Comité Rules del Senado, 9 de febrero de 2026

Transcripción

238 turnos. Seleccione un tiempo para reproducir ese momento del video.

1. 0:02:56

   Standing Rules Committee to order. And Senator Dolezal, he'll lead us off in prayer.

2. 0:03:05

   One. Lord, thank you for the gift of being alive today and able to serve your people. I pray that we would do so with wisdom and humility, and that you would continue to bless our steps. In your name we pray, amen.

3. 0:03:17

   Amen. All right. So in standing committee we have SB 395, Senator Kirkpatrick, if you'd like to deliver your-

4. 0:03:32

   Thank you

5. 0:03:32

   ... address right there.

6. 0:03:34

   For those of you who don't know, um, what this is about, the cannabis cards are produced by the Department of Public Health. The application goes through there, but the enforcement goes through the medical board, and currently they don't have a data sharing agreement, so they can't share information. So the program is, there's a gap in there. There was some other stuff in this bill when we passed out of committee, and on talking with ledge council and working on it some more, it turns out that that's already in the law. And so the only part that's left in this bill is the part about the communication between the boards.

7. 0:04:10

   That's it.

8. 0:04:12

   Okay. Are there any questions? All right. Go ahead, Senator Cowsert.

9. 0:04:21

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, in your original bill, in lines 19 to 21, you, you asked for the board to confirm that a physician had a doctor-patient relationship with their person they've given the card to, and that they were treating them for a specific condition that was listed. Why have you removed that? That seemed like good policy, and there was no objection to that in health committee.

10. 0:04:45

    It is good policy. It's also already in the code.

11. 0:04:48

    Okay.

12. 0:04:48

    And I can give you the citation if you want it.

13. 0:04:51

    So you just, you don't need it 'cause we already got it somewhere else?

14. 0:04:54

    Exactly.

15. 0:04:55

    Thank you.

16. 0:04:56

    And I think the point is more, uh, we're gonna have to have more emphasis on the, on the, um,

17. 0:05:05

    enforcement side of it.

18. 0:05:07

    Right, and that-

19. 0:05:08

    If there's a problem, which w- there clearly is, 'cause, you know, we know of one doctor out of a-

20. 0:05:15

    New York

21. 0:05:15

    ... different state, New York-

22. 0:05:16

    Mm-hmm

23. 0:05:16

    ... just issued a, what, a couple thousand licenses.

24. 0:05:20

    Almost 4,000 people.

25. 0:05:23

    Kind of hard to believe someone out of New York has a relationship with that many-

26. 0:05:28

    Exactly

27. 0:05:28

    ... that many patients. So, okay. Any other questions? What's the will of the committee?

28. 0:05:38

    Do pass.

29. 0:05:39

    Got a motion do pass from the chairman in which the bill came out of.

30. 0:05:46

    Second.

31. 0:05:46

    By substitute.

32. 0:05:48

    Second.

33. 0:05:48

    LC 52, this right, 101, 1012S, as in Sierra. So I got a motion from my vice chairman. I got a second from the minority whip. Any further discussion? All in favor, raise your hand.

34. 0:06:08

    All right. Motion carries unanimous.

35. 0:06:13

    All right. We're gonna end that meeting

36. 0:06:19

    and we're gonna start a new one. All right. We're in our Rules Calendar Committee, um, committee meeting. Got a lot of bills today. Committee chairs are doing good work, getting us some good bills. All right. First up we have SB 261. Senator Harbin, you may approach the podium.

37. 0:06:51

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the man from, uh, Coweta County. We pass on the highway together, do we not?

38. 0:06:58

    We do. I probably pass you, but-

39. 0:07:01

    I thought I was driving faster.

40. 0:07:02

    You probably leave before me, but I pass, pass you anyway.

41. 0:07:06

    This is a bill for the magistrate judges. It does not involve any state funds at all. It is simply changes in their, uh, retirement plan. It changes the makeup of the board. It also increases the membership dues. It, um, also allows for early retirement at 65, but with a reduction, uh, for each, uh, year earlier than 60, a 3% reduction, and then it changes the, uh, multiplier effect. But there's no, uh, dollar effect upon the state at all, and it also has got the actuarial certification that it does not affe- affect the, uh, quality of the plan and the s- uh, sta- stability of the plan.

