Comité Judiciary de la Cámara de Representantes, 16 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:15:11

   Ladies and gentlemen, we'll come to order and get started. Um, call on Vice Chair Reeves, if you will.

2. 0:15:18

   Let us pray. Dear Lord, we pray for the folks who are cleaning up after storm and wind damage today. We thank you for the opportunity to go over these, uh, bills, pray for your wisdom, uh, and just pray for, uh, perseverance for the weeks ahead until Sunday. In Christ's name we pray, amen.

3. 0:15:35

   Amen. Thank you. All right, Senator, if you wanna come up and tell us about, this will be Senate Bill 552. I've got LC492643. Hopefully that's correct.

4. 0:15:50

   I should put my glasses on so I can see better.

5. 0:15:52

   You can put them-

6. 0:16:00

   Now, I got, um, both of those mics are live, whichever one you wanna use.

7. 0:16:07

   And I'll take this one right here.

8. 0:16:08

   All right.

9. 0:16:10

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. Um, I'm here presenting the, uh, the True Patriotism and Universal Student Access Act, inspired by Charlie Kirk's brave efforts to bring both the word of God and the truth of conservative values to school campuses across America through open discussion and debate in public forums. In the spirit of his works, uh, the TPUSA Act in Georgia would ensure that students' First Amendment rights to organize, gather, and speak are protected regardless of their religious, political, or social viewpoints or those of school administrators.

10. 0:16:42

    Uh, I j- I would like to say, too, that this is the, this would, Georgia would be the first state to codify this in a, in state law. Uh, basically the bill makes it clear that public school students in Georgia must be permitted to engage in political activities and expression before, during, and after the school day in the same manner and to the same extent that students may engage in non-political, uh, activities and expression. Uh, and that basically is it. It is a, it's for partisan and non-partisan political, uh, groups, uh, will be given the same access and opportunities to announce and advertise meetings and use school facilities as other groups, and cannot be discriminated against on the basis of the political content of their expressions.

11. 0:17:25

    Uh, so basically public school students, uh, may organize partisan or non-partisan political activities and groups before, during, and after school to the same extent that students were permitted to organize other non-curricular student activities and groups. Um, so let me just sort of take you through the bill a little bit. Obviously the first, uh, the s- first section is the name. Second section is, are the definitions there. Uh, and the, the meat of the, uh, bill starts there, uh, on page three, uh, as I have it written.

12. 0:18:00

    Uh, I'm sorry, page two. Uh, it shall be unlawful for any public school which has limited open forum to deny equal access, uh, or a fair opportunity, uh, and cannot discriminate against any students enrolled in such public schools who wish to conduct a meeting within such limited forum on the basis of political, philosophical, ideological, or other content of the speech of these meetings. Uh, and it basically goes on there to decide that. But let me be clear, uh, that public schools still have the right and the obligation to keep these, uh, schools, uh, and if you'll go down to line, um, 62, "A public school shall only disclaim school sponsorship of non-curricular student groups or related events in a manner that neither favors nor disfavors students," so they can't be discriminated against.

13. 0:18:49

    Uh, and nothing, line 69, "Nothing in this code section shall be construed to authorize the state or any political subdivision thereof to influence the forum," and so forth. And it also does not limit the authority of the public school or its employees to maintain order, discipline on schools, on school premises, or protect the wellbeing of student staff to assure the attendance of students at meetings is voluntary. So it doesn't interfere with the control of discipline and order, uh, in the school, but it makes it so that they have access and does not discriminate them on the basis of, uh, political or non-political or religious or non-religious aspects.

14. 0:19:26

    And that's basically what it does, ensures our consti- constitutional freedoms are done there for students in high school and public schools.

15. 0:19:34

    Okay. So if we have the Satan Political Action Committee meeting there, that's okay?

16. 0:19:40

    That is, listen, I mean, that's, is, is, we see both sides there. It is non-discriminatory, and yes, to answer your question.

17. 0:19:48

    Okay. All right. Any questions by the committee? Got, um, Representative Leverett.

18. 0:19:55

    Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill. So just my understanding from my years long time ago representing school districts is they don't necessarily have to open up school facilities to outside groups or even, um, uh, you know, political groups or things of that nature. But if they open it up at all, they have to open it up to everybody. To the extent they've opened it up, they have to open it up regardless of the viewpoint of the people who participate. Is that your understanding?

19. 0:20:23

    The, that's maybe the understanding now. Uh, but that will change with this. I mean, you'll be, if, if someone wants to have a political or non-political group, then they would be allowed to do that.

20. 0:20:34

    So they would be required to allow them to, to organize and-

21. 0:20:37

    They couldn't discriminate against them to keep them from happening it-

22. 0:20:40

    Okay

23. 0:20:40

    ... happening it.

24. 0:20:41

    Uh, but I suppose if they are going to have to allow them on, they would have to allow any group of any political perspective.

25. 0:20:50

    Yeah, this is a- again, same sort of situation. I mean, this is not Christian, Jewish, or Islam. I mean, if you want a s- a Satan group, then that's their prerogative. Correct.

26. 0:20:59

    And in your, the bill has some language you were pointing to a minute ago that sort of confirms that, that sort of, uh, non-discrimination.

27. 0:21:06

    Correct.

28. 0:21:06

    Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

29. 0:21:08

    All right. And Ms. Westbrook, I think.

30. 0:21:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for bringing the bill. Um, I understand that the bill's intent and the bill's text is intended to be viewpoint neutral. Um, I'm kind of wondering how 11, lines 11 and 12 enhance that, um, because you're quite familiar with my district, I think, and I can see the emails coming in about, uh, this bill as an homage to a particular point of view.

31. 0:21:44

    So I, um, my question is, why, why do you need to have the TPUSA part in lines 11 and 12?

32. 0:21:53

    Well, I mean, it's the acronym. TPUSA is Turning Point USA.

33. 0:21:57

    Mm-hmm.

34. 0:21:57

    That was, uh, that was where that came from.

35. 0:22:00

    And you think that enhances the bill?

36. 0:22:03

    I do.

37. 0:22:04

    Okay. Nothing further.

38. 0:22:07

    I mean, Charlie Kirk and Erica Kirk have always been very open about, you know, their, their beliefs and from a non-discriminatory nature and for open and fair dialogue. No one has ever been, um, I don't think accused them of being, uh, slanderous from that standpoint relating to anybody. Uh, don't mean to take, um, um, you know, argue from that standpoint. But, um, I think they've been very neutral when it comes to that.

