Sesión en el pleno del Senado, 6 de marzo de 2026 (día legislativo 28, parte 2)

Transcripción

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

1. 0:51:35

   The Senate will come to order. Because it is the appropriate time, senator from the 37th.

2. 0:52:13

   So you're gonna waive a mo- All right.

3. 0:52:20

   The Senate will come back to order.

4. 1:09:11

   Senator from the 27th.

5. 1:09:15

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate Resolution 668 be lifted from the table.

6. 1:09:21

   Secretary, read the caption.

7. 1:09:24

   Senate Resolution 668 by Senator Dolezal of the 27th District. A resolu- and oth- and others. A resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the assessment of property taxes on property used primarily for the manufacturing, assembly, processing, or storage of products or the housing of electronic equipment primarily used to process, store, or transmit digital information and data to provide for related matters, to provide for the submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

8. 1:09:53

   Is there objection?

9. 1:09:56

   Object.

10. 1:09:57

    All right, there is objection. Gentleman on the which to speak to the, to the bill. I mean...

11. 1:10:08

    Oh, I'm sorry.

12. 1:10:13

    Do what?

13. 1:10:18

    You wanna speak to your objection?

14. 1:10:27

    All right, so senator from the 27th would like to take, uh, SB or SR 668 off the table. Senator from the 41st has objected, so we'll just vote. All those in favor of taking it off the table, vote yay. All opposed, nay. Secretary, unlock the machine.

15. 1:11:59

    On the motion to remove from the table, the ayes are 29 and the nays are 22.

16. 1:12:08

    Finish the caption, please.

17. 1:12:14

    Mr. President, the Committee of the Senate on Rules recommend that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Brass of the 6th District, Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Rules offers the following substitute to Senate Resolution 668. A resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the assessment of property taxes on property used primarily for housing electronic equipment that is primarily used to process, store, or transmit digital information and data to pro- to provide for related matters, to provide for the submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection and for other purposes. Mr. President, a fiscal note has been attached.

18. 1:12:45

    Mr. President, that completes the order.

19. 1:12:47

    Senator from the 38, what purpose do you rise?

20. 1:12:51

    Uh, Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent to excuse the senator from the 14th.

21. 1:12:57

    Without objection, senator from the 14th is excused.

22. 1:13:02

    Recognize the senator from the 27th.

23. 1:13:06

    Trying to help local communities.

24. 1:13:11

    That's right, Mr. President. Simple amendment to the Constitution here. We're, essentially what we're doing is we're reverse engineering a, a opportunity that we see in local communities when data centers come into a community. They oftentimes build facilities that have a high property valuation, and oftentimes that property valuation really brings an influx of new revenue into schools via the tax digest and into the cities or counties that the-

25. 1:13:38

    Uh, hold on, hold on, senator. Hold on one second. Can we, can we secure the door back there, please? This is actually a bill y'all need to pay attention to if you care about your constituents that each and every one of you represent. So go ahead, senator.

26. 1:13:51

    Thank you, Mr. President. As I was saying, what we are seeking to do with this bill is to lower property taxes for businesses and homeowners in communities where a data center comes. Under current law, the uniformity clause of the Georgia Constitution requires equal mil- sorry, equal millage rates for all classes of property. And so what that means is if a data center comes into a community and injects a significant amount of new property tax revenue, oftentimes the municipality could lower the rate, but they have to lower it for everyone to maintain the uniformity clause.

27. 1:14:28

    What this constitutional amendment would allow is it would give local municipalities and school districts the option to create a subclass of property for the new data center, and it would allow the, them to levy a separate millage rate on the new data center in order to reduce the burden of taxation on other classes of property, which would be commercial and housing and industrial. So it's, it's really simple. It, in my mind, you know, we entered this session and finally have bipartisan support on the idea of getting rid of tax credits for data centers, which has frankly been a policy that many of us have disagreed with for a number of years.

28. 1:15:08

    We passed a bill out of this chamber two years ago to do that, and this actually moves the needle in the other direction in which rather than subsidizing data centers, we are allowing data centers to subsidize local communities and local taxpayers. So Mr. President, I will yield the well if there are no questions. If there are questions, I'd be han- happy to answer them as well. Do you have a few questions, Senator? Recognize Senator from the 56. Thank you, Mr. President. Does Senator yield? Yes, Chairman, I do. Senator, isn't this just a great local control bill, and we support local control in the Georgia Senate?

29. 1:15:42

    Yes, this does two things. One, it, it allows obviously the voters to decide, which is the ultimate form of local control, whether to make this available as a tool in the toolbox to their local elected officials, which would be another level of local control. And Senator, will you further yield for one more question? I will. Senator, in a, in a year that affordability is the term we're always using, if this is done and passed by the voters and allowed, this could really make a difference to the homeowners and communities all over Georgia. Senator, I think that we could see communities where homeowner... Sorry, property taxes on homes is completely eliminated, um, by the new construction of some of these mega data center sites.

30. 1:16:17

    Great bill. Thank you.

31. 1:16:21

    I recognize Senator from the 26.

32. 1:16:31

    Thank you, Mr. President. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. So, uh, what are you saying? That you gonna zone property to be data centers an- in com- an- and make the property commercial property? Or is it gonna be where I see all of these groups and citizens complaining about data centers coming next to their homes and homestead?

33. 1:17:01

    Senator, the local decision for the zoning of a data center would still be a local decision. Noth- nothing in this piece of legislation would inject the state into that process. What this bill, what this resolution would allow, would allow those same local decision makers, and frankly the school systems as well, which are not typically involved in a zoning process, but it would allow school systems also to essentially keep the millage rate the same if they've got a billion dollar data center coming in, maintain the current millage rate just for that one property, but then lower the millage rate for every other property in their municipality.

34. 1:17:39

    That's what the... This would allow them to do if they chose to do that at the local level.

35. 1:17:46

    Recognize Senator from the 49th. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, yield? I do. Could you elaborate on what a no vote looks like on, on, um, SR 668? Yeah, I think, Senator, there's probably... Chairman, there's probably two l- layers to that. One, you're taking the opportunity for the local municipalities to pull this lever if they wish to pull it. You are taking that opportunity away from them, 'cause again, there's nothing in here that is a mandate. But further downstream of that, what I would say is you are forcing homeowners and other commercial property tax owners in one of these municipalities where they might have pulled the lever, you're raising their taxes because you are essentially preventing them from having this tax cut that would come by way of this resolution.

36. 1:18:36

    Senator, do you yield? I do. Would you say this is the ultimate form of local control i- regarding data centers? I do think this is us pushing local control down in, in a more significant way even than what it is now, because it is allowing them to take complete control of the tax revenue that may come along with these properties as well. Thank you, Chairman. Recognize Senator from the 10th.

37. 1:19:02

    Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, yield? Yes, sir. Senator, I think I just heard your explanation of what this bill potentially could do in that they could have a separate class for a data center and use some of the taxing authority to lower the taxes on the residences, on the, um, personal property. Is that correct? Yes, sir. We, uh... For all classes of property, 'cause the uniformity clause would still main- uh, be in existence for the other classes of property, but yes. S- Senator, isn't it true that they could, if you would yield, that the reverse could happen, that the data center, a community competing to, to attract a large project could actually lower their taxes and increase the taxes on the regular homeowners?

38. 1:19:44

    Uh, no, that would not be allowed in the bill. If you look at, um... And, uh, we would need to have underlying legislation here that spells this out. But what we, what we would add to the Georgia Constitution on line 17 is the, the different rates or valuations, and here's the key, Senator, in order to reduce the burden of ad valorem taxation on other tangible property. So we would have a requirement in the Constitution that the separate rate for the data centers must be done to reduce the rate o- of the taxation of the rate on other property.

39. 1:20:16

    We would, of course, need enabling legislation to spell out the mechanics of how that would happen, but the actual guarantee of the taxes going down for the other property owners would then become a constitutional protection in Georgia. Senator, I see an or there on line 17, so it could happen. It could do one, uh, or the other. Is that correct? Uh, Senator, this allows for the different, either different tax rate or different valuation. So it, either one of those would apply to the data center, and then after the or is in order to reduce the burden, which is what I was just spelling out.

40. 1:20:56

    So I think the scenario that you're envisioning of the opposite of this happening is, is prevented in the plain reading of the language. Senator, further yield? I do. S- Senator, isn't it true that a lot of these municipalities would typically give these large industries tax credits to come in locally, um, and other incentives to attract businesses in their communities? Yes, sir. Then this would not prevent them from doing that. So the current municipalies that are choosing to do tax abatements, if that's the path that they want to go down, they can still do the tax abatements.

41. 1:21:31

    In fact, they can still do both. 'Cause what happens a lot of times is you'll see the abatement be for the first 10 years, and if they were to come out of the abatement and want to charge a separate millage rate to the data center, they would be able to do that as well. But this is not mandating anything at the local level. This is allowing the locals to choose if they wanna implement this policy or not, and it actually could come alongside of an abatement package if that's what they wanted to do. Senator, further yield? Yes, sir. Senator, isn't it true that these data centers will disproportionately use excess amount of, uh, the natural resources in, in a community?

42. 1:22:06

    Ce- certainly, Senator. One of the concerns has been power consumption, water consumption, and this is not an eye towards that. This is an eye towards under the Georgia Constitution, local municipalities currently have the constitutional authority for land use decisions. So they currently have the ability to zone a property if they wish to for data centers. I'm staying out of that with this piece of legislation. I've joined other pieces of legislation to pull back the tax credits to some of those things. What we're looking to do with this resolution here is to simply allow them to lower the tax rate for the existing residents if a massive project comes into their community.

43. 1:22:42

    Senator, further yield? Yes, sir. Senator, aren't you incentivizing the community to attract data centers by putting this carrot out there in front of them when in fact those data centers c- could use excess amount of water, it could also lower the property values, uh, if they came anywhere near a, a large residential community? Senator, I don't know that being able to charge a higher tax rate for a data center than every other commercial taxpayer in the municipality is a carrot.

44. 1:23:15

    I actually think it's a recognition that these data centers, according to the studies, are coming regardless of what we do. In fact, 70%, according to the study that we saw in the Finance Committee, of the data centers that came to the state of Georgia were coming regardless of a tax credit, the existing tax credit or not. And so what we're looking to do here is allow the municipalities to pull on a thread of lowering taxes for the existing property owners should they choose to bring a data center to their property and should they choose to bifurcate their tax rates.

45. 1:23:45

    Mr. Senator, yield for one final question? Yes, sir. Senator, is it also true that this bill doesn't specify at all what those rates would be either for the homeowner or for the data center? That's 100% correct, Senator, because we would be putting those decisions in the hands of the local taxing authorities, both the school district, the county, and if applicable, the city. The same local centers that's trying to attract businesses who's also willing to give out incentives i- in terms of low values for properties, um, as well as using a, an excess amount of their natural resources, you're gonna put that into the hands of those same, uh, county commissioners or city officials.

46. 1:24:23

    Is that correct? Senator, I'm not sure that I understood the question. Would you mind repeating it for me? The locals, um, are the ones who's trying to attract these data centers, but who's protecting the homeowners? Well, Senator, I think that this bill protects the h- th- this resolution protects the homeowners because it forces them to use the revenue generated from the higher millage rate that they may charge a data center in the line 17 that I've already pointed you to, that must be used to reduce the taxes for everyone else.

47. 1:24:54

    So who's protecting, uh, the everyone else and if this passes would be the Georgia Constitution. Thank you, Senator. I just don't see, um, any numbers in here whatsoever. You say it could be lower, it could be higher. Uh, that could be on the margin. And without specifying in here, I don't see how the offset to the use of the natural resources could benefit homeowners, nor do I see how this constitution amendment could benefit those in the community.

48. 1:25:24

    Thank you, Senator.

49. 1:25:28

    Breaking it down to senator from the 19th. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, do you yield? I do. Senator, uh, thanks for what you're trying to bring. I sit over here with my covey of counselors, and I got a question for you. You are lawyer row over there for sure. Say that again. You are in lawyer row over there now for sure. I'm lawyer row. Yes, sir. Um, on line 11, my, uh... Well, first I think the purpose of what you're trying to do is make it where you could actually levy a higher millage rate on data centers in order to lower the millage rate on property, on, um, residential property.

50. 1:26:02

    That's right. Or keep the same millage rate for the data centers that would be otherwise and then lower the rate for everyone else. Then drop the rate on those. That's right. The value from what I understand, if the senator will continue to yield, of the data centers actually on the personal property, um, not the real property. Is that something that you- Can you say that one more time? I think the value add to the county is actually on the personal property, not on the real property. Would you agree? All the equipment they have inside, not necessarily the real dirt. Yeah, that's certainly a piece of it. But, but, but the, these mega sites for sure are, are- Have some value to it ...

51. 1:26:34

    creating some real property, I think, property value as well. The tax credit we have is to the personal property. I think it's n- now 1.5 billion. You and I talk and share a, a common, um, disdain, I would say for that credit. My question is, sorry I didn't get to talk to you about this earlier, the covey of counselors over here, do we need to add the words or personal on line 11 after the word real so that you would be able to charge a different millage rate on the real property and the personal property in order to make this more valuable?

52. 1:27:11

    Yeah, I would certainly be open to that. That would generate- Got it ... more revenue, I believe. I've got the amendment- In this area ... but I didn't want to catch you off guard, so if you'll sign onto it, I'll, I'll move it. I don't even remember what committee this came through, Senator, so I'm not sure if we engrossed this or not. I've run a lot of bills. Came through Rules. Well, there you go. It's, it's, it'll be a friendly amendment. It wa- it, it wasn't engrossed

53. 1:27:30

    That's the sweet James section right there. That's sweet James law firm right there, so.

54. 1:27:58

    We can change it in the Hou- we can change it in the House. We can change it in the House.

55. 1:28:01

    In the House.

56. 1:28:02

    Yeah.

57. 1:28:03

    Yeah. If, uh, we do that.

58. 1:28:09

    To the Appropriations Chairman, thank you for that friendly amendment. That's something we'll have to a- address on the other side of the building, and you have my word that we will work on that should we get that far.

59. 1:28:22

    Recognize senator from the 13th.

60. 1:28:27

    Senator, do you yield?

61. 1:28:28

    I do.

62. 1:28:29

    Senator, isn't it true that, that the county commission body can give tax abatements if they want to to data centers?

63. 1:28:37

    Yes, sir. As I told the senator from the 10th, we don't change any of that and-

64. 1:28:40

    We're not-

65. 1:28:40

    They don't need to do anything with this bill or they could exercise this bill to its full legal capacity. Um, they could do abatements and not do this. They could do abatements and do this once the abatement expire. There's, there's no limitation, um, in terms of what the, what this allows them to do.

66. 1:28:54

    And is it true that this bill absolutely has nothing to do with any kind of power usage, water usage, et cetera, the data center may or may not use?

67. 1:29:02

    That, that is certainly true, Senator.

68. 1:29:03

    And last question, Senator. Uh, by passing this resolution, it would give counties the option to charge the difference of what, and the tax they wanna set up for it.

69. 1:29:15

    Yes, sir. That's on line 10, shall be authorized-

70. 1:29:17

    Shall

71. 1:29:18

    ... not shall be required. Right? So they're-

72. 1:29:19

    Yes, sir

73. 1:29:20

    ... we're just giving more power to the locals as in their decision-making process to be able to have optionality in how they're dealing with this phenomenon.

74. 1:29:27

    Thank you, Senator.

75. 1:29:30

    Senator from the 41st.

76. 1:29:33

    Thank you, Mr. President. Does the senator yield?

77. 1:29:35

    I do.

78. 1:29:35

    Senator, how many votes does it require, um, are required to pass this resolution?

79. 1:29:40

    Uh, two-thirds of the chamber, so 38.

80. 1:29:42

    Uh, do you further yield?

81. 1:29:43

    I do.

82. 1:29:44

    Does not that therefore mean that the minior- minority party is needed in order to get your resolution passed? Is that not true?

83. 1:29:50

    Uh, that would be correct, yes.

84. 1:29:51

    Senator, have you worked with the minority party in any way to try to ensure that this resolution can pass and worked with us to figure out how we can agree with one another on other bills that might be coming forward? Have you done any of that work, Senator?

85. 1:30:05

    Senator, we have done a couple of different things. First and foremost, every member of the minority party voted for this in, in the Finance Committee, and then every member of the minority party except for yourself voted for this in the Rules Committee. And we have had dialogue with other members of the minority party, both myself and the lieutenant governor's office, uh, on what we believe is the, uh, the goodwill that will come out of the passage of this bill.

86. 1:30:32

    You have no more questions, Senator.

87. 1:30:33

    Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the well.

88. 1:30:36

    Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Question is on the adoption of the committee substitute. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection to agreeing to the reporter committee, which is favorable to the adoption of the resolution? Chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none.

89. 1:31:06

    The main question's ordered. The question is on the adoption of the resolution by substitute. All those in favor of resolution will vote yay. Opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

90. 1:32:18

    On the adoption resolution by substitute, the yays are 29 and the nays are 21, and this resolution has failed to meet the two-turt- thirds requirement for constitutional amendment.

91. 1:32:34

    Senator from the 43rd, for what purpose do you rise?

92. 1:32:37

    Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for unanimous consent to excuse the senator from the 7th.

93. 1:32:43

    Without objection, senator from the 7th is excused.

94. 1:32:50

    Where is senator from the 8th? Be on, you're on standby.

95. 1:33:09

    Senator from the 8th. The good man from Lowndes County. You up.

96. 1:33:28

    Oh, hold on, Senator. You, hold on. You gotta pull it off the table first. You gotta pull it off the table first. Hold on. Don't get too excited. You know, I hadn't seen you move quite like that before, man. You-

97. 1:33:40

    Yeah.

98. 1:33:40

    Look like you-

99. 1:33:41

    Mr-

100. 1:33:41

     Look like you was gonna get some blueberries.

101. 1:33:43

     You know, Mr. President, I, I ran a six flat 40 in high school, so, uh, that's simple as that.

102. 1:33:47

     I believe it. I believe it.

103. 1:33:49

     Uh, Mr. President, uh, I'd like to, uh, please pull SB 458 off the table, please.

