Georgia CommonsHouse Rules Committee, February 2, 2026
2025-2026 Regular Session · 341 CAP · 1 h 00 min
This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays.
The video is the General Assembly's, played from its Vimeo channel. Select any time below to play that moment. Watch on the General Assembly's Vimeo channel · Agenda
Summary
Written by an AI model (gpt-6.1-sol) from the transcript. It is not part of the record, and the video is what was said.
The committee heard presentations on bills covering health care, local government, courts, workers, veterans and other issues. Members questioned limits on using COVID-19 vaccination status in transplant decisions and a proposal allowing property owners to seek relief over local governments’ failure to enforce laws. The committee placed HB 557, HB 659 and HB 960 on Monday’s floor calendar without objection. It also placed HB 350, HB 946 and HB 999 on Tuesday’s calendar without objection. No calendar action was shown for the other proposals presented.
Bills discussed (19)
Each account covers the stretch of the meeting it names. The bill's number is said in that stretch, unless it was the only bill on a committee's agenda.
SB 195. Pharmacies; pharmacists are authorized to dispense preexposure prophylaxis and postexposure prophylaxis under certain conditions; provide
From 0:23:21 · turns 4 to 19
The sponsor said SB 195 would allow pharmacists to provide medication to prevent HIV before or after exposure under a protocol with a Georgia physician, limited to 10 pharmacists per physician. The sponsor said the proposal returned to its original form after other provisions were attached last year. The sponsor described Georgia’s HIV rate as high and said the change could improve health and save tens of millions of dollars, comparing medication costing about $26 with HIV treatment costing $420,000 to $1 million. Asked about the removed provisions, the sponsor was unsure of their legislative status. The sponsor also said the Department of Public Health had issued an emergency order allowing access to post-exposure medication. No calendar action was shown.
HB 140. End Local Taxation by Citation Act; enact
From 0:25:57 · turns 21 to 23
The sponsor said HB 140 would limit the share of a local government’s general fund derived from ticket fines and fees. The sponsor described changes negotiated with the Georgia Municipal Association: a four-year implementation period and a 15% cap instead of the previous proposal’s 10%. The sponsor said these changes balanced fairness and transparency with time for local governments to adjust their revenue sources. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 522. Health; prohibit certain health care providers and facilities from discriminating against potential organ transplant recipients due solely to their vaccine status
From 0:26:42 · turns 24 to 52
The sponsor said HB 522 would prohibit using COVID-19 vaccination status as the sole reason to deny placement on an organ transplant list, while preserving medical professionals’ authority to assess suitability, risks and outcomes. One member asked whether medical organizations supported it; the sponsor knew of none. A second member questioned its scientific basis and whether lawmakers were overriding medical judgment for political reasons. The sponsor cited differing hospital policies and testimony from a 41-year-old parent with kidney failure who was denied listing at one Georgia hospital but accepted at another. The sponsor argued that otherwise suitable patients should not be excluded solely for declining the vaccine. Another member supported preventing blanket exclusions while retaining other transplant criteria. A further member asked whether vaccination status could still be considered alongside other health conditions; the sponsor said yes. No calendar action was shown.
HB 110. Pawnbrokers; certain protections for current military members and related persons; provide
From 0:32:49 · turns 54 to 55
The sponsor said HB 110 would add a state-level civil penalty for title-pawn businesses doing prohibited business with service members. The sponsor said federal law and the Military Lending Act already offered protection, and the proposal would add state-level protection. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 985. Veterans affairs; revise terms of eligibility for persons to be buried in Georgia veteran cemeteries
From 0:33:18 · turns 56 to 58
The sponsor said HB 985 came from the Department of Veterans Service and would clarify legislation passed the previous year concerning state veterans cemeteries. The sponsor said it would also extend burial eligibility to Hmong fighters from Laos who fought alongside U.S. personnel in Vietnam. No questions or calendar action followed.
HR 251. Local government; probate judges shall be elected in nonpartisan elections; provide - CA
From 0:34:08 · turns 60 to 61
The sponsor said HR 251 proposed a constitutional amendment requiring nonpartisan elections for all probate judges, subject to approval by Georgia voters. The sponsor cited support from councils representing probate and magistrate judges, a statewide judicial organization and two former governors. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 676. Property; fine for any frivolous mechanic lien filed; provide
From 0:34:54 · turns 62 to 63
The sponsor said HB 676 would impose a fine for filing frivolous liens against property. The sponsor said state law already specifies the requirements for filing a lien and the proposal would penalize filings that do not meet those requirements. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 946. Game and fish; authorize hunting and trapping of feral hogs under certain circumstances
From 0:35:20 · turns 63 to 137 · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 213
The sponsor said HB 946 would allow drones to locate feral hogs for hunting on private property. The sponsor said a constituent’s hog problem prompted the proposal and that the Department of Natural Resources supported it after explaining that drones could not currently be used to locate wildlife for hunting. Asked about other states, the sponsor said they had not researched their practices. In response to further questions, the sponsor emphasized that the drones would not be armed, the permission would apply only to feral hogs, and it would not cover state or federal property or deer hunting. The committee later placed the bill on Tuesday’s floor calendar without objection.
