Comité Judiciary del Senado, 19 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:04:45

   Welcome to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Same terrible time, maybe a little bit worse place, but here we are. We have a very aggressive agenda. We have a short window, so we are not gonna be able to get through these bills unless we are able to move kinda quickly. And so if you wanna be heard on a bill, please come sign up. But I would encourage you, if you want the bill to move, to remember that if you talk very long, the bill may get held to next week.

2. 0:05:16

   And if you wanna kill the bill, don't plan on talking too long to try to kill it. We'll cut you off. Let's start by Senator Bearden. You wanna open us up in a word of prayer? Which mic are you, five?

3. 0:05:27

   Five.

4. 0:05:27

   Get us going.

5. 0:05:29

   Lord, I ask that you keep us safe today. Allow us to have good judgment as we go over all these bills. And always al- allow us to remember the sacrifice Christ made on the cross and His blood to forgive us of our sins. In His Christ name we pray, amen.

6. 0:05:41

   Amen, thank you. Why don't you grab the sign-up sheets for me?

7. 0:05:49

   While we're doing that, um, Representative Yearta, come on up. House Bill 304, it's a bill we heard last year, and I believe we have a substitute that matches the version we passed out last year, LC474248S. I've gotten a lot of people reaching out, um, from our municipal courts asking us to do this to assist them, especially with things like training. Um, let me get your mics on. If you'll present this one to us.

8. 0:06:16

   Okay. Yes, sir. You, you were correct on the, uh, LC number. And, uh, again, this bill passed last year, I think. It was pretty much unanimous. Uh, it, uh, first creates the Office of S- Senior Municipal Court Judge. Uh, and again, it's a judge with 10 or more years experience can, uh, become a senior municipal court judge. And, uh, uh, they would be eligible to, uh, serve the municipal courts as long as the judge remains certified under OCGA336-32-1.1.

9. 0:06:51

   So, uh, doesn't guarantee that a judge, senior judge will be selected by a particular municipality, but, uh, any judge would be subject to the normal selection process. So it really makes no sub- substantial change to operation of the municipal courts. The other part of the bill is, uh, uh, creates a Georgia Municipal Court Clerks Council. Uh, there are 389 municipal courts in Georgia. It's the largest class of courts in Georgia, and, uh, from Atlanta that hold multiple courts daily to smaller cities that may only have court every other month.

10. 0:07:27

    But despite the diversity of these municipalities, every municipal court must follow the same rules, and, uh, everybody has, has to be respected for their constitutional rights. Uh, this will assist in standardizing the operation of municipal courts and bring further professionalism to the administration of the courts, bring competency and skill to the profession, and it also will create a Municipal Court Clerk Certification program. Just means that the, uh, municipal courts will be better able to serve the public.

11. 0:08:01

    And, uh, the municipal court judges are in support of this legislation also.

12. 0:08:06

    All right. Any questions for the author from the committee? We do have two folks signed up to speak in favor of the bill. Daniel Will from the Council of Municipal Court Judges. You wanna come down?

13. 0:08:20

    Thank you, sir.

14. 0:08:21

    Good to see you.

15. 0:08:22

    My writing is so bad, Mr. Chairman, it's David Will.

16. 0:08:25

    David, sorry.

17. 0:08:26

    That's right, David.

18. 0:08:26

    It looks like Daniel. I can't read. Sorry, Mr. Will.

19. 0:08:28

    I appreciate the opportunity. I am the, uh, past president of the Georgia Council of Municipal Court Judges. This is one of our priorities. I serve as a municipal court judge in, uh, Alpharetta, Sandy Springs, and Clarkston. Unlike other classes of courts, uh, senior judges from municipal courts, we don't have a, a senior judge designation. Senior judges under this bill would only serve in, in municipal courts. They would not be serving in other classes of courts. There's no cost to the state. It just allows an opportunity for people who are interested in still serving after their times expire to be available to fill in when needed and serve those, uh, those courts and cities around the state when they might have the, otherwise a need for a, up- an interim person to come in.

20. 0:09:10

    And we would do, uh, what active judges would do, issue warrants, cover first appearance hearings, arraignments, and hearings if necessary. And we also fully support the clerks in their effort to have their council. We believe it'd, uh, help with the professionalism for their clerks, and we ask that, uh, you do pass this bill. May I answer any questions?

21. 0:09:29

    Are any questions from, questions for Judge Will?

22. 0:09:34

    All right, thank you.

23. 0:09:35

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

24. 0:09:37

    Um, also we have Brooke, is it Mells that signed up to speak? Sorry, not today. Okay. My bad. Got it. Come on up.

25. 0:09:47

    It's Jason James.

26. 0:09:47

    Yeah.

27. 0:09:48

    Yeah, we're good.

28. 0:09:49

    Come on, Judge.

29. 0:09:52

    Good afternoon. My name is, uh, Jason James. I am the court administrator for the municipal court, uh, for the city of Dalton. And Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to be in front of you and the committee today, again. Uh, this is the same bill that passed out of, uh, Judiciary Committee last year, um, unanimously.

30. 0:10:20

    All right, just trying to manage a bunch of stuff.

31. 0:10:21

    Oh, that's no big thing.

32. 0:10:22

    Any questions from the committee? All right, thank you. As everybody that's signed up to speak on the bill, what's the pleasure of the committee?

33. 0:10:31

    Do pass.

34. 0:10:32

    Motion to pass by committee substitute from Senator Watson. Is there a second?

35. 0:10:36

    Second.

36. 0:10:37

    Second from Senator McNeel. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who's carrying, am I carrying this one for you?

37. 0:10:48

    Yes, sir.

38. 0:10:48

    Okay.

39. 0:10:48

    You agreed to last year, and I'd be happy if you did this year.

40. 0:10:51

    Maybe this year I'll actually get it done.

41. 0:10:53

    We'd be honored. Thank you.

42. 0:10:54

    Thank you.

43. 0:10:55

    All right. Thank y'all. I appreciate you.

44. 0:11:00

    What did I just do? There. All right. Staying on the agenda, House Bill 447. Representative Gullett, come on down. Mr. Chairman, we are working off LC481574S, which is as passed by the House, correct?

45. 0:11:21

    That's correct.

46. 0:11:21

    All right. The floor is yours.

47. 0:11:23

    Thank you. I have, uh, Ben here with me to... Ben Bryant here to help me too. Um, this is a bill that passed unanimously out this committee last year. Gift card fraud. Gift card fraud, um, is a growing problem, uh, in Georgia and across the United States for retailers. Um, the scheme, let me tell you a little bit about the scheme. The scheme works by criminals, uh, they get the g- gift card before purchase. They get them off the shelf at your Publix or Kroger or wherever. Uh, they remove the redemption data, um, from the packaging. They record the pins. They put it all back together. You'd never know it happened.

48. 0:11:53

    Put it back on the shelf. You activate the card, they get a notification. They take, take your money. Uh, you give gift card to grandma or to your kids. Uh, it's used. They go to check out, there's no money there. Um, criminal enterprises have that money. Just happened this past December in Texas. Three individuals told investigators they were hitting roughly 10 stores a day, seven days a week. Uh, part of a, a $14 million fraud scam that happened out in Texas. Um, this closes that legal gap here in Georgia.

