Comité Rules de la Cámara de Representantes, 31 de marzo de 2026

Transcripción

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

1. 0:12:26

   I got a call from Paul Washington for aisle

2. 0:15:45

   four.

3. 0:31:37

   Morning, everybody.

4. 0:31:42

   Welcome to day 39. Happy Tuesday. We apologize for the delay. We were having, on top of everything else, some, uh, technical difficulties. These mics here are on, and I can't turn 'em off. Your mics are off, and I can't turn 'em on. So we've got a cordless mic. We're gonna try to use that so that we can work with that, and, uh, we just ask you all to be a little patient, and, uh, everybody, uh, be tolerant of your neighbor. Uh, but before we get started, uh, let's have a little, uh, prayer here.

5. 0:32:14

   We're gonna ask, uh, Chairman Stephens if he would hand me that mic right there. And, uh, I hope... I don't know if I can turn that on or... Yep, there we go. Chairman Stephens.

6. 0:32:29

   Let us pray. Most kind and gracious Heavenly Father, in these last days of our legislative session, we ask for patience, we ask for guidance that we act in the best interest of our constituents, and we pray for discernment in the choices that we make. All these things we ask in thy precious name. Amen.

7. 0:32:52

   Amen.

8. 0:32:53

   Amen. Thank you, Chairman Stephens. Okay. Let's, uh, recognize our friends over here who wanna present. And if you would, when you present, give us the page number and then the bill number so that the members could follow along with you. Dr. Allen, you first. Go ahead.

9. 0:33:11

   Am I the guinea pig for this mic? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'm here to present HR 1829. That's the last bill on page two, hot off the presses from special rules, which is just like this committee, but special. What this urging resolution does is that it urges schools to take a less draconian punitive approach with respect to students caught vaping in schools. Uh, what we've had brought to us from some community partners is that some students as young as sixth graders, who are 12 years old, are being suspended for sometimes up to a year or more from school for being caught with a vape even if they're just holding it.

10. 0:33:51

    And I think we can see, even if we agree that children should not vape, that, uh, suspending them for a year from school, uh, creates some major gaps in their education, and also does not help them to stop vaping. That's about it.

11. 0:34:07

    O-

12. 0:34:07

    Any questions?

13. 0:34:08

    Okay. If you have a question, raise your hand, and we'll try to get you the, the cordless mic. No questions. Thank you.

14. 0:34:13

    Thank you.

15. 0:34:16

    Yes, ma'am. Come on up.

16. 0:34:20

    Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I am on y- general bill, page nine, presenting HR 1473, LC number 461452. Basically, this bill creates a study committee on lupus. S- In 2014, the, uh, we signed the Georg- the Georgia Council on Lupus Education into law, but we've never had a study committee, so I'm asking for this year for us to have a study committee on lupus.

17. 0:34:49

    Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you.

18. 0:34:51

    Thank you.

19. 0:34:57

    Yes, sir.

20. 0:35:00

    Yes, Mr. Chairman, committee. Uh, this bill is a late arriving Department of Education bill that comes to us, um, and I appreciate the higher, uh, education, the, committee of the House for helping us perfect the language as it needed to be. But this is a DOE bill that adds updates to Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate and upper level Cambridge Fine Arts.

21. 0:35:19

    Give us the page, give us page and, and bill number.

22. 0:35:21

    I'm sorry. It's on, uh, page six, 55... Senate Bill 556. Second one down from the top.

23. 0:35:27

    556. Thank you.

24. 0:35:28

    And, it just updates the advanced placements for, uh, education and higher education. This bill defines fine arts to mean Advanced Placement International Baccalaureate Cambridge Fine Arts courses for which the Department of Education has set, designed unique course numbers and, and names indicated in the course. And it's just a Department of Education bill.

25. 0:35:47

    Okay. I don't, don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Senator Beard.

26. 0:35:53

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, committee members. Page four, fourth one from the bottom, Senate Bill 423. This is just a government, or, or, correction, a campaign finance transparency bill. On the blue sheet it mentions a lot about independent committees, political action committees. Um, after a healthy debate in the Government Affairs Committee, all that was taken out, just now deals with campaign committees and candidates. Uh, correct some language for small PACs, that was, uh, contradictional language in Senate Bill 116.

27. 0:36:25

    Make sure that people register as properly, um, before they advertise. So if it's a big PAC, make sure they uphold the, um, registration to the FEC and FCC. Also makes sure that while Georgians tell Georgians 50% of candidate money cannot come from outside the state. And finally, it puts a straw man provision in there so if someone intentionally tries to get illegal money into the state of Georgia, that would be a felony.

28. 0:36:55

    And that's basically all the bill does.

29. 0:36:57

    Okay. Got a question back here. Uh, Whitbach.

30. 0:37:07

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, does this bill still have a 50% cap for out-of-state political donations? To the campaign, yes. So, I believe this is the likely the second constituting suspect bill that you're bringing. Uh, do you not care that this will more likely than not violate the Constitution? I believe you said the second non-constitutional bill I brought. What's the first? Uh, Senate Bill 116. Very constitutional. Thank you very much, and that's been upheld by the courts. This one is not unconstitutional either. We're making sure we bring transparency to our campaigns and make sure the citizens of this state, with outside interference, knows who's electing their people, and the Supreme Court also says states have a compelling interest for outside interference into our state.

31. 0:37:50

    So no, it's not unconstitutional. And what's the const- what's the compelling interest listed in your bill? Do what? What lines, uh, do you list the compelling interest for, for this bill? I just quoted the Supreme Court. It's not in the bill. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay, don't see any other questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. Wait a minute. We have a question here. Representative Evans, right behind you there. Could you walk me through the definition of how we're deciding who's a Georgia person versus who's not? Because it, it seems like in Section 2 it has a lot to do with, um, whether someone has paid income tax or not.

32. 0:38:26

    Is that, is that right? What happens if we- Yes, a citizen of Georgia would've paid income taxes. So what happens if we eliminate the income tax or if you have so many deductions that you end up, you know, having a refund, for example? Is that person, is it filing it or paying it that is the key? So someone that lives here, someone that works here, those are the type of things we're looking at to be, uh, that makes us a citizen. Paying property taxes. You're a citizen of the State of Georgia if you own a home and you pay property taxes, or if you live in this state. Well, on line 80, at least on line 80 when we're talking about individuals, it says paid individual income taxes.