39. 0:22:36

    Could I have a brief follow-up, Mr. Chairman?

40. 0:22:38

    Sorry, yes, go ahead.

41. 0:22:40

    I would agree with you, they haven't been slanderous, but they have had a particular point of view, or at least Charlie Kirk had a particular point of view, um, making disparaging comments about Black women, for example, uh, LGBTQ folks. I have a lot of those folks in my district. And so, um, I mean, to me, it, it does not enhance the bill, and, uh, that's why I was asking you-

42. 0:23:04

    Yeah

43. 0:23:04

    ... kinda why it's in there.

44. 0:23:05

    So it's just different point of views. I, I understand your point of view. I d- um, but I, I think it does enhance it. That's my personal thoughts. Um... Okay.

45. 0:23:16

    Fair. Thank you.

46. 0:23:17

    Yeah. Uh, Representative Evans.

47. 0:23:22

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, um, I am all for doing anything we can do to encourage our young people to be more engaged. I think the lack of civic education, um, seeing that my daughter's required to take four years of foreign language but only three years of history and no civics is really concerning, and I think that's going on all across our state. So I applaud that. Um, I wish we could call it something different, but um, I, I won't, that won't be a reason to vote against the bill. I wanted to ask if you would be opposed to enhancing the bill, um, by also providing that students could have excused absences from, from school twice a year to attend, um, political events.

48. 0:24:06

    Um, and I've got some language that, um, we, that can be passed around for you to consider. But it's one thing to be on campus and learning about politics and civics. I think it's, I think it would enhance that if we also encourage our students to, to really be involved and go and see things off campus as well, and I was just wondering your thoughts on that.

49. 0:24:27

    I, I, I respect, you know, your, your thoughts and thought process, absolutely, but, uh, I, I disagree with that, the excused absence, and we actually had that as an amendment, uh, in the Senate. I don't, w- I don't know whether you're aware of that or not.

50. 0:24:41

    Mm-mm. No.

51. 0:24:41

    So that was offered on the floor of the Senate. I mean, no disparaging, I was in the House for four years, but w- it's a little bit more freewheeling on the floor, so that was offered as amendment and was, uh, voted down. And I tell you, really, the reason I spoke against it, I mean, this is, uh, this is a bill that was carefully crafted, wanted to stay clean, uh, and I thought that was most appropriate. I m- that, you can put that on several other bills. I mean, that's-

52. 0:25:09

    Mm

53. 0:25:09

    ... certainly an option. Especially this time of year, things like that do fly around, and I'm, I've, I've been guilty of that myself at times. And, uh, the, but, uh, if we could keep this clean, that's what I would like. Thank you.

54. 0:25:21

    Thank you.

55. 0:25:23

    All right. Um, Vice Chair Kelley.

56. 0:25:28

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, thank you for being here with us. Thank you for bringing this legislation. Certainly agree with your premise here. Help me just make sure of one thing. We have seen, certainly specifically in Metro Atlanta, where students have decided they wanted to march out of their classrooms in protest. Is there guardrails in here that that wouldn't be considered a political meeting, and that schools could still make sure that they're not missing instructional time to protest?

57. 0:25:59

    All right. I, I, I think, uh, if you look at lines 79 through 82, uh, nothing in this code section shall be construed to limit the authority of the public school or its employees or agents to maintain order and discipline on school premises, uh, to protect the wellbeing of students and staff, to ensure the attendance of students of meetings is voluntary. But the point is, is that this does not change the ability of schools to maintain order and discipline in their school.

58. 0:26:26

    Thank you. And just one follow-up, Mr. Chairman.

59. 0:26:28

    Yes.

60. 0:26:28

    I appreciate that explanation, and I, I too have a question about lines 11 to 12. I almost wondered, uh, if we needed to name this after Charl- Charlie Kirk, who was murdered by a radical liberal.

61. 0:26:43

    No. So, uh, this is, um...

62. 0:26:52

    I, I, I think this would be the closest that I would want to get to their organization. They're a 501[c][3], and they're not going to, uh, engage on this. I mean, this is obviously, uh, in respect for him, but, uh, I would, uh, not wish that to be changed, so thank you.

63. 0:27:10

    Thank you

64. 0:27:12

    Okay. And Representative Crawford. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you, Senator. I echo, uh, Representative Evans' thoughts on we wanna make sure that our students' voices are amplified. We had a case similar to this in DeKalb County where students were expelled and suspended for wearing buttons. Uh, the case went to the district court and the court essentially held that students have the right to free speech, but it's not without some restrictions.

65. 0:27:43

    As I look into this legislation, I just wanna make sure that we put something in here ensuring that there is no lewd speech, no offensive speech during the course of meetings, and that we can look at some type of dis- discipline. Uh, I- I don't see that in here to just make sure that we have some guardrails of what can and cannot be said so that there is no disruption within our class- Right ... in our schools. I mean, the school still has that, that role. Uh, and the, and to, for students to be suspended, I think that is in here.

66. 0:28:18

    I was looking for that while you were talking. Okay. Not able to find it, uh, but it is in here about that, whether it's T-shirts or buttons or whatever.

67. 0:28:29

    And it... Excuse me. And if you're referencing, uh, to maintain discipline in line 80, I, I see that. I'm more so asking about maybe explicitly putting what things cannot be done, you know, offensive speech, lewd speech. So if you look at line 65, "Students enrolled in public school shall be permitted to wear clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display political messages or political symbols in the same manner, uh, the same extent that other types of clothing, accessories, and jewelry that display messages or symbols permitted under the school dress code." And, and a, a follow-up, because I, I, not a teacher, I don't know this.

68. 0:29:06

    Is there a universal dress code in schools? I, I don't know what may be- And I think- ... permitted ... uh, my wife's a public school teacher, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I know about dress codes in schools. But the, uh, I think that each school, uh, decides that. Uh, it's, I'm getting a nod down here, so I, I think that's an affirmative. So each, each school decides their own dress code. Okay.

69. 0:29:32

    Okay. Is that it?

70. 0:29:36

    All right. I don't see any more questions. Um... Move to pass. All right. I have a motion. Second. I have a second. Representative Evans. Um, a proposed amendment, Mr. Chairman. And if, Buck, you don't mind passing that out. This is, um, understanding that the sponsor doesn't accept it as friendly, I wanted to at least offer it for discussion and consideration by the committee. This amendment would, um, it wouldn't touch the language in the sections that, um, Senator Watson has here, so it would keep that very clean, but it would add another, uh, section or subsection that would define civic or political event and then, um, allow or have the local school boards come up with a model policy to enact a rule that would allow students to participate in, um, political events that might happen during the school day and have an excused absence, um, two a year unless the school wanted to do more.