HB 987. Voluntary Portable Benefit Plan Act; enact
From 0:38:24 · turns 69 to 70
The sponsor said HB 987 would let independent contractors voluntarily direct part of their pay into a dedicated account for benefits such as health and dental coverage, unemployment insurance and retirement savings. The sponsor said the share of Georgians doing independent contract work, including side jobs, had grown from one in six 15 years ago to one in four. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 991. Labor and industrial relations; definition of employment for certain services performed by certain healthcare technology platform contractors; provisions
From 0:39:09 · turns 70 to 72
The sponsor said HB 991 would allow health care workers taking shifts through a technology platform to retain independent-contractor classification. The sponsor described nurses and physical and occupational therapists who already have employee jobs at hospitals but pick up one or two additional shifts a month. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 295. Local government; procedures for real property owners to make claims for compensation for loss of property value or expenses incurred; provisions
From 0:39:53 · turns 74 to 93
The sponsor said HB 295 would let property owners seek relief when local governments fail to enforce specified laws or ordinances. One member questioned protecting owners from local-government legal fees on an initial claim while awarding fees to successful owners. The sponsor said a committee change developed with county and municipal associations could make owners responsible for fees after an unsuccessful claim followed by another filing. The member also questioned the selected offenses, local resource constraints and whether recurring offenses could be mistaken for non-enforcement. The sponsor cited homelessness-related conditions, shoplifting and immigration enforcement, and said the proposal targeted systematic policies or practices, not isolated incidents, repeat offenders or case-by-case discretion. The sponsor said disputed claims would go to a judge. A second member asked about communities transporting homeless people elsewhere and state funding. The sponsor cited earlier legislation addressing such transportation and said the governor’s budget proposed $50 million for homelessness. No calendar action was shown.
HB 350. Domestic relations; safe places for newborns; revise provisions
From 0:50:38 · turns 94 to 134 · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 213
The sponsor said HB 350 would allow newborn safety devices at locations such as police and fire departments, with alarms to alert staff and inspections twice daily. The sponsor said a newborn placed in a device would travel by ambulance to a medical facility, and the hospital would be required to surrender the child to Human Services for placement within six hours after the medical check. No substantive questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Tuesday’s floor calendar without objection.
HB 1015. Self-insurers Guaranty Trust Fund; revise certain funded levels
From 0:51:38 · turns 96 to 100
The sponsor said HB 1015 would raise funding levels for the Self-insurers Guaranty Trust Fund, which backs workers’ compensation obligations if a self-insured business goes bankrupt. The sponsor said participating companies, not taxpayers, fund it and that the levels had not been raised in decades. No substantive questions or calendar action followed.
HB 960. Gwinnett Judicial Circuit; superior courts; provide twelfth judge
From 0:52:50 · turns 102 to 131
The sponsor said HB 960 would add a 12th Superior Court judge to the Gwinnett Judicial Circuit. The sponsor said the circuit had 11 judges and an assessed need for 14.2. No questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Monday’s floor calendar without objection.
SB 29. DNA Sampling, Collection, and Analysis; collection of DNA samples of individuals arrested for the commission of a felony at the time such individuals are booked or otherwise processed by a detention facility; provide
From 0:53:24 · turns 104 to 107
The sponsor presented SB 29 as a DNA-collection proposal that would help law enforcement, prosecutors and defense attorneys establish guilt or innocence. The sponsor cited a newspaper report that DNA had helped solve a 24-year-old Lumpkin County murder and said collection involved a simple swab inside the cheek. No questions or calendar action followed.
HB 999. Magistrate courts; collecting sums and fees authorized by law; revise provisions
From 0:54:15 · turns 109 to 140 · Confirmed by the 2026 House Journal, p. 213
The sponsor said HB 999 would allow magistrate courts to assess or collect additional fees when authorized by a local law passed by the General Assembly. The sponsor also described correcting language in earlier legislation on nonpartisan judicial elections. According to the sponsor, that language could repeal the entire earlier law if voters rejected the probate-judge referendum, rather than repeal only the probate-judge section as intended. No substantive questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Tuesday’s floor calendar without objection.
HB 557. Northeastern Judicial Circuit; superior courts; provide for a sixth judge
From 0:55:13 · turns 114 to 125
The presenting member said HB 557 would add a sixth judge to the Northeastern Judicial Circuit. No questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Monday’s floor calendar without objection.
HB 659. Health; rural assistance; expand medical education funding and the service cancelable loan program to include optometrists
From 0:56:18 · turns 118 to 128
The sponsor said HB 659 would expand eligibility for loan repayment and financial assistance programs to optometrists. The sponsor said a House Rural Development Committee study identified shortages of optometrists in rural areas and noted that Georgia students train in Memphis and Birmingham. No questions followed. The committee later placed the bill on Monday’s floor calendar without objection.
HB 903. Georgia Administrative Procedure Act shall apply to all executive branch agencies; provide
From 0:57:35 · turns 121 to 123
The sponsor said HB 903 would place all executive agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act so the legislature could review agency rules that have the effect of law. The sponsor described a process in which rules go through the secretary of state and legislative counsel to relevant House and Senate committees, which could object and hold rules for review. The sponsor argued that lawmakers should retain oversight rather than delegate their authority. No questions or calendar action followed.
Official records of this meeting
- 2026 House Journal, pp. 194 to 221 (February 3, 2026)
Transcript
141 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.
- 0:22:03
Good morning, everybody.
