HOUSE BILL NO. 128 "An Act relating to charitable gaming online ticket sales and activities." 2:17:36 PM Co-Chair Merrick stated the committee would consider amendments to HB 128. She listed individuals available online for questions. Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32- LS0649\A.2 (Radford, 3/25/21) (copy on file): Page 1, line 1, following "activities": Insert"; and providing for an effective date" Page 2, line 27, through page 3, line 1: Delete all material and insert: "age and location verification requirements;" Page 3, lines 10 - 11: Delete "permittee, an operator, or the holders of a multiple-beneficiary permit operating under (d) of this section" Insert "purchaser" Page 3, line 11: Delete "verify" Insert "certify" Page 3, lines 13 - 16: Delete all material and insert: "is of legal purchasing age and is not physically present in an area that has adopted a local option prohibiting charitable gaming. (f) A permittee, operator, or holder of a multiple- beneficiary permit conducting a charitable gaming activity under (d) of this section shall conduct the charitable gaming activity in the state and determine, in the state, the winner of the charitable gaming activity. * Sec. 3. This Act takes effect immediately under AS 0l.10.070(c)." Representative Wool OBJECTED for discussion. Representative Rasmussen explained the amendment with a prepared statement: Last week in committee there were a few issues that were brought up by members during our discussion on House Bill 128. After working with the sponsor and Legislative Legal we believe this amendment addresses most, if not all, of the issues raised. This amendment eliminates the requirement for a purchaser to be a resident of the State of Alaska. It eliminates the requirement that the raffle licensee verify the age and location of the purchaser. It eliminates the prohibition of sales to people located outside of state if the organization wishes to open it up to outside sales. For internet sales, the purchaser, not the licensee, will verify their age and that the individual resides in a state where purchase of a raffle ticket is not prohibited. It clarifies that any raffle covered in this bill occurs in this state and the winner is determined in the state. It also includes an immediate effective date. Co-Chair Merrick asked to hear from the sponsor. REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, SPONSOR, supported the amendment and appreciated the opportunity to work with the amendment sponsor. Representative Wool WITHDREW his OBJECTION. There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was ADOPTED. 2:19:29 PM Representative LeBon MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32- LS0649\A.4 (Radford, 3/26/21) (copy on file): Page 3, line 8, following "permittee"" Insert", an operator, or the holder of a multiple- beneficiary permit" Page 3, line 9, following "online": Insert "or by other electronic or digital means" Vice-Chair Ortiz OBJECTED for discussion. Representative LeBon explained that he had an amendment to Amendment 2 that he would like to adopt before speaking to Amendment 2. He MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 to Amendment 2: Page 1, line 2 of the amendment, following "permit": Insert "conducting a raffle or lottery, dog mushers' contest, derby, or type of classic defined in AS 05.15.690" There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Representative LeBon shared that he intended to withdraw the amendment but wanted to put a few things on the record. He explained Amendment 2 as amended with a prepared statement: Amendment 2 as amended clarifies the language when it comes to how a permittee, an operator, or the holder of a multiple beneficiary permit may conduct a charitable raffle or lottery, a dog mushers' contest, derby, or classic. The new language on page 3, line 8 would read "a permittee, an operator, or the holder of a multiple-beneficiary permit conducting a raffle or lottery, dog mushers' contest, derby, or type of classic defined in AS 05.15.690 may draw winning tickets online or by other electronic or digital means." The language would allow, in addition to permittees, operators, and holders of multi- beneficiary permits, to draw winning tickets online or utilize electronic or digital means on a computer. Utilization of electronic tools for drawing of winning tickets brings increased efficiencies such as those noted by stakeholders during invited testimony. The department has interpreted the definition of "raffle and lottery" in AS 05.15.690 Section 41 very strictly. Such that drawing winning tickets by lot only means drawing physical tickets in a barrel draw. My desire is to make clear to the department that we intend to allow drawings to be conducted electronically. This amendment came to me from the suggestion of a letter from the Public Employees Local 71, which utilizes a charitable gaming operator who also happens to be one of my constituents, to help fund a scholarship and wellness fund for members and their families. As the bill is written now, only permittees, not operators or holders of multi-beneficiary permits, may draw tickets online. Many nonprofits rely on operators to raise funds for them, reducing the effort of organizing massive fundraising events themselves. It is not my intent with this language to enable electronic pull tabs or electronic bingo, which I believe is only made more explicit by the amendment to the amendment specifying this would only apply to a raffle or lottery, dog mushers' contest, derby, or classic. I believe the drafter Claire Radford is on the line and I believe she can clarify some of these points and I would also like to get an assessment by the Department of Revenue. Before we go to the drafter, there has been concern expressed by some stakeholders who are not comfortable with the amount of time that they have had to review this amendment. I have communicated with the sponsor who has assured my office that they are willing to work with me on this amendment on the House floor. So, in good faith, I intend to withdraw it so it can be offered on the floor once those groups have had a chance to get further review. Representative LeBon WITHDREW Amendment 2 as amended. 