71. 0:30:43

    Um, and the thought would be that it's one thing to sit around in a room and talk about politics, but it's another thing to see it. And of course, this would apply Republican, Democrat, Green Party, Libertarian Party, whatever. Um, no restrictions there, but just a way to encourage our students to get out. And of course, this doesn't excuse them from any schoolwork or anything like that. It just keeps them from having unexcused absences while they go and, um, engage in civic type activities.

72. 0:31:13

    And so I would, uh, move that as an amendment, AM610030. Is there a second? Second. All right, I have a motion and a second on the amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment?

73. 0:31:29

    Hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. All right. Let's do it with a show of hands. Uh, those in favor of this, raise your right hand.

74. 0:31:46

    All those opposed.

75. 0:31:50

    All right. Uh, the amendment is voted down.

76. 0:31:55

    All right. Any other amendments? Any other discussion on the bill? All right. Hearing none, all those in favor of passage of this bill say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Ayes have it. So you're off to rules. To, it is now when you want me to tell you who's carrying it? Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, my representative, uh, Jesse Petrea- ... so is carrying it. And I've, uh, uh... Chairman, um, I forgot to mention that ACLU, uh, supports this, g- Georgia Baptist supports this, uh, faith and freedom, but I apologize.

77. 0:32:33

    I didn't, I didn't give, give those credit. Mr. Chairman, ACLU agreed. That's a- Yeah. Well, that, and that's why I've, that's why I wanted to bring that up. That might've shortened the discussion. Mr. Chairman, since we know the bill sponsored, I may wanna reconsider.

78. 0:32:51

    Okay. Thank you. All right, Senator Kirkpatrick, come on up.

79. 0:33:06

    Sorry I had to wait for a break in the traffic. No problem. Is it okay with you if I bring some friends along? Very. Phone-a-friends are fine.

80. 0:33:18

    I got both of those mics live, so-

81. 0:33:20

    We have a telephone book, Mr. Chair.

82. 0:33:25

    Anyway, um, the LC I have for Senate Bill 403 is 590297S. Is that what you have?

83. 0:33:37

    It is.

84. 0:33:38

    Yeah, it didn't change at all so far. Um, this bill deals with unclaimed property held by our state department of revenue. This is an agency bill that I've been working on for a number of months after I found out that I had some unclaimed property, and subsequently found out that there's $3.3 billion in unclaimed property that our state is currently holding. It ends up there for different reasons. This could be an inheritance situation, a forgotten bank account, or life insurance property, and many Georgians are not aware that they have unclaimed property, and the current process is cumbersome.

85. 0:34:22

    In fact, I'm guessing that each of you has constituents that are affected by this. Since I presented this bill on our committee on our side, a number of people told me that they found unclaimed property in varying amounts on the Department of Revenue website, and I expect that website's gonna get very busy. The goal of this bill is to return more money to Georgians faster, with fewer forms, less cost, and fewer administrative barriers. The bill does the following: it establishes an exact match program to automatically return unclaimed property of $500 or less to owners using tax records, no claim form required.

86. 0:35:05

    It allows virtual currency to be legally reported and remitted as unclaimed property, and that's because some of the property that shows up is in cryptocurrency, and our department can't deal with it unless it's converted to actual money, and they can explain more about that. It also streamlines heir claims by allowing small estates to be paid using a small estate affidavit instead of probate. It allows the state to permanently take ownership of very small or long-abandoned unclaimed property, meaning 25 years.

87. 0:35:43

    And it improves the timing and accuracy of the unclaimed property list by allowing delayed, uh, publication until the property's actually received. So the goal is, again, is to return more money to Georgians faster. Um, I can walk through briefly each section, if you would like that.

88. 0:36:02

    Yes, please.

89. 0:36:04

    Section one updates definitions in the, uh, in the code, and it strengthens property holder due diligence by requiring email outreach and certified mail for properties over $10,000, and it adds definitions for heir and virtual currency. Section two updates when the property is considered abandoned. It's not abandoned if the owner shows activity or changes the amount or type of property in the account.

90. 0:36:36

    Section three introduces the holder requirements for virtual, uh, currency, meaning the bank or whatever financial institution's holding the property. And the ama- abandonment period's set at five years, and, uh, a holder may not deduct any charges imposed by reason of the, uh, virtual currency without a contract with the owner. Section four requires, as I mentioned before, a holder to liquidate the virtual currency before it becomes, uh, before it comes over to the state, and there are, uh, technical reasons that the department needs that to come across as money rather than, uh, cryptocurrency.

91. 0:37:16

    Section five authorizes the commissioner to decline to publish notice of certain properties that have been reported, but they haven't yet been remitted to the state. And section six revises several subsections of the code, um, and that's the part that authorizes the exact match payments without a claim for small claims. And it also allows heir claims up to 15,000 to be resolved through a signed affidavit rather than a probate court order.

92. 0:37:52

    And then it also provides for permanent achievement of long-abandoned properties more than 25 years, or very small properties less than $10 after five years. Section seven updates confidentiality provisions, and, um, section eight also updates confidentiality provisions. So I'm sure you guys have questions, which is why I brought my colleagues from the Department of Revenue, uh, because th- th- this is somewhat technical.

93. 0:38:24

    And, um, be happy to take any questions from the committee.

94. 0:38:29

    Okay. Um, Representative Kelley, is that you?

95. 0:38:33

    Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know, Senator, you and I had an opportunity to speak just a few minutes ago on the Senate floor about some of my concerns, and, and I appreciate you bringing people from Department of Revenue to help us walk through. I do have some concerns we include cryptocurrency in this. I mean, crypto is a creation of individuals who are trying to be, quote-unquote, "unbanked" or even have the, the government outside of their currency. And by God, we're doing what government does, which is trying to insert ourself into people's private business.

96. 0:39:06

    And so I have some general concerns as we, we go through that, but one of those is on line 59, where it says, 58 and 59, it says, uh-

97. 0:39:19

    Virtual currency business activity shall be presumed abandoned unless owner within five years communicates in writing with the banking organization corporation custodian exchange or other entity engaged in virtual currency business activity concerning... And it keeps going on. But a lot of people bought crypto to simply let it sit there and be somewhere, and not to have to touch it, not to have to talk to anybody about it, not to have somebody get in their business, especially the government about it. And so w- can y'all help explain that rationale to me? Yes, absolutely.