42. 0:07:45

    Okay. Any, got a question here from Chairman Cowsert.

43. 0:07:49

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I guess it's my day to ask questions. Uh-

44. 0:07:53

    Yes, sir

45. 0:07:53

    ... you said two things there. Can they now retire before 65?

46. 0:07:59

    Yes.

47. 0:08:00

    So that, what is-

48. 0:08:01

    What this does-

49. 0:08:02

    ... what's changed then?

50. 0:08:03

    This moves that to 55.

51. 0:08:05

    Ah.

52. 0:08:05

    But 60 was the normal, and what happens if you do that, there's a 3% reduction for each year you retire earlier than 60.

53. 0:08:15

    As of today you c- can I follow?

54. 0:08:17

    Absolutely.

55. 0:08:18

    As of today you can retire at age 60?

56. 0:08:20

    Correct.

57. 0:08:20

    And what's 65 got to do with it? You s-

58. 0:08:23

    Does, does not. In this bill, that's not addressing that, um, that piece.

59. 0:08:28

    Maybe you said 55.

60. 0:08:30

    55.

61. 0:08:30

    Okay. So it's 60 today, and now you, it's passed to 50-

62. 0:08:34

    Going to 55-

63. 0:08:34

    ... 55

64. 0:08:34

    ... but a 3% produ- reduction each year that you do that prior to 60. So someone that, let's say, does five years, they've got a 15% overall reduction, 3% per year.

65. 0:08:47

    Okay.

66. 0:08:50

    All right. Any further questions? All right. Good job.

67. 0:08:54

    Thank you, sir.

68. 0:08:55

    All right. Senator Hatchett, you got two bills. You can cover them both, Senate Bill 384 and Senate Bill 398

69. 0:09:04

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

70. 0:09:05

    384 we've heard, so you can be brief.

71. 0:09:07

    Yeah, 384 is a bill that will allow consumers in Georgia, when they go to get their, uh, tag for the vehicle, to purchase a five-year tag instead of a one-year tag.

72. 0:09:18

    I do have a question on that.

73. 0:09:19

    Okay.

74. 0:09:21

    What about in areas where you're part of the MPO, as required by federal law, and you gotta take the emissions test yearly? How does... How will that work?

75. 0:09:32

    So I worked closely over the past six months with the Department of Revenue and the Department of Driver Services. When you buy a five-year tag, it's completely optional, and what you do when you buy the five-year tag is you opt in automatically to an electronic notification, and you still will have to fulfill the requirement to get your emissions tested. And if you don't, you'll be electronically notified that your tag is expired. So the rules don't change. The only thing that changes is that you, if you choose the five-year tag, you will opt into the electronic notification system.

76. 0:10:06

    Okay. Senator Ginn, you got a question?

77. 0:10:09

    Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, one of the things that, uh, people have really good driving records around Atlanta, and I always worry when I get here, am I gonna be able to drive my vehicle for five years? So the, uh... 'Cause somebody might take it out in an accident. What happens in that case with the... When you bought a five-year tag, does it... You buy another vehicle, does it go to the new vehicle? How does that work?

78. 0:10:32

    So there are already laws on the books right now. If you were to be in a car accident now, you'll be able to transfer your tag to the new car you purchase if it's the same type of vehicle. This does not change that. If you have a five-year tag and it's in an accident in year three, you buy a new car that's the same, same kind, you know, you don't buy a commercial vehicle if you have a regular vehicle, you, you will be able to transfer it, yes.

79. 0:10:52

    And, and if somebody el- eliminates a vehicle, you know, i- in their fleet or in their thing, what happens with that? They just lose the money?

80. 0:11:00

    There are no refunds. That's right. You choose to opt in, and it, you know, you pay $120 instead of 20, and you don't get a refund if you decide to drop a vehicle.

81. 0:11:11

    Is there a discount for buying a volume-

82. 0:11:14

    There are no discounts

83. 0:11:14

    ... like, innocent five years versus o- one, one at a time?

84. 0:11:18

    No. You pay the same rate. It's completely optional, and it's honestly just a convenience.

85. 0:11:24

    The discount is the time you save going to the DMV.

86. 0:11:28

    Yep.

87. 0:11:29

    If you don't do it online, which is available. Uh, Senator Jackson.