2:23:46 PM AT EASE 2:25:26 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Merrick noted the amendment process had concluded. Representative Wool had questions about the amendment that had been withdrawn related to online raffle and lottery sales. He asked how to combine the use of online tickets and paper tickets to draw a winning ticket. He asked if online tickets would be converted to paper. He surmised that the idea of electronic tickets was temporarily off the table, but the issue could be addressed on the House floor. He thought the House Finance Committee setting may be a better place to figure the issue out. He reiterated his prior questions and asked how the winner would be drawn. He asked about a scenario where the winner was drawn at a banquet. He asked if the digital ones would be included on paper in the drawing. He asked about scenarios where the tickets were sold out-of-state. He asked if the number of tickets to be sold was made clear before the start of the lottery. He asked for verification that tickets could not be added to the original number after the lottery had begun. 2:27:18 PM Representative Fields believed the statute was clear that a drawing had to be fair and transparent with a record of the tickets in an in-person only or a combined in-person and online lottery. He explained that the operator of the raffle would have to consolidate the paper and online tickets in one way or another. He believed the committee had heard in invited testimony that permittees and charitable organizations believed online sales were more easily traceable. He stated his understanding that HB 128 already allowed for the drawing of a ticket from a barrel in an online manner. He was happy to work with Representative LeBon on the issue to ensure there was no ambiguity. He deferred to Legislative Legal for further detail. Representative Wool understood that a digital ticket could be pulled from a digital barrel. He wondered what would happen if paper tickets were also sold. He asked if the paper tickets would be entered into the digital barrel. He remarked that sometimes people wanted a ceremonial draw instead of a random number generator. 2:29:09 PM Representative Fields believed the statute was pretty clear that if 250 tickets were sold online and 250 were sold in person with an in-person drawing, there would need to be 500 tickets in the barrel to have an equal chance. Representative Wool asked for verification that the number of tickets in a raffle had to be set at the beginning of the process. Representative Fields deferred to Legislative Legal regarding the number of tickets that could be sold. 2:29:51 PM CLAIRE RADFORD, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via teleconference), replied that she could get back to the committee with an answer. Co-Chair Merrick noted the committee was having difficulty hearing Ms. Radford. She asked to have the answer repeated. Ms. Radford would look into the question and follow up. COLLEEN GLOVER, DIRECTOR, TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE (via teleconference), answered that she could follow up on the question. She knew tickets had to be sequentially numbered. Representative Wool wanted to know there were a finite number of tickets being sold in a raffle. 2:32:23 PM Ms. Glover replied that she did not see the issue included in regulation. She noted the DOR charitable gaming manager was not currently available due to the state holiday. She would follow up with an answer. Representative Rasmussen remarked that it did not seem appropriate for the legislature to micromanage how operators chose to manage their raffles if they were operating within the legal bounds. She had purchased numerous raffle tickets, which always seemed to disclose the number of raffle tickets and the time and date of the drawing. She believed adding the digital component would eliminate some of the data entry and administrative work and provided for more accurate online records. She thought that paper could get lost much easier than digital footprints and she believed it added to transparency and provided more flexibility to raffle operators. 2:33:38 PM Representative LeBon stated that the language in Amendment 2 attempted to broaden the scope to include operators and multi-beneficiary permittee holders. He asked if the amendment would enable electronic bingo, pull tabs, slot machines, or other class III gaming. Representative Fields answered that it was the concern the sponsor had heard from stakeholders that the language could be misconstrued. He understood it was not the intent of Amendment 2. He wanted to be certain the plain language would only be interpreted one way, consistent with the sponsor's intent. Representative LeBon asked if allowing a digital ticket to be drawn by digital means would create a conflict with the definition of raffle and lottery by the drawing for prizes by lot and as was defined in state statute. Representative Fields replied that there was a bit that hinged on the definition of "by lot" and whether