98. 0:39:49

    And Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Joe Snoutt, and I'm the Director of Government Affairs at the Department of Revenue, and joining me is Marshall Martin, one of our attorneys. Um, so the point that you raised is very valid. And so I'll open with, we have had several conversations with the industry in relation to cryptocurrency as well, most recently with Fidelity Bank on this exact topic. So one of the separate provisions within this bill that the senator has gone over has to do with what sort of qualifies as interaction for these properties, right, especially when they're in an online format. So previously, just logging in and looking at your account did not qualify as an interaction with that property.

99. 0:40:24

    So there would be people who would set a certain set of money here, watch it, but never... Or leave it for five years knowing that it would grow, right? So we, in our discussions with Fidelity on that, those provisions, along with some later provisions in the bill that allow these, uh, financial management companies to reach out to us, say, "Hey, this, this property is not, in fact, an unclaimed property or an abandoned property. This is something that we are managing for someone else," therefore they really do not have any individual interaction with it. Um, and there is a process for them to communicate with that with us so that they can continue to hold those properties should that be what they wanna do.

100. 0:40:58

     I appreciate that explanation. It just, it, it, it concerns me as that we will presume the abandonment and then allow it to be liquidated. That is, that is my, my concern there, and we can hold off on the further discussion. Help me get over to line 126, if we can.

101. 0:41:25

     Where we're taking the probate process away from claiming property.

102. 0:41:32

     And I see some things that we have to put in an affidavit, and I certainly understand the, the need to try and expedite, help make simpler, you know, this process for claiming property. But once you start drawing up a sworn affidavit, I think you're gonna probably have a lawyer involved in this some way to, to do this, at least if you're asking people to swear an affidavit where they could be, have penalties of perjury. Um, and it says, "And other lawful claims against the estate have been paid." One key part in the probate process is running notice to debtors, creditors, and filing petitions, and probate court puts certain creditors on notice.

103. 0:42:14

     So I, as a potential heir, may not know that there's a, there's a potential expense. And so I just wonder what safeguards are in place for those people who have a valid credit against or, uh, against someone, uh, who's a valid creditor who does not know that this process has been initiated like they would in probate court. There's no legal notice given, you know, for this. I know you say later that they are, you know, will still be subject to those, but there's not any mechanism for them to find out if we're trying to cut the probate court out of a probate process essentially.

104. 0:42:55

     So maybe someone could help me understand that. Well, and so I knew what committee I was coming to, and I am not a lawyer, so I brought two with me on that. Um, but so I will, uh, lean over to Marshall a little bit further on this one. I would say, uh, from my standpoint, the intent here is a lot of times there are, you know, heir claims where the heir was, you know, the heir was unfamiliar with that there was an unclaimed property piece, right? Uh, for a little background, right, this really became more of an issue with the introduction of claimant designated representatives back in 2023 with SB103.

105. 0:43:30

     Mm-hmm. Um, and we were not really given, as a department, sort of any guidelines on how we were supposed to verify if someone was an heir, right, and properly go through that process. So what we found- I can help you with that. You just say, "Show me your letters testamentary or your letters of administration." We could write that in here and strike everything else. For, but for those where the, where the property is, is been abandoned for a very long time and probate is, has... For the probate for the estate has happened, you know, so long ago. A lot of, some of these times these properties fall out of probate in those regards, right? And so now I'm gonna kick it over to the smarter person in the room to, uh, continue.

106. 0:44:02

     Well, no, yeah, I think that's a good, excuse me, explanation, Joe. Um, a lot of these, you know, somebody died in 1992, they had an executor at the time that's nowhere to be found. And so, uh, this person's trying to, trying to find a way to get th- this money that's been abandoned for, you know, potentially 20-plus years, um, and, you know, this affidavit. And we modeled it off of several other states that have this. Uh, this type of affidavit, uh, allows for them to actually get this money which just is sitting there, uh, with nobody touching it. Well, they would have a potential executor if someone's an heir that then figures out they could just substitute themselves in.

107. 0:44:39

     Well, I, I, I think in this case, the reason we did have this, uh, you know, we cut it off at $15,000 is, you know, this, this potentially is just not something they're able to do. Uh, and a lot of times this person died. The, the, the decedent died without a will. They died intestate. Um, so this, you know, this just pr- provides a way for them to get this without having, uh, to go through great expense to, to get back, uh, this money. Okay. Thank you. Yes. And our general counsel, Lorraine Hoffman Polk, is also here.

108. 0:45:10

     Do you wanna speak on that a little further, Lorraine? Just a little bit. She'll need to get into the mic- Yes ... over here. Well, I'll rotate out. I'm sorry. It's fine. I, I don't mean to-

109. 0:45:20

     ... cause the stir.

110. 0:45:20

     No, you're good. Go for it.

111. 0:45:22

     I wanted to just speak a little bit to the point you raised. First off, as you know undoubtedly, there are some instances where someone leaves no property subject to probate, and so they don't go through a probate process. They may have passed things through payable-on-death accounts or other situations, so there's never anything to probate. And what we have found, as Joe points to, is that particularly with the passage of time, we do sometimes see claims presented where perhaps there was an estate that went through a probate process, but that is long gone, and we're dealing with not even necessarily the immediate heir, spouse, child, but we may be approached by grandchildren.

112. 0:46:13

     Uh, to the point about creditors, I will speak to that. When we have a property, it is published. We do sometimes receive claims from creditors who have judicial collection orders, and so they approach us with, in essence, a levy. So there are mechanisms that we see where creditors do become aware of unclaimed property. Uh, it's not unusual, not only in the context of creditors.

113. 0:46:43

     Sometimes we have folks, uh, we have bankruptcy trustees who sometimes approach us for citizens who are going through bankruptcy proceedings where the trustee has identified the property. Bankruptcy trustees are also looking at our unclaimed property registry and may approach us with a court order so that we can release those funds to the trustee. So we are cognizant of creditor rights, and we, uh, try to facilitate to the best we can when creditors do present claims.

114. 0:47:16

     Okay. Uh, Representative Oliver, you, did you have a...