33. 0:39:01

    So it's not enough to file your taxes. So if you are a, if you get a refund, which most W-2 employees do, you, we're telling them that they are not eligible to donate to campaigns. Is that what you intend, or maybe we need to make a fix there? No, I think the, uh, I think the way the bill is clear is, is talking about non-Georgian persons. So, um, you know, if you're not paying property taxes, you're not registered to vote in this state, I think it's very clear on how we, uh, differentiate a s- Georgia citizen and a non-Georgia citizen.

34. 0:39:31

    But it sounds like you're only trying to make a distinction between people that own property and those who are renters are not going to be considered Georgian. That's not what we're saying. It was just one of those where I used property taxes as an example. But you do understand you use the word paid income tax in the bill on line 89. I do. I do. And you would recognize that's a problem for anyone who gets a refund. Um, honestly, I think we just have a difference of, uh, opinions on that part. You don't wish for anyone who gets an income tax refund to be considered ineligible for donating?

35. 0:40:04

    The microphone's not working, but what I think what we're saying here is, uh, an individual that lives in this state, they're a voter, they pay taxes or they rent or whatever, they pay a utility bill here in Georgia because they rent, all those type of things, I think it's very, very clear on how we differentiate between a, uh, Georgia and a non-Georgian. I understand what you're saying, but it's not what the bill says. And I do understand that there is a, a section in here that another way you can be a Georgia, considered to be a Georgia donor is that if you were registered on the date of your contribution.

36. 0:40:36

    But because there may be someone that, um, uh, you know, for business reasons or for school reasons, you know, their registration may change, but they are, you know, still someone who pays taxes or files taxes in Georgia. If they file taxes in Georgia, they get a refund, and for whatever reason their registration moves out of state temporarily, under the language of your bill, they will not be able to donate to a campaign. And i- if that's your intention, that's fine, but that doesn't sound like what your intention is. But it is what your bill does, and I just want to make sure you understand.

37. 0:41:08

    I understand. And as I said, I think the bill is pretty clear. Not pretty clear, I think it's clear to what a citizen or non-c- citizen of this state is. Yeah, it's clear that if you get a tax refund and you don't pay taxes, even if you filed your taxes in Georgia, and for whatever reason you've had to move your registration temporarily, you will not be able to donate under, under your bill. Okay. But thank you. Representative Kelly has a question. Senator Bearden, isn't it true that when you receive a- Wait a minute. You're gonna have to use... Is this not working? Mine's working. That's it.

38. 0:41:38

    Use this. There we go. Senator Bearden, isn't it true that when you receive a tax refund in Georgia, that doesn't mean you did not pay taxes in Georgia? It simply means you over withheld your taxes in Georgia. So you're still paying state income taxes. You just gave us too much, and we're giving it back to you. Isn't that true? That's correct. Thank you.

39. 0:41:59

    Okay, don't see any other questions. Let me have that. Thank you very much. Give it.

40. 0:42:09

    Okay. Senator Gooch. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Senate Bill 591 is the bill I brought to this august body last week. It deals with worship services, protecting those worship services. Current law already protects memorial services such as funerals. This bill simply adds worship services to that code section.

41. 0:42:31

    Okay. D- don't see any questions. What, do we have a question? I would like to speak up. There you go. Is, is it, is it not against the law to disrupt- H- hold on just a second so he can hear you, Representative. There you go. Is it not against the law currently to disrupt a religious service? It will be if you'll vote for this bill today or Thursday. Yes, sir. Back to my question. But it's not, it's not today. It's not. Unfortunately. Okay. But it should be. All right.

42. 0:43:03

    It's a good bipartisan bill. Passed the Senate, and I hope you guys will consider it today. Okay, don't, don't see any other questions. Thank you so much. Chairman Bonner.

43. 0:43:15

    Thank you and good morning. Presenting House Resolution 1650. This is towards the top of page two. This study committee is for the purpose of, uh, looking at the Local Government Emergency Revolving Bridge Loan Program, similar to what North Carolina and Florida have. Uh, the purpose of these programs is to assist our local governments in maintaining operations by bridging the gap between the time a declared disaster occurs and the time that additional funding revenues from the federal government start rolling in. Okay, don't, don't see any questions.

44. 0:43:46

    Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Robertson.

45. 0:43:52

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, committee. Um, my first one is on page six, um, third bill down, 565. This, uh, legislation grew out of the active shooter at the Centers for Disease Control. Um, what this does is it allows, uh, private university POST-certified law enforcement officers to be identified as peace officers in Georgia Code, which they are currently not, and it would give them the same protections. Thirty-three law enforcement agencies responded that day of that shooting.

46. 0:44:22

    One officer died. The first agency to respond was Emory Police Department. That is a private, um, law enforcement agency, but they are all POST-certified law enforcement officers like every other law enforcement officer in this capital, but they do not have the same protections. So what this would do would give them and other private law enforcement, POST-certified law enforcement officers that protection. Okay, don't see any questions on that one. You have another one? Yes, sir. Um, at the top of page four is SB 175.

47. 0:44:54

    Um, it started out as a, uh, ranked-choice voting prohibition legislation. It is now a, uh, piece of legislation, uh, that my good friend from the 33rd will be using for, uh, monument protection legislation to protect monuments here in Georgia. Okay, you've got a question. Whip Park. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so th- this would be your bill to protect Confederate monuments, is that correct? Uh, I did not say Confederate. I mean, I could-- I, I may back up. I think it's to protect all monuments. Um- Including Confederate monuments ...

48. 0:45:25

    I have a, I have a, I have an uncle that died in World War II, and there's a monument for him in Maryland, and it would protect that monument also. Th- this would protect a monument in Maryland? No, that type of monument. Okay, but here in the state of Georgia, this would be used or could be used to protect Confederate monuments. Is that correct? I think it could be used to protect all kind of monuments. Do, do you understand the, the effect that some of these Confederate monuments have to certain Georgia citizens? I absolutely do. I come from a very diverse family. Thank you. Thank you.

49. 0:45:56

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Yes. I don't see any other questions. Thank you. Yes, sir. Senator Hatchett. Thank you, Mr. President. Or Mr., Mr. Chairman. Apologize. What- whatever. Yeah. Getting there.

50. 0:46:12

    I know. Uh, this, uh, would be on page four. It's about eight down, Senate Bill 398. Uh, Senate Bill 398 deals with an issue, uh, where

51. 0:46:24

    right now we have to address the technology that we're seeing. Um, someone can take a picture of a child, of your wife, of your daughter, put it in an AI program and create pornographic images, movies, disgusting stuff. Uh, this would just make it a, a felony to do that, which isn't addressed. There's a loophole in our code right now, in my opinion, and this needs to be addressed. Okay, don't see any questions.

