Legal gambling in Indiana is big business.

Hi, I'm Jon Schwantes, and on this week's show, we'll look at the General Assembly's ongoing effort to keep the money flowing.

Indiana Lawmakers from the statehouse to your house.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey.

While the outcome of many policies in the legislative session may be a gamble, you can bet the Indiana General Assembly will take a closer look at gaming in our state.

Indiana was one of the first states to legalize sports betting in 2019, after the US Supreme Court reversed a nationwide ban on it outside of Nevada.

However, legislators are now considering banning college athletes from making player prop bets wagers that focus on an individual athlete's performance.

Senate Bill 120 would prohibit vendors from accepting proposition bets from college athletes competing in the same sport.

The NCAA, whose headquarters are mere minutes from the statehouse, has urged states across the country to bar prop bets because of the potential influence of insider information between sports betting, online simulations of casino games and lotteries.

Gaming is becoming an increasingly popular pastime.

A study conducted by Pew Research last fall revealed that 1 in 10 Americans have participated in online sports betting.

The House bill, 1052, would ban sweepstakes games that simulate casino style gambling, but are not expressly regulated under current state law.

Other legislation proposes legalizing video gaming terminals at small businesses like bars and truck stops.

The General Assembly is also considering legislation that would legalize online lottery sales, joining 18 other states that currently host online lotteries.

As a result, the Legislative Services Agency estimates Hoosier Lottery revenues will increase by an estimated 300 to $600 million annually.

Opponents of the measure argue that making gaming more accessible can cause a proliferation and the risk of gambling addiction.

A study released by the Indiana Gaming Commission last October identified downtown Indianapolis as the top site for a new casino in the state.

Fort Wayne officials continue to advocate for the development of a casino in their county, a possibility under House Bill 1038, which would create a 14th casino license in Indiana.

And joining me to talk about the opportunities and challenges facing Indiana's multi-billion dollar gaming industry are Republican Senator Ron Alting of Lafayette, longtime chair of the Senate Committee on Public Policy, Democratic Representative Kyle Miller of Fort Wayne, ranking minority member of the House Committee on Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development.

And Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of Indiana Legislative Insight and its sister newsletter, Indiana Gaming Insight, both part of Hannah News Service.

Thank you for being here.

Senator Alting, let's start with you.

You are the senior member of in the Senate.

You've been public policy chair since 2011.

You've been in the chamber since 1998, back when there were few river.

There were few casinos, and they were floating on water, by law.

And there were no slots yet at the at the horse tracks.

Never mind live table games, etc., etc.. Let's just say you've seen a lot.

Yeah.

When you look at what this means now for Indiana, I think overall tax impact since the beginning has been approaching $19 billion.

If you want to add it all up, how does that compare with what you envisioned when you entered the chamber?

And and Knight and you've you've I should say you've been an author or sponsor many of the bills that are most important to the growth of this industry in the state.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well it's changed.

I mean, when I came in office, it was number one on revenue to us.

Now, I think it's fourth.

So, it's expanded, but I think that the General Assembly, both in the House and the Senate public policy Committee, has done a very good job of controlling it, managing it.

Not like Illinois.

We do not have slot machines and gas stations.

And then the Walmarts, and there's a casino on every truck stop, etcetera.

They would tell you they're video gaming terminals, not slots, of course.

So they would like to.

And both the chairman in the House and myself, this has turned that down for forever.

We want to be able to manage it.

We want our existing casinos to continue to do well.

But obviously when I first got in, none of the surrounding states had them.

Now all of our surrounding states have gaming, so that's the biggest difference.

Even Kentucky, which was had pari mutuel wagering, now has its historical horse racing machines.

So it was smart enough and conservative enough in Indiana to know that's not your way out, that you just can't look at it as revenue.

You got to look at it is a good public policy.

And that's why we've kind of just kept it right where it's at insider casinos where we can manage it, monitor it, and it's not wide open.

Kamala, let me ask you, you're not the most senior member, but you're here in your second term.

You're a student of of public policy, certainly.

And and have a stake in the future of gaming in this, in this state.

I want to ask you if, you know, in 1998 what you thought, but this is what you know now, you and many of your newer colleagues, you depend on this as part of the state's budgetary formula.

Is that the case?

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, it is a it is a huge, huge source of revenue for us.