104. 1:33:54

     S- uh, Secretary, read the caption.

105. 1:33:57

     SB 458 by Goodman of the 8th and others, a bill to be entitled in the act to amend Chapter 41 of Title 43 of the Fifth, uh, Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to residential and commercial general contractors so as to provide for licensure of home inspectors, to provide for reciprocity of licensure, to provide for licensure of companies performing home inspections, to provide for minimum requirements to apply for licensure, to provide for continuing education requirements, to require home inspections to maintain insurance, to provide for standards of practice and unfair trade practices, to provide for exceptions, to provide for definitions, to provide for a short title, to provide for legislative purpose, to provide for related matters, to repeal existing laws, and for other purposes.

106. 1:34:34

     Mr. President, that completes the order.

107. 1:34:40

     All right, the senator from the eighth has moved that Senate Bill 458 be removed from the table. Is there objection? Secretary will read the remaining caption.

108. 1:34:53

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities recommend that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully admitted, Senator Cowsert of the 46th District, chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities, it, it offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 458, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 41 of Title 43 of the Offi- Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to residential and commercial general contractors so as to provide for licensure of home inspectors, to provide for reciprocity of licensure, to provide for licensure of companies performing home inspections, to provide for minimum requirements and for other purposes.

109. 1:35:25

     Mr. President, that completes the order.

110. 1:35:27

     Recognize the senator from the eighth to speak to Senate Bill 458.

111. 1:35:34

     Thank you, Mr. President. Just home inspectors licensing bill. Basically, there's 42 states that already have, uh, some form of license. Right now, my 21-year-old son that's at University of Georgia, who doesn't know anything about building a house or inspecting homes, could go out there and b- call himself a home inspector. So what this bill basically does, I worked with the governor's office, I worked with the Regulated, um, Industries Committee, and we just are basically coming up with a, just some, you have to just show some minimal core competency that you know what you're doing, and it also requires home inspectors to carry liability insurance.

112. 1:36:07

     Our homes are most people's biggest asset, and I think that we want people to make sure that, uh, the, the people that are conducting these home inspections know what they're doing. And so this is just a good, simple, uh, consumer protection bill. And with that, Mr. President, I'm gonna yield the well because I'm taking up somebody else's time. I would urge your favorable consideration.

113. 1:36:26

     Senator's yielded the well. Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none, and previous question is ordered. Question is on the adoption of the committee substitute. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection agreeing the report of the committee which is favorable to pass the bill? The chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none, and the question is ordered. The question is on the pass of the bill by substitute. All those in favor will vote yay.

114. 1:36:56

     Opposed, nay. The secretary will unlock the machine.

115. 1:38:00

     On the pass of the bill, the yays are 46, the nays are two. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional nar- majority, is therefore passed by substitute.

116. 1:38:13

     Chair recognizes the senator from the 46th.

117. 1:38:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Senate Resolution 875 be removed from the table.

118. 1:38:27

     Secretary will read the caption.

119. 1:38:31

     Senate Resolution 875 by Senator Cowsert of the 46th and others, a resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution so as to provide for statewide grand juries, to provide for the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of statewide grand juries, to authorize the General Assembly to provide by law for procedures for the summoning and impaneling of statewide grand juries, to provide for a presiding judge, to provide that the attorney general or his or her designee shall act as the legal advisor and prosecutor for such statewide grand juries, to provide for the submission of this amendment for ratification or rejection, and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

120. 1:39:10

     The senator from the 46th have moved, has moved that SR 875 be removed from the table. Is there objection? There is objection.

121. 1:39:37

     All right, those in favor of removing the bill from the table

122. 1:39:44

     will vote yay.

123. 1:39:49

     Those opposed will vote nay, the red button. Secretary will unlock the machine.

124. 1:40:00

     Senator from the 41st, what purpose do you rise?

125. 1:40:03

     Parliamentary inquiry.

126. 1:40:04

     State your inquiry.

127. 1:40:06

     Isn't it true that this is another bill that requires two-thirds vote so the minority party isn't here to play today?

128. 1:40:15

     Senator knows of which she speaks.

129. 1:40:56

     On the motion to remove the table, r- remove the bill from the table, the yays are 29, the nays are 20, and the motion has prevailed, and SR 875 is removed from the table. Senator from the 43rd, what purpose do you rise?

130. 1:41:16

     I ask for unanimous consent to excuse the senator from the 17th.

131. 1:41:20

     All right, is there objection to excusing the member from the 17th? Without objection, he's a member from the 17th's excused. I didn't know if we'd have objection to that, too. Um, secretary will read the caption to Senate Resolution 875. Let me get your attention, senators.

132. 1:41:41

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Investigations recommend that this resolution do pass. Respectfully submitted, Senator Cowsert of the 46th District. Chairman. Mr. President, I complete your order.

133. 1:41:53

     I recognize the senator from the 46th to speak to Senate Resolution 875.

134. 1:42:14

     Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, the, the place that used to be bipartisan love just before dinner. Now, I guess I'm gonna have to use all my skills as an old country lawyer here to try to get you all to see the light. Ah. Now listen, really, all we're doing is letting the people of the state of Georgia vote as to whether they wanna take politics out of prosecutions.

135. 1:42:46

     We have just been through six years of bickering over the 2020 election, and no, no side is gonna be happy as long as they think the motivation for prosecutions of election fraud, violation of election laws, campaign finance laws are politically motivated rather than trying to seek justice. All this does is let the attorney general be the person prosecuting those type of crimes.

136. 1:43:21

     That attorney general might be a Democrat next time, but they're gonna be elected statewide from the majority of the people of Georgia instead of from any one county.

137. 1:43:35

     The prosecutor in the Fulton County case that indicted all kind of people, including the president of the United States, got removed from the case for not being impartial.

138. 1:43:48

     And then the case was reviewed by prosecuting attorney's council and determined to be groundless, to not be substantially backed up by facts and evidence, and the judge then dismissed the case. And what did we all accomplish? We just fanned the fires of partisan rancor and all the Republicans said that this was being brought just for political reasons to harm Trump, and all the Democrats said Trump's a crook trying to fix the election.

139. 1:44:23

     We can't have this. And all the people in the state except the residents of Fulton County are sitting from the outside looking in and they're saying, "Why don't we have a say so in this? Why does the Fulton County DA be the only person that gets to prosecute election crimes just because the capital is in Fulton County?" That doesn't make sense. I can go into as much detail as you want other than to tell you this is narrowly drawn only to apply to election violatio- election law, voting violations or election laws and anything related to that.

140. 1:45:09

     It's not any other matters, and it's any county. It was im- Yeah. Senator. Yes, sir. Hold on just a second.

141. 1:45:19

     All right, senators, let's be courteous and give him our attention, please. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President. I won't be long.

142. 1:45:31

     There was an allegation of election wrongdoing in Coffee County.

143. 1:45:38

     That violation occurred in Coffee County. Ordinarily, that should be prosecuted in Coffee County. Instead, we had this RICO charge to allow those people to be co-defendants with people here in Fulton County, and it didn't make sense to try to drag them up here. That was a local issue. This allows the attorney general to prosecute in any county if you're interfering with elections that are either state or federal elections.

144. 1:46:10

     We already have a statewide grand jury list. It is a statewide list. I helped pass the bill back, I think it was 2011. This allows the chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court to name a superior court judge to monitor the grand jury and handle any prosecution for indictments coming out of it. It is fair, it is balanced, and it applies to every county in the state for an o- official that's elected statewide to deal with prosecutions of violations of state or federal elections.

145. 1:46:46

     Doesn't interfere with county elections or any local business, uh, and I have a provision in here where they can use the, um, council of and the, uh, assistance of any local district attorney that might be involved as well. I think it makes sense and I think we need to put an end to at least the perception of politicizing prosecutions, criminal prosecutions for political gain. We are all above that, and I would ask the minority party to join in and agree here because you know how this thing turns around.

146. 1:47:24

     One day it's gonna be your day in the attorney general's office, and you're gonna wish at that time that you had somebody elected statewide to make those decisions. Have you thought about how many counties in the state are red?

147. 1:47:41

     Think how you would feel if a Republican district attorney down in whatever your county might be- Starts prosecuting Democrats for alleged election fraud. You would be like, "Wait a second. How do you think you're in charge of that? You're, you're just playing politics. You're trying to beat down a opponent for a Republican candidate here." Let's all rise above this. Let's put this in a statewide office with grand jurors from all over the state to look at the issues fairly and dispassionately and non-politically just on election law violations, and that's why I'm asking for your support of this resolution.

148. 1:48:21

     You're correct, Minority Leader, it takes a two-thirds vote. We have to have both parties agree to take politics out of prosecutions. I ask you to join with me on this, and then the next bill will be the details of the enabling legislation that I think will be re- very reassuring to all of you. Mr. President, I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Otherwise, I'll vacate the well. You do have a question, uh, senator from the 41st. Thank you, Mr. President. Does the senator yield?

149. 1:48:53

     To my old friend that, uh, was hugging me about 30 minutes ago, of course. To my good friend from Athens, isn't it true that the attorney general is a partisan race? It is. It's elected by running through the primary process. But it is a statewide elected office, and if you look at your math here, your politics, the last two, uh, Public Service Commission members elected are Democrats. Our two United States senators are Democrats.

150. 1:49:25

     This state can go wherever the will of the people is. It's obvious the state doesn't vote a straight party line. Who's gonna represent the people best? I'll take my chances. Oh. Do you further yield? I do. I believe you're literally taking your chances given that you are, uh, probably seeking that position. Well, I'm trying not to make this a campaign speech. Um, however- But since you say that, that might have a, a effect. But do, do you further yield? I do. Is it my understanding that your entire argument hinges on the notion that the AG is capable of prosecuting a case in a non-partisan way?

151. 1:50:00

     Is that your argument? That is true of any prosecutor at any level, and right now we've lost that perception, and it's best handled from somebody elected statewide rather than by one little county out of our 159 being able to have their DA make the decisions, who gets prosecuted, who gets indicted, and, and where to go forward or not go forward. Will you yield for one final question? Sure. So you do, uh, you do believe that our DAs, all 51 of them, are capable of prosecuting elections crimes in a non-partisan way.

152. 1:50:39

     Is that not true? They are capable. I think the last election very clearly did not, and that's why she got removed from the case and the case got dismissed. I do think she's capable, and I think all DAs are capable, and I hope they will. But let's take the political pressure off of them, the local political pressure, and let's put it in a statewide venue. I think that's the best for our state, and I would encourage, uh, everybody to agree. All you're doing is letting the people decide.

153. 1:51:09

     If you don't think it's right, if the people don't agree, and, and they think the attorney general's gonna be acting in some partisan manner, then they'll vote down this constitutional amendment. Senator from the 10th.

154. 1:51:25

     Thank you, Mr. President. And, um, gentleman, senator yield? Happy to yield to you. Senator, I'm not an attorney, and I'm trying to understand, um, given the history of our current president and the efforts that he's undertaken in trying to overthrow elections and the involvement of our current attorney general in those efforts dating back four or five years, how is it that and why is it that you think I should trust, uh, given the current attorney general who's already been involved with our current president, this kind of power to make, to empower these kind of grand juries?

155. 1:52:08

     Why sh- why should I think you should give power to an attorney general? That's correct. Because they're elected statewide, and they're doing that largely on their reputation for being fair and impartial. Senator yield? They're being elected statewide, and they're getting elected largely on their reputation for being fair and impartial. Senator yield? I'll yield. Senator, um, is it not true that this current attorney general is elect- elected by the Republican Party, not the Democratic Party? That's correct, so you ought to be greatly relieved.

156. 1:52:38

     He didn't prosecute anybody here. Senator further- He could, he could've indicted and prosecu- you didn't see him filing any actions at all. S- Senator further yield? Sure. Wasn't he part of the, uh, Republican Attorney Generals Association up in DC back during the time when Stop the Steal was being planned? I'm not sure about that. I imagine he was a member. I don't know how active he's been or how influential that is. Senator further yield? I don't believe that organization directs attorney generals who to prosecute or not, and I don't think the Democratic s- uh, Attorney Generals Association does either.

157. 1:53:16

     Senator further yield? Be glad to. S- So Senator, what you're asking the Democratic Party to do is to give a lot more power to override those Democratic elected AGs in the State of Georgia despite the evidence in the past was showing that the current attorney general has been a partisan hack. Isn't that true what you're asking us to do, Senator? Senator, I mean, don't even ask a question prefaced like that. You're, you're asking me to accede to the fact that our current attorney general is a partisan hack To answer that question, I reject that notion.

158. 1:53:54

     Tell me what specifically he has done that was a, a indication he is a partisan hack. I don't buy that. I don't think there's any evidence of that, and that's the type of inflammatory, um, rhetoric that divides us all. Let's get past it. That's what I'm trying to say. The public is losing confidence in the fairness and the impartiality of our criminal justice system. Let's help restore it. Let's take it away from the 51 different DAs and let's centralize it with a statewide elected office.

159. 1:54:30

     Whichever party wins that office has the right to make the decisions. Hopefully, neither party would wanna be using politics as a reason to prosecute anybody for election crimes.

160. 1:54:46

     Senator, further yield? Be glad to. Senator, what I asked in my last comment, I wasn't referring to the attorney general. I asked in the beginning, isn't that what you're asking the Democratic Party to do, not your particular attorney general? But since you went there- Well, who, who, who are they- ... wouldn't it be accurate for me to assume- Senator, let's- ... based on your comments? Senator, hold on a minute. Let's, let's stay on the topic of the bill and, and not get into character and, and, and that kind of thing.

161. 1:55:16

     Let's just get through the, let's ask questions related to the bill, please. Look, I, I can't assume that the attorney general is not elected by running in one party or the other, because we have set up a primary system, and yes, they are elected in a party primary. That does not mean that they can't be impartial and fair. That's what we're looking for, people that will do that, that they will put the law ahead of politics.

162. 1:55:47

     Uh, and I believe this model does that better than our current system. I believe we could pass a law restricting the jurisdiction of, of, uh, different DAs if we wanted to- Thank you, Senator ... and limit what they, they can, but this is a better way of doing it to keep the whole state engaged and restore our confidence in the system. That's where I'm trying to go. Thank you, Senator. Just one final question- Okay ... before I take my seat, if you will yield. How many other states did you say have a model like this? I don't know how many, but I know South Carolina has it.

163. 1:56:20

     You know what's crazy? You know one thing that got me thinking about this was Roy Barnes, our last Democratic governor. He introduced the same type of bill his very first year in the state Senate. He wanted a statewide grand jury with broader powers than this. This is not a novel Republican idea. Yet there are other states, I probably should have done more research to know exactly who, but I have personally heard from the South Carolina attorney general, and they have this, and it works seamlessly there.

164. 1:56:53

     And I'm thinking, well, it's a great idea. Let's learn from it. Let's, let's do it ourselves. And I, I, I don't, I don't like this body making this a partisan vote, which this is not just some pure, uh, assumption that there's gonna be a Republican attorney general next time or ever again. And if there is, I certainly hope it's somebody that won't be partisan in their application of the law and enforcement of the law. If I'm fortunate enough to be there, I assure you I won't.

165. 1:57:25

     No more questions, Senator. Thank you. I yield the well. Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection of the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none, and the previous question is ordered. Is there objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which favor the adoption of the resolution? The chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none, and the main question is ordered. Question is on the adoption of the resolution. All those in favor of the resolution will vote yay.

166. 1:57:55

     Opposed, nay. The secretary will unlock the machine.

167. 1:59:00

     On the adoption of the resolution, the yays are 28 and the nays are 21. The resolution, having f- failed to receive the requisite two-thirds constitutional majority, is therefore lost.

168. 1:59:20

     Chair recognizes the senator from the 16th for a motion. Mr. President, I ask that you would pull SB424 off the table. Secretary, read the caption. Senate Bill 424 by Senator Harbison of the 16th and others, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 5A of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to the Office of State Treasurer so as to provide for gold and silver specie as legal tender, to provide for a bullion depository, to provide for an electroma- electronic payment system, to pro- provide for guidelines, rules, and regulations, to provide for insured deposits, to prohibit social credit scoring systems, to provide for annual reports, to prohibit taxation of transactions involving gold and silver specie and legal tender, to provide for an implementation date, to provide for construction, to provide for legislative findings, to provide for definitions, to provide for a short title, to provide for an effective date, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes.

169. 2:00:10

     Mr. President, that completes the order.

170. 2:00:18

     Senator from the 16th has moved that Senate Bill 424 be removed from the table. Is there objection? Secretary will read the further caption.

171. 2:00:32

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Banking and Financial Institutions recommends that this b- bill do pass. Respectfully submitted, Senator Summers of the 13th District, Chairman. Mr. President, that completes the order. Recognize the senator from the 16th to speak to his bill.

172. 2:01:00

     Thank you, Mr. President. SB 424 is a gold and silver transaction bill. And you might say, "What in the world is that about?" Well, our Constitution, our US Constitution, we're gonna, we're exercising our authority under the US Constitution, which says that we can't print- Hold on, Senator. Yes, sir. It's getting a little loud in here again. Please take all audible conversations off the floor. Let's give the senator our attention. Thank you.

173. 2:01:31

     Thank you.

174. 2:01:35

     Article 1, Section 10 says that g- states cannot create, uh, pr- currency, but they can have a gold and silver depositories. And that means that the state has authority to hold gold and silver in the depository that they, they regulate or can regulate. We have currently Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Utah, and Louisiana who all have passed legislation for gold and silver. Today, this is the, the, the biggest part of it is it's, it's financial freedom.

175. 2:02:10

     A man cannot own a $5,000 coin, but with transactional gold, he can own five thou- $5 or $10 of gold through the transaction. So here's where we're set. A depository that is m- managed by or overseen by the state, the state treasurer, there are the, uh, appointment by the governor, two by the House and two by the Senate that are the oversight of that depository. There will be an RFP put out for the depository and an RFP put out for our electric transactions.