49. 0:12:25

    Um, if you think about it today, if, if you're found with, with a stack of 50 gift cards or 100 gift cards, um, what's the value of the plastic? It's less than a dollar, I'm sure. Um, so prosecutors have had a little bit of a challenge of a time to prosecute that although they are, they have, you know, they, they have this as far as the crime. Um, so this just gives them a tool, uh, in order to handle having possession of the redemption data, the pack, and, or packaging tampering, a- and the tools that you need to do that. Um, creates a comprehensive purpose-built framework.

50. 0:12:58

    Um, it affects both open loop and closed loop cards, um, defining the sensitive data criminals target. Um, and it makes them all felonies carrying one to 10 years and up to $5,000. Happy to answer any questions on that.

51. 0:13:12

    All right. Questions from the committee.

52. 0:13:19

    You don't have any questions.

53. 0:13:21

    Great.

54. 0:13:23

    And Mr. Turner from the Retailers Association, um, do you wanna come down?

55. 0:13:29

    We have an offering of remedy from the chairman.

56. 0:13:33

    All right. They support it. And Mr. Hudson from Home Depot, uh, it went so well last time you were in this committee. You want to come down again?

57. 0:13:42

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He's speechless for the record. If I could come up there, I can just say that we fully support the bill. I appreciate Chairman Gullett. All right. For the thousands watching online, Brian Hudson of the Home Depot supports the bill. And then Brooke Mells, do you want to be heard on this one? Is she still in the room? Okay. All right, that's everybody that signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

58. 0:14:04

    Move to pass.

59. 0:14:04

    Motion to pass from Chair McOws. Do we have a second? Second. Second from Senator Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who's carrying this one in the Senate?

60. 0:14:22

    Senator Robertson.

61. 0:14:22

    Senator Robertson. Oh, okay. All right. Thank you.

62. 0:14:25

    Appreciate it.

63. 0:14:29

    All right, I'm gonna go a little out of order, 'cause I know Majority Leader Efthimiou has another meeting he has to be at in a few minutes. And so let's go on to House Bill 1185.

64. 0:14:40

    Is this judiciary?

65. 0:14:42

    I think it is. I'm not sure where I am right now, though. Do you know where you are? Let's give us just a second, Mr. Leader-

66. 0:14:50

    Yes

67. 0:14:51

    ... to get to... And Sam Hatcher with the governor's office is also here. We are working off of LC620291EC. Is that what you have?

68. 0:15:01

    Yes, sir.

69. 0:15:02

    All right. The floor is yours.

70. 0:15:03

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Several years ago, Mr. Chairman, when you and I were colleagues in the floor leader's office, previous administration, there was legislation brought, constitutional amendment, to create the Statewide Business Court. The objective was to create, like we'd seen with the Court of Chancery in Delaware and some other states, to have a, um, court system set up for complex business litigation. Now, we have, I think in the years since, been able to observe what code has been in place, either in Delaware or other states like the Texas State Business Court, that has encouraged major corporations to want to come and incorporate in the state, fostering more growth.

71. 0:15:39

    And so, uh, the objective of this legislation and working with the governor's office is to do several main things. Uh, the first is to allow for, if in the articles of incorporation it's specified that disputes are to be resolved in the business court, then that's where they could occur. Uh, the second major point is for derivative actions. These are actions brought by shareholders against the company in effect, that those could take place in the business court. And then finally, to prevent or limit circumstances of, uh, what I call fishing expeditions, uh, circumstances without a valid reason to seeking, um, burdensome documentation or, um, or ex- uh, costly process around getting documents for the corporation to provide circumstances within which, um, those documents would be produced, a proper purpose, uh, whether they're being sought and, uh, to put in sanctions if, if you're not doing it for the right reason, if it truly is a fishing expedition.

72. 0:16:39

    We've seen success with this type of code in other states. I think that, um, in part, this was modeled on the Texas statute where, uh, where, uh, it's been successfully implemented. And I believe that this will be a tremendous benefit to our state long term, uh, to foster economic, uh, growth. Uh, Mr. Sam Hatcher, Executive Counsel of the Governor's Office is here as well. If, uh, if it's all right, Mr. Chairman, if, um, if there are any questions or if he has anything to add. Thank you.

73. 0:17:10

    Any questions?

74. 0:17:11

    No, I think the majority leader covered it perfectly, but happy to answer any questions.

75. 0:17:14

    Can y'all address on line 358 why we are removing the presumption that civil action may in the court of filing? That was something I know that was negotiated and we had the business court bill originally. Can you just go into why that's important?

76. 0:17:31

    So, so my understanding is that in the limited circumstances of the cases that I've just given, so such as in the articles of incorporation, it specifies that the dispute is to be resolved in the business court. There would not be a presumption for it to be... Original jurisdiction would not be in the, uh, local court, is, is as I interpret it.

77. 0:17:55

    Okay. Is there a reason you want to take-

78. 0:17:57

    Is there a reason for us to remove that presumption that we have in existing law? Do you want-

79. 0:18:01

    Yes. So part of the structure of the business court is that it's a, um, notwithstanding the changes we are making, it's broadly speaking, it's two-party consent. Both parties have to agree to be there.

80. 0:18:13

    Right.

81. 0:18:14

    What this presumption is applying to is a situation where one party petitions to transfer, and the other party does not timely ob- object, but we are still imposing a presumption that it doesn't get transferred.

82. 0:18:27

    Okay.

83. 0:18:27

    Removing the presumption does not remove the ability for the other party to object, in which case the transfer doesn't happen. It's just what the presumption is for an unobjected motion.

84. 0:18:36

    So that's the only time that presumption currently applies.

85. 0:18:38

    Yes.

86. 0:18:38

    Okay. And one other, um, question, is there any concern that by having the language... Let's see. If you look at the proper purpose when it comes to getting business records, is there any concern with the broad definition we have about an active or pending civil lawsuit and whether or not, um, language like that is, is tight enough, I guess, to, uh, make it to where someone couldn't always hide behind? Well, there may be litigation that could happen, therefore, I'm not gonna give you documents, and then potentially we could encourage more litigation.

87. 0:19:14

    Can you address that as well?

88. 0:19:16

    Yes. I don't believe that the language is overly broad. I mean, expected litigation, you know, it triggers discovery obligations. It trigger- triggers document preservation obligations. I mean, that's kind of a, um, more specific term in this context than just we think someday we might get sued. Um, and so it's really trying to prevent using books and records demands as a end run around discovery because when there is litigation or when litigation is expected, the corporation, you know, both parties have discovery rights, discovery obligations.

89. 0:19:50

    They have ability to object to those requests. Uh, those don't necessarily apply in a, um, in Delaware, it's Section 220 of the Delaware Corporate Code, so I might refer to them as a 220 demand. But in books and records demand, those same objectives don't apply, the same processes don't apply. But expected litigation, and we've seen this in other states that have used this language, I mean, does not mean just there might someday be a lawsuit. It is a, a belief at that time that litigation is imminent and that the books and records demand is connected to that, the expected litigation.