- 0:22:07
Good morning. Come on in. Have a seat and we'll get started. Uh, we're running a few minutes late this morning on purpose. There are several things going on, and I think some are still s- stuck in the snow or something, so we've given a few minutes to get here. But, uh, good to have y'all with us this morning. We'll, uh, go ahead and open up our meeting and ask Chairman Jaspers if he would to open us with a word of prayer.
- 0:22:31
Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I'll go to the Lord in prayer. Heavenly Father, thank you for letting us be together today and hopefully, and, and work very hard to do with your will and with your guidance every day. Lord, please put your arms around this family in Gwinnett County, the loss of this law enforcement officers over this weekend, the tragedy that's for that community, and please just guard them with your care. And please look after us and keep us safe and our first responders and the EMCs on the great job they did this weekend. But thank you in your word. Amen.
- 0:23:02
Thank you, Chairman Jas. Okay, we're gonna go ahead and, and hear from our folks that wanna present a bill to us today. Uh, Senator Efstration, come on up and talk to us.
- 0:23:15
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Great to be here. Um, this bill is the very last one on your sheet, Senate Bill 195. It's, uh, kept over from last year. Uh, some people liked it so much, they attached a bunch of other stuff to it, and, uh, it didn't ever make it through the process. So this brings it back with the chairman's position, uh, permission to the original bill. It deals with pre and post-medication for HIV. We have, uh, one of the highest rates of that, uh, particularly in the metro area here in Georgia.
- 0:23:50
It limits it, uh, per the chairman's suggestion, to a pharmacist protocol with only 10, 10 pharmacists with a physician so that it doesn't bring in out-of-state people. They have to be a in-state physician and everything. Bottom line is it will improve the quality of health, and from what we've seen with other states, it will save us tens of millions of dollars. Um, the medicine's about $26. The cost of treating HIV is about 420,000 to a million dollars. And, uh, seeing my, uh, chairman come in from Ways and Means, I do wanna mention, too, that I passed out 31 House Ways and Means bills last year, the most of any chairman.
- 0:24:29
I'm apparently way too easy in that committee, um- ... from what I hear. Anyway, entertaining questions, Mr. Chairman.
- 0:24:37
Well, thank you. I do have a question. Uh, Secretary. Yeah. Secretary.
- 0:24:40
Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Efstration, thank you for being here with us. You mentioned that last year, uh, we had needed to put a few bills on this legislation and they're off now.
- 0:24:50
They're off now, correct.
- 0:24:51
I'm assuming all of them made it out of the Senate last year.
- 0:24:54
Um, I don't think they made it out of the House, but, uh, I'm, I'm not sure. The, the one in particular never got out of the House committee to, to my understanding.
- 0:25:03
Thank you.
- 0:25:03
Um, and I, I did add, too, that the depart- since we didn't get it out last year, the Department of Public Health did do an emergency order for the post medicine to go ahead and let that be available, and, um, there was some urgency to it at that time.
- 0:25:16
Gotcha.
- 0:25:17
Uh, Chairman of Ways and Means has a question for you.
- 0:25:21
Oh, I, I was just gonna thank him for all those, those bills. I, I know they, M- Mr. Chairman, we work very well together. I just wondered how many of those passed out in the form in which they left the House.
- 0:25:36
Pro- probably about as many as ours passed your committee in the same form, but I think some of them are substantially the same.
- 0:25:43
Uh, thank you, Senator. Don't see any other questions.
- 0:25:46
Thank you.
- 0:25:46
Thank you, sir. Chair- Chairman Gullett.
- 0:25:52
Thank you, Chairman, members of the committee. I bring forth, uh, two bills. First one is House Bill 140. It's the second one on the sheet. Uh, this bill addresses a practice referred to as taxation by citation by placing reasonable limits on percentage a local government's general fund, uh, may be derived from ticket fines and fees. Um, at the request of GMA, this bill was amended to provide a four-year implementation runway, allowing governments time to plan and adjust the revenue structures. And additionally, as part of that compromise, uh, this cap is in, uh, the cap in this version is set to 15% rather than 10%, uh, which was in last year's bill.
- 0:26:29
Um, this approach balances transparency and fairness for citizens with practical flexibility for local governments and reflects colla- collaborative work with our stakeholders.
- 0:26:39
Okay. Don't see any questions on that. What's your other one?
- 0:26:41
The second one is House Bill 522. Um, this is, um, a bill that addresses a narrow but very important, um, issue, access to life-saving organ transplants. Uh, it provides that the COVID-19 vaccination status may not be used as the sole determining factor to deny a patient placement on an organ transplant list. Uh, if this bill becomes law, medical professionals will still retain full authority to evaluate overall suitability, risk, and clinical outcomes. Um, and I think it's important to call out this passed in 2024, uh, passed out of the House in 2024.
- 0:27:15
And I ask for your favorable consideration.
- 0:27:17
Okay. Representative Evans, you have a question of Parks. Okay, go ahead.
- 0:27:23
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Chairman Gullett, um, thank you for both of your bills, but with respect to HB 522, uh, are there any medical organizations that have come out in support of HB 522?
- 0:27:35
Uh, not, I don't know. Not that I'm aware of.
- 0:27:37
Thank you.
- 0:27:37
Thank you.
- 0:27:39
Have another question. Uh, Representative Miller.