52. 0:46:54

    Thank you, sir. Thank you. Mr. Gilliam. Thank you, Chairman Parrish, and members of the committee. Now, if you look on page five, about halfway down, you'll see SB 499. It's only fitting that your microphones are not working too well in here, 'cause it makes it a little bit more silent. The, uh, one of the things, this bill is, is to help make sure that the two hundred and seventy thousand, oh, suppressors that are legal in Georgia under, oh, federal law and state law re- remain that way.

53. 0:47:29

    And I'd ask for your, uh, consideration to keep this bill moving forward and ask for, to, for a vote on the floor, on the, uh, House floor, please. We got a question for you. Whip Park.

54. 0:47:44

    So, so Senator, you've presented this bill before. Um, I asked a question previously that I don't think I got a good answer to. If, if this results in additional children being shot at, at a school, since it lowers the volume of gun, what would you tell a mother who may have lost her child as a result of this legislation? I can promise you that this bill will not result in any child being shot in school, the, uh, uh, in any capacity. The, uh, the, what this bill does is protect the, the legal ownership of suppressors in Georgia.

55. 0:48:20

    One of the things that when we look at these s- oh, there's a technology out there called spot shotters that, that, uh, determine where firearms are fired. They, they still work with the use of a suppressor. The, uh, oh, what this actually does is make a, a firearm six to nine inches longer, much harder to conceal the, uh, visually, the, uh, with one of those suppressors attached to it. The, uh, a suppressor itself only does for noise attenuation. S- so Senator, this bill strikes the word silencer in Georgia Code.

56. 0:48:53

    Is it not possible that in the future, maybe given technological advancement that we're seeing, that we could see actual technology that eliminates the, the sound of a gun that makes it that much more difficult or a little bit more harder now, uh, given that this would dampen or suppress the sound of a g- a gun to find a school shooter? Uh, a- again, is that, that, d- does that not come across in terms of, given all the school shootings that we've seen across this country, but here in Georgia as well, does that not give you any concern whatsoever?

57. 0:49:24

    I suffer from hearing loss because I was a competitive shooter in high school and college. So the, uh, I didn't wear the, the proper hearing, uh...

58. 0:49:34

    S- support equipment. The, uh, one of the things that suppressor does is help to re- lower that technology. Suppressors have been around for, uh, the, uh, almost 100 years. So they, uh... And when we look at them, the scenario is, is that, uh, if that technology comes to where they become totally silent, I'll be the first person that, that works with you to, to protect anybody that, that, uh, could possibly be misusing a suppressor. One of the things that was done, and I applaud your House Judiciary Committee meeting, the, uh, because they made a change in the bill to win the support of the Georgia Sheriff's Association.

59. 0:50:10

    It's one of these things that to me, all I'm trying to do is make sure that the 270,000 Georgia citizens that own suppressors are able to legally do that in case there's any change on federal law.

60. 0:50:22

    Again, it is not the word suppressor that's being stricken in Georgia Code, it is the word silencer. And, and again, my hope is that it is not too much to ask to take into consideration the impact that legislation like this has on the hundreds of thousands of Georgia children who have been traumatized by school shootings. Thank you.

61. 0:50:45

    Thank you.

62. 0:50:47

    Um, have a question over here, Representative Powell. While he's bringing the mic, let me just remind all those that are requesting bills, if you have asked for your piece of legislation one time, you don't have to come back. Once is enough. Once and done. So if anybody's here for the second time or whatever, you don't have to ask. If it's a new proposition, that's fine. Representative Powell.

63. 0:51:10

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it not true that the word silencer has created a lot of misunderstanding in this bill?

64. 0:51:17

    Yeah. Yes, sir. Senator-

65. 0:51:19

    Is it not true that over 200,000 Georgians are licensed to have a, these suppressors?

66. 0:51:26

    Yes, sir.

67. 0:51:27

    Is it not also true that the federal government regulates these, and in Georgia, if we don't pass this, then those folks will be, the, the hunters and folks who use these to keep from hearing loss, that they will then be basically out in the cold as far as being able to suppress the sound when they're shooting?

68. 0:51:46

    Yes, sir. Senator, appreciate-

69. 0:51:47

    Is it not also true that the word silencer has a connotation that we've got too many people that's watched James Bond movies?

70. 0:51:55

    Yes, sir.

71. 0:51:56

    Is it not also true that these suppressors are for nothing more than, than to lower the decibel rate?

72. 0:52:04

    Yes, sir.

73. 0:52:04

    Doesn't do away with the sound. It just lowers that decibel rate.

74. 0:52:08

    Yes, sir.

75. 0:52:09

    Thank you.

76. 0:52:10

    Thank you.

77. 0:52:11

    Okay, don't see any other questions. Thank you, sir.

78. 0:52:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

79. 0:52:16

    Sir. Yes, sir, Senator.

80. 0:52:21

    Thank you, Chairman, Madam Pro Tem, leader, and all you other fine folks. Uh, I am not going to represent. I am just going to give a quick update. We have four bills on the sheet. The first one is on page four, SB 230. This started off as a, uh, simple bill about condominium insurance deductibles for the master policy. It has, uh, now grown significantly, uh, perfected with some, uh, House Insurance Committee love. Sections one through five are a Representative Reeves bill.

81. 0:52:53

    Section six is the underlying. SB 411, a little bit further down on the same page, is our dry needling bill, which all I've heard plenty about. Uh, Chairman Hawkins and I have been working diligently on that, and hopefully be able to get that across the finish line soon. Next page, SB 462, our Surprise Billing Consumer Protection Act. Um, this was our, uh, ambulance bill, and all of y'all have heard about that. It is now a 45-page bill, uh, also, uh, hitching a ride with our friends from the, uh, from the insurance committee.

82. 0:53:27

    Um, Chairman Lumsden and I have worked, uh, long and hard on that, and Representative Reeves has done a great job on that. And on the back page, uh, SB 587, uh, started off as our animal cruelty database. It's now, um, sharing time with, um, Chairwoman Camp's, uh, online, uh, database, uh, protection as well. Happy to take any questions.

83. 0:53:57

    Don't see any questions, Senator Steel. Thank you.

84. 0:53:59

    Thank you. Y'all have a good day.

85. 0:54:05

    Representative Seabaugh.

86. 0:54:08

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm presenting Senate Bill 463. It's on page five. Uh, this was a, uh, s- substitute bill from the House Judicial Committee that removes the bill's original language and replaces it with the provisions of the Squatter Reform Act. This legislation closes dangerous loopholes that have allowed criminals to unlawfully occupy homes, businesses, and hotel properties in Georgia and force lawful owners and operators into lengthy court battles just to reclaim what is rightfully theirs.

