Sesión en el pleno de la Cámara de Representantes, 31 de marzo de 2026 (día legislativo 39, parte 2)

Transcripción

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

1. 0:22:16

   House will come back to order. House will come back to order. Hope you enjoyed your lunch.

2. 0:22:24

   The Senate's hard at work. We wanna get back to work over here as well.

3. 0:22:31

   Mr. Clerk.

4. 0:22:32

   Yeah.

5. 0:22:33

   Would you ring the bell and so our members know we're getting ready to get started again here.

6. 0:24:19

   House will come to order. We have quite a few privileged resolutions, and I'm gonna ask the clerk if he'll read the caption to a group of privileged, privileged resolutions. Mr. Clerk.

7. 0:24:31

   Honoring the life and memory of Aisha Jeffries. Honoring the life and legacy of Sister Rosa Lee Brown Thompson. Honoring the life and memory of John Widner Adams. Congratulating the Beckley County High School's One Act team for winning the 2025 Class A Division 1 State One Act Championship. Commending the Middle Judicial Circuit District Attorney's Office.

8. 0:25:01

   Recognizing and commending Alexander Vladimir Prunescu on his outstanding public service. Recognizing and commending Christopher Lambrey. Recognizing and commending Damion King. Recognizing and commending Representative Carl Gilliard. Recognizing and commending Sierra Haynes on her outstanding public service.

9. 0:25:34

   Recognizing and commending Serina Reyes Garcia on her outstanding public service. Commending. Congratulating the Heritage High School girls basketball team. Recognizing March 31st, 2026, as Undeserved Communities Day. Commending Sheriff Mark Melton. Commending Dylan Terrell. Commending Blake.

10. 0:25:55

    See what they do today.

11. 0:25:56

    Recognizing Prisa U- Uwagahbe. Recognizing and commending Daniel Campos.

12. 0:26:09

    Commending Atlanta on the occasion of its 10th anniversary. Recognizing and commending Georgia Asian Times. Recognizing and commending the Johns Creek Symphony. Congratulating and commending the Muscogee County School District's 2026 Teacher of the Year. Honoring the Atlantan. Recognizing and commending Townsend and Lockett LLC. Recognizing and commending Pastor Terry Woodward for his outstanding service. Recognizing and commending Mr. Jack Leslie for his extraordinary service.

13. 0:26:39

    Recognizing and commending Bob Blackburn. Recognizing March 31st, 2026, as Community-Based Doula Day. Recognizing the excellence and achievement of the 2025 GHSA State Championship Lambert High School Experts Team. Congratulating the Denmark High School varsity team. Congratulating the South Forsyth High School's girls swimming team. Recognizing, commending.

14. 0:27:10

    Recognizing Eddie Spiner for the 2026 State Championship. Recognizing the athletic achievements of Owen Cooper. Recognizing and congratulating Ellie Cooper. Recognizing and commending Oliver Van Pengham. Recognizing and commending Artemis Eaton. Honoring-

15. 0:27:34

    Thank you so much. Appreciate you

16. 0:27:34

    ... and commending First Lady Marty Kemp. Congratulating Kennesaw State University's men basketball team. Recognizing and commending the Wheeler High School's Social Studies National Honor Society. Recognizing and commending Dee Armstrong about her induction to the Georgia Association of Broadcasters Hall of Fame. Recognizing and commending Dr. Miranda Brand. Recognizing and commending, recognizing and commending the 250th anniversary of the United States of America.

17. 0:28:08

    Recognizing the importance of the Rockdale County Board of Commissioners. Commending Jolinda Ellis. Recognizing March 12th, 2026, as Locust Grove Day at the State Capitol.

18. 0:28:29

    And for other purposes. That completes the reading like, of the privilege resolutions.

19. 0:31:34

    Is there any objection to adopting the privilege resolutions? Hearing none, the resolutions are adopted. Boy, you're out of breath, aren't you, Mr. Clerk?

20. 0:32:12

    Members, we're going to take up a local calendar, and you will need to pay attention to this local calendar.

21. 0:32:30

    I was just having a conversation with our clerks.

22. 0:32:42

    My apologies. I got ahead of myself. They are, they're, they're passing out now. That's my bad. You're right, Rep- Representative Romman, it's not my first one.

23. 0:33:59

    Members, we're gonna change up a little bit while I wanna ensure that everyone has the local calendar. We're gonna, we're gonna take up a, um, go back on the rules calendar and take up a bill on the local, on the rules calendar. Excuse me.

24. 0:34:21

    Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 458? 458. Senate Bill 458 by Senator Goodman of the 8th. To be entitled an act to amend Chapter 41 of Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to residential and commercial general contractors so as to provide for licensure for home inspectors. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Regulated Industries. That committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

25. 0:34:57

    Chairman Clint Crowe is recognized to present the bill. Chairman Crowe.

26. 0:35:03

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, as you heard, this bill, uh, is going to implement and put into practice, uh, measures for home inspectors to become licensed in the State of Georgia. We are one of the few states that doesn't require licensure for home inspectors, and they've become a critical part of the home buying process now. In fact, every other person involved in the process of buying or selling a home is licensed except the home inspector, and this would provide a mechanism for inspectors to become licensed and also some requirements for them to r- uh, possess insurance and a way for people to, um, file a complaint and, and have them, uh, their license removed if for some reason that they are a bad actor.

27. 0:35:47

    It also is dealing with, uh, wholesalers. Um, those are folks that are going out and basically putting homes under contract, then try to resell them to bypass the licensure requirements for real estate agents. Uh, and really what they're doing is they're doing it without the consent of the people they have the home under contract with. Those folks think their home is sold and it, the, all, all the while these people are just trying to go out and resell that home, and maybe are not intending on buying that home unless they find somebody e- else to sell it. So that's the, uh, essentially the meat of the bill, and I'll be happy to answer any questions, Mr.

28. 0:36:21

    Speaker, if there are any. Gentleman has no questions. Thank you, all. Yield the will and ask for your favorable consideration.

29. 0:37:10

    Gentleman has yielded the will. He had no questions. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Will do. Hearing none- Yes ... report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes.

30. 0:37:41

    All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

31. 0:38:09

    Have all members voted?

32. 0:38:14

    All members voted.

33. 0:38:21

    If so, the clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 458, the yeas are 138, the nays are 19. This bill having received the requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 111? 111.

34. 0:38:46

    Senate Bill 111 by Senator Albers, the 56th and others to be entitled an Act to amend Title 10 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to commerce and trade, so as to enact the Georgia Consumer Privacy Protection Act. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Technology and Infrastructure Innovation. That committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

35. 0:39:12

    Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Representa- Representative Angie O'Steen is recognized to present Senate Bill 111. The lady is recognized.

36. 0:39:23

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We all know how impactful the Georgia HEART program is to many rural hospitals, and thankfully the House has always been focused on access to maternal care and making sure we take care of our birthing mothers and babies. This meal, this bill merges those great things together. This is actually House Bill 662 that passed out of the House unanimously about a month ago. I would just ask for your favorable consideration of this bill.

37. 0:39:53

    Lady has, she has one question. Representative Sanchez, to your right.

38. 0:39:57

    Yes.

39. 0:39:58

    Recognize for a question.

40. 0:39:59

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentlelady yield?

41. 0:40:01

    Yes, sir.

42. 0:40:01

    So how does including freestanding emergency departments help ensure that rural residents get the healthcare they need without having to travel long distances?

43. 0:40:09

    So this bill brings all of those in, these critical access. There's only one and it happens to be in my district and that's Irwin County Hospital. And it just opens up that door for them to be able to have that service line.

44. 0:40:20

    Thank you.

45. 0:40:21

    Thank you so much. I yield the way, Mr. Speaker.

46. 0:40:24

    You had no further questions. Good job. Quality, affordable healthcare, no doubt. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? The lady had yielded the way. Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no and Mr.

47. 0:40:54

    Clerk will unlock the machine.

48. 0:42:06

    Have all members voted?

49. 0:42:12

    All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 111, the yeas are 162, the nays 1. This bill having received the requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 501? 501.

50. 0:42:34

    Senate Bill 501 by Senator Robertson, the 29th, to be entitled an Act to amend Title 8 and 25 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to building and housing and fire protection and safety respectively, so as to improve government efficiency by updating provisions by the Office of Safety and the Fire Commissioner. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Regulated Industries. That committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

51. 0:43:02

    Representative Chastain is recognized to speak to Senate Bill 501.

52. 0:43:08

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to present SB 501 this afternoon. Uh, I actually had this same bill that I carried in the House this year, made it all the way to, uh, crossover and, and didn't pass. But this bill is coming over from the Senate identical to the one that I had, that I carried in the House. Um, we had some really great work on this bill in Regulated Industries, uh, passing through there unanimously. Uh, it's a department bill for the insurance commissioner and it does about four or five things. I'll hit on those and then, uh, be glad to answer any questions.

53. 0:43:40

    But, uh, so number one, it changes the duties from the state fire marshal over to the deputy commissioner of fire, of safety fire, always fire safety but it, we've changed that to safety fire position and that's gonna take a little bit of the responsibility off the current, uh, fire marshal and, and create this safety fire position. It's not a new position. It's not a new person. He's already there. They're just clarifying the title and there haven't been any changes in this part of the insurance commissioner's office in several years so these are just some kind of cleanup provisions in there.

54. 0:44:11

    It also provides oversight over deputized personnel to ensure deputized local fire marshals and state inspectors are in compliance with administrative and operational procedures. It authorizes the commissioner to issue an immediate evacuation order if he deems a building or a structure, uh, presents an imminent life safety hazard. Also, it enhances fire fatality investigation and reporting by requiring local coroners to make sure they report all their fire fatalities to the agency and prevent them from moving any of these, these, uh, decedents until authorized by the state fire marshal.

55. 0:44:47

    The last thing, it increases the, the fine which has not been increased in many, many years, uh, for not complying with smoke detectors. Uh, it increases that from $25 to $100 and that would be after a warning is already issued for those fire, for those fire detectors in the house. Also, the second part of this bill that came through a committee, uh, House Bill 1095, we added the language from 1095 on to, to this bill that we had, uh, for the firework industry.

56. 0:45:18

    Basically, it allows our smaller fireworks retailers, if they own, if they own, uh, two established fireworks stands, they can, they can, they will be able to, to put up three, uh, temporary, uh, fireworks stands. That's just for, for July 4th and for January 1st, uh, temporary fireworks stands. And also, if they're out of state, uh, they have to own at least 10 locations in Georgia to be able to do the three, because we don't want a lot of folks from out of state coming over and setting up, uh, taking, taking funds away from our local retailers.

57. 0:45:50

    And Mr. Speaker, that's the bill. I'll be glad to answer any questions. You have a question. Representative Lisa Campbell to your left is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am. Um, could you explain, um, uh, lines 289 through nine, line 292? This is on page 12. Just to clarify a little bit around why the nonprofit group definition has been struck

58. 0:46:23

    and how that's relevant to this- Yes, that was- ... legislation. Yes, ma'am. That was struck just to allow m- uh, more permanent consumer firework retailers to be able to sell fireworks.

59. 0:46:37

    And does the gentleman further yield? Yes, ma'am. And just as a point of clarity and understanding then, so help me understand again. This is to allow organizations to sell

60. 0:46:53

    and now also changes the definition of the sponsored organization. I'm just not, it's not clear to me the, um, the connection to public or private elementary and secondary schools. Yes, and all that's still, that's under the N- the NFPA, uh, Protection Act now that's very stringent. Um, all that, none of that changed other than we're just allowing folks that own, that have two freestanding to put up three temporaries.

61. 0:47:26

    Gentleman has another question. Representative Moore to your left has a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am. Not sure if I heard you correctly. Did you say that firework vendors who are from out of state must have 10 locations to operate in the state of Georgia? Yes. They have to have t- they, they, they have to have 10 locations in the state of Georgia to be able to put up these temporary stands. Um, say that one more time. Okay. They have to already have t- at least 10 locations in Georgia before they can up, put up three more temporaries.

62. 0:48:02

    Uh- Yes. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Uh, Representative, uh, Chairman Carpenter to your right is recognized for a question. Is it not true, or does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. I yield. Is it not true that this legislation seeks to protect Georgia businesses- Yes ... during the 250th celebration so we don't have people coming from out of state to profit on all our citizens? Yes, sir. Is that correct? Thank you. That's the, that's the intention. Gentleman done a good job. He has no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll yield the well. Appreciate any support on it.

63. 0:48:34

    Gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there a- any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

64. 0:49:13

    Member's recognized to not

65. 0:49:21

    vote. I've gotta get out. No, that's good.

66. 0:49:27

    Have all members voted? For what purpose does Representative Richardson rise? Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, based on the Cheokas Rule, I'm gonna recuse myself from this vote. Cheokas Rule, I've heard of that before. Ru- ru- Rule 133. That's the one I was talking about. Yeah. The gentleman has that right, and the record res- will so reflect. Thank you, Clerks. Have all members voted? All members voted.

67. 0:49:58

    If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the pass- passage of Senate Bill 501, the yays are 155, the nays are nine. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

68. 0:50:18

    Members, let's take up this local calendar. Does everyone have a copy of the local calendar?

69. 0:50:40

    Members, we have two bills on the local calendar that are, are agrees, and these bills have received the re- requisite number of signatures required. The House delegation wishes to agree to the Senate substitute as amended by the House to one bill and agree to the Senate substitute to the other bill. Third reading and passage of uncontested local bills. If there's no objection, we will vote on the local calendar as a whole with a recorded vote.

70. 0:51:12

    Hearing none, it is so ordered. Mr. Clerk, will you read the local calendar? House Bill 1522 by Representative Bernell of the 77th Clayton County. Senate Bill 359 by substitute by Senator Jones of the 10th Henry County. Senate Bill 613 by substitute

71. 0:51:28

    By Senator Davenport of the 17th, Clayton County. Senate Bill 623 by substitute by Senator Wicks of the 34th, Clayton County. House Bill 858 agreeing to the Senate substitute as amended by the House, Cobb County. House Bill 1504 agreeing to the Senate substitute by Representative Crawford of the 89th, DeKalb County.

72. 0:51:56

    Members, you, uh, understand that HB 858, we're agreeing to the Senate substitute as amended by the House by Representative Cummings. And on House Bill 1504, we're agreeing to the Senate substitute offered by Representative Crawford. That's what we'll be voting on. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered on the local calendar? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bills?

73. 0:52:29

    Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall these bills now pass? All of those in favor of passage of the bills on the local calendar will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

74. 0:53:16

    Have all members voted? All members voted on the local calendar? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of the bills on the local calendar, the yeas are 161, the nays are three. These bills, having received the requisite constitutional majority, are therefore passed.

75. 0:54:30

    Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 552? 552. Senate Bill 552 by Senator Watson and the first to be entitled An Act to Amend Subpart 2A of Part 1 of Article 16 in Chapter 2 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to clubs and organizations so as to provide for equal access to public schools for students engaged in political or philosophical expression. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Judiciary, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by Rules Committee substitute.

76. 0:55:06

    Before I recognize Chairman Leverett to present the bill, we have a couple members signed up that are opposed to this bill, and we have a minority report. So, if members will be paying attention to those speaking to this bill and to their thoughts on SB 552. Chairman Leverett is recognized to speak to Senate Bill 552. Please give the gentleman the weight of your attention. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, Senate Bill 552 is based on the Federal Equal Access Act, which applies to schools nationwide.

77. 0:55:44

    Basically, that act and this one provides that if a school is going to establish a limited open forum, that is, if they are going to allow other groups to come in and use, um, school facilities for meetings, that they have to c- they can't discriminate based on the content of, of the s- the, the subject or the, or the viewpoint of the group. Um, the Federal Equal Access Act already provides this, but this tries to flesh that out in Georgia with a little greater detail. Uh, we also in committee added a number of, um, um, ex- I, I won't say exceptions, but clarification points, uh, toward the end of the bill.

78. 0:56:20

    Um, there's a section there, Section H, which is also based on the Federal Equal Access Act, but we added items four through seven in lines 86 through 91, uh, to try to clarify that schools still retain the ability to maintain order and discipline, to enforce attendance policies, to make sure that students stay safe, and, um, uh, t- they have the right to restrict conduct that either causes or could reasonably be forecast to cause st- substantial disruption or an infringement on the rights of other students. So, um, there's also a provision, uh, concerning when the school is deemed to have satisfied the requirements of the act.

79. 0:56:57

    That's also based on the Federal Equal Access Act, and s- the, many of the definitions also come out of that act. So, um, schools are already obligated under the Constitution and under the federal law to observe many of these practices. This just tries to clarify it in Georgia, and it does further define them somewhat. So, that's the bill, Mr. Speaker, and I'm glad to stand for any questions. The gentleman has a couple of questions. To your left, Representative Mary Margaret Oliver is recognized for a question. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am.

80. 0:57:27

    I asked you in committee the other day whether there was one example you could give in the state of Georgia that demonstrated a problem that required this bill, and you told me at that time that you were not aware of any. Have you found any examples since we last talked of why this bill is necessary?

81. 0:57:47

    I didn't find specific examples in Georgia. No, ma'am, I did not. There are some examples in other states, and I think the concern is to go ahead and try to address it before it starts happening. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Representative Barnes, to your left, is recognized for a question. Representative Imadi Barnes- Thank you ... lady's recognized. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am. Um, I'm trying to see, like, is this not already protected under law, Georgia law? I, I, I don't know that it would be protected under Georgia law currently.

82. 0:58:18

    Um, I do feel that m- many of the provisions of the bill are provided by federal law already. But this, there are some things in here that are not in the federal law that further tries to define the scope of the protection. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Chairman Carpenter to your right's recognized for a question. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Just a quick question. I apologize, this legislation just came up, but we've had a, we had a few incidents in Northwest Georgia where school children were actually leaving school to do protests, et cetera. Does this help address some of those issues? Well, I don't know that it would address that, but we have, that was a concern that I had heard expressed from school systems a- around the bill.

83. 0:58:54

    And so we've added provisions to make it clear you can enforce attendance policy, and you can also prohibit disruption on school grounds. Thank you. I appreciate that, 'cause, you know, I know it's, you know, obviously I want everybody to be able to do a protest and stand up against things, but order's important. Thank you. I, I would agree completely. Thank you. Representative Sanchez to your right, towards the back, is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. So I know there's been issues with this in- including in my community, where students were protesting against ICE of last month.

84. 0:59:25

    Would this bill protect them from being able to organize those activities without being, uh, unduly suspended like they were previously? Well, it depends on the activity. I think the school system still retains, uh, the authority to maintain order, to enforce, um, attendance rules, uh, and those sorts of things. So I'm, I'm, I, I did hear some of that, um, uh, when that happened, but I don't know the- Do you want me to repeat it? ... details of it. Huh? Do you want me to repeat the question? No, no, not your question. I'd heard in the news about some- Oh, yes ... of that happening. So I'm, I'm vaguely familiar, but I don't know the specific incident.

85. 0:59:55

    I think under this bill, um, saying, "I'm not gonna take my math test," as a protest would not be permitted. Getting up in the middle of a instructional time and leaving, um, it, it doesn't have to be permitted under this bill. The school system is still allowed to, um, uh, or to, to enforce those rules. Now to the extent the school was allowing, uh, people who had different viewpoints to do exactly what those students did and selectively would not let them do it because of their, their, you know, political perspective, the bill would prohibit that.

86. 1:00:28

    Got it. And do you further yield? Yes. I know we recently passed legislation that prevents outside organizations from organizing on schools, so d- does this u- undo that? Does it conflict with that? Like, what's the- Well, it could impact. Again, it, it depends on the policy of the school. The, the, we added some language in, in House Jude to make it clear that a school doesn't have to maintain a limited open forum if it doesn't want to. But if it does, it just has to be fair about the way it does it. So i- if, if they do allow some non-student groups on campus to use facilities, to meet at certain times, they just have to be non-discriminatory in the way they enforce that policy.

87. 1:01:03

    All right. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Gentleman yield? Uh, yes, Mr. Speaker. Representative Williams, Mary Frances Williams, to your left, wa- is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am. So, um, we've got actually two rule substitutes on our desk. And so could you please clarify which LC number you're working from? Yes. Um, um, the one I'm working from is LC492882S.

88. 1:01:33

    All right. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Representative Townsend of the center aisle is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Question for you. Um, does this, talking about certain groups, you're talking about outside school groups such as the Boy Scouts and those kinda- Yes ... groups as well? Yes. And they'll, if, is it go back to a student sponsor again, or does the next group that wants to come in, it could be whatever group you want? Uh, do they have to have a student sponsor as well, or does it go that, uh, in-depth, too?

89. 1:02:07

    I was trying to read through it real quick and- Well, the, the, there is a definition of sponsor and sponsorship, and I believe that is, um, let's see.

90. 1:02:21

    It is used later in the bill. I'm trying to remember. I'm, forgive me a second. Um.