- 0:27:42
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, hello, Mr. Chairman. To kind of piggyback on what my colleague just asked you, um, is there some specific medical or scientific data that you are relying on that would contradict what medical professionals think are suitable Unsuitable as it relates to organ transplants?
- 0:28:04
So a number of, of vaccinations, we have a number of vaccinations. A number of vaccinations aren't always included in this. This is something as COVID has evolved, uh, COVID continues, uh, just because you get the vaccination doesn't mean you're not susceptible to COVID, um, similar to the flu now. And, um, this is not all medical professionals, um, require this, uh, but some do and, and it's solely determining, like this is the sole determining factor. You meet every other criteria, um, of expected good outcome of a tr- of an organ transplant, but because maybe you have a, a religious reason for not getting the COVID vaccination, you can't get the vaccine in some facilities and this just makes it to where that's not the sole determining factor.
- 0:28:43
Uh, just a follow-up question. So I guess what I'm trying to understand is why are we trying to supplant the well-educated, well-researched positions of medical professionals about who should receive an organ transplant and who shouldn't and what those requirements should be? If this is, if no medical organizations has, have asked the state to enact this kind of legislation, what is the basis for it?
- 0:29:11
I think the basis is that COVID, the COVID vaccination became a political thing. People didn't get that vaccination. A, a lady came and testified, uh, in my committee, or n- in, um, uh, Chairman Hawkins' committee. She was 41 years old, had renal, uh, kidney failure, um, met every other criteria, and there's a hospital here in Georgia that wouldn't put her on the list. The next hospital down the street did, but it caused a lot of strife. She, she had seven kids. Uh, one was three months old at the time. Um, this just balances that for COVID vaccination isn't the sole determining factor, and I think that's, uh, it's not really a, a true value in determining whether someone's gonna be successful by your vaccination status o- of getting a transplant.
- 0:29:54
But if, but if, is there any other qualification other than, than COVID? Or, you know, I guess what I'm trying to understand is if medical professionals make determinations and draw lines in the sand about who is appropriate for a transplant and who is not, and you're right, this has become political, and I think that's why I'm questioning you here. I- is this, this is, this does not appear to be based in medicine. It does not appear to be supported by medical experts or research.
- 0:30:25
Uh, and so this body has, in the past, attempted to interfere with the decisions that trained medical professionals make. And I guess my question is to you, why isn't this political?
- 0:30:38
Well, I think that trained medical professionals are called to practice medicine just like you practice law. Uh, not all of them agree. Uh, not all of them agree that that's the best practice. Uh, some of them hold to it, some of them don't. So this just levels the playing field for people who decided not to get the COVID vaccination for, uh, whatever their reasons are, uh, and allows them to get a kidney transplant if they're suitable in every other way.
- 0:31:01
Okay, you got a couple other questions. Chair Cooper has a question.
- 0:31:05
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a question. I, it really gets down to it, it's not the sole factor. There are many, many factors that determine whether a patient can have a transplant or not. Whether they drink, how long they drank, uh, whether they smoke on certain transfers. It just says this cannot be the sole determinant because there were some places across the country that had a knee-jerk res- response to COVID and just gave a blanket thing, if you didn't have the vaccine, you couldn't, uh, work at the hospital or you couldn't do this or couldn't do that, and it prevents it when people need a life-saving procedure, uh, like a transplant.
- 0:31:46
Thank you for that.
- 0:31:47
Okay. Chairman Martin, is that your button?
- 0:31:51
Yeah. Yes, sir. If the gentleman asks, I, I think that the chair lady covered my thing, but I'm, I'm just a regular guy here and, and I'm trying to follow that last line of questioning that does this do anything to supplant any doctor's judgment? I, I don't read it, it does.
- 0:32:09
Not at all.
- 0:32:09
It, it is in fact not the, the... Is it not in fact, just as the gentleman stated, you cannot use this as the sole practice if you meet all the other criteria?
- 0:32:21
That's correct.
- 0:32:22
But you can still consider it in combination with other comorbidities or co-health issues.
- 0:32:28
Exactly, yes.
- 0:32:29
Thank you.
- 0:32:30
Thank you.
- 0:32:32
Okay, no other questions.
- 0:32:34
Thank you so much.
- 0:32:35
Chairman Bonner.
- 0:32:42
Hey, good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I've got two veteran-related bills to present this morning. The first is House Bill 110. It's at the very top of your sheet. This is a, a piece of legislation we worked, uh, on for the last couple of years. It provides a state-level civil penalty for, um, members of the title pawn industry that do, that would do business with service members. Uh, currently, that protection is offered under federal law and the Military Lending Act, but this simply adds a state-level protection for our service members.
- 0:33:15
Okay, I don't see any questions. What's your other one?
- 0:33:17
Uh, the next one is House Bill 985. That's, uh, towards the bottom of your sheet. This is a, a piece of legislation brought to us by the Department of Veteran Services. This, uh, does two things. It provides a little clarity to a bill that we passed last year that, uh, related to our state veteran cemeteries, and it also adds one additional category, uh, of folks that are eligible to be buried in those cemeteries, and this is, uh, um, members of the Laotian, uh, community, uh, the Hmong community, specifically those fighters that fought alongside, uh, US personnel in Vietnam.
- 0:33:53
Okay, no questions. Thanks, sir.