And I do think that, you know, as we, as we move forward, speaking of Senator Alting's time, coming from when, you know, casinos floated on the water and now we have inland casinos.

I think the next sort of iteration of where we're going is, is, AI gaming and what that means for, Hoosiers.

You know, we do want to keep it tightly regulated.

We want to make sure that people are, playing safe, and still able to enjoy themselves.

And so, I think that AI gaming sort of represents the next sort of, iteration of gaming in Indiana, and we have to be very careful.

I think it's already here.

It's being done illegally.

And I know we'll get into some sweepstakes issues, but, I think it's very important that we, take a look at, maybe regulating some of those things to make sure that we have control over that to, to protect, to.

And for those who may not be familiar with the term AI, gaming is simply a shorthand for online wagering as it relates to casinos.

Or there's also the lottery, the who's your lottery?

That's right.

Another component of this, perhaps.

So in in all deference to the senator, who who is the most senior member of his, chamber, you got ten years on him in terms of statehouse coverage.

Back to 88 or 89.

Again, I'll ask you the same question.

Does this what people ever had in mind that we've become now?

We were, I think, third at one point, revenue gaming revenue state in the country.

We've dropped to seventh because of the extensive competition that seems to be ever increasing.

But, nobody expected this.

We voted for the so-called lottery amendment, and in 1988, and then we got the lottery in 1989.

I think there was one voice out there in the wilderness that said, no, this is more than just about a lottery.

This opens everything up for legalized casinos.

And everybody said, oh, no, no, we'll never have that.

But yeah, we watched that up and in 1989 come to fruition and in 1993, June 30th, 1993, the last day for getting a budget, we we passed riverboats as part of that budget, but nobody expected that we'd be making, you know, $2 billion in revenue from the casinos like we did last year or, you know, now we're even bringing in 50 million a year.

We did 50 million in taxes on sports wagering last year.

Nobody in Indiana was one of the first states to get in front of that issue.

Before the competition in the surrounding states.

Yeah, once we we were late to the game in in riverboats, although, you know, we did beat, you know, Kentucky and Michigan into the battle there.

But, it's been interesting to see how what has become the public policy of the state has kind of transformed into the casinos and the horse racing tracks and the lottery being part of the fabric of the state.

And I think, you know, we've seen some of our recent governors really accept this and say, we're just going to treat this like any other industry in, in the, the state.

We're going to help, you know, foster things.

And that's one of the issues that that we're going to have to deal with, with, with AI gaming.

Because this was initially envisioned as a way to bring jobs and economic development to sort communities and there's some that say, well, I gaming doesn't really bring those jobs.

You know, you raise a good point about the evolution of the policy discussion here.

As we were joking a moment ago, we used to 30 years ago when, casinos came online, 35 years ago when the lottery came online and former, pacer George McGinnis, I believe, brought the first ticket as the pointer sister, saying, I'm so excited.

There's my that could be a trivia question for later.

I guess I just showed I'm as old as Ed then I guess, you know, it used to be there would be if we had this round table, there'd be somebody representing those who are concerned about the morals of of this and the ethics of of depending on this is a sort.

I don't hear that anymore.

Yeah, I hear it.

It's still out there.

And I think that's another reason why, the chairman's in the house and public policy in the Senate.

We've kind of controlled that.

I think we've got a foundation of gaming.

It's our casinos.

Is the two racetracks, etcetera, etcetera.

And I think we're just going to continue to improve on that.

I don't see expansion.

I will say expansion of we was one of the first that did the, sports betting.

I think we've learned a little bit of that.

Statistics show about 56% of college students are participating in sports betting.

That number because of that hurts the approval of AI gaming, where you basically have an entire casino in your hand that you can bet, you know, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

The states that have done AI gaming, having trouble on, embezzlement, money laundering, all the statistics are there.

So that's something I think is for some bad news and something I don't see happening in Indiana for quite a while.

I guess there are some pockets of resistance in your district and elsewhere.

In fact, you made an interesting observation after a an important vote on a bill that would move perhaps a casino.

We'll get to that momentarily to your district.

You said our job now proponents of this is about public education and reminding people.

And I may get the quote slightly off, that it's not a mobbed up business where everything's flashy, glittery Vegas style.

Yeah, that disappoints some people.

I think they want the flashy Vegas style, but how much of this is public education?

