Alaska Legislature: House Finance - June 9, 2026 11:00am

Okay, I'll go ahead and call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order and let the record reflect that the time is currently 11:27 AM on Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. And present today, I believe we have everyone, and that is Representative Allard, Representative Stapp, Representative Moore, Representative Bynum, Representative Kocher-Schragg. On the phone, we've got Representative Kocher, Andy Josephson, uh, Representative Jimmy is also online. We have Representative Galvin, Representative Tomaszewski, Representative Hannon, and myself, Co-Chair Foster. We also have Representative Donna Mears on the line and Senator Myers.

Thank you for joining us.

And just a reminder, folks can mute their cell phones and We are going to continue on with amendments to House Bill 381. That is the Gas Line Bill. And we left off yesterday, I believe, at Amendment Number 18. And so next up would be Amendment Number 19. My plan is to get through 19, 20, 21, 22, and our last amendment, which is 23, and then we will roll back up the list.

We'll probably go to number 15 next, but we'll start taking up amendments that we rolled to the bottom yesterday. So that's the plan. And in terms of our schedule today, I know that our intent was to go till about 3 o'clock, and so— but things are changing. And so, but that's the plan for now. So with that, we're going to go right over to amendment number 19.

And let's see, I had a list yesterday. I believe Amendment Number 19, is that Representative Schraggy? Schraggy. Representative Schraggy, would you like to move your motion, your amendment? I'd love to.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment 19. I'll check for discussion. Okay, Representative Schraggy. Thank you.

Amendment 19 broadens the definition of system-wide cost sharing for the Fairbanks Spur Line to explicitly include export consumers in the tariff calculation. It also redefines economically viable gas sales contracts, which on its own may not be considered as economically viable. And we, we make this change to not restrict the spur line to Fairbanks being constructed. We want to make sure that that spur line does in fact go through. This would ensure that interior Alaskans and Southcentral utility customers do not bear the entire cost burden of the Fairbanks spur line.

With that, I'll take any questions. Okay. Any questions or comments? Representative Ellard, brief it is. Can I speak?

Okay, House Finance back on record at 11:33 AM, and we are currently on Amendment Number 19. Was there any discussion? Not in here, but yes. Okay, okay. Seeing no discussion, Representative Stap, do you maintain your objection?

I withdraw my objection. The objection has been withdrawn. Seeing no further objection, Amendment Number 19 has been adopted. That next takes us to Amendment Number 20. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move Amendment 20. Object. OK, Representative Tomczewski. So this is a pretty straightforward amendment I offered before, but we clarified some language in here.

This is basically what this amendment will do is exempt this any spur line from state taxes and give the local municipalities the ability, if they wish, to exempt the spur line or spur line property taxes, giving local control. The whole idea of this amendment is to provide more affordable energy to our local communities, and gas utility networks are not currently subject to normal state petroleum property tax and are subject to municipal tax if they are privately owned. So the mainline would connect— connecting the spur line from the mainline, so that's the only section that we're talking about here. And so we're using— Fairbanks as an example, but this is going to apply to any future spur lines also located in community. So if there was a spur line that wanted to pop over to Ninana or to Talkeetna or to Healy, then it would be also have the ability to exempt their property taxes.

So I hope you all can support this. This would be a big help for Fairbanks. It's really a rounding error as, as when you look at the cost on the exemption from the state property taxes. And so with that, I ask for your support. Okay, Representative Ballard.

Thank you. And I just, I wanted to thank Representative Tomaszewski for bringing this forward because not only does it help Fairbanks, but he's looking at the future of the entire state. And I appreciate that. It's not just about Fairbanks. It's about every state, every municipality and borough, all Alaskans.

So thanks. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Chair Foster. I'm going to speak in support of this amendment. I think that what this amendment does, it removes a cost basis for domestic consumption of gas.

And if the, the goal here is to be able to deliver the cheapest amount of energy and heat source to Alaskans, allowing municipalities an option to remove that cost basis and a tax is definitely something that I would be interested in doing. And it certainly helps my town out. So I support with the amendment. Thank Representative Tomaszewski for offering it. Any further discussion?

Yeah, brief it is. Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 11:42 AM, and, um, We are on Amendment Number 20, and we last heard from Representative Stapp. So next up, we have Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I am not going to be voting for this. I appreciate the intent of looking after what could come down the line potentially in the future.