- 0:33:55
All right. Thank you.
- 0:33:57
Representative
- 0:34:02
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members. If you would look on the back of your blue sheet is second from the top, House Resolution 251. It proposes an amendment to change the Constitution that would ensure all probate judges are elected in nonpartisan elections. It also includes a plan for this change to be approved or rejected by the citizens of Georgia. This resolution was brought to us and supported by the Council of Probate Court Judges, the Council of Magistrate Court Judges, the Judicial Court of Georgia, and former Georgia governors Nathan Deal and Roy Barnes, who have co-authored a letter of support, and I've attached it for your review.
- 0:34:37
Thank you. Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Clifton.
- 0:34:47
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I have two bills in front of the committee today. I'll start with HB 676. Uh, this bill, uh, provides a fine for, uh, liens that are placed on properties frivolously. Code is very specific on what it, what requires you to file a lien on a property, and if doing so, um, and without those, um, uh, rules in place, uh, there would be a penalty.
- 0:35:15
Okay. Don't see any questions. What's your next one? Thank you, sir. Uh, next is HB 946. Um, this bill allows, um, opens up, uh, options in order to hunt feral hogs, including locating them with a drone. Uh, this bill came from a constituent that reached out to me, had a, a, a feral hog problem on their property, uh, that's becoming worse and worse in the state of Georgia. I reached out to DNR for clarification on if they could use drones, at which point we were told they were not. And, uh, DNR asked and supported, uh, me writing this bill and carrying it f- uh, with the hopes of, uh, diminishing the feral hog population.
- 0:35:52
Yes. Got a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Clifton, has this been done in other states? Uh, that's a great question. I'm not sure. Uh, uh, this was all on my help with DNR's reaching out. I didn't look to any other states to determine how they do and don't do things. I know there are other states that h- allow other ways of killing hogs, and based on the quick conversation with DNR, that's not something they were ready to do, move forward with. Um, so I'm not aware of what other states have done here. Well, if you could find out, I'd like to see a video of this.
- 0:36:25
Now, just to be clear, we're not killing hogs with drones. We're just using them to fly around, see where they are, come back. These drones will not be armed. They will have no way of, um- ... of killing dr- killing hogs. I, I'll be honest with you. Since we're joking, I did ask DNR to consider a limited amount of permits with this. That was denied, and so we're gonna stick with this right now, and maybe in the future we'll, we'll look at that. You got a drone expert behind you. He may can enlighten you. Okay. Speaking of experts, we got another question from, uh, Chairman Powell.
- 0:36:57
Thank you. So are you telling me, are you telling us that, uh, DNR says that you can't use a drone to locate a, a pack of feral hogs? That's correct. Currently, you cannot use a drone to locate any wildlife with the intentions of hunting them. This relinquishes that to feral hogs only, so that you will be able to use, fly around a drone, look at your property. I also wanna add this is just private property. This would not be state property or federal property. This is under private use for private property. And I guess if that's so, then they probably wouldn't allow us to use those to get rid of some of these nuisance deer populations that we got in certain quarters of the state.
- 0:37:34
As of right now, that is not in this bill to, to work on any deer. This is specifically to feral hogs. Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Martin. When y'all speak, u- use your mics, hold it up close so everybody can hear you, please. Chairman Martin.
- 0:37:52
I just wanna be, I just wanna be clear. So what you're saying is there are no feral hogs hurt during the filming of these videos? That is correct, sir. No feral hogs will be hurt in the location of these. I can't say what will happen afterwards. Okay, I think that exhausted all the questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now we have a drone expert. Chairman, uh, Todd Jones.
- 0:38:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Sir, I have two bills. Uh, the first one is House Bill 987, the fourth from the bottom on the first page. Um, we've seen a transition of our workforce. 15 years ago, one in six Georgians were independent contractors in some way, not necessarily full-time, but also as side hustles. Today, that number has increased to one in four are doing it primarily as gig or as side hustles. This bill allows for effectively voluntary benefits to follow them and them to be able to voluntarily take money out of the pay that they're due to go into a dedicated account that would allow them to pay for health, dental, unemployment insurance, 401, et cetera.
- 0:38:59
It's a great way to support the more modern workforce. Okay, don't see any questions. What you- You had another one. Thank you, sir. The next bill is House Bill 991. That's the third, uh, from the bottom of the first page. This is essentially a allowing for healthcare gig workers to be able to participate vis-a-vis a platform where they can pick up one or two shifts a month, and this would allow them to maintain their classification as 1099s. Typically, these are nurses, PTs, OTs.
- 0:39:30
They already are W-2s at another hospital, but they're picking up a shift or two during the month, and this would allow them to maintain the classification as a 1099.
- 0:39:42
Okay, don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir.
- 0:39:48
Representative Gaines.
- 0:39:51
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have House Bill 295, three down from the top. This allows property owners to seek relief in counties or cities where the local government doesn't enforce, enforce, uh, local ordinances and state law.
- 0:40:07
Okay. Good job. No questions. Thank you. Thank you. I, I'm sorry. Excuse me. There is a question I didn't see. Excuse me. Uh, 38.
- 0:40:20
Representative Evans, go ahead.