87. 0:54:42

    Okay.

88. 0:54:42

    Happy to answer any questions.

89. 0:54:43

    Got a question for you. Butch Parker.

90. 0:54:50

    Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Representative Seabaugh, um, thank you for the presentation of your bill. Uh, the Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there's about 30,000 families living in extended stay motels throughout the metro Atlanta area. Uh, would this bill result in, uh, children living in those motels from becoming evicted and, uh, being made homeless?

91. 0:55:11

    It would not. This bill actually would protect those families. Um, what it clarifies is that innkeeper-guest relationship remain innkeeper-guest relationship from date certain to date certain in a contract form, and that based on time, uh, that never becomes a lease tenant agreement. So as long as they're making payments and abiding by the contract, this would actually protect those families that you're talking about.

92. 0:55:35

    Uh, w- can you point me to that line number that says that this bill protects children?

93. 0:55:42

    No, I cannot. It doesn't say that in the bill, but that's what the law does.

94. 0:55:47

    Thank you.

95. 0:55:50

    Okay, I don't see any other questions. Thank you, sir.

96. 0:55:52

    Thank you.

97. 0:55:55

    Well, I'm sorry. Sorry. Representative Evans. Y'all got a question, raise your hand, 'cause I'm, I'm trying to look, but if I miss you, just raise your hand, please. Thank you.

98. 0:56:04

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative, just to be clear, this is not a governor's bill, true?

99. 0:56:10

    It is not.

100. 0:56:11

     Okay. And does this version of the bill, or this version of the bill does not have language that did pass out of the Senate that would've re- would've allowed for, um, folks to have evictions

101. 0:56:28

     expunged from their record if they were never, uh, found guilty is not the right word, but, but if, if they were not f- if they were found to be in the right or they weren't found to be in the wrong, there was a provision that would've allowed, um, that consumer friendly protection to be in the bill, but it's not in this version. Is that right?

102. 0:56:46

     Yes, that's correct. Um, and the Hou-

103. 0:56:47

     But you support that.

104. 0:56:48

     And I do not. In House Bill 61, that provision remains, uh, which has an opportunity to agree or disagree in the House. Uh, this bill, the judiciary, uh, voted to take that out. So that's where we stand.

105. 0:57:03

     Do you support the language, though, to have the, um, expungements?

106. 0:57:07

     I've told you on several occasions that I do.

107. 0:57:10

     Just wanted to share it with this committee.

108. 0:57:11

     Yeah.

109. 0:57:11

     Thank you.

110. 0:57:12

     Thank you.

111. 0:57:14

     Okay, don't see any other questions. Thank you. Senator, come on up.

112. 0:57:22

     Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, page four, um, the third one from the bottom is, uh, SB425, is cursive writing, uh, currently is taught in some of our schools, but not all of our schools. And what this would do is require cursive writing to be taught in all of our schools. Also through the committee, there is, uh, two, two additions to that. One is a stop-the-bleed kits in our school. Uh, if you know anything about that, that's, uh, in the military. It, it really k- uh, stops fatalities by one-third, so it's an important piece and I think a great improvement that's there.

113. 0:57:56

     And then the last one is with teachers who have been assaulted, uh, either by a student or by another person in the school, would have the freedom to be moved in the district to another school at their request. And I think those both are two really good additions to the bill.

114. 0:58:12

     Okay. Senator Harmon, you got a question. What part?

115. 0:58:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, can you help me understand the policy benefits of mandating cursive?

116. 0:58:22

     Well, if you see this, in business, people are w- writing cursive. They write notes to you, even though we've gone to a digital age. I had teachers who said, "I've given notes to the children to write in cursive as far as the note, and they come back and say, 'I can't read it.'" I believe that part of our, our culture is this, is that ... I have to call the governor back, right? But part, part of it is this, it's functional in making people, even under the job situation, it re- handicaps them if they cannot read cursive writing.

117. 0:58:56

     Are, do, are there any studies that you could point to that, that demonstrate or mandate, um, or that state that mandating the teaching of cursive, uh, especially when we have so many third graders who are not reading proficient, uh, that, that, that warrants greater pri- priority?

118. 0:59:11

     Right. Actu- actually, pa- what I was surprised with is those who have dyslexia, writing in cursive actually improves them and their capacity to write by teaching them in cursive, and I was surprised at that, but that's been one of the things, because it is taking the mind and tying it to the hand and what's being done and how it affects the brain. But what I see as more of a handicap that if people are writing in business, many times are writing in cursive, a young person needs to be able to write in cursive and read in cursive in that respect.

119. 0:59:43

     Do, do you think that given the limited time, uh, the, the limited amount, the limited amount of time in the school day, that it may be perhaps more important to ensure that kids are reading proficient as opposed to learning cursive?

120. 0:59:58

     I believe both come into play. It's a shame that a person could not read the Founding Fathers' documents or other documents that are written in cursive, a letter from their grandparent or, or otherwise. I think that cursive is there, and if you look at us as a nation, we don't teach it, require second languages many times, Spanish, English, or Spanish and French, others, and I just think we're putting our students at a disadvantage rather than at an advantage. Thank you.

121. 1:00:25

     Okay. Thank you, Senator Harmon. Don't see any other questions.

122. 1:00:28

     Thank you, sir.

123. 1:00:29

     Yes, sir.

124. 1:00:33

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's HR 1665, page two, a third of the way down. Basically, it, uh, relates to the Environment Protection Division's permits and variances procedures. Basically, evaluate which any action of the state is warranted to ensure efficient and economical operations to better serve the community. Basically, we'll be studying the effectiveness of this, or the procedures by EPD.

125. 1:00:58

     Thank you, Representative Townsend. Don't see any questions.

126. 1:01:00

     Thank you.

127. 1:01:03

     Yes, sir. Senator, what you got?

128. 1:01:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, page four at the very bottom, uh, Senate Bill 437, has to do with, uh, residential vertical construction. Uh, it does, uh, three things. It has to do with, uh, the permitting and the inspection process. Uh, the first thing, it would allow an applicant to use a third party, uh, from day one. Uh, the second thing it does is it cuts, uh, the, the approval time from 30 days to 15 business days, and then it also allows for a option for vertical ins- I mean, vertical, for virtual inspections, uh, on single trade inspections only.

129. 1:01:43

     Uh, the City of Atlanta, DeKalb, and Gwinnett Counties are already using these. Uh, it's not a mandate. It's only, it's a may, um, if the local municipality chooses to do so, if they have the technology, uh, to use it. Uh, Mr. Chairman, be happy to answer any questions. Have a question. Secretary Kelley.