90. 0:20:26

    All right. Other questions from the committee?

91. 0:20:33

    All right. The only other person signed up to speak on the bill was, um, Brooke Mells. Sir, you want to be heard on this bill? Okay.

92. 0:20:45

    There's no other questions from the committee. What's the pleasure of the committee?

93. 0:20:54

    Do we have... We have a motion to pass from Senator Watson. Is there a second?

94. 0:20:58

    Second.

95. 0:20:59

    Second from Leader Hatchett. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It carries unanimously. All right, who's carrying this one in the Senate?

96. 0:21:09

    Leader Hatchett.

97. 0:21:10

    Leader Hatchett. All right. Thank you, Mr. Leader.

98. 0:21:12

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

99. 0:21:12

    Yep. Thank you.

100. 0:21:18

     All right, we'll get back on the agenda. House Bill 460. Representative Panitch, come on down.

101. 0:21:32

     Good afternoon, everyone.

102. 0:21:34

     Good afternoon. We are working off the version that passed the House, LC481499S.

103. 0:21:44

     Yes. It also passed Senate committee last year.

104. 0:21:47

     That's right. So last, same one. Thank you for reminding me of that. One we passed out last year.

105. 0:21:52

     Yes.

106. 0:21:52

     All right. The floor is yours.

107. 0:21:53

     Uh, thank you. This c- uh, this bill passed unanimously out of this committee last year, but just didn't, wasn't called up on the Senate floor. So we're back. And, uh, this is about the case of Burns v. State. This is to correct what happened in Burns v. State, where the Georgia Supreme Court decided that, uh, a man who was sitting in the county jail awaiting trial, uh, called his lawyer on the jail phone. At the start of every call, a recording s- warns that the, that the call is gonna be monitored.

108. 0:22:27

     His attorney identified himself, gave his bar number, stated the call was protected, privileged, and asked the facility to stop recording. I, I can say I do those things all the time. Any time I'm in a jail or speaking to a client who is in a jail, I do the same things. But the jail kept recording anyway. A detective listened to those calls. An ADA listened to those calls. Supreme Court said it was permissible after listening to the call, because the court determined that the conversations were essentially procedural and not discussions where legal advice were Was being sought or provided.

109. 0:23:00

     As a result, the court found no violation of the Sixth Amendment because attorney-client privilege, in their words, did not attach. Two justices dissented, and legal expert call- experts called it a dangerous precedent. The justices who dissented wrote that attorney-client privilege is the oldest of the privileges for confidential communication known to the common law. Its purpose is to encourage full and frank communication between attorneys and their clients, and therefore promote broader public interest in the observance of law and the administration of justice.

110. 0:23:33

     Sound legal advice depends upon the lawyer being fully informed by the client. When we allow jails to record the calls and then these calls to be used at trial as evidence, we strip that privilege away, and we undermine the very system this body has been sworn to uphold. So what this means in practice is a defendant sitting in the jail has no way to speak privately with their lawyer unless their lawyer can come out to the jail. Sometimes these jails are hundreds of miles away. The client doesn't always pick where he's arrested, and I'm sure if it was up to him, he wouldn't be arrested.

111. 0:24:07

     So the lawyer has to make their way out, but sometimes they're gonna have to meet at the hearing. And so to do that, you need to talk to your client and have a frank discussion, and right now the law does not protect that privilege in the way that it should. And I would just say, no, there could be no recording if a lawyer speaking to a private client who is out of custody. So the only difference is this person is locked in the jail, and that there should not ha- be a distinction there. So the bill closes the gap that Burns exposed.

112. 0:24:38

     It does three things. It makes explicit that attorney-client privilege extends to telephonic and electronic communications when a client is held in a penal institution. Second, it requires every penal institution to provide access to a non-recording device so that an incarcerated person can communicate privately with their lawyer. And lawyers will have to register with the jail so the rec- so the number is recognized, because we do understand that sometimes people are called and pretend to be lawyers and are not.

113. 0:25:12

     And third, it ensures if a client communication is intercepted, neither the contents of that communication nor any evidence derived from it may be used in any trial, hearing, or other proceeding in state court. This is a constitutional issue. Whether you're a former prosecutor or public defender, whether you sit on either side of the aisle, we should all agree that the right to counsel must be real, not theoretical. And after Burns, Georgia law doesn't guarantee that, which is why we need this bill. Take any questions.

114. 0:25:43

     All right. Any questions for the author? Everybody's just so quiet today. And, you know, House Judiciary asks lots of questions, and they keep people there for a while for multiple hearings sometimes, and y'all are-

115. 0:25:57

     Not on this bill, though

116. 0:25:57

     ... kind of asleep. Don't even look at me. Nobody's gonna wake up. Minority Leader, you don't have anything? You're just... No, I All right. Oh, a question. Look what I've done. You were there. The Majority Whip.

117. 0:26:09

     Thank you for bringing this bill forward. I, I'm, I don't recall this ever happening during my years, uh, inside of a jail. But, um, do you not agree that we would have much more time to vet this legislation if we started these meetings much earlier in the morning?

118. 0:26:26

     He's been working on that statement all day.

119. 0:26:27

     I, it's okay.

120. 0:26:29

     And so, yeah.

121. 0:26:29

     I, you know, I'm more of an early bird myself, so-

122. 0:26:31

     He's a little late with it

123. 0:26:32

     ... I'm struggling to-

124. 0:26:33

     I'll, I'll take that as an affirmative

125. 0:26:34

     ... be this late in the day. Yes.

126. 0:26:34

     Thank you.

127. 0:26:35

     It is.

128. 0:26:36

     All right. Now, Ms. Melis, you signed up for every bill. Which one did you want to be heard on? Do you want to be heard on this one? 6,000. Okay. That's all right. Um, Chairman Cowsert.

129. 0:26:47

     Uh, I've had it happen to me as well, and it's, um, unusually not common, but I, I think I was carrying your bill last year.

130. 0:26:55

     Yes.

131. 0:26:55

     When it passed out, I would move due pass.

132. 0:26:57

     We have a motion. It's the correct time. Motion to pass. Do we have a second? Second. Second from one of them. Senator McNeel, second. Any discussion, all those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. Chairman Cowsert carrying it again.

133. 0:27:13

     Yes.

134. 0:27:14

     Yes, it is.

135. 0:27:14

     Okay.

136. 0:27:15

     Thank you so much-

137. 0:27:15

     All right. Thank you

138. 0:27:15

     ... Mr. Chairman.

139. 0:27:17

     All right, Representative Clifton. House Bill 676. Starting to wake up. It's bad timing, but come on down.

140. 0:27:27

     I just want to thank you for letting me go in front of s- uh, Chairman Hilton.

141. 0:27:31

     Oh, yeah. That one's gonna be a doozy.

142. 0:27:33

     Y'all might be here a while.

143. 0:27:33

     Yeah.