- 0:40:27
Try it now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative Gaines, I'm looking on line 94, and it says, "The owner sh-", right before that, line 93, "In an action brought pursuant to this paragraph, the owner shall not be liable to the local government for attorney's fees or costs." And then it goes on to say that a prevailing owner shall be awarded attorney's fees and costs. Is there any other place in state law where we forbid a judge from exercising discretion to root out frivolous lawsuits that may be brought by homeowners against our cities?
- 0:41:00
Sure. So in, uh, in, on lines 118 through line, uh, 122, it does say if an owner files, uh, one time and is unsuccessful, and they file again, so therefore, m- you know, possibly a frivolous, uh, situation, then in that case, the, the, uh, property owner is actually responsible for the attorney's fees, and that's something we work with ACCG and GMA, and, uh, that was actually added in, uh, in committee last week. But you acknowledge that a frivolous lawsuit can be the first, first in time as well.
- 0:41:31
Why would we forbid a judge from exercising discretion? This body spent a lot of time trying to root out frivolous lawsuits. Why would we tie a judge's hands in line 93 and 94 when we acknowledge on the next page that that could very well happen? If it can happen the second time, it can happen the first time. I'm just wondering the policy consideration behind tying- Well, when they- ... a judge's hands. Sure. When someone first files a complaint, it goes through the local government. And so the local government, if they award, you know, if they say they have failed to uphold the law, then, uh, you know, that's a process that's out, set out by a county commissioner or city council, um, that, that is a process that's already in place.
- 0:42:07
Now, if these, if the local government says, "No, we, you know, we're doing things the right way," then it would go to a judge and ultimately make the decision in that case. But it's my belief, uh, that you're not gonna see frivolous lawsuits. What's actually happened in places, uh, across the country, Arizona passed something very similar where local governments, as soon as this passed, uh, began to try to, uh, clean up some of the inaction they've seen from local governments so they don't get hit in the pocketbook, which is what we're trying to do here and make sure local governments enforce the law. Could I have one other question, Mr.
- 0:42:38
Chairman? Um, Representative Gaines, it seems that we've d- we've picked, picked and chose, pick, pick, we're picking and choosing, not sure the right grammar there. Some English teacher will correct me. But we're, we're going to provide this right of action for owners in certain situations, for homelessness and a few other things that we've cherry-picked. How did we determine which things we were so concerned that cities were enforcing and which things they weren't? 'Cause certainly- True ... there's many crimes, there's many violations of code that can happen on any given day, and it's a, it's usually a issue of resources as to how a local government spends their time.
- 0:43:18
So number one, how did we pick and choose which things we were going to second-guess them on? And then my second question is, why do we think that we know best what a city and county should be spending their limited resources on, especially when this body has put forth legislation, I guess we're gonna debate pretty soon, that risks even more of, of those limited funds that some of our cities and counties have? So the way we came up with, uh, the, the, uh, uh, uh, the issues in lines 42 through, uh, through 48 or through 53, uh, one is, uh, issues related to homelessness, and I think you've seen, uh, in places across the state, you know, I live in Athens, you've certainly seen Atlanta, uh, we've seen local governments that have frankly, uh, not addressed the issue, which is inhumane to the individuals who are homeless.
- 0:44:08
Uh, it's also a major problem for business owners and property owners in those communities. I hear it all the time in Athens of whether it's, uh, you know, they come to their business in downtown Athens and someone has defecated on their, uh, right in front of their business or whether, uh, you know, their business is obstructed. Um, and so those are the, that's how we came up with, uh, those list of issues. Another recent example was, uh, right before COVID, APD said they simply weren't gonna respond to a certain level of shoplifting, uh, uh, in Atlanta. And so those are some of the examples there, and then certainly illegal immigration is something, uh, that we wanna make sure we, uh, continue, uh, to put a strong stand in Georgia that we're not gonna allow local governments to flaunt the law and not enforce, uh, what we passed with House Bill 1105 two years ago.
- 0:44:52
And to the second question. What was the second question? Why are we going to second-guess the cities and counties when they are deciding how to allocate limited resources- Sure ... especially when this body has put forth me- measures that are going to even further strap those cities and counties? So we're essentially saying how much money we think they should have or not have, because we're proposing legislation to change that, but then at the same time telling them how we think they should spend the limited resources that they already have. And then I guess your answer there spurred, spurred me to ask, how are we gonna know when the city and county is not enforcing a policy versus when there are repeat offenders?
- 0:45:29
So on the first question is, uh, it's my belief that as a state government, our job is if local governments are not doing their job and not enforcing the law, that we do have a responsibility to play to make sure local governments enforce the law. Um, so that's, uh, that's my belief on that issue. You may have a difference of opinion. On the second issue, what was, what was your question? The second question. You, you mentioned the example of, of homelessness and business owners complaining that people are loitering or they may defecate in front of a business and things like that. Certainly, we're all aware of situations where that happens and authorities come out and they make an arrest or they otherwise clear the area, and there are offenders that come back And so how are we, how do you propose that this legislation would help in, in this process to decide- Sure ...
- 0:46:14
when a city and county is not enforcing versus when there are repeat offenders? Sure. Because certainly we wouldn't wanna strip state and local government of funding- Right ... because there are repeat offenders. I just wanna make sure we've got some way to make that line. Yeah. So that was something that we, uh, worked through over the last couple of years as we worked on this bill. And, uh, lines 30 through 32 define, you know, this is not just one, a one-off incident or a repeat offender. This is where there's a systematic, organized, uh, operation where the local government's saying, "We're simply not gonna enforce the law." Um, it also has exclusions at the end of the legislation that if it's, you know, a discretion, uh, like on a case-by-case basis for, you know, and, and then also decisions of oc- other elected, uh, individuals in the county that are not, uh, that the county commissioner or city council don't have, uh, you know, control over.