115. 0:47:22

     The estates have been closed and the executors discharged when the asset is found. That causes an... And I make these business judgments. If it's $700, forget it, um, because the cost of reopening an estate. And I don't know if there's a solution for that, but it's something I come across fairly often. I recently had an asset of $8,000. Well, that was worth it, you know? But just having an estate that had been probated doesn't solve problems in every case.

116. 0:48:00

     All right. Representative Evans?

117. 0:48:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to get some basic questions answered 'cause I'm not as familiar with how this process works. How does the unclaimed property come into the Department of Revenue?

118. 0:48:19

     Okay. I can speak to that if-

119. 0:48:21

     All right.

120. 0:48:22

     Excuse me, Chair.

121. 0:48:24

     So basically, just in a nutshell, our process is that under the Disposition of Unclaimed Property Act, uh, holders, so financial institutions or, or, um, uh, insurance companies, whoever may find themselves with some sort of residuals, it could be employers still holding the final check, final paycheck of someone. Our Disposition of Unclaimed Property laws set up a period in which you are to hold it.

122. 0:48:56

     The general period is five years. So you, it's your obligation to try to locate the person who is the true owner over a five-year period. If after five years you have been unable, despite your due diligence, to locate that person, then you have a mechanism to transmit it to us. And so when we're talking about holders, we're talking about banks, employers, anyone who may be holding money that belongs to someone else.

123. 0:49:28

     It's presumed abandoned in most instances after five years. They then report to us. So we talk about a holder filing a report. They tell us who they believe the owner is, how long they've been holding it, property amount, any identifying information. Depending on what they're holding, it may be securities. Uh, we speak to a, something in the bill here where we do get holder reports, but the holder for whatever reason can't immediately transfer the property.

124. 0:50:02

     There may be a delay. And so once we get the report, that gives us the opportunity to advertise and make known, "We are holding your property for you. And once we have the property, you can file a claim." And so normally, someone holds it for about five years and then sends it to us.

125. 0:50:23

     Okay. And is there anything that the department does? It sounds like there are specific things you do to try to find the individuals. Is there anything you do to just advertise to the public, "Hey, go check. See if you've got unclaimed property. Call this number," or anything like that?

126. 0:50:42

     Sorry. This is going to...

127. 0:50:43

     We're good.

128. 0:50:44

     Um, so to, to that effect, and I can compliment Senator Kirkpatrick here 'cause she really got this started on our... So I'm also the director of communications, and we have run several different ad campaigns and public notice awareness in relation to this. We've been involved very closely with media outlets to promote awareness. In addition, we've been in some conversations with people like Good Morning America to run a special specifically on Georgia's unclaimed property. So we are, we are doing everything within our- ... power to try and make this as public as possible. Now, what I will add to that is, um, the current state of play with unclaimed property is we're, uh, with the passage of SB 103, we're seeing immense increases in claims being filed.

129. 0:51:22

     So we have data that shows that more people every year are getting more unclaimed property. The example being in '23, we had 41,000 claims. That jumped up to 91,000 in '24, and then up again to 102,000 in '25, and we're on pace for 125,000 claims being filed this year.

130. 0:51:40

     For the claims that are being filed, is there a, a general amount of time as to how long the property's been there? Like, is it five, 10, 15, 20?

131. 0:51:51

     So-

132. 0:51:51

     You getting claims for things as old as 20 years?

133. 0:51:54

     We, so there, we have all sorts of timeframes from all these types of claims. I would say that for properties 10 years and younger, we see- ... you know, consistent, uh, sort of engagement with those. But as you get past sort of the 10-year mark, the, uh, the odds that someone is going to claim that property go down pretty dramatically.

134. 0:52:15

     Okay. Um,

135. 0:52:20

     what, what burden is it to hold this unclaimed property? 'Cause my understanding is that it's in the general fund, and we can kind of spend it because obviously the state has money coming in all, all the time, in and out all the time. So if someone claims it, it's not like it's not gonna be there. So, and that really goes to really, like, why do we need to do this? Why is the default, "Well, we're just gonna take it"?

136. 0:52:42

     Are, are you speaking to the achievement of the state there?

137. 0:52:44

     Yes.

138. 0:52:44

     Yes. Okay. Well, so in that regard, there are, it is twofold. The, the main i- the main idea of this bill is to get more money to more people faster, right? So with that in mind, there are, I brought numbers for this one too. Um, so for the provision that speaks to the small dollar claims of $10 held more than five years, we have a little over seven and a half million of those. Um, most of them, it costs more to put them in an envelope and stick a stamp on them and send them out than it is to the value of the claim.

139. 0:53:16

     So we've done, we've run sort of internal checks on the manpower cost for processing one of these claims. It's between 25 and $30 per claim for us to process, and that's not including, uh, postage and envelopes. So what we, the idea there being that we will be able to clear out, you know, eventually seven and a half million claims off of our books, which allows our people to focus more on ones that we're able to actually get to folks with this exact match program. And then when it comes to the properties over 25 years, there, uh, was, uh, a paper released by NAPLA, which is the National Unclaimed Property Association, and within that, one of the things that they quote is that, um, "6 to 10 years post-receipt, claims, uh, gradually and steadily decline.

140. 0:54:03

     Thereafter, particularly at the 20-year mark, claims are unlikely, and in rare cases claimed." So, and that is from the organization that oversees this. Now, I will add that there is nothing in this bill that has not become a law in another state. We're not reinventing any wheels with this. We, we took the achievement language for those two specific portions from different states. Um, for the, for the $10, uh, over five years, that is, um, similar to in Hawaii, it's $100 over 10 years; Rhode Island, $50 over 10 years.

141. 0:54:34

     Um, and so we determined that we wanted to pick a really small number there, um, really focus in on only the things that are come at a cost to the state. Uh, and then obviously with, you know, the understanding that once you reach the 25-year mark, the odds of being claimed go down dramatically, uh, it was, it was just the idea to get it off of, off of the books and, and focus in on more on the claims that we can actually get out to the Georgians.

142. 0:54:57

     Okay. But the property, even property over $10 under this language, the state's gonna get it-

143. 0:55:05

     After 25

144. 0:55:06

     ... after 25 years. Okay. And y- and you gave the numbers for the, the, the number of claims that you said are not worth putting it in an envelope, your words. Um, w- what about the other side of that?

