Senate Ethics Committee, February 2, 2026

Transcript

362 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:16:28

   order. Um, thank everybody for being here. Uh, before we do anything though, uh, I'm gonna ask, uh, Chairman Harbin if he will to say a word of prayer for us. What number are you?

2. 0:16:40

   Number nine.

3. 0:16:41

   Nine. All right.

4. 0:16:43

   You got me. Okay, if you'll bow please. Lord, we thank you for the day. We thank you for life, liberty, and freedom, and Father, for the privileges that we have to live in America. We ask, oh Father, that you would watch over us and give us wisdom in this day and Father, that we would represent the people of Georgia and do that with all, all of our heart and soul and mind. Bless the time we have and we thank you in Christ's name. Amen.

5. 0:17:05

   Amen.

6. 0:17:06

   Amen. Thank you, sir. And again, thank you all for being here. Uh, thank you for, uh, um, letting me have some farmer's hours around here and work past 5:00. Um, appreciate it. Uh, first, uh, thing I wanna do is if you will notice in your, uh, notebooks, uh, we did, uh, not to rehash any events from earlier today, but we did, uh, invite our Secretary of State to attend the ethics meeting, uh, for the second time to, uh, to, to answer questions and, and talk to us.

7. 0:17:37

   So just wanted to put that in there and let the committee, uh, know that. Um, second thing is we'll go ahead and get started. Um, we've got... Uh, Chairman Jones, you wanna come on down? David Ahmadi, our Executive Director of, uh, State Ethics, come on down and join him as well. Uh, this bill may look familiar to everyone on the committee. Um, we passed it out of here unanimously, I believe, uh, last session, and it just got caught up in the, in the timeline of, of getting out of here.

8. 0:18:11

   And, uh, we do have, you do have a substitute, uh, in your folder, uh, LC473885S. And, uh, Chairman Jones is gonna walk us through the changes that he made, and, um, we've got the director here if anybody's got any questions about the bill itself. So I'll go ahead and turn it over to you.

9. 0:18:32

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Member... Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, like Chairman Watson said, you guys were kind enough to move this unanimously into your rules committee late last year. Uh, I appreciate that. But as a reminder, and before I hit the two changes, as a reminder, what this effectively is, is a long-arm statute where during our elections right now there is a hole where the ethics committee effectively only goes to the state line. So if individuals are outside of the state line and they are doing bad acts, it is hard for the ethics committee, and most specifically Mr.

10. 0:19:09

    Ahmadi, to be able to reach out to them and effectively bring them in, maybe through subpoena, maybe th- th- through any other, I'll call it request for information. So that's what this is. If we're gonna use a college football metaphor, it's if you're gonna play football in Georgia, you're subject to our referees all the time, not just some of the time. And, uh, hopefully that gives you a good sense of what this does. In terms of the two changes, if I could direct you to line 73 through 83. 82, pardon me. Um, we felt as if when issues like this are occurring, we wanted to put a finer point in terms of the timing that this should be heard, uh, by the court.

11. 0:19:47

    So if Mr. Ahmadi and his team reaches out to someone outside the state and asks for information, uh, if they provide the information, then that's perfectly fine, and then things move from there. If they do not within 30 days, there's a default judgment that is given to the ethics commission. If they're... And that then needs to go to the superior court, and then they have 30 days to take action. And I wanna say that very clear, take action. I didn't realize that was a term of art, uh, that Stuart Marelli and Mr. Ahmadi helped me with 'cause I didn't realize that's different than just calendaring the event, but rather taking action on the event.

12. 0:20:22

    And as not a practicing lawyer, that was pretty important to me, so I appreciated the fix by Mr. Ahmadi and by Mr. Marelli. And then finally, the other change is lines 116 and 117. Um, it is now going to be effective upon the signature of the governor, knock wood, if it gets through, uh, the Senate and then through the House. Mr. Ahmadi, is there anything you'd like to add?

13. 0:20:45

    Uh, I think-

14. 0:20:48

    Okay.

15. 0:20:49

    No, I think, I think that's right. Um, sort of the impetus for the timeline tightening is, um, you know, when these things happen in election cycles, the influence is immediate, you know. And it's great if we can figure it out and do something, but if it's after, if it's after an election, it's already influenced the voters. It's a little bit one of those, you know, uh, penny crime where it's like, that was, that was worth committing knowing it would drag through. We'd like to be able to take immediate action if we see these things, outside actors, outside the state sending money in, uh, you know, unregulated, unreported, uh, attack ads, things like that.