A lot of it's public education.

A lot of it is is trying to overcome those, overcome those concerns.

And, and I will just say, as sort of a side note, we have to do a better job of taking care of our problem gamblers in Indiana.

We do a really poor job right now of of doing that.

We we, I think, spend about $100,000 a year on problem gambling.

That needs to be much, much higher to give, you know, as, as gaming.

A 30 years ago, we decided this was a gaming state.

And so, we need to make sure that we're taking care of those Hoosiers that that have recognized they have a problem, and, and ask for those resources.

But you're right.

A lot of this, so much of this is about education.

We've come out of the sort of moral objection.

It's still it's still there.

But we've we've come out of that into, more of a space about what it can do for our communities and what it can't do and what the guardrails are.

And so, yeah, it's it's this isn't this isn't 1960s Vegas.

You know, where where things are being controlled by, a nefarious entity.

These are all regulated, regulated entities very well by the state.

And, and we want to keep it that way and make sure that we're educating the public on what gaming is and what gaming isn't.

No.

Wayne Newton was there then, and he's still there.

So something that's known for a while, a little bit about, there.

See, it's all local.

And I think what, what Representative Miller needs to do is, is tell the people of Fort Wayne that if they don't want a casino in their backyard, they're going to get a data center.

Yeah, it really is about education.

And and it's more of a Nimby thing now than, a moral kind of thing, but but it's still a delicate balance.

And we did the right thing by accident, I think in 1993 when we set up the the original ten casinos where they are, and we created an oligarchical structure that really worked.

We didn't have too many casinos like Mississippi did.

So everybody succeeded.

And when they started to falter a little bit like the casino and Rising Sun, where they want to transfer that license to Fort Wayne or Steuben County or DeKalb County or Wayne County.

It's been because of competition from around the state, from outside of the state, in Ohio and Kentucky, and not from some things that we've done here.

Although that casino is now kind of sandwiched in.

But initially it was performing.

If you look at the revenue overall in the in the tax revenue and rates and the company that owns it bought that cheap because the company that had invested all the money in that saw what was coming and wanted to get out and they made a little bit of money back.

And, you know, it's not like they're necessarily losing money on it.

They're just not making as much as they could elsewhere in the state.

Is company name full House, which is confusing when we talk about this being voted on by the full House.

So, just.

Yeah.

No, I think the key has been we have done a good job on managed unit.

Think we started off with the boat, and then in order to gamble, the boat had to go out.

You know, it had literally had ceiling for sale and crews.

And if you wasn't there at 2:00, you missed the boat.

So I carried the bill to make a dockside.

Then I carried the bill a few years later to bring it on the footprint.

And then I carried the bill to expand the footprint.

Then I carried the bill to put live dealers sure back basketball games.

And so it's not just right.

And you also did charity gaming.

Yeah.

So Bill.

Yes.

Which really helps the VFW in the Legion and so forth.

So we didn't it's like if my friend said here, we didn't just go crazy at the beginning.

We managed our growth.

And in terms of this, I guess those who are concerned about the growth, quote unquote, of gaming would say there's not a growth here.

You're taking a license that is in Rising Sun, sandwiched in between, among others, and is now facing extensive competition from Cincinnati, which now has a casino.

It didn't when it started, and move it to one of the four counties that just mentioned Steuben, DeKalb, Wayne or Allen.

I don't know if there may be pockets of resistance, but certainly public officials in those four counties which will vie for the opportunity to host this, there's no hesitation, it seems, on the part of government officials.

Yeah, it's been really interesting because this bill started out as, once the once the bill, from New Haven died last year.

You know, Allen County jumped in, raise their hand, said, yes, we want this.

And you're right, I've seen very few issues where, the county commissioners and the mayor of, of, Fort Wayne and Allen County are on the same page and collaborating on something.

And so, it's been interesting and I, I bring this up as kind of a counterpoint to some of the resistance that, you know, it started out just as Allen County and then as the amendment process went through, we added Wayne and DeKalb and to Ben.

So, you have counties that are actively trying to get this casino in their community because they see the benefit of it, what it can do for their communities.

And not only that, from our perspective, as as state senators, state representatives, what it could do for state revenues as well.

And, Senator, this makes sense to you.

I know you had a competing bill.