145. 0:55:18

     On the other side-

146. 0:55:19

     That's really valuable property that you aren't-

147. 0:55:20

     Yes. No. On the other side, there's about a m- 1.1 million claims that fall over that 25-year threshold. So, and for those, and what I will say, there's nothing in this bill that says we must. And I think the idea around the department is, is, a- at least from our standpoint, is that this is, this is something for things that will come at a cost to the state. If there's a large claim that someone may come claim one day, that's not what we're going after, right? The idea is to make our process just as efficient as possible with as few claims as possible to give back to the Georgians.

148. 0:55:49

     Thank you.

149. 0:55:51

     Uh, uh, Chairman Smith. I, I got you on 16. I don't know if that-

150. 0:55:56

     Yes, sir. That's, that's correct. Okay. Uh, thank you, Senator, and thank y'all for coming over to explain this. If you would, just turn over to page seven. Uh, what really is giving me some consternation is right around or starting right around 144, line 144, down to 154. And I know you've got your, uh, legal department that's looked over this, but, uh, were there any due process concerns that were vetted, and how did y'all satisfy those due process concerns?

151. 0:56:34

     That may be a better question for legal counsel.

152. 0:56:38

     Do you want to address that? Go ahead.

153. 0:56:40

     Um, well, so I'll go ahead.

154. 0:56:43

     Page 144?

155. 0:56:44

     Uh-

156. 0:56:45

     Section-

157. 0:56:45

     Lines 144-

158. 0:56:46

     Yes

159. 0:56:46

     ... through 154.

160. 0:56:48

     Oh.

161. 0:56:49

     Yeah. Yeah.

162. 0:56:49

     144 through 154.

163. 0:56:51

     So no concerns have been raised to us about this language that we feel, uh, were valid. We have heard certain concerns, but for the, the angles that they are approaching this, we understand that it is, uh, it is done this way in other states without, you know, legal contestation. So we feel confident that the as-written provisions within this would allow us to operate in a way that are, you know, right and, and in proper order.

164. 0:57:19

     Okay. Um, would you not agree that, uh, oftentimes these contain retirement accounts of individuals across the state?

165. 0:57:31

     No.

166. 0:57:32

     I-

167. 0:57:32

     Yeah. Well, I'll let you go. Yeah.

168. 0:57:34

     Okay. So,

169. 0:57:39

     at present, I would say that, um,

170. 0:57:45

     if what you mean by retirement accounts, if you're asking us about, uh, ERISA-type properties, at present, we are rarely, if ever, taking possession of retirement properties, and I'm happy to explain why. Um, in, in a nutshell, where a holder of a retirement, ERISA-covered property is holding, uh, they make the determination. The holder themselves makes the determination that it is a retirement property and that the federal law and regulation attach for how they are to administer that.

171. 0:58:29

     Where that determination is made, when we, the Department of Revenue, have been approached by holders seeking to remit that, because of the fiduciary obligations that attach that the United States Department of Labor may pursue them for vi- violation, those holders frequently want us to enter into an indemnification agreement with them that would shield them from the risk that attaches to them as fiduciaries in remitting that property to us, and we cannot do that.

172. 0:59:05

     The State of Georgia cannot indemnify them. And so when they have determined they are holding an ERISA property, we are not taking them in. We do not force them to remit to us, and we do not give them that indemnification that they seek. Okay. Thank you.

173. 0:59:29

     Chair, I'm still talking.

174. 0:59:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ca- I'm, I'm curious, how many states have this total achieve- escheat, um, in, in the nation?

175. 0:59:40

     We are aware, uh, when we began to explore this, we were aware of three states, Rhode Island, with the, what they characterize as a $50 small property escheatment after 10 years.

176. 0:59:55

     Mm-hmm.

177. 0:59:55

     Hawaii has a similar provision for small dollar at $100 after 10 years, and Indiana has the 25-year total escheatment provision. When we did the research on this, we found no challenges, no court challenges in this area with these smaller dollar properties. We have come to learn in the last year that the State of Ohio enacted total escheatment after 10 years of holding, and that has been subjected to litigation.

178. 1:00:32

     There's current litigation on that right now. Our understanding is that the focus of the challenge is based on the fact that the money is being redirected to a special fund, not the general fund, but a special fund that the State of Ohio put in place to build sports and entertainment complexes, and that that seems to be the real trigger for the challenges in Ohio. We're not a w- we're not sure if other states may have these types of provisions.

179. 1:01:06

     Again, our focus was on the three I identified outside of the State of Ohio.

180. 1:01:13

     I guess as mobile as people are this day and time and how they move to so many different places, um, and families are just not as connected as they used to be, I would imagine that this could really, you know, run afoul of due process just all over the place. I, I just, I really see this as just a taking of people's property. I really do.

181. 1:01:32

     Mm-hmm.

182. 1:01:34

     Um, and I just, I, I don't think that, you know, the state needs money, sure, but I don't think it just needs to take people's property without any due process.

183. 1:01:42

     Mm-hmm. Yes. I, I can appreciate that perspective. And again, we were looking at, uh, being able to try to do better at matching people with whatever dollar amount, be it the $2.54 properties that we may be holding or the $1 million properties, uh, through the program designed here, which at present is set at a pilot for $500.

184. 1:02:14

     Thank you for supporting that. Where we can actually just give folks their property without the need for a claim at all if we can locate them in our tax system, which is why we have also sought those confidentiality provisions in the bill to allow our unclaimed property program employees to look inside the tax system at confidential tax information to be able to execute the exact match program for property amounts that we are holding.

185. 1:02:53

     To start at $500, our hope is, of course, that with success, we can raise that.

186. 1:03:00

     And, and just one follow-up question. I guess my, my follow-up question would be, um, so if you awarded this, say you awarded this, and then somebody came, they moved back to the United States, and they found that their great aunt had left them this, and the money was taken, how would you make those people whole?

187. 1:03:20

     Say that they would have 25 years before this, uh, waiver on claims would apply. The, the information is available right now, not only on the Georgia Department of Revenue's Unclaimed Registry, but that information feeds into the National Association of Unclaimed Property Administrators Registry. So regardless of what state you're in, you can locate property being held in another state for you or your loved ones, anyone who y- who you have reason to seek out their names.

188. 1:03:58

     What if there's a language barrier or they're illiterate?

189. 1:04:02

     I, I'm, I'm not sure. Are, are you saying that it's a, someone who, who is not-

190. 1:04:09

     I mean, it could be somebody that moved here that they were living in China and they don't, they only speak Chinese, and they come back and they have a relative that left them property, but the property's been taken and they, they, they don't, they can't get on the internet and look at what the national registry says and what have you. I just, I, I just find that hard to, or kind of unfair to those people.