176. 2:02:46

     So today, here's a given, uh, question. I can take my card here and I can buy a Coca-Cola with just my card. I can spend my gold. I can buy gold at $5 or $10 a piece. That's n- that's no problem. I can buy what I, uh, whatever amount I want. It's financial freedom for people who can't afford it. That's what makes it really, really good. I have also a letter from the, the Departments of Audits. We did a fiscal note on it. There's no cost because the fees from the users go to pay for the depository and for the transactions.

177. 2:03:21

     So there's zero cost from that standpoint to the state. This is optional. You do not have to participate, and that's the other part. Some of the rumors that are out are they're gonna take... I heard somebody say they could take their wedding ring or nothing. All this is doing is giving, uh, the citizens of Georgia the capacity to own something they can't, uh, or have not been able to go and own b- previously. And it's economic freedom for all of us as far as that, no matter what our economic statuses are.

178. 2:03:53

     It's really

179. 2:03:57

     true money, 'cause paper money is, is currency that we have the faith of the government in it. This is hard currency that we can own just like any other commodity. It costs the state nothing, but it gives l- fr- financial liberty and freedom to all of us, no matter what our, our, our party stance or what our economic stance is. And these other states have done it. I believe it's a good move in that respect. Thank you. You have a question, Senator? Recognize the senator from the 37th.

180. 2:04:30

     Does the gentleman yield? I yield. So to break this down in plain English, isn't it true you've got a c- uh, you have a debit card, um, that uses gold through other means that's, that's, that's, that's... Yeah, sure. Okay. Um, it's, and even though it's not legal tender to the state, that debit card you used recently, isn't it true you drove through Chick-fil-A, you bought a milkshake at Chick-fil-A for .038 grams of gold. Isn't that true? Correct. And this would also make it legal tender so that if there is an increase in the value of the gold you purchased, if we consider it legal tender, there would be no income tax on the gain as well.

181. 2:05:10

     S- so, so you're able to use your gold as a real debit card in a practical way day in, day out. Is that correct? Correct. I can invest it and have it and spend it. Thank you, sir. Okay. No further questions, Senator. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. Your favorable vote would be appreciated. Thank you so much. Recognize the senator from the 39th to speak to the measure.

182. 2:05:45

     Thank you, Mr. President. I write briefly in support of this bill, SB 424. At its core, this legislation simply creates a voluntary option for Georgians who want to protect the value of what they've worked hard to earn. As families across the country have experienced rising costs and the erosion of purchasing power, many people are looking for ways to preserve the value of their savings over time. And importantly, any gain in value will not be subject to tax.

183. 2:06:16

     So this bill allows individuals, if they choose, to hold value in gold or silver through a secure depository and electronic payment system backed by physical assets.

184. 2:06:28

     That is like the gold standard that, uh, we always had in place through 1971. It does not require anyone to use it, but it does provide another tool for hardworking families who wish to hedge against inflation and volatility in the value of the dollar. In other words, it expands choice. And giving people more options to safeguard the fruits of their labor is a reasonable step. For those reasons, I ask your favorable consideration.

185. 2:06:58

     Thank you. I yield.

186. 2:07:00

     Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection to the previous question being ordered? The chair hears none and previous question is ordered. Is there objection to agre- agreeing to the report of the committee which favor the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none and the main question is ordered. Question is on the passage of the bill. All those in favor of the bill will vote yay. Those opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

187. 2:07:53

     Senator from the 35th. Welcome to the rise.

188. 2:07:55

     Um, parliamentary inquiry. Parliamentary inquiry.

189. 2:07:58

     State your inquiries. Um, hey, y'all quiet down.

190. 2:08:03

     Um, this b- this, doesn't this gon- doesn't this allow government to hang out more with the gold industry, more government, right?

191. 2:08:12

     I don't know what it does, Senator. You can read the bill.

192. 2:08:37

     On the, on the passage of the bill, the yays are 29 and the nays are 21. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

193. 2:09:37

     All right. All right. Senate will come back to order. Senators, let's come back to order.

194. 2:09:48

     Chair recognizes the senator from the 25th for a motion. Senator from the 25th.

195. 2:09:55

     Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Senate Bill 301 be removed from the dais, from the table.

196. 2:10:04

     Secretary, read the caption.

197. 2:10:08

     Senate Bill 301 by Senator Williams of the 25th and others, a bill to be entitled in act to amend Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to state flag, seal, and other symbols so as to revise provisions for the protection of government statues, monuments, plaques, banners, and other commemorative symbols, to provide for con- construction, to provide for severability, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

198. 2:10:33

     The senator from the 25th has moved that Senate Bill 301 be removed from the table. Is there objection?

199. 2:10:41

     Objection.

200. 2:10:42

     There is objection.

201. 2:10:48

     All right. He wa- You withdraw your objection, senator. Senator from the f- 55th, do you withdraw your objection?

202. 2:10:55

     Mm-hmm.

203. 2:10:56

     All right. He withdraws his objection. The secretary will further read the caption.

204. 2:11:03

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on State and Local Government Operations General recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Dixon of the 45th District, Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on State and Local Government Operations General offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 301, a bill to be entitled in act to amend Chapter 3 of Title 50 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to state flag, seal, and other symbols so as to revise provisions for the protection of government statues, monuments, plaques, banners, and other commemorative symbols, to provide for construction, to provide for a waiver of sovereign and official m- immunity in certain cases, to provide for severability, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes.

205. 2:11:41

     Mr. President, minority report has been attached. Mr. President, minority report has been attached. Mr. President, that completes the order.

206. 2:11:47

     I recognize the senator from the 25th to speak to the bill.

207. 2:12:02

     Thank you, Mr. President. Y'all know I'm in the monument business. We passed a little monument bill a few years ago, and all this bill does is clarifies how monuments are removed. This bill cleans up and clarifies existing law so that Georgia's Monument Protection Statute works the way the courts intended and the General Assembly intended

208. 2:12:30

     local governments are given a clear, transparent process to remove unwanted monuments, including notices, public input, and relocation options. A statewide monument registry will be created to improve transparency, record keeping, and compliance across all agencies. I ask for your favorable consideration, and I yield the well.

209. 2:13:01

     Thank you. Senator's yielded the well. We've got some amendments coming, so stand, uh...

210. 2:13:14

     Mr. President. Senator- All right, read the amendment. Go ahead. Mr. President, Senator Mallow of the second and others offers the following amendment. Amendment one, amend the Senate Committee on State and Local Government Operations substitute to Senate Bill three oh one by replacing line five with the following, "Provide for separability, to provide for definitions, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws," and four, by inserting between lines twenty-six and twenty-seven the following, "Such term shall not include the depiction of any individual who participated in, facilitated, helped to facilitated, coordinated with, or otherwise helped perpetuate the Ku Klux Klan or any other domestic terrorist organization devoted in whole or in part to the principle of defending racial purity, upholding segregation, or any other motivating purpose of maintaining and perpetuating unequal treatment under the law based on race." Mr.

211. 2:13:56

     President, Senator Jones offers... Mr. President, Senator Jones of the twenty-second offers amendment number two to amend Senate Bill three oh one by...

212. 2:14:09

     By striking all language on line twenty-six, beginning with the semicolon and ending with

213. 2:14:17

     thereof. Mr. President, that completes the order.

214. 2:14:47

     I recognize the senator from the second district to speak to his amendment.

215. 2:14:56

     Amendment one.

216. 2:15:02

     Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, unfortunately, colleagues, those who were empowered to place monuments where they've been placed throughout counties and cities, uh, the folks who happen to, uh, look like me and be African-American may not have had a say-so in who was, uh, opted to have a monument created for them. And so this resolution simply provides, uh, that such terms shall not include the depiction of any individual who participated or facilitated, uh, or helped facilitate, coordinated with, or otherwise helped perpetuate the Ku Klux Klan, any other domestic terrorist organization, uh, because th- that organization in its, uh, history, uh, terrorized African-Americans, and those that were a part of it should not be honored.

217. 2:15:45

     And if a city or county chooses to move them, they should have the option to do that to make sure, uh, that maintaining and perpetuating unequal treatment of the law should not be something we do based on race. And many of those folks, uh, have monuments and statues, uh, throughout. And in fact, just recently in the city of Savannah, we have Whitfield Square. Uh, Mr. Whitfield, who was a Methodist minister who operated the Bethesda Home Orphan Home, owned slaves to support and sustain that home. However, uh, the cemetery was the old slave burial ground, and it is in, underneath Whitfield Square.

218. 2:16:20

     Uh, the city just conducted grou- a survey with ground-penetrating radar and discovered that there were eighty to ninety unmarked graves, uh, in, under Whitfield Square. And so those folks need to have a dignified opportunity to be representative. The square should be renamed. The monument should be moved. Um, and we should do the best we can to eradicate a stain in our history, uh, and not perpetuate to uphold it. And with that, Mr. President, I ask for your favorable consideration on this amendment, and I yield the well.

219. 2:16:53

     Recognize the senator from the twenty-second to speak to his amendment, amendment two.

220. 2:17:12

     Thank you, Mr. President. I rise in, in, in support of the amendment, which basically eliminates the line as far as protecting Confederate monuments. I think at this point in time, there is no doubt that when we speak of the Confederacy, the affront that it has to so many of our citizens, and there's no doubt that when we speak of the Confederacy, we're talking about a separate government that was established to protect the institution of slavery. Uh, the facts are so clear when we look at South Carolina and its declaration of reasons for secession. One of its major reasons is the fact that Northern states were returning fugitive slaves in, in, uh, w- in their mind against the Constitution, and that that was one of their main reasons for actually seceding from the Union.

221. 2:17:55

     When we look at the fact that Florida, for instance, one of its main reasons for seceding from the, um, Union was the fact that it had lost its ability to continue with the safety and honor of the slaveholding states, and it's finally known that the Northern states basically would not allow slavery to continue. And even Georgia even had similar type proclamations within its secession document. So there's no doubt the reason why the Confederacy was formed, and therefore, essentially this is such an affront to a- so many citizens, whether white, Black, or, or, or Latino or other, we ought not should continue to support it, should not continue to actually protect it.

222. 2:18:33

     And in that particular sense, we owe our citizens better than to continue to actually protect these particular monuments in that way. It is not about history. It is about the fact that you have persons who actually were a part of an insurrection, actually created a civil war for no other real purpose other than to create an institution or continue an institution of slavery. And that is something that we as legislators, that we as a people of Georgia should no longer continue to, uh, sponsor or continue to be part of. And with that, I yield the well.

223. 2:19:50

     Recognize the senator from the 25th.

224. 2:19:53

     Thank you, Mr. President. All these last-minute, uh, amendments, I just move to table this bill at this time.

225. 2:20:02

     All right. Is there objection? On objection, the bill is tabled.

226. 2:20:14

     Senate stand at ease. I don't know what we got left to do here, but, uh...

227. 2:20:24

     Senator from the 26, are you- I said we just voted on it. Mm-hmm.

228. 2:20:31

     Yeah, I think, I think at the appropriate time, it's almost... While we're checking on one last thing, I just wanted to say Maya back there with the AJC, today is her last day serving in the Senate here.

229. 2:21:04

     Let's give her a big round of applause here.

230. 2:21:38

     Thank you, Maya. Recognize senator from 46.

231. 2:21:46

     Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to remove Senate Bill 367 from the table.

232. 2:23:00

     Secretary read, read the caption.

233. 2:23:04

     Senate Bill 367 by Senator Cowsert of the 46 and others, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Code Section 31-6-47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to exemptions from certificate of need requirements so as to provide an exemption for healthcare facilities, services, and equipment dedicated exclusively to the treatment of cancer, to provide for conditions, to provide for applicability, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

234. 2:23:36

     Is there objection? Without objection.

235. 2:23:41

     Read, read the caption.

236. 2:23:43

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Cowsert of the 46th District, Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 367, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Code Section 31-6-47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to exemptions from certificate of need requirements so as to provide an exemption for healthcare facilities, services, and equipment dedicated primarily or exclusively to the treatment of cancer to provide for conditions and for other purposes.

237. 2:24:17

     Mr. President, Senator Summers of the 13th and others offers the following amendment. Amendment one, amend the Senate Committee on Regulated Industries and Utilities substitute to SB 367 by replacing line four with the following. Of cancer to provide for conditions, to provide for an exception to the exemption for facilities within thirty-five miles of certain facilities, to provide for applicability, to provide for related, by replacing line thirty-nine with the following. Structure, affiliation with an existing hospital or location within the state. D, the exemption provided for in this paragraph shall not apply to any facility within thirty-five miles of an existing nonprofit hospital and for other purposes.

238. 2:24:49

     Mr. President, that completes the order.

239. 2:24:59

     Recognize senator from 46.

240. 2:25:20

     Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I'm back. Ladies and gentlemen, I think this may be our last bill of the night. There's so much that I could say about this bill, but I got some thoughts I'd want to share. Start back with this past morning, our devotional from the preacher that was so inspirational as he recited the lyrics to Michael Jackson's song, Man in the Mirror.

241. 2:25:53

     I want every one of y'all to think about that. You're gonna be looking at yourself in the mirror tomorrow morning knowing you had a chance to make cancer care more accessible to Georgians than it is today. If I ask you all, raise your hand if either you or your spouse or a parent or a family member, a friend, a constituent has had to deal with that disease, every hand in this room would go up.

242. 2:26:34

     It is the number two killer in the state of Georgia, medically, and we have a sparsity of treatment for it. It's mostly concentrated in Atlanta, some in Augusta because of the medical college there, some in Savannah, and sporadically at some of the other hospitals around the state. But the vast majority of Georgia does not have convenient, affordable, accessible options to treat cancer.

243. 2:27:10

     I got interested in this because of the University Cancer and Blood Center in Athens. They've got about twenty-five doctors and about three hundred employees, and they do cancer care exclusively. All different kinds. One of my very best friends is the breast cancer guy in Northeast Georgia. And he got boxed out, so to speak, by the CON system a few years ago They're treating patients and are able to detect cancer earlier by using more sophisticated diagnostic machines.

244. 2:27:59

     And they call it a PET scan like a CAT scan, but it's more finite, better, more expensive, more precise. And they use it to detect cancer early, but also to monitor the progress of treatment. When they're using radiation or chemotherapy, they look to see if the tumor is shrinking or not. Are they hitting the right area? And there was only one in Athens, and I think there's one in Gainesville, and their patients were having to wait literally sometime for months to get in to get tested.

245. 2:28:35

     Two years ago, we passed a bill that allowed more, uh, leniency on CON requirements for rural areas. It also carved out these PET scan machines. The next day, they bought their PET scan machine, and their waiting lines went down from weeks and weeks of months to a period of days. And they will tell you they sold, they saved a ton of lives by doing that and lowered the cost for all patients in our area.

246. 2:29:08

     The doctor that runs that UCBC program testified in our committee, this came out of regulated industries, and said there's a demand for at least two more of these machines. Emory Winship came to our committee, one of the only nationally accredited cancer centers that has the kind of the grip on the power here and said, "We are fine to proceed without the necessity for CON. We would love to buy a linear accelerator, which is another treatment protocol, expensive machine, but we're blocked on the CON.

247. 2:29:48

     It takes us years, it takes us millions of dollars in attorney's fees to get something that can help save Georgians." And they're in Atlanta, and they testified in favor of this bill. The original Cancer Treatment Centers of America, now the City of Hope Hospital in Newnan, had a carved out exemption to do CON care. And all the lobbyists said, "Oh my God, you're gonna put the Atlanta, you're gonna put Emory and Northside and these hospitals out of business.

248. 2:30:20

     Y'all are gonna cherry-pick the people that have insurance and leave us with the indigent care." All the rural hospitals said, "Oh Lord, no, please don't do that. Our hospitals will go under." Nobody went under. Every cancer treatment is thriving, every provider. And City of Hope came and testified in favor of the bill. They're like, "Bring on the competition. We need as much treatment as we can get and we would love to go collaborate in some of these rural communities and help their doctors expand cancer care which we can't do it now because of this Byzantine archaic CON structure that most states have done away with." Florida no longer has it.

249. 2:31:10

     South Carolina got rid of it a year or so ago. We had a doctor from Augusta come testify on the committee that he has a cancer center in Augusta, was getting stymied on increasing the size and facilities and services they could offer. So he said, "The heck with it." And they built a brand new facility across the river in South Carolina. And their patients have to drive across the bridge a mile to get care that's cheaper and more effective and was provided to them much quicker than going through this archaic system that we have.

250. 2:31:48

     There are no hospitals that testify. We had two different meetings in our committee. Not a single hospital came and testified against this bill. And they shouldn't have. Shame on them if they did say, "We want to limit availability of cancer care." That is inhumane. It's not all about the money. There's plenty of cancer to go around for everybody to make plenty of money.

251. 2:32:21

     It's expensive to provide the treatment. These machines cost incredible amounts of money. There's a cyber knife type thing. I can't even envision what it is, but it has to do with radiation treatment and getting it where it needs to go. And some of these hospitals have them. And right now, to buy this technology, this machine's about $30 million.

252. 2:32:47

     What is aggravating me and many Georgians, especially people not in the urban centers, is not being able to get care close to home. There are so many rural areas that don't have cancer treatment centers, that don't have hospitals that even do oncology treatment. In fact, this amendment that you're gonna see is gonna be, uh, from the senator from the third and many others, uh, narrows down a few hospitals to be carved out of this.

253. 2:33:21

     'Cause my theory was coming in, why would a rural hospital object to this bill, especially if they don't already have cancer care? It's not like somebody's cherry-picking their patients that they already have 'cause they don't have cancer patients. They don't have the oncology services, the radiology, the chemotherapy, the complicated surgical procedures to treat cancer. There was a good argument made years ago that if we allowed these ambulatory surgery centers or imaging centers to come in, they would steal the profitable clients away from the rural hospitals.

254. 2:34:02

     Well, it hadn't happened. The last two years we passed that bill on rural hospitals and not a single one's closed down in the last two years. The medical care is shifting. You're having basically a lot of the large consolidation and people spreading and opening clinics and, and outposts, so to speak, uh, where they can reach the people that need care.

255. 2:34:27

     This amendment carves out ten rural hospitals that are nonprofits that have oncology care. Ten counties out of a hundred and fifty-nine want to contain and keep their monopoly, and if that's what it takes for me to get this vote, then they can have it. But unfortunately, they need to think long and hard about it because when they carve themselves out of this bill, they are still subject to CON, and good luck getting any new services or new equipment or expanding your practice when everybody else is about to start objecting to you.