- 0:47:02
Um, so I think we've done a good job of making sure this only applies in situations where local government truly is saying they're just not gonna enforce the law. So there has to be a stated policy? There has to be a stated policy or a repeated practice or pattern of not following the law. What determines a repeated pattern or practice of not following the law? Well, that's, again, lines, uh, lines 30 through 32. That's what we, uh, worked through legislative council and through GMA and ACCG and others to try to really ensure that we, uh, specifically got to the point, because of, what the, what the issue is if you just said a written policy, some local governments, you know, aren't putting this in written form, but they're, uh, very actively, uh, not enforcing the law.
- 0:47:43
And so that's, uh, my belief is we've got that written in a way that ensures that if a local government is, is, is saying, "We're just not gonna enforce it," that captures that. Um, and again, in these situations, if a property owner files a complaint and the local government says, "No, we're doing things the right way," it goes to a judge, and then ultimately the judge would make that decision. I, I would- Pervasive is a broad term, and I, I'm really afraid that it, that it gobbles up repeat offenders and not just non-enforcement. But I appreciate the answer. Thank you. Thank you. Got another question. Got another question.
- 0:48:14
Uh, Representative Miller has a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your bill. I do have a question. In your research, um, that seems like it might have been years long, did you encounter the phenomenon or the problem where, uh, municipalities will bus or ship homeless individuals in large scale from their jurisdiction into jurisdictions like Atlanta? That's my first question. And does your bill anticipate a jurisdiction like Atlanta being able to sue any jurisdiction that buses their homeless up here?
- 0:48:52
So yes, that's actually something that we have seen. In Athens, that's something I've certainly seen, and we actually passed a bill, uh, I passed a bill a couple years ago that makes that, uh, uh, illegal for a local government to do that, and it also does provide relief for local governments. And so my hope is that local governments will actually enforce the law we passed a couple years ago there as well and hold others accountable that, that bus their homeless folks to, to other communities. My second question, this is, I just have one more, Mr. Chairman. My second question is, uh, how much does the state allocate in its budget for resources to cities like Atlanta to combat homelessness?
- 0:49:30
As you know, homelessness is not just a criminal issue. It's an issue of jobs. Right. It's an issue of veterans. It's an issue of mental health. It's an, an issue of, uh, overburdened social services. So how much has the state committed- Sure ... to helping local jurisdictions combat homelessness specifically? No, I, I agree with you. It's a very complicated issue, and, um, certainly mental health is a big part of that, which is, we passed landmark mental health legislation a couple years ago. I know in the budget this year specifically, uh, the governor's put $50 million, uh, specific for this purpose, and certainly that's something that I look forward to helping, uh, implement across the state.
- 0:50:08
Just to clarify, specifically local jurisdictions who are com- combating homelessness? Th- that's in the governor's budget proposal, is $50 million.
- 0:50:19
Okay, we got some questions going on. I encourage you to speak with the author offline so we can go ahead and get to some of the others, too. And that's all the questions we have for you. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Representative, uh, Cameron.
- 0:50:35
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. My bill is HB 350, which is number four on page one. This bill allows for the placement of newborn safety devices at places like police departments and fire departments. The bill also has, uh, language in it that provides for alarms that will, uh, sound, that will, uh, alert, uh, uh, the fire department or police department that a newborn is in it. There's also another l- uh, system but where, uh, people twice a day have to, uh, inspect the bo- the, uh, newborn safety devices.
- 0:51:06
Once a child is placed in one of these, they are taken by ambulance to a medical facility. Once they're checked out, they are, uh, within six hours required, the hospital is required to do a, surrender the child to Human Services for placement. Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Workinger.
- 0:51:31
Thank you, Chairman and committees. Uh, on top of your blue sheet on the back page is House Bill 1015. The state oversees a state, uh, self-insurers guarantee work- workers' comp fund, um, for those who choose to self-insure, and this is the backup system so that, uh- Wait, wait a minute. What, what number is that? House Bill 1015? 1010. 10- 1010. 1010. That's what... 1015. That's what I said.
- 0:52:01
Yeah, I was having trouble finding that one. Okay, 1015. That's what I said. Go ahead. Okay. So the state has a self-insurers guarantee trust fund, and this is a backup to make sure that if a business becomes bankrupt, uh-
- 0:52:17
That there are funds available, um, no taxpayers' money. It's those same companies fund that trust fund, and we're just raising the limit that hadn't been raised in decades so that it's adequately funded.
- 0:52:36
Okay, don't see any questions. Thanks, sir.
- 0:52:38
Thank you.
- 0:52:43
Representative Clark.
- 0:52:48
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I am presenting House Bill 960, which is number six from the bottom. And this bill would bring a 12th Superior Court judge to the Gwinnett Judicial Circuit. Um, currently we have 11. We have a need for 14.2, and, um, we are asking for one additional. And so that is the bill. Thank you.
- 0:53:10
Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Don't see any questions. Senator Williams.