I mean, it came out of your chamber that would have done this much the same, but it only would have moved it essentially from this casino and Rising Sun to Allen County.

Now you have the other people vying.

And as the bill stands now, all 13 of the licensed casinos, they're licensed by the state of Indiana can bid on this.

Now it's $500 million investment over five years, $50 million up front, $30 million to the to Ohio County, which encompasses Rising Sun.

Yeah.

Is this the way to go?

It is the way to go.

And we were smart.

Less government is the best government.

So we finally woke up to the idea of, let's do an independent study on the sites that are available, the best sites for a casino, and keep legislators out of it.

And that's how we come to Fort Wayne in some of the other locations, which really was a huge help.

We did that over this past summer, so that happens to be one, but it's no expansion.

And, and we're not given certainly after the numbers you just mentioned, we're not giving them anything they're paying for.

Not likely that all 13 are going to seek that.

Yeah.

You know, the senator mentions the spectrum report, which was ordered up by last, the General Assembly last session that came out in October.

Now, what it did like and say kind things about Allen County or northeast Indiana as being the best place to, generate revenue and also compete with out-of-state entities.

Number one, though, was Indianapolis.

They said that's the biggest impact, but it might affect the horse racing industry at our if we're serious about this as a state maximizing revenue, why not just go with Indianapolis?

Well, you could and you should if that's all that you cared about.

But, you know, in every decision that we've made, as Senator Alting indicated, you look at the impact on on others and cannibalization is pretty strong.

When you look at an Indianapolis casino, you're taking money from Terre Haute, you're taking money from Shelbyville, you're taking money from Anderson, and then you're also kind of the two latter are the horse tracks with the the fund, the business and the horse racing in the state.

And Purdue University has done study for the horse racing commission that shows that the ag equine industry in the state has about a $2 billion impact, and that that's a few years back.

So it's really kind of a tough call for the state.

But at the same time, you're also not mandating that somebody put a casino somewhere.

It's going to be a business decision.

You've got as you said, the 13 casinos that are out there, I think they're owned by seven different companies.

So they're potentially seven operators.

You take out a couple that certainly aren't going to bid, and you're down to about 3 or 4, maybe five at the most.

But it's going to be difficult.

You know, with with all respect to my friends in Richmond, in Wayne County, to convince an operator to say, okay, I've got this other casino or two other casinos in Indiana, and I'm going to invest another $550 million into Wayne County.

So you're going to go where you think you're going to get the best return on your investment, where you think that that's going to make you a profit, and it's going to be a joint decision between the the individual counties that have been authorized and the Indiana Gaming Commission looking at what's best for the state.

Carmel, or what do you tell the folks who say, you know, the legislature shouldn't be picking winners and losers or holding businesses harmless?

You know, in the business world, you get into something, you invest.

Maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.

If you're good, you succeed.

If you're not, you know, essentially, the operators of the Rising Sun casino will be held harmless.

And in fact, if this goes through as planned, there will be an obligation of the of the of the entity that gets the contract up in the northeast or east part of the state to loot bait, to buy out, essentially the Rising Sun facility based on a third party independent assessment of the valuation.

Does that make sense as a policy standpoint?

Well, I think as as Chairman Vaulting said, I think that's why we have this, bill in a, in a really good spot where it doesn't just pick, full house and allows full house to move.

It allows that license that they currently have in control, to move and then be bid on by other companies.

And so we're, we're trying really hard not to pick winners and losers.

Right.

And, you know, full House has invested in Rising Sun in the, in the casino.

And they've, they bought the license.

And so they do have business decisions to make.

And just like any other business, when you're, when you hold an asset, you want to you want to get paid for that asset.

And so, I think that's why we have the bill in a really good spot, because it kind of satisfies everybody.

Well, while not expanding gaming, not creating a new license, but still allowing that competition that we take very seriously here and in Indiana, I think the difference we're talking about casinos is keep in mind, it's the most regulated industry in the entire state of Indiana.

I mean, they are under the microscope 24 over seven.

So you can't treat it like a free enterprise.

If you did, what they could do is just say, we're gone, sell the license, we're packing our bags, and we're out of state.

Then what happens is the local community.

We're that setting.

It just turns into a weeded parking lot and abandoned building.

This way, when government gets involved and we discuss and we work with everybody, a they're going to continue to pay the local community money to keep it afloat, which is incredible.