88. 0:11:35

    Yes. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, um, can you just help r- me understand this? So would you just automatically get a sticker in the mail when renewal comes? Like, how, how would that process work? Or would just the tag... I'm just wondering, for law enforcement purposes or, or tag readers, how will they know, um, that your tag is valid and that you've done the emissions check if you're in an emissions check location?

89. 0:11:58

    So it would not change the system at all as it is. The only thing that would change is instead of having a green... There's like a, a rotation of colors for the year. This will have its own standalone color.

90. 0:12:11

    Got it.

91. 0:12:11

    It's completely up to the Department of Re- um-

92. 0:12:13

    Mm-hmm

93. 0:12:13

    ... Revenue, but I have requested, um, at the request of my daughters, that it be hot pink.

94. 0:12:21

    Love it. Uh, and then to the emissions piece, though, how would a law enforcement officer know by looking at the tag that you've complied with the yearly emissions?

95. 0:12:30

    Same way they do now.

96. 0:12:32

    Hunter-

97. 0:12:32

    No, right now they look at the color of your tag, and they see that you have an expired tag- ... which then prompts them to do the other checks. But if you, if your tag's not gonna expire, then there's no, there's, there would be no... If they don't have a visible signal to say, "Oh, this tag is expired, I better check to see if they did their emissions test," there's no, there's no visible thing there to s- to s-

98. 0:12:54

    I see what you're saying. So if... In, in that case, they would have to go off of their, their tag readers, which I think a lot of them do now. I think the, the color system now, while it is used, I don't think it's the primary, uh, system that law enforcement officers use now.

99. 0:13:12

    Okay. Thank you.

100. 0:13:13

     Does that... Okay.

101. 0:13:15

     Senator Robertson.

102. 0:13:16

     Thank you. The, Senator Noel's correct. The, the... Everything's electronic. It goes into the system. The, the... You could lose the sticker and all this. The, the tag readers read the tag, go into the system, tell us whether the tag is, is good or inactive. And based on what the senator specified too, if you refused or failed to get the emissions, they would suspend the tag in the system. Therefore, when the tag reader read it, it would show the tag as suspended.

103. 0:13:42

     That's right. Yep.

104. 0:13:45

     So that hot pink, would it be a hunter safety hot pink?

105. 0:13:50

     I think that's fluorescent.

106. 0:13:51

     Oh.

107. 0:13:52

     Yeah.

108. 0:13:53

     Okay.

109. 0:13:53

     But it could be.

110. 0:13:54

     All right. Let's move on to SB398.

111. 0:13:56

     Okay. S- SB398 is, uh, a bill that would create a felony for someone to take a photograph of a real person and use AI to generate pornographic or obscene material.

112. 0:14:12

     Okay. Questions? Senator Cowsert, you look like you-

113. 0:14:16

     I'm okay, Mr. Chairman

114. 0:14:18

     ... kinda itchy today. I like it. I like it. Senator Cowsert's watching. That's a warning for all y'all about to come before this distinguished committee. All right, no questions.

115. 0:14:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

116. 0:14:32

     Thank you, Senator Hatchett. Senator Burns. How are you today, Mr. Chairman?

117. 0:14:39

     I'm doing very well, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Uh, committee, we've looked at this before. It's Senate Bill 400. It's an agency bill from the Georgia Nonpublic Postsecondary Education Commission. It expands their ability to protect Georgia students. It provides some, uh, protections for the Tuition Guarantee Trust Fund and for student records. I'd appreciate your favorable consideration. Let's get it on the floor and get it out of here.

118. 0:15:03

     Any questions? Senator Cowsert.

119. 0:15:06

     Not on this one, Mr. Chairman.

120. 0:15:08

     All right.

121. 0:15:08

     All right.

122. 0:15:08

     All right. I just want to be-

123. 0:15:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman

124. 0:15:10

     ... you get first right of refusal today.

125. 0:15:12

     Thank you. I'm one for one.

126. 0:15:13

     All right. Senator Goodman.

127. 0:15:20

     Well, hold on. Let me queue up your walk-up music. Okay, it's done.