130. 1:02:03

     Thank you. You're gonna use the wireless mic there. There we go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator, is there any concern that you have that by placing these tight restrictive deadlines on local governments, that people who are already living in communities that are gonna have developments that they don't truly want in their community shoved down their throat? That should be done during the zoning process. Uh, local communities, they can control zone, or control growth during their planning process when they do their UDO. And then also when cases come before them, um, you know, they, they can deny zonings there or, like I said, they can change their UDO to only allow certain types of uses.

131. 1:02:41

     They can control growth that way. At this point, these projects are already approved and some local municipalities are actually sh- They're sh- They're trampling on applicants and home builders' and developers' rights, uh, by delaying these things because of what you just said. And this bill and 447, if it were kept the way it was coming out of, uh, uh, the committee, um, would help cut red tape and regulation, and would also help with affordability in housing. And I know we're all focused on affordability, Representative. But permitting is a process where we ensure that, that homes are built at a good quality and, and other metrics are met that make sure that that is a quality home, right?

132. 1:03:20

     That's correct. Yeah, yeah. And so by shortening that timeline, we could be allowing people to build homes that may be affordable, but not worth the money they're built, they're charging for them? No, I disagree with that. I would say, you know, 15 business days, which would be, uh, you know, more than two weeks, uh, to do reviews on vertical construction is, is plenty of time. And as far as inspections, I mean, you're dealing with professionals on professionals. When they're looking at your profession, they, they talk the same language. So the virtual is an option, but instead of, say, I had a busted two-by-four because somebody ran, you know, um, power through it and they bust a two-by-four, we could fix that in 10 minutes, but we gotta wait two days for an inspector to come out.

133. 1:03:58

     You could do a virtual inspection, have it the same day. There again, you're cutting timeframe out, which cutting construction costs, which makes houses cheaper. I mean, it's just, it's not a silver bullet. There's no silver bullet to make housing cheaper, but this is definitely a good start and one method. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay.

134. 1:04:16

     Have a question? No. Nope. Okay, no more questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Senator Dukes. Yes, sir. Senator.

135. 1:04:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have several bills on the page, but, uh, the one I haven't asked for- Which, which ones? Which ones have you not asked for? Page four, um, six, one down. Senate Bill 260. Okay. This is, uh, Central State Hospital Redevelopment Authority that is shaping that down from a nine-member board to a five-member board. Got a question for you. Whip Park.

136. 1:04:57

     Uh, thank you, s- uh, Senator. Uh, so regarding SB 260, uh, just to clarify for the public, given the misunderstanding, this would also have the governor appoint three of five as opposed to having, uh, this board being comprised of all local elected officials. Is that, is that not true? What it does is the governor will have one appointment, the lieutenant governor one, the speaker an appointment, the city of Milledgeville an appointment, and the county of Baldwin an appointment.

137. 1:05:28

     So, so three of two folks would be statewide, uh, whereas currently it is all local elected folks appointing. Is that correct? No, I don't see it that way. They actually have appointments now, and they've never appointed people statewide. They always appoint local people. Thank you. Okay, don't see any other questions on that. Thank you very much for your consideration. Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Strickland. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I have two left that I've not asked for.

138. 1:06:00

     The first is about halfway down on page five. It's Senate Bill 482. What this bill does is it requires certain identifying information when you request a mugshot or a body cam video. It requires this request to be in person and that you have certain information about the image or video that you want. The goal is to make sure we don't have everybody's image, everybody's body cam out there for people to make money off of online. Also, the Public Safety Committee added a bill that Chairman Gullett has already gotten through committee in this body, but that requires that, well, actually allows, um, any government video that shows someone dying or has their death on that video, that that is now restricted from open records act unless someone can show a need that outweighs that family's privacy interest in getting that, that video.

139. 1:06:49

     You got a chairm- a question from Chairman Martin over here. Um,

140. 1:07:00

     Senator, I ... Senator. Se- Senator, thank you. Um, my question i, is about the, the overall impact of the, the bill. Um, in looking at it, it would, it would seem if, if a, a valid source, a, a valid, uh, group was trying to, to get information for an insurance claim or something, if, if there were five officers there and, um, two cameras above and whatnot, they would have to file seven individual requests. I- if this moves forward, I really think, and I, I tried to reach you over the weekend, and you got back with me. We just didn't get to talk through this. Yeah. Isn't it true that what I'd like to see is maybe a single incident defined so that you could say, "This incident," and a single request could be made for that incident, um, rather than to have to, to do multiple requests.

141. 1:07:44

     I, I understand what you're trying to do. Yeah. But in, in a valid request situation, a single incident seems like something we might consider. And I just, if it moved forward, I'd, I'd love for you to consider that if you- Yeah, I don't have a problem with that. I think the goal is to make sure that people aren't just going to your sheriff and saying, "I want every body cam video of the last seven days." What's happening now is we heard testimony from sheriffs that have hired people that are tasked with simply reviewing videos all day. And what these people are doing that are getting these videos, they aren't the legit press. They are folks that are putting them online for entertainment and making money off of it. But an amendment like that, I'd be fine with

142. 1:08:18

     Got a question. Chairman Williamson.

143. 1:08:20

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On here.

144. 1:08:22

     Yeah.

145. 1:08:22

     Uh, uh, Senator, help me better understand, uh, the, the mugshot part of this. Is the, i- is the industry that's, uh, basically, uh, uh, bribing people or, or, or holding them hostage. I know there's a lot of, uh, young kids, for example, like kids, students in, in University of Georgia might get a DUI, and all of a sudden they got a mugshot. And I know for a while that, um, the, the, there's a industry, they would, uh, email them and say, "We'll, for X amount of money, we can take down this mugshot," only to have a kid would pay the money, and another, uh, mugshot, um, uh, you know, actor would be trying to get them, money from him as well.

146. 1:09:03

     Has that ever been addressed, or is that still a problem in our state?

147. 1:09:06

     Yeah. And so when I was a freshman with y'all in the House back in 2013, Representative Roger Bruce bought a, brought a bill that made that illegal, made it illegal to charge somebody to have their image taken down. Also made it automatically where if you had, if you're not convicted or if you use first offender, different conditions like that, that if you requested to have that image taken down, they must take it down. I brought a bill the following year, though, that made it where sheriffs don't put these images online automatically. Because once an image is out there, it's out there forever. So the kid gets a DUI or charged with a DUI at A- in Athens.