You'd never find that in free enterprise when we're demanding that.

That's one of the things that legislators are saying, plus the investment of moving it.

So it's really a win win.

But that's the reason why government is involved in that industry.

If the casinos are the sweet spot, because of regulation, why not expand to AI gaming for casinos and for the lottery, which there were there were bills this session to do that not going to happen.

I offered an amendment to legalize AI gaming.

I, I, I think the senator and I might disagree on this.

I think it's it's already here.

We haven't talked about sweepstakes yet, but we've we've got Hoosiers that are here doing it.

And, largely what we found is that when we ban things, it just doesn't have the effect.

It goes underground, it becomes unsafe.

What we've seen in other communities, especially in Michigan, I think Pennsylvania, is that when you regulate AI gaming, it it moves people from an illegal, unregulated market over to the legal, regulated market.

So much so that in both of those, states, the largest AI gaming, illegal AI gaming operator now no longer, serves that that those two states.

And so I think when we regulate things, we make it, safe for people to play.

We give people those problem gambling resources, which is part of what my amendment said.

It it makes it it makes it, safer for people to do and kind of puts those guardrails to make sure it's things you prefer or to keep it in the brick and mortar.

Well, I mean yeah, I mean, I gaming and I lotteries the difference between a pair and an Apple.

I mean it's not even comparable.

The statistics show that AI lotteries are you don't see people addicted to the extent as you do in AI gaming.

It's usually senior citizens.

The statistics show, you know, I'm all for, this would like Powerball.

Or they could do it online rather than going.

I would tell you, I, I gaming is something that the addiction level, is enormous and I agree it is being played now.

Under under the table, if you will.

However, once you legalize something then it it moves up, the play increases.

And I can foresee when you walk in a dorm.

I've had a lot of my colleagues got kids in college, including the pro tem in the Senate.

And when he walks in the room, all the college students are there doing their their sports betting on that and I gaming.

I can see a freshman by the time they're out as a senior.

They're so far in debt they've wiped out their credit cards.

Not only are they going to have to make up the debt to go to to a university, but to be so far in debt, their credit rating will be completely gone.

For public policy is a good public policy.

Forget the income, forget it.

And it's my opinion.

It's horrible.

Public policy seem to be some momentum for both I gaming and I lottery.

This is particularly a lottery.

It's been stagnant revenue maybe for five years at about not up not down from 1.7 billion, which is still not chump change.

I suppose you're surprised that, that nothing, emerged, in court in a whipsaw between the, the pro AI gaming forces and the ones the wanted to to be even more restrictive or didn't feel that that certain bills were the right platforms for it.

But the whole AI gaming issue becomes really interesting when you look at it in the broader context and think about, you know, what we're doing with casinos, with the the extra jobs, you know, if you've got 1000 jobs at a given property, perhaps, or 500 jobs, you don't necessarily have those with AI gaming, but the casinos also offer, you know, a little bit more than just the opportunity to gamble.

You've got big entertainment venues, most of them.

You've got meeting convention facilities.

You go there to to do something socially.

You go with friends, you go to the restaurants there.

And what we've been talking about for Fort Wayne would be a, you know, a, tremendous complex a the one last year for New Haven was was something that was a lot more than just a casino.

So you're talking about campuses.

You're not just talking about $500 million investment over five years.

That's more than pup tents.

I would I would imagine, in a food stand over in the corner, we've talked about bills that that, didn't make it a couple.

Let's talk about one.

That seems that it is on rails.

It's going to get a hearing, I think the same at the same hearing before Senator, all saying next week that, the first bill we talked about moving the casino and that sweepstakes.

And I'm not sure I even understand what this is, but it would ban, online sweepstakes which masquerade critics would say, as casino gaming, but unregulated.

You've taken sort of the contrarian position and said, we already have 200,000 Hoosiers playing these games.

Why not regulate it, tax it, make a case?

I think, just in general, that's my that's my approach to public policy is, is keeping things below board.

It makes people unsafe.

And so, we do have these casino, these, these sweepstakes companies that, you know, there are two aspects to, two currencies.

If you will, to these apps that you play.

They offer a free version where you have gold coins.

You can play as much as you want.

You're playing casino style games, you're playing slots and poker and, everything you'd find in a typical casino on your phone.

They also have another currency, which is actual dollars.