16. 0:21:27

    So I think that that is something that will, the way we've drafted it, will be very beneficial. Um, uh, but I, I, I echo Chairman Jones. I think, I think this is a, a good useful bill. Hopefully we can get it through.

17. 0:21:40

    All right.

18. 0:21:40

    I will point out I got up here before Senator Bearden, so I just thought we all needed to recognize that.

19. 0:21:47

    Good deal. All right. Got a question or two here. Uh, number five. Oh, hit you lot again. Chairman Burns.

20. 0:21:58

    I guess

21. 0:21:58

    All right. I don't see any questions, uh, from the committee. Um-

22. 0:22:04

    I do have one.

23. 0:22:06

    Okay. Go ahead.

24. 0:22:08

    Mr. Ahmadi, I just wanna say I'm sorry to hear about your barber passing away.

25. 0:22:15

    Um... Uh, but I, but I do have some references I can give you at some point.

26. 0:22:20

    Well, I had one scheduled, but you know, these farmer's hours, they, uh, they cut into that, so.

27. 0:22:26

    We don't, we don't get here 'cause where I come from- ... when it's time to work.

28. 0:22:29

    Chairman Jones didn't have that problem.

29. 0:22:32

    No.

30. 0:22:33

    Thank you, Senator Burns.

31. 0:22:36

    Um, we do have one person signed up to speak. Um, Ms. James, would y- would you like to ...

32. 0:22:45

    Sign in.

33. 0:22:46

    You can come right, right here.

34. 0:22:51

    Thank you. I meant to put 422 as well on there, so whenever you, uh, speak it 4- 422. But, um,

35. 0:23:06

    uh, good afternoon or good evening. Um, I believe we're in the evening. I'm Triana Arnold James, president of Georgia National Organization for Women, and I speak in opposition of HB 414, um, because while transparency in election is important, this bill goes too far and creates more risk than protection. First, HB 414 expands investigative power in a way that is overly broad and insufficiently, uh, guarded.

36. 0:23:39

    Granting authorities that reaches beyond state borders raises serious concerns about due process, jurisdiction, and accountability. Power without clear limits invites misuse, and even when intentions are good. Second, this bill expanded definition of person lacks clarity. When laws are vague, everyday citizen, grassroots organizations like myself, faith leaders like myself, and small non-profits like myself can be unintended targets, uh, civic partic- can be unintended targets.

37. 0:24:17

    Civic participation should be encouraged, not chilled by fear or regulatary- regulatory scrutiny or legal confusion. Third, this bill risks chilling free speech and engagement. People should not have to second-guess whether they're speaking, organizing, or supporting a cause could trigger investigation. And the reason I say this, because I also belong to a national organization, um, 'cause we are a state chapter, so our national organization is out of Washington, DC.

38. 0:24:54

    Um, people should not have to second guess whether their speaking, organizing, or supporting a cause could trigger investigation. Democracy th- thrives on participation, not intimidation, intentional or accidental. Fourth, there are insufficient safeguards. If the Exit- Ethics Commission is granted broader authority, this bill clearly should outline, this bill should clearly outline the limits of scope, protection of in- innocent actors, transparency, transparent oversight mechanism.

39. 0:25:32

    Those protections are not adequately presented here. Finally, good governance requires balance. Transparency must be paired with restraint. Accord- accountability must come with clarity, and HPV, HPV, HPV is on my brain, um, House Bill 414 tilts that balance too far towards enforcement and not enough towards civil liberties. For these reasons, I respectfully urge lawmaded- lawmakers to rewrite HB 414 as written, and at a minimum, return it to the revisions to narrow its scope, strengthen protection, and ensure it does not undermine the very democratic participation it claims to protect.

40. 0:26:25

    As people of conscience, we are called to pursue justice without oppression, accountability without overreach. Law should protect the public trust and the public voice, and in its current form, HB 414 fails to do both. Thank you so much for having me.

41. 0:26:44

    All right. Hold on just a minute. Uh, number five.

42. 0:26:46

    Yes, sir.

43. 0:26:46

    Is that you, Chairman Burns?

44. 0:26:47

    Yeah. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for your input. I appreciate that. Um, do you believe that, uh, entities outside the state of Georgia should be subject to, uh, the Ethics Commission's, uh, oversight?