256. 2:35:09

     But if that's what y'all want, I'm not gonna fight that amendment 'cause I'm afraid I need that amendment to get the twenty-nine votes here.

257. 2:35:20

     Surely, if twenty-nine people here will vote to allow you to buy your daggum groceries with gold, you will let cancer patients have access to more options closer to their houses. I'm telling you, this matters. This is a bill where you can look at yourself and say, "I made healthcare better for Georgians. I made it more accessible, hopefully less expensive." Let these people that don't currently have cancer care have access to it.

258. 2:35:57

     Let's hope they have it. Let's at least take away that barrier of CON red tape. Now, what, what kind of things are we talking about here? My-- I call them my group 'cause they're from Athens, but UCBC would love to do radiation therapy. They're not allowed to do that. No new services, no new locations without big daddy, Department of Community Health, giving them this little magic pass of CON, and you don't just get it overnight.

259. 2:36:31

     You apply for it, and then you watch all your competitors oppose it, and then you go to court, and you spend millions of dollars. In two or three years, you might be able to start giving radiations treatment. Ambulatory surgery center, they testified in our committee that there's a lot of things you can do outpatient. Now, this CyberKnife stuff we're talking about and some of the complicated cancer surgeries, those are gonna be done in a hospital operating room anyway.

260. 2:37:02

     But simple things like placing a port in your body to give you chemotherapy and removing it, you can't do that at a cancer clinic without a CON. Why should you have to travel to Atlanta or Augusta or Savannah to get your chemotherapy or some of these ten hospitals? Phoebe Putney has it. They're saved by this amendment. They can keep their monopoly there if they don't want competition.

261. 2:37:35

     Breast surgery, mastectomies, reconstructions, those can be done in an ambulatory surgery center instead of having to travel to do that and with your family. Colonoscopies, endoscopies, all of this capital expenditure for things such as the linear accelerators, I wish I had been smart enough to, to pass biology and, and learn what all some of this means. I don't. I know it's important.

262. 2:38:06

     I know it's expensive. I know it's highly, highly specialized, and there's only so many oncology doctors around, and if we have them, and they are asking to expand their services and the different type of, uh, procedures they can do and treatment they can render, who are we to stop them and to block them?

263. 2:38:36

     These cancer services will still have to comply with all the other federal and state regulations. They still are gonna be required, it's in the bill, to provide the same amount of indigent care that DCH makes all the folks that have CON do. So it's-- these aren't people that are just money grabbers coming in for profit. Most of them will be not-for-profits or nonprofits that are currently doing it that want to expand their services.

264. 2:39:13

     If you're in Atlanta, you might be saying, "Heck, I got plenty of cancer options around me. You know, this, this doesn't matter to me." Well, you might have family members, though, that live outside of Atlanta that wanna get cared for somewhere closer to their home, or you might want ch- more choices in Atlanta. You may wanna go to Emory Winship, one of the nationally accredited cancer centers, and get treatment with their whatever the heck a linear accelerator is. For them, they, they have a hundred and fifty percent capacity on their equipment right now, so that means they can't treat all the people That need treatment because they don't have the equipment.

265. 2:39:55

     And if that's been your hospital, you might wanna go there if that's where your doctor has staff privileges. It helps you too, but it helps your country cousins as well. I love the old story about the city mouse and the country mouse. I mean, we're all in the same state. Let them have the options that you have if you're in the cities. There are two big hospital associations in the state, and they act like they're gonna be okay with this bill, especially if this amendment passes, but they are still actively lobbying members in this body right now because I've had them come up and tell me they're getting lobbied.

266. 2:40:37

     But you've got the Georgia Hospital Association that testified in committee, "We are neutral on this issue 'cause we got some of our members that want to expand their services and want this bill to pass, and we got others that wanna maintain their monopolies and they don't want this to pass." Same thing with the Community Hospital Association that has many of the rural hospitals and some of the big ones. They're like, "We're neutral. Our organization is divided."

267. 2:41:08

     I think this is fairness. I think it's the best thing for the health of Georgians, and I think it is just flat wrong to deny people access to cancer care. So I'm gonna ask you to please support this bill. I'll be neutral on the amendment. I'll just tell you this. If, if you'll vote for the bill, then if that's what it takes us to pass that amendment, so be it. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions if anybody has any.

268. 2:41:42

     You do have a couple questions. Recognize senator from the 55th. Will the gentleman yield? Be glad to yield. Is it not true that I am opposed to that dreaded disease called cancer because it has taken people that I love, including my wife two years ago? Senator, I'm sorry to hear that, but I embrace your support for this bill. You're the kind of person that can never vote no for this bill. Is it not further true that I'm trying to understand why we need this legislation and it will not negatively impact the existing facilities in their attempt to treat those person with cancer?

269. 2:42:23

     How could it possibly hurt them? They're all overloaded. They've got plenty of business, more than they can handle. This is for areas that they're not satisfactorily treating their patients to give them choices. It's generally for areas that don't have cancer care now to let people move and open up clinics in those places that they currently can't. I don't see how this hurts any existing cancer facility. Back to CTCA, that was the argument then. "Boy, if y'all bring in these hot shots from Chicago, Illinois that are experts, you know, they're gonna shut us down." Nobody got shut down.

270. 2:42:58

     More have opened up and they're just chomping with, with demand for more treatment, and we have a barrier to that. Senator, I am sorry to hear about your wife. You, you answered my question though how it's affected everybody. My mother had breast cancer. More and more young women are getting breast cancer. Let's open the floodgates for treatment and take care of our people.

271. 2:43:31

     No more question- No more questions. Thank you. Please support it.

272. 2:43:44

     Recognize senator, senator from the third.

273. 2:44:03

     Thank you, Mr. President. My very good friend from the 46 has a good bill here. All he wants to do is make sure that the citizens of the State of Georgia can get cancer care, and they can get it close to home at a reasonable price, and I couldn't agree any more with him at all. I think he's right on. I really do.

274. 2:44:35

     I have an amendment, and my amendment asks you to recognize that there are some hospitals in this state that are taking care of their community when it comes to cancer care. There are some hospitals that are owned by their community. They're not owned by stockholders. They're not for, they are not for profit. They've had a tough time through the COVID years, and most of them have hung on, and they've taken care of their patients, and they've taken care of their cancer patients.

275. 2:45:15

     And what I'm primarily talking about, I'm talking about something called a sole community hospital, which is exactly what it sounds like. It is the only hospital in a community. I think the legal definition says it has to be at least 35 miles away from the nearest hospital or it has to be isolated by terrain or weather, and the only thing I can think of that that means it is that it would be on a mountaintop or on an island, um, or in some flooded area.

276. 2:45:50

     But we have 17 sole community hospitals in Georgia. I'm gonna tell you where they are. They're in Statesboro

277. 2:46:01

     Emanuel County, Upson, Blairsville, Appling, Washington County, Dublin, Waycross, Brunswick, uh, Camden County, Albany, Douglas, Jefferson, Colquitt, and Jessup, Wayne County. Seventeen, oh excuse me, and also Cordele and Vidalia. Seventeen sole community hospitals. They're not-for-profit. They're owned by their community.

278. 2:46:33

     Again, not-for-profit. They don't have shareholders. They're taking care of their community. Ten of the 17, 10 of the 17 offer cancer care. And, and if you'll read the amendment, the amendment basically defines, it says either chemotherapy or radiation therapy. And I can't tell you about a lot of the other hospitals, but I happen to have served on my local hospital board for 22 years, and I've learned a little bit about it.

279. 2:47:08

     Um, healthcare is a very strange business, and there are plenty of people who know a hell of a lot more about it than I do. But I will tell you that in my hospital, we have invested $20 million of our, uh, citizens' money, and we've invested it in buying, um, something called a CyberKnife. We bought one, we wore it out, and we bought a second one. We spent $20 million. If we had to re-replicate it today, it'd cost $30 million.

280. 2:47:41

     And that's just a very, um, um, it's hard to explain what it does, but it, it isolates, it, it shoots a, a radiation beam into a patient. If you're, if you have a l- a tumor in your lung and you're breathing and your chest is going up and down, the radio beam, the radiation beam will follow it. It's, it's that complicated, which makes it incredibly expensive. So we've done that, and we've got a full infusion center.

281. 2:48:13

     We've got staff oncologists. We've got wonderful nurses in the infusion center, and we keep a big inventory of chemotherapy drugs, and that is expensive. Chemotherapy is incredibly expensive. But we do that for the people in our community. So my friend from the 46th wants what he wants for everybody in Georgia, in rural Georgia, I want, too. I'm just here to tell you that there are some places that are offering that, and I'm asking you to exempt those places.

282. 2:48:49

     It doesn't mean that somebody can't come to town and compete with them. It just means that if somebody wants to come to town, they have to go through the CON process. They have to come in, they have to present their case and say, "This is what we can do and this is what the local hospital's doing. Can we do more than they can do?" And I, it's a, it's a long and it's an arduous process, but, but you can beat SO- CON.

283. 2:49:21

     In my, in my hospital, we have 18,000 chemo patient, not patients, 18,000 chemo treatments annually. 18,000. We have 1,400, um, patients getting the CyberKnife, and we're taking care of them. So I just ask that if you would consider this amendment. All this does, it, all this does is exempt sole community hospitals that are currently offering chemotherapy or radiation.

284. 2:50:05

     If they're not doing it, no protection. That's all this does. So again, um, and one thing that I'm, I don't, I'm not sure I agree with my good friend from the 46th that the people that want this are all not-for-profit. I think there's more of a for-profit angle here than, uh, than has been indicated. And again, I'm just gonna appeal to your, your sense of community. I'm gonna appeal to your knowledge of your community and, and your hospital.

285. 2:50:38

     I know my community. I know my hospital. I know what it does, and I hope that you will, um, uh, give favorable consideration to this amendment. Mr. President, I'll yield for any questions.

286. 2:50:55

     You have one question, Senator.

287. 2:50:58

     Uh, Senator from the 46th.

288. 2:51:03

     Senator from the 46th.

289. 2:51:06

     Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, I understand your, your concerns, so I just have a question for you.

290. 2:51:14

     Yes, sir.

291. 2:51:14

     If your amendment passes, will you and the cosigners vote for this bill?

292. 2:51:18

     I can't. I'm sorry?

293. 2:51:19

     If your amendment passes, will you and the cosigners vote for this bill?

294. 2:51:25

     Uh, I can only speak for me. Uh, but I understand. I, I will certainly vote for the bill.

295. 2:51:32

     Okay.

296. 2:51:32

     And it is my understanding that cosigners will vote for it also.

297. 2:51:37

     That, that may encourage some people that are otherwise hesitant to have carve-outs at all to at least vance, advance the ball.

298. 2:51:45

     Well, you know, and I, I'm gonna-

299. 2:51:46

     Yeah

300. 2:51:46

     ... I'm gonna take exception to the word. I mean, it, you know, it's a carve-out, but it's a carve-out with a reason. We're doing the job.

301. 2:51:55

     That's right.

302. 2:51:56

     We're providing the service, and we're doing it, and we're doing it, and the money that's made on it, whatever profit's made, goes back into the hospital to help the hospital do a better job taking care of the community

303. 2:52:10

     So...

304. 2:52:15

     Do you have any questions, Senator? Thank you. I yield the will. Recognize the senator from the 29th to speak to the measure.

305. 2:52:32

     Colleagues, I'm, I'm not a doctor. I'm not as, uh, smart as my good friend from the 1st. I c- I probably couldn't have got through medical school, especially if they did a background check. But let me tell you something I do know about. I know about cancer. I attended John B. Amos Cancer Center with my mother. My sisters and I carried her day after day while she got her treatment. We put her in an ambulance and drove her to Emory while she got her treatment.

306. 2:53:05

     And I watched my mother, somebody who brought joy into my life every day and who was the best friend I ever had on this planet, slowly wither away. But you know what kept her for me a little bit longer and made my life a little bit better was the treatment she got, the doctors she dealt with, the oncologists, the nurses, and those individuals. And so when she did die, I knew we had done everything we could do to take care of her, and she, we had made friends for life in those places.

307. 2:53:43

     And I knew what it was gonna be like because just eight years before that, I went through the same experience with my father. Mother's was colon, my dad's was lung, and he got his treatment at different places around the state. And then two years ago, my sister, my older sister,

308. 2:54:04

     was diagnosed with breast cancer

309. 2:54:08

     and we watched her fight, and she's still here. She's tough. But tough doesn't get it when it's cancer. She had great doctors. She had a great support system. And they put a lot of miles on their cars to get them the treatment they needed.

310. 2:54:29

     And then this past year, my friends in the caucus know my niece, Ashley,

311. 2:54:36

     who is too much like her uncle Randy, who traveled around the world teaching people fintech and has a personality bigger than this building can hold.

312. 2:54:53

     And they put her on something called Red Devil chemo because she had a rare type of breast cancer that they said never occurs in both breasts, except hers did.

313. 2:55:12

     And she's been fighting the war since diagnosis. And most of her days are good and some of them aren't. And she's got a great family around her, but I'm gonna tell you, a great family doesn't save your life when you're fighting cancer. It takes professionals. It takes men and women that know what they're doing, and I promise you they're not in every neighborhood in this state. They're all over the place, and cancer is all over the place. Dan Amos, the CEO of Aflac, came out this year and talked about the issues we're having with early discoveries of colon cancer in people younger and younger and earlier discoveries of breast cancer in people younger and younger.

314. 2:55:57

     We're not doing enough. I'm gonna tell you, this isn't about carve-outs. This isn't about the people out in the hallway. This isn't about business. This is about human beings. This is about lives, okay?

315. 2:56:17

     So let's take the reins off this thing. Let's get out there and save some people.

316. 2:56:25

     My sister's well, my niece isn't, but I pray to my God in heaven and I, and I pray for the people that are working with her that she will be. But let's make this what it's about. It's about human beings and it's about professionals. It's about doctors. It's about the men and women who s- do save lives every single day. And let's make sure that every Georgian in this state has the ability to go and get the treatment that they need.

317. 2:56:57

     I ask that you stand with my friend from the 46th and that you vote for this legislation, and let's send a message out to everybody that we want everybody to have what they need when it comes to dealing with cancer. And with that, Mr. President, I'll yield the will. Senator's yielded. Recognize the dean of the Senate.

318. 2:57:28

     Thank you, Mr. President. I, uh, rise to speak to, to the amendment and the underlying bill actually. And over the years since I've been in the General Assembly, the one thing that stood out was the CON fight. That was always, and the reason behind the CON fight was there were certain hospitals in s- sporadic communities, uh, throughout the state, and they were dedicated to, uh, fighting cancer or having invested a lot of money in a certain eq- equipment that would fight cancer.

319. 2:58:10

     And the reason the CONs came about as long as it's been going on-

320. 2:58:16

     was because they were trying to protect the investment of those hospitals who were dedicated to that and would take patients as opposed to having a place that would pop up nearby and just sweep, sort of cherry-pick as it were. But over the years, over the years, we've just so- sort of opened the door to, uh, the CON picture and I've had friends I thought were really sort of against the CONs now say they're for it.

321. 2:58:51

     In the meeting the other day, we asked the question, uh, myself and the senator from the 33rd, about, uh, was this a good bill, speaking of the senators from the 46th, and asked for opposition or were there opposition against it, and they said no or they had no position if I quoted them accurately. And then, uh, my wife, my wife succumbed to cancer herself. I mean, that, that's a, that's a rough road to hoe.

322. 2:59:22

     I mean, it's r- really tough. Obviously, we know that. Uh, my brother, uh, had cancer and, uh, he died of brain cancer. My wife of breast cancer, just bingo, stage four when sh- when it, it came about. So over the years, there's been kind of a, a shift in position on that and so I've been think that we need more and more people to come about. If they can treat the cancer, let them trace it, uh, uh, treat it. Uh, if someone has sickle cell anemia, uh, th- there's a big pain problem with sickle cell anemia, and I advocate every year with the senator from the 19th for money in the budget to have people who have sickle cell anemia to fight that position.

323. 3:00:09

     And, and he's answered that call on, on more than one occasion. So I'm, I'm letting you know that the underlying amendment that at least deals with some aspects of CON is something that we need to support now. I will vote for the bill. Mr. President, I yield the well, if there are no questions.

324. 3:00:29

     Recognize senator from the 31st.

325. 3:00:41

     Thank you, Mr. President. I'll try and be brief. I know we're here on Friday night because the House didn't agree to the Senate calendar and we wouldn't be here tonight, but take that up with them. It's amazing to me that we are here debating access to care for cancer. Back in 2011, my mom passed away of cancer, and living through the trials and the tribulations and it coming and going and remitting and ev- going in remission and everything else.

326. 3:01:15

     But that year, February of 2011, being in Decatur, being at Winship and experiencing what I saw after, you know, already had years ago buried my dad and my brother, so buried my whole family. And, you know, the number of people and the care, you know, to go to this state-of-the-art facility in Atlanta, um, you know, was the coolest thing to me. And now that I live in West Georgia and I represent a rural county, people beg and plead to have access.

327. 3:01:55

     They hate having to drive to Atlanta and that's not because they don't like Emory. It's not because they don't like WellStar. It's not because they don't like Piedmont or wherever they go to get their care. It's because they want to stay home and take care of their family. They want to be there

328. 3:02:19

     at the hardest moments, the saddest moments, and God bless the moment they even pass, like I experienced. So for us to sit here and continue to debate respectfully whether rural Georgians should have to come to Atlanta, well, Atlanta facilities are already over- are overflowing right now. There's not enough room for even the residents that we represent in Metro Atlanta to have access.

329. 3:02:53

     Honestly, it's a crying shame. There should be more access. There shouldn't even be a debate. We shouldn't, you know, allow an antiquated system hurt those that need it most and the families who are taking care of them. And most of the Georgians that need the cancer care can't even afford it. They can't even afford right now the gas money to even get to Atlanta or the places where they can get chemo or radiation.