148. 1:09:41

     Even if that case is dismissed, that image lives forever. And they're trying to get a job down the road, that haunts them forever. And what you see is companies that are profiting off that, making money. All the work we did previously has not worked. They are still going and requesting all these images and open to requests saying, "Give me every arrest in Athens for the last week." They then take all those young people or anybody's image and post them online, put it on a Facebook page, Instagram, and then they go put it on a website, and then they say, "Well, we'll take it down if you request it." The problem is, once it's there, that other people online are getting it, and it's online companies overseas that the attorney general can't even get to if he wanted to.

149. 1:10:20

     So to your point, th- th- they're still, uh, stopping these kids. Uh, uh, the- these... To your point, these, uh, images s- uh, w- and when these kids are applying for jobs, they get the degree at the University of Georgia or another fine institution in the state, and the, and then, um, uh, the, the HR departments at the companies for whom they're applying for jobs, they're gonna do a social media search and see that, and that's, that's detrimental to these kids' abilities to s- to seek employment and get good paying jobs.

150. 1:10:52

     Yes, sir. And the worst part is people are making money off that.

151. 1:10:54

     Yeah.

152. 1:10:54

     And what this bill will do is make it m- less likely those images ever are released, because now you have to know the person's name. So if it's newsworthy, somebody wants an image, they can still get it. One of us are arrested, they're gonna get our image. No problem with that. That's newsworthy. But the idea of just getting every single image, that'd be a lot harder, at least, if this bill passes.

153. 1:11:13

     Got another question. Representative Evans has a question.

154. 1:11:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Senator Strickland, Senate Bill 482, when it passed the Senate floor, I believe had a, had language in it that said that if there is a claim for sexual harassment against a member of the General Assembly, and there is a settlement, that those settlements would then be subject to open records, though the, the victim's name would be redacted. Um, given that you presented this bill in committee here, could you enlighten us on why that language was removed?

155. 1:11:47

     Yeah, I don't know why it was removed, but it was removed by the committee. It was something that was a floor amendment in the Senate. It was not part of the original bill, and the House committee chose to take that part out.

156. 1:11:57

     I, I assume that you voted for that floor amendment, you would support that language being in.

157. 1:12:02

     I would, and the, and the Senate voted unanimously for the underlying bill with that amendment in there as well.

158. 1:12:07

     Thank you, Senator.

159. 1:12:08

     Thank you.

160. 1:12:09

     Okay. Don't see any other questions on that. Is that-

161. 1:12:12

     All right. I got one more-

162. 1:12:13

     Okay

163. 1:12:13

     ... and I'll let you all get to work, Mr. Chairman. Last page, page six, fourth down, Senate Bill 572. What this bill does is it goes into our law when it comes to the pretrial process for raising a self decla- de- self-defense claim in a criminal case, and it changes the burden and, and makes certain that the burden is never on the defendant to prove their self-defense. It also creates a pretrial hearing earlier in the process so someone can have their self-defense claim heard early in a criminal case.

164. 1:12:43

     Okay, you got a question. Whip Park.

165. 1:12:45

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, wouldn't this bill literally allow the state to tread on its citizens and, and, you know, such that no one can claim reasonable force in responding to law enforcement?

166. 1:12:57

     Um, no, sir. It's not true at all, because what the bill... It doesn't change our current self-defense laws. All the bill does is it says those hearings will be heard earlier in the pretrial process before someone gets all the way close to a criminal trial and as early as arraignment. It also says that once you make your initial case and you present evidence that you have a self-defense claim, the burden is on the state by clear and convincing evidence to prove that you don't have that claim. So what this will do is allow people, the state and people that are charged with crimes, to have their immunity self-defense hearing heard earlier in the process.

167. 1:13:31

     Y- your, your state, lines twenty-four to twenty-six state that any use of force is presumed to be reasonable. So, so you're, you're fundamentally changing the standard. Is that not true?

168. 1:13:42

     That's not true. So what you're citing, I don't have the bill in front of me, I think that's the part that talks about the actual process of the hearing. And so once you present your prima facie case that you've, that you've got self-defense. In legal terms, that means I put some evidence up that says, "Hey, I've got a self-defense claim for this charge." At that point, the burden does flip, I think it's the language you're probably looking at, flips to the state, and is, and the state already has a burden at trial of beyond reasonable doubt. But at the pretrial process, a lower standard of clear and convincing evidence, it then flips to the state to meet that burden, rebut the presumption that you, as someone charged with a crime, do not or did not exercise reasonable self-defense.

169. 1:14:19

     Uh, with respect to another part of this bill, wouldn't every defendant in any case, if this were enacted, uh, involving any force, demand an immunity hearing? And, and how would that not clog the courts?

170. 1:14:30

     Well, they could do that now. So the hearings are available now, but the process is not codified as to when that hearing would happen or who has the burden of proof. We're operating under a, a circuit by circuit situation based on where you're charged with a crime as to when you'll get your day in court, when those hearings will happen. The burden currently is set by case law as a preponderance of evidence, meaning that you actually have a burden as someone charged with a crime of showing that you don't have, you did not, um, you can't exercise the immunity for self-defense.

171. 1:15:00

     So this does now make it where the burden does shift, as I said a second ago. But, uh- Anybody can raise this now. I think this may actually make them more efficient because it codifies when the hearing would actually happen.

172. 1:15:11

     Thank you.

173. 1:15:13

     Okay. I don't see any other questions. Thank you.

174. 1:15:16

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate y'all.

175. 1:15:18

     Okay. Any members of the committee have a request?

176. 1:15:23

     Okay. All right. We've got a little housekeeping here we want to do. We're going to recognize, uh, Chairman Leverett to speak to Substitute Senate Bill 406, and let's, let's use the podium because I think you'll be able to use that mic better over there, please.

177. 1:15:46

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I have a substitute to Senate Bill 406. It's LC 49-2879S. 49-2879S, and this is the, uh, property owner's bill of rights that, that, uh, requires HOAs and condominium associations and so forth to register with the Secretary of State if they want to still collect, uh, fees and assessments. It sets up a complaint process through the Secretary of State's office if you have a complaint about the way in which the declaration is being administered.

178. 1:16:16

     It gives owners certain, uh, articulated rights later in a code section, um, and puts some limits on foreclosure of, of HOA liens and, uh, mandates that, that payments be applied in a certain manner that's more favorable to the homeowner. There are a few changes that we made in this sub. On line 317, there is a section that provides HOA... Uh, property owners can obtain documents from the HOA, and we added bank statements of the HOA to that. Uh, and I, when I say HOA, I'm, I'm also talking about condos and p- lot owner associations, all those sorts of similar associations.