I know that the spur line in Fairbanks is important. I also heard yesterday about the risk of unintended consequences and opening up this tax policy, 4356, is one of those places where what we are doing is opening up now to tax policy to other not yet contemplated spur lines, not even yet on the books, and that seems like a risk that I am not ready to take and I don't think that in this case, in order for us to get this done and get to the project at hand, that this can be something we save for the future. Once we have a spur line in mind of a particular area, then that, that then becomes something that we discuss. Right now what we have on the books is Fairbanks, and I want to hold that secure and in place, and I just don't want to put us open to something that we didn't intend to happen. Thank you.

Okay. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I also am going to speak in opposition to Amendment 20 and to unintended consequences. I appreciate the maker's intent to do consumer protection, but when we're looking at this, it potentially incorporates new industry that are profitable, getting an advantage that we're trying to articulate for households.

Um, but I don't want there to be data centers that get to have the same utility protection that individual consumers, when it might be a highly profitable industry, and if the spur line were just built in a certain way, it would give them that advantage. So, um, I do want to make sure that we protect the Fairbanks spur line and share that cost I think the postage stamp is the rhetoric for the jargon that's being used so that it's a universal impact. But I'm not sure that I want to spread that to say data centers. So with that, I'm going to be a no on Amendment 20. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I will be supporting this amendment. This is a local concern. Control issue. This allows them to exempt these energy transmission systems by ordinance, and it's specifically for the purpose of a natural gas utility or community distribution network.

I do not believe this is intended for anything other than that. It clearly says that those are the two purposes, so I'll support the amendment. Okay. Any further discussion? Any further discussion on Amendment Number 20?

Representative Froegge? Yeah, thank you. So my understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, is that by exempting the state's ability to tax this under Title 43, that this then defaults it to the municipalities, municipalities if they exist, to be able to tax. And so this would essentially— I mean, I don't want to be— well, I'll just say I think it allows for a double dipping of sorts where we've already worked to facilitate a spur line to Fairbanks and helped to spread the cost of that beyond the community of the interior. But then this would also allow that Fairbanks spur line to be taxed by the local authority.

And I know there's— the discussion has been that this allows the municipalities to exempt out their local taxes on a spur line, but the fact that it allows for that local municipality to tax a spur line that's being supported system-wide, I think is problematic. And so I'm not at a place where I'm willing to support this at this time.

Further discussion? Okay, seeing none, Representative Sharkey— or I'm sorry, Representative Tomaszewski, would you like to wrap up? Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. So the intent of this amendment is not to make any tax breaks for any data centers or any mines or anything else that would be connected through a spur. This amendment is simply to give the municipalities the ability to exempt property taxes for their share of the property taxes.

Currently, it's a $20 mil tax rate. I believe the state— to answer Representative Schauger's comment. I believe the, the state gets about an 11% share of that, or 11 mills of the 20, and this— the municipality gets the other 9. So the, the state's portion would be exempted of the 11 mills, and then the, the borough would have the ability to exempt the 9 mills portion of that 20 mills, as I believe the way it's it goes. And so right now, currently, uh, Enstar can supply a data center and they won't get any property tax because they don't have a spur, but they can still sell their gas to a data center.

And I just want to make it sure that this, this amendment has nothing to do with data centers. They can work on their own where however they can get their gas, but this has nothing to do with that. This more to give affordable energy to Fairbanks and any other community that builds a spur line in the future. And there are many other areas. I know there's been talk of a spur tap area by the Yukon River to supply some of the villages along the river.

There's been talk of Nenana. There has been talk of a spur maybe in Talkeetna. So there are many other spurs that could happen in the future. And this gives them the framework, um, to, uh, make it more affordable not only to get connected but for their community members, for their residents. You know, uh, Fairbanks does have a small distribution network, but most residents in the Fairbanks, uh, North Star Borough don't even have access to gas at this point.

We don't have the main lines, uh, we don't have all of the, uh, community connected to the distribution. And so what this is going to do is make it just a little cheaper. And really, we're talking about a rounding error when it comes to the amount of money that this, this is going to take away from the state. But when you look at the rounding error in consideration of the number of customers that we have in the Fairbanks area, that becomes a huge burden on those customers. And What I'm trying to do is not burden the Fairbanks customers with that tax that will increase their rates.