144. 0:27:34

     So I wish you the best.

145. 0:27:38

     Well, we got Representative Reeves too, so yeah.

146. 0:27:40

     Ooh.

147. 0:27:41

     All right, we are working off of LC481510, which is the version that passed the House. Is that correct?

148. 0:27:49

     Yes, sir.

149. 0:27:49

     All right, the floor is yours.

150. 0:27:50

     I bring you House Bill 676. Um, I'm gonna give the short version. If y'all want the long version, I'd be more than happy to give it. Uh, the code is clear on what you have to do in order to have the right to file a lien on a property. Um, all this bill does is if someone files a lien on a property frivolously or in bad faith, there is a penalty of $1,500 per lien filed, along with attorney's fees and court fees. And I'd be more than happy to explain what you have to do in order to have rights to file a lien, if that is the will of the committee.

151. 0:28:24

     Is there any particular reason we arrived at the $1,500 fine?

152. 0:28:29

     Um, legislative counsel misunderstood me when I said $15,000.

153. 0:28:33

     Ah.

154. 0:28:34

     But, um, it, this bill had started moving, and I didn't feel like I could rewrite it, so I wanted to get it through this year. And then we may come back, um, at some point and... I actually had multiple options and multiple ways, and they said that was just too complicated, so...

155. 0:28:50

     Well, it was a candid answer at least. Um, any questions from the committee? Board mission Senator Summers, our n- second, no, newest member of the committee. Welcome.

156. 0:29:03

     Well, I used to sit with you till midnight. This is much better.

157. 0:29:05

     Yeah. Well, we might, you know, if we start slowing down, we might make it again. We'll see.

158. 0:29:08

     Well, who determines, how, when you, how do you know it's a frivolous lien? I mean, I mean, obviously they're trying to be honest, but how do you, who determines if it's a frivolous lien?

159. 0:29:16

     So this would have to go to court.

160. 0:29:17

     Okay.

161. 0:29:17

     You'd have to take them to court and the judge would have to determine that.

162. 0:29:19

     It'd be at court.

163. 0:29:20

     But the way that the law and the code is written, it is pretty black and white. You either have the right or you don't have the right. In none of these dynamics, what is typically happening is these people are coming, threatening to file a lien. They're being told because of this code and this, this, you have no right to file a lien. And the response is, and I will be candid, "I'll file it anyways, make your life hell, and I bet the owner will make you pay me." So it's turned into a bullying tactic, which is why I believe having a penalty in filing it frivolously would hopefully deter some of those bad actors.

164. 0:29:50

     Follow up, Mr. Chairman. Would that $1,500 be adjudicated by the court also? Could it be lowered or raised, or would that be just a, a fixed deal in it?

165. 0:29:58

     Uh, I believe it's fixed, um, but I think the courts have a lot of leeway to do a lot of things they wanna do.

166. 0:30:05

     Yeah.

167. 0:30:06

     I'm not an attorney, though. Thank you. I'm an idiot.

168. 0:30:08

     Um... We have a, do you have any cash on you?

169. 0:30:12

     I'm not an attorney. Is that a bad thing?

170. 0:30:14

     Yep. Now you gotta do it twice.

171. 0:30:15

     Oh, man.

172. 0:30:17

     Uh, earlier this year, Senator Ginn was here and he did, I think, was it $5 per violation? Was it 20? I can't remember. Well, it's not much money in here, so it wasn't that much. But, well, there's a 20.

173. 0:30:28

     I think it's gonna be, it's, the way it's written, shall be subject to a fine of $1,500 per lien.

174. 0:30:34

     I thought per lien.

175. 0:30:35

     Right. And then plus attorney's fees that could be assessed by the court or court costs.

176. 0:30:41

     And generally the attorney's fees and court kees- fees would be above the $1,500.

177. 0:30:46

     Right.

178. 0:30:46

     So.

179. 0:30:47

     You have another question. Is it Senator Parent that you have one? No, that wasn't me. Oh, Senator, Senator Rhett.

180. 0:30:52

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

181. 0:30:54

     Yeah.

182. 0:30:54

     Could this in any way be used with homeowners associations, HOAs?

183. 0:31:00

     Uh, sure, if they filed a lien frivolously, but homeowners associations have rights to file liens on properties based on, uh, you know, um, not abiding by the homeowners association rules. So in that situation, they wouldn't be filing a frivolous lien. So, but I guess if they broke their own rules and filed one against it, then yes, it would, would apply.

184. 0:31:21

     I, I believe this is just on mechanic liens, so I think the HOA liens are different types of liens. Let's, uh-

185. 0:31:28

     Stretch.

186. 0:31:29

     Yeah. Is that correct, Mr. Walker?

187. 0:31:32

     I, I believe the material

188. 0:31:35

     Yeah, just those types of liens.

189. 0:31:37

     Yeah.

190. 0:31:37

     It's, it's a, this would be a lien if you provide services or materials to a property, um, the mech- that's a mechanic, and you did not get paid or you have an issue with what happened, you would file a mechanic's lien accordingly.

191. 0:31:50

     Question from Leader Jones.

192. 0:31:52

     Hey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, my question is on, uh, line 12, malice, and how is that, like, being defined? Because the other ones speak to the claim, so without substantial justification, not made in good faith or a wrongful purpose to some extent speaks to the claim itself. But malice doesn't necessarily speak to the claim, it speaks to my intent. I may intend to cause you harm, but the claim itself is actually correct. Or if I may have all sorts of ill will towards you, I'm mad, but the claim itself is still correct.

193. 0:32:23

     I, I was just asking how you kind of def- defining that there.

194. 0:32:28

     Well, I gotta be careful how I answer this question, 'cause I don't wanna get into more trouble. So I'm a contractor, and so I use the attorney of ledge counsel to write this, and that's the words that they use. So, um, there's a phrase I wanna say, but I'm gonna get in trouble again, so I'm not gonna say it. Is that still, is that, is that insinuating?

195. 0:32:45

     Yeah, we're gonna send a bill to you when you leave, and, and you, there's gonna be a lien on your bill. Get it?

196. 0:32:52

     Hey.

197. 0:32:52

     It'll be with a little bit of malice.

198. 0:32:54

     $1,500.

199. 0:32:55

     $1,500.

200. 0:32:56

     Ooh.

201. 0:32:56

     Uh...

202. 0:32:57

     This bill might die.

203. 0:32:59

     Any other questions from the committee? No. Mr. Walker, you have something you wanna weigh in on?

204. 0:33:05

     Only to point out that there are actually, the terms malice and for wrongful purpose are cro- they do cross-reference other definitions in the code of those terms. So they, they are defined terms in the code and they're being incorporated here by reference.

205. 0:33:21

     Other questions from the committee? All right, nobody signed to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

206. 0:33:30

     Move that.

207. 0:33:30

     Motion to pass from Leader Jones. Do we have a second?

208. 0:33:34

     Second.

209. 0:33:34

     Second from Senator Rhett. Any discussion? All those in favor, please raise your hand.