330. 3:03:26

     So I know there's all these turf wars as the senator from the 15th eloquently said, and I know there's pay- there's people paid in that hallway to come and tell you to do things and they've got their th- their, their clients and all that. But at what point are we going to end all of that and just help the millions of Georgians that want this and demand this? That, that is what they want at the end of the day.

331. 3:03:59

     And so Mr. President, as I close, I'll vote for the, the amendment, but the amendment honestly shouldn't even be needed. Where we're at in this state, if we're truly about rural Georgia, think allow rural Georgia To provide the care they want and bring-- let the market bring in the help that they need. Most of the hospitals that we're talking about in terms of the state-of-the-art care probably could use the help from others coming into the community to give that more-- to give more access.

332. 3:04:40

     Let's vote for our entire state. Let's get rid of these silly regulations if we wanna talk about affordability. Let's do something and lead the nation. But for us to have to sit here tonight and really debate facilities and the cost for people who need the care, who want a second chance in life, let's just remove all the barriers and open it up and give them the access to live their life.

333. 3:05:15

     So for those that are thinking about voting against the bill, that's what you're gonna have to go home and tell your, te-tell your folks and your neighbors. And I'm sure if I asked for a show of hands in this room of how many people have a family member or a friend who has died of cancer like, like me, it's probably a lot of people if not everybody in this room. We're going through what the senator from the fifteenth is going through at this moment. So I hope there's a united voice on this board.

334. 3:05:46

     If not, we will let the people of Georgia judge tonight. Thank you, Mr. President.

335. 3:06:00

     Senator from the thirty-six.

336. 3:06:23

     Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, colleagues, I am, uh, rising to oppose this bill and to address s-several things that have been said that I think are, uh, uh, misinformed or, or, or not f-not fully accurate. First of all, there, uh, the s- there's certificate of need policy in place in thirty-four states in this country. We're not an outlier. We're not an outlier. Why is there, why is, is there a certificate of need appro-approach?

337. 3:06:55

     Acute care hospitals are required by the federal government to take every person, person that arrives seeking treatment. If you put up an ambulatory service, uh, s-surgical center across the street from an acute care hospital

338. 3:07:17

     and you offer a ser-- you offer a medical procedure, be that cancer treatment or otherwise,

339. 3:07:25

     you don't have to take everybody that walks in. You can take paying patients. And guess how the math doesn't work when patients that can pay, that have private insurance, are pulled out of your patient mix over at the community hospital? Then the, then the, the math doesn't work because you can't run a hospital without a mix of people who can pay, people who have insurance, and those who are underinsured, poor-poorly insured, or totally lack insurance.

340. 3:08:05

     So that's the-- an underlying reality about how

341. 3:08:12

     the medical finances work and why it has been necessary to create a structure and a methodology to demonstrate that the service that you're providing, and you're gonna compete with a hospital that's required by the feds to serve anybody that walks in the door. You're gonna-- if, if you compete with them and, and pull patients out of their patient mix that can pay, you are basically starving the, the hospital.

342. 3:08:42

     Starving the hospital. And, and to say that, uh, uh, I know that right now I think we have nine hosp- nine hospitals that are hanging by their, uh, uh, on a thread to stay open. You talk, you talk to people that are running hospitals in these communities. You heard a list of several that was, that were, uh, uh, the, uh, senator from the third listed that, uh, are community hospitals with boards made up of, of concerned citizens that are donating their time and, and, uh, doctors and medical personnel and admin-administrators that are working mightily to hold it all together and keep that hospital open.

343. 3:09:28

     A-and it falls a little, this sounds a little bit hollow to me, uh, to talk about people needing healthcare services, people needing medical care, people needing access, and yet we're one of, uh, nine states, I believe it is, in the country that has failed to expand Medicaid, failed to e-e-extend health insurance, w- that's what Medicaid is, to a larger number of people in our state. But don't-- so don't cry crocodile tears about people having access, not having access, when you haven't even seen fit to expand Medicaid to do what forty other states have done.

344. 3:10:08

     And you could do it, you could, you could do it b-before we went home if we decided we have the money to do it, but we have a, we have a pitifully underfunded and scantily, uh, provided for Medicaid system as it is. And we refuse to take a match of nine- nine- ninety dollars for every, uh, for to every ten dollars that we spend, we'd get ninety dollars matching from the federal government. But somehow that, that, that's not rich enough for us.

345. 3:10:39

     That doesn't, that doesn't do it. But, but if you, if you are not... And I'm not gonna stand up here and tell you how many people in my family have had cancer. Have a sister right now, you know, in, in, in, in treatment. Have a brother-in-law with prostate cancer. I mean, I'm not gonna do it. We could all do it. Cancer, uh, is running, uh, abroad in the land. In fact, we ought to do a lot more regulating of the poisoning of our environment if we wanna, uh, de- deal with, with cancer, uh, spreading. But the, the, the fact that ten of these, uh, community hospitals around that are in, uh, that, that, that would be covered by this, uh, carve out this am- amendment are offering services.

346. 3:11:21

     And it's, uh, and I know, uh, I'm familiar with the model, surely some of you all are, where a large hospital opens up, uh, it goes in and cooperates with a local hospital or regional hospital, and it's a model that works. But

347. 3:11:40

     profiteering on healthcare, I think, is of the wrong, the, the, a fatal mistake that we make. Uh, the acute care hospitals need our support because who's gonna pay for the OBGYN? Uh, you know, we're hear- hearing now about, uh, uh, people having to drive an hour and a half to deliver a baby. So we have huge needs across rural Georgia, and we should be fighting at the state and the national level to adequately compensate medical providers, that includes hospitals as well as the staff that works in them, ha- having, ha- having higher rates of compensation so that they're not hanging by a thread.

348. 3:12:22

     That's the situation that we face now. Uh, you'll be happy to know, I'm sure, that you remember Kayleigh Noggle, who was in state government here for some time, and she's the Georgia Hospital Association president. Uh, and she was, uh, uh, in talking to, uh, Effingham, the e- the folks down in Effingham. She was explaining why we need to, why we need to have certificate of need, what role it plays, and, uh, that efforts to undermine it that go on up here under the Gold Dome really be- need to be looked at, uh, quite closely.

349. 3:12:57

     Certificates of need require someone who wants to build a new healthcare facility or offer new services to prove that the expansion is needed. Because if you have a glut of services, the, you're overspending and to, you, you have more equipment than you need clustered somewhere, that is part of the problem. It's a process by which the state actually has methodologies for determining where healthcare infrastructure and facilities should be located and built around the state.

350. 3:13:28

     So this view of the wild, wild west, west, let's just let everybody go open up whatever kind of facility they want anywhere, you go, th- th- that's, that's a surefire, uh, path to hospitals closing that provide the acute care and take anybody that walks in the door. Uh,

351. 3:13:48

     and it's vital to keep certificate of need in place. Uh, we've updated it. We, we do it all the time. We did it in '24. But what the, what, what, what the, what the point behind certificate of need is that it ensures access to healthcare across the state. It ensures healthca- that, and there are lots of different specialties that hospital services can provide, like the neonatal intensive care services. I'm sure some of us in our families have had, uh, infants born w- with a lot of compromised health that, uh, that, that only survive because of a neonatal intensive care unit.

352. 3:14:29

     And you have to have staffing, and you have to have the funding, and you have to have the patient mix to afford those things. And, and, uh, and, and, and so to re- lift the banner of it's all a cancer that we need to be fighting, yeah, we need to be equipping our hospitals to do that. We don't need to be setting up more competition in the field. We need to be building and investing in what we have there now. Uh, so I'm, I am, uh, I am for a payer mix that works with all kinds of insured people by different avenues.

353. 3:15:08

     If we care about it, you know, doggone it, if we didn't, we let, we let the, uh, uh, pand- uh, the, the pandemic infusion of funds in healthcare, we let it expire up there in Congress. S- so we, we're gonna have all kinds of people in this state falling out of any insurance coverage or being, being... And you know, Marjorie Taylor Greene said her adult children are not gonna be able to afford health insurance, uh, uh, when they do, when they, uh, let, let those premium, uh, z- expire, the, the rates of the premiums that, that have expired now.

354. 3:15:42

     And we're gonna be plunged into an even worse, uh, and more critical challenging situation. Um, if you take the time and you study the situation and you look at all the complexities of delivering healthcare in this country, uh, there's a pathway to your understanding why certificate of need is really critical. And a lot of you are gonna go home to your, uh, small towns with hospitals there that people love and rely on, but they're always, uh, financially challenged, and they're gonna wonder how you voted on this bill.

355. 3:16:19

     So I would urge you to think carefully. Uh, I, I, I think certainly supporting the, uh, am- amendment i- i- is essential. Uh, I, I, and I'm gonna vote for that. But I would, I would say Uh,

356. 3:16:37

     this approach is ill-considered, but it plays on the heartstrings of all of us who have family members that are challenged with cancer. It, it, it pulls on the heartstrings, but it doesn't tell the truth about how financing of healthcare happens, uh, in our country and in this state. Uh, thank you. I'll take any questions. If there are none, I'll yield the well.

357. 3:17:02

     Thank you.

358. 3:17:02

     You do have one question. No, they waived.

359. 3:17:08

     All right. Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection for the previous question be it ordered? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Question is on the adoption of amendment one. Adoption of amendment one authored by the senator from the third. Is there objection? No objection. Amendment one is adopted. Question is on the adoption of the committee substitute as amended.

360. 3:17:40

     Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute as amended? Hearing none, the committee substitute as amended is adopted. Is there objection on, to agreeing to the report of the committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The floor to, the report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. Question is on the passage of the bill by substitute. All in favor of the bill will vote yay. Opposed, nay. Secretary, unlock the machine.

361. 3:18:28

     Senator from the thirty-eighth, you're on standby.

362. 3:19:39

     On the passage of the bill, the yays are thirty-two, the nays are seventeen. This bill having received a record constitutional majority is therefore passed by substitute.

363. 3:19:54

     Recognize the senator from the thirty-eighth.

364. 3:20:00

     Mr. President, I ask that Senate Bill 475 be lifted off the table.

365. 3:20:07

     Secretary, read the caption.

366. 3:20:09

     Senate Bill 475 by Senator Kemp of the 38th and others, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Code Section 20-2-2068.1 relating to charter school funding so as to require local boards of education to treat local charter schools no less favorably than other local schools with respect to the expenditure of the proceeds of a special purpose local option sales tax for education to provide for related matters to appeal conflicting laws and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

367. 3:20:44

     Is there objection? No objection. Finish the caption.

368. 3:20:52

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Education and Youth recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Hickman of the 4th District, Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Education and Youth offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 475, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 2, Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to elementary and secondary education so as to provide that a petition signed by 10% of the qualified voters in an independent school system shall be required in order to hold an election to determine whether to annul the special law of the independent school system so that it becomes a part of the respective county school system or systems in which the territory of the independent school system is located to repeal outdated terms and provisions and for other purposes.

369. 3:21:30

     Mr. President, Senator Mallow of the 2nd and others offers the following amendment. Amendment 1, amend the Senate Committee on Education and Youth's substitute to Senate Bill 475 by replacing line 63 through 66 with the following, Article 8, Section 6, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution of Georgia. Mr. President, that completes the order.

370. 3:21:50

     Recognize the senator from the 38th.

371. 3:22:18

     Thank you, uh, Mr. President. Uh, colleagues, um, as you all know, I am severely passionate about education and I know had it not been for my great-grandmother who raised me and a very good public education, I would not be standing here today. So I'm hoping that this will be a very easy bill for us to all come together on. Um, Senate Bill 475, uh, does two modest updates to education law.

372. 3:22:53

     Uh, the first, uh, portion of this bill, uh, lowers the petition threshold. This was a law from the early 1900s and so we're updating this. It lowers the threshold that required, that's required for voters in an independent school system to request a referendum regarding their school system structure. The bill does not mandate consolidation. It simply allows voters to decide whether they wish to consider that question. So it lowers the required percentage from 25% to 10%, which is encouraging more voter participation.

373. 3:23:32

     Second, the bill ensures that local charter schools are treated fairly when education sales tax dollars are distributed while still preserving local school system authority over school facilities. So it's really important to understand that, uh, we have had some situations, uh, where, you know, folks have expressed interest in consolidating school districts, and so this allows for local citizens to make that decision.

374. 3:24:02

     It just allows for this to be put on the ballot. And so ultimately, that local municipality still has to deci- decide by a majority vote, uh, to make that consolidation happen. Secondly, what we have seen happen all too often, uh, is charter schools are approved at the local level, uh, but politics sometimes gets in the way, and they are not given access to ESPLOST dollars, um, as they should, um, uh, based upon their fair share.

375. 3:24:34

     So that is pretty much the bill. I want to speak to the amendment. This is a friendly amendment that just takes this bill from Section 4. I'll take you to that, the very bottom, page three. As I shared, the intent of this bill when I introduced it based upon concerns that was brought to me from folks in the public charter school space saying, "Senator Kemp, we're not getting access to the dollars, uh, that we should be getting access to." That was the intent of this bill.

376. 3:25:11

     In committee, there was an amendment made to add the language on line 63 after the word Georgia. We have since learned that this language is harmful to the charter school community because there are, in fact, some school districts that provide facilities funding to charter schools that are not in publicly owned facilities. And so if we keep this language in here, we will actually be causing harm to the folks we are trying to help.

377. 3:25:45

     So this just simply takes us back to the original language when I introduced this bill. The author of the amendment is in agreement to stripping this language that was made in committee. And so with that, I will answer any questions if there are any, Mr. President. You do have one question, Senator. Recognize Senator from the 19th. Thank you, Mr. President. Senator, you yield? Yes, sir, I do. Uh, you gotta walk me through your amendment, buddy. Yep. Um, it seems to contradict itself, and it's just me trying to read it fast, so I wanna get you just to explain it.

378. 3:26:18

     Mm-hmm. Don't have really a question yet. But it seems to me like lines 60 through 63 then get basically reversed by lines 64 through 66. Help me understand that. Yeah, so I worked with legi- legislative counsel on this, but what they did was, you'll see that line 63, the amendment is going to now strike 63 through 66. And so now, this will end by saying Article 8, Sections, oh, Lord, I'm just gonna okay every...

379. 3:26:54

     of the Constitution of Georgia. Right. So it's gonna end at that, and that is where we ended when I originally introduced this bill. So it's just going back to the original language, and it's just striking all of the additional language that was added. Will the senator further yield? Yes, sir, I do. So then the provision that says they have no obligation to pros- to spend proceeds of the sales tax would be the part that's, in equal portions essentially, is the part that's gonna be stricken. Say, walk me back to where you said that again. All right, so when I put a period at the end of Georgia on line 63- Yep ...

380. 3:27:28

     the part that's coming out, that the local school system shall have no obligation to expend the proceeds, that's the part you're gonna strike with your amendment, correct? Right, because it says, provided however, that a local school system shall have no obligation to expend the proceeds of such tax, because we've already addressed that in the bill, that they have to provide the sales tax- Will the senator further yield? ... for the purchase of or improvement of property or facilities owned by a local charter school. And so that's where the problem is when we added that language, or entity other than the local school system.

381. 3:28:01

     So that language was added with the intent of they should not be giving dollars to schools that are in facilities that they own, that the district does not own. But there are, in fact, school districts that are giving ESPLOST dollars to school, to charter schools that are in facilities that they've now owned. For example, a charter school can purchase a facility from a school district. Right. And so if we kept this language, it will harm those schools that are now in facilities that they have purchased.

382. 3:28:32

     Will the senator further yield? Yes, sir, I do. Help me understand how you can s- determine that a local charter school is treated no less favorably than another school. Is it on a per capita basis? Is it on a dollar per school basis? How do you... And we just, are we just opening ourself up to multiple lawsuits to figure if someone was treated more favorably than the other? Yeah, that's absolutely not the intent. Uh, you know, from a start is there are school districts that have not given any sales tax dollars to charter schools.

383. 3:29:05

     And so there should be some distribution of those dollars to charter schools, um, that are in, uh, school districts that have been locally approved. This is my final question then. I, I don't... Is it defined somewhere else? I, I don't know that it would be paid out, sales tax dollars are gonna be paid out on a per student basis or a per capita basis or a per facility basis. I'm happy to accept an amendment if you'd like to be more descriptive. I... Well, let's talk offline then. Yeah. Let's see what we can figure it out. All right. Thanks. Yep.

384. 3:29:37

     Senator from the 20th.

385. 3:29:41

     Thank you, Mr. President. Would the senator yield? Yes, sir, Mr. Pro Tem, I do.

386. 3:29:46

     Isn't it true, I appreciate you working with me on this bill. Um, I'm just now seeing the amendment, however, and I'm not, I'll, um, take grief. I'm admittedly not an expert on charter schools.

387. 3:30:00

     Yes, sir.

388. 3:30:02

     Uh, can you give me some examples? Is it very, is it common that local sales tax is expended on charter school properties or equipment or land or whatever that is not owned by the local school system? Is that a common occurrence?

389. 3:30:22

     Yes, sir. There are some school districts, uh, that are, uh, Savannah, for example, uh, that have charter schools that are, are locally approved, but they have purchased their own buildings or purchased buildings from the school district. And so, you know, they have a good relationship with the school district and so they do allow for them to have some facilities dollars from ESPLOST, um, opportunities, uh, to use, uh, for their facilities. So it is a common practice.

390. 3:30:52

     Would the senator yield?

391. 3:30:54

     Yes, sir.

392. 3:30:55

     So under the current practice, the way you describe it, the local school district can make a choice if they want to, to fund, let's just use the Savannah example-

393. 3:31:07

     Yes, sir

394. 3:31:07

     ... fund improvements at a property in Sa- at the Savannah Charter School that the school district doesn't own, but they can make that choice freely. If you couple that in the context of the legislation, the rest of the legislation, it's saying now they really won't have a choice. They have to, to expend sales tax dollars for education equally between charter schools and the regular school.

395. 3:31:39

     And so it seems to me it's taken away some flexibility when there's property that is not owned by the school district.

396. 3:31:49

     Yeah, if I may, so-

397. 3:31:50

     Is that not problematic?