- 0:53:19
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I have Senate Bill 29, which is on the back page, suck it up. This has to do with DNA collections. Uh, just on the front page of today's AJC, a Lumpkin County murder has been solved after 24 years because of DNA. This is another tool in the toolbox for law enforcement, uh, prosecution, and defense. Not only can it prove innocence, it can prove guilt.
- 0:53:53
And, um, this is, uh, done with just a simple swab in the inside of the cheek.
- 0:54:01
Okay. Don't see any questions. Thank you.
- 0:54:04
Thank you for your favorable consideration. Thank you.
- 0:54:08
Vice Chairman Leverett has a request.
- 0:54:13
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I have House Bill 999, which passed favorably out of the Judiciary Committee. It would allow magistrate courts to assess or collect other fees if authorized by a local act of the General Assembly. It also corrects some repealer language in House Bill 426 from last year, which dealt with both nonpartisan elections in both probate and magistrate court. Probate court, uh, the conversion to nonpartisanship has to be approved in a referendum, and so there was a standard repealer language in that bill that said if the referendum didn't pass, the intention was just to provide that the section on probate judges would stand repealed.
- 0:54:51
But they left out the words section four on that particular line, so it would repeal the whole act, including magistrate and probate courts. So we're just fixing that repealer language.
- 0:55:01
Any questions, raise your hand. I can't... We got some lights on. No q- no questions. Thank you, sir.
- 0:55:07
Thank you.
- 0:55:08
Chairman Hawkins.
- 0:55:10
Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask for HB 557. This is ag- adding a sixth judge to the Northeastern Judicial Circuit.
- 0:55:22
Oh, okay. Any questions for Chairman Hawkins? Don't see. Representative L- Leverett, you got 998 too.
- 0:55:33
I do, Mr. Chairman. Uh, that is a, a bill that would, uh, remove a sunset on the Universal Access Fund, which is crucial to provision of, uh, telecommunications telephone service in rural Georgia. It would also allow, uh, tier two telephone companies, that's basically much smaller telephone companies that haven't opted into the fund, to opt in if they do so by August, I think it was August 1st or August 31st of this year. Um, so very, very crucial bill that is, uh, vital to the continued accessibility and affordability of, uh, telephone service in rural Georgia.
- 0:56:10
Okay. Any que- don't see any questions on that. Uh, Chairman Greene.
- 0:56:14
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, uh, House Bill 659, which is number seven on your, uh, sheet there, addresses the critical workforce and access to care needs related to optometry in our state. The bill expands eligibility or loan repayment and financial assistance programs to include optometrists, placing them alongside our other healthcare professionals who serve Georgia communities, and they often carry, uh, educational debt.
- 0:56:51
We found that this, we studied this in the House Rural Development Committee, which it came out of, um, the idea that the rural areas are suffering greatly from the lack of optometrists. We just do not have that. And we send our optometrists, uh, in the State of Georgia to Memphis, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama.
- 0:57:20
We hope we're gonna fix that problem pretty soon. Any questions for Chairman Greene, Dean Greene? Don't see any questions. Chairman Powell, mash your light there for me. Okay.
- 0:57:32
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I bring to the, uh, committee House Bill 903. It looks on the face of it's a very simple bill, but it has some repercussions as to the authority of the legislature. This would put all the executive agencies under the Administrative Procedures Act, which is basically when these, uh, departments pass rules and regs that have the effect of law and such, that they'll be scrutinized by the legislature. Uh, this creates for a, um, creates that we shouldn't be delegating our authority.
- 0:58:03
Uh, if they pass these, and there's this code section that deals with the process. So if a department passes a rule or a reg, and they, this process, it would submit it then to the, uh, secretary of state. They print it, send it to leg council. Leg council then recommends which committees, both in the House and the Senate, it needs to go to. And those chairmen look at it, and then if there's an objection, they take it to their committee members to voice an objection to it and put it on hold until those, those committees can, uh, debate it and look at it.
- 0:58:37
Okay, don't see any questions. Any other members of the committee? I guess, okay. Let's set a calendar for today, Monday, February 2nd. This is the 10th legislative day. Under modified structured, House Bill 557.
- 0:58:58
Move.
- 0:58:59
Have a move and a second. Is there any objection? It's on. House Bill 659.
- 0:59:08
Move.
- 0:59:08
Second.
- 0:59:09
Moved and seconded. Any objections? It's on. House Bill 960.
- 0:59:17
Move.
- 0:59:18
Second.
- 0:59:18
Have a move and second. Any objections? It's on. Okay, now to get us on schedule, let's go ahead and set a calendar for tomorrow as well. This will be for Tuesday. House Bill 350.
- 0:59:34
Move.
- 0:59:34
Second.
- 0:59:35
Have a move and a second. Any objection? It's on for Tuesday. House Bill 946.
- 0:59:41
Move.
- 0:59:42
Second.
- 0:59:43
Moved and seconded. Any objections? It's on. House Bill 999.
- 0:59:49
Move.
- 0:59:52
Second.
- 0:59:52
Moved and seconded. Any objections? It's on. Okay, that will set our calendar for Monday and for Tuesday, and we will meet in the morning at, at 9:00. Appreciate y'all being here, and we wanna try to be mindful of the time and get us out of here so we can get to the floor by 10:00 so the speaker won't fuss at us. So thank y'all for being here.