91. 1:02:44

    I believe that is used in, uh, as the, the school cannot disclaim sponsorship in a way that is, uh, discriminatory. But I, I think the school is still free to enforce whatever rules they have about requiring a sponsor. There is a, a pro- a prohibition here about allowing people who are not students. Uh, you know, it, it doesn't limit the school's ability to do that. But if they require sponsors for one kind of group, they have to require it for the others. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you for the question. Sorry, sorry. No, this is great. Thank you. Took a little time on that one.

92. 1:03:15

    Representative Gisler, to your right, right, to your back, towards the back, yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes. Um, uh, I really don't have any objections to this legislation. It sounds pretty good. But I do wonder about unintended consequences. Uh, under this legislation, would a student group be able to have a meeting of, say, the Communist Party of America, and would that p- be protected under this legislation? I, I, I believe it would if they allow, um, other political groups to organize.

93. 1:03:46

    Um, now, th- they, again, they can still require sponsorship by faculty and, and things of that nature, but, uh, I, I think they could. And frankly, I think p-

94. 1:03:55

    ... schools currently are subject to that restriction.

95. 1:03:58

    Thank you, sir.

96. 1:03:59

    Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I know there's some other speakers on the bill. I don't wanna consume any more floor time, but I'll, I'll yield and, um, um, be glad if anyone has any questions, I'll be sitting out here.

97. 1:04:11

    Thank you. The gentleman has yielded the well. We have, um, a couple of folks signed up to speak that are opposed to the bill. We're gonna give them 15 minutes total for them to divide amongst themselves, and that's Representative Berry and Representative Jasmine Clark. Representative Berry is recognized to go first. Gentle- give the gentleman the well your attention, please. Representative Clark, you'll be, um, after Representative Berry.

98. 1:04:39

    Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me be clear at the outset, 'cause I don't want anybody clipping this out of context later. I believe in protecting a student's right to speak. I believe in the right to organize, to protest, to challenge authority. I said that before, and I'll say that again. In fact, I even have a bill about this very issue. This is not about whether students have the right to speak. We know they do, and they should. I'll stand with anyone, Republican or Democrat, to protect that. But today I wanna talk about the name of this bill and the decision to tie it to the ideas and the rhetoric of Charlie Kirk and Turning Point USA.

99. 1:05:20

    It's unfortunate that in these final few hours of the session we have to have these debates. This could've been a slam dunk, 180 to zero vote, but instead, make it partisan. Instead, we're allowing the Senate to put us into a pointless partisan battle. Has it gotten that bad that we hand over control of our debate to the Senate? The folks over there clamoring for the same job are fighting for that one gotcha to, quote, "own the libs".

100. 1:05:51

     Why make it feel like it belongs to one side instead of to every student in Georgia? That's a missed opportunity, because the right to speak, to organize, to protest, that does not belong to Democrats, it does not belong to Republicans, it belongs to all of us. Now, look, I, I disagree with Hemmerly with everything that Turning Point USA stands for, but do I believe that Charlie Kirk deserved to be murdered? Absolutely not. Like any victim of gun violence, they should be here right now.

101. 1:06:23

     But I can also, I can say God rest his soul, and also say let's be honest, because if we're gonna elevate someone or some organization implicitly or explicitly through state law, then we ought to be honest about what they've said. Not the polished version, not the press release version, the real thing. This is someone who has dismissed conversations about systemic inequality and suggested that America's challenges are simply the result of individuals not working hard enough. I ask you, is this who and what we want to enshrine in the law of the state of Georgia?

102. 1:06:59

     When students, when Georgians see this bill, let's be reminded that they are not just reading policy language, they're absorbing a message about who we uplift, who we validate, and what kind of civic leadership we celebrate. I don't know about you, but when I think about examples we should set, I don't start there. I think about Julian Bond, who as a young man stood up against ju- injustice even when it cost him his seat in this chamber, the seat that I'm now honored to hold. I think about John Lewis, who taught about, taught us that democracy is an act and that sometimes you have to get into good trouble to make it real.

103. 1:07:36

     I think about Diane Nash, who organized, strategized, and led with a moral clarity that helped bend this country towards justice. Those are the voices we should be lifting up. Those are legacies that should echo through these halls. But when you attach that principle to a figure known for statements that are exclusionary, you risk undermining the univers- the universality you claim to protect. You take something that should bring people together and make it something that pushes us apart. So I'll close with this. Let's just pass good policy, y'all, without the petty partisan fights.

104. 1:08:10

     We don't have to waste an hour of time today over something w- that we all know is ludicrous. But we have to be thoughtful about the names we choose and the messages that we send, 'cause Georgia students are watching, and they deserve to see themselves reflected in the values that we elevate, and this bill does not do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well.

105. 1:08:48

     Representative Jasmine Clark is recognized to speak to the bill.

106. 1:08:55

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. Today I rise in opposition to this bill. So first I wanna talk about the fact that on college campuses, this is pretty much already law, and the underlying principles of this bill are actually something that I can get behind. See, I have always been a strong supporter of our First Amendment rights, and to be honest, my strong support of the First Amendment, the right to free speech, the right to protest, has sometimes put me in the political crosshairs of the majority party, especially during election time.

107. 1:09:44

     So I'm actually very appreciative of this moment. I'm memorializing this moment, because I appreciate that the majority party is now open to welcoming inclusive environments on our campuses. It actually brings me absolute joy that in this chamber we are embar- embracing diverse perspectives, inclusive campuses, and equitable access to ideas.

108. 1:10:20

     It seems we've reached a turning point where we can all get behind diversity, equity, and inclusion, and that brings me absolute joy. That's why it's disheartening to me that we could not agree on what to call it. Calling it the True Patriotism and Universal Student Access Act is a bit disingenuous, and here is why. First of all, this bill does not require that groups that we allow on our campuses actually be patriotic.

109. 1:10:59

     In fact, this bill opens it up to where we can allow, uh, groups that are the exact opposite of patriotic onto our campuses. So this title excludes some of the groups that it purportedly seeks to include on our campuses. But let's not gaslight each other. The acronym TPUSA is associated with a very specific group, Turning Point USA, with a very specific objective, which again seems counter to the goals of this bill according to the sponsor who just said that this is to include all groups, all perspectives, all different types of ideas on our campuses, not a specific one.

110. 1:11:54

     I'm not gonna speak long 'cause I think I've made my point. It brings me great joy that this body is embracing diversity, equity, and inclusion on our campuses. And if I can be honest, I wish we could just name the bill that, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on Campuses Act. But since we didn't, it breaks my heart that we are doing this bill in a way that only gives a nod to one political ideology and one specific organization, especially when just this morning we had fixed this and agreed to not do that.

111. 1:12:35

     We have the opportunity in this chamber to pass good policy without attaching it to certain organizations. We had that opportunity, and we let it slip through our fingers. We do not have to pass this bill in this manner. We could send it back to Rules or we can send it back to the Senate and say, "No, we don't want this." Again, I am voting no on this bill, although I wish that I could vote yes, and I wish that I could vote yes on this bill so that I could say I stood with my colleagues to embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion.

112. 1:13:15

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well. The lady has yielded the well. That completes our presentations on the bill and those opposed to the bill. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. We now have, um, up to 20 minutes for the minority report, up to 20. Uh, Representative Westbrook, I think you're first.

113. 1:13:45

     Then, uh, Representative Campbell, you will be second, and then Representative Lupton, you'll be third. Representative Westbrook is recognized to speak to Senate Bill 552. The lady's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good afternoon, colleagues. I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 552 because public honors are for shared values, not the values of a few to be imposed on the many.

114. 1:14:16

     As my colleague mentioned, for one brief shining moment this morning, it looked like we were gonna talk about literacy. We were gonna dispense with games. We were gonna dispense with partisanship. We were gonna dispense with culture wars and just do the good work that the people of this state need us to do. But alas, this bill is being promoted as a viewpoint neutral bill designed to protect civic and political participation by students, but it is more than that.

115. 1:14:49

     This bill is an homage to a particular organization, Turning Point USA, with a particular viewpoint. That homage is contained within two short lines of the text of this bill. Now, that text doesn't serve any purpose in this bill other than honoring Turning Point USA, and those two lines appeared in the original version of the bill in a committee substitute. They disappeared from a rules substitute. The bill was recommitted, and they're back. So I think it is fair to infer that that text is an important part of this bill, not ancillary to it.

116. 1:15:25

     If it were removed permanently, you would probably see this bill pass with an overwhelming bipartisan majority, but the text remains. It is incongruous to draft a bill purportedly intended to be viewpoint neutral while simultaneously elevating any particular viewpoint, but even more troubling is the viewpoint being elevated here. Turning Point USA is synonymous with its founder, Charlie Kirk, and I wanna pause right here and state unequivocally that the murder of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy, full stop.

117. 1:16:01

     It is tragic that on September 10th of last year, Charlie Kirk was among the number of Americans who die every day from the unique- u- uniquely American scourge-

118. 1:16:12

     Of gun violence. And tragedy can be a powerful force for shaping narratives. But we can acknowledge the tragedy of a young father daling- dying violently and needlessly and prematurely, and we can also tell the truth about the work he did during his life. We can mourn the messenger while telling the truth about his message. Charlie Kirk's declared devotion to debate cannot be separated from what he said and did while jousting in the public square.

119. 1:16:45

     He hosted white nationalists on his podcast. He made comments that denigrated the capability and intelligence of both Black men and Black women, amplifying a very old, persistent, harmful, and false trope that Black people are less capable and less intelligent than white people. He endorsed the white replacement conspiracy theory, which holds that Americans who trace their lineage to Europe are at risk of being replaced by Americans who trace their lineage to Africa or Asia or the Americas.

120. 1:17:18

     This theory has been the inspiration for countless acts of deadly racial violence, including a mass murder of Black people at a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, the mass murder of Jews at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the mass murder of Latinos at an El Paso Walmart, still the deadliest attack on Latinos in modern history. All acts of gun violence, by the way, like Charlie Kirk's own death. Kirk advised the young women who came to speak, to hear him speak at their colleges that the reason for them to attend college is not to develop their own minds or further their own studies or gain their own skills, but to obtain an MRS degree.

121. 1:18:00

     Apparently, education, the great equalizer in American life which unlocks opportunity and choice-filled lives, that's just for some. The rest of us should focus on finding a man.

122. 1:18:14

     Kirk derided women who supported Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024 for wanting careerism, consumerism, and loneliness, or as he also put it, "Democratic women wanna die alone without children." When Paul Pelosi, the husband of Representative Nancy Pelosi, was brutally attacked in an act of political violence intended for his wife, Kirk spread a conspiracy theory about the crime and called for an amazing patriot to bail out the assailant. He suggested gay people should be stoned to death.

123. 1:18:47

     He sent buses to January 6th under the umbrella of Turning Point USA to assist in those who wanted to overturn a democratic election. And he routinely deployed extreme rhetoric to demonize his political foes, including maintaining a professor watch list, also run under the umbrella of Turning Point USA, which we are on the cusp of honoring with this bill. One Black woman professor who found herself on the Turning Point USA watch list wrote, "I landed there in 2024 after writing commentary that inflamed the MAGA faithful, and once my name went up, the harassment machine roared to life.

124. 1:19:28

     For weeks, my inbox and, and voicemail were deluged. Mostly white men spat venom through the phone." She says a couple words here I'm not allowed to say from the well, but one starts with a B, one ends with an H, one starts with a C and ends with a T. One is a racial epithet that starts with an N and ends with an R, and that's what filled her inbox after she appeared on Turning Point USA's watch list. "They threatened all manner of violence. They overwhelmed the university's PR lines and the president's office with calls demanding that I be fired.

125. 1:20:01

     The flood was so relentless that the head of campus security reached out to offer me an escort because they feared one of these keyboard soldiers might step out of his basement and come do me harm." To be clear, my critique is not about whether Charlie Kirk had the right to say the things he said. This is about us. It is about our choice to elevate those messages and that messenger by enshrining them in our code.

126. 1:20:32

     What and who we honor matters.

127. 1:20:38

     I had no idea that the day for hearing this bill and debating it was going to coincide with Confederate Monuments Day. Um, and as it happens, I was thinking a lot about Confederate monuments as I thought about how I am affected by this bill, how this bill makes me feel, the Turning Point USA bill. Last week in the Governmental Affairs Committee, the committee heard a bill addressing Confederate monuments that there was more talk of that in rules today, and I think we're gonna be hearing more about that later.

128. 1:21:10

     But the bill sponsor last week in Governmental Affairs offered his bill as a pathway to solve a problem we have in this state. And it is true that for years we've been grappling with our state's monuments to the Confederacy, and other southern states and cities are grappling with theirs, too. Some cities have chosen to take them down, and some governments have sought to legally prevent their being taken down. We know that most of the South's Confederate monuments were not erected close in time to the end of the Civil War and were not placed to honor the war dead.

129. 1:21:44

     Only a minority of them were. Most were erected concurrent with the Jim Crow era that enshrined racial hierarchy, white supremacy, in law. The monuments of this era were placed prominently, often in the public square, and their message was intended to commu- communicate who was valued, who had the full rights of citizenship, who had power and who didn't. When the city of New Orleans made the decision to remove several Co- Confederate monuments, their mayor at the time, Mitch Landrieu, was a native New Orleanian and a white man who had passed those monuments countless times in his life and not thought very much about what they were intended to represent.

130. 1:22:29

     And he credited a friend of his, another New O- native New Orleanian, jazz trumpeter Wynton Marsalis, with helping him understand what those monuments communicated to those like Marsalis who grew up Black in New Orleans. To Black New Orleanians, they were not just part of the background. And the question was posed to Mayor Landrieu, "Why does Robert E. Lee sit atop our city? Can you honestly convince the children of this diverse city that Robert E.

131. 1:23:00

     Lee is there to encourage them, to inspire them, to help them see that their potential is limitless?" He couldn't. No one could. And the monuments came down because as the mayor said, "Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with division and discord and violence." Who and what we honor matters. And the reason those monuments are undisputedly still a problem, we're talking about them today, we're devoting legislative resources to them this session, is because the leaders of an earlier time made a choice.

132. 1:23:44

     They consciously chose to honor values that didn't uplift all, were never designed to uplift all, but were designed to elevate the wrong values, the values of a few, in a place that should have uplifted all. And this body is poised to do the same. Who and what we honor matters. So I ask this body, why would we enshrine the values of Turning Point USA in our code, in the law that is supposed to bind us all and protect us all?

133. 1:24:18

     Why would we amplify the great replacement theory, or white nationalism, or racism, or homophobia, or the patriarchy we say we oppose when it's practiced by the countries we wage war on abroad? Why would we uplift free speech for me, but harassment for thee? We will also pay a price with division and discord and even violence. At best, the decision we are making with this bill will not be admired by the future Georgians who look back on it, and they will be tasked with fixing it.

134. 1:24:58

     I ask you to join me in voting no on SB 552. And Mr. Speaker, I yield the well.

135. 1:25:06

     The lady has yielded the well. Representative Campbell is recognized to speak to the bill.

136. 1:25:15

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 552 today. As we just heard, this bill is called the True Patriotism and Universal Student Access Act. Its acronym is TPUSA, and it's not a coincidence. Turning Point, TPUSA, is a national conservative political organization that recruits and organizes on college and high school campuses.

137. 1:25:48

     This legislation shares its initials, mirrors its organizing priorities, and will open up Georgia's public school buildings to exactly the kind of campus political infrastructure that organization has spent years trying to build. I want to be fair to the bill's proponents. They argue that equal access is a neutral principle, that if we allow any student group to meet, we must allow all student groups to meet, regardless of political content.

138. 1:26:21

     And that argument has genuine constitutional grounding. The Federal E- Equal E- Access Act of 1984 established a version of this principle for secondary schools receiving federal funds, and our courts have upheld it. I do not dispute that students have First Amendment rights. But unfortunately, in this climate, in this state, I feel this bill will be misused.

139. 1:26:53

     This is not the first time that we've seen legislation full of double-speak, of duplicity. It actually seeks to put a disclaimer on patriotism, to try to a- tell us that there's a certain kind of patriot, only a true patriot. And who decides that? As many of you know, I am a strong supporter of empowering schools and empowering our students to become civically engaged, educated in our world.

140. 1:27:28

     But I'm opposed to this bill because several years ago, this body passed the Divisive Concepts bill, the exact opposite legislation to put barriers up to what our students could actually learn in their schools. If this body truly is interested in opening up opportunities for education, for leaders, for experts to come and teach, to learn, to engage, we would not continue to be putting up bills that prohibit our students from learning about science, biology, sex, their own bodies.

141. 1:28:13

     We would not continue to put up bills that prohibit the teaching of our history, of civil rights, of slavery. We would not be putting up bills to end the discussion about women's rights and voter suffrage.

142. 1:28:34

     I believe we should allow our students to speak, debate, and learn about all of these things. I believe we should allow our students to understand when and how they can register to vote when they are eligible. Year after year, this session has worked to prohibit the accurate, truthful education of our students. To now bring this bill in this climate after all that work of removing the true history from our schools, literally removing anything that they deem divisive, limiting studies of our Black history, limiting studies of slavery, limiting studies of LGBTQ and transgender people in our world, this bill smacks of hypocrisy, and I am worried that it will be used and abused against our students.

143. 1:29:48

     The bill as written does not serve Georgia students. It serves a political agenda. And I urge my colleagues to recognize the difference. And I ask for your vote against SB 552. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I yield the will.

144. 1:30:06

     The lady has yielded the will. Representative Karen Lupton is recognized to speak. Yes, ma'am. Lady's recognized.

145. 1:30:15

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 552. Um, my children, I, I serve DeKalb County. My children have attended public schools. Um, that's no secret. I tell everybody about it. And I also speak to the people who have been elected to the DeKalb County School Board and our DeKalb County commissioners, et cetera, et cetera. And I tell the people on our school board frequently, I said, "My job is tough, but I don't want your job." Um, nobody knows who I am.

146. 1:30:51

     I knock doors in my well-to-do neighborhood. "Hi, my name is Karen Lupton. I'm running to be your house representative." And I've literally had people say to me, "We have a house? We have a State House? Where do you work? What do you do?" Now, a school district, a school district member gets exposed to every bump in the road when it comes to our children's education. That's why I say, "Hey, man, my job's tough, but I'll take this seat, thanks very much." Our local boards are elected to do this type of work, to make these decisions that work in their schools, in their communities.

147. 1:31:34

     We don't just luck into these policies. We elect our way into these policies. And I think it is far too overreaching to tell every school district in the state, "This is now what you will do," when in fact it doesn't truly equalize anything. This is the equivalent of driving a car down the road and saying, "Well, I wanna drive in the dead middle of the road. I'm gonna take my hands off the wheel, sit on them, and let Jesus take the wheel." That's not the way we lead, and that's not the way we elect people to lead.

148. 1:32:16

     One of the things that I've learned a lot serving here is just how little we really respect our local authorities. We're constantly stepping on their toes and telling them what they should do, um, which was surprising to me. I come from local government. I love local government. Um, so I...

149. 1:32:41

     Unless, l- like I said, taking our hands off the wheel and sitting on our hands and saying, "Whatever goes, goes for everybody," is not a way to lead the state. We have a way to lead in our communities. My children's school never had a problem. I was elected to speak to some nonpartisan student groups. I was elect- I was invited to speak to some partisan student groups. They were both allowed to exist. It wasn't a problem. Um, which leaves me kind of scratching my head because we have a lot of more, um, vital problems that are within our purview to deal with that we're not.

150. 1:33:20

     And instead we're reaching down again into our local districts to fuddle around, um, where there is no distinct problem. So let's deal with our real problems. Let's keep our hands on the wheel. And, um, Mr. Speaker, with that, I, I yield the will.

151. 1:33:54

     That lady has timing. There's no doubt about that. That completes our discussion on Senate Bill, on the minority report on Senate Bill 552. Now we'll have the chairman's time. I hope you don't need 20 minutes, but that's how long you have. Chairman Gunter is recognized for the chairman's time.

152. 1:34:18

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the chairman's time to, uh, Representative Rob Leverett.

153. 1:34:24

     Representative Leverett is recognized to speak to Senate Bill 552 during the chairman's time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be very brief. I just want to affirm to you this is largely based on existing federal law. Um, and it just simply requires that schools treat different groups fairly and they not discriminate in the way they enforce their policies on group meetings and that sort of thing. Um, I- I, again, I would, I would suggest to you that this is good policy.

154. 1:34:56

     Um, I understand the objections to Section 1. I don't agree with them, but I respect folks' right to object to that, but I think the policy is good. It's supported by the Baptist Association and the ACLU, so I feel like it should be doing something right. And now with that, I'll yield the will. I appreciate your favorable consideration of Senate Bill 552.

155. 1:35:17

     Gentleman's yield of the will. That completes our discussion on Senate Bill 552. Is there any objection withdrawing the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is withdrawn. Is there any objection to adopting the substitute offered by the Committee on Rules? Hearing none, the Rules Committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no.

156. 1:35:48

     And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

157. 1:36:39

     Have all members voted? All members voted as so. Mr. Clerk will lock the machine.