45. 0:27:01

    I believe, and that's why, in a way, I say I'm straddling the fence on this one as well. Um, I think they should be s- subject to the point where they are following the law of the state where they're donating or participating. They shouldn't be following the-

46. 0:27:18

    So, so if someone from, uh, Nebraska were to work to influence elections in Georgia, should they be, um, responsible and accountable to Georgia law?

47. 0:27:30

    They should be accountable to federal law.

48. 0:27:32

    Federal law does... This, we're talking about Georgia election ethics statutes. We're not talking about federal law. We're talking about someone outside of Georgia influencing Georgia elections without accountability. I believe that's the crux of the bill.

49. 0:27:48

    Mm-hmm.

50. 0:27:48

    Is that not true?

51. 0:27:49

    Yes, Senator Burns.

52. 0:27:50

    I, I bel- I believe that they should be held accountable if they are bad actors.

53. 0:27:55

    And how can I determine if they're bad actors if I cannot, uh, investigate and understand what they are attempting to do?

54. 0:28:04

    Well, it's in your question. If they are trying to influence an election, you know, in a, in a negative way, then, then they should be held accountable. But if they're-

55. 0:28:16

    Do you agree-

56. 0:28:16

    ... doing it innocently and not trying to sway and just trying to upl- uplift the cause, then-

57. 0:28:26

    I- i- innocently, that's an interesting term, if they're trying to sway things innocently. It's gotta be pur- purposely. So they're trying to influence elections in Georgia s- Georgia purposely.

58. 0:28:37

    Then they should be held accountable, yes.

59. 0:28:38

    I agree.

60. 0:28:38

    I agree.

61. 0:28:39

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

62. 0:28:40

    All right.

63. 0:28:40

    Thank you so much

64. 0:28:42

    Number six.

65. 0:28:43

    I would have a question for the author.

66. 0:28:44

    Okay.

67. 0:28:47

    Um, so this bill, and David may be able to help you out here, too, seeks to give, I guess, the Ethics Commission more power beyond state borders.

68. 0:29:01

    W- Can I answer that first?

69. 0:29:03

    Correct. Sure.

70. 0:29:05

    L- leader Hatchett, it is literally the power he h- I, I look at it this way. The power he has in this state, effectively we're saying go out of the state. If you wanna participate in our elections, you can't hide in Nebraska, and if you're doing that purposefully and you're doing that to affect the election, well, then the Ethics Commission has the ability to go after that. On the other hand, we have thousands, if not tens of thousands of people who participate in our elections innocently, using that word, and they participate, and I doubt they get a letter from the Ethics Commission because they're doing it the right way.

71. 0:29:37

    So this is just saying you can't basically hide by just going across the state lines.

72. 0:29:44

    Can I follow up with that? What conduct essentially is this gonna allow the Ethics Commission... Like, what conduct that's done in the state will this allow the Ethics Commission to go outside of the state?

73. 0:29:58

    Let me answer that for you.

74. 0:29:59

    So, so, uh, uh, Senator Hatchett, a, a couple things about this. It doesn't create new powers within the Ethics Commission.

75. 0:30:06

    Mm-hmm.

76. 0:30:07

    It's only where we can utilize those powers. And so we're saying instead of stopping at the borders of Georgia, if someone's influencing the election from outside of the state, we have the ability to go there, too. When we talk about influencing the election, what we're specifically talking about is spending money to advocate for the election or defeat of a particular candidate. So there are plenty of nonprofits that do things in the 501[c][3] or [c][4] world, you know, um, with issue advocacy is what we call it. "Hey, this bill is good for these reasons.

77. 0:30:38

    This bill is bad for these reasons." We don't have oversight of that. Um, what we're talking about is you're trying to influence, and you're spending money to do it, how someone votes in a particular election. Um, I, I'd also point out that our ability to do this is still subject to a court's ruling. So if we issue a subpoena out of state in this hypothetical and it's just completely an abuse of power, the court has the ability to, to not grant the order that grants us long arm jurisdiction.

78. 0:31:08

    Okay. I'm gonna have a couple questions if that's okay.

79. 0:31:12

    All right. Go ahead.