210. 0:33:44

     All right. Opposed? One. Let me count again. Did you count for me? I thought you were gonna raise your hand. All in favor raise your hand.

211. 0:33:54

     Eight. Opposed, one. Motion carries. And who's carrying your bill in the Senate?

212. 0:34:00

     Senator Setzler.

213. 0:34:02

     All right.

214. 0:34:08

     All right.

215. 0:34:08

     It's only four lines. I mean, you know, it's-

216. 0:34:10

     Uh, he'll-

217. 0:34:11

     ... short and sweet

218. 0:34:11

     ... he'll make it last four hours.

219. 0:34:13

     I mean, four, uh, I mean, it's like four minutes.

220. 0:34:17

     Thank you, Chairman, members, again.

221. 0:34:18

     Thank you for being with us. Come back again sometime.

222. 0:34:20

     Yes, please.

223. 0:34:22

     All right. Representative Reeves, come on down. House Bill 1247.

224. 0:34:33

     Rolling away.

225. 0:34:34

     Yeah, I was rolling, rolling back.

226. 0:34:35

     Now, this one, we do have a committee substitute LC620505S. Is that what you have?

227. 0:34:42

     That's what I have.

228. 0:34:43

     All right. For a bill that cuts government, it's a little thick.

229. 0:34:47

     That's right. Well, uh, that's because it got, uh, perfected over here in the Senate.

230. 0:34:51

     That's right.

231. 0:34:51

     Uh, it got, it got a little bit longer. Uh, this is House Bill, uh, 1247. This is the Georgia Bureaucratic Deference Elimination Act. Uh, on page two of the bill, this is the heart of the first section of the bill that came over from the House and has already been revised some in the Senate before coming to you. When interpreting the state's constitution, statutes, or published rules, a court or an officer hearing an administrative action shall not defer to an, uh, to a state agency's determination or interpretation of such authorities, whether such determination or interpretation is written or unwritten.

232. 0:35:24

     And then, uh, subsection B is this code section shall not be construed to alter any standards of review expressly established by statute. Section 1.3 and the next sections in section one, uh, those came from the Metro Atlanta Chamber to update language in the, uh, deference, uh, provisions relating to the Department of Revenue, which were already passed. This makes the rule apply to all state agencies. The Eternal Vigilant Action case, uh, recently by the Georgia Supreme Court, uh, enacted, uh, the non-delegation doctrine very clearly in Georgia after many years of, of the law, um, evolving.

233. 0:36:02

     And so it's similar to doctrines at the US Supreme Court at the federal level. And what this bill does is it codifies it and ensures there are three branches of government and not a fourth. Uh, the legislature, this body, the House and the Senate will enact the laws. Uh, the executive branch, uh, the governor and the state agencies will carry out the laws, the executive branch. And then the courts, and the courts alone will have the power to interpret the laws. The state agencies can come in and present their interpretation of the laws, uh, just as citizens can.

234. 0:36:34

     There will be a level playing field about interpretation of the laws, um, in those proceedings, in those court proceedings, and the judges get to decide what the law is. Uh, that is long and short, uh, what it is. There are about a dozen states who have enacted this legislatively. There are about 10 or more s- other states that have, uh, codified it, uh, or made it law at the, uh, judicial level, sort of like the non-delegation doctrine in the attorney... Eternal Vigilance action case. And so this bill would, um, codify current, the current state of Georgia law.

235. 0:37:05

     The second part of the bill, section two and following, this, uh, is a Senate initiative, uh, from the lieutenant governor and other senators, uh, the Red Tape Rollback Act, and it does have some, uh, amendments from the last time you saw it. Uh, line 250, it provides subject to appropriations. There had been questions about a fiscal note in the past, so this makes it clear it's subject to appropriations. And then secondly, it applies to state agencies. There have been question about constitutional officers in the past.

236. 0:37:36

     What the second section of the bill does is it requires economic impacts to be considered, uh, on agency initiatives. It encourages the agencies to reduce paperwork and give more compliance timetables, uh, that are feasible for small businesses. And then most importantly, it provides a five-year rolling review of executive branch agencies to make sure that programs don't just go on and on without any review. It, uh, ensures at least every five years state agencies, uh, activities will be reviewed.

237. 0:38:06

     The NFIB asked me to report that they are in favor. They're here, but they know that your time is limited. I believe you may have gotten some letters from other organizations. Uh, Eternal Vigilance Action is here, um, and, uh, we have a, a number of organizations who are supportive of this, uh, which codifies the current state of Georgia law and, uh, makes sure that there's a level playing field between the citizens of Georgia and the agencies.

238. 0:38:33

     And we do have letters in our folders from AFP, from the Goldwater Institute, and also NFIB all supporting the bill as well. Any questions for the author? Senator Cowsert.

239. 0:38:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman, thank you for being here with us today. As you and I have had a conversation beforehand, and as I understand, this is just balancing the powers between the branches of government. And where the legislature has not clearly granted direction or deferred to rulemaking, uh, it shouldn't be done or shouldn't be assumed that the agency has the authority to have made the rule. Just levels that playing field.

240. 0:39:19

     In keeping with that, some years ago, we set up a provision. This is just recited in your bill on page 10, starting at line 220, that when a rule or regulation is made while we are not in session, the chairs of the standing committees that oversee, we'll, we'll call it that agency, are notified. And if they have objection, they can have a meeting and do a resolution announcing that, that that's beyond the scope of their intent of delegated powers.

241. 0:39:49

     And then within the first 30 days when you come back in session or maybe even the first five, you have to pass a resolution from each body stating that rule or regulation. It calls for a two-thirds vote of those committees, uh, to do that, which seems to, again, tilt the balance. I mean, that's like, uh, requiring a constitutional amendment to block an agency rule or regulation that the legislature doesn't approve.

242. 0:40:15

     Or just postpone.

243. 0:40:17

     Yeah. Uh, to stay it, yeah, from, from enforcement. So I have discussed with you just changing that to a majority vote like any other bill that's not a constitutional amendment. Is that perceived as a friendly amendment by you?

244. 0:40:30

     On line 222, two-thirds being changed to majority, I think that'll be totally consistent with this bill.

245. 0:40:36

     And that would also be at line 236 where they recite it again. Uh-

246. 0:40:42

     If, as long as it's the committee and not the whole...

247. 0:40:45

     Oh, okay. Well, that's, that's the-

248. 0:40:47

     Okay, 236.

249. 0:40:49

     236.

250. 0:40:49

     Yeah. Okay.

251. 0:40:51

     Okay. So then really lines 238 after General Assembly to the rest would no longer be required because that allowed, that allowed the governor to come in and veto. He still has the power to veto any bill. And so he shouldn't be able to veto resolutions saying we never gave the agency that power, 'cause it's not a statute that they're looking at. Would you agree that we should just delete that portion at this point?

252. 0:41:17

     I think changing the two-thirds, the majority throughout, uh, definitely would be friendly. I've worked with, uh, the second floor up to now on this and, uh-

253. 0:41:27

     I won't go there then.