158. 1:37:11

     On the passage of Senate Bill 552, the yeas are ninety-five, the nays are sixty-eight. This bill having received a requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 447? 447.

159. 1:37:30

     Senate Bill 447 by Senator Dixon in the 45th to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 7 and Title 12 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to control of soil erosion and sedimentation so as to revise provisions regarding denial or non-acceptance of permits. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Environment, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by Rules Committee substitute.

160. 1:38:06

     Representative Victor Anderson is recognized to present Senate Bill 447.

161. 1:38:13

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues in this chamber and many times in the chamber across the building, we talk about our goal to champion the, and to reduce the hurdles to achieving the American dream. Part of that is daily expenses. Part of that is being able to own a home. Part of that is being able to afford rent. In an effort to do that, last year we had in this house a bill dropped, House Bill 812, dropped by Chairman Chokas, that took a small step in that direction.

162. 1:38:47

     It was important. We started having hearings on it in this past fall, the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee hearings in November. We discussed possible ways to cut or reduce upfront costs for housing and developments to help achieve those cost savings for our, our, uh, citizens. House Bill 812 didn't make it across on crossover day, so then we began working with a parallel bill in the Senate, Senate Bill 447, and that's what I'm here to talk about today.

163. 1:39:22

     What Senate Bill 447 does is it addresses the process for applying for and receiving a land disturbance permit, land disturbance permit from local issuing authorities in Georgia. Currently, state law states that the local issuing authority has 45 days to review that permit application and either grant the permit, deny the permit, or provide comments and, and issues back to the applicant for addressing.

164. 1:39:55

     The problem with the process as we have it now, that's where we stopped. We didn't allow the proc- We didn't allow for a resolution of those comments other than to restart the 45 days. And what we've had in some communities, not all over the place, but in some communities, we've had circ- circumstances and situations to where the application would be made during that 45 days, comments were requested, issues were required to be addressed. When those responses came back, the issuing authority started the 45 days over again, and then they may have more comments, and it just became a perpetual process.

165. 1:40:34

     A process that should take 60, maybe 90 days to get a permit, in many cases it's taken a year and a half, two years. We've even heard testimony of three-plus years to get this land disturbance permit because of the way the process is being held. What 441-- 447 does is it better defines that process. We're using the 45-day time period that is in place, but we're also putting parameters to allow our issuing authorities proper time and proper mechanisms to review these permit applications, but yet putting a, a, an option or at least a defined end to the process.

166. 1:41:13

     Uh, just to kind of walk through the bill real quickly, section one, we def- we basically define the acceptance criteria for private professional inspections. Section two, we define a couple of terms. We define completed applications and material additions. Section three begins the actual meat of the bill. It starts out by requiring the local issuing authority to publ- to publish upfront the criteria that they use to determine whether an application is complete or not.

167. 1:41:50

     A lot of times, an application denial or delay is because the application is not complete, and many times the, the applicant doesn't know what all is being considered there. Then we go into the process itself. Forty-five days. The first five days, the issuing authority determines whether the com- the application is complete and whether or not this project will need to go to a higher level, go to the state for soil and water review, go to the federal government for EPA review.

168. 1:42:21

     Now, later in the bill, we have a s- a, we have a provision that if that happens, if it goes away from or outside the local issuing authority, that forty-five day time sh- clock is tolled. It stops until it comes back. That provides adequate time for larger projects to be reviewed and projects that local authorities do not have the expertise to review. Once the issues, the questions are addressed, it comes back and the authority has 20 days to review those, the, the answers to the, the questions and the issues.

169. 1:42:58

     If it is determined that the, the applicant has gone outside of the ex- the explicit op- opposition or the explicit com- comments to the application, that is considered a material addition and is treated as though it was a new application, which means the 45 days starts again. As you can kind of see, we built in protections to make sure that these plans, these applications are reviewed properly and we're not penalizing any of, uh, any of the authorities or any circumstances in making sure that the process is followed.

170. 1:43:41

     Let's see. We do have, we do have provisions in here if the process is not followed for the applicant. If the applicant is not receive an answer within the time frames that we've defined within the bill, two things can happen. One, their application fees can be refunded. Secondly, they have the opportunity to go to Superior Court and file for mandamus relief, and it, that's a, that's a reasonable request.

171. 1:44:14

     Section 5 requires the local issuing authority above a certain level of building permits issued to provide on a website a status update on applications that they have received. It provides the applications when they're received and as they go through the process, that gets updated. That's a transparency issue to make sure that the applicants and the people that are affected know what's going on and where it is in the process. Mr.

172. 1:44:44

     Speaker, that's the, the gist of the bill itself. Uh, be glad to take a couple of questions if there are some.

173. 1:44:52

     You have a couple. Representative Okoye, to your left towards the back, is, um, recognized for a question.

174. 1:45:01

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

175. 1:45:04

     Yes, sir.

176. 1:45:05

     I just wanted to thank you for bringing this bill. Um, I pulled many LDPs, and in some counties it's like pulling a tee- a tooth from your mouth. But I would also say that most counties do have their, uh, ordinances that you must comply with, so I hope we don't go into, uh, requiring them to look through the new bill to get what needs to be addressed.

177. 1:45:41

     As, as engineers, it's your job to look at the county ordinances before you even build that, uh, before you even propose that work. Uh, but thank you so much.

178. 1:45:54

     Thank you, sir. And to your point, uh, this bill does nothing to address, to, to reduce any local control as far as requirements, uh, ordinances, that sort of thing. None of that is touched by this bill. And, and as you say, some communities do it right. Unfortunately, there are some who take advantage of the situation, and we're trying to close that loophole. Thank you.

179. 1:46:19

     Representative Tran is recognized for a question. Way in the back on your left.

180. 1:46:24

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

181. 1:46:26

     Yes, sir.

182. 1:46:27

     On lines 111 through 119, it carves out any county that has an airport adjacent to 9,000 acres. Do you know which counties that would be?

183. 1:46:40

     That would be Paulding County.

184. 1:46:42

     Any additional counties?

185. 1:46:44

     I'm sorry, sir?

186. 1:46:45

     Do you further yield?

187. 1:46:47

     Uh, yes.

188. 1:46:49

     Why is it that county? Is there any other counties that would be affected by this?

189. 1:46:54

     There are some adjacent counties that would be affected by this one provision of the bill. We have some areas in our state that years ago constitutional local amendments were put in place that dealt with zoning that can't be changed at this point under current law without statewide referen- uh, statewide constitutional referendums. And, uh, these are, these are provisions that have been on the books and in, in the, the system locally there for 30-plus years. And so, uh, there, there are occasions when it is appropriate for us as a legislature to kinda help and help the local governments that are requesting it to, to kind of control things that are out of their control at this point.

190. 1:47:36

     Does the gentleman yield for one last question?

191. 1:47:38

     Yes, sir.

192. 1:47:40

     So what you're saying is those five counties are not af- or has to be exempt from this because of current state regulations?

193. 1:47:50

     It's not state regul- well, it, it is state regu- regulations in the, from the standpoint that it was, they were, back when the state did constitutional local amendments, we don't do those anymore, uh, these, these provisions were put in place. And, uh, and so the local governments through local action cannot change those. They can't be changed through local legislation here. Uh, we're, w- so there are other provisions that have to be taken care of to, to deal with that. And in this particular provision, also if you read further in, in the, in the paragraph, you'll see that this is not permanent.

194. 1:48:25

     This can be overturned by a local act and a local referendum to, uh, to basically take those, those areas and place them under these provisions. Thank you for the question. Thank you. Representative Dawson to your left has a burning question. Gentleman's recognized. Thank you. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Um, thanks for this bill. And one of the main constituent, uh, complaints that I get regards the delay often in land disturbance permits.

195. 1:48:55

     And isn't it true that this is a great barrier to housing development and community growth when the complexity of permitting is, uh, restricted? And doesn't this bill cure a part of that? Absolutely. And it, in, in Senate committee, or excuse me, in House committee and in Senate committee, uh, we heard testimony many times that these types of issues, and this is only one, addressing one particular area, but these types of issues can add 15 to 20% to the total cost of a, of a home as it being, as it's being constructed.

196. 1:49:30

     Thanks for the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I don't know if anyone else has signed up to speak, but, uh, I will ask for the body's favorable consideration and yield the well. Gentleman yields the well. We do have someone signed up to speak. And you did have some questions, but, um, we're gonna listen to, um, Representative Romman for up to 15 minutes. 10 minutes. Which is it? I'll take 15. I thought you would if I said that. Boy, I messed up, didn't I? The lady's recognized. I'll cut you off in a minute.

197. 1:50:01

     Okay. In a minute? What is happening over there? Um, thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 447, and I do wanna break down some sections into this because I'm actually a deep believer that we do need to make government more efficient. It's actually absurd that there is no recourse for when somebody has an investment and they are doing their paperwork and it's being delayed through no fault of their own. I think that's very, very important to set as a most basic conditional rule here, because that is ultimately the end goal.

198. 1:50:33

     But there are a few problems with this bill that in practice there are some very intense, hopefully unintended consequences, that will actually put more people in danger. So let me explain why. On the second page of this bill it reads, "Upon submission by the private professional provider of a copy of approved inspection report to the local governing authority, um, such inspection shall be de- deemed approved as a matter of law. The local governing authority shall have two business days after the submission of the inspection report to notify the private professional provider of any deficiencies in such inspection report." How many people have actually reviewed an inspection report in this chamber?

199. 1:51:19

     It takes a long time to do. Some of these can be exact, but my point is you all know that it does take sometimes a lot of time to go through these reports. And these offices are not reviewing a singular report at a time. They are receiving multiple reports per day depending on the size of the jurisdiction that is overseeing that specific inspection. There is nothing in this bill that provides any extra resources to meet this two-day turnaround. So even if there are certain cer- jurisdictions around the state that do a good job of this two business day turnaround, we are now applying a burden on local, uh, cities and municipalities, et cetera, to then do this two business day turn- turnaround without providing more resources for them to do so.

200. 1:52:06

     But the more concerning part about this is that if they do not do so, then that inspection report is considered approved, meaning that we have now completely and utterly placed the burden of this on already overburdened offices that have already been underfunded and understaffed and have these backlogs. I think if we're serious about making things better and easier, we need to switch the way that we set burdens on people as it pertains to these reports, because again, some of these reports take too long to approve.

201. 1:52:41

     There are places around the state that have completely cut off investment and development because of that delay. There is no argument against that. I actually deeply believe we should help that. But just like we talk about unfunded mandates, we are now placing an unfunded mandate on local jurisdictions by the way as we're about to continue cutting more and more property taxes without being able to fill the hole that we are continuing to make. What offices do you think are gonna get cut in this process?

202. 1:53:11

     Everything we do here is actually deeply interconnected, and there are real consequences every time we press that button, every time we pass these pieces of legislation. There are real people, real workers, real impacts on the things that we do. It's like the equivalent of doubling somebody's job without hiring more people. What we're going to see is we are going to see more issues missed and greater danger for our constituents, because now these inspection reports are not being properly reviewed, or they're being rushed through, again, without extra resources.

203. 1:53:46

     The other issue as it pertains to this bill is the pieces related to the carve-out. Why are we carving out any part of the state in this bill? Are we arguing that every Georgian, with the exception of those that live in this limited carve-out, deserve less protection? Or are we turning our chamber into a place where the more powerful you are, the more protected your constituents are going to be? Last I checked, everybody deserves the same kind of representation regardless of how powerful their elected official is within the chamber, because frankly, like we just heard, a lot of people don't even know that these chambers exist, let alone the hierarchy that we arbitrarily set between each other.

204. 1:54:27

     With all due respect, we all represent the same amount of people. It is literally constitutionally mandated. It's based off of a census. And yet when you carve out a location like this, what you are saying is only these Georgians are deserving of protections.

205. 1:54:44

     But I also wanna be very clear about the motivation behind things like this, because I've talked about this issue before in this well, and I have said this many times. If you go to rural areas, suburban areas, and urban areas, there is very little that a lot of people agree on, but the one they agree on is concern around data centers. What this bill is now doing is it is saying that as these local jurisdictions are already overwhelmed and these data center products are being shoved through one after the other, that whatever little protection exists, we are now taking even more of it away.

206. 1:55:17

     Because the reality is that when these inspection reports happen and it says, "Hey, this can cause a lot of runoff, this can cause this, this can cause that," again, if the local jurisdiction doesn't provide an, an annotated answer, because the burden isn't just so they can say, "We're not approving this inspection report," or, "We're identifying issues in this report," they have to then identify the specific code that that inspection has found to be not in compliance. It doesn't make any sense. Again, there are very few protections for our constituents to begin with.

207. 1:55:50

     Why are we eroding more of them? Because remember, I told y'all, I've told y'all about how there are communities around Georgia right now who are dealing with sediment in their water. It is undrinkable water. We did that to our people. How are people supposed to survive without drinkable water, without water that's usable? What about local businesses that are struggling with the water pressure in their respective communities? Water isn't just something that you can magically keep tapping into and over-tapping into, and then we're gonna magically fix it.

208. 1:56:20

     It's not gonna happen. I've talked about Newnan, I've talked about Mansfield, Georgia. These aren't just, you know, metro areas, whatever. These are your constituents too, and they expect you to come up here and instead of playing legal games with their safety, we actually uphold the protection that they need so they can live their lives.

209. 1:56:41

     That is our duty to our constituents. When they go and they vote for us, they expect us to take care of them. And a lot of this, by the way, is jargon. I mean, this is, like, very legalese-type jargon. But to be clear, when we asked earlier about which counties are exempt, the language we're talking about starts on line 111. Y'all tell me how we're supposed to know which counties that is. I want you to open up your bill right now and read it and tell me how you're able to identify which county this was. This is trickery, plain and simple.

210. 1:57:15

     This is convincing people that we are cutting red tape and making things better for them, when in reality they're gonna come back to us in three months, six months, a year, because by the way, there's a time limit on this that makes no sense, and they're gonna be angry because we have allowed the passage of these projects and the development of these projects in their communities against their will. I think this could have been a good bill if it was actually tied to real funding and real support to make sure that the deadlines and turnaround times that we have provided can be done.

211. 1:57:50

     Instead, what we've said is, "Let's just cut all the red tape, good and bad. Let's take away most inspection requirements and see what happens." But I'll tell y'all right now, there is no taking back water that is full of sediment. There is no taking back when these data centers are online and the hum that exists and is on for 24/7 causes headaches, an increase in heart attacks, and other massive real health issues.

212. 1:58:24

     I do not believe that any economic development is worth the health and safety of any Georgian in our state, particularly when it causes permanent health consequences. There is no amount of money, none whatsoever, that will ever make it okay for us to vote against protecting our own people, because there are ways to have real and good economic development that does benefit the local communities. There are ways to write these bills so that way people actually benefit from the revenue that's coming in without having to deal with the health consequences.

213. 1:58:59

     People deserve to live in their homes without being harmed and without being hurt by projects that are being forced upon them, sometimes right next to their home. We are seeing this all around the state. When I went down to Sparta, Georgia, y'all, there was a quarry right there where they were blasting rock, and the blasts are so intense it is destroying the foundation of people's homes. And it's because they shoved through an inspection and were able to then open up those businesses and those massive rock quarry, you know, processing facilities, or I guess in this case they're just massive open areas, but the point is, they shoved it through, and who's dealing with the consequence?

214. 1:59:35

     None of us. Not a single one of us in this chamber lives next to any of these places. And I feel for the people that have been trying to deal with local jurisdictions failing to give them an answer in real time. I really do, because it's unacceptable. But there are ways to fix that that is not this. And so today I am urging you to please vote no. I think we need to do this better, and I just don't think that this-- I think this actually misses the mark. So I urge y'all to vote no, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well.

215. 2:00:08

     Lady has yielded the well.

216. 2:00:16

     That completes our discussion on Senate Bill 447. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to withdrawing, to withdrawing the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is withdrawn. Is there any objection to adopting the substitute offered by the Committee on Rules? Hearing none, the Rules Committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill?

217. 2:00:49

     Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

218. 2:01:04

     Have all members voted? All members have voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 447, the yeas are 95, the nays are 72. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 423? 4-2-3.

219. 2:01:27

     Senate Bill 423 by Senator Bearden, the 30th, to be entitled An Act to Amend Chapter 5 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia, intended relating to government transparency and campaign finance so as to prohibit candidates, campaign committees, independent committees, political action committees, and leadership committees from accepting contributions or donations from non-Georgia persons.

220. 2:02:31

     This bill having been heard in the Committee on Governmental Affairs, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

221. 2:02:43

     Representative Jason Ridley is recognized to speak to the bill. Representative Ridley.

222. 2:02:49

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

223. 2:02:53

     Senate Bill 423, um, is a bill that is basically a continuation of Senate Bill 119 that we did last year. Um, and what this legislation does, it promotes greater transparency in campaign finance, uh, curbs the influence of dark money, and ensures that Georgia's elections are driven by Georgians and not from people outside the state. Um, if you look through on lines 26 through 29, uh, it cleans up some language from Senate Bill 119 from last year. Uh, had lines r- requiring reports, uh, for small PACs.

224. 2:03:25

     Uh, then in the next paragraph, it had an exemption for reporting requirements. This just brings us back in to where it was supposed to be at, where small PACs do not have to file anything if they do $25,000 or less. Um, if they exceed the $25,000 mark, um, you do have to report the, the PAC. Um, the next change on the bill is 64 through 72. This section targets undisclosed dark money that flows into our state. Uh, simply stated that an intimate, independent committee, uh, makes expenditures for the purpose of electing or defeating the candidate through broadcasting media, cable, radio, so on, uh, that it shall be disclosed.

225. 2:04:08

     Information required, uh, is the same as the federal, federal statutes. Uh, so we're just matching that. Um, then we move to section two of the bill, um, lines 76 through 89. This definition just defines what a non-Georgian is. Um, and let me stop right there. A non-Georgian's anybody that's outside. But if they have a financial connection to the state of Georgia, then they can give money. If they have employees, if they pay income taxes, if they have a connection here, then they can donate money.

226. 2:04:39

     This is just coming to people that has no connection at all. Um, then lines 94 through 101, uh, just says that you cannot receive, over 50% of your donations cannot come from out of state, um, from a non-Georgian. Uh, if it does, you got 45 days to return that. Um, if not, then it goes to the state. Lines 102 through 106, this section just carves out national committees like the DNC and the RNC, transfers those funds to the state districts. That's still gonna be all good to do that.

227. 2:05:10

     And the donations from family members that are out of state is okay, 'cause they do have a connection with you. So that's, we're gonna leave that in there. Lines 107 through 113 in section four, the attorney general, uh, he, he or, he or her, uh, on motion can request that the Ethics Commission do a residence, uh, for the state, uh, and may petition the superior court in the county to look at, at which, uh, candidate or campaign committees is domiciled. And finally, last and least, uh, lines 114 through 125, this gives the, prohibits a straw donation, and that's basically where somebody from out of state that has no connection uses somebody in state just to funnel money in.

228. 2:05:50

     Um, so that puts that up and puts some fines and stuff on there. And that's all the bill does, Mr. Speaker, and I guess I'm probably gonna have a couple of questions.

229. 2:06:00

     You have a couple.

230. 2:06:01

     All right.

231. 2:06:02

     Representative Hilton, to your left, is recognized for a question.

232. 2:06:06

     Gentleman Neal?

233. 2:06:07

     Yes, sir.

234. 2:06:08

     Is it not true that every two years, millions of dollars pour into our state from outside of Georgia to influence our elections?

235. 2:06:16

     That is absolutely correct.

236. 2:06:17

     Is it not further true that we've seen some campaigns raise as much as 80% of their money from outside the state?

237. 2:06:23

     That's true.

238. 2:06:24

     Is it not further true that a healthy democracy requires on Georgia voters deciding Georgia elections and not out-of-state donors influencing the results of our elections?

239. 2:06:35

     I would agree with you 100%.

240. 2:06:36

     Thank you for this legislation.

241. 2:06:38

     Thank you.

242. 2:06:38

     Representative Tarvin, to your right in the back, is recognized for a question.

243. 2:06:43

     Parliamentary inquire. Gentleman Neal?

244. 2:06:46

     Yes, sir.

245. 2:06:47

     Now, th- this is a serious question. You may have covered it, but say I, uh, got in $5,000 from Georgia and I had business associates or family in Alabama and Tennessee or Texas, could they not give me, if they gave me over $5,001 it would be a illegal contribution?

246. 2:07:05

     Not if it's family. So family's included. If they're, if they have a connection to you, then, then that's fine. If they have a business that has a connection here, like an employee here that they're paying, that's fine. It would just be for somebody that has absolutely no connection, uh, financially to the state of Georgia. Um, is where, and they can still give up to, like you were talking about, say 50%, but it's in that, it's, it, it's during the, the, uh, requirement, uh, during that one quarter requirement, uh, period is when that would be.