Now, you can't put in actual dollars to these sweepstakes companies.

You buy gold coins, and then as a bonus, they give you a bonus of actual real money that you can win and play with real money.

And so, you know, nobody really has a problem with the free side of these sweepstakes companies.

They do have a problem once you start, playing with real money.

However, it happens now, the sweepstakes companies would say, you know, we're you're not actually wagering for money.

I don't I don't buy that argument.

But like you said, we've got 200,000 Hoosiers already playing it.

It's it's a it's a multi-million dollar business already, yet unregulated.

And so we, we can't keep players safe.

We can't, make sure if they do, when they get guaranteed payouts.

And so, my, my position, much as it is with AI gaming is let's bring it above board, let's tax it.

Let's regulate it, let's make it safe.

And this I you're right.

You were in fact, on the opposite side of that issue, just as you were a moment ago, reasoning the same.

Well, you know, I agree with him in fact, I've got an amendment that's going to do exactly what he's saying.

I'm going to put it back in the bill, the sweepstakes, because it's being done.

There's no money exchange.

We're making it news.

People like that.

People enjoy that.

And I'm also going to tax him to a point that should bring in about $20 million a year, which now they're not.

Right.

So I'm doing exactly what my house persuasive.

Wow.

That's sitting here listening to Partizanship right here.

So and you're confident that that can make it make it through I think so quite a reversal from from the well, as it stands, I'm doing in there, I'm also going to limit for one year.

And that will give the House and the Senate time to negotiate and maybe come up with a better public policy forum, etc.

but just to come out like we did this year in the House bill and say, you're out of business, you're done for no reason at all.

They didn't they didn't do anything against the law.

There's they've been clean.

There's we haven't seen any addiction, numbers on it.

I mean, I just don't think it's very user friendly to that industry that's been here for quite a while.

So if you will, maybe a probation so we can get our act together, working together.

I'm going to put an amendment back in it.

And with a 12 month, wait period on that and hopefully then we'll come back and make it permanent.

Ed, does that, plot twist, and the compromise that you've just heard, which is that fly if it's not going to be, good news for the the incumbent casino companies, which have the so-called skins for their sports wagering operators, want to be able to expand themselves in the iGaming, world if they're going to be coming up against sweepstakes operators that are not part of the the current regulated community, that are not paying those kinds of fees that they're paying, they're not going to be happy with it.

I would say to those operators is that if you think that in this kind of betting that they might win a toaster, is it going to affect, a casino, get your big boy pants on?

Because that's just not going to happen.

You're talking about two different it's not going to affect the casinos.

I mean, you're looking at a money, the casinos, you're looking at products.

That's what they said.

Bob Voigt is true.

That's true, that's true.

Well, I mean, do we ever as a state really regulated everything when you mention the video gaming terminals, which I don't want to shock anybody, they are in existence in Indiana.

Probably if we went to a few truck stops or bars or you know, 35,000 cherry masters that we eliminated.

And so there those and then we have we haven't even talked about some of the, well, the, the, predictions market there states.

I have a son in California that can't bet legally on sports, but he can invest, I guess, in a market prediction, about who's going to win and lose.

Does the state need to go after that next?

These sorts of unregulated but still present, competitors?

This is why I love, the Public Policy Committee.

This is why I love, you know, it does tend to be a bipartisan or nonpartisan, committee because there are so many these issues that we talk about that need to be regulated, and these spaces are growing so much that it's important that we come into these spaces and really, figure them out for the for the benefit of Hoosiers across the state.

All right.

Unfortunately at of time have to end it there.

I think we could go on a little bit.

Something tells me that that'd be a safe bet for sure.

Again, my guests have been Republican Senator Ron Alting of Lafayette, Democratic Representative Kyle Miller of Fort Wayne, and Ed Feigenbaum, publisher of Indiana Legislative Insight and its sister newsletter, Indiana Gaming Insight.

For more and more Hoosiers, the American dream of home ownership is just that.

A tantalizing dream that hovers just out of reach.

On the next Indiana lawmakers Well, that concludes another show.

I'm Jon Schwantz, and on behalf of everyone involved in the program, I thank you for joining us.

Until next week, take care.

Indiana Lawmakers is produced by WFYI in association with Indiana Public Broadcasting Stations, with additional support provided by ParrRichey.