it was limited to a drawing from a barrel in physical or electronic means. He believed the legislature needed to ensure they were narrowly referring to drawing from a barrel and not permitting online pull tabs, slots, and sports gaming, all of which raised problems with stakeholder conflicts and legal problems potentially with federal law. He had not heard concerns from any stakeholder about electronically drawing from a barrel, but he had heard numerous concerns about language being misconstrued to permit other activities, which were likely better addressed in comprehensive legislation. He disclosed that Local 71 was one of his wife's employers. He noted the union had weighed in with the proposal, albeit he had not supported it. 2:35:55 PM Representative LeBon asked if the amendment would result in a significant expansion of gaming revenue. He asked if it was a net plus for the industry. Representative Fields answered that it was not his intention for the bill to expand the scope of online gaming beyond online raffle sales. He stated that if an amendment were misconstrued to allow such a broad expansion of online gaming, whether it would lead to significant additional revenue was hard to know. He would not want to go down that road without understanding all of the implications. 2:36:35 PM Representative Josephson asked for verification that the bill made no changes to pull tab laws. Representative Fields replied in the affirmative. Representative Josephson referred to Representative Fields' reference to the definition of "by lot." He relayed that the committee had received an email the past weekend mentioning other reforms. For example, there was a requirement that an operator or permittee have a lease for bingo or pull tab locations. The email had pointed out there were instances where the requirement was silly. He asked if it was further reform the bill sponsor was looking to engage in or leave for another day. Representative Fields replied that since the bill had been introduced, he had heard a number of good ideas in the realm of charitable gaming. He communicated his hope to address broader reforms in separate legislation because there were pending events that groups were trying to plan in the midst of a pandemic that were contingent on online raffle sales. He would hate for the bill to not pass in the current year and render numerous important events planned to take place over the next six months unable to move forward. Representative Rasmussen elaborated legislators were all aware that DOR was actively working with a consultant that would take a deep dive into all gaming. She believed whether bingo and pull tab operators would be allowed to operate online was something the legislature needed to discuss after it received a report from the consultant. She agreed that it was prudent to provide the ability for raffles and events to move forward. She believed the legislature would have substantial conversation about gaming in the next year. She agreed with the bill sponsor on the need to keep the bill topic tight. Representative Wool supported the bill, the concept, and the nonprofits wanting to sell tickets. He did not believe the circumstances were as dire at present - bars, restaurants, and supermarkets were open and people could be out in public and do much of the same activities where raffle tickets had been sold in the past. He returned to his previous question and remarked that the House floor was not a place to fix legislation. He provided a scenario where a raffle ticket was $100 with a 500 or 1,000 ticket cap. He stated that the concept extended to the $5 tickets. He wanted to ensure that once the number of tickets for a raffle had been decided and announced, it was not possible to add more tickets on at a later time. He was trying to determine whether the rule was in regulation or statute. 2:41:17 PM Representative Fields deferred to his staff. TRISTAN WALSH, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, answered that 15 AAC 160.670 was one of the regulations regarding the printing and record keeping of raffles tickets. He reported that the sponsor's office had heard from numerous stakeholders that looking at a mixed barrel operation, they would continue to list things and follow laws and regulations regarding the maximum number of tickets in the raffle. He detailed that a software platform could help operators track sales and deduct tickets as they went. For example, if someone was selling tickets at Safeway on an iPad, it was possible to track tickets sold at each location to ensure there was no issue with the number of tickets sold. In regard to the drawing of the ticket, there were software programs and services that allowed a ticket to be drawn electronically. Additionally, operators also had the option of making a paper copy of digital tickets to draw the drum. He added that the bill retained, with an amendment from the committee member from district 20 [district 22], the instruction for the department to develop regulations to implement and contemplate some of the issues that local organizations may encounter. 