vague. What do you mean, establish additional requirements? Yep.

So if we look at Section 32, um, you have a finite number of winning and non-winning tickets, you have predetermined prize amount structure, we have that unique serial number that we just talked about. And you have the number of tickets cannot exceed 15,000. It may not require additional consideration for an extended play feature included, included in the game, and it has to have an invoice for a paper pull tab game, and that has to specify the cost of each ticket. Okay, that provides a degree of specificity, which I appreciate. Thanks.

Section 33 amends 0515 by adding a new section, AS 0515-186, Electronic Pulltabs.

This essentially describes what electronic pulltabs are and what they do. The new language provides for the physical characteristics of electronic pulltabs devices, their operation and security. It allows for debit card transactions, prohibits the acceptance of credit cards, and connection to a system which accepts credit card transactions. It prevents the distributing of anything from value— of anything from value from the system. Any visuals that mimic spinning reels of a slot machine are all prohibited.

Pull-tab machines must display the serial number or series of numbers for an electronic pull-tab, the display, and any prize awarded, and may automatically close when all winning tickets have been played. The new language sets limits for payouts, the fees of 35% manufacturer cap that we talked about, and prohibits linking the ability to purchase paper pull tabs or prices of electronic pull tabs.

Section 34 amends ASO 515.187(d), operation of pull tab games. This clarifies that the provisions in this subsection apply only to paper pull tabs.

Section 35 amends AS 515.187(e), specifies that no person under 21 years of age may purchase, access, or redeem electronic pull tabs, or any pull tabs, I should say. Section 36 amends AS 05 AS 05.15.187(f), Operation of Pull Tab Games. It adds language specifying that the current recordkeeping requirements for permittees in this subsection apply to paper pull tabs and adds language with requirements for recordkeeping for electronic pull tabs. Section 38 amends AS 05.15.187, Operation of Pull Tab Games, by adding 5 new subsections. This requires the designation of a person at an operation who is on-site and responsible for overseeing pull tabs.

Requires the department to limit the number of electronic pull-tab devices in play at a location to 1 tablet for every 6 persons who may occupy the premises, or 10 tablets total, whatever is greater. It prohibits owners, employees, and those who have access to electronic pull-tab status reports from playing paper or electronic pull-tabs at a location. It prohibits those who operate or benefit from pull-tab sales from receiving gifts from manufacturers or from individuals or companies connected to manufacturers.

This section has significant— by way of commentary, this section has significant protections for the outlawing of any kind of passive gaming rooms where people would, would go in and simply not have to interact with people to engage in charitable gaming. It also makes sure that there are not economic entanglements that would provide for any kind of monopolistic activities. In part. Section 39 amends AS 0515.188(g), pull tab sales by vendors on behalf of permittees and vendor registration. It adds the option for an alternate member in charge of pull tab operations and specifies that the provision in the subsection only apply to paper pull tabs.

Section 40, Amends pull tab series— I'm sorry, amends AS 0515.188(H), pull tab sales by vendors on behalf of permittees, vendor registration. It clarifies that the provision in this subsection only applies to paper pull tabs.

Again, that means, and just to reiterate, so this is under the vendor section. It's just restating there that if they're paper pull tabs played at a bar, that the charity is getting 70% of the ideal net and the bar gets 30%. Section 41 amends AS 05.15.188(i), pull tab sales by vendors on behalf of permittees, vendor registration. It adds option for alternative— I'm sorry, I just read that, my apologies. Section 42, Amends AS 0515.188, pull tab sales by vendors on behalf of permittees.

It adds 9 new subsections, provides a permittee vendor electronic pull tab contractual agreement of 25% gross receipts less prize payouts. So that's that 25% cap for bars. Limits vendor locations to selling only paper pull tabs and electronic pull tabs on portable tablet devices. So we're not talking about slot machines or cabinets. It specifies vendors' monthly reporting requirements and monthly payment schedule.

It allows a distributor to facilitate payments from a vendor to a permittee and a distributor on behalf of a permittee by using a third party, if approved by the department. It allows the adoption of regulations to implement this subsection. It limits the vendor's portion to not more than 30% of adjusted gross income for paper pull tabs of AGI for electronic pull tabs. It allows for a vendor to pool permittees, specifies that cash shortages are the vendor's responsibility, and prohibits registration of vendors that are prohibited from being vendors. Also prohibits vendors from receiving gifts from manufacturers or individuals or companies connected to manufacturers.

Mr. Chair, Madam Chair. With all respect, the sponsor is simply reading to us verbatim what we have in front of us. I'm not sure if this is really helpful to members or if this is important to the process. Or because, you know, the, the definite— the citations for the statutes, uh, the technical— I'm not, I'm not getting a lot of value out of this.

I can read this at my own leisure. But is— are other members getting value out of this recitation? I see, I see the value of it, um, because we're methodically, mechanically going through the bill, and it allows the opportunity for, for members to ask questions, um, as we're viewing exactly what's in the bill. Okay, yeah, noted. Your concern is noted.

Okay, sure. I mean, it's a long sectional. It is, and this is our third time, I think, working through the sectional. Um, I do want to note that I think we're probably going to be after wrapped up around 4:30 or so. Um, so hopefully we can get through this.