And so we're just wanting to try to give Fairbanks and any other spur line a fair chance to equitably get the same cost that other communities such as Anchorage who has the pipeline run right to them and do not have a spur line. So this is just trying to really help the communities that will be affected and have their gas connected with the spur line. So I hope you could support this. Like I say, the intent is nothing to do with data centers, nothing to do with mines that want to connect to it. Just simply the committee members.

So I hope you can get your support. Thank you. Okay. With that, Representative Sharagi, do you maintain your objection? I do.

And I brief at ease just so I can ask a question of the sponsor. Brief at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 11:57. 10:00 AM. We had wrap-up with Representative Tomaszewski. And so, Representative Schroegge, do you maintain your objection? I do.

Thank you. The objection is maintained. We are currently on Amendment Number 20. Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll. Representative Galvin?

No. Representative Allard? Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes.

Representative Hannan? No. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Tomaszewski? Yes.

Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Schraggy? No. Representative Josephson.

No. Josephson, no. Representative Foster, no. 5 Yea, 6 nay. So on a vote of 5 yea to 6 nay, Amendment Number 20 has not been adopted.

That next takes us to Amendment Number 21. Representative Sharagi. I move Amendment 21. Okay. Representative Sharkey.

Thank you. Amendment 21 repeals the existing statute that prohibits the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, also known as the RCA, from regulating an LNG import facility which falls under federal jurisdiction. This amendment specifically places liquefied natural gas facilities under RCA jurisdiction. I'll take questions on it. Okay.

Representative Stepp. Yeah, I think, Chair Foster, I'm sure, and I guess, Chair Sharkey. So this was in the HB 180, it's been in different variations of the bill regarding the language. I've just— no one has ever articulated to me the kind of reason or the need why we would have to delete this from current statute. Maybe you could do that for me.

That's all. Yeah, thank you, Representative. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster, and thanks for the question, Representative Stamp. My understanding is that there is a desire to continue to have RCA oversight over LNG sales through an import facility. You know, I think it's still envisioned that there could be imports at some point, and if that is the case, I've heard loudly from many stakeholders that they'd like to see those sales under RCA jurisdiction.

Representative Bynum. Thank you. Again, I guess a question for the maker of the amendment. When we talk about imported gas, that gas is then going to be brought in and it's going to be sold under contract to a utility. As an example, NSTAR.

NSTAR would then be controlled under the RCA for how they can develop their rates and deal with making sure that those rates are fair to the consumer. My understanding is, is that the import gas would be sold under the current climate conditions that gas is being sold at and the market that gas is being sold at along with the cost. So I'm not sure that I understand exactly what the RCA role will be here because they're already regulating the utility providing the gas to the customer. So if you could clarify for me, that'd be helpful. Representative Sharkey.

Brief it is on this one. Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back on record. Uh, the time is currently 12:06 PM and we left off at Representative Bynum, I believe, had a question for Representative Schragg. Is that right? Yeah, thank you. I think the question was if the utility is already regulated by the RCA, what's the need to ensure that the LNG import facility is covered under the RCA jurisdiction?

And I think the simplest way to answer that question is to say that the RCA is there to protect ratepayers and make sure that the costs that are being passed on to ratepayers are justified and valid and necessary. And there is concern that an LNG import facility could have excessive costs that could ultimately be passed on to the ratepayer. And so that's where I've heard a desire to ensure that an import facility itself is covered under RCA jurisdiction to make sure that those costs associated with that facility are able to be evaluated and scrutinized by the RCA. Okay, any follow-up? Representative Bynum?

Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I appreciate that response. I guess I'd have one other question. And I don't know the answer because the original bill that this was part of never came through our committee. I have no visibility on what it actually was going to do, nor did I hear any of the arguments from the other body on why this was something that needed to be happening.

But I guess my follow-up question then would be, if we would like— if we're going to want the RCA to regulate import facilities, are we also having them Are they also going to be intimately involved with gas— cooking gas production and what we do there with cost and how those costs are passed along to the customers through the distributing utilities? And I don't think that that's the case right now, but I could be wrong. But because we didn't hear it, I don't know. Representative Sharkey, any comments? Just to say that my understanding is that there's already a regulatory framework and a lot of existing statute and, yeah, regulatory framework for Cook Inlet producers and gas producers.