128. 0:15:27

     I was, I was hoping for a little bit of Elvis, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senate Bill 435-

129. 0:15:31

     He left the building

130. 0:15:31

     ... he has, he's left the building. He has. This simple name change bill, and it's really, uh, something that is correcting a mistake that-

131. 0:15:39

     I did

132. 0:15:39

     ... the legislature made 66 years ago, and, uh, I can go into detail on that if anybody would like. But, um, at any rate, we're simply adding, um, agriculture back into the naming of the Georgia Development Authority. It was originally the Georgia Livestock Development Authority, and if you want me to explain why we're doing this or what the mistake was, I'm glad to, or...

133. 0:16:01

     I don't, but does anybody else?

134. 0:16:03

     Do it.

135. 0:16:03

     Senator Cowsert?

136. 0:16:04

     We'll let Jeff get queued up.

137. 0:16:06

     Okay. All right. He's queued up. Any questions? All right, we're good. Thank you.

138. 0:16:12

     Thank you.

139. 0:16:13

     All right, and I didn't mean to, but SB 405, I accidentally skipped that.

140. 0:16:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, SB 405 is a bill that takes the maximum threshold for claims in small claims court from $15,000 and allows claims up to $50,000.

141. 0:16:38

     Ooh.

142. 0:16:38

     This was changed the last time 28 years ago. It was changed in the 1998 session. It was, last time it was tripled from 5 to 15,000. And what it simply does is citizens of ours need to be able to represent themselves in small claims court without hiring an attorney. Um, allows regular individuals to represent themselves. Uh, as, as you... Right now, people have a 25, $30,000 claim, they have to spend 10, $15,000 for legal counsel to solve an issue. This allows them to put facts in front of the judge and get something solved in a streamlined process.

143. 0:17:09

     That's what it does.

144. 0:17:10

     Okay.

145. 0:17:11

     Mark has a question.

146. 0:17:12

     Yeah. M- Senator Cowsert, I know you have a question.

147. 0:17:15

     I've, I've got a couple for you, if you don't mind, Senator.

148. 0:17:17

     Please.

149. 0:17:19

     I missed the vote in judiciary, but in our folders was a letter from the state court judges opposing the bill, and they said they opposed a bill last year raising it from 15 to 25,000. Some of them opposed anything, but a lot of them opposed going to 50 because your insurance only covers up to 25, your minimum insurance.

150. 0:17:43

     Yeah.

151. 0:17:43

     And these judges, a lot of them aren't even lawyers. So, you're not getting a jury trial, and you might be personally held responsible for, you know, 25,000 above your own insurance.

152. 0:17:53

     Well, I mean, the, the question is, first of all, um, magistrate court judges make determinations on probable cause on murder cases, and these are not people that are just, you know, little league baseball coaches and don't have any legal background. These are former law enforcement officers. Um, in the case that they're not attorneys, uh, they have, they, they have an intimate understanding of our system. Uh, there's not a specific requirement, because some communities choose to use, again, law enforcement folks versus attorneys to be magistrate court judges, but they are, they are making probable cause determinations on murder and felony cases.

153. 0:18:25

     So, these are not legal neophytes, for sure. But what it is, is it allows folks to come in and, and, and bring in a fact-specific case, um, to put the facts before a judge. Right now, no matter how simple or how fact-specific it is, you cannot bring any claim above $15,000. Now, state court judges may... I, I can't get inside their thinking about caseload. I think it's, if it, if it decreases their caseload, I think that's probably not a bad thing. Um, but I will tell you right now that, uh, to have to secure an attorney is a big cost for a homeowner.

154. 0:19:00

     One very important thing for members to understand, too, that we didn't have time to talk about this in committee, is, as a business owner, if you have an LLC that owns a house, you may not represent yourself pro se in state court. No matter how simple it is, you can't go and put a case in front of a judge in state court, even as an LLC. It's prohibited by law. You can do that in magistrate court. If it is a fact-specific case, it allows a streamlined process to have. And it's very important for access to justice. Doesn't pay attorneys. It keeps, allows in- in- individuals to represent themselves.

155. 0:19:32

     One follow-up. You may be aware that in magistrate courts, you're not allowed to conduct discovery. You can't send interrogatories or requests for production of documents or take depositions to prepare for trial. You can't learn about previous medical conditions, about what medical treatment somebody received in, for example, in a personal injury case. So, you're basically going in there blind and now being held up to 50,000 responsible without a jury. And these magistrates, by the way, they don't give a verdict on those killers.

156. 0:20:06

     They just say there's probable cause to go to a jury.