254. 0:41:28

     Uh-

255. 0:41:28

     Let's just stick with the two-thirds.

256. 0:41:30

     Okay.

257. 0:41:30

     Okay. Thank you.

258. 0:41:38

     Are there any other questions from the committee for the author? Are there others signed up to speak on the bill? Um, Thomas Weaver, you wanna come down? You can stay put. They're all friendly.

259. 0:41:54

     Mr.-

260. 0:41:54

     Don't roll away though. This chair is a challenge.

261. 0:41:56

     I, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna do that. Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I unapologetically rise in support of Representative Reeves' measure here. I think that the state legislature should absolutely adopt the Bureaucratic Deference Elimination Act, incorporating statutorily what is current case law under Eternal Vigilance, and further, uh, I guess you could say mirroring what the Roberts Court accomplished through the adoption of Loper Bright and, and the abolition of the Chevron deference at the federal sovereign. So, uh, to the extent that it includes the red tape rollback, that's, that's even better.

262. 0:42:30

     Um, the anomaly about two-thirds to abrogate a rule seems a little peculiar. Two-thirds is what it takes to change the constitution or override the governor. Rules and regulations on file under the Georgia Administrative Code are subservient to statutes that you create. You can create statutes on a simple majority basis. I don't know if there's enough time in the legislative session left to reduce that down to majority and get that back across the other camera in time to get placed on the governor's desk. I don't want to take that wager to the extent that it's gotten this far in the legislative process.

263. 0:43:04

     But I, I would hope to see that the, that this bill would move forward in the, in the legislative process.

264. 0:43:20

     In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, state-level executive agencies should not be able by rule to undo what the legislature has done by statute. It's not... That's putting the cart before the horse. That's completely backwards.

265. 0:43:33

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Weaver. Next we have Scott Turner.

266. 0:43:39

     Chairman. Oh, I'll be happy to testify in favor of a bill that's-

267. 0:43:43

     There you go

268. 0:43:43

     ... that's brought in part by a lawsuit that we filed. Uh, but if it's, if the committee's feeling good about it, it's not necessary for your time.

269. 0:43:52

     They seem pretty friendly at the moment. They, sometimes when they're quiet, it's worse.

270. 0:43:55

     Then, then I'll waive.

271. 0:43:56

     All right.

272. 0:43:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

273. 0:43:57

     Thank you. And Tony West, Americans for Prosperity.

274. 0:44:08

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for your time today. Just here to support this bill. At Americans for Prosperity, we support legislation that enhances our constitutionally limited government system as well as increasing economic freedom. Uh, the provision to eliminate judicial deference does that, and we also have supported the last couple sessions the Red Tape Rollback Act and are excited to see that included here. Thank you.

275. 0:44:31

     All right. Thank you, Mr. West. No questions. That's everybody that's signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Motion to do pass. Motion do pass by committee substitute from Chairman Cowser. Is there a second?

276. 0:44:45

     Second.

277. 0:44:45

     Second from Chairman Bearden. Any discussion? All those in favor... A discussion?

278. 0:44:50

     I'd like to propose an amendment.

279. 0:44:52

     Oh, yeah. Thank you.

280. 0:44:53

     Uh, on lines 222, change two-thirds to majority, and on lines 236, change two-thirds to majority.

281. 0:45:03

     And it looks like-

282. 0:45:05

     23r- 222 and 236.

283. 0:45:07

     Mr. Walker, let me turn your mic on.

284. 0:45:11

     There are several other mentions of the two-thirds vote, Senator Cowsert. I'm not sure if you're wanting to leave some in place, or if you'd like me to identify all of them, I'd be happy to.

285. 0:45:20

     I would love to eliminate them, but I don't think the author perceived that as friendly without first consulting with the governor's office. Are you talking about below line 238 or anywhere else?

286. 0:45:31

     No, Senator. Higher up in the bill. There's several other mentions of-

287. 0:45:34

     All right. Tell me where else we got-

288. 0:45:34

     ... of the two-thirds vote.

289. 0:45:35

     Okay.

290. 0:45:35

     So those lines, uh, if you'll bear with me, I'll just find them here electronically.

291. 0:45:40

     Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Walker.

292. 0:45:41

     Change that to majority.

293. 0:45:43

     Uh, 123.

294. 0:45:46

     Yep.

295. 0:45:48

     Um, yeah. Uh, 120 is the first instance.

296. 0:45:56

     Okay.

297. 0:45:56

     Uh, 123.

298. 0:45:59

     All right.

299. 0:46:00

     213.

300. 0:46:00

     So Paul, uh, 123, wouldn't that remain two-thirds based on us not striking the, the other provisions on lines 238 and on?

301. 0:46:11

     That, that may be. I, I was just doing a simple word search-

302. 0:46:13

     Okay

303. 0:46:13

     ... so I hadn't had a chance to do any analysis yet.

304. 0:46:15

     Let's come back and look at that one then.

305. 0:46:16

     But I can put it up. So 123, uh, 120... Excuse me. Uh, 213, 216, 222. I think that gets us correct. Uh, 236 and 239. And those are all of the references to two-thirds.

306. 0:46:43

     Okay. Um, line 213

307. 0:46:49

     and 216 were your last two.

308. 0:46:52

     Can we take those one at a time, Mr. Walker, and start with the earliest ones to make sure we... those are the ones we wanna change?

309. 0:46:58

     Sure.

310. 0:46:58

     So looking at, is 120 the first one?

311. 0:47:01

     120 is the first one.

312. 0:47:02

     Looks like that one would go to majority, wouldn't it?

313. 0:47:04

     Definitely.

314. 0:47:07

     123 is the next instance.

315. 0:47:12

     And I believe that's the one that's gonna stay in place

316. 0:47:15

     That, that would stay unless we can get approval

317. 0:47:20

     You agree, Mr. Walker, that one we would leave?

318. 0:47:23

     Uh, I'm gonna have to just defer on the, on the, on this, Kyle, unless you wanna slow down your reading, Chairman

319. 0:47:30

     No, I'm talking about if, if we're gonna leave, I think what Senator Cowsert proposed is we would leave the provision where if it's less than two-thirds, it would still be sent to the governor even though it would take a majority.

320. 0:47:41

     Correct.

321. 0:47:41

     I think that was his intent.

322. 0:47:42

     That's it.

323. 0:47:43

     What about 216?

324. 0:47:49

     So is the next one 216? 213.

325. 0:47:56

     So we did 123, yes. 213 is the next one.

326. 0:48:11

     And I'm assuming that one would go to majority?

327. 0:48:12

     That would go to majority at 213.

328. 0:48:17

     And then 216.

329. 0:48:19

     Then 216.

330. 0:48:22

     So that would be-

331. 0:48:23

     216 would not

332. 0:48:24

     Would remain.

333. 0:48:25

     Yeah.

334. 0:48:26

     Okay, thanks. So that we would, say, change two-thirds to majority. Then at line 120, at line 213, at line 222, and line 236. In the event we may have missed something, can we give direction to legislative council to make corrections consistent with-

335. 0:48:49

     At this point

336. 0:48:49

     ... our intentions? Do we have a second for the proposed amendment?