247. 2:07:37

     One, one quick follow-up, sir. Yes, sir. I literally have gotten more money from out of state, now I might, might not get a lot of money, but I've gotten more money from out of state than I did in, in the state of Georgia in some elections, uh, over the years. And I, I just hope that's not a problem for me in the future. Well, and I would say this, you know, like just, I use this for an example. If, if Ford Motor Company, they're based in Detroit, but they have dealers here, they have employees here, so they have a connection, so they're, they're not considered out of state because they have a connection here and they pay taxes here, property taxes or something like that.

248. 2:08:14

     So, so they would be fine. Representative Miller, recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? I'm gonna regret it, but yes. You won't. I promise. Um, as I understand your bill, and correct me if I have this wrong, this only applies to individual candidate, uh, campaign accounts and not sort of leadership PACs and the like. Yes. Yes. What is the rationale, what is the rational basis for making the distinction if the purpose is to stop outside influence on Georgia elections from distinguishing between these different entities?

249. 2:08:54

     Well, that's a great question. So it, it does, it's got to do with candidate and, and candidate committees. Um, and in the original stuff, we did have PACing, PACs and super PACs and that kind of stuff in there. And you've probably been here long enough to know you kind of take what you can get, so you gotta take your little wins, and this is kind of all we could get. One of our, we had issues with people with the PACs because there's so many different ones, and so on both sides of the aisle. So that's the reason we ended up just taking those out and trying to do it like, do it like this, 'cause that made everybody agree on stuff. Okay.

250. 2:09:24

     Do you yield for one more? Yes, ma'am. Um, wouldn't the rationale for not having folks out of state donate to candidates in Georgia that they support apply equally to Georgia citizens? Should we not ban Georgia citizens from donating or supporting campaigns in other states? Well, some states already have that, um, in there. So you, some, there's some of them it's just like the, like what we're doing right here, where you got a percentage that you can't do it. But- I underst- but my question is specific to Georgia residents.

251. 2:09:56

     If a Georgia citizen, your voter and my voters, if they wish to donate to campaigns outside of the state of Georgia, under your rationale, they should not be able to do that. Should, have we considered stopping Georgians like we're stopping other folks from participating or expressing their free speech or support of candidates or ideas? Well, and personally, I don't think, I don't think I give money to anybody outside because I try not to influence another state. It may be a federal candidate or something like that, it may be a little bit different.

252. 2:10:26

     But I think you, I think you got your probably next legislation for next year maybe if you wanna try that. But Mr. Speaker, I appreciate it, and I'm gonna yield the way on hope you'll vote for this bill. The gentleman has yielded the way. We have a number of folks signed up to speak in the, in opposition to the bill, and we have a minority report. We're gonna begin with those opposed, and that's gonna be Representative Roberts first. Hold on one minute. Representative Carter and Representative Sanchez, y'all have for up to 15 minutes.

253. 2:10:57

     Divide it amongst yourselves. Ladies recognized. Representative Roberts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in strong opposition to SB 423. This bill prohibits candidates and campaign committees from accepting more than 50% of their contributions from so-called non-Georgia persons. Let's start with the constitutional problem, because it's significant and unavoidable. The United States Supreme Court in Buckley versus Valeo made clear that campaign contributions are a form of political expression and association protected by the First Amendment.

254. 2:11:36

     Yes, the government can place limits, but only to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. So I ask, what is the corruption interest here? Is a donor from Alabama more corrupting than a donor from Atlanta? Is a former Georgian, a parent of a student here, or a business operating just across state lines somehow a greater threat to our democracy? There is no evidence of that, and without that evidence, this bill is not narrowly tailored.

255. 2:12:11

     It is arbitrary. And we don't have to guess how courts will view this, because they already have. In Landell versus Sorrell, a state attempted a similar cap on out-of-state contributions, and the court struck it down for exactly these reasons. And here is the most important point. No state in this country has enacted a residency-based percentage cap like this and had it upheld by higher courts, not one. Even states with some of the strictest campaign finance laws in the nation have not gone down this path because they know it will not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

256. 2:12:49

     And SB 423 goes even further. It requires campaigns to return contributions or have them seized by the state if they exceed the 50%. It allows for injunctive relief, meaning lawsuits, even from private citizens to enforce this law. Last I checked, many in this body were so concerned last session about Georgia being a litigation hellhole, but I've lost count how many bills we've passed this session that create new private rights of action.

257. 2:13:23

     That creates a chilling effect on political participation, exactly what the First Amendment prohibits. But even if you set aside the constitutional concerns, the practical problems with this bill are staggering. Every campaign in Georgia, every one of us in this room, from the smallest local race to statewide races, would now have to track in real time the percentage of contributions coming from in-state versus out-of-state donors.

258. 2:13:57

     Not just track dollars, also track eligibility. Because under this bill, determining whether someone qualifies as a Georgia person requires knowing whether they are a registered Georgia voter, whether they paid Georgia income taxes last year, or whether a business has sufficient economic presence in this state. So imagine this. A campaign receives a $25 online donation. Now they must determine, is this donor a registered Georgia voter?

259. 2:14:27

     Did they pay Georgia income tax? Do we have documentation of that? Campaigns do not have access to tax records. They do not have the ve- ability to verify this information, and yet we are placing that burden squarely on them and us. And now let's talk about costs. I asked in committee, "Is there a fiscal note on this?" No fiscal note, because it's going to cost the state of Georgia a lot of money to analyze every disclosure report from every candidate and every candidate's committee every reporting period to ensure compliance with this law.

260. 2:15:07

     Who's gonna do that work? How many staff will it require? What will it cost taxpayers? We are creating an entirely new enforcement system, and we have no idea what the price tag is. And there, then there's the chaos of compliance. At the end of a reporting period, if a campaign discovers it's exceeded the 50% cap, it must return the excess funds. But how does a campaign decide which donors to refund? The last donors who gave?

261. 2:15:39

     A proportional share across all donors based on timing, amount? The bill provides no guidance, so campaigns are forced to make arbitrary decisions about whose participation counts and whose does not. And if they get it wrong, those funds can be seized by the state. That is not a workable system. That is a compliance trap. And then we get to one of the most troubling parts of this bill, the felony provision. Are y'all listening?

262. 2:16:09

     'Cause we can all go to jail if we don't follow this law, so I want y'all to understand what you're voting on. This legislation makes it a felony punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison for transactions that are deemed to circumvent this cap. Think about that. We are creating a complex, ambiguous regulatory system and then attaching criminal pil- penalties, including prison time, to people who may not even fully understand how to comply.

263. 2:16:43

     That should give every one of us pause. This bill raises fundamental fairness concerns. It treats Americans differently based solely on where they live, drawing a line around whose voices count. It advantages incumbents with established in-state donor networks and disadvantages challengers and grassroots campaigns that rely on broader support. And at the end of the day, it does not reduce the amount of money in politics. It simply restricts who can participate.

264. 2:17:16

     That's not reform. That is exclusion. If we wanna address corruption, we have tools that are constitutional and effective, reasonable limits, transparency, and disclosure, but this bill does none of that. And as my colleague in the back mentioned that he gets out of state, I, I welcome you all to get on the fast track to look at what your percentage of out of state versus in state is. I've looked at it, and many of us in this room get more donations from out of state than in state.

265. 2:17:51

     So just remember, your ability to fundraise may also be limited. This creates constitutional risk, administrative chaos, unknown cost to taxpayers, and potential criminal liability for every single one of us in this room, all without evidence that it will solve any real problem. No state has successfully defended a law like this. Courts have rejected it, and we should not pass a bill that we know is headed straight for a legal challenge we are likely to lose.

266. 2:18:25

     This bill's not ready, it's not workable, and it's not constitutional, and I'm so tired of us passing bills that we know the taxpayers are gonna have to pay to defend the litigation. This is unconstitutional. I urge you all to vote no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well. Lady has yielded the well. The chair recognizes Representative Carter to speak to the bill.

267. 2:18:51

     Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members of this chamber, I rise in opposition of Senate Bill 423. This bill imposes a hard cap on political contributions for what is called non-Georgia persons, limiting such contributions to no more than 50% of what any candidate or candidate committee receives. The intent, as I understand it, is to reduce outside influence in D- Georgia elections. That is a legitimate concern, and I take it seriously.

268. 2:19:22

     However, the mechanism this bill uses to address that concern raises constitutional questions serious enough that we should not pass it into law today.

269. 2:19:34

     Let me be direct about what this le- legislation actually does. It restricts political contributions based on geography. An individual who pays federal taxes, who may live in Ge- who may have lived in Georgia for decades before relocating for work, who has family here, who owns property here, or who runs a business that employs Georgians, that person's ability to participate in our political process is restricted under this bill simply because they are not currently registered to vote here and did not file a Georgia income tax return last year.

270. 2:20:14

     A national organization that advocates on civil rights, environmen- environmental regulation, labor standards, or religious liberty, issues that state law directly con- governs, is simi- similarly curtailed. Now, I understand the argument on the other side. Courts have long recognized that states have a legitimate interest in protecting the integrity of their elec- their own elections. The Supreme Court has allowed contribution limits as a means of preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption.

271. 2:20:50

     Supporters of this bill will argue that those same principles are extended limiting the geographical source of funds. This is a reasonable reading of the doctri- doctrine, and I will not dismiss it. But here is where the argument breaks down. The First Amendment of protects the courts have attached to political contributions do not disappear at the state border. Federal courts have, uh, historically applied meaningful scrutiny to restrictions on political speech and associations, and geographically based contributions of this kind have not been clearly validated.

272. 2:21:30

     This bill would almost certainly face immediate legal challenge, and Georgia taxpayers would bear the cost of defending it in litigation that we may well lose. Georgia has been here before. We have passed laws under this Gold Dome that were well-intended but constitutionally vulnerable, and we have paid for it in courts' costs, in conjunctions, in injunctions, and in the damage of our legislative credibility.

273. 2:22:01

     I am not suggesting this bill's sponsor acted in bad faith. I am suggesting that good intentions do not insulate legislation from judicial review. The practical effect of legal challenge is not merely delay. If an injunction is entered while litigation proceeds, enforcement is suspended and campaigns operate in legal uncertainty. That uncertainty does not serve vote- voters of Georgia. It serves no one except lawyers.

274. 2:22:32

     No offense to the lawyers.

275. 2:22:38

     There is also a more fundamental point. Political speech and association are not privileges that states dispense. They are constitutional rights. When we condition a person ability to participate in the political process on whether they filed a Georgia income tax return in the prior calendar year, we are establishing a financial and residency test for political participation.

276. 2:23:09

     This is the kind of restriction courts scrutinize with care, and rightly so. I want to be clear. The concern about outside money in our elections is not invented. It is real. There are legitimate policy debates about how to address it, but the response has been, the response has to be one that can withstand constitutional challenge, that is proportionate and thi- and that does not sweep in lawful political participation as collateral damage.

277. 2:23:43

     This bill does not meet that standard. It is un- it is constitutionally fragile and puts Georgia in legal jeopardy that we do not need to accept. I urge you, my colleagues, to vote no on Senate Bill 423. I yield the well. Ladies yielded the well. There are about two minutes left. The chair recognizes Representative Sanchez to speak to the bill. Thank you, s- uh, Madam Speaker. SB 423 is being presented here as a common sense bill for transparency and ensuring campaigns are funded in state.

278. 2:24:20

     I wish that were the case. I, I really do. I'm actually very proud to have not taking any corporate PAC money in my campaigns. So when I first saw this bill, I'm like, "Oh my gosh, we're finally gonna do something about money and politics and getting the corruption out of our government." Imagine my disappointment when I actually read the bill. I take no issue with section 1 of this act, which is full about, all about transparency, which I think is great. The problem's with section 2. In reality, this bill's about one thing. It's restricting individual contributions to campaigns. Requiring 50% of contributions to be in state sounds good on the surface, but like one of my colleagues like to say, the devil is in the details.

279. 2:24:58

     Any individual is a non-Georgia person under this bill unless they either paid income tax in Georgia last year or are registered to vote in Georgia on the contribution date. Setting aside that campaigns have no way to check whether a donor paid income tax last year, these are restrictive standards that do not actually encompass all Georgians who should be able to contribute to campaigns. There are many citizens of our state who have paid sales and/or property tax but earn too little money to pay income tax, such as low income workers and seniors. This is true even if none of the proposals to s- slash or raise the income tax are adopted this session.

280. 2:25:31

     By contrast, this bill provides a very generous standard for corporations. Basically, if you're a corporation, it, this bill doesn't really matter because you can be registered to do business in Georgia, you owe-- paid income taxes or file a tax return, or if you can't do any of those things, you can just say sufficient economic estab- that it maintains a sufficient economic presence, property, or payroll within the state to establish a nexus under state law. It's, once again, another bill written for corporations but not for individuals. So this bill will benefit people who take corporate money, but not those who do grassroots contributions.

281. 2:26:07

     And the last part I wanna say is that in committee we subbed out the part that restricts PACs and independent committees. So we're not even getting rid of dark money PACs at all. So this is just targeting small dollar grassroots campaigns. It is a ridiculous piece of legislation. If we actually wanna address corruption, this is not the way to do it. There's much better ways to do it, and I hope that we will. Please vote no on this legislation. Thank you. I yield the well.

282. 2:26:30

     Gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? The chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. There is a minority report. The chair recognizes Representative Evans to speak to the bill.

283. 2:26:50

     Thank you, Madam Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 423, and I wanna start with where the, the gentleman started when he told you why we needed this, to get dark money out of politics. This bill does absolutely nothing to get dark money out of politics. All this bill does is drive donations that were in the light into the dark. That's exactly what this bill does. Premise fails. That is reason enough to vote no because right now, let's say your opponent takes all of their money from out of state.

284. 2:27:27

     You can see that, and if you think that is an argument that voters might respond to, you can tell them. But this bill is gonna drive all of that, to the extent it exists, into the dark. Premise fails. My colleagues have touched on why it's unconstitutional, so I don't feel the need to retread that, but it absolutely is. We also heard from the gentleman that, well, other states do this. No, they don't. Not without challenge and it being struck down.

285. 2:27:58

     I think the only place that does it in any form right now is Hawaii, and I think it's very, it's very limited and specific. Certainly not what we have here. Um, I wanna talk a little bit ab- about the logistics of this, starting in section two, and I, I wanna know, for those that are pushing this bill, what kinda operation you must have to be able to track all of this? Because it looks like I'm gonna need to hire a full-time researcher to look at every donation that comes in, do the math, see if I'm still at my 50/50.

286. 2:28:30

     Um, and even if I've got the out-of-state, uh, or I, or I think I've got Georgia donors, I'm gonna have to go check the Department of Revenue, and I'm gonna have to go check voter registration. I have to make sure all those dates line up. I, I don't know about y'all, but I don't have the kinda staff to do that. Um, the other thing I wanna talk about is just how insulting this is for, um, most of Georgia folks that pay taxes, um, or file taxes. If you look in section two, if you're a corporation, and my colleague pointed this out a little bit, I wanna emphasize it here.

287. 2:29:05

     If you're a corporation, it's enough for you to file taxes. This bill makes the distinction between filing taxes and paying taxes. For a corporation, it's enough if you file. So that means if you get a refund or you've got enough deductions that you don't have tax liability, you're still okay. But if you're an individual, you have to pay taxes. And if you've got an, an extension and you don't pay till the next year or you g-- or someone who's getting a refund, no donations for you.

288. 2:29:38

     I wanna talk a little bit about section or line 106. We're gonna exempt contributions if they're out of state. We're not gonna worry about those if they are from a candidate's family. Well, hello, wealthy families. Wealthy families, you're good. If you've got a bunch of out-of-state family members that can donate a bunch of money to you, we're good with that. If you are an ind-- if you are a, a, um, independently wealthy person that can donate a lot of money to yourself, then you are also less likely to have to worry about this 50/50 proposition.

289. 2:30:11

     Um, and this is where the real constitutional issue probably comes into play here. We are picking and choosing very randomly who qualifies as a, as a, as a Georgia donor and a non-Georgia donor. And because this deals with speech, political contributions are speech, that's the First Amendment. First is first for a reason. It's the most important one. That means you're dealing with strict scrutiny. You have to have a really darn good reason why you let some people in and you keep some people out.

290. 2:30:44

     And I want someone to explain to me how we would ever explain that a candidate's family out of state has so much more interest within the state of Georgia than perhaps someone who lived in Georgia their whole life, made friends, made investments in their community, did all of this work, and then they move and retire somewhere, but they still wanna make sure that their good work stays in place, so they support candidates. They might not be related to them, but they have a huge interest.

291. 2:31:15

     But someone that has an interest just because they might be someone's cousin but they've never even visited the state of Georgia, they're okay. There is just no way that a lawyer's gonna be able to stand up in front of a judge and with a straight face say that that's gonna meet strict scrutiny there. But I'm gonna end where I began. If the premise is to get dark money out of politics, fail. Absolute failure. It drives sunshine out. Things that were transparent will no longer be so, and I urge you to join me in voting no.

292. 2:31:49

     Lady's yielded the well. The Chair rec- recognized Representative Adesanya to speak to the bill.

293. 2:32:03

     Thank you, Madam Speaker. Um, members, I strongly encourage you to vote no on this legislation. And if you have our... You're a Republican, I encourage you to listen to this, um, 'cause this bill came through my committee. Um, I mean, you would be doing yourself a favor if you pay attention because the gentleman who went over this bill, he didn't, he probably didn't even understand what he was presenting, 'cause I don't think he's a member of my committee. So I think he was handed that bill, he went over what it could do.

294. 2:32:34

     But look, this bill is so bad that let me ask you, there's so many gray areas in this bill. How many of you go through your disclosure reports and you're tracking the money that came out of state? Almost nobody does that. Now you have a job, one more job to do. So when you have this, um, disclosure report that you have to file, now you have to look at how much money came from out of state. So you've just got one more job to the many jobs that you have as a legislator.

295. 2:33:05

     And on top of that, the presenter of this bill is not being honest because he mentioned that when a family member is out of state, they're exempted, they can't contribute. That's not true. If a family member is out of state and you get money from them and that falls into the threshold of 50%, you're prohibited from receiving that money, right? Now, what I want you all to look at too that they're not telling you is I was pulling reports of many members on here.

296. 2:33:36

     There's so many Republican members in this House. I don't even know if they discussed this within their, um, meeting, but there's so many Republican members that had more money from out of state than in state in this body. And on top of that, a lot of them are close. There's a gentlelady who sits around here who gets a lot of money from out of state. There's one sitting on that corner, there's one in the back, that they're getting money from out of state. So if this bill passes, uh, you're gonna be the first one, first person to be arrested. So think about what you're doing when you wanna pass this bill, okay?

297. 2:34:09

     And what you need to look at too is why do you even have a bill that looks like something Bud Jones is pushing, right? Now, think about it. If you... So the bill came through my committee and I asked, um, the senator who presented the bill if I get it, $2 million out of state money, and somebody, and I have 2 million of my money to match. Then he said, "Well, that's fine. You can self-fund your campaign." So if Bud Jones gets 10 millions from out of state, all he has to do is just bring his own 10 million to it and match, and automatically he's good.

298. 2:34:46

     It qualifies for that, right? And if you don't have m- enough money to match what you're getting from out of state from your self-funding, how many people even self-fund millions into their campaign? Not, not many people do that. So now what we're creating, so the, the presenter, the senator said he was closing a loophole. Now you're closing one loophole and you're creating another loophole, but you created a loophole for those who can self-fund campaign. And this is a very horrible, this is a very horrible, um, horrible measure.

299. 2:35:18

     So we've got to look at how we, um, pass bills because this is not doing what you think it's doing. It's not doing what you think you're doing, okay? I would yield the well and encourage you to vote no on this bill.

300. 2:35:41

     M- Ma- Mr. Speaker, I yield the well.

301. 2:35:45

     Gentleman has yielded the well. Representative Holland.

302. 2:35:52

     Going away.

303. 2:36:27

     For what purpose has Representative Jason Ridley rise?

304. 2:36:35

     I'd like to make a motion. State your motion. I'd like to move to table the bill for right now.

305. 2:36:43

     Now, if they gonna start that crap, then we'll run it. No, you've, you've, um, said quite enough, sir. Yes, you're recognized for your motion. On the gentleman's motion that SB-423 be laid on the table, is there objection? Hearing none, it's so ordered.

306. 2:37:09

     Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption of Senate Bill 462?

307. 2:37:16

     Senate Bill 462 by Senator Still, the 48th, to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 20E of Title 33 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the Surprise Billing Consumer Protection Act, so as to provide for insurance coverage for certain out-of-network ambulance transportation services.

308. 2:37:38

     Representative Matt Reeves is recognized to present SB 462. Thank you, Speaker Burns. House colleagues, this is an insurance affordability bill. You have seen a version of the contents of this bill before. It has two matters addressed in it. It's now about a seven-page bill. It was much larger. It was, uh, reduced from about 40 pages to the seven pages in the Rules Committee because we are optimistic that the rest of the insurance affordability measure will come over from the Senate in House Bill 1344.