This is an area where we've heard an acute concern raised that the cost associated with an LNG import facility could be substantial, and it's an area where we'd like additional scrutiny. And that's the best answer I can give to you at this time. Okay, I've got Representative Moore, then Allard. Representative Moore. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

My question is for the maker of the amendment. I'm just curious if a conversation happened with the developer for this amendment. Were they in agreement, or was there a discussion had for the amendment? I don't believe the developer has a position on this amendment. Okay, but thank you.

Appreciate it. Okay, I've got Representative Allard and then Tomaszewski. Representative Allard. Thank you, Representative Sharkey. I'm Through the co-chair, I'm concerned that these costs will go down to the ratepayers.

And I'm just trying to figure out, is there a guarantee on this amendment that you're willing to stand by that these costs aren't going to go to the ratepayer? We already have out-of-this-world utility bills, and I'm just really concerned about the taxpayers and our constituents in the municipality of Anchorage. Representative Sharkey. Co-chair Foster, I'm There's not a lot of guarantees in life, but I do believe this is a step towards having more certainty, more scrutiny around those costs and how they're passed on. And so I think this is a step towards protecting ratepayers.

I'm not going to make a guarantee on behalf of other entities, but I do believe this is a step in the right direction. Thank you. May I present—. There are two guarantees. You're going to die and we're going to pay taxes.

So I'm definitely going to be voting no on this. So I thank you. Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Co-chair Foster, through the chair. So I believe now, right now, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regulates the import facilities, and I think you may unknowingly or unwittingly add, by adding the RCA to regulate the import facility, I think What may end up happening is any cost involved with that import facility, any building of it, any maintenance of it, will be passed on to the customers through the Regulatory Commission of Alaska.

I don't know if they have that ability to pass that— those costs on to the ratepayers currently. I'm just not sure about that. I believe it's done through FERC. And so by doing this and adding RCA into the ability to regulate import facilities, in the event they build a $100 million facility, they are going to amortize those costs over the ratepayers for the next 30 years. And everyone who is on that particular system is going to be paying that.

So you may want to look twice on this particular amendment because I think it may have unintended consequences on the ratepayers of everyone who would be using the gas from that import facility. So I will be a no vote on this. Further discussion on Amendment No. 21? Seeing— Representative Hannon.

Thank you. I guess I just Uh, because I— the comments I just heard, I look at the same information and draw the opposite conclusion, which is without establishing RCA oversight, um, we don't have protection for our ratepayers in Alaska. And right now that federal oversight of FERC has a slightly different goal, and they As we heard from Mr. Stickel that— and I, and I believe Mr. Kissinger, the interstate actions are not regulated by the RCA. And I want to make sure that we have the opportunity for Alaskan ratepayers to participate in dockets and hearings and understand the costs that may roll into their utility costs. And so I want RCA oversight.

And I'll be supporting the amendment. Okay. Seeing no further discussion, wrap up. Representative Sharkey. Yeah.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Just a little bit of additional information for the committee and those that are watching. You know, the existing repeal of RCA authority over import facilities came as a floor amendment that had not had a lot of vetting or discussion and I think was not well understood. This would essentially repeal that and undo that action. I will note that when the repeal was initially enacted, it has since caused some confusion out there.

We have heard from RCA commissioners on the record that when that repeal was enacted, it has caused confusion in rate cases and posed, frankly, a litigation risk. This brings us back to where we were prior to that amendment, reenacts the status quo, and again provides additional protection for ratepayers from unnecessary costs being passed on to them, and I think it's a step in the right direction. So I would ask for committee members' support. I'm seated. Sorry.

Paredes. Brief it is.

Okay, House Finance back On record, the time is 12:20— 12:17 PM, and I believe we just had wrap-up by Representative Schraggy, and we had an objection by Representative Stapp. Representative Stapp, do you maintain your objection to Amendment Number 21?

Yes, sorry. Okay, take that as a yes. Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes.

Okay. And so with that, Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll on Amendment Number 21. Representative Tomaszewski? No. Representative Hannan?

Yes. Representative Bynum? No. Representative Moore? No.

Representative Gelvin? Yes. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Allard? No. Representative Stapp? No.

