SB 277 GAMING: FERRIES, VIDEO LOTTERY & MISC SENATOR TAYLOR explained the proposed committee substitute: limits those who may be able to utilize gaming permits and devices in the state; prohibits funds from flowing to political entities, and significantly narrows the definition of what constitutes a charitable organization. SENATOR TAYLOR moved to adopt CSSB 277(JUD) (version K). SENATOR ELLIS objected. SENATOR ADAMS asked for a review of the changes made in the proposed committee substitute. SENATOR TAYLOR stated the original bill would have eliminated pulltabs and replaced them with video lottery machines. A previous witness from the pulltab industry believed the introduction of video lottery machines will eliminate the pulltab industry over time, and because many charitable organizations did not want to lose pulltab business, the section eliminating the use of pulltabs was removed. Nothing else in the committee substitute is different from the original bill. SENATOR ADAMS if a permittee could contract out either the pulltab or video lottery permit. SENATOR TAYLOR affirmed the permittee could not. Number 231 SENATOR ELLIS believed video lottery gaming will expand the gambling industry in the state because video machines can be programmed to provide an array of games. The California courts have interpreted video lotteries as slot machines, and Native organizations use that interpretation as their statutory basis for major casinos and mini casinos that have proliferated throughout that state. Regardless of the Native aspect, the escalation of the kind of gambling represented by this bill is a significant expansion of gambling. He questioned the move against such activity by the majority last year. He asked Senator Taylor if he agreed with the interpretation of the California court decision regarding the operation of mini and maxi casinos. In addition, he asked if video lottery machines must be programmed to keep an electronic record of gaming activity, and whether the bill explicitly requires such records to be kept. SENATOR TAYLOR replied it is his understanding the Division would have the authority to impose that type of regulation. SENATOR ELLIS asked if the bill explicitly directs the Division to do so. SENATOR TAYLOR responded the bill does not order the Division to set up a recording device. Regarding Senator Ellis' first question, he responded the U.S. Supreme Court just rendered a decision which says the states have retained the authority to regulate casino gaming. That decision is a direct reversal of the lower court decision and will have significant ramifications on the Native gaming casinos across the United States. Number 285 SENATOR ELLIS questioned whether Senator Taylor intended to require recordkeeping by statute as opposed to regulation. SENATOR TAYLOR stated he would have no problem with that, and would take the suggestion under consideration.