157. 0:20:09

     Correct. But, but you also understand that if there's a... Every case that goes to magistrate court is appealable to a state or superior court. So, if there are evidentiary concerns the judge has, the judge says, "Wait a minute, I can't sort this out. I'm not comfortable with the documents that are put in front of me," that can get kicked to state and superior court easily. The challenge is, though, on simple cases above a certain dollar threshold, no matter how simple they are, they cannot be adjudicated without going to those higher courts. And that costs a lot of money for people to solve very simple things.

158. 0:20:38

     You don't want to be in court all day.

159. 0:20:43

     You got another follow-up?

160. 0:20:45

     I'll save them for the floor if it makes it.

161. 0:20:47

     And, uh, so I just, I, I felt like we addressed every single question the state court judges raised. Um, and again, I've got, I've had magistrate court judges call me off the record that they, they weren't speaking for their j- circuit or for themselves publicly. They said, "Yeah, this is the right thing. This, this is the right thing to do." There's a lot of cases. I mean, you take somebody, I mean, the average cost of a car is $50,000 now. You take somebody who's trying to get their house renovated, the roofing and siding on their house.

162. 0:21:17

     The contractor walks off and doesn't, doesn't deliver the job. You have to go to state court to, to, to solve a roofing issue dispute if, if you're getting a roof put on your house. Shouldn't have to do that. You should be able to go to small claims court and make that claim, a- and all we're doing is changing the dollar threshold.

163. 0:21:38

     Senator Robertson and then Senator Jackson. Senator Setzler, I want to start out by saying I like your bill.

164. 0:21:43

     Yes.

165. 0:21:44

     Um, remind me, what's the current threshold cap in state court on civil?

166. 0:21:49

     Well, for, for magistrate court-

167. 0:21:51

     No, no, state court.

168. 0:21:54

     The state court level above what we're talking about, I don't, I don't even know that threshold.

169. 0:21:57

     Okay. Thanks.

170. 0:21:58

     Yeah.

171. 0:21:58

     Appreciate it. Senator Jackson.

172. 0:22:03

     Yes.

173. 0:22:03

     I, I don't think there's a cap, yeah.

174. 0:22:04

     Th- this question's... May I ask Senator Cowsert since he brought this up, or can I only ask him? I'll ask him and let him-

175. 0:22:12

     You can ask him-

176. 0:22:12

     ... answer the question. Yeah, uh-huh.

177. 0:22:14

     And then he then-

178. 0:22:14

     So-

179. 0:22:14

     He can tell him something, and then he can ask.

180. 0:22:18

     So there was a question about, um, raised around insurance for, I assume magistrate judges, um, are only covered up to $25,000. Um, so I just want to be clear before I get in trouble in DeKalb County, are there any magistrate judges who have been on the record saying that they are in support of this bill, and have any of them named the issue around insurance and how they might fill that gap?

181. 0:22:46

     No. Let me, let me, let me be very clear. I have not stated specific magistrate court judges-

182. 0:22:52

     Okay

183. 0:22:52

     ... in public support. That's why I was very clear about that. I've had, uh, individuals-

184. 0:22:55

     Okay

185. 0:22:55

     ... come to me and tell me this is, this is, I'm on exactly the right track.

186. 0:22:59

     But there's none on the record?

187. 0:23:01

     Not, not that there wouldn't. I've not asked them to. But there's... No, no. There, there are none on the record that have, that have said, "Hey, this, this..." 'Cause this is not a, a, a court opinion.

188. 0:23:09

     So-

189. 0:23:10

     For or against it? Uh, what's that? For or against it? Th- they've not, I've not, I've not asked them to comment on it. I don't wanna create a war between judicial groups. Neither would I. Th- this, this is an issue that comes on, on behalf of constituents. Um, out to your, your que- question of insurance, a false premise was put out there that said, "Well, wait a minute. You know, insurance is only this, this level for, for car insurance, therefore we should be limited to that." That's tying back to something, you know, there was some discussion 28 years ago, "Hey, what's, what's the threshold for, for m- the, the minimum threshold of car insurance?