309. 2:38:12

     But the two measures that are in this bill are, number one, surprise ambulance billing. You voted on a version of that earlier. There were some, uh, minor changes to it during the process, but there's a good insurance affordability ambulance surprise medical billing provision. The second provision is our auto excess profits bill as modified over in the Senate Insurance Committee last week. So this puts these two important insurance affordability measures together to send over the Senate so that we can get all of our insurance affordability passed once we hear House Bill th- uh, 1344.

310. 2:38:49

     Uh, the House has worked hard on this, and we request your favorable consideration of this bill. And if there are no questions, I yield the well.

311. 2:39:04

     Gentleman has... Gentleman has no questions. I yield the well. He's yielded the well.

312. 2:39:15

     Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to withdrawing the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is withdrawn. Is there any objection to adopting the substitute offered by the Committee on Rules? Hearing none, the Rules Committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes.

313. 2:39:47

     All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

314. 2:40:11

     Have all members voted? All m- members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 462, the yays are 167, the nays are zero, and this bill has received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption of Senate Bill 398? 3-9-8. Senate Bill 398 by Senator Hatchett of the 50th, being titled, "An Act to Amend Part 1 of Article 3, Chapter 11 of Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to wiretapping, eavesdropping, surveillance, and related offenses so as to establish criminal offenses of virtual peeping." This bill having referred to the Committee on Judiciary Non-Civil, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

315. 2:41:00

     Representative Will Wade is recognized to present Senate Bill 398. Thank you, Speaker, colleagues. Uh, I rise today to present Senate Bill 398. This legislation updates Georgia law to address a very real and rapidly growing threat, the misuse of generative artificial intelligence to create obscene, non-consensual images of real people. Under current law, we protect individuals from physical acts of invasion of privacy, such as traditional peeping Tom offenses. However, technology has advanced faster than our statutes.

316. 2:41:33

     Today, bad actors can use artificial intelligence to create highly realistic, explicit images of someone without their knowledge or consent. Senate Bill 398 closes that gap. The bill establishes the offense of virtual peeping by making it illegal to knowingly use AI, uh, to generate obscene material depicting an adult without their consent. It provides clear definitions, aligns with existing obscenity standards, ensures that innocent individuals are protected from digital exploitation and reputational harm.

317. 2:42:06

     This is about dignity, privacy, and keeping our laws current with technology. I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration of Senate Bill 398. Happy to answer any questions, Mr. Speaker. Chairman Tarvin, to your right, towards your rear, is recognized. Do my friend and seatmate yield? To my friend and seatmate, I do. Uh, I see a wording in here of virtual peeping. How, uh, uh, how would we enforce that or regulate that, a virtual peeping on a home computer?

318. 2:42:40

     Well, to my f- my colleague in the Senate that used that definition, I may disagree with that exact, uh, reference, but I think it's to give an understanding that if you find out that someone has taken your image, for, for example, to my seatmate, and you did not agree to allow them to use that image and to put you in that likeness, you would be able to report them for doing so without your consent. Thank you. A quick follow-up. Uh, certainly, to my seatmate. Would there be any concern, uh, about, uh, virtual thinking?

319. 2:43:11

     No, I'm, I'm serious. Is there, uh, virtual peeping? Is it virtual thinking or virtual thought? Is there something in the future that we had to worry about there? I, I will say it this way. I, I cannot see the future, nor can you, but this bill will not ban AI. It will not regulate our social media platforms. It doesn't criminalize accidental sharing, uh, or innocent conduct, and it doesn't touch legitimate speech, art, or parody, and I would say, or thinking. Thank you, my friend.

320. 2:43:42

     If there are no further questions, I appreciate your favorable- You do have another question. Okay, I'll yield for one more. Representative Jasmine Clark, to your left.

321. 2:43:49

     Is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? I do. On line, um, 21 and 22- Okay ... it mentions that, um, obscene material, um, if, if it, I guess, carves out if it has literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Does that mean that someone could technically do this, but then say, "Oh, I was doing it for art purposes," or, and I mean, we are in election season, for political purposes?

322. 2:44:25

     Um, I think that it would depend on specifically the case by case, and that would be the person that's being accused of using it without the consent, that maybe that they had some uninformed consent by that user for artistic purposes. I think that's the nuance in that section. Personally, I would have that as a preference to not be that way, but my colleague in the Senate felt that it was necessary. Thank you. Thank you for the question. All right, Mr. Speaker, again, I ask for your favorable consideration on Senate Bill 398.

323. 2:44:57

     I yield the well. The gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr.

324. 2:45:29

     Clerk will unlock the machine.

325. 2:45:59

     All members voted. All m- members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 398, the yays are 164, the nays are two. This bill having received the requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed. Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption of Senate Bill 400? Four zero zero.

326. 2:46:29

     S- Senate Bill 400 by Senator Burns of the 23rd.

327. 2:46:37

     To be entitled an act to submit Part 1 of the, A of Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to non-public post-secondary educational institutions. So as to prohibit unaccredited institutions from offering degrees. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Higher Education, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute. Representative Chuck Martin is recognized to present Senate Bill 400.

328. 2:47:08

     Representative Martin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I can look into the future, and I know I'm standing between you all and, uh, the opportunity for further positive legisla- legislation, so I'll be brief. Senate Bill 400 seeks to amend, uh, an act that allows our students that attend private post-secondary schools requiring accreditation, and these are degree-granting institutions, uh, so it protects their financial and academic progress.

329. 2:47:38

     We've made changes in, in the bill to allow that institution to build a bond, uh, a reserve fund in order to pay for organizations when the organization stops without, um, knowledge of the student so that they can be reimbursed for their tuition. We have that happen infrequently in Georgia, but it does happen, and our, our, um, Non-Public Post-Secondary Commission is who handles that. So what this bill does in several areas, um, is do further definitions.

330. 2:48:12

     It, it defines some more prohibited activities to protect our students. But the, the general consensus of the bill, it passed, um, without objection in, in higher education, was to provide the organization more tools to protect our institutions so that, uh, our students that were attending these degree-granting institutions, non-public post-secondary institutions, uh, would be able to be assured that their tuition would be reimbursed should they go out of business. With that, Mr.

331. 2:48:42

     Speaker, uh, this will move, uh, education forward in Georgia and provide more people post-secondary opportunities, uh, and, and while still protecting them. If there are any questions, I'll take them. If not, I would ask the- No questions. Uh, I will ask the House's favorable consideration on Senate Bill 400 and yield the well. The gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute?

332. 2:49:13

     Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

333. 2:49:59

     Have all members voted? All members voted. Hey, Chip. All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 400, the yays are 168, the nays are one. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

334. 2:50:34

     Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 143? 143.

335. 2:50:40

     Senate Bill 143 by Senator Albers and the 56 and others to be entitled An Act to Amend Article 60, Chapter 7, and Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to retirement, retirement allowances, disability benefits, and death benefits relative to the Georgia Firefighters' Pension Fund. This bill has been referred to the Committee on Retirement. That committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

336. 2:51:08

     Chairman McDonald is recognized to present Senate Bill 143. Representative McDonald.

337. 2:51:16

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Uh, today it's a great honor to bring you Senate Bill 143 on behalf of the Georgia firefighters around the state and arou- the firefighters in, and, that are in each and every one of our communities. First of all, I want to thank the senator from Roswell for carrying this bill, and our sena- and our chairman from East Cobb, who clearly vetted this bill over the past couple years. This bill is very important to our Georgia firefighters. Uh, and, and, and also not, not only that they want to continue working in this field, but they're, this bill will allow them to g- uh, to obtain their pension at 55, and, and then begin, uh, to continue to work.

338. 2:51:57

     A lot of our firemen in our state that live in our rural communities have driven into our metro area, Gwinnett, Dekalb, Fulton's, Atlanta Fire, and have worked and had a career there, but go back to their small town communities where they lived, raised their kids, and educated their kids. What this bill allows them to do is to retire from, from these big, bigger, larger metro cities and begin to collect their Georgia State fireman's pension, and then go back to their smaller c- communities and continue to work in their field, whether they're on a, on the truck, uh, doing suppression or just being, being on scenes, helping and, and, and, uh, commanding the scenes to protect all the younger firefighters.

339. 2:52:39

     Firemen start sometimes at 18 years old, and by the time they're 50, they've got a full career in. But this bill, we, what we did, we did keep it at the continuous, uh, numbers of you can retire at 50, and that does have a, a penalty if you take an early retirement. But if you stay to 55, you will still get your full retirement, but now you're allowed to continue to work in your communities. Also, we had a little rider on the bill in section three, and all this does is moves the pension for the tax court judge from ERS to JRS.

340. 2:53:11

     On behalf of the Georgia firefighters around our state, I want to thank you all for your favorable consideration, and I will yield for any questions, Mr. Speaker.

341. 2:53:20

     La- the gentleman has a question. Chairman Martin to your right is recognized for a question.

342. 2:53:27

     Gentleman yield.

343. 2:53:28

     Yes, sir.

344. 2:53:29

     Just to that point on section three, isn't it true that this is the exact language that passed this House previously in House Bill 818?

345. 2:53:37

     If the gentleman says so, I will believe the gentleman.

346. 2:53:39

     It, it's the truth. I just wanted to make that clear to the body that, that there was nothing, uh, going in that bill that had not, they had not seen on this House floor before as the rider that the gentleman mentioned. Isn't that true?

347. 2:53:49

     Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. On be- and also, on behalf of Georgia firefighters, I want to thank you for, for your participation in the committee and vetting this bill thoroughly and your positive support on getting this bill through.

348. 2:54:01

     Representative Park Cannon to your left out front is recognized for a question.

349. 2:54:05

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Do you yield?

350. 2:54:07

     Yes, ma'am.

351. 2:54:08

     So if a, um, retired fi- if a firefighter retires and then wants to work a community job, how does this bill help not further strain the pension system but actually allow for that?

352. 2:54:22

     The very, the great part about this, Representative Cannon, is our Georgia firefighter pension is a very stable retirement pension. Um, it is, it is one of our strongest ones, even over our teachers', uh, retirement. Uh, that is, the investment from the '60s when this pension started, that it, the continuous investment of our firefighters, our communities, our insurance bills that have grown this pension. Uh, so we've vetted this for over the past two years, and there's not gonna be any strain, uh, on it. We've kept the, the numbers from they can retire at 50 with a penalty or the normal retirement at 55, uh, at, at 100%.

353. 2:55:01

     So there's not gonna be any strain on this pension.

354. 2:55:04

     Thank you.

355. 2:55:05

     Gentleman has no further questions.

356. 2:55:07

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I look for your favorable consideration for the Georgia firefighters of Georgia. I yield the well.

357. 2:55:14

     Good discussion, good bill. We do have someone to speak in favor of the bil- bill, and that's Representative Santos.

358. 2:55:26

     Ladies recognized to speak to the bill. Representative Santos.

359. 2:55:29

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today I rise in strong support of Senate Bill 143. This is not just about my district. This is about every community across Georgia, because every single one of us has firefighters who deserve better. The firefighters of Henry County actually came to me and asked for my support. These are our neighbors, and they run towards danger when they don't have to. After 25 years of that service, the law tells them they have to choose.

360. 2:56:01

     Collect the pension you earned or keep serving the community you love, but you cannot do both.

361. 2:56:07

     This bill ends that. It says you earned your pension, it is yours, and if you want to continue to serve, we will not stand in your way. Simply, it's the right thing to do, and every member in this chamber represents communities where firefighters answer the call every single day. So today, colleagues, I ask you, let's answer their call. Vote yes on Senate Bill 143. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well. Thank you, Representative Santos.

362. 2:56:38

     You're listening to the people, no doubt. Thanks for your engagement. That completes our discussion on Senate Bill 143. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopt, objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass?

363. 2:57:09

     All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

364. 2:57:45

     Have all members voted? All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 143, the yays are 168, the nays are zero. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

365. 2:58:07

     Members, let's take up a couple of further actions.

366. 2:58:14

     Representative Leesa Hagan is recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I make a motion that this House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1070. Mr. Clerk will read the caption. House Bill 1070 to be entitled an act to amend Article 2, Chapter 7, Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to income tax, imposition rate, computation, exemptions, and credits.

367. 2:58:44

     Chair Lady Hagan is recognized to explain the Senate substitute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the only changes that were made to this, um, bill were instead of five minute, a five-year extension to the short line railroad tax, uh, track maintenance tax credit sunset, the Senate changed it to a one-year extension. And they also clarified that, uh, the short lines cannot use expenditures funded by a federal or state grant for the tax credit.

368. 2:59:16

     Those are the changes, and I ask for your agree to this substitute. I yield the well. The lady had no questions. She's yielded the well.

369. 2:59:29

     On the lady's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1070, all those in favor will vote yes. Those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

370. 3:00:30

     Have all members voted? All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the lady's motion, the yays are 139, 139. The nays are 26, and, uh, the House has agreed to the Senate substitute on House Bill 1070.

371. 3:00:55

     Representative Brad Thomas is recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I motion the House agree to the Senate substitute on House Bill 668. Mr. Clerk will read the caption, please. House Bill 668 to be entitled an act to amend Title 16, Chapter 4, Title 30, and Chapter 6, and Title 40 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to crimes and offenses, rights of persons with disabilities, and uniform of the road, respectively, so as to change references to assistance and guide dogs to service dogs.

372. 3:01:40

     Representative Thomas is recognized to explain the Senate substitute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was only a very few n- number of changes. Um, the, the Senate added the line 12, that this act shall be known and may be cited as the Mara Jade Act, named after the dog that was, uh, unfortunately hurt that, um, started this whole piece of legislation to begin with. Otherwise, uh, one other change is there was four places in the bill that actually said service animal instead of service dog.

373. 3:02:12

     So I cli- er, struck animal and changed it to dog. That is the end of the changes, Mr. Speaker, and I ask for everyone's favorable consideration. I yield the well.

374. 3:02:21

     Thank you for your explanation and your work. You have no questions. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 668, all those in favor will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

375. 3:03:03

     Have all members voted?

376. 3:03:13

     All members voted. If so, clerk will lock the machine on the passage of House Bill 668. The yays are 168 and the nays are zero. This bill having received the requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed. The House has agreed, excuse me, to the Senate substitute to House Bill 668. I was a little bit excited because a lady that stayed with us when we passed this bill originally here in the House, Kasey Nicole, for hours upon hours upon hours, sitting right up there in the gallery.

377. 3:03:46

     She's on the floor with us today. So let's stand up and give her a very, show our support for all her great work.

378. 3:04:26

     Determination right there. Determination.

379. 3:04:40

     Representative Noel Williams is recognized for a motion.

380. 3:04:51

     Chairman Williams recognized.

381. 3:04:55

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I ask that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1121.

382. 3:05:02

     Mr. Clerk will read the caption.

383. 3:05:05

     House Bill 1121, to be entitled an Act to amend Code Section 15-6-3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to terms of Superior Court so as to change certain terms of court in the Cordele Judicial Circuit.

384. 3:05:18

     Representative Noel Williams is recognized to explain the Senate substitute to House Bill 1121.

385. 3:05:23

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, this legislation just adds to, um, the Superior Court for Cordele Circuit. Um, legislation addresses an unintended consequence in Georgia's bond forfeiture and remissions process. This bill resolves that issue by allowing clerks to hold forfeited bond funds in the court registry until a legal remission period expires, ensuring that funds are available for any required refunds and preventing counties from bearing unrecoverable costs.

386. 3:05:56

     This happened to one of my counties in my district last year, and, um, I was glad that the Senate added this to our bill, and I hope you agree. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll yield for any questions. But-

387. 3:06:07

     Gentleman has no questions.

388. 3:06:08

     Thank you. I ask for your favorable consideration.

389. 3:06:10

     Gentleman's yielded the will. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1121, all those in favor will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

390. 3:06:48

     Have all members voted? All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will-

391. 3:06:57

     That's it. House Bill 61

392. 3:07:00

     ... lock the machine.

393. 3:07:02

     Which is the Senate substitute.

394. 3:07:04

     On the gentleman's motion, the yays are 165, the nays are zero, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1121.

395. 3:07:22

     Representative Devin Seabaugh is recognized to, for a motion. Recognized for a motion.

396. 3:07:30

     Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a motion that the House agree to Senate, House Bill 61 as amended by the Senate.

397. 3:08:01

     Representative Mary Margaret Oliver is recognized for a-

398. 3:08:05

     I ask for a ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the issue of germaneness. And before the body understands or analyzes that case, I'd like to make a small argument in relation to the issue of germaneness being a serious one. I am a rule of law person. We have 150 years of case law in relation to determining germaneness, and I suggest that Senate Bill 61 does not meet the legal test as set forth in the case of Whitley versus State, a 1910 case, or the case, or recent case of Fulton County versus City of Atlanta from 2019.

399. 3:08:48

     I have citations for these cases available if the chair would like to review them. The way in which we deal with germaneness, Mr. Speaker, is not consistent in my view with the case law, and I ask you to make a ruling on this particular motion to agree to the Senate substitute of 61.

400. 3:09:12

     Well, all right, all right, all right.

401. 3:09:17

     You gonna do that for 15 minutes?

402. 3:09:19

     First one was about an ambulance and a corpse, and the other one was about supplies.

403. 3:09:23

     Should we have been here for 15 minutes?

404. 3:09:26

     It was too late when you got here.

405. 3:09:33

     Oh my God.

406. 3:09:35

     Mary got us good.

407. 3:09:36

     Man, look, our lawyer is our lawyer.

408. 3:09:37

     Mary got us scrambling.

409. 3:09:38

     But all along it was put together.

410. 3:09:42

     You

411. 3:13:06

     can do nothing else.

412. 3:13:08

     Where the hell is that kid today?

413. 3:13:46

     For what purpose does Representative Oliver rise?

414. 3:13:50

     I would like to withdraw-

415. 3:13:50

     Withdra-

416. 3:13:51

     Mr., Mr. Speaker, I'd like to withdraw my request for a ruling on germaneness, and I'd like to be recognized to make a motion.

417. 3:14:00

     State your motion.

418. 3:14:01

     I'd like to move that Senate Bill 61 be laid on the table.

419. 3:14:07

     House Bill, House Bill.

420. 3:14:09

     Excuse me. House Bill 61 be laid on the table.

421. 3:14:13

     No.

422. 3:15:18

     You have to ask for that.

423. 3:15:20

     There is a motion made by Representative Oliver that this bill, HB, HB 61, be laid on the table. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered.

424. 3:15:44

     Mr. Clerk. No, I'll let you do that in just a minute. Representative Camp, Chair Lady Camp is recognized for a motion.

425. 3:15:57

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion that the house agree to HB 134, the Senate substitute as amended by the House.

426. 3:16:08

     Mr. Clerk, will you read the, the caption to House Bill 134?

427. 3:16:14

     House Bill 134 to be entitled an act to amend Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to revenue and taxation so as to provide for definitions.

428. 3:16:25

     Representative Camp is recognized to explain the Senate substitute and the House Amendment.

429. 3:16:32

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today, we passed out House Bill 165, which was a manufacturing tax credit. That bill originally was House Bill 134. 134 is now HB 1- 1085, which is the Keep Georgia Forested Act. We passed this out overwhelmingly in the House, and it passed unanimously in the Senate, but it was engrossed in the Senate, meaning that it could- no changes could be made. There was some additional language that needed to happen.

430. 3:17:04

     Um, it narrows and clarifies the definition of forestry manufacturing to ensure that only those who are using domestic timber can be eligible to protect the integrity of the program. Mr. Speaker, that is the change in the bill, and I ask for favorable consideration, and I am open for any questions.

431. 3:17:24

     Rep Park is recognized for a question.

432. 3:17:26

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentlelady yield?

433. 3:17:28

     Of course.

434. 3:17:29

     So just to clarify in terms of what we're voting on, we are not voting on, we're not voting to agree to the Senate substitute to 134. We're agreeing to the House Amendment?

435. 3:17:40

     Correct. We are agreeing to the House Amendment to the Senate substitute.

436. 3:17:44

     Which is all about forestry.

437. 3:17:46

     Yes. And it is the same code section as my Ways and Means bill, so yes.

438. 3:17:52

     Thank you so much.

439. 3:17:53

     Thank you.

440. 3:17:56

     Lady has another question. Representative Jasmine Clark is recognized for a question. She waves. How about Representative Campbell? Can you find it?

441. 3:18:09

     Ladies.

442. 3:18:17

     Uh, thank you, Mr., um, Speaker. Will the gentlelady yield?

443. 3:18:20

     Yes.

444. 3:18:21

     I'm sorry, I'm still trying to find... It wasn't on my desk. Um, is it, so I'm just clarifying, is it AM440287?

445. 3:18:33

     That is correct.

446. 3:18:34

     Thank you.

447. 3:18:34

     Thank you.

448. 3:18:35

     The lady has no further questions.

449. 3:18:37

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

450. 3:18:38

     The lady's yielded the well. Is there any objection to adopting of the House Amendment? Hearing none, the House Amendment is adopted. On the lady's motion, the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 134 as amended by the House. All those in favor will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

451. 3:19:34

     Have all members voted?