179. 1:16:50

     At 349, there was a cross-reference at the beginning of that line we removed because the, the section we were referring to no longer did what the cross-reference contemplated. In lines 410 and 420, there was a right to cure that's being added. If you, you can't have a f- lien foreclosed until you are provided notice of what you owe and have an opportunity to pay it, and we changed it. It was a 90-day right to cure. We're changing that to 60. And then in 431, there was a provision there that, that said if you appealed the hearing officer, you would be able to, uh, get a stay of any kind of enforcement action.

180. 1:17:23

     We've, we've removed that. We've also added in sections three, four, and six, Chair Lady Silcox's House Bill 664, which provided that, um, if you're in a, in a HOA that's got a very antiquated... Some of these older ones require unanimous consent for amendment, and this would just say 80% would be sufficient if you elect to go into the act. And then we have added the, in section eight, the provision I believe Representative Evans was questioning another presenter about on the, um... I wouldn't necessarily call it expungement, but it would provide that if you have, have had previous litigation as a tenant and the, the litigation was resolved favorably to you or seven years have passed and you've paid anything that was owed, or I think there's one other condition, um, if you've satisfied the judgment in full, that, that you can file a motion to have that not made available to the public, the record of that proceeding.

181. 1:18:16

     Um, so those are the changes, Mr. Chairman.

182. 1:18:19

     Okay. We have a question. Representative Holcomb.

183. 1:18:22

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leverett, can you point me to the part where it prohibits the foreclosure for any HOA liens or fines? In the original, it was on line 384, but I didn't see it in here, and I may have just missed it.

184. 1:18:35

     Um, I'm, I'm, I don't know exactly. Are you... Um, um, I did mention there was a right to cure. Um, y- you, you're saying a provision that prohibited foreclosure for just fines?

185. 1:18:48

     In the prior version, yes.

186. 1:18:50

     Um, I'm sorry. I'm not exactly sure where that was in the bill, so I can't point to it. Um, I know there are some provisions. Uh, let's see. Um.

187. 1:19:25

     Section five.

188. 1:19:26

     Um, it may be

189. 1:19:32

     on, in, in, at the bottom of page 17 and top of page 18. Um, it, it's not an express prohibition, but there is a limit on the amount of money that you have to owe before they can utilize the foreclosure process, and it excludes certain items from the calculation of that amount.

190. 1:19:50

     Okay.

191. 1:19:50

     I'm, I'm not sure that's the provision to which you're referring, but that, that seems to hit the issue a bit.

192. 1:19:56

     Yeah. It, it seemed to be much more express in the prior version. That would be something that I would have supported. So I'll nail down if it's, if it's gone. But it used to be in line 384 in the version, um, just before this, and it was, seemed to be much more protective of, um, of the residents. And it said, "A lot owner shall have the right to stay of any proceeding for any foreclosure pursuant to this." And, and so it just seemed to be a lot more broad.

193. 1:20:25

     Yeah, and that, and that was, that was the provision I mentioned was deleted. That paragraph has been deleted.

194. 1:20:29

     Gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

195. 1:20:31

     Uh, Leah Hugley has a question for you. You pass? Okay. No other questions on that? Okay, you've heard the, uh, explanation on Senate Bill 406 Rules Substitute 49-2879S. Is there a motion to approve it? We have a motion and a second to approve. Is there any opposition? All right, substitute's approved. Now, uh, Chairman Leverett, while you're there, you want to talk about 552?

196. 1:21:00

     Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to. Excuse me. So there is a substitute, should be on your desk, to Senate Bill 552. 552, the, the LC number is 492860S. So this was the sort of what I would call the state version of the Equal Access Act that requires school systems to allow equal access to facilities th- ex- and, and not to discriminate against groups based on, uh, sort of their, their, their, y- you know, viewpoint or the, the content of the speech.

197. 1:21:31

     Um, we've added a few provisions in that bill to address some concerns that were expressed by school systems. So one is on line 69 and 70. It says, "Nothing in the code section shall be construed or applied to require a public school to establish a limited open forum." So if, if the school wants to prohibit everything, they can. They're not mandated to allow, uh, these non-curricular groups at all if they don't want to. And then at the bottom of page five and top of page six, on lines 113 to 118, we- we've added some of the, I guess you would say, clarifications that the, the bill doesn't prohibit schools from doing certain things.

198. 1:22:09

     And we've tried to make it clear that they can still prohibit or restrict conduct that causes or could reasonably be forecast to cause material and substantial disruption in the work and discipline of the school. That's lifted from some First Amendment cases. Prohibit or restrict conduct either causes or could reasonably be forecast to cause an infringement on the rights of other students. Prohibit or restrict conduct involving violence, threats, and harassment. And enforce student attendance policies, rules, and requirements. And then we've added Part 2, which you might recognize. It was Chairman Erwin's bill-

199. 1:22:39

     Yeah

200. 1:22:39

     ... on literacy. And so that is now the bulk of the bill.

201. 1:22:43

     Uh, we do the bulk.

202. 1:22:45

     Those are the changes, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to answer any questions to the extent I can.

203. 1:22:50

     Okay, don't see any questions on the ... We, we do have a question. I'm sorry. Representative Holcomb has a question.

204. 1:22:57

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leverett, I, I wanna direct you to line 67 and six- and, uh, uh, really 60, 60 through 68, because it limits, um, or it allows rather, speech that would be political, philosophical, ideological, or other content. And I, I certainly understand, um, the intent. A- and, and I think the practical intent is that this is more geared towards maybe Democrats and Republicans or conservatives and liberals.

205. 1:23:29

     But those categories would also include potentially, um, other viewpoints that can be view- deemed to be political, such as anarchists, communists, white supremacists, et cetera. So all of those would be allowed under this language?

206. 1:23:47

     Well, I, uh, I mean, they could be. I would add, that is, that is verbatim basically what the federal Equal Access Act is, which is already current law. But th- that part of the reason we added some of those, uh, s- exceptions I read is something that could reasonably forecast to cause an infringement on the rights of other students or material and substantial disruption. So the school still retains the authority to-

207. 1:24:11

     Yeah

208. 1:24:11

     ... uh, you know, to maintain order and discipline and, uh, you know, safety, protect safety of students.

209. 1:24:17

     And they could also, is it not true, just say, "We're not going to allow this, period," and just keep it-

210. 1:24:22

     We're not gonna allow any-

211. 1:24:23

     ... sports or-

212. 1:24:23

     ... non-curricular groups at all to use school facilities. They can do that if they wish to.

213. 1:24:27

     Okay.

214. 1:24:27

     All right.

215. 1:24:27

     Thank you.