337. 0:48:55

     Second.

338. 0:48:57

     Second from Senator Watson. So any discussion on the amendment? Leader Hatchett.

339. 0:49:04

     Yeah, I would just like to hear from the author, what's your position on these amendments?

340. 0:49:08

     On, on the ones that provide for a stay with a majority vote, I think those are friendly and consistent. This issue about the veto and two-thirds, um, I would ask for the law to stay the same until we can check with the governor's office.

341. 0:49:22

     Okay.

342. 0:49:23

     So I think everything that's been done up to now is friendly.

343. 0:49:26

     Okay.

344. 0:49:29

     Any other discussion from the author or the committee on the proposed amendment? All those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right. Any other amendments? Back to the motion to pass by committee substitute now as amended. All those in favor, please raise your hand.

345. 0:49:55

     See seven, counting right. Opposed? Three, motion carries. And who is carrying this bill in the Senate?

346. 0:50:04

     Floyd or Hatchett.

347. 0:50:05

     Hatchett. Getting busy. All right. Thank you.

348. 0:50:08

     Thank you.

349. 0:50:14

     All right. Come on up, Chairman Hilton. We have House Bill 1290 working off the version that passed the House, LC 4817-04. Is that what you have?

350. 0:50:31

     Yes, sir.

351. 0:50:31

     All right. The floor is yours.

352. 0:50:33

     All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Like you, I am passionate about helping our state's most vulnerable, and that's what House, House Bill 1290 aims to achieve. It targets the exploitation of an elder person, a disabled adult, or a resident of a long-term care facility. The bill makes three, uh, changes. The first change is it changes the standard from coercion to consent. Uh, the rationale here being that someone who is comatose or non-verbal is unable to, uh, have the capacity to, to do consent and not coerce-

353. 0:51:11

     To be coerced

354. 0:51:12

     ... coerced and not consent. Uh, secondarily, it removes the requirement that a pers- person being a caregiver authority, the rationale here being that a neighbor or fam- family member can commit this crime. And then lastly, the bill adds sexual abuse exploitation of an elder or disabled adult to the sex offender registry commensurate with the sexual e- exploitation of a child. Uh, this bill was brought to me. Uh, we've got an Elder Abuse Council that's, uh, come up with this legislation a- as well as the Prosecuting Attorneys Council.

355. 0:51:49

     Passed out of committee unanimously as well on the floor, uh, unanimously as well. So I will yield for questions.

356. 0:51:57

     All right. Any questions from the committee?

357. 0:52:02

     You do have a question.

358. 0:52:03

     I do.

359. 0:52:04

     Senator McNeel.

360. 0:52:05

     Lines 20, let's say, 21 through 25, I was mainly concerned not having mouth included or oral cavity or however you wanted to phrase it. Just seeing if...

361. 0:52:23

     That is existing code, right?

362. 0:52:24

     Yeah. So you're r-

363. 0:52:28

     Well, it's really lines-

364. 0:52:29

     21 through 25

365. 0:52:29

     ... 22 and 24. I'm just seeing if you gave consideration-

366. 0:52:36

     Yeah

367. 0:52:36

     ... to having a mouth or oral cavity be included or if you'd be agreeable to an amendment along those lines.

368. 0:52:42

     This is-

369. 0:52:43

     I'll, I'll defer to my prosecutor here.

370. 0:52:45

     Pull the mic over too.

371. 0:52:46

     Yeah.

372. 0:52:46

     Yes, sir. Uh, Will Johnson with the Prosecuting Attorneys Council. I'm the state's resource prosecutor for elder and disabled adult abuse. Um, this is already statutorily set in other portions of the code, and so we pulled it over from human trafficking and child sexual abuse. So to change it would, uh, make it no longer commensurate with the other portions of the code it represents. Um, and we have other, um, statutes that we could use for that kind of, um, crime.

373. 0:53:20

     Okay

374. 0:53:24

     Any other questions from the committee?

375. 0:53:32

     All right, that's everybody that's signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee? Wait, did you want... Come on down, Miss... Y'all step aside for a second and let Ms. Mills come down. I'm sorry.

376. 0:53:46

     I apologize. The floor is yours.

377. 0:53:49

     No, I appreciate it. Uh, sorry about the hold-up back there before. Asthma is a nightmare this time of year, but I think I'm up to, to, to the challenge. Uh, my name is Brooke Mills. I'm self-representing, and I a- appreciate and support this bill. Um, I have heard, heard too many stories from my, my friends in caretaking, 'cause I, I, I myself am a part-time caretaker, of adult horror stories of their, their loved ones unconscious or in someone else's care. So I absolutely appreciate, um, and support what the author and the sponsor is doing here.

378. 0:54:20

     And I hope that the, uh, committee will consider passing.

379. 0:54:25

     Thank you, Ms. Mills. Thank you, Ms. Mills.

380. 0:54:29

     All right. That's everyone that's signed up to speak on the bill. What's the pleasure of the committee?

381. 0:54:34

     Move to pass.

382. 0:54:35

     Motion to pass, Leader Hatchett, a second from Senator Bearden. Do we have amendments? Senator Bearden, what's your mic number?

383. 0:54:43

     Uh, number five.

384. 0:54:45

     Number five.

385. 0:54:46

     Everyone should have an amendment on their desk. On this amendment, we just go to line 67, 68, striking those two, creating a section three, dealing with Title 50 of the Fifth Code of Georgia, 50-18-79. This is one that, um, I believe we voted on in the Senate already before, but any claim of an unlawful employment practice made against the General Assembly, the House of Representatives, Senate, or any member.

386. 0:55:18

     You want me to read the whole thing, or we got it in front of us and-

387. 0:55:21

     No, I mean, you can just explain it and so-

388. 0:55:22

     Yeah, everybody. So see where the amendment is, then you create the new section four, and then section five, which is all laws, in parts law and conflicts are repealed. But everyone should have a copy of this on their, on their desk.

389. 0:55:39

     So we have proposed amendment from Senator Bearden. Do we have a second for the amendment?

390. 0:55:44

     Second.

391. 0:55:45

     Second from Senator Robertson. Any discussion on the amendment? All right, all those in favor of the amendment, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. All right, back to any other amendments. Back to the motion do pass now as amended. All those in favor, please raise your hand. It is unanimous. And who is carrying this one in the Senate?

392. 0:56:11

     I was gonna ask Mr. Robertson, but maybe Mr. Bearden would, uh, be a good... Yeah.

393. 0:56:16

     We'll let them arm wrestle it out and see.

394. 0:56:18

     Do you get to-

395. 0:56:19

     I yield to, I yield to the former member Rob Clifton, House member, so we'll let him-

396. 0:56:24

     All right. So Senator Bearden, Chairman Bearden. All right. Thank you.

397. 0:56:28

     Thank you.

398. 0:56:29

     Just want to yield to him.