452. 3:19:40

     All members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machines. On the lady's motion, the yays are 156, the nays are five, and the House has agreed to the Senate sub as amended by the House of HB 134.

453. 3:21:41

     Representative Hawkins, Chairman Hawkins is recognized for a motion.

454. 3:21:47

     Mr. Speaker, I move that the House agree to the Senate substitute on House Bill 1374.

455. 3:21:55

     Mr. Clerk, read the caption.

456. 3:21:57

     House Bill 1374, to be entitled an Act to amend Chapter 24, Title 33 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, relating to insurance generally, so as to provide for certain requirements concerning methods of payment to healthcare providers.

457. 3:22:16

     Chairman Hawkins is recognized to explain the Senate substitute.

458. 3:22:20

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Senate simply added to this bill to clarify competitive bidding requirements and procedures for pre-qualified suppliers to the state.

459. 3:22:32

     If I have no questions,

460. 3:22:38

     I yield the well.

461. 3:22:41

     The gentleman had no questions, so he must've done an outstanding job of explaining his motion. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1374, all those in favor will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

462. 3:23:29

     Have all members voted? All members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the gentleman's motion, the yays are 165, the nays are zero, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1374.

463. 3:24:08

     Representative Mark Newton is recognized for a motion.

464. 3:24:34

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that this House agree to the Senate substitute for HB 1275.

465. 3:24:40

     Mr. Clerk will read the caption.

466. 3:24:43

     House Bill 1275 to be entitled an Act to Amend Article 2, Chapter 34, Title 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to medical practice so as to ensure that stem cell therapies are used to advance medical treatments and improve patient outcomes in an ethical manner.

467. 3:25:15

     Chairman Newton is recognized to explain the Senate substitute.

468. 3:25:20

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, the s- uh, House Bill 1275 is the bill that al- allowed ethically obtained stem cell therapy to be both produced and, uh, dis- distributed in Georgia. The Senate did make one change to clarify that current ongoing, uh, research, either through FDA or in our institutions like our schools of medicine, at the end of the bill that nothing would be, uh, uh, construed in this bill to regulate or restrict or prohibit the research that's already going on. So that, I hope that's, uh, one you'll help us, uh, favorably consider, and I'm glad to yield the well.

469. 3:25:53

     The gentleman had no questions, he's yielded the well. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1275, all those in favor will vote yes, those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

470. 3:26:26

     All members voted? All members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machines. On the gentleman's motion, the yays are 166, the nays one, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1275.

471. 3:27:05

     Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 175? 175.

472. 3:27:11

     Senate Bill-

473. 3:27:11

     Back on the Rules calendar. Excuse me, Mr. Clerk. Senate Bill 175.

474. 3:27:16

     Senate Bill 175 by Senator Robertson, the 29th, to be entitled an Act to Amend Article 1 of Chapter 2 of Title 21 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to general provisions regarding elections and primaries, sto- so as to prohibit the use of ranked choice voting. This bill had been referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. That committee r- recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

475. 3:27:43

     Chairman Allen Powell is recognized to present Senate Bill 175.

476. 3:27:49

     Good morning, and good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen of the House, and thank you, Mr. Speaker. I bring to you a bill today that, uh, quite frankly, I've never really thanked, uh, Senator Robertson for much, but I do thank him for the use of his bill. We stripped out of something that was unnecessary, and, uh, we've used this to try to correct an ailment that we have in our state. In fact, a few years ago, I had the, uh, the great privilege of standing here and, uh, passing the Monument Protection Act, and I thought at that time that, uh, that, that we were done with it.

477. 3:28:24

     I thought that that was gonna be a cure to a lot of the issues that we talked about at that time about the removal and the destruction of monuments. It wasn't. What happened is it just became a more of a sore spot to a lot of the, the folks that we dealt with. One of the mistakes that we had was that, uh, according to the courts, we didn't give standing to people. Uh, we had historical groups, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, the UDC, the DAR, uh, all of these different historical groups.

478. 3:29:02

     Uh, when a local government wanted to relocate or to move a monument, usually there was litigation filed, and it was for no, to no event. The courts ruled that you had no standing because we'd never defined standing in Georgia law. Now, I'm gonna tell you up front that this bill in front of you today, I'm not gonna talk about history, I'm not gonna talk about the Confederacy, I'm not gonna talk about slavery.

479. 3:29:32

     I'm not gonna talk about a lot of things, because this bill encompasses all monuments. Makes no difference whether it was a monument that was put up by the widows of, uh, the men and citizens that died during that terrible war. Makes no difference if we're talking about the monuments from our friends that served in Vietnam, probably one of the most unpopular wars that I can think of in recent history, but we do have monuments to the veterans that died from Vietnam.

480. 3:30:07

     I will tell you that, uh, most monuments, and the most, probably the ones that are most contentious to a lot of groups, were the ones that came up in the aftermath of the Civil War. But there's no monument to it was ever nothing inscribed that was try to perpetuate a reinstill of that war. People were tired of it. Monuments were put up for no other reason than to memorialize the dead, and that's what they do.

481. 3:30:38

     We have monuments on the courthouse grounds, on the cities around the state. We have them on this very Capitol grounds. We have statues to General Gordon. We have statues to Martin Luther King. These are symbols that we're honoring the people that came before. And I've continued to tell folks that if you deny history, you're bound to repeat it in certain things. So that, ladies and gentlemen, is what brings this bill. This is a solution. I've tried to find solutions to a lot of the problems that we deal with, and this is one that I've, uh, brought forth.

482. 3:31:14

     But it does a number of things that I just described. One is it, uh, basically gives standing. If you're a historical group, if you're an individual, you have an interest in that monument, because quite frankly, nobody knows who erected the monuments. Nobody knows who actually owns the monuments. They're just there. And you can go from the South to Maine, and you'll see the same monuments. The same monument that sits on so many of your courthouse grounds around the state is the identical monument that stands in Maine.

483. 3:31:52

     Just the only difference is they've got the, uh, the Yanks head on one of them and the Rebels head on another, because these monuments that were put out there, they were to memorialize those who gave their lives for what they believed in, right or wrong. So what we're doing is we're giving, we're giving interest to who can have an interest in these monuments, to file suit if needed to be, to give them standing, and that's anybody, any group, or anyone that has an interest.

484. 3:32:26

     We put other language in here for the protection of the destruction. Triple damages if anybody is found guilty of any destruction of these monuments, the loss or otherwise. We've given the attorney general or the district attorney that they may represent the interest in this. How many of them will? I don't know. I would guess it would depend on the jurisdiction and/or who the attorney general would be. If there's litigation filed, if litigation is filed and the courts make a ruling as such that it has to be moved or it can be moved or might not want to be moved, then I'm giving a pathway for the cities and the counties that if they want to offer these monuments for relocation instead of destruction.

485. 3:33:14

     What we're saying is if they have got nine- they have to run a ad in the legal section of their local newspaper for 90 days to put the world on notice that's their desires to remove and/or relocate statuary. During that 90-day period, people can come forward, or there could be litigation. But they can come forward, and then at that point, it'd be left up to that governing authority who they wish to give those monuments to.

486. 3:33:45

     Now, there were some poison pills that was put in the same bill over in the Senate, and I thought that was kind of disingenuous at the time. But in this process, if a city or a county or whoever it may be, whatever governmental entity wants to relocate, then they can basically put it out there. And if it's the Sons of Confederate Veterans or if it's the VFW, whoever wants to come forward and say, "I'll take that monument, and I'll put it in a prominent location," much more prominent than under the current law.

487. 3:34:20

     Under the current law that was passed a few years ago, it stated very clearly that to relocate or to remove or relocate, it had to put, that monument had to be put in a prominent location of equal prominence. Hadn't hardly been done, folks. You go over to Athens-Clarke County, the, uh, statuary that stood in the middle of Broad Street at the gates crossing the gates of the University of Georgia was moved out on the bypass, hidden behind a, a grove of trees. You know.

488. 3:34:51

     Other locations, they were taken down in the dark of night, put into warehouses maybe, because in a lot of cases, nobody knows what happened to the statuary. Um, you know, that's not the way it's supposed to be. It wasn't the intent, and this cleans that up, ladies and gentlemen. If that, uh, city council, if that board of commissioners, if it's their desire after running a 90-day notice, and a group comes forward, then they can decide who is a worthy group.

489. 3:35:27

     I know that there was a lot of talk, "Well, what if the Ku Klux Klan comes up?" I don't much think so. I don't know that we have a, a Klan left. I know we certainly have re- we certainly have hate groups in this state, but an organized effort like that, I don't think so. There are people, there's hate across every political party and every racial boundary, and I can assure you, because I saw some of that when I presented this bill in the subcommittee a couple of times.

490. 3:36:00

     At one point, I was accused that, uh, I was infringing on somebody's First Amendment rights to deface a statue. That was kind of disingenuous in my point, but I think it was maybe to see if they could get me off my game. I heard a- an amendment that was put up. We ought to call this the protection of slavery. Folks, let me tell you. Slavery exists today, and we need to be more concerned about the slavery that exists today than the slavery that existed 160, 70 years ago.

491. 3:36:36

     You know, this very house objected to a REAL ID bill for nail anesthetists a few weeks ago, but yet we know that probably one of the biggest areas of indentured servitude comes from one of the Asian countries, that they bring whole families over here and work them in the nail tech business until they've paid off their transport fees or whatever it may be. So let me assure you that slavery still exists. So I'm more concerned with that than I am past history.

492. 3:37:10

     But I know that we have a lot to, to deal with. We have a lot to deal with across the boundaries. I've been very fortunate in my life. I'm the least likely fella to say that probably one of the most dearest friends I have is a man of Jewish descent. Probably the most intelligent man that I've ever been dealt with. He's made a better person out of me, both in how I think and how I treat people.

493. 3:37:41

     Sometimes he's called me off the limb at times. So when we talk about monuments, let's talk about the Jewish monuments down at Oakland Cemetery. Let's talk about the monuments on this square. Let's talk about Martin Luther King's statuary. We're talking about all statuary, ladies and gentlemen.

494. 3:38:05

     Gentleman will continue.

495. 3:38:06

     And I would tell you that there's a lot of statuary that should be put up that nobody knows anything about. You know, I'm the, I've been very fortunate that one of the native sons from Franklin County, Lavonia, was Governor Ernie Vandiver. Not very many people remember Ernie Vandiver. There's no statue on this ground to Ernie Vandiver. But I will tell you right now, that he did something very few people remember. During the civil rights era, when the South was embroiled with racial hatred, and the troops were being called out to stop students from going into the University of Alabama, Ernie Vandiver was the governor of Georgia, and he said, "No, we will not participate." And students were admitted to the University of Georgia.

496. 3:38:57

     Georgia didn't go that direction. So to my friends that may have an issue about statute, no matter whatever it is, I would be...

497. 3:39:09

     Wouldn't be right if I didn't tell you to remember one thing that was always said. We always said in the '70s and the '80s, the '60s, that Georgia was too great to hate. Too great to hate. So that, ladies and gentlemen, is this, this what this bill's about. That's what it's about. And yes, I am a son of the South, and I don't apologize for it.

498. 3:39:41

     Yes, I had ancestors that did fight in that terrible war, but I really don't know what they did, you know? My family came from the ag- from an agrarian background. All I know is the names. I don't know what happened, but that's what it was. Most everybody, I don't know a soul under this gold dome that will say that they uphold slavery today, or they did that practice in, in its day. So that being said, we're talking about statuary.

499. 3:40:13

     We're talking about history, ladies and gentlemen. You can't deny history. You need to know where your history is so you never repeat the mistakes. But when you're honoring people who died, Oakland Cemetery, there's a mass grave of 3,000 people, I'm told, in the heart of Oakland Cemetery, and once stood the most beautiful structure as a memorial to the people that died. It was called the Lion of Atlanta.

500. 3:40:43

     And because of it being desecrated, it was moved. It was put into a storage container, where it, hopefully it still is, because it's truly a piece of artwork. I'm told that one of the, some of the cemeteries have reached out for it, and they were denied access, and I don't know what that was about. But this bill goes further. This bill says the Department of Community Affairs will create a registry, a registry of the monuments around the state.

501. 3:41:14

     So that, ladies and gentlemen, is what this bill does. Quite honestly, the most important thing, and this is for the folks in the committee that, uh, they said, "Well, you're rigging the system." No, we're not rigging the system. For many years I've been here, and I've heard all the talk over the years about not denying people the right to the courts. Right now, you have a group of citizens, and I mean every person in here is denied that right for litigation, because you have no standing.

502. 3:41:46

     This gives standing. This creates a process. This creates a pathway for this statuary to be relocated and to be put up by someone who wants them. I truly do see the day that you'll see some group, historical group, that will probably be the benefactor of a lot of this statuary and probably do a statuary park. And if that's what it comes down to, that will be what it comes down to, because that's better than taking artwork or statuary and putting it out into a field and letting it grow up somewhere.

503. 3:42:24

     At least have it where it can be seen, admired, viewed, and remembered what it was about. Mr. Speaker, I've said what I needed to say. I'll be more than glad to stand for questions if there are any, and I'm sure there may be. Gentleman has some questions, and then we have some speakers on the bill. But I'm gonna recognize to your left, Representative Adensenia. Recognized for a question.

504. 3:42:54

     To your left, Mr. Chairman. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? I certainly will. All right. So you came to my committee two times talking about this, um, at a time where affordability is impacting many Georgians, many people losing healthcare coverages. Isn't that true that you're the only one walking about here and trying to put a Confederate monument? Isn't that true that you're the only one who care about that in this chamber? No one else does but you.

505. 3:43:25

     Isn't that true? If I could understand what you said, I might agree or disagree. What I'm saying- But I'm sorry, I don't understand you. You're the only one running around here trying to put up Confederate monument that nobody cares about but you. Isn't that true? That is not true. I do care about Confederate monuments. There's a lot of other people in this state that care about them. You have the Sons of Confederate Veterans, you have the UDC. You have a lot of historic groups.

506. 3:43:56

     Not hate groups, but historic groups. So no, I am not the only one. Representative Taylor is recognized to your left out front, is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, ma'am. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, ma'am. Um, so I'm, I'm reading the bill, and it's saying that th- these individuals from any county, from anywhere, can just come to another county and challenge the removal of the s- the statue, the monument, correct? That is correct.

507. 3:44:26

     Does that apply for the state on these grounds right here?

508. 3:44:33

     You know, I'm not sure of the process of the state. I know that we've moved statuary before. There was a s- statue over here to, uh, Congressman, uh, Governor S- uh, Stephens. It was moved across the street, but nobody challenged that. So I, I, I think the state has sovereign immunity itself- Okay ... to that. They make that decision through the, I think it's through the capital whatever, and they make those decisions. Okay. S- and, and then if, if I may? Yes, ma'am.

509. 3:45:05

     So going back to the residency, so someone in Cobb County can come over to Fulton County and demand and challenge the removal. They don't- I would think- ... pay taxes there ... I would think that if- They have no investment there. They don't own land there. I would think that if they had an interest in that statue, and most of that interest resides not in individuals, but in historical groups, preservationist groups. That, that is concerning. Thank you. Thank you so much.

510. 3:45:37

     Let's see. Representative Petrea to your left is recognized for a question. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Uh, my friend, is it not true that, uh, we have 17 million visitors to Savannah alone, most of which, many of whom are very interested in history, the good, the bad, the ugly, monuments everywhere to a multitude of wars and to include the Revolution? Is it not true that people are interested in monuments and they are interested in history and they learn from that?

511. 3:46:12

     Is that not true? You're absolutely right. There's probably not a more beautiful place in the state of Georgia than all the squares in Savannah that, that exemplifies artistic value of those monuments across the squares in Augusta, I mean, in Savannah. Thank you. Representative Gissler to your right out front, to your right, to the back. Yes. The gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir.

512. 3:46:44

     So I'm, I'm reading this, and I'm thinking about u- unintended con- consequences. Um, and I'm thinking about a situation where, say, you have a, a city in the state of Georgia. The council has decided they need to move a monument, not for any political reason, but just because of a, an infrastructure project. Extending standing to any interested person, does that mean that someone who maybe used to live there but now lives in California could file an, a, could file a complaint and bl- Standing would mean that they were a Georgia resident.

513. 3:47:17

     They'd have to be a Georgia resident. And, and the case that you're speaking of, that was addressed in the previous bill, current law, that if a local government has need to move statuary because of a road project or something like that, then they can do so. I think that's how it was moved in Athens. They decided there in front of the, um, in front of the gates at the University of Georgia, they wanted to move that for more traffic. Well, they moved it, but they moved it to the, uh, outer loop out there.

514. 3:47:48

     I, I believe you're right about Athens. A- and I, I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Momtahan to your right in the back is recognized for a question. I certainly will. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Is it not true that in 2023 there was a 30-foot statue of Cyrus the Great that was erected in the Millennium Gates, uh, Museum here in Atlanta? And isn't it further true that people of all stripes across the entire state of Georgia have monuments that are special to them, that they wanna see these protections added to in the Asian American community, in the Persian American community, in so many communities, uh, across this great state?

515. 3:48:37

     And that just because they don't live in a certain area doesn't mean that they get to see their heritage torn down. If the gentleman so states. Thank you for your bill. Gentleman further yield? Yes, sir. Representative Berry, to your left towards the back, is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Thank you. I, I have great concerns. I'm actually still astounded by the presentation, but I have great concerns about the private property and why we are constricting cities from moving private property, and why are we allowing anyone in the state- This bill doesn't deal with private property.

516. 3:49:14

     Private property is your property and stature is on your property. But if somebody desecrates or destroys that, then they also become subject to the extreme penalties of the law. Does the gentleman further yield? I certainly will. My question is specifically about line 37, where it says no publicly or privately owned monument. So again, the question is why are we constricting a city's abil- or county's ability to remove a privately owned monument?

517. 3:49:49

     What line did the gentleman reference? Line 37.

518. 3:49:58

     This language that you're speaking of, it shall be, says, "Any person shall be... It shall be unlawful any person, firm," we're adding "officer or agency." This is language that legislative council put in to put it in more proper legal words. This was already, this was already covered under the current statute. Thank, thank you. Representative Burchett is recognized for a question.

519. 3:50:27

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? I certainly will. Is it not true that your bill is viewpoint neutral, doesn't desi- designate any type of monument, uh, or, or what the monument stands for? It just says all monuments. All monuments. So any monument is protected by this, uh, this bill? Absolutely. Thank you. Military, religious, historical, any type of monument. Do you further yield? I certainly. Um, and to the question that came before in line 37, what the, the line reads is, "No public or private monu- monument," and, uh, isn't true that this bill is protecting those monuments that are displayed in public places but are owned by private entities?

520. 3:51:07

     Any monument, you're correct. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

521. 3:51:15

     Lita Hugley is recognized for a question.

522. 3:51:20

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? I certainly will. Uh, isn't it true, I listened intently to your presentation, and one of the things, uh, that you said, uh, is we need to value history and how important history is, and if we don't learn from the history, we are, uh, sometimes destined to repeat it. And one of the things that you said, isn't it true, uh, was about, uh, the Confederate monuments and how valuable they were to the period of the time.

523. 3:51:54

     And isn't, isn't it true that these monuments were not put up by the people who were survivors of the Confederate War? They were put up much later, uh, during the era of Jim Crow, and that's an important part of the history and a, and an important reason why some of these monuments were put forth, isn't it true? And isn't that true that that's why some people feel the way that they do about those monuments?

524. 3:52:26

     I have no idea why people feel the way they do. Isn't it true, mister, uh, uh, to the gentleman, i- isn't it true that, uh, I am letting you know that that is why some people feel that way, just in case you don't know? Does the gentleman further yield? Certainly. Um, can you, um, help me with why we would want to, uh, involve cities and counties in such an extended period of litigation?

525. 3:52:59

     'Cause if there was a reason that they needed to remove a monument based on what we have before us, it would be almost impossible to do so. Is, is that the intent, to keep people, uh, in litigation such that they won't do it at all? I'm not sure. You're kinda mixing around of what you're saying. But I think what you're trying to say is, is this, is this gonna embroil cities and counties into litigation. Mm-hmm. Yeah. Cities and counties are embroiled in litigation now, but the legal system is not correct to treat all people equal, to give them access to the courts.

526. 3:53:40

     As an individual, if I have a concern about a statue that's being moved or a monument that's being destroyed, I have no say in the matter. I pay a lawyer. I go to court. It drags around, and then the judge comes back, and he says, "You have no standing." The Sons of Confederate Veterans, the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Vietnam era vets, they have no standing under law, and that's the reason what we're giving them is standing.

527. 3:54:14

     For many years, I've heard the minority talk, minority party talk so much about the rights of citizens to have access to the courts. You can't have it both ways. Does the gentleman further yield? Certainly. Uh, of course you and I have both been here for several years, and we've heard these conversations for a long time. Uh, and isn't it true that at the end of the day- It appears that your purpose is that it will be so difficult that none of these monuments will ever be removed.