216. 1:24:28

     Thank you for the question.

217. 1:24:30

     Rep. Park has a question for you.

218. 1:24:32

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we're talking public schools, um, are we talking high schools, or is this also elementary school, middle schools?

219. 1:24:39

     I, I believe it's defined to include, uh, a- any public school in the state.

220. 1:24:46

     S- so this would include elementary school and middle schools?

221. 1:24:49

     I, I believe it would, yes.

222. 1:24:50

     Thank you.

223. 1:24:54

     Lee Hugley, you have a question?

224. 1:24:56

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. That, that gets to my concern. So, uh, we had a bill earlier talking about Boy Scouts and that kind of thing, and most schools allow them, uh, to utilize their facilities. So you're saying to me that any school that allows groups like Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts would have to allow, uh, organizations that do political and philosophical speech as well?

225. 1:25:23

     Uh, I, I, I believe so. Y- yes, ma'am, and I think they, they currently are obligated to do that already. This just tries to further define the, the extent of that obligation.

226. 1:25:32

     And this could be any school K-12?

227. 1:25:35

     Yes.

228. 1:25:38

     That-

229. 1:25:38

     If, if they open up to allow one viewpoint, they have to let the other viewpoint. They don't have to open up at all if they don't want to.

230. 1:25:46

     But I'm trying to understand. If they allow Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, that means it's open.

231. 1:25:51

     Yes.

232. 1:25:51

     And then-

233. 1:25:52

     They, they have a limited open forum, and under First Amendment law, they, they cannot then discriminate subject to, to limitations of, that we've set out in the bill, 'cause that's, that's First Amendment law.

234. 1:26:05

     I'm, I'm trying-

235. 1:26:06

     Incredible as it may seem, that is the content.

236. 1:26:07

     Yeah, I'm, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it because what, what we're saying is, um, in essence, that our schools shouldn't allow Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, anybody, 'cause if we do that, then we can have people coming in, talking about all kinds of ideas that, that we may or may not want our particularly younger kids exposed to. That's, that's the concern here.

237. 1:26:30

     Yes, and I, I acknowledge that concern. Um, I would say that is the quandary that school systems face currently if they decide to have a limited open forum.

238. 1:26:41

     Okay, don't see any other questions on that. Okay, you've heard the, uh, explanation on Senate Bill 552 Substitute LC 492860S. Is there a motion it be approved?

239. 1:26:54

     So moved.

240. 1:26:55

     Second.

241. 1:26:55

     Have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? It's approved. Thank you, sir. Okay, recognize, uh, Representative Kelley. 447

242. 1:27:15

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I come before you with a substitute to 447 LC474324S. Uh, addresses some permitting issues. Uh, as it's cleared the governmental affairs committee, uh, with also making a provision, uh, to address, um, some specific communities that have, uh, some currently vested zoning issues. That's what the sub does. Okay, you got a couple of questions for you. Representative Holcomb. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

243. 1:27:46

     Um, uh, Representative Kelly, uh, the language in lines 111 to 119, it refers to an airport adjacent to 9,000 acres, and then there's something similar, um, in lines 154 to 164. I don't have all of our geography memorized to know to which that applies. Can you tell us what communities that would affect? There's some communities in West Georgia where zoning has previously been vested, uh, over 30 years ago that, uh, we're making an exception for in the legislation.

244. 1:28:19

     Can you give us more specifics than that? Paulding County, Polk County, Bartow County, Cobb County, Douglas County. Okay. Any others that you're aware of? I think I named... I think that's all of them. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Whip Park, did you have a question? He waves. Okay. No more questions on, uh, 447. You've heard the explanation. Oh, got a question? Whip Bouchette has a question.

245. 1:28:50

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill, uh,

246. 1:28:55

     Representative Kelly, do you... If on lines 175, 176, we got to 250 building permits. Was there, is that a number that is amendable to you at, at all? Um, or do you know how we arrived at that number? This is language that came out of the committee, Mr. Whip. All of this language? Uh, all the language, uh, we have seen, uh, we have previously seen that language for the, the West Georgia communities.

247. 1:29:29

     But that 250 language that you mentioned did come out of the committee that way.

248. 1:29:36

     Okay. You've heard the explanation. Is there a motion on 447 to approve? Move. I have a motion and a second. Any opposition? It's approved, okay. You, you have one more? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, members of the committee, I bring before you substitute to 587, Senate Bill 587, LC6030368S. Uh, it speaks to the database that Senator Still referenced regarding animal abuse, uh, but also includes, uh, language, uh, from Chair Lady Camp, uh, that relates to, uh, making sure that our disabled and elderly individuals can be checked on properly to ensure their welfare check, not identify their residents.

249. 1:30:26

     That's in section two. Okay. Any, no questions on that. Thank you. Is there a motion on Senate Bill 587 by Substitute LC60368S? Move. I have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? It's approved, okay. Whip Bouchette. Sorry, I didn't mean to steal your thunder.

250. 1:31:01

     No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I have before you a rule substitute for Senate Bill 515. What this bill seeks to do is to reauthorize both the Georgia Recruitment and Retention Credit and the Georgia Conservation Tax Credit. That's the, what the bill does. Okay. Don't see any questions on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've, you've heard the explanation. Senate Bill 515 by Substitute LC443572S.

251. 1:31:32

     Is there a motion to approve? Move. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? Okay, it's approved. Okay. Now, let's set us a calendar for today, March 31st, day 39. Under modified structure, House Resolution, House Resolution 1445. Move. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? It's on.

252. 1:32:02

     Senate Bill 111. Move. I have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 402. Move. Second. I have a move and second. Any opposition? It's on. All right. Senate Bill 406 by Substitute, that's LC492879S. Move. I have a motion and a second. Is there any opposition? It's on.

253. 1:32:34

     Senate Bill 447 by Substitute, LC474324S. Move. I have a motion and a second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 458. Move. Move. Moved and second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 501. Move. Second. Move and second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 515 by Substitute, LC443572S.

254. 1:33:11

     Move. I have a move and a second. Any opposition? It's on. Senate Bill 552 by Substitute- Move ... LC492860S. I have a move and a second. Any opposition? It's on. By Substitute, Senate Bill 587, LC600368S. Move. Second. I have a move and a second. Any opposition? It's on. Okay.

255. 1:33:42

     Uh, apologize again to you for the technical difficulty we're having. They're gonna be working on these so that if we were to meet again, uh, today, that hopefully that all be working. So if you would, pay attention to your emails and any announcements that we make on the floor. Thank you so much.

256. 1:34:03

     We're adjourned.