191. 1:04:30

     I, I do want to just, uh, clarify. Uh, y- y- you, you mentioned, uh, may have left them property. We're not in that will or probate space.

192. 1:04:42

     No, no, I understand.

193. 1:04:44

     Okay.

194. 1:04:44

     I understand.

195. 1:04:45

     Okay.

196. 1:04:45

     I understand. Still, uh, thank you.

197. 1:04:48

     Vice Chair Reeves.

198. 1:04:49

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll ask a few questions for the, the author, um, Senator Kirkpatrick. Um, is the idea behind this bill to publicize the unclaimed property more broadly to make it easier for citizens to claim the property, but then to have a bar date so you're not gonna have this ever-increasing balance of unclaimed property, but to get people to claim it?

199. 1:05:14

     That's exactly right. We're trying to get the word out to people, and the exact match with the tax records is the proposed way to do that because it's not the state's money. Ultimately, it belongs to someone, and we're trying to figure out who that is. And if we can't, then we h- are trying to create an avenue to make it simpler and more streamlined for people without having to get an attorney and all that.

200. 1:05:42

     And in your review of nearby states, uh, North Carolina, Florida, Texas, or the department, feel free to jump in. Do they have a much lower balance in unclaimed funds due to, you know, uh, easier procedures like you're trying to enact here?

201. 1:05:58

     I can't comment on the procedures in other states, but yes, our balance is high compared to some of our surround, our southeastern states, and the department could speak to that if you want specifics.

202. 1:06:11

     One more time.

203. 1:06:18

     So yes, I'll use the example of Florida primarily. So where Georgia's Unclaimed Property Fund is over $3 billion, Florida's lives at 1.2. They have higher, you know, levels of residency as well as higher travel through, through their state. And so the fact that we are more than double what they are holding in Florida just goes to show that, you know, we, there are opportunities for us to get out more money to the people of Georgia.

204. 1:06:40

     Okay. And then, um, Representative, uh, Mary Margaret Oliver's, uh, question about probate. On line 143, when you say probate is pending, if we were to add, uh, pending or has been filed in the past, would that be any trouble with the department if we add that to make, make that clear?

205. 1:07:00

     I don't think so.

206. 1:07:00

     'Cause there's a-

207. 1:07:01

     No

208. 1:07:01

     ... there's a procedure to reopen a probate, um, so this would provide for any pending or previously filed probate.

209. 1:07:08

     I, I don't think we would have any pushback on that at all.

210. 1:07:10

     Pending or what, what-

211. 1:07:11

     Uh, pending or has been filed in the past. And then one final question. What was the Senate vote on, on this bill, Senator Kirkpatrick, if you remember?

212. 1:07:21

     I'm not sure if it was unanimous.

213. 1:07:22

     I think it was 50 to 2, if I remember. Unanimous out of finance, and I think it came over 50 to 2.

214. 1:07:27

     Okay.

215. 1:07:29

     All right. Uh, Chairman Smith.

216. 1:07:32

     Remind me again, how much money is the department looking at realizing if this bill were enacted? Just a rough estimate.

217. 1:07:41

     Uh, as far as the achievement provision goes or just as... Okay. A rough estimate, upwards of 16 million. Um, that would be out of nine million plus claims that are potential-

218. 1:07:55

     It's not very perfect. It's a general-

219. 1:07:59

     Oh, correct, yes. And that doesn't go in any way to the department. That is directly into the general fund.

220. 1:08:04

     Right. And you're the Revenue Department, right?

221. 1:08:06

     Correct.

222. 1:08:08

     Okay. And Representative Holcomb.

223. 1:08:13

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, uh, just to maybe emphasize or restate a couple things that I think are critically relevant is, one, for it to get to you all, there's already been a lot of efforts to try to identify these people. So if it was a company or a regulator or whatever it was, is they already made efforts, were directed to make efforts, they weren't successful, and it's only because of that lack of success that it comes to be the state as the overtaker. Correct?

224. 1:08:42

     Correct.

225. 1:08:42

     Okay. Um, and then secondly is I'm very sympathetic to just the economic realities of a lot of these things. It just doesn't make any sense to force the state, 'cause effectively we're subsidizing very low-level, um, claims, and, and just economically that seems foolish. And lastly, just while sitting here, uh, I checked and I had two things I didn't know, um, $25.63, so I'm closer to retirement now. And, um, and my father-in-law also has something, so I'm gonna get, you know, some attaboys for that as well.

226. 1:09:17

     Uh, so thank you.

227. 1:09:19

     Yeah, Ed, just if I could just add on that. The department, after we started this conversation, has made the, um, uh- Website much more easy, um, for our consumers to deal with in terms of getting their unclaimed property.

228. 1:09:37

     I- specifically, you, you put it in a shopping cart and check out, and we send it to you. So it is, uh, it is user-friendly.

229. 1:09:44

     So any chance that we would get the, uh, unclaimed property put into a retirement account for old legislators?

230. 1:09:53

     That's a different bill.

231. 1:09:56

     Okay. All right. I don't see any more questions, and I think what I want to do on this is hold for now, and do a hearing only. Um, it would be back on the calendar on Thursday. So we'll see you on Thursday.

232. 1:10:11

     Do you want me to talk about this?

233. 1:10:14

     Second Thursday.

234. 1:10:15

     Okay.

235. 1:10:16

     All right. Thank you.

236. 1:10:17

     Great. Thank you.

237. 1:10:23

     Senator Still.

238. 1:10:47

     All right. Let's see. Um, I should be able to turn this thing on. All right. This is Senate Bill 570 with LC492811. Is that correct? Yes.

239. 1:11:03

     That is... I don't have your substitute. Um-

240. 1:11:08

     Oh. Which one are you operating off of?

241. 1:11:10

     I'm, I'm on the previous version that, uh, I think that your committee subbed from, uh-

242. 1:11:15

     Okay

243. 1:11:16

     ... Representative Kelley.

244. 1:11:17

     All right. I left you one... Did I leave him one?

245. 1:11:20

     Okay.

246. 1:11:20

     There you go.

247. 1:11:21

     I see it.

248. 1:11:21

     Yeah.

249. 1:11:22

     Thank you.

250. 1:11:22

     I left you one on your desk in the chamber. And, uh, did you-

251. 1:11:27

     Thank you. It is probably still on my desk. I got, I scrambled up to Rules, and then when I heard y'all were meeting, I abandoned Rules to get down here, so.