398. 3:31:51

     So if I may, no, it's still giving them the option. The problem with this language that was added in committee is saying we're taking away that option. So that is the concern with leaving this language in.

399. 3:32:06

     Would you further yield? 'Cause I'm trying to-

400. 3:32:08

     Yes, sir

401. 3:32:08

     ... understand this.

402. 3:32:09

     Yeah.

403. 3:32:10

     And, um, I don't see how you're gonna have an option if you have to treat charter schools equally as the other schools. I mean, line 60 through 63 kinda takes away the option and says you've gotta treat the charter schools equally.

404. 3:32:34

     Right. If I may, so what we are trying to encourage is that they are not treated less favorably. And what is happening now in the state is they are being treated less favorably. Savannah is an exception. Atlanta Public Schools I'll give as another exception, but there are far more school districts that have taken the opposite route and are not treating their charter schools as favorably as their traditional public schools.

405. 3:32:59

     Which I'm for treating the charter schools as favorably.

406. 3:33:04

     Yes, sir.

407. 3:33:04

     But in the event that the school system doesn't own the property, I don't know that I necessarily want sales tax dollars going to property improvements or acquiring property or equipment that the, really, the taxpayers don't own.

408. 3:33:22

     So that would be up to the school district to decide ultimately.

409. 3:33:25

     But what I'm saying is the way it's written, I don't think it would be up to them at that point. Am I missing something here?

410. 3:33:31

     Yeah, so what I'm saying is we are giving the public schools the expectation that they will treat charter schools no less favorably when they are deciding how to distribute ESPLOST tax dollars, and we don't want to harm school districts that are doing that right now in treating their charter schools that are f- that are in their districts if they now own a public school that was purchased from the district.

411. 3:34:01

     All right. Thank you.

412. 3:34:02

     Thank you. And with that, Mr. President, I will yield the well.

413. 3:34:06

     Would you like to speak, Senator? He, he did have one qu- one more question if you'd like to take one, Senator. You don't have to though. Senator's yielded.

414. 3:34:24

     Senator from Second, speak to your amendment.

415. 3:34:39

     Thank you, Mr. President. We're gonna, uh, withdraw the amendment at this time, but I'd like to just, uh, highlight a couple things real quick while I'm here in the well, Mr. President. Uh, when we talk about charter schools, a couple years ago, colleagues, we passed a bill that simply said, uh, local school districts could no longer say they wouldn't approve a charter school and they'd have to come to the state and get approved by the state, and the state would absorb all the funding. So for example, in the case of Savannah, you have the Savannah Classical Canda- Academy, which is funded by a couple, uh, local philanthropists, and their HVAC system went out, but they have no budget for capital outlay or capital projects of that magnitude, but they still operate as a charter school with a board, and they will have to continue to operate.

416. 3:35:22

     This would just allow them to have the consideration in ESPLOST dollars as those students are public school students, but they do not receive a share of that penny as public school students in a charter school. And so this would just provide them with a little bit of parity so that they could make it to the ESPLOST list where a school board can just not look unfavorably and say, "Oh, because you're a charter school, we will not give you any ESPLOST dollars." And with that, Mr. President, I believe it's fairly simple, and I hope I've explained it a little more clearly. And with that, I will yield the well.

417. 3:35:52

     You can if you like, Senator. I recognize Senator from the 37th. Does the gentleman yield? I yield. I'm not so sure you need to draw that, n- n- you need to remove... I'm sorry. L- l- let me rephrase this. Um,

418. 3:36:08

     isn't it true that SPLOST dollars can be spent not only on facilities but also on technology? ESPLOST can be spent only on capital outlays as relates to school districts, and ESPLOST dollars can only be spent to the threshold that a school district has set for the collection amount. Okay. So they do not collect any overage. I'm, I'm trying to help you here. Um, but, uh, ESPLOST dollars can also be spent on technology. Yes, that is a capital outlay. So, so because of that, um, there may be a need for computer systems, laptops, whatever the school, um, may need that's not gonna be a capital improvement, but might be a five-year asset or 10-year asset that, uh, the s- the charter school needs, uh, but would not fall in the category of facilities that the school district owns.

419. 3:36:55

     That's absolutely correct. So what you're trying, you're trying to open the door to something that could be a acquisition of new property for the charter school, acquisition of technology for the charter school, that would not be owned and held by the school system. In many cases, isn't it true school systems aren't friendly to charter schools, and by, if we remove the language of, the amendments proposing to remove, we actually help charter schools accomplish their mission in communities where the school board's really working against them. Isn't that true? Uh, I believe that is true, Senator, and I believe what we do with our charter schools, uh, and to provide them with some parity is those students are traditional public school students.

420. 3:37:31

     They're traditional students in the public school setting. They just go to a charter school, and in my particular county, I happen to have the best charter school in our whole county. It would be number one if it weren't for some of the specialty schools. Uh, and I have now gotten a greater affinity for our charter schools and what they're able to do, uh, and that's why I'm supporting, uh, this legislation to give them that level of parity. A- and is it true if we adopt the amendment that you've contemplated removing, but if we adopt it, we put the language back to that which the charter school organizations that are very thoughtful and measured had intended be in this legislation.

421. 3:38:06

     Is that not true? I believe that is true, Senator, and I actually withdrew that amendment as I know it's taken a, a little bit for folks to really grasp that concept. So if we have to move it forward and fix it in the House, if every senator would, uh, vote green on this legislation, I will continue to work with the senator from the 38th so that we can perfect it and create parity for our charter schools. And with that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. All right. All right. Has a lot to withdraw on amendment.

422. 3:38:36

     All right. So

423. 3:38:41

     I've got a few folks on here that wanna speak, but I think we got everything worked out here unless there's any more amendments. But, uh, senator from the, uh, 20th, have, have you already spoken on your amendment? Come on. Oh, come on. Come on, Senator. Come on, pro tem.

424. 3:39:09

     All right. It's late. Um,

425. 3:39:13

     we have 180 school systems in Georgia. Uh, we have about 20 independent school systems in Georgia. The schools that perform the best are the ones where the parents are engaged with the schools, and oftentimes these are charter schools that have a lot of parental involvement, and those schools do well. So I'm a big fan of charter schools. Um, we talk a lot about having the parents have choices about how their children are educated and being involved, so I'm all for that.

426. 3:39:48

     Um, unfortunately, we have some, uh, independent school districts that are not managed, have not been managed well, have been managed irresponsibly, um, and this would allow the voters to then have a lower threshold to be able to call for a, a referendum to then, uh, consolidate the independent school with the county school. And I n- I would appreciate your favorable consideration. I, I will try to, um, understand the amendment that was withdrawn and see if we can a- adjust that as we go along, but I would greatly, greatly appreciate a green vote on this.

427. 3:40:28

     Thank you. I yield the floor.

428. 3:40:32

     Senator from the 37th, would you like to speak on this?

429. 3:40:38

     Any other senator would speak for or against this?

430. 3:40:45

     Is there objection to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. The question is on...

431. 3:40:59

     So it's on number one amendment? So we've got to, you wanna withdraw, you wanna officially withdraw it? I withdraw. Okay. Go without objection.

432. 3:41:18

     Question is on the adoption of the committee substitute. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. The question is on the passage of the bill by substitute. All those in favor of the bill, vote yay. Opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

433. 3:42:50

     All in favor of the passage of the bill, the yays are 43 and the nays are six. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed by substitute.

434. 3:43:01

     Recognize senator from the 47th.

435. 3:43:10

     Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I request, uh, uh, m- move to remove Senate Bill 499 off the table.

436. 3:43:17

     Secretary, read the caption.

437. 3:43:20

     Senate Bill 499 by Senators Ginn of the 47th and others, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices so as to repeal the prohibition on possessing a silencer, to provide for con- conforming changes, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

438. 3:43:42

     Is there objection? Hearing none, Secretary, finish the caption.

439. 3:43:51

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Judiciary recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Strickland, the 42nd District chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Judiciary offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 499, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Article 4 of Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to dangerous instrumentalities and practices so as to repeal the prohibition on possessing a silencer, to provide for conforming changes, to provide for definitions, to provide for related matters, to provide for an effective date and app- applicability, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

440. 3:44:23

     Recognize the senator from the 47th.

441. 3:44:36

     Sorry, sorry, sorry.

442. 3:44:41

     Thank you, Mr. President. Could I ask the doorkeepers to shut the doors for a minute? And I wanna ask everybody in the room to give me 15 seconds of silence for a second.

443. 3:44:59

     The bill I'm presenting today is on silencers. Said they, uh, this is where, for me, if you're a hunter, if you have a wild hog problem like my, my good colleague, the senator from the 12th, the, uh, it's, it's a way to deal with these things. For me, th- this bill, uh, does a couple different things. It makes sure that, uh, we have all kinds of penalties for somebody that uses a silencer in a crime. I wanna sa- thank my, uh, judiciary chair and my senator from the 50th for spelling that out in the bill.

444. 3:45:32

     There's 13 felonies if you use a, a silencer in a commission of a crime. When we start looking at this, uh, currently the, uh, federal law covers silencers under the National Firearms Act. The, uh, we're making it under any federal law that deals with silencers. The, uh, the bill's pretty simple. It makes sure that the 270,000, uh, folks in Georgia that have a silencer will be able to keep that regardless of, uh, what changes on the federal law to make sure that they stay, uh, legal for our law-abiding citizens.

445. 3:46:06

     I'll ask for your vote and your support on this bill. It's very important to me. It's one that, uh, I can tell you as a lifelong shooter, I lost a lot of hearing the, uh, in, in my high school and college years. And one of the things that if you're a hunter, you know, when you sitting out there in the woods, you wanna listen to that silence. And unfortunately, you'll take your hearing protection off, and when you pull the trigger, you lose a good bit of that hearing, hearing that you had. So for me, I'll ask for your, uh, continued support on this legislation and ask for favorable consideration.

446. 3:46:39

     Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the will.

447. 3:46:42

     Recognize the senator from the 22nd.

448. 3:47:00

     Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be brief as the hour is late, but even though the hour is late, it is always key to talk about these key issues here su- such as one like this. You know, we have an instrument which is already a gun, which can be an instrument of a crime, and now you have one that people are actually looking to use to perpetrate more crimes. We know for a fact that one of the crimes the, the silencer was used in was United Healthcare, uh, CEO was involved in, where he was murdered actually bec- through the use of a silencer because so many people had difficulty actually determining what had actually taken place.

449. 3:47:34

     The issue here is very simple. This is not about hunters. It's about actually making sure that we're not encouraging more crime to take place in our communities. At a time where some, on some levels, crime is going down because of the technology that we have invested in these sound detection devices, we're actually about to actually sit up here and ta- possibly pass something that would circumvent that. All the money that has actually been used to actually try to make sure that we can find a person after they actually have shot a gun, after they've shot at somebody, all the technology that we have used to try to actually be able to track these people down, we're gonna throw away right now, and that just doesn't make any sense.

450. 3:48:11

     It makes no sense at all that we would do something like that. The fact of the matter is our police are adamantly opposed to this, our sheriffs are adamantly opposed to this, and we always talk about actually supporting our law enforcement, but yet here is something that is going to circumvent law enforcement efforts. We've been using these efforts over and over to where we can actually have sound detection devices to know who's actually the shooter is, to be able to track that shooter down, and here we are today talking about actually being able to circumvent that. This bill is unnecessary. It's actually going to encourage cr- criminals.

451. 3:48:42

     It's actually going to encourage crime. And at a time that we're trying to decrease crime, at a time that we're actually using technology to decrease crime, we're actually gonna pass something to use technology to try to circumvent that and actually increase crime and increase the worst crime ever, which of course is murder or a shooting. And with that, Mr. President, I yield the will.

452. 3:49:05

     All right. Any other senator wish to speak for or against it? Chair hears none.

453. 3:49:13

     Questions, questions on the adoption of the committee substitute. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection to agreeing to the fourth committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The fourth committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question be in order? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. Questions on the passage of the bill by substitute. All those in favor of the bill, vote yay. Opposed, nay. Secretary will

454. 3:50:07

     unlock, unlock the machine. Senator from the 34th, you're on standby

455. 3:50:40

     On the pass of the bill, the yeas are 30 and the nays are 20. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed by substitute. Recognize senator from the 34th.

456. 3:50:58

     Mr. President, I make a motion that Senate Bill 190 be removed from the table.

457. 3:51:05

     Secretary, read the caption.

458. 3:51:10

     Senate Bill 190 by Senator Wicks of the 34th and others. A bill to be entitled an act to amend Part 1 of Article 1 of Art- Chapter 3 of Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to general provisions of parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreation so as to provide certain fee waivers for active duty members of the military, veterans, and family members to provide for rules and regulations to provide for related matters to re- repeal conflicting laws and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

459. 3:51:39

     Is there objection? Without objection, f- finish the caption.

460. 3:51:48

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Veterans, Military, and Homeland Security recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Payne of the 54th District, Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Veterans, Military, and Homeland Security offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 190, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Part 1 of Article 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to general provisions of parks, historic areas, memorials, and recreation as to provide certain fee waivers for veterans and milit- and family members to provide for rules and regulations to provide for related matters to repeal conflicting laws and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order.

461. 3:52:19

     Hold on one second, Senator. I need to recognize these young folks back here in the back who've been here all day long. Come on down here. Come on, welcome down. Wel- Miss Sergeant at Arms, welcome, welcome down here. Welcome down, Robert.

462. 3:52:43

     Come on down.

463. 3:52:49

     All right.

464. 3:52:59

     Oh. So, uh, hold, hold on, kids. Don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere. We're about... Don't go anywhere. You can go everywhere. Come on, come on. Walk them back around. Walk them back around. So- Do a lap around. Yeah, do a sl- Yeah, let them do a lap around here, so.

465. 3:53:21

     Oh, so we've got Mr. Freeman Brass, Miss, Miss Leo Dalzet, Naomi Dolezal, Harris Hines, Alex Judge, Eu- Owens, and Briggs Pass. Give them one more r- lo- a round of applause here.

466. 3:53:51

     Let's all get a picture right here. We recognize the senator from the 34th.

467. 3:54:19

     Thank you, Mr. President. Senate Bill 190 is very dear to me. It's about our veterans. This legislation is about our veterans and our Gold Star families. It recognize the healing. It doesn't happen in clinics. Sometimes it happens on the trails, in quiet natures. Someone who's worn the uniform, like myself and like the dean that's about to leave us.

468. 3:54:52

     I know firsthand about mental health. The weight is very real. The access to spaces that promotes peace, reflection, and restoration matters. Senate Bill 190 is about honoring our service, not just about words, and I ask you colleagues to support this legislation. Thank you, and I yield the will. Thank you.

469. 3:55:24

     Senator's yielded. Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objection to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. Previous question is ordered. Questions on the adoption of the committee substitute. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection to agreeing to the reporter committee which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The reporter committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered.

470. 3:55:56

     Question on the, question is on the passage of the bill by substitute. All those in favor of the bill will vote yay. All opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

471. 3:57:10

     On the passage of the bill, the yeas are 50 and the nays are 0. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed by substitute.

472. 4:01:12

     Recognize the senator from the twenty-seventh.

473. 4:01:18

     Thank you, Mr. President. I move that Senate Bill 568 be removed from the table. Secretary, read the caption. Senate Bill 568 by Senator Dolezal of the twenty-seventh and others, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Chapter two of Title twenty-one of the OCGA relating to elections and primaries generally so as to require that the list of eligible voters is posted and made public prior to each primary or election to provide for civil fines in the event that the registrars fail to remove a person from the list of registered voters following a successful challenge, to provide conforming changes, to provide for related matters, to repeal conflicting laws, and for other purposes.

474. 4:01:50

     Mr. President, I complete the order.

475. 4:02:02

     Finish the caption.

476. 4:02:06

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Ethics recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Watson of the eleventh district. Chairman. Is that objection? Recognize the senator from the twenty-seventh. The senator is objection. Oh, do you have objection?

477. 4:02:27

     All those of removing the bill from the table will vote yay. All those opposed will vote no. Secretary, unlock the machine.

478. 4:03:41

     On the motion to remove, the ayes are twenty-seven, the nays are twenty-two. So the motion...

479. 4:03:50

     Read the rest of the caption.

480. 4:03:55

     Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Ethics recommends that this bill do pass by substitute. Respectfully submitted, Senator Watson of the eleventh district. Chairman. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Ethics offers the following substitute to Senate Bill 568, a bill to be entitled an act to amend Chapter two of Title twenty-one of the Offi-Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to elections and primaries generally so as to require that the list of eligible voters is posted and made public prior to each primary or election to provide for civil fines in the event that registrars fail to remove a person from the list of registered voters following a successful challenge, to revise provi-z- provisions related to the uniform system of election equipment to be used after July first, twenty-twenty-six, and for other purposes.

481. 4:04:30

     Mr. President, I complete the order. Recognize the senator from the twenty-seventh.

482. 4:04:50

     Thank you, Mr. President, colleagues. The hour is late. I will try to go quickly here. Senate Bill 568 is a bill that primarily moves us away from the current voting machine system to a hand-marked paper ballot, and that is what you will find in section four. I'll walk you through the rest of the sections, though, because there are additional elements to this, this bill that essentially focus on either the functioning of the elections or the post-election audits.

483. 4:05:20

     First and foremost, section one makes a completed eligible voter list available a set time five days before the calendar-- I'm sorry, before voting day. Uh, sections two and three have to do with either voter registration or voter list challenges, and we, uh, put a civil fine in place for failure to comply with either of those two sections of law. Section five just really is clean-up language that moves us to a white-colored ballot as opposed to the currently allowed clear ballot, which I don't even know when you would use a clear ballot or a colored paper ballot.

484. 4:05:56

     Uh, section six adds a line on the ballot to a, the voter's selection which gets around the known vulnerability, and then serialized batched ballots to ensure, uh, that as we have these printed ballots, that the only ballots that are being cast were the known printed ballots. Section seven, a little bit more clean-up language there that allows for the timing marks of optical scanners. Uh, section eight is equipment uniformity for absentee ballots. Section nine is advanced v-voting locations that are assigned as opposed to the current advanced voting location functionality which allows voting at every advanced loading, voting location in the twenty-three or so counties that actually have those.