528. 3:54:55

     Is that the purpose of this bill? That is not correct. If you will listen to what I'd said, with a pathway to removal and relocation, there's a process to do. Quite frankly, there's a process, and if those local officials will follow the process, run the legal ads for 90 days instead of moving them into the covered dark the way some of them have been done, and then they can look at it, and they can judge who is an appropriate group.

529. 3:55:26

     Some group may wish to open up a monument park. Move them down there and get them out of your hair if that's what you wish. Thank you. Thank you. The gentleman has many more questions. I'm gonna recognize Whip Park for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. So, you know, I'm quite concerned about this piece of legislation given the effect it would have of likely protecting Confederate monuments, in particular given the history.

530. 3:55:59

     Uh, Germany spent decades removing Nazi monuments, uh, as part of their denazification. It appears Georgia is doing the opposite, legally entrenching Confederate monuments. What does that tell us about Georgia's reckoning with its own history? Well, I don't know what that tells you about Germany, but I know that the terrible crimes that was created by Nazi Germany, they were eradicated. But the crimes that you speak of were the crimes of war.

531. 3:56:33

     What happened in this country 160-some-odd years ago, that was Southern independence. That was what people believed at that time, that they had a right for home rule. And it depends on what you believe in. But- Does the gentleman further yield? But in this case, I think that you should be ashamed of yourself to compare what happened in this country during the Civil War to what happened in Nazi Germany. Does the gentleman further yield? Yes, sir.

532. 3:57:03

     If the Confederacy was a treasonous insurrection that killed hundreds of thousands of Americans to preserve the institution of slavery, how is protecting monuments categorically different from, let's say, a hypothetical German law trying to protect a statute or monuments to Hitler or Nazism? And, and I think for you to shame any member who condemns the Confederacy for fighting to protect the institution of slavery, one of the worst crimes in human history, I think is quite shameful.

533. 3:57:45

     But how do you not understand that when certain folks in this chamber, along with the descendants of slaves, see a Confederate monument, that they view that as incredibly oppressive? Do, do you not... D- Does that not speak to how your history was informed in terms of the history of the Confederacy, sir? I think everybody has a different perspective of how they view history. I make no, I make no apologies for saying that.

534. 3:58:21

     What I am apologetic to is that we had a system, and it did not work. There's nothing that I know of, a greater sin than the institution of slavery. But I ask you to do no further than to pull up the Holy Bible, if you use the Holy Bible, and you go back into the history of mankind. Slavery has been an institution since the beginning of mankind in the written word, and that is the truth, if you've read the Bible.

535. 3:58:52

     S- So does the gentleman yield? And I make no... I don't say, I, I'm not saying what, uh, slavery was in the South, but it was a terrible institution, I can assure you of that, and I don't know anybody that disagrees with that. I know that if you looked at history, and if you read enough of history, you can see some of the comments that were made by the politicians and those folks of the period. Abraham Lincoln made a comment, and if I might, if you'll indulge me, I'll read this.

536. 3:59:23

     We had two presidents in this country, one legal and one illegal at the time. Abraham Lincoln said, "My paramount object to this struggle is to save the Union and not either to save or destroy slavery." That was Abraham Lincoln. Jefferson Davis, who was the president of the Confederacy: "We're fighting for, for independence. We're not fighting for slavery. It was never an essential element." Now, I wasn't around then,

537. 3:59:57

     and I'm not trying to be, uh, unkind. I'm not trying to shake the system or to insult anyone. I look across, and I see a lot of, a lot of the members of the minority party that I think a pretty good bit of. I wasn't, I'm not Black. I don't come from slavery. I don't even know if any of my family owned slaves or not. I would have my doubts very seriously being from northeast Georgia. But I keep saying that this is about monument protection.

538. 4:00:33

     If you don't want the monuments, here's a pathway to move them. Thank you.

539. 4:00:41

     The gentleman yield for more questions? I certainly will, Mr. Speaker. One or two more. Representative Evans, to your left, is recognized for a question.

540. 4:00:52

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

541. 4:00:54

     Yes, ma'am.

542. 4:00:54

     I wanted to talk a little bit about the standing section starting on line, uh, 61. And it looks to me like anyone who says they're interested has standing, and I was wondering if you agree with that, and if not, who would not have standing under this bill?

543. 4:01:14

     This says that any interested person, group, or legal entity without regard to ownership will have, shall have standing.

544. 4:01:22

     But-

545. 4:01:22

     That means any individual, any group, any historical group.

546. 4:01:28

     But not just any historical group, any individual who says they're interested under the language, would you agree?

547. 4:01:33

     As a citizen, they would have that right.

548. 4:01:35

     So anyone who says they're interested would have standing. And I'm wondering if you'll further yield for a follow-up question.

549. 4:01:42

     Certainly.

550. 4:01:43

     Um, in committee or in other discussions about the bill, has anyone talked about the unconstitutionality of a legislative body trying to give everyone standing? Because Article 3, Section 2 of the const- constitution says there's got to be a real case and controversy. And if, sort of like, you know, if, if everyone's in charge, no one's in charge. If everyone has standing, then no one has standing. Uh, did that come up in the committee, or have you, uh, addressed with legislative council whether it's constitutional to try to give-

551. 4:02:15

     Yeah

552. 4:02:15

     ... anyone who says they have standing, standing?

553. 4:02:17

     There was never any question about constitutionality. This is simply a pathway forward to wrong, uh, to right a wrong, to give people or historical groups-

554. 4:02:27

     Mm

555. 4:02:28

     ... a pathway to give them standing if they wish to be involved.

556. 4:02:33

     Thank you. I appreciate that. I think there is a concern.

557. 4:02:35

     Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I think we've about wore this out, uh, and I'm sure we're gonna have people that's gonna speak on both sides. So I will, at this point, step aside, and at the proper time would encourage the members to vote for its favorable consideration, and let's see if we can start healing a wound and giving local governments a pathway.

558. 4:03:02

     The gentleman has yielded the well. We do have, um, a number of folks signed up to speak in opposition to the bill, some in favor of the bill, and we do have a minority report. I'm going to, um, recognize four folks. Let me go ahead and tell you who, who you are. Representative Bazemore, Representative Sanchez, Rep- Representative Romman, and Representative Carter. You have 15 minutes to, um, make your points, and I'm gonna recognize Representative Bazemore to begin the discussion. Representative Bazemore. Lady will suspend just for a moment.

559. 4:03:37

     Lady in the well, your attention please. Lady's recognized.

560. 4:03:41

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good afternoon, colleagues. I rise to speak in opposition to Senate Bill 175. While the bill presents itself as a measure to protect monuments and historical markers, a closer examination reveals that it severely restricts the ability of local governments and agencies to manage property under their control.

561. 4:04:13

     Even in situations where relocation is permitted, the bill imposes strict and inflexible requirements. The monument must remain in the same jurisdiction, maintain similar providence and visibility, cannot be moved to m- museums or cemeteries unless originally placed there, and officials must provide a 90-day notice period, which can be extended indefinitely through litigation.

562. 4:04:54

     These are not minor procedural hurdles. They limit the discretion of local leaders who are closest to the community they serve. Officials attempting to address safety concerns, redevelopment projects, or community needs would find their hands tied by state mandates. For those of us who believe in local control and limited state interference, this bill is deeply concerning.

563. 4:05:32

     It centralizes authorities in a way that undermines the ability of local governments to respond quickly and effectively to the needs of their residents. Decisions that were once made thoughtfully by local leaders now risk being delayed, contested, or blocked entirely. We should be empowering local officials to manage public property in a way that reflects the needs and values of their communities, not imposing rigid rules that invite litigation and restrict actions.

564. 4:06:17

     Our responsibility as legislators is to trust local leaders while providing clear guidance, not to create a framework that complicates their ability to govern effectively. This bill does the opposite. And I heard it was said in committee and here in the well that the judiciary bra- branch has already ruled on this. So why do we need this bill?

565. 4:06:50

     For this reason, I cannot support Senate Bill 175. I respectfully-

566. 4:06:57

     Urge this body to vote no. And I yield the will.

567. 4:07:05

     Representative Sanchez is recognized. Speak to the bill.

568. 4:07:09

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd ra- rather much be talking about literally any of the other issues pressing our living Georgians today. You know, things about, like, affordable housing, the fact that thousands of Georgians are losing their healthcare. But, you know, if you ask me, one human life is way more important and more valuable than every single statue combined in this state. But sure, let's talk about statues. So many of the monuments this bill wants to preserve were built to glorify a dark time in our state's past. When Georgia purchased the site of Stone Mountain, it was explicitly designated as a memorial to the Confederacy because it was officially opened on April 14th, 1965, 100 years to the day of Abraham Lincoln's assassination.

569. 4:07:47

     If we go further back, in the 1910s and '20s, there was a huge surge in Confederate monuments, which so happened to coincide with the huge surge of the Ku Klux Klan, which c- ha- peaked in the 1920s. The s- in fact, the statue of former KKK leader John Brown Gordon outside this building was raised in 1907, not to record history for posterity, but to idolize the racist Lost Cause ideals he stood for. By contrast, there are only two portraits and one statue for historically important Black figures in Georgia.

570. 4:08:18

     These Confederate monuments are not objects of history. They are racist propaganda carved into stone. There's a difference between remembering past horrors so we don't repeat them and honoring them. As was mentioned earlier, Germany did this great with n- denazification. They didn't erect statues of Adolf Hitler and Nazis. They took them down and taught the horrors of the Holocaust. Maybe we can learn a thing or two about that. The working families of Georgia are not interested in statues of old racists and do not care about sanctifying national flags of the Confederacy.

571. 4:08:49

     They want a government that works for them now in today day and age. And one more thing. When this bill was heard in committee, there were some comments about, you know, starting a race war. The only people trying to start a race war are the ones pushing this stuff to, to pr- to, to protect Confederate monuments and idolize slave owners. It's been over 160 years. Can we please move on? A reminder that you lost the war, and a reminder that the only reason we have some of my colleagues in this chamber is because that war was won by the Union.

572. 4:09:21

     So let's actually move on and focus on the work that the people of Georgia living today asked us to work on. Thank you. I yield the will.

573. 4:09:29

     Representative Miller. There she is. I couldn't find you. Lady's recognized.

574. 4:09:36

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to speak briefly as a great-granddaughter of the South. Anybody else here a great-granddaughter, grandson of the South? Great, great. Our blood is in the soil. So let me say this, and I wanna be really clear as we are dismissive, and I am actually flabbergasted at the celebrated ignorance of your own history with the level of dismissal and disdain.

575. 4:10:10

     It is shocking, and we should all be embarrassed for every person in this body that considers themself a statesman or a stateswoman or a student of history. Let me tell you something. If you have read American history and you have read the Bible, you would understand that there is no history of slavery like American slavery. American slavery is what we call chattel slavery.

576. 4:10:41

     Chattel slavery, to anybody who might be wondering, did not exist in the Bible, because you know what slaves in the Bible were? People, human beings, indentured servants, forced laborers. They were not, in essence, property to be murdered, raped, sold, stolen,

577. 4:11:15

     and declared in the Constitution three-fifths of a human being. So let me be really clear. The Civil War was fought over slavery. The people who w- we are memorializing in these Confederate monuments went to war with their own countrymen over slavery, over the right to own another person, to force women to have babies and breed, to buck break Black men.

578. 4:11:50

     We will not in this moment, and I know we're getting close to the end and we get a little squirrely, but what we will not do is skate past the history of my ancestors, my history in this country, a people stolen from across the ocean, many of whom chose the sea rather than to become property of the folks that you seek to defend and memorialize and create litigation avenues to. It is a sad, sad day in this chamber.

579. 4:12:24

     These remarks were inexcusable. We should all be saddened and ashamed of ourselves as we continue to try to limit teaching history. Why? Because we wanna get away with rewriting it. We're not talking about a war. We're talking about centuries

580. 4:12:49

     of mass murder.

581. 4:12:54

     That is my granddaughter story of the South. And let me say this, 'cause I'm gonna pivot real quick 'cause I only have a minute. The notion- That we have not even considered the constitutionality of making standing so flimsy that anybody could wake up in the morning and decide they want to sue. That's not how the Constitution works. If you're a lawyer in this, in this chamber, you know that is not how standing works.

582. 4:13:28

     You have to have an injury in fact, not one in your imagination. Not a preference, an injury, a constitutional one, concrete, that allows you to invoke the authority of the judicial branch. This is an awful, sad day. We could have done a lot of things. We could have required that these monuments be placed where they belong, and that is in a museum to be studied, like every other civilized country does.

583. 4:14:00

     But we are still waging wars with the ghosts of a past and a war that was lost.

584. 4:14:09

     Lost for the purpose of treating men and women and babies as human beings. And you will not, in my face, in the faces of my brothers and sisters and countrymen and children of the South, pretend like what happened down here was biblical and of God.

585. 4:14:34

     It is a disgrace.

586. 4:14:39

     I'm going to ask my colleagues to reflect deeply on what just happened from this well today, just feet away from me. I'm glad my grandmother is not alive in 2026 to hear what came from this well moments ago. Now, y'all are gonna pass this bill because you're gonna do what you do, but let me tell you something else. We'll see you in court. Mr. Speaker, I yield.

587. 4:15:10

     The lady yields the will. Representative Carter. Representative Doreen Carter is recognized to speak to the bill.

588. 4:15:16

     Praise the Lord. Hallelujah. Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I rise in opposition to Senate Bill 175. Let me be clear. This is not a debate about history. History is not fragile. It does not need to be protected by a statue. History lives in our books, in our classrooms, in our communities, and in the truth we are willing to confront. What this bill attempts to do is not to preserve history, it attempts to freeze it.

589. 4:15:53

     It prioritizes monuments over people and symbols over honest dialogue. We must ask ourselves, who decides what deserves protection? And more importantly, who bears the burden of that decision? Many of these monuments were erected simply to commemorate history. Many of these monuments were not erected simply to commemorate history, but to send a message during painful periods in our nation's past.

590. 4:16:34

     You just heard the pain. For many Georgians, these symbols do not represent heritage. They represent exclusion, oppression, and a version of history that leaves their story out.

591. 4:16:55

     One time.

592. 4:16:55

     As elected leaders, our responsibility is not to mandate reverence of the past, but to create a space for truth, growth, and unity. Local communities should have the right to decide what stands in their public spaces. That is the essence of good governance, trusting the people closest to the issue. This bill removes that local control, it silences communities, and it tells them that their voices matter less than concrete and stone.

593. 4:17:28

     We cannot legislate healing by ignoring pain. If we truly honor, if we truly want to honor history, we must be able, must be willing to engage with it fully, the good, the bad, and the uncomfortable. Georgia is strong enough to tell the whole story, and I'll end with this. My mother's sister left Georgia when she was in her early 20s and traveled with her husband, who was in the military, and she called my house when I, after I bought my first house, to get my address, 'cause my cousin was living with me.

594. 4:18:06

     And I gave her my address and the city, Stone Mountain, and she panicked because she remembered. Maybe some of you may not, like me, I grew up here in Atlanta, I grew up in Georgia, so the pain is real, and for someone who had not lived in the state for over 20 years, just hearing that I lived in Stone Mountain did something to her.

595. 4:18:37

     So I hope that you guys can understand that, again, this is not just about monuments, it is not about history. It's really about pain. Are you willing to feel the pain? Please vote no. I yield the will.

596. 4:18:58

     That concludes our time for those opposed to the, um,

597. 4:19:04

     the House Bill, excuse me, Senate Bill 175. We will have a minority report. We have one member who wants to speak in favor of the bill. Now, he will have up to...

598. 4:19:13

     Up to 15 minutes. Representative Holly is recognized to speak in favor of the bill.

599. 4:19:30

     Mr. Speaker, members of the House, you might find it surprising that I or anyone sitting where I sit would even speak in favor of this bill. Is it because that I'm sold on the utility of these stone and metal relics, these attempts to freeze a historical perspective by men who feared they would never live the storied lives of the heroes they cast in bronze?

600. 4:20:02

     My answer is no. Is it because I hold an ounce of admiration for the factions of the 1860s listed in the text? Certainly not. I rise because I intend to highlight all the monuments this bill inadvertently addresses. When we deliberated on Senate Bill 77 back in 2019, we attempted to handle the preservation of history.

601. 4:20:35

     The sponsor reminds us today that this bill is meant to protect all monuments. For that reason, I'm particularly appreciative of its impact on our state's timber and agricultural industries. I'm reminded of the freedom trees across the South and right here in Georgia. Specific oaks stand as designated freedom trees.

602. 4:21:07

     It was beneath their shade that the Union officers read General Order Number 3, which we know today as the Emancipation Proclamation, to those enslaved Africans who never could witness a sight like that. Under this bill, these trees cannot be cut down, they cannot be moved, they cannot even be obscured. They receive the same strict legal protections as bronze monuments.

603. 4:21:39

     The Georgia Tree Council has identified these as silent witnesses. Meanwhile, one state over, Bryan Stevenson's Equal Justice Initiative has documented 531 lynchings across the counties of the state of Georgia. When local communities choose to revere these sites of historic barbarity, where the towering branches witnessed the strange fruit that Billie Holiday so hauntingly eulogized, Senate Bill 175 will ensure those sites remain immune and untouched.

604. 4:22:26

     If we are protecting history, does this bill's sponsor intend to protect the history of the soil as fiercely as we protect the history of the pedestal? We speak of fixed monuments, but let us reflect on the living monuments. Inside this Capitol, we are surrounded by the marble busts of men whose tragic legacies are undermined every single day by the very existence of this chamber.

605. 4:23:02

     Take for instance, Button Gwinnett or Lyman Hall. Gwinnett, a man who failed in business but succeeded in defying the Gospel's command to love thy neighbor, believed himself justified in the kidnapping and ownership of Africans. His bust sits in the rotunda, but the monument that matters is the county that now bears his name. Today, Gwinnett County is home to one of the nation's most vibrant immigrant-born communities.

606. 4:23:37

     Freeborn Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, Greeks, Asians, even a Republican leader, now shop and build on homes of land that once held the torture cages of a precursor to apartheid. That is what you call a living monument. Look at Lyman Hall, whose statue was meant to symbolize a Georgia pride rooted in human trafficking. He likely hoped that this state would never see a free person like myself roam its streets.

607. 4:24:11

     But look at Hall County today. Look at Beulah Rucker Oliver, who used Rosenwald funds to educate the masses. Look at Dr. Emmett Etheridge, the grandson of the enslaved, who served on the Gainesville Board of Education, a reality that would have been absolutely unintelligible to the masters of that era. What is a monument in 2026? The sponsor suggests that these are safeguards of history.

608. 4:24:47

     In reality, many are merely altars for bird droppings. The best way to safeguard history is to allow it to show its relevance through contrast. This Capitol is filled with images of those who trafficked humans, betrayed their nation, or simply lost a war. And yet Those statues now stand watch over a body of Black legislators that is arguably the largest in the entire United States.

609. 4:25:25

     Ranked number one for business, our state is, because of their presence and participation. When this bill passes, and I said when, I didn't say if, I said when this bill passes, it will provide us the liberty of being reminded why we are so much better off today than the horrors of our past. Living monuments win when a young Pakistani man is elected as the youngest to this legislature.

610. 4:26:01

     Living monuments win when the descendants of the enslaved overseas the budget of our House Minority Caucus. And yes, living monuments win when one of the smartest women in our chambers stands to be the next attorney general. Hear me clearly, especially those watching from home. While I can respect the sponsor of this bill, as difficult as sometimes it may seem, and while my words today take an affirmative position on the passage of this bill, I am currently wrestling with the spirit of this law.

611. 4:26:51

     This bill is what the majority often describes as a divisive concept, and I am currently struggling. I'm struggling with the intent to divide this body once again. Mr. Speaker, my fellow members, I only pray that I can resolve this uncertainty when it comes time to cast my vote on that board. I now yield the will.

612. 4:27:23

     Gentleman has yielded the will.

613. 4:27:28

     Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question's ordered. We will now have a minority report and chairman's time. 20 minutes, up to 20 minutes, minutes on each of those. I recognize Representative, Representative Kendrick for the first part of the minority report. The lady is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, I come to you today not only as a Democrat, but as an attorney. And because of that, I ask you to vote no on S- SB 174.

614. 4:28:01

     As an attorney practicing for almost 20 years, I need you to hear me clearly about what lines 61 through 88 of this bill actually do. Not what you think it does, but what it actually does, because the legal consequences are severe, and they will fall on the hardest, fall hardest on the very public servants that many of you champion and support back in your communities. So let's talk about standing. In American jurisprudence, standing is a foundational legal doctrine.

615. 4:28:33

     It exists for a reason. Before you can sue anyone, you must show that you were harmed. You must have a real, concrete, particularized injury. That is not a technicality. That is the guardrails that we put in our courts to prevent our courts from being weaponized, overcrowded, and inefficient. This bill throws the guardrails right on off the cliff with a vengeance. Lines 61 through 88 grant standing to any interested person, group, or legal entity, without regard to ownership of the monument and without a specialized or a personalized injury.