Representative Schraggy? Yes. Representative Josephson?

Representative Josephson?

My apologies, uh, you were on mute. My answer is yes. Josephson, yes on 21. Representative Foster, yes. 5 Yea, 6 nay.

And so on a vote of 5 yea to 6 nay, Amendment Number 21 has not been adopted. That next takes us to Amendment Number 22. Representative Josephson.

Mr. Chair, um, I'm not going to offer this at this time, but I want to be clear on the record, I'm not I'm not nearly withdrawing the amendment. I'm, I'm simply saying that I would like it rolled. Okay, so Amendment Number 22 will not be offered at this time. That next takes us to Amendment Number 23.

Representative Snap, I will not offer 23 at this time. Okay, not at this time. Okay, uh, so the next— that takes us to the end of the 23 amendments we have. However, a number of them were rolled We're next going to go to Amendment Number 15, and I believe that is Representative Galvin. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I move Amendment 15. Okay. And we have an objection. Object. Thank you.

I appreciate that. So yesterday we had an Amendment 14 which added language that explicitly prohibited the RCA from approving a gas supply contract for Phase 1 that exceeded $16 MMBtu, but that also was put to 2025 dollar and with inflationary measures. This Amendment 15 provides more general language intended to protect Alaskan ratepayers from bearing the risk of project cost overruns. And that's something that we have heard about a lot and a lot of concerns of constituents. And after thinking about it overnight, I think that this is still valuable to include this in the RCA.

I'm going to call it a tool belt. Even with the restrictions that were placed already with Amendment 14, it's a bit belt and suspenders. But on something as important as protecting Alaska ratepayers, I think it's extra— this extra protection is warranted. The protection provided in this amendment is something that both Glenfarm and Enstar said was consistent with their draft contract. I think it's important coming out of this process that Alaska ratepayers have confidence that they will not be saddled with the risks of cost overruns.

And I ask for your support on this amendment. I will also offer a conceptual amendment, if I may. Okay. We will go to the conceptual Unless anybody has any questions. Representative Galvin, conceptual amendment.

Thank you. Conceptual amendment here is it's actually ensuring that this fits the goal of the project wherein there will be various amounts flowing through the pipe. And we want to make sure that We are taking out language that wasn't appropriate, that might create misunderstanding. And I worked with AGDC on this to make sure that it is properly worded. And that's on me.

I didn't have the right wording in the beginning. So I hope you'll forgive me and allow me to delete a couple of these points that I think were not appropriate, particularly given the throughput. And again, this is— this conceptual amendment is Amendment 1, if I'm going to just make it official that I'd like to move this conceptual amendment. Again, it's taking— changing the initial enter into instead of recover costs related to, and that the proportion piece was really important because sometimes there will be large volumes for certain customers, and we want to make sure that we understand that, that they would have a different rate. And that— but that still leaves these cap-in that we have for Alaskan ratepayers.

And I've objected for purposes of discussion. Representative Staff—. I'm going to remove my objection to the conceptual amendment, but I'm going to maintain it to the underlying amendment. Okay. Okay.

So is there any further Objection to conceptual amendment number 1. Hearing none, conceptual amendment number 1 to amendment number 15 has been adopted. And so the underlying amendment is before us. Representative Staff, do you have any comments? Yeah, no, I appreciate Member Representative Galvin for her concern, you know, trying to protect Alaskans from cost overrun.

It's very similar to my objection to 14. It's a very prescriptive amendment. And I think the RCA already has, you know, enough due diligence and power to be able to ensure that they're not going to basically sign off on a gas contract that's, say, exorbitant to Alaskans. But so for me, I just— I don't want to be that prescriptive in the bill. But I do actually understand where the member from Anchorage is coming from, and I think it's a good place.

So I'm still going to maintain my objection. Okay. Representative Galvin, if there's no other question, I'm just going to wrap up real quick. I think we might have some more questions. We'll go to Representative Bynum, then Allard.

I just need a brief it is. Okay, brief it is. Thank you.

House Finance— sorry, uh, House Finance at ease, and then at 12:28 on the record and back at ease at 12:28 PM.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:32 PM. We are currently on Amendment Number 15, and we were last with, I think, Representative Bynum. Okay, next, next we have Representative Allard. Uh, yeah, thank you, um, co-chair. This, uh, um, actually my colleague over here said he appreciates the effort.