485. 4:06:43

     Uh, section ten makes a list of who voted publicly available. Uh, we added the posting to the Secretary of State's website for the current denominator language that was part of Senate Bill two oh two. Section eleven is really some clean-up language and that we make security and validation logs available in section twelve. We remove the cost to get ballot images at the end of section twelve as well. We change the recount threshold in section thirteen from the current one half of a percent to a, to two percent, and we put hand-marked recounts in place in that section.

486. 4:07:18

     And then we have a risk limiting audit that gets moved to a hundred percent manual audit in section fourteen, as well as moving the oversight of that from the Secretary of State as it currently is to the State Election Board. And then the last change that was made-- Actually, there's two more changes. Um, rather than, uh, having two contests picked for the RLA, we prescribe that to apply to all federal elections and all statewide constitutional officers.

487. 4:07:50

     And then we very clearly, um, allow poll watcher access is the very last change that is in the bill. At a high level, colleagues, this moves us away from being the only state in the union that uses the current ballot marking devices in statewide. There is no other state in the union that does that. The most analogous form of voting that this aligns us with is Florida's voting system.

488. 4:08:18

     Which as we often know tend to beat us to the goal line with results, um, and the ability to call their elections and for the last twenty-five years they've really-- they were kinda ground zero for, for a mess of an election in 2000 and they went through great strides to clean that up. So hand-marked paper ballot scanned by a machine, tabulated by a machine, but then with some hand, some hand count backups in place if those are necessary.

489. 4:08:48

     The reason this bill is important, colleagues, is our current posture is we are on a collision course with our November election and a law that we passed here two years ago, Senate Bill 189, that requires the removal of the QR codes from the ballots. Um, for those of you that-- on the Appropriations Committee, you know the Secretary of State testified that there is no plan, uh, in place as to how we will comply with that law. This puts compliance with that law before the, uh, really into the, into the code so that we are instructive as to how we comply with that law.

490. 4:09:23

     The last thing that I will say on this is not only are we the only state in the union using Dominion voting machines statewide, uh, we are still using software version 5.5A. Software version 5.5A was certified in 2018. In June of 2022, the Cybersecurity Infrastructure Security Agency of the federal government, which sits underneath Homeland Security, released the vulnerabilities affecting Dominion Voting Systems ImageCast X, and there's nine known vulnerabilities here.

491. 4:09:57

     And all nine of these vulnerabilities are instantiated and spelled out now on the internet, and anyone can download them. And the very first recommendation from CISA in 2022, almost four years ago now, was to contact Dominion Voting Systems to determine which software and/or firmware updates need to be applied. And since the certification of 5.5A, Dominion has federally certified 5.5C, 5.5D, 5.17, and 5.20.

492. 4:10:28

     And the State of Georgia has not updated to any of those newer certified versions of the software despite the publi- the publishing of these nine known vulnerabilities by the Department of Homeland Security and CISA. And so that is really one of the impetuses that we have for wanting to get to hand-marked paper ballots, which I know that kind of generally speaking, the concept of going to hand-marked paper ballots has bipartisan support. The questions would be, how do you get there, when do you get there, and what other provisions may be part of that?

493. 4:11:00

     And this is a bill that we have put forward to do that, and I know that there's other people think that we should wait until after the 2026 election to do that. And while I understand that this is a process that will be put in place over the next six months or so, I am of the position that we do not need to send Georgians to the ballot box to vote on a system that was verified four years ago to have these vul- these nine known vulnerabilities that make our system susceptible to hackers.

494. 4:11:30

     So with that, Mr. President, I'm happy to answer any questions, and if there are none, I will yield the well. I do have a couple questions, Senator. Recognize Senator from the fourteenth. Thank you, Mr. President. Does the senator yield? I do. Senator, I believe you and I were both elected to our respective chambers for the first time in 2018. Yes, sir. You to the Senate, me to the House. Yes, sir. Which probably means both of us took votes on, uh, Representative Barry Fleming's House Bill 316, which was the authorization for the Secretary of State to issue a request for proposals to procure a new bal- ballot marking device system.

495. 4:12:05

     Do you recall that? Yes, sir. And do you recall hearing testimony from Democrats at the time that the gold standard for election security was hand-marked paper ballots? I do. Um, does senator further yield? Yes, sir. The majority of that time, if I recall correctly, insisted on ballot marking devices. Now, obviously, Secretary Raffensperger is the one who chose Dominion, but if I recall, the legislation actually cabined his discretion to force him to choose ballot marking devices. Do you recall how you voted on HB thir- 316? I do.

496. 4:12:35

     I voted in favor of HB, HB 316. Okay. Can I ask you what has changed since 2019 when you voted in favor of the ballot marking devices and you ignored, at the time, and I hate to use inflammatory language, the testimony about the gold standard for election security so that now you are fully embracing hand-marked paper ballots? And, and I understand you just said, well, there's some, you know, potential defects or vulnerabilities in some of these, uh, this software. But I guess my question is, what's the true motivation behind the switch from your support of BMDs in 2019 to your support for hand-marked paper ballots now?

497. 4:13:10

     Senator, I was so compelled by g-- um, Stacey Abrams' claim of a stolen election in 2018 that after further time to reflect, I realized that maybe we should reconsider our position on that. And I, and I take that as a cheeky answer, Senator, but I guess my serious question is, would you acknowledge that in fact it is the allegation of a stolen election that has prompted this shift, but it's Donald Trump's allegation from 2020 that the election was stolen in Georgia and his request, as the senator from the thirty-eighth pointed out recently, to find more votes, that it's just a fundamental distrust of these computer systems altogether because they didn't produce the result he wanted?

498. 4:13:44

     Would you acknowledge that's the real motivation behind the bill? No, I would say that I have sat in a number of private meetings since this was released with not only the secretary and his team, but with the actual software vendor. And as you know, for the last twenty years, you may not know, but for the last twenty years, I've been involved in software development. And when I was learning about their certification process, or I, I should more so say their internal testing process of version 5.17, which released without compatibility with the No Ink pull pads, I was so flabbergasted, frankly, that we, as the largest customer of that company, the only company-- the only customer of that company that is using their product statewide, that there was no internal testing done with the compatibility with the pull pads of the largest customer, that I was...

499. 4:14:37

     Whatever ounce of doubt I had about their ability to give us a good product was completely sealed that I, I was basically affirmed in my belief at that point in time that we needed to move on from their product. Senator, would you yield for one final question? Absolutely. Senator, would you agree with me that because qualifying for office ended at noon today, that any of your colleagues who think that this is motivated by crazies from their base are free at this point to vote no on legislation that is designed purely to appeal to Donald Trump? Would you agree that noon Friday has passed?

500. 4:15:08

     I will trade you a cheeky answer for a cheeky question, and I already gave you my cheeky one, so I'll receive your cheeky one without response. I guess we're even. Thanks, Senator. There you go. Thank you. Recognize Senator from the 13th.

501. 4:15:25

     Senator, do you yield? I do. Senator, please walk me through and help me get to where I can understand what, what this is gonna do to my rural communities that have their precincts. I, I mean, we all want elected officials- That have what? I'm sorry, Senator. Question is, sir? I, that have what? I didn't, you said your rural communities that have- Oh, I'm sorry. Help me walk, walk me through my rural communities and their election precincts. Couple of questions. I'll start with the first one. Yep. Are they gonna have to keep their, all their precincts open in regards to early voting?

502. 4:15:56

     No, sir. Not a bit. How many, well, how many early voting location, you gotta, you have multiple counties. Let me, let me just tell you in a broad brush what we're doing here and why we're doing it, and if you have further questions beyond that. Please. Nothing changes with your election day precincts. You are assigned an election day precinct. You will go vote at your election day precinct. The county has a process by which they can add more or remove them, and they will assign voters to those election day precincts. You can only vote at your election day precinct on election day. You cannot go across town or across the county to vote.

503. 4:16:28

     On advanced voting location, advanced voting locations for the 23 or so counties that have more than one advanced voting location. So I'll give you mine as an example. There's four. Under the current law, I can drive five minutes to my advanced voting precinct that's the closest to my house, or I can drive 30 minutes across town. Maybe that's the one that's closest to my work, and I can vote there. I can vote at any of the advanced voting locations, which is a different policy than the election day where you have to go to your assigned precinct.

504. 4:17:02

     So there is that flexibility given in the current law. We are moving to an assigned early voting precinct in the, in this bill. The counties can add additional early voting precincts if they would like to. The data that we have, I've seen various numbers from 85 to 90% of voters in the larger counties, we checked Fulton and we checked Gwinnett, vote at the advanced voting location already that is closest to their home.

505. 4:17:33

     They do the same thing that I do in Forsyth County. They go to the one that's closest to their home. On one occasion, I know that I personally voted on the one that was across town, just happened to be in the area that day. Why are we doing that? Here's why we're doing that. That advanced location that I told you that's across town from, from me has separate county commissioners, separate school board members. In my county, they don't, but in some counties they would have s- a sec- a separate c- uh, congressman. And as, as we are pre-printing ballots, the number of permutations of ballots that we have to print if we allow every voter in every county to go to every early voting location, at the extreme is 100 plus permutations of ballots.

506. 4:18:18

     And so we shrink down those permutations of ballots that we need to print in advance if we assign voters to an advanced voting location. So think about the most, I think, probably extreme example of this would be Fulton County. So at the extreme end of Fulton County, which butts up against my dis- district, you have Alpharetta. So imagine areas by the airport, and some days an hour and a half away, but on an easy day, 50 minutes away, having to stock ballots for the Alpharetta City Council race.

507. 4:18:50

     That's what would have to happen unless we made this change. So the reason that we're making this change is to prevent the poll workers from having to basically take your voter card, see that you're, you have ballot option number 82, and go through 100 possible ballot options. Now, there are ballot on demand printing machines that states like Arizona use that do make this process easier. There'd be some procurement challenges in us getting that done in time, and one of the other challenges with BODs, if you remember in the last election in Arizona, there were some precincts that were shut down, and the r- reason those precincts were shut down were due to some malfunctions of the BOD printer.

508. 4:19:33

     So those are not without their challenges as well. Um, I would guess, Senator, that of your counties, I'd be surprised if more than one of your counties had more than one advanced voting location. And so in that scenario, for those counties, for the hundred and, let me do quick math, for the 135 counties that only have one advanced voting location, nothing changes. Senator, to further yield? I do. Could you tell me why my local jurisdiction counties are so against this bill in regards to the cost they may obtain or the changeovers they may have, it may re- require on this bill?

509. 4:20:15

     So the costs are incurred in the bill by the state. Um, any costs that would not be incurred by the, the bill and the state, I think that we should solve that so that there's not costs in- incurred by your local jurisdiction. I think that we should be absorbing that cost as a state. I will tell you that like with all things, there's an email that goes out with five or six people's opinion, and then that gets returned to you as somebody else's opinion, uh, who maybe received that opinion from someone else. That certainly is the case here. So, um- I can't speak to the specific examples other than the one that you just mentioned, which is cost, that I think that we certainly sh-- I, I believe is addressed in the bill, and if it's not, we'll continue to work on that as it goes across the hall.

510. 4:20:57

     Further yield? Sure. Senator Dunn, to my understanding then, a local jurisdiction, a small community should not incur any more cost than a Fulton County? That is correct. Now, your local, your local counties have the ability, if they would like to purchase additional machines, even under current law, they have the ability to do that. But just like we provided the existing equipment for the counties, the, the bill states that we will provide new equipment for the counties. 'Cause there will be additional scanners that would come along with this purchase, and the bill contemplates that and takes care of that for your local counties.

511. 4:21:35

     Senator, further yield? Yes. In regards to time-wise on, on purchasing, is there a limitation of when or how this has to be achieved in regards to their new equipment, non-new equipment? Are they forced to buy the new equipment, et cetera? There-- This would go through the normal procurement process. There is nothing that is prescribed in the bill that is unique on timing to this bill. And many of these localities may not need to buy any new equipment at all, and that would certainly be the case for most of your counties with the central vote counting location.

512. 4:22:10

     One last question. Yes, sir. On the precincts we talked about before, even though a county may have, let's just say, pick a number, six precincts in there, and they have one early voting pro-proce- Yes, sir ... precinct, this only applies to the early voting precinct. Yes, sir. That's correct. So in the county that you just mentioned that has six precincts and, and one early voting, advan-- let's call it advanced voting location, that's, I think, believe the term- Advanced. So thank you ... nothing changes. And other than they will now vote on a hand-marked paper ballot as opposed to voting on a ballot marking device.

513. 4:22:44

     Thank you, Senator. Thank you.

514. 4:22:54

     Uh, one more question. Senator from the thirty-six.

515. 4:23:03

     Uh, thank you, Mr. President. Does the senator yield? I do. Uh, i-is it true that we heard testimony from, uh, local, uh, uh, county election officials that preside over these elections? Uh, they actually used the term chaos to try to do all of this in the timeframe that the bill that you brought to committee proposed. I don't recall, I don't recall if that exact word was used.

516. 4:23:33

     Certainly, Gavrio, some members of Gavrio came and spoke in opposition. I believe there- And you can explain what the Gavrio is, tell people what that organization is. Uh, it, it's essentially your lo- your local election workers. I forget the acronym exactly. And, and, and what did they testify? I should say your local election officials. It was probably better. And, and the local election officials testified that it would be very, very difficult to comply with what's in this bill in this election year. Is that not true? They did ex- certainly express, um, concerns and challenges that they, that they raised.

517. 4:24:08

     We changed a couple things in the bill in light of those. We made, as you recall, a kind of an omnibus amendment made by the senator from the twenty-third that changed, I think, four provisions of the bill. Um, I don't think that that alleviated all of their concerns. Um, so I would say your statement is, is largely accurate. Uh, uh, uh, isn't it true, isn't it true that I actually-- uh, one of them approached me as our meeting was, uh, uh, adjourning and, and said that, that their fear now is that with the training that they've are-- that they are launching for their poll workers, uh, with all of these new changes, they're gonna have to change their training, and that she predicts poll workers just throwing up their hands and saying, "I'm not gonna do it this year." Uh, that, that's not something you were privy to, but it sure certainly is.

518. 4:24:57

     Sure. I would, I would trust your-- that you had that conversation. I don't think that you would misrepresent that. But here's, Senator, what I would say in response to that. To the extent that, and I believe that it was your minority whip that stated at some point that I heard, it may have been in committee, I don't-- I'm gonna take a liberty here. Essentially, there is support for the concept of hand-marked paper ballots, and you can give me a nod that I believe that was mentioned. Could you repeat? Could you repeat that? I've got some interference over here. Yes, ma'am. That there is bipartisan support conceptually for hand-marked paper ballots. And while I can understand that in a general election year that we-- that that's a change that is going to have to be made that may give you some concern, I would tell you that for the last three years since this was published, all that we have heard is excuses.

519. 4:25:44

     "Well, there's this municipal election coming up. There's this general election coming up. There's this election coming up. There's not enough time to update the software. Yeah, we know that people are, are-- that there's nine known vulnerabilities that hackers can exploit, but now is not the right time. Next year is not the right time. We'll do it after this election." And here we sit after having promised that we would do it after the last election, and it's still not done. So I, I guess my concern, Senator, is I just don't know that we're ever gonna find the perfect time. It's never going to be easy.

520. 4:26:15

     It wasn't easy when we went from the Diebold DRE machines to these machines. It's not gonna be easy whenever we go away from these machines to something else. It's a, it's a tall task. You're-- You've got millions of people voting in this state, and to distribute policies and processes to a hundred and fifty-nine counties, I just don't think it's ever gonna be easy, Senator. But what I, I don't want to do is to have us go through another really important election cycle using equipment that has called races completely wrong due to the programming of the equipment, and then that has these nine known vulnerabilities.

521. 4:26:50

     That's-- I don't know that that's a great solution either.

522. 4:26:54

     Well, I have a couple more questions if you'll yield. Um, we did have a, we did have a motion made in the meeting to m-move this to next year because in all truth, isn't, has, as the General Assembly has not acted with swiftness. Did we introduce this bill last year in attempt to move forward? I've, I've, I'm, I'm, I, I, I think the burden is on us, the fact that we're doing a bill on this at this late date.

523. 4:27:25

     It, uh, started in an election year that- Senator, in fairness to the Senate, we did pass a, what I'll call a similar bill in concept. It was not identical to this, but the senator from the Senate, from the 23rd had, I believe, Senate Bill 313, 314, I may have the r- the number wrong on that, 214, um, and we passed that last year, and that bill is still alive in the House, and there has been some conversation even earlier this session with our House colleagues about what potentially to do with that bill. As you know, the House had their blue ribbon study committee, uh, that they had in the, in the last off session.

524. 4:27:58

     So there, there's, there's been a lot of work to try to get to this point. And I told you in committee what I'll tell you again now. This is not a perfect solution. I'm not gonna tell you that there's not changes that I will be trying to make myself on the House side. There is work that this bill needs, um, but this is a good start, and that's what we're trying to do. Uh, thank you. And, and on line, uh, on page 16 and 17, uh, I'm not sure that you flagged this when you wa- wa- walked us through the bill, uh, the 10 or 11 sections of the bill, but this bill, if enacted, would make the state election board responsible for overseeing the administration of this code section by election superintendents.

525. 4:28:42

     Isn't that right? Yes, Senator, I did mention that. You may just may not have heard it, but that is correct. That, that is something that's done there in that last section. And with it also stating that the Secretary of State shall have no role in conducting, overseeing, or administering the provision of this code section. Uh, c- what is the wisdom in, in, in, in, in turning all of this responsibility over to the state elections board, uh, s- t- two of which were complimented by President Trump as his pit bulls when he had a rally here downtown.

526. 4:29:13

     I mean, wildly partisan, uh, people and not elected by anybody. They, they, they never stood for election. We have a Secretary of State who ran, has been re- re- elected statewide twice, and this bill seeks to s- strip him and diminish his role and put it in the hands of this unelected, uh, election board. Well, Senator, as you know, the state election board is by definition partisan, uh, because there are nominees from both parties. So the, it, it, by definition, we will never get around the fact that that is a partisan board.