399. 0:56:31

     All right. Last bill on the agenda, House Bill 267, and this is gonna be presented by Leader Hatchett. We have a substitute. It is no longer the Riley Gaines Act, because we already passed that. And so this is a new bill that's not completely new. LC395081S.

400. 0:57:01

     You wanna explain it for us?

401. 0:57:02

     Yes. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. Uh, this'll be, like you said, you said LC395081S?

402. 0:57:13

     Yes.

403. 0:57:14

     Okay. So we, we've actually passed this language, some of this language out of this committee already. It deals with, uh, defensive driving, DUI courses. Um, but the section which, backstory, I was actually gonna try to amend this on the floor to add a section that I like. Um, saw this bill, decided to try to use this as a vehicle for my language, and then the DUI course language was also put in. Because, uh, what I'm trying to do is make the law where if you are convicted of homicide, uh, DUI, and you kill a parent who has minor children, then you will be responsible for paying child support of said minor children until they reach 18 or graduate from high school.

404. 0:58:12

     One of the reasons I think this is so important is all too often when someone is driving DUI and causes an accident like this, um, they either don't have insurance or they have state minimum insurance. And as you're aware, minimum insurance right now in the state of Georgia is $25,000. And if you are a parent, uh, heaven forbid, if I were hit, uh, on the way home tonight, uh, $25,000 would not take care of my children.

405. 0:58:42

     And so what this tries to do is hold, number one, hold the person responsible, but also, uh, try to provide some type of financial stability for minor children who do lose a parent, um, in an accident like this caused by a drunk driver.

406. 0:59:07

     All right. Any questions from the committee?

407. 0:59:12

     And Ms. Mills, were you wanting to be heard on this bill? Okay. Come on down.

408. 0:59:19

     Well, if I could just be so bold as to ask, does anyone have a spare copy of House safe? 'Cause I have not been able to do a line-by-line analysis of it. All right. I appreciate that, Senator.

409. 0:59:29

     Sure.

410. 0:59:30

     Get to the point.

411. 0:59:32

     Yeah, it's a different bill than the original one. The original language was completely taken out. This now deals with the DUI courses, and then has the language that was mentioned, um, by Leader Hatchett dealing with, uh, alcohol

412. 0:59:46

     Uh, first and foremost, can appreciate, um, um, um, any good DUI program as much as the next person. Um, for better or for worse, unfortunately, um, my sibling suff- suffers from fetal alcohol syndrome, so she has had her struggles and challenges. And by the grace of God, she has co- um, come out swinging, but there's certainly been lower points and more safeguards around D- uh, um, around DUI as a whole would be much appreciated. And I also appreciate you giving me a copy o- a- among, of, of this, the, the substitute 'cause u- um, unfortunately, I hadn't had a chance to do a line-by-line analysis of it yet, but this is looking pretty clean over, u- u- um, over here.

413. 1:00:27

     And she would definitely have benefited fro- u- um, from this. She, she's still with us today. I just want to make that clear. I'm not saying ... S- uh, uh, um, she, um, she's, um, been, been sober for, um, um for several months now, and it's fantastic. Um, but the fact that there wasn't any, a- any, um, infrastructure or material to help catch that earlier on, and, a- and, um, really just put those barriers in- in- um, into place before she could've hurt someone 'cause, trust me, there were definitely some close calls, um, myself in- cl- cl- ... Don't worry.

414. 1:00:57

     Our cars weren't totaled. Um, but no, I absolutely, um, um, um, love what, what, what this does. It's certainly a bit of a sh- of a, a surprise for the end of the day, but lo- love, uh, uh, um, love what, what the, um, gentleman is doing here. Thank you.

415. 1:01:12

     All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate you weighing in. Yeah. Thank you. Oh, you want to close this out, Leader Hatchett?

416. 1:01:20

     Yeah, if I may. Uh-

417. 1:01:22

     We make a mistake.

418. 1:01:23

     There was a mistake in this bill. So this actually was one of the, I guess, the original version. Uh, if you look at w- lines 111 through 115, uh, we need to ... I would propose ... I guess I can do that as a member of the committee. I would propose that we amend by striking lines 111 through 115. Um, and let me explain. So earlier when I was talking about someone that doesn't have insurance or has minimum coverage, uh, if you have $25,000, that's not gonna be sufficient. What 111 through 115 says is that, "No restitution shall be ordered pursuant to this subsection when a civil judgment awarding compensation for the death of a parent or guardian or of a minor has been obtained prior to sentencing." When you have $25,000, if that's all that's awarded, um, that is not enough.

419. 1:02:10

     And so this was drafted by, um, legislative council, and it was based off a statute in another state which handles wrongful death claims differently-

420. 1:02:23

     Sure

421. 1:02:23

     ... than ours. Um, and so that language just needs to be struck.

422. 1:02:28

     Let's get a motion due pass for the bill, then we can do that as an amendment. Do we have a motion due pass for committee substitute? We do from Senator Robertson, and a second from Senator, Chairman Bearden. All right. For amendment, you propose striking lines 111 through 115. Do we-

423. 1:02:45

     Yes

424. 1:02:45

     ... have a second for that amendment, Mr. Walker? You can't second it now.

425. 1:02:51

     Um, if we make that change, we would just need to make some conforming changes. If we would be losing paragraph number two, then we cannot have a paragraph number one on line 92, so we would strike the one from 92, and we would re-designate the subparagraphs on 101 through 109 as paragraphs one, two, three, four, five, and six. So just conforming changes for format.

426. 1:03:16

     Yes, sir.

427. 1:03:17

     One, one question for Michael. In the second draft of the amendment that I had, there was actually some, I guess, magic language that we had for paragraph two that said something to eff- to the effect that any sentencing under this code section shall not impact any other remedies available at law.

428. 1:03:39

     Uh, i- if, if you can describe the amendment that you'd like to pass, I can get the language that you have in mind-

429. 1:03:46

     I would like-

430. 1:03:46

     ... if I'm given that

431. 1:03:47

     ... if we strike the, I guess keep par- paragraph two, but then strike the words that are on line, lines 111 through 115, and just put in ...

432. 1:03:57

     It shall be in addition to and shall not limit any other-

433. 1:04:00

     That's it

434. 1:04:00

     ... um, claim. Something like, like that.

435. 1:04:03

     So if you ... With that direction, if you'll g- give me the authority to make that language comply with the objective, I, I can do that.

436. 1:04:10

     Is there any objection from the committee to doing that? Let's then vote on the underlying amendment. Does everybody understand the amendment? Let's vote on it. All those in favor, raise your hand. There was a second from Senator Bearden, Chairman Bearden. All right, the amendment carries.

437. 1:04:26

     Thank you.

438. 1:04:27

     So back to the underlying motion, due pass by committee substitute as amended a couple times. All those in favor, raise your hand. It is unanimous. And is Leader Hatchett carrying your bill to the floor?

439. 1:04:40

     I believe so.

440. 1:04:41

     Okay.

441. 1:04:41

     Thank you.

442. 1:04:41

     All right. Thank you. That is everything we have today. We'll meet again on Monday at 4:00, or whatever time we end up getting to committee. With that, we're adjourned.