616. 4:29:17

     Let me say that again. Without regard to ownership of the monument and without any specialized or personalized injury. You don't have to own the monument. You don't have to be harmed. You don't even have to have an actual interest in the monument. You simply have to be interested in the monument. I'm interested in removing every single Confederate federate here in the state of Georgia. So let's go, if this bill passes. But being interested in the monument is not a legal standard.

617. 4:29:51

     That is an open invitation to litigation for our public officers and local government entities. Now, let's talk about who gets to, who gets sued under this flimsy grant of standing. So who, who gets sued under this provision? Officers, agencies, public servants, county commissioners making budget decisions, city managers following direction of their councils, elected officials responding to the will of their constituents. Under this language, any one of them doing their job can be dragged into a court by anyone in the state of Georgia who simply decides they have an opinion about a monument.

618. 4:30:32

     Now, let's talk about the damages provision, because you think this bill couldn't get worse, but it does. It actually does the longer that you read it. So this bill doesn't just allow for a lawsuit by anybody, anywhere. It mandates that the prevailing plaintiff shall recover attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and exemplary damages. Exemplary damages, punitive in nature. I'm not a litigator, but when I was a litigator, attorney's fees and litigation costs, expenses was standard.

619. 4:31:07

     But exemplary damages? Y'all are just being mean and greedy at this point. Against exemplary damages against public officers, against agencies, against the governments that you represent.

620. 4:31:23

     I really wonder how those in your backyard feel about this as an option for them. So to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, you spent time I cannot get back last year fighting against what you term frivolous litigation. You have tort reform even when nobody asked for it. You claimed on tort reform that you were fighting for small business, businesses because as the allegation goes, Georgia was becoming too litig- litigious in premises liabilities and personal injury suits.

621. 4:31:56

     So I'm asking you, how is this any different? Seriously, you're creating a private right of action with no injury threshold and mandatory fee shiftings against public officials. That is not conservative legal philosophy. That is the most expensive litigation mechanism that I've seen introduced in this chamber in 16 years. So think about your county, county commissioners. Vote no on this bill. No to, no to SB 175. No to opening the floodgates of litigation for local officials and communities, not because of monuments, but because the rule of law and legal predictability and stability should matter in this chamber.

622. 4:32:34

     Because of the standing doctrine matter. The standing doctrine matters because you can't say you oppose a lawsuit abuse on Monday and then vote for unlimited standing on Tuesday. So protect your l- your local elected officials, protect your counties, protect legal integrity, and vote no. Thank you, Mr.

623. 4:32:55

     The lady has yielded the way. Representative Mitchell. Representative Billy Mitchell is recognized.

624. 4:33:09

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, even my friend, the author of this bill. I want to say I do to stand in opposition to Senate Bill 175, which not only allows anyone to file a lawsuit without demonstrating, uh, personal harm, the bill explicitly reinforces protections, uh, for monuments such as th- those tied to the Confederate States of America, including permanently safeguarding the carving at Stone Mountain.

625. 4:33:45

     Stone Mountain Park sits in the middle of my district. On paper, this is presented as a preservation measure, but in reality, it prioritizes symbols of a painful oppression, history over the well-being of communities living alo- inside them today. The late Maynard Jackson would say, "New times create new duties." By cementing their permanence, the state sends a message that the feelings and needs of many communities are secondary to preserving monuments that represent oppression.

626. 4:34:23

     Since we've talked about history, let me give you some. 1955 it was, there was a young lady named Rosa Parks who decided to take a stand by keeping her seat. She started what is now known as the nonviolent movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., who grew up just blocks from this building. Finally, because of what was going on, the United States Supreme Court made a ruling that segregation on public transportation was no longer allowed.

627. 4:35:03

     The Georgia General Assembly, yes, the Billy Mitchells and Alan Powells of that day, did two things. The first thing they did was they were so incensed by the US Supreme Court's ruling that they put the Confederate stars and bars on our state flag. We have since removed that. But they did something else. The longest street in Georgia left the Capitol's steps and went all the way to the gates of Stone Mountain Park, which at that time was not only the regular meeting place of the Ku Klux Klan, but it was a memorial to the Confederacy, which it remains to this day.

628. 4:35:48

     And they renamed that street from Fair Street to Memorial Drive, where many of you will ride on today. Stone Mountain Park used to be a revenue center for the state. As a matter of fact, it was the second most visited park on the entire East Coast, only exceeded by Disney World. Today, because of what is going on at the park, it has become a drain to the taxpayers in this state.

629. 4:36:20

     The amount of money that we have to place in the budget every year increases to sustain Stone Mountain Park, and what it has done to our Main Street as a result is unconscionable. This is not a question of erasing history. History can be remembered, studied, honored. Heck, you can put it in museums. You can put bumper stickers. Heck, you can wrap your car. Uh, this is, this bill undermines the ability of local governments to respond thoughtfully to the concerns of their constituents.

630. 4:36:55

     This approach stifles community-led change. It freezes our state in a static version of history rather than allowing public spaces to reflect evolving values and a commitment to equity. It risks prolonging conflict instead of resolving it, placing unnecessary strain on local governments and undermining public trust. Our responsibility is to protect both civil rights and public safety while supporting communities as they make decisions about the spaces they live in.

631. 4:37:28

     I just ask how would you want to be remembered in history? Your vote will reflec- reflect that, and I urge you, this body, to vote no on Senate Bill 175. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield.

632. 4:37:45

     Gentleman's yielded, yielded the will. Representative Holcomb, recognized to speak to the bill. Representative Holcomb.

633. 4:37:50

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to S- Senate Bill 175. It's terrible. I'll tell you why. Saying that this is akin to being viewpoint neutral is akin to saying that separate but equal was a good thing. It's a joke. It's nonsense. In claiming that this is what would apply to all monuments is also nonsense. There isn't a dispute and debate over Vietnam Veterans memorials. There isn't dispute and debate over World War II me- memorials. Why?

634. 4:38:21

     Because we fought on the same side. This is only for those that are for Confederate memorials, and anybody that claims otherwise just isn't telling you the truth. This is to overturn a Supreme Court case. That's what this is. And that Supreme Court case was lost by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Let me go through this with you, because the text of it is among the worst I've ever seen in my time here.

635. 4:38:52

     This bill affords more rights to concrete people than real people. Let me tell you how. It provides for treble and exemplary damages. For real people in real cases when they are hurt, it is next to impossible to get exemplary or treble damages, and we're putting that in here in statute for monuments. Think about that. We are also waiving sovereign immunity.

636. 4:39:25

     We rarely, if ever, do that, but we're doing it here in this case. Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me? We don't waive sovereign immunity for real people, and we're doing it here.

637. 4:39:45

     Attorney's fees, all these expenses, I am litigator. It's very rare to get those. In fact, you can only get them if it's provided by statute or by a contract, otherwise each side pays its own freight. But here, no, let's just hand out attorney's fees and have the taxpayer pay, pay for it.

638. 4:40:10

     This bill also requires that these monuments be stored. What is this, Confederate monuments hoarders edition? And then even more, if you go on to the end of the bill, check this out, lines 139 to 142, it will treat private property as public property. Is this socialism, Confederate monuments edition? Like, what are we doing? Th- this really is the worst bill that I've seen in my time here.

639. 4:40:42

     Vote no and end this joke. Thank you.

640. 4:40:47

     Gentleman's yielded the will. Representative, Representative Willis is recognized to speak to the bill.

641. 4:40:58

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good evening, colleagues.

642. 4:41:08

     Our speaker often states that a story that is not often told

643. 4:41:17

     is forgotten.

644. 4:41:20

     So let's tell it.

645. 4:41:24

     Each day, my colleagues walk past Confederate monuments to walk into this chamber. Each day.

646. 4:41:37

     They look down,

647. 4:41:41

     and we look up, and we eat that pain, and walk in here to serve. Last year, Clarence Thomas Monument Bill was supposed to come. Didn't. Every year. I haven't been here very long, but I've been here long enough to know this,

648. 4:42:06

     monuments should not be more important than hungry children,

649. 4:42:15

     than budgets increasing in education. You're more concerned about monuments and preservation and them being uprooted, and less concerned about uprooting curriculum that tells the story.

650. 4:42:35

     Let me tell you about Mary Turner, a Black woman who was eight months pregnant, eight months pregnant, eight months pregnant, almost ready to deliver, lynched by a white mob in Valdosta, Georgia, then burned, then mutilated, then shot. Wanna know why?

651. 4:43:06

     For protesting the lynching of her husband. Where's her monument? Where's this conversation? So let me get this straight, it's erasure for some, but it's celebration for others. Fannie Lou Hamer said, "A Black woman's body has never been her own." And let me tell you how I know. Because when you have to surrender to a sadistic owner, a serial rapist- And breed and breed and breed and breed and breed.

652. 4:43:42

     Two, three generations later, you're looking at what that looks like. So I'm the descendant of the slave and the slave owner. You don't come up here and casually mention how to litigate oppression, who should feel what way about slavery. How dare you? How dare you? How dare you? Not when our ancestors built this country on their backs.

653. 4:44:13

     You wanna list presidents? George Washington had dentures made of teeth of enslaved people that he owned. How sick. How sick. How sick. Now, this may seem like something simple for you to push a button on, but enough is enough, because I've never seen such sore winners. I've never seen such sore winners. What more do you wish for in this moment with control of the chamber?

654. 4:44:44

     What more? No shame. No empathy culturally, and removing culture from schools. To pacify what? To make who feel better? What about us? What about us? We show up here just like you every day, and you may not know what your ancestor did in the Civil War for the people who are also sore losers, if that's a trend, but we do. And they went against their own people in their own country.

655. 4:45:18

     So if you wanna celebrate tyranny and not bring a modicum of decency to this floor, but you do not get to toss enslavement and one of the world's greatest sins casually in our faces and expect not to hear anything. We are tired. We represent constituents just like you. And I will leave you with this. Those monuments we can see, but I'll tell you what you can't see.

656. 4:45:48

     Unmarked graves. Unmarked graves in Buckhead. I made a list. Unmarked graves of enslaved people in LaGrange, Georgia. In Alpharetta, 1,000. In Macon, Georgia. All across this state right now. Unmarked. Many homes been built on top of them. Some of you may own one. There's no monuments for them. And as my sister said earlier, for those who chose the sea, tipped over pregnant, left their children, took them with them, went down to the bottom of the ocean and changed rather than face the uncertainty of what was here.

657. 4:46:30

     But God, we are still here today, and we will be the voice for them when our other colleagues will not. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield the will.

658. 4:46:42

     Lady has yielded the will. That completes our minority report.

659. 4:46:51

     Chairman's time's waived. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute's adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will-

660. 4:47:12

     Objection.

661. 4:47:16

     You objected at the appropriate time?

662. 4:47:21

     To what?

663. 4:47:21

     State your objection.

664. 4:47:23

     I was trying to be recognized, Mr. Speaker, and I was trying to get your attention, uh, and I'd like to be recognized for a motion.

665. 4:47:37

     State your motion. I'll recognize you for a motion.

666. 4:47:39

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move that Senate Bill 175 be laid on the table.

667. 4:47:54

     The gentleman moves.

668. 4:48:01

     The gentleman moves. The gentleman moves. Okay, here's where we go. We'll vote this motion. There's been a motion a- made to, uh, by the minority leader to lay this Senate Bill 175 on the table. All those in favor of placing the bill on the table will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

669. 4:48:46

     Have all members voted?

670. 4:48:50

     For what purposes

671. 4:48:54

     w- Chairman Powell rise.

672. 4:48:57

     Parliamentary inquiry.

673. 4:49:00

     State your inquiry.

674. 4:49:01

     Mr. Speaker, is it not true that after this vibrant debate from both sides, that I would prefer that this bill to be voted by the members of this House either up or down so that we can put this bill to bed?

675. 4:49:17

     We're gonna total the votes here in just a second. For what purposes Chair Lady Hugley rise? Excuse me, Minority Leader Hugley.

676. 4:49:25

     Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

677. 4:49:27

     State your inquiry, ma'am.

678. 4:49:28

     Mr. Speaker, isn't it true that we have sat here and we have heard a lot this afternoon, but clearly this bill is not ready, uh, to be put before us, and we should not waive the sovereign immunity of the State of Georgia for this

679. 4:49:45

     There have been lots of points made this afternoon, and I'm sure the lady has listened intently as well as I have. So the, uh- 90 Have all members voted?

680. 4:51:25

     For what purpose has Representative Cannon rise? She waves. Your light's on, if you don't mind pushing your button, taking your light off. Thank you. It's been on this whole time. Well, you've had lots of time to talk today, so other folks would like to speak, too.

681. 4:52:00

     Have all members voted?

682. 4:52:04

     All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk, we'll lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 175, the yeas are 89, the nays are 73. This bill has failed to receive the requisite constitutional majority, and therefore fails.

683. 4:52:38

     I want to recognize Chairman Erwin for a motion. Y'all might want to hear this motion. Chairman Erwin recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

684. 4:52:55

     Gentleman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House agree to the Senate amendment to HB 1193.

685. 4:53:13

     Senate sub- Gentleman's recognized again. Let, let me, let me correct that, members. I move that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1193. It's monumental. Mr. Clerk will read the caption. House Bill 1193 by Representative Erwin and the 32nd and others to be entitled an act to amend Title 20 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to education so as to promote and advance statewide literacy and reading education efforts.

686. 4:53:47

     Chairman Erwin is r- recognized to explain the Senate substitute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Uh, I'm very excited to be before you today. What just occurred in the chamber across from us and what we've done in the work of this body is gonna impact this state for decades past here. Um, we had mentioned to you, most impactful and meaningful legislation that we've taken up educationally in this House is the Georgia Early Literacy Act.

687. 4:54:22

     And I wanna talk to the, uh, sub- or excuse me, the amendments and changes to this substitute here. Within the, uh, chamber across the hall, we have moved the funding for this program from QBE allotment sheet to the QBE, uh, grants program. And then we have the sunset, the literacy council set now for December of 2026.

688. 4:54:53

     So based on what we developed in this House, you can hear very quickly that this is still a very productive bill for our young people in this house. Let me play teacher, Mr. Speaker, if I can, just for a minute, and I think I know the answer to this. If you have read something in this room today, raise your hand for me. If you read something today, raise your hand.

689. 4:55:24

     Somebody taught you to read. Somebody worked with you. You've got the skill that you're using for your job. Our young people deserve exactly what you have, and they deserve it by third grade. This plan before you that we have developed

690. 4:55:46

     ... is gonna ensure that that happens for our third graders. And I mentioned this to you when I was up here to you last time. Watch how our chi- children in our schools change when they can read on grade level. Watch how our society changes when our adults have gone through school and read better in this state. Look at how our s- jails change and our prisons and what occurs. I want to do this just for a minute again, Mr.

691. 4:56:18

     Speaker. If you're on the education committee, stand up for a moment, please. I want y'all to look around the room at the groups that have vetted this bill, and I wanna personally stand up here and thank you members for the hard work and the dedication. What your productivity, members, that you put through here in this piece of paper, that chamber right across the hall voted in 49 to zero with only two small changes.

692. 4:56:50

     That oughta tell you about your work and your dedication. I also wanna look around the room. Ms. Dale Burns, where are you? Folks, retired principal. Understands this subject and this need.

693. 4:57:21

     Now, I know he had a little pushing, but if you see the gentleman right next to him, Mr. Speaker's vision for this and his drive to ensure it happened, to make it priority number one because he could see where we needed to be. He recognized the problem. He put the team together, and that team is sitting in this room, it's all of us, so that we could make this happen. So I personally wanna say up here, too, Mr. Speaker, thank you for that drive and your vision.

694. 4:58:10

     This is a big component and a big step. Took a lot of great minds to make this happen. Chairman Dubnik, thank you. Thank you for the, the friendship. Thank you for your knowledge, understanding of the funding and w- and the wording that we need to put in to make this happen in the state. Chairman Hickman over in the Senate, traveling all over Alabama, traveling all over the Southeast with me. Tremendous effort. Thank you, Chairman, for this effort.

695. 4:58:42

     I've seen Courtney, Andrew, Patrick. I can go around the room, and I'm doing this intentionally so that you know how many hours. It's been asked, how many hours did we work trying to figure this out? How many places did we go? How many miles did we travel? There's no way to really estimate that, but I will guarantee you it was a lot of hours and a lot of miles traveled to try to figure what's best.

696. 4:59:12

     I heard it over there in the Senate when it was mentioned by a senator. Senator Hickman, you probably heard it in the back about we hear Mississippi's gone from dead last or 49th in this country up into the top 10 in their literacy rates. How did they do it? Did we look at that? Can we mimic that? Can we give that to our kids? The answer here is yes, we can. Thank you for your efforts on this. What I'd like to ask you to do is vote with me for our children and vote yes for the substitute from the Senate, and then let's ring that bell that if you can't read in this state, we're coming to help.

697. 4:59:58

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

698. 5:00:04

     Before I recognize the gentleman's motion, I want to, uh, certainly he's thanked everyone else. Chairman Erwin, thank you. Thank you for your lifelong dedication to education.

699. 5:00:28

     Members of this House, we have our ups and downs. We agree, we disagree from time to time, but on issues that can make generational change in our state, it's not about any one person in this House that's worked on this bill, spent time. It's not about the Senate. But I will tell you, you've been steadfast, the members of this House, both parties from all over this state, rural Georgia, urban Georgia, big cities, small towns. This House has stood fast to make a difference in our future.

700. 5:01:05

     Georgia's future. This bill, House Bill 1193, will be transformational, and we're gonna stay with it, y'all. We're gonna get it done. This is a first huge step. The credit goes to the members of this House and our friends in the Senate. But the initiative began here, and it was carried forward here. So thank you, all the members of this, this House.

701. 5:01:36

     Let's do one more round of applause for the Georgia House of Representatives and you, our members.

702. 5:01:55

     On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1193, all those in favor will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machines.

703. 5:02:32

     Have all members voted?

704. 5:02:39

     All members voted?

705. 5:02:43

     Boy, that's a nice sight. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine.

706. 5:02:52

     On the gentleman's motion, the yays are 168, the nays are zero, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1193. Congratulations, House. Congratulations, members. Job well done, members. Thank you, Whip Park.

707. 5:03:23

     Thank you, Leader Higley. Thank you.

708. 5:03:26

     Thank you.

709. 5:03:27

     Thank you, Billy Hickman, Senator Billy Hickman. Appreciate you, brother.

710. 5:03:32

     Thank you.

711. 5:03:33

     Thank you to, uh, Whip Burchett, Leader Efstration, all the members of leadership, all the members. It's pretty awesome. Thank you all so much.

712. 5:03:49

     Let's take a picture.

713. 5:03:50

     Oh, yeah.

714. 5:04:06

     Thank you, members.

715. 5:04:09

     I think Representative Ballard wants a photo.

716. 5:04:12

     Representative Ballard, you've been a big part of this.

717. 5:04:15

     Yeah.

718. 5:04:15

     Would you come up? While she's coming up, we had, um, we were in, we were busy, so we didn't represent, rep- rep- recognize further Representative former. I'll get it out there in a minute. I'm kinda excited about lit- getting literacy passed, y'all. Um, former Representative Ralph Long, he may have had to leave the chamber. Is Representative Long still here? He served a few years ago. I think he had to step out, so we wanted to recognize he was here. He's here from it, from here in Atlanta.

719. 5:04:45

     Now, we're going to break for a, a dinner after we have an announcement or two. We're gonna have dinner. We have, um, taco bar. Some of y'all already found that taco bar. We're gonna have a taco bar. It's set up out into any room for dinner. Thanks to all those who put that together. Uh, let's see. We have a announcement-

720. 5:05:12

     Butch, through Senator

721. 5:05:13

     ... from the Chairman of Rules.

722. 5:05:19

     Chairman Parrish is recognized for an announcement.

723. 5:05:21

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the members of the Rules Committee to meet me in room 341 at 7:30. 7:30 in room 341. Thank you.

724. 5:05:35

     Chairman Crowe.

725. 5:05:41

     The gentleman has an announcement.

726. 5:05:55

     Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, we will have a very, very quick meeting tomorrow morning at 11:00 AM in CLOB 506. Tomorrow, 11:00 AM, CLOB 506, we have one, uh, amendment to make to one bill, and that will be it. Thank you.

727. 5:06:16

     Members, I have an announcement you, we, uh, need some help on. Representative Edna Jackson has misplaced a laptop. It is in a yellow bag, a yellow bag with a laptop in it. If you've accidentally s- picked it up or if you've seen someone who may have placed it someplace, please, please return that to Representative Jackson. We need your help on that one. Members, we will, uh, stand in recess.

728. 5:06:47

     Help yourself to dinner. Great tacos. Help yourself to the, to tacos. This House will be in recess until 8:00 sharp PM. 8:00. 8:00.