Section 43 adds a new article to allow for gaming on The ferry system. Section 44 has restrictions on broadcasting and online gaming. It removes the prohibition for broadcasting to promote charitable gaming activity. Section 45 amends AS 0515-640(c), again with restrictions on use of broadcasting and online gaming, adding language defining internet and internet communication for the purpose of conducting charitable gaming activities as allowed under this subsection. Representative Sadler.

Thank you to that end, Madam Chair. So again, I'm not part of the gaming world. I don't understand how this works, but should I understand that right now it is prohibited by law to broadcast, to advertise, do radio or television advertisements for a RIPI game? Is that the current status? That's correct.

To ensure this would allow that, that, that's a— and this would allow broadcasting radio, TV ads, internet ads, is that correct?

That's correct. It seems to be a pretty significant change in the biz. Well, it's a good thing we're going through the sectionals so that you can ask those kinds of questions. And if I hadn't asked the question, I would understand the details. So thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Okay, Senator Bjorkman.

Section 46. Section 46 amends AS 0515.6901 definitions, adding taxes collected under AS 0515.184 to adjustments that may be made to calculate the adjusted gross income.

Section 47. Representative Sadler. Thank you. And through the chair, Senator Bjorkman, whose taxes collected by whom and who is adjusted gross income? Thank you very much.

Through the chair to Representative Sadler, currently the state implements a 3% tax on charitable gaming as designated by the fiscal note. Also, there is an option. Almost all municipalities in the state of Alaska do not tax charitable gaming. There are only two that do, and they are Juneau and Nome. There's been conversation about whether or not there should be a limit on how much local communities can, can tax, but we have not made changes to that in the bill.

So Follow-up. So if the state's collecting 3% charitable gaming tax, then this section allows adjustments to whose adjusted gross income?

The adjusted gross income would be an adjusted gross income of an operator or a distributor.

Okay. Okay. Good deal. Thanks.

When you're ready, Senator Bjorkman. Very well.

Section 47 amends AS 0515690 definitions. It removes restrictions on what is allowed to expense against gross receipts. Very simply, charities know that they are entitled to a certain percentage of the gameplay. And so entire reporting of additional expenses, as we've discussed in other parts of the bill, they've been removed to kind of free up some paperwork burden. Section 48 amends AS 0515.690 definitions to add electronic representation of a card to the definition of pull-tab game, allowing for electronic pull-tabs.

It's conforming. Section 49 is additional language about the marine highway system in the bill and also allows for booster clubs that have existed, but they have not been a permittee before, to engage in pull tabs. And so that's a significant improvement for those booster clubs who have existed to immediately be able to benefit from electronic pull tabs.

Section 50 amends definitions, adding electronic pull tab series to the definition of series. Section 51 is a similar definition update. Section 52 amends AS 19-05040, powers the department allowing for gaming on the ferry system. Section 53, again more language having to do with the ferry system.

I've got a question then. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Bjorkman, Section 52 Would the state Department of Transportation have one license, or would each vessel require its own license?

Representative Sadler, I don't know the answer to that question.

Provisions about the ferry system were not made in consultation with my office, so I'm not exactly sure how they would function. We will continue to endeavor to understand, but it's likely that the bill will, um, continue to change in a forthcoming committee substitute that would answer that question. That would likely— if you do find out who inserted this in your bill, it would be nice to know, and whether that would be a one license or multiple. Thank you. Representative Sadler, I believe we're going to have clarity on that question on Wednesday.

Yeah, thank you for asking it. Senator Bjorkman, Section 54, repeal statutes requiring regulations to be consistent with the North American Gaming Regulators Association. That organization doesn't exist. It also repeals old definitions of internet and internet communication. It also repeals some reporting requirements and language of reporting requirements for certain operators.

Yes, that's the entirety of what those repealers are. We'll talk about those more again with the CS. Section 55 provides that AS 05.15.183m only applies to contracts entered into or, or after the effective date of Section 30. Section 56 amends uncodified law providing the Department of Revenue the authority to adopt regulations necessary to implement this act. Section 57 provides an immediate effective date for Section 56.

Section 58 provides an immediate effective date for— provides an effective date of January 1st, 2031 for Section 14. And Section 59 provides an effective date of January 1st, 2027 as provided for in Sections 57 and 58. The reason for the different effective dates makes it certain that the market will not see an explosion of distributors in the state as a result of this new law. It kind of keeps the status quo in place to allow the market to adjust, while it also keeps the status quo in place for other folks and allows for the school booster clubs that have existed to adopt electronic pull tabs.

Thank you, Senator Bjorkman. With that, we will open it up for community— committee discussion and committee member questions. Does anybody have a question for Senator Bjorkman or his staff, Conrad Jackson?

All right.

Brief at ease.

Okay, House Labor and Commerce Committee is now back on the record. We are going to We are anticipating a CS of SB 170 being in front of the committee on Wednesday. As soon as that CS is available for committee members, Senator Bjorkman will be distributing, distributing that to committee members. We believe that'll happen by the end of the day today, at which point, in which case, we are going to set an amendment deadline for SB 170, the CS to SB 170, of 5 o'clock tomorrow PM. So with that, we will set this bill aside.

And before we adjourn, I just want to let committee members know we anticipate putting on the schedule for Wednesday the 3 final governor's appointees. Those will be added to the committee schedule for Wednesday, and we will be taking them up in advance of the joint session. With that, we will adjourn, and it is 4:21 PM.