2:43:11 PM Representative Wool asked if the statute specified that the number of tickets was set out at the beginning of a raffle as a finite number. Mr. Walsh replied that he would have to follow up on the question. Representative Carpenter stated the issue sounded fairly benign allowing nonprofits to raise money more effectively. He asked how the additional funds were used, specifically related to lobbying and political causes. He referenced conversations about dark money. He wanted to be clear the bill was about nonpolitical related fundraising that would not increase the amount of funds being used for political campaigns. He was curious if it was an effect the bill would have. 2:44:43 PM Representative Fields answered not to his knowledge. He relayed there were just under 1000 permittees affected by the bill. He was not familiar with all of the permittees. He had engaged with the derbies, classics, and many of the sportsman groups conducting rallies. His office had also coordinated with other stakeholders currently not affected, basically to ensure they were not affected. He was not aware of a circumstance where the bill would get around any of Alaska's campaign laws. He was not aware of political groups that used anything allowed by the bill. Additionally, nothing in the bill would enable a nonprofit to get around Alaska's dark money laws, which would remain in place. Representative Johnson asked if some [raffles] would be in- person and some would be online. Representative Fields answered in the affirmative. He elaborated that his office had heard that permittees had been doing the combined sales during the pandemic, which had been valuable. Representative Johnson believed selling tickets in-person provided a connection to a real person instead of online. She hoped the bill would primarily benefit people and organizations that ticket purchasers cared about and appreciated. She thought requiring a certain percentage of the tickets to be sold in-person may connect the sales to reality. She stated that random number generators were not all created the same. She elaborated that there was much dabbling and different kinds of security when it came to random numbers. She understood the topic was not included in the bill, but she believed it would have to be addressed at some point to make it fair and equitable. Representative Fields responded that he believed concepts highlighted by Representative Johnson were good things to address in regulation to ensure opportunities to win remained as equitable as they were in statute for physical tickets. For example, the Kenai River Sportfish Alliance had sold just over half its tickets in person and the remainder online during the pandemic. Overall, the organization had raised more money. He had heard from other operators, such as the downtown duck race in Ship Creek in his district. He elaborated that the operators would continue to sell online and in downtown establishments. He hoped there would be great tourist seasons in the future and that tourists would buy tickets in local stores. He believed the in-person connection was essential for any functional event. He provided the Nenana or Bethel Ice Classic as examples and did not foresee the events ever discontinuing the sale of tickets in person given the size of the community and the nature of the local event. Representative Fields addressed the benefit of online sales with an example of a person in downtown Anchorage who was traveling outside who wanted to purchase a raffle ticket. In the case of some of the conservation groups, they sold high value raffle tickets to nonresidents and the tickets had ability to raise substantial money for conservation and natural resources. He believed it was a win even if most tickets were still purchased in person by Alaska residents. 2:49:00 PM Representative Wool shared that whenever he travelled outside of Alaska, he typically purchased a lottery ticket for fun. He did not believe he could purchase a state lottery ticket online in Alaska because there was no state lottery. He asked if he was correct. He asked if other states allowed online sales to other states. Representative Fields answered that it was a complicated legal issue. He explained that lotteries were different from raffles, which was the reason for the narrow scope of the bill. He elaborated that he was not trying to permit an online lottery conducted in Alaska that would allow people in multiple states to participate. He noted the concept would be much more complicated to pursue. He concluded that the idea was far beyond the scope of the bill. Representative Wool shared that he had just bought an online ticket on the Permanent Fund Dividend website for the [Senator] Click Bishop lottery [Alaska Education Lottery]. He believed it was an online-only lottery. He pointed out there were online lottery tickets of a limited style. He remarked there was not a limited ticket number because the goal was to sell as many as possible - the more tickets sold, the larger the pot. He did not know whether the bill covered online lottery tickets. Representative Fields replied that he did not believe it did. He deferred to his staff. Mr. Walsh answered that the Alaska Education Lottery was established under a different title in statute; therefore, it was not necessarily governed by the changes made in the bill. He deferred to Legislative Legal for any additional input. Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that the Alaska Education Lottery had been established in a different statute and was not covered under the bill. 2:51:34 PM Representative Josephson noted that the new subsection, Section 2, referred to lottery on line 7. He asked for detail. Representative Fields explained that the language referred to the set of events with permittees traditionally thought of as derbies, classics, and charitable gaming classics, as opposed to a lottery seen in the Lower 48, some of which were multistate. He deferred to Legislative Legal for the legal definition. Ms. Radford answered that raffle and lottery were defined as one and the same under AS 05.15.690. She explained that statute pertained to the selling of rights to participate and awarding of prizes in a game of chance conducted by the drawing of prizes by lot. 2:52:45 PM Representative Rasmussen stated her understanding that the Permanent Fund lottery was closed to nonresidents. She thought a person could only donate a portion of their Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) [to enter the lottery]. Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that the raffle was only through the Permanent Fund. Representative Rasmussen asked for verification that someone could not go online and pay $100 to purchase a spot in the lottery. She stated her understanding that an entrant had to be an Alaskan resident and had to use a portion of their PFD to enter. Ms. Radford agreed. She confirmed that a person needed to be in-state and using their PFD to purchase a spot. Mr. Walsh responded to earlier questions by Representative Josephson and Representative Wool. He and explained that the amendment by the member from District 22 added language that was protective for the state's interest as well as those operating a raffle or lottery under AS 5.15.690. The amendment clarified that charitable gaming activity would take place in the state and the winner would be determined in the state. The guidance the bill sponsor had received from legal experts on behalf of stakeholders had communicated the amendment language would allow raffles and lotteries to be conducted with as much safety as possible regarding interpretation. 2:54:41 PM Representative Carpenter spoke about unintended consequences. He looked at support within the bill packet from the Safari Club and Kenai River Sportfishing Association. He remarked that both organizations did good things within the state. He shared that he was a fan of hunting and fishing. He stated that the committee had just amended the bill to allow raffle tickets to be purchased out-of-state. He elaborated that the Safari Club mission was advocacy and its website specified it would advocate for specific legislation. He remarked that the state's campaign finance laws would not be changed by the legislation; however, he was concerned about the unintended consequence of advocacy for local and state laws through the purchase of raffle tickets by people outside Alaska. He expounded that without the amendment the dollars raised through raffles would be by Alaskans for Alaskans. He highlighted that [with the amendment] larger amounts of money could potentially be coming in from out-of-state to local organizations dealing with local issues. He thought it warranted further consideration. Representative Fields answered that prior to the pandemic the organizations sold raffle tickets to residents of other states. He gave an example of a person saving up to do a big Kodiak bear hunt or something similar. He explained that the pandemic had hit, and the administration had issued temporary guidance on online sales. He relayed that when he had heard from business and nonprofit stakeholders that wanted to continue online sales, his office had drafted the bill to align closely with the administration's temporary guidance. He explained that after the drafting of the bill, his office had heard from sporting groups and others that previous to the pandemic they had sold raffle tickets outside Alaska. The origin of the amendment was meant to continue a preexisting ability to sell raffle tickets outside Alaska online. He clarified that the amendment protected an existing power and did not create a new one. 2:57:34 PM Representative LeBon referenced the phrase "may draw winning tickets online" currently in the legislation. He asked if it allowed for a random number generator for use of drawing the "winning ticket." Representative Fields deferred to Legislative Legal. Ms. Radford answered that the language was ambiguous, and it was unclear how the department would look at it; it was possible the department would interpret the language fairly broadly to allow for a random number generator. Representative LeBon asked whether a "ghost ticket" would be printed to put into the physical barrel if someone purchased a ticket online. Representative Fields agreed that it would be necessary to print online tickets to include a barrel because the statute was predicated on the equal chances of winning concept. 2:59:12 PM Representative Rasmussen referenced the discussion by Representative Carpenter. She thought they may be overstating impacts. She did not believe there would be a coordinated effort by people who strongly oppose Safari Club's mission statement to purchase a $20 to $100 raffle ticket with the intention of trying to sway or move the issues advocated by a group. She thought it was more likely that people outside of the state would support the mission and may purchase a raffle ticket to support the cause. She noted that elected officials took donations during campaigns, but no donation from any group or individual determined how elected officials acted. She elaborated that people donated to elected officials because of what they stood for just like people purchasing raffle tickets in support of the mission of a group. She shared that she had family members out-of-state who loved fishing in Alaska and would be happy to support the cause online. Representative Carpenter stated it was a fair point. He clarified that he was not speaking positively or negatively about the two organizations he had referenced earlier. He believed the amendment enabled outside influence to occur more easily because it was occurring over the internet. He was not speaking about a specific organization. He stated there could be an organization that he did not philosophically support, and the change would support it just as much as it would benefit an organization he supported. He stated that the effect on local politics would be more money pouring into organizations established to influence politics because it was easier to have raffles and receive money from out-of-state. He thought it should be concerning. 