190. 0:23:42

     We need to create some linkage there." That's a false linkage. This is not about what the maximum amount or the minimum amount of car insurance is for, for, for a motorist. It's for me, what's the cost of a car? The average car is about $50,000 now. The, the cost of putting a roof and siding on your house is around 50 grand. Um, those kinds of things-

191. 0:24:00

     Yeah

192. 0:24:00

     ... folks ought to be protected from. If they're screwed by somebody, a contractor putting a roof on or, or siding on their house faulty, they ought to be able to small claim, go to small claims court-

193. 0:24:09

     Absolutely

194. 0:24:10

     ... lay very simple facts out and get a ruling without hiring an attorney for $15,000.

195. 0:24:16

     Senator, have you ever heard of Right Said Fred?

196. 0:24:20

     No, sir.

197. 0:24:21

     He's a old singer. When you said it was the right thing to do, I thought about calling you Right Said Ed.

198. 0:24:28

     Thank you, sir.

199. 0:24:31

     Uh, any other questions?

200. 0:24:35

     All right. Good job.

201. 0:24:36

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

202. 0:24:38

     All right. Senator Kirkpatrick, SB 444.

203. 0:24:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a consumer protection bill. It has to do with prior authorization, and it says that if AI is used, a human clinical peer must be part of the process before an adverse determination. That's all it does.

204. 0:24:58

     Any questions? Hearing none. Okay. Representative Sibal, did you have something?

205. 0:25:05

     I, I don't see it on the sheet, but I'm happy to present two bills.

206. 0:25:07

     It's up to you. I'll, I'll allow.

207. 0:25:10

     Okay.

208. 0:25:10

     Just be brief, 'cause you're not on the sheet. But it's never too early to lobby.

209. 0:25:15

     I'll be brief. Thank you. Um, I've got House Bill 61. It's a squatter, uh, reform act. It clarifies Georgia law to close loopholes exploited by criminal squatters and bad actors. Uh, the bill protects lawful tenants and paying hotel guests while restoring clear authority for property owners and law enforcement to address unlawful occupancy. Appreciate your full consideration on that.

210. 0:25:39

     All right. Thank you, sir. Just so you kind of know the status, we're, we're kind of focusing on Senate bills just 'cause we're, we got a shot clock.

211. 0:25:49

     I understand.

212. 0:25:50

     Y'all's do not at the moment, but we are sprinkling in some House bills, so.

213. 0:25:54

     Okay.

214. 0:25:55

     You can, never too early to be lobbying the committee. Thank you.

215. 0:25:59

     And I've got one more if I can.

216. 0:26:00

     You might wanna hold it.

217. 0:26:01

     All right.

218. 0:26:05

     Let's not press our luck.

219. 0:26:07

     Thanks.

220. 0:26:07

     All right. Let's pick a few.

221. 0:26:12

     All right. We left off...

222. 0:26:18

     Did he use his ding-ding?

223. 0:26:20

     Yes.

224. 0:26:20

     He used it.

225. 0:26:20

     He used it.

226. 0:26:21

     Okay. All right. So we'll do that. All right. Senator Gooch. Well, I like my ag people so much, I think I'll pick Senate Bill 435. 435. My sweet mate right there.

227. 0:26:40

     For the Elvis impersonator. All right, 435. All right. Senator Ginn.

228. 0:26:50

     You know, I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'm gonna pick SB 384 to get my tag for five years. Hope, hopefully I can keep my car that long.

229. 0:27:01

     Don't you file any forms?

230. 0:27:05

     What if you pay for your Senate tag and then you lose? Yeah. Hey, you know, that's a good thing. Has anybody thought about that?

231. 0:27:13

     That's a good one.

232. 0:27:14

     You get a, you get a- I mean, I was thinking about that. You get a six- There might better be a two-year- ... two-year option. Little presumptuous if, if any of us go with a five-year. Just saying. Floor amendment. Floor amendment. Floor amendment coming. All right. Uh, that's probably good for tomorrow. All right. I've got Senate Bill 384 and Senate Bill 435. What is the will of the committee?

233. 0:27:45

     So moved.

234. 0:27:45

     I got a motion from my vice chairman. Second. I got a second from Senator Anderson. Is he still our secretary, or we fired him? No. Okay. Um- Taking notes.

235. 0:28:43

     I, I ask that about every other meeting, don't I? Okay. We got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye.

236. 0:28:53

     Aye.

237. 0:28:53

     All opposed say no. Motion carries unanimous. Meeting adjourned.

238. 0:28:58

     Do we want to do something?