252. 1:11:34

     Okay.

253. 1:11:35

     I promise it's a lot less controversial than, uh, Dr. Kirkpatrick. Uh- But, uh, yeah, okay. So we're working off 49-2811?

254. 1:11:47

     Yes.

255. 1:11:48

     Okay. Great. Um,

256. 1:11:52

     this bill, I don't know if this is the first time y'all are seeing it. Uh, this has been worked on for many, many months in coordination, um, with the hotel industry of all facets, um, from the short-term rental community, to the hotel industry, to, um, every association related to it. Uh, also working with the attorney general's office. And what it is is a, uh, a mandatory frontline worker training program so that, uh, anyone that is working in housekeeping, whether it be for short-term rentals, for hotels, that they have a curriculum either developed on their own or with the CJCC to ensure that they're learning how to identify and report, uh, any signs of human trafficking, and including, um, the, uh, the phone number that was requested, the hotline number, uh, requested by, um, uh, the attorney general's office at, uh, at their suggestion of putting that in as well.

257. 1:12:54

     So it's, uh, it's very clearly just driven to be limited to the, the hotel, motel, and short-term rental association. Um, that's how the bill was drafted. And then, um, Representative Kelley I think can talk to his amendment, uh, which is 85 through 90, I believe, is the new language that was added in the committee so that we have now. Um,

258. 1:13:24

     and I'm happy to answer any questions about the bill, and then we can address the, um, the new language after that.

259. 1:13:30

     Okay. Vice Chair Kelley?

260. 1:13:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Still, thank you for being with us. Thank you for the mission that this, uh, legislation seeks to accomplish. I know we're all certainly wanting to help cut down on human trafficking that takes place in our state. So I commend you for bringing that. We, we also had a very similar House bill that came, uh, came through committee in the House, actually came through the Economic Development and Tourism Committee. Representative Bazemore, who's here with us today, carried that legislation and worked, uh, with interested parties that you mentioned as well as some others, uh, to get a language.

261. 1:14:06

     It ultimately got to Rules, and I think even got put on the floor, but ultimately did not get called up on that marathon session we had on Crossover Day. Uh, and so just for the committee's, uh, benefit, uh, the language in LC492811is, uh, the language that, uh, we had all worked collaboratively on that, that Representative Bazemore had helped, uh, ultimately get to Rules and get to the floor, just didn't get a, get a chance to be voted on. And that was, that was my, um, purpose in wanting to bring this, uh, substitute.

262. 1:14:42

     Yeah. All right. All right. Let's see. Um, Chairman Silcox.

263. 1:14:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Still, I so appreciate you bringing this. And, um, I, of course, I'm so appreciative of the cause. Um, and I understand that the hotel, and I'm, I see it's here mentioned in the Georgia Hotel and Lodging Association, um, but they do, I know they regularly do training already. All of the major brands, um, do training. And, um, and I understand most large employers in Georgia as well, I know Delta does extensive training on this as well. And, um, was just curious if this is meant to include some of the, the bad actors to, to loop them in.

264. 1:15:23

     Is, is that the point of the bill, or?

265. 1:15:25

     That is absolutely the point. You know, the, the major brands, they have been doing this for years.

266. 1:15:29

     Mm-hmm.

267. 1:15:29

     Uh, they have their own curriculum, and this does not negate any of that.

268. 1:15:32

     Okay.

269. 1:15:32

     This actually supports that. It, it is 100% what you said, it's the bad actors.

270. 1:15:36

     Mm-hmm.

271. 1:15:36

     It's the small, independently owned ones that don't have a program. And this just brings everybody under the same, um- you know, level of training requirement for, for every new employee within 60 days of hire.

272. 1:15:49

     Yeah, 'cause there is so much turnover. My understanding is they lose about a third of their employees regularly, e- every year. They just-

273. 1:15:56

     Kinda like the legislature.

274. 1:15:57

     Well, I hope not. But thank you.

275. 1:16:03

     All right, before I move to the next one, need to recognize Judge Terry Massey, who's now not hiding in the corner over there. I can s- I can see you now clearly. Thank you. Thank you for being here. All right, uh, Vice Chair Reeves.

276. 1:16:18

     Chairman, Senator Still is, is one of the reasons for this bill to extend the fight against human trafficking, sex trafficking in Georgia to short-term rentals, uh, which are apparently now being used for, you know, commercial, uh, pornography or other sex trafficking purposes here in Georgia at a noticeable level so that, you know, we've gotta deal with, with those in addition to hotels and other places that have been used for years for sex trafficking that we've cracked down on already.

277. 1:16:48

     Some of the closest friends that you and I have back home in Gwinnett County, um, asked us to make sure that we included this language in there specifically because of that. Absolutely. We, um, we-

278. 1:17:01

     Thanks for keeping up the fight

279. 1:17:02

     ... we are, we are continuing to do everything we can. And, and, and sadly, I mean, that, that is where a lot of this is going, is that they'll, um, uh... Sex trafficking operations will pop up in short-term rentals unbeknownst to the, to the owner of that property, and it'll be renting out for, you know, a week or two, and then move on and move on and move on. And these heinous crimes occur under their roof without any knowledge or consent. Um, but if they're using any sort of professional service or anything with that, then they're gonna be, uh, trained on what to look for and, uh, make sure that we can report it, get it to the authorities, and hold those people accountable.

280. 1:17:42

     Thank you. Representative Westbrook, you wave? Okay. All right, that's all the questions. Um, do I hear a motion?

281. 1:17:53

     Move the pass on the committee substitute to SB 570 LC492811S.

282. 1:18:00

     Second.

283. 1:18:01

     All right, got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any other amendments, or any amendments? Put it that way. Hearing none, all those in favor of the bill say aye.

284. 1:18:13

     Aye.

285. 1:18:13

     Any opposed? All right, your bill's going up to rules.

286. 1:18:16

     Thank you.

287. 1:18:17

     Oh, who's your House sponsor?

288. 1:18:19

     I was gonna leave that to the chair to work with me on that, but, uh, I, I see many capable friends here on the committee.

289. 1:18:25

     Any volunteers?

290. 1:18:29

     Mr. Chairman. Chairman Silcox will take care of it.

291. 1:18:37

     All right, thank you. Uh, that'll finish the business we have today. We're adjourned.

292. 1:18:41

     Thank you.