3:02:30 PM Representative Wool thought there were interesting points being brought up, especially regarding out-of-state. He thought it underscored the importance of establishing a ticket limit. He provided a scenario where the ticket was $1,000 and 100 were sold. He remarked that someone may want to know where the money had come from. He thought establishing parameters and limits from the outset of any lottery it would prevent any "funny business" from going on. He thought it was an important component to any game of chance. Representative Fields answered that every raffle he had ever seen or participated in advertised the information at the outset, which was part of the appeal. He noted it was different than purchasing a lottery ticket in the Lower 48 where the goal was for as many people to participate as possible, which at some point materially decreased the odds of winning. With a raffle there was a finite number, which was part of the appeal. He would look into the issue and if it was not currently addressed, he was open to addressing it assuming there was concurrence by stakeholders. He thought it seemed to be something that was done already. 3:04:07 PM Representative Wool clarified that a ticket limit was not desirable for certain things like the Nenana Ice Classic where the goal was to sell as many tickets as possible to generate a large pot of money. He understood it was already addressed in statute. Ms. Glover replied to Representative Wool's question related to the number of raffle tickets. She relayed that the limit did not exist in regulation. She explained there was nothing limiting the number of tickets being sold or requiring the operator to notify purchasers of the number. She stated it was possible for an organization to market a raffle at a certain number of tickets and add more later on. She did not know whether it happened, but it was allowable. She added that current regulation required numbered sequential tickets and for the organization to account for every ticket (whether sold or not). Representative Wool thought it was an important point. He stated that the requirement for tickets to be numbered sequentially was great; however, he thought a ticket limit should be addressed to account for raffles tickets sold globally. He did not feel comfortable with the bill until the issue was addressed. 3:05:57 PM Representative Johnson asked if the process was used by other states. Representative Fields confirmed that other states had language very similar to the language included in the bill and the [adopted] amendment sponsored by Representative Rasmussen. The amendment basically outlined how to have an instate organization conducting a raffle instate with participation from residents of other states. He shared that his office had reviewed some of those examples and had tried to make the bill consistent with what seemed like best practices. Representative Johnson provided a scenario where a national nonprofit established a raffle in Alaska and sold tickets online nationally. She asked if the organization would be required to be registered as a nonprofit in Alaska or have an Alaska business license. Representative Fields referenced AS 05.15, which included limitations on what constituted a qualified organization. He explained that an organization had to exist for at least three consecutive years prior to applying and have at least 25 members who were Alaska residents. He explained there were some safeguards included against national organizations using Alaska as a haven to conduct raffles. He deferred to Mr. Walsh for additional detail. Mr. Walsh added there were 40 to 45 other states that allowed online raffles in some form. He detailed that most were restricted to charitable gaming for nonprofits. In regard to a national organization looking to find a home base, there were a majority of other states with some form of the practice included in the bill. 3:08:11 PM Representative Wool gathered that the bill was on a fast track to be reported out of committee. He remarked on the absence of a requirement to limit the number of tickets being sold. He stated it would be possible for an organization to say they were selling 100 tickets and then sell 10,000. He wanted to amend the bill. He relayed that he did not want to amend the bill on the House floor due to the unpredictability. He wondered whether the bill sponsor would be amenable to a conceptual amendment. He remarked that it was not his intent to slow the bill down. He stated that allowing tickets to be sold globally meant a person in Jaipur, India could purchase tickets. 3:09:07 PM AT EASE 3:11:04 PM RECONVENED Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 128(FIN) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Carpenter OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Ortiz, Rasmussen, Thompson, Wool, Merrick, Foster OPPOSED: Carpenter The MOTION PASSED (9/1). Representative Johnson was absent from the vote. There being NO further OBJECTION, CSHB 128(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass" recommendations, three "no recommendation" recommendations, and four "amend" recommendations and with one new indeterminate fiscal note from the Department of Revenue. 3:12:24 PM AT EASE 3:15:58 PM RECONVENED