527. 4:29:46

     Um, but the, the thinking here is that we move the, essentially the process of administering the election and the audits into two separate buckets so that there is some sort of other set of eyes that is on the audit that would happen after the election versus the sole office that currently is in charge of administering the election. And so the idea there would just be a separate check and balance that would go into place by placing that into the hands of the state election board before the certification process is done.

528. 4:30:24

     Well, that, that a- again is a, i- i- is a huge concern when you consider who's on that board and the fact that they're not elected, and we have a Secretary of State, uh, charged with these duties, uh, at, at this present moment. Uh, thank you, and I'll, uh, uh, appreciate your taking the questions.

529. 4:30:45

     Recognize the senator from the 23rd.

530. 4:30:50

     I want to rise to the front. I think he may want to speak. Recognize from, the senator from the 37th.

531. 4:30:57

     Thank you, Mr. President. Gentlemen yield? I do. Appreciate your work on this. Um, I, I, um, have a number of constituents that really appreciate the ballot marking device process because it does produce a physical ballot that is recountable. However, I have also an, a number of other constituents who appreciate the simplicity of hand marked paper ballots and think this is a great process. I think we're, I think we're all trying to balance, um, those interests. I appreciate your attention to detail because I think whatever we do here, even if we follow this process, um, you've got the controls in place to try to do it with excellence.

532. 4:31:35

     Whatever we do is gonna be done with excellence. My question to you is, um, the only concern I've got with your proposal is July 1st, 2026. Um, I would ask you, um, as a question, um, substantively, I would be much more comfortable with this if this were July 1 of 2027. Um, I know there's an interest in getting this done for this, this year's election. Um, I'm not trying to undermine what you're doing.

533. 4:32:05

     I just think you, you look at the detail you've worked on this bill, you're clearly committed to doing this with excellence and with detail. Do we really have the ability in 159 counties to deliver this with excellence bu- but for anything that happens after July 1st? Senator, if we follow Georgia law, no matter what we do, the system will change on J- on July 1st of 2026. The only question becomes is do we somehow comply with Senate Bill 189, that I believe you were supportive of, that gave us a two-year runway that we've done nothing with to move away from the QR code based voting.

534. 4:32:50

     Why do we want to do that? Well, a lot of reasons, but the easiest reason is using the example of the election where the wrong winner was named

535. 4:33:01

     And when that winner-- when that loser recognized that she did not receive a vote in her own precinct, she raised a flag and we realized, wait a minute, all of these votes were counted wrong and the outcome was changed. And so we passed Senate Bill one eighty-nine to get rid of the QR code-based voting system. And I would remind you, we are the only state in the union that is doing this statewide.

536. 4:33:31

     So we would be moving from a situation in which we're an anomaly to a system in which we have a lot of peers around the country that we can lean on for best practices. So whether we do this on July first or whether we buy all new printers and update the software, which was an option, um, that we would have to comply with Senate Bill one eighty-nine, or we pull the lever on the emergency procedure that's currently in code and allow people to use hand-marked paper ballots, which is a possibility as well.

537. 4:34:03

     If we follow Georgia law, something has to change. And so this is a proposal of what that change could be. Um, further question. One of the reasons that we're in this problem is our, those that execute our elections weren't following the, the dictates of statute, and that's how we got here, um, partially how we got here. Um, as you know, we passed one eighty-nine, and there's much of that's not been implemented with respect to the barcodes. Um, I've not been working this as you have. Do you have confidence that the systems are in place that will follow through and deliver this by this summer?

538. 4:34:40

     Or, is, is, or there still the same forces in place that will ignore what we tell them to do in statute should this pass? Senator, I asked that question in the appropriations hearing of the top man himself, and he did not have an answer as to what the plan was. I asked what vote would be certified, and his answer was that, that nothing changes. It would be the current system, which is in conflict of Sen- with Senate Bill one eighty-nine. So, Senator, I would tell you that I have-- I know of nothing and directly asked the question.

539. 4:35:12

     So I've got no new information that would lead me to believe that there's a current plan between now and July first to comply with the law. Thank you. Senator, your time has expired. I yield the will.

540. 4:35:37

     Recognize the senator from the forty-first.

541. 4:35:58

     Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today in opposition to this bill. I want to begin by thanking senator from the thirty-seventh for articulating for me some of the concerns that, uh, I speak with my colleagues on having. The implementation process here is typically simply too soon, too fast. I want to be clear, what we do every single day that we vote on a bill is we change Georgia law.

542. 4:36:31

     So if the problem that we are facing is that Senate Bill one eighty-nine, which became a law, has given us a deadline that we cannot in fact honor, we are the very people who can change that. That is what our jobs are, is to change laws when they do not work for the Georgia people. So if the only thing that is compelling us to sprint across this finish line is about a previous law that was passed, well, I'm glad we're here because we can change that law.

543. 4:37:07

     I also want to highlight just a few problems. First of all, I know that the senator from the thirteenth raised some questions about the cost of this. We're very clear. This not-- This is not free. This will neither be free to the state, and it will not be free to our counties. There's no plan in place to make sure that the cam-- the pa-- the cost is not passed down to our counties. I also want to note that assigning people to one location for early voting will take our county that we're standing in right now, has forty-three early voting locations.

544. 4:37:41

     Fulton County citizens are used to being able to go to any one of the forty-three. In May, they will be able to go to any one of the forty-three sites, but five months later, you're telling me they can only go to one? That's how you get chaos, and that is the word that was used when the elections persons who run our elections across the county came and spoke. They said it would be chaos if we were to implement it this fast. Now, the bill's author is correct.

545. 4:38:12

     I have said we-- I think conceptually there's a lot of bipartisan support for hand-marked paper ballots, but the way we do it must be intentional, methodical, and it must be timed out properly, and this timeline does not work. And finally, I, I could go on for quite some time, but I just want to highlight one little thing that's very important to me. Two years ago, this body, while my youngest child was being born, voted unanimously to create an address protection system for victims and survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.

546. 4:38:48

     You all voted unanimously to do that, and the Secretary of State is in process now of implementing that law to make sure that the addresses of survivors are protected. Should we pass this bill as is written

547. 4:39:03

     The protected addresses of those victims will have to be posted, or their names will be posted based on the precinct in which they vote. So if you are a survivor of sexual assault and you've gone through the whole process to get your address hidden, and then you go and exercise your civic duty in your polling location, it will be posted, and that stalker that you've been running from will be able to know at the very least which neighborhood you live in. And because they're a stalker, it probably won't be very hard for them to figure out from there where you are.

548. 4:39:37

     This bill is too hasty. It does not protect Georgians, and fundamentally, it destabilizes our electoral system. I will be happy to work with the senator who authored this bill to make sure that we do this well in the future, but the time is not now. And so I strongly urge you, my friends, to vote no on this bill. And with that, I will yield the will.

549. 4:40:04

     Recognize the senator from 56.

550. 4:40:16

     Thank you, Mr. President. The, uh, the day and the night has been long. I've served in this chamber longer than most of you, but not all of you. I think it's important we just spend a minute on some historical context. When I first came into office, sworn in in January 2011, we were working on a voting bill. And we did it in 2012, '13, '14, '15, '16, '17, '18, '19, '20, '21, '22, '23, '24, '25, and here we are in '26. Why? Because things change.

551. 4:40:47

     Technology changes. Circumstances change. The biggest one that happened was COVID. We never anticipated that everybody would be home. We never anticipated they would be automatically mailed absentee ballots, and we never realized a flawed system of a signature check was certainly very flawed. So we passed Senate Bill 202 in this chamber, which made voting easy and hard to cheat.

552. 4:41:18

     And while some railed against that bill, we had record turnouts. Everything that was said it was not going to do, it actually worked just fine. In fact, the Heritage Foundation, which most of us know is one of the preeminent conservative think tanks, ranked Georgia number one in election integrity after passing Senate Bill 202. But alas, there's still work to do because things are changing. I applaud the work that people continue trying to do, whether they are here in the chamber, they are advocates in the hallway, they're working on the second floor.

553. 4:42:01

     I applaud the senator from the 27th for trying to continue to fix these problems. Legislation's messy. It's not easy. There's a reason why it starts in a committee, goes from one chamber to the next chamber, a committee, a subcommittee, and back again. So while there's some good points to this bill, it's also deeply flawed. I've talked to my elections people. I've got one county that's to the left, I've got one that's to the right, and one that's somewhere in the middle. And all the elections people agree it needs a lot more work.

554. 4:42:34

     But I also know if we pass it today, it'll go across the hall, and we'll have more committee meetings, and they'll likely fine-tune it. So I'll support the bill to keep moving, but not that we don't all understand that it is deeply flawed. And the last thing I'll say is I know how to count,

555. 4:42:58

     and there's not enough votes to pass this bill tonight. So hopefully the conversation will continue, and we'll work on finding the right solution to the problem. Thank you. I yield the will.

556. 4:43:11

     Recognize the senator from the 23rd.

557. 4:43:30

     Thank you, Mr. President, gentlemen, ladies, the Senate. The hour's late and the challenge is great, but I sure would like to share a few key points. The first point is, why are we here? We're here because we're in a box that was created when the Secretary of State chose not to follow Georgia law. That's the bottom line.

558. 4:44:01

     W- As, uh, the senator from the 56 pointed out, we've been doing this a while. I've been doing this a while. I'd like to stop doing this a while, but we've got to get beyond the challenge. So 202 was in '21. We had a few others along the line. 189, which is the crux of the discussion, was introduced in February of '23, and the senator from the 41st said it was too soon, too fast. It's not too soon.

559. 4:44:32

     It's not too fast. You got to go back to February of '23 when it was introduced, and then in when it was adopted in, in, um, '24, we negotiated in good faith with the Secretary of State to set an implementation deadline. And there were various points along the way, because that was a fairly complex bill, but the bottom line was QR codes were to be eliminated in elections in Georgia by July the 1st of 2026.

560. 4:45:11

     That was an agreement between the Secretary of State's office and the elections legislation that I authored. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has never come forward with a plan to carry out the legislation that was passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the governor. What current Senate bill does is it provides a path to following and implementing Georgia law.

561. 4:45:50

     Is the implementation a challenge? Absolutely. It would have been much better if we'd been doing this a year ago, maybe even before that, two years ago. This is not, not a new concept. Florida uses a paper ballot system. Virginia uses a paper ballot system. Georgia can effectively use the same type of system. But we're at an impasse, and the impasse is simple: Do you follow the law or do you ignore the law?

562. 4:46:21

     And I would suggest that I'm very sympathetic to my election officials. They're my friends, they're my colleagues. We have worked very effectively together with election officials across this state. I appreciate Gabriel. I appreciate their input. I recognize this challenge. But what I would say is that if we partner together, we can solve this problem. And I would tell you that if we ignore it again, we're just gonna kick the can. Go ahead and kick the can. Sooner or later, folks, you have to pay the piper, and it's time to remove QR codes.

563. 4:46:56

     I appreciate the senator and his work in this bill, and I look forward to ensuring that Georgia voters have a safe, secure election where they can read the actual ballot that they mark with a pen and ensure that every vote counts. Every vote in Georgia counts, and it's auditable, and it's secure. Thank you, Mr. President. I'll be happy to entertain questions. I'll be happy to yield the wheel. You have no questions, Senator. Okay. Recognize the senator from the 37th.

564. 4:47:29

     Come on. You wave? Okay. The Senate, any other senator who wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Is there objections to previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. Previous question is ordered. Question is on the adoption of the committee substitute. Senator, I'm sorry, Senator 27, would you like to close? Okay. You can wave. Is there objection to the adoption of the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there objection to agreeing to the reporter committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill?

565. 4:48:01

     Chair hears none. The reporter committee is agreed to. Is there obj- objections to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. Question is on the passage of the bill by substitute. All those in favor of the bill will vote yay. All opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

566. 4:49:26

     On the passage of the bill, the yays are 27, the nays are 21. This bill, having not received the requisite constitutional majority, therefore has lost.

567. 4:49:41

     Moving on to s- I recognize senator from 33, 33rd. Thank you, Mr. President. I ask for unanimous consent to lift Senate Bill 11 from the table. Uh, secretary, hold on one second. S- so, secretary read the caption. Senate Bill 11 by Senators Rhett of the 33rd and others, a bill to be entitled in an act to amend Article 5 of Chapter 2 of Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to service credible toward retirement benefits so as to provide for credible service for certain military m- service, to provide for application and payment, to provide for related matters, to provide conditions for an effective date and automatic repeal, to repeal conflicting laws and for other purposes.

568. 4:50:21

     Mr. President, that completes the order. The objection, senator from the 33rd. Finish the caption, please. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Retirement recommends that this bill do pass respectfully submitted, r- Senator Williams of the 25th District, Chairman. Mr. President, that- Actuarial investigation. Mr. President, an actuarial investigation is included. Mr. President, that completes the order. Recognize senator from 33rd.

569. 4:51:04

     I promise I'll be quick. Thank you, Mr. President, fellow senators, colleagues, friends, and the rest of y'all. I'm here with Senate Bill 11, which will allow honor- honorably discharged veterans who have worked 10 years for the State of Georgia to buy back into the retirement system between one to three years into the j- ERS Georgia Employee Retirement System. The entire cost is paid by the members at no cost to the state.

570. 4:51:39

     A fiscal note was done, an actuarial report was done, and Jim Potvin, the Executive Director of the Georgia Retirement System, all stated there's no additional cost to the ERS system. Senate Bill 11 was also heavily vetted by the Senate Retirement Committee unanimously. This bill will help recruit and retain veterans as state employees. I would know because I'm a retired disabled veteran, and I yield the wheel, sir.

571. 4:52:09

     Thank you. Does any other senator wish to speak for or against the measure? Chair hears none. Pre... Is there objections to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered.

572. 4:52:21

     Is there objection to agreeing to the reporter committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The reporter committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question being ordered? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. Question is on the passage of the bill. All those in favor of the bill, vote yay. Opposed, nay. Secretary will unlock the machine.

573. 4:52:44

     Senator from the 39th.

574. 4:52:53

     On

575. 4:53:39

     the passage of the bill, the yays are forty-seven, the nays are zero. This bill, having received requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

576. 4:53:49

     Senator from the 39th. Thank you, Mr. President. Request to move SB-532 from the table. Secretary, read the caption. Senate Bill 532 by Senator Halpern of the 39th and others. A bill to be entitled an act to amend Articles 2 and 7 of Chapter 11 of Title 9 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to commencement of action and service and default judgment respectively, so as to provide for defendant notices of certain proceedings and pleadings when such defendant failed to file pleadings. To clarify defendant's right to appear and introduce evidence of damages in certain default judgment actions. To provide for related matters. To provide for an effective date and applicability.

577. 4:54:20

     To repeal conflicting laws and for other purposes. Mr. President, that completes the order. Without objection. Secretary, finish the caption. Mr. President, the Senate Committee on Judiciary recommends that this bill do pass. Respectfully submitted, Senator Strickland of the 42nd District. Chairman, Mr. President, that completes the order. Recognize Senator of the 39th.

578. 4:54:47

     Thank you, Mr. President. SB 532 is a targeted practical fix in our civil procedure laws. It addresses a gap in current law that can allow a defendant who has not filed pleadings, in other words, someone who has not formally responded to a lawsuit, to miss important notices as a case moves forward, particularly once the case enters default. So right now, when a party goes into default, the law can be interpreted to mean that they have waived notices in the case.

579. 4:55:19

     That structure can help keep cases moving, but in practice, it can also create situations where decisions move forward, uh, without full participation, especially when the court's determining damages or entering judgment. So SB 532 makes two straightforward clarifications. First, it provides clear guidance on when notice should still be provided, even at a, if a defendant has not filed pleadings, so key proceedings are not happening entirely out of view. And second, it makes explicit that notice requirements apply in default judgment proceedings, ensuring that when the court is considering damages and moving toward entry of judgment, the process is transparent.

580. 4:56:03

     So simple example, small business owner who's sued but fi- fails to file a timely answer because maybe they misunderstood the paperwork or believed a resolution was being worked out. The case goes into default and damages are determined, but without clear notice- You got it, baby. I'm done? Yeah. Okay. You got it. So- Everybody knows- Mr. President, I respectfully ask for the body's favorable consitation- ... consideration. You got it, baby. I yield. You got it. You got it, Sen.

581. 4:56:34

     You got it, Sen.

582. 4:56:39

     Senator, you're overselling it. You, you just did too good. You had them, you had them in the first three minutes, so.

583. 4:56:48

     All right. Is there objection to the previous question be in order? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Is there objection to agreeing to the reporter committee, which is favorable to the passage of the bill? Chair hears none. The reporter committee is agreed to. Is there objection to the main question be in order? Chair hears none. The main question is ordered. Question is on the passage of the bill. All those in favor of the bill, vote yay. All opposed, nay. Secretary, unlock the machine.

584. 4:58:11

     On the passage of the bill, the yays are forty-seven, the nays are zero. This bill, having received requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed. Senator from the 45th. Mr. President, uh, pursuant to Senate Rule 7-1.1B, I give notice that on the next legislative day, I intend to move on the Senate, that Senate consider House action on Senate Bill 179. Thank you, Senator, for the notice

585. 4:58:40

     Senator from the 31st. Make a m- make a motion to sine die. Sine die.

586. 4:58:50

     Well, that's, that motion's out of order right now. Sorry. I would love to do it, but that crowd over there, they'd, they'd probably, they'd probably go into, you know, a fever pitch. Is it out of order if I make a motion to, uh, overturn the chair's ruling? On sine die? On the, on the, on the motion to sine die? I'm pretty sure I'd have the votes, Mr. President. I don't know. I don't know if a man... I don't know if a 40-year-old man wearing Jordans and a suit can do that kind of stuff now. I don't know about that.

587. 4:59:20

     That...

588. 4:59:25

     Oh. Yeah, Mr. President, I think you're just afraid to be dunked on. Remember, white man can't jump, dude. Um, that's right. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand adjourned pursuant to HR998 till 1:00 PM on Monday, March 9th.

589. 4:59:44

     All right. The time is late. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, no. No. The ayes clearly have it.