I actually don't. I'm opposite on that. I don't think this helps us in any way. And in fact, I don't think it looks good for Eagle River's representative to be voting to hurt our constituents in the way of— this is not any way a cost-benefit.

This is not good. So thank you. Thanks. Do we have any further discussion before we go to wrap-up? Representative Moore?

Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Representative Galvin. Do the project developers support this amendment? Was there any conversations had with them? Representative Galvin.

Thank you. So I will say that during our week last week in Anchorage, what we heard from Enstar, Glenfarn, and others, NHDC— so I've had conversations with them, but What we heard from them also was that the Alaskan ratepayers would not be held with the bag, so to speak, if the costs of this project turned out to be over what they expected. So in fact, that was even written into the contract, and that became public information for all of us. So the idea here is to put it into statute saying RCA, this is— this This is happening, and it is— and we support you honoring that contract that says don't pass overruns to ratepayers, because they've accepted that for the pipeline project, that piece where Enstar has a big purchase, I think. It's not long form yet, but in short form it's there in terms of its commitment and agreement.

And so that's what this aims to do, is to help Alaskans who have been worried about this because we didn't know what the price of the project was. Everyone was so worried that it's going to be so far over that nobody— and we're going to all be stuck with paying higher monthly rates. Well, we likely will have some higher rates, but much less than if we were importing for tens of years. So anyhow, I wanted to make this clear by way of putting in this statute. And again, it's super plain vanilla language.

I've changed it conceptually in order to appease those who had concerns about— those who were part of the developers who had concerns about some of the ways it was leaving out or perhaps creating risk. And so we got rid of that part. Of that. And again, that's— it's very simple. It's just adding an extra reassurance to Alaska's ratepayers that we will not be— that those rates are not going to be a reflection of overrun costs.

Follow-up. Representative Moore. Thank you for that answer. Co-chair Foster, are we able to have the developer come and make a comment on this? Is that okay?

Or is there anyone who would like to speak to this? And are you referring to Glenfarm? I am, yeah. Okay. Mr. Adam Prestige.

Prestige, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Co-chair Foster. Adam Prestige, president of Glenfarm Alaska LNG LLC. Uh, keep my comments brief, and, uh, I will, uh, validate what Representative Galvin has said, which is that On the record, both in the House and the Senate, Glenfarm has stated that we are supportive of having language in a tax bill that protects ratepayers from cost overruns. And so that's the Glenfarm position. Thank you.

Okay, Representative— thank you very much, Mr. Prestidge. Representative Ballard. Yeah, thank you. They've already said it on the record. We don't need an amendment for that.

But I also wanted to say that This actual amendment does not allow Glenfart and the investors to negotiate contracts, and it means there's going to be an involvement with the legislature. I don't even trust us to get a bill out in time, let alone sit here and negotiate on contracts. So that's my reading and my understanding of the bill. So I just wanted to put that back out there. I was trying to get my thoughts together earlier.

So thank you. Chair. Okay. Any further discussion? Seeing none, wrap up.

Representative Galvin? I think I'm going to not provide wrap up. I think we've discussed this enough. Thank you. Okay.

Representative Sharagi, do you maintain your objection? No, I withdraw my objection. Jack withdrawn. Representative Stapp is objecting, and I think we'll go to the roll call. So with that, Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 15.

If you could please call the roll. Representative Hannan? Yes. Representative Tomaszewski? Pass.

Representative Moore? No. Representative Allard? No. Representative Stapp?

No. Representative Gelvin? Yes. Representative Jimmy?

Yes. Representative Bynum? No.

Representative Tomaszewski? No. Representative Josephson? Yes. Representative Schraggy?

Yes. Representative Foster? Yes. 6 Yea, 5 nay. So on a vote of 6 yea to 5 nay, Amendment Number 15 has been adopted.

Uh, we'll take briefings.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 12:39 PM, and I wanted to make two announcements. The first one is I just wanted to make a correction. Amendment number 15 was adopted as amended by conceptual amendment number 1, so just for clarification. And the other announcement is we're going to go ahead and recess until 2 o'clock. So is there any questions?

Seeing none, uh, we're going to go ahead and recess till 2 o'clock. Thank you.