80. 0:31:12

    I'll try to limit it, but-

81. 0:31:13

    Yeah

82. 0:31:15

    ... essentially, do you think you have enough power right now for outside entities that are trying to influence election in Georgia when they get cute and try to circumvent certain rules by not using magic language essentially, where if Mr. Water Bottle is running for president of Georgia, this is all hypothetical-

83. 0:31:37

    Sure

84. 0:31:37

    ... and they don't say Water Bottle candidate for president of Georgia, they just say Water Bottle. Do, do you follow what I'm saying?

85. 0:31:45

    I, I, I'm very, I'm, I'm, I'm very familiar with the issue. Um-

86. 0:31:50

    Because that's influencing election, and right now my understanding is that y'all don't have the power necessarily to go after these entities.

87. 0:31:58

    Yeah, I think the argument is we are confined to paid ads or mailers, digital, whatever, that use certain express advocacy is sort of the term of art, you know, elect, defeat, vote for, vote against, that identifies a candidate. Um, some of that is not candidly defined in Georgia law. Um, uh, I certainly would like the ability if someone is, uh, spending money to influence a race, uh, to have more sort of oversight there.

88. 0:32:28

    Um, and, and I certainly can concede there are gaps in the sort of electioneering space that you're discussing.

89. 0:32:34

    Okay. So you, you're with me. There are loopholes right now that people are taking advantage of.

90. 0:32:39

    I, I, I would say that's been going on for a while.

91. 0:32:42

    Okay.

92. 0:32:43

    Um, I've seen that. I've been here, Senator Robertson talking about my haircut. Um- One of my staffers sent me a-

93. 0:32:52

    Yeah.

94. 0:32:52

    Yeah. Uh, one of my staffers sent me a photo, uh, from, I don't know, something, the agency I was in, and then he sent me a photo from, like, day three of a press conference, and the hairline has, uh, retreated. Um, but in the seven years I've been here, I'll say I've seen what you're describing in every election cycle.

95. 0:33:08

    Mm. Got it. Good.

96. 0:33:09

    Thank you.

97. 0:33:10

    All right. Number two, Senator Jackson.

98. 0:33:12

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so can either one of you, uh, just ex- explain this to me, what this means procedurally, and I'll just give you an example. So if the NAACP national out of DC puts out a, sends a mailer to Georgians saying, you know, "We have endorsed candidate Brad," what, what would, what would they need to do in order to comply? Would they... Are you talking about people having to register, having to disclose like we do disclosures? What, what's the brass tacks-

99. 0:33:44

    Yeah

100. 0:33:44

     ... actual requirements that we're adding to people who are from out of state?

101. 0:33:49

     So if a group spends money to encourage people to vote for candidate X, all we want is them to register, disclose where they raised the money and how they spent the money to fund those ads. I mean, that's, it's really that simple. And there are plenty of or- you know, you used a very large organization. A lot of the large organizations have separate segregated funds specifically for their political activity. So I wanna be very clear. I'm not trying to get into the, the, the checking accounts of nonprofits on a global scale, but from sort of the political side of any organization, we just want registration disclosure so that at the very least people know who's funding what and for whom.

102. 0:34:29

     May I, may I follow up? And so let's stay with that big global, this big national organization, the political. So would they be disclosing all of their sources of funding or just the amount of money that was spent in Georgia specifically? So they sent like-- I'll give a clear. They did five mailers in five different states. They spent a hundred thousand dollars in Georgia. Do they need to disclose where all the money that came for that five hundred thousand dollars total came from? Or do they get to disas- disaggregate and only talk about the money that was spent in Georgia?

103. 0:35:00

     I think the-- I think if they're funding it all out of the same pot, um, to make the disclosure balance, to make the cash on hand accurate, they'd have to disclose all of that. Um, but it, it's as simple as if, if a, sort of a large organization wants to influence, you know, some elections in five different states, all they have to do is set up a checking account for their Georgia activity, and that's all we would ever wanna know. It, it-- I'm not trying to be coy. It just kind of depends on how they set up the structure of the political committee that, that's engaged in the activity.

104. 0:35:34

     One final question, if I may. Uh, how will organizations that are outside of Georgia know that this is a new requirement if we were to pass that law? How will they know that they need to register and have to disclose the locations of all their-- where all their money comes from? Like, how are they gonna know-

105. 0:35:51

     Sure

106. 0:35:51

     ... this is happening?

107. 0:35:52

     So we, I think, do a pretty good job of disseminating that message out every time we pass a bill. I will also say there are a lot of organizations. So for example, we go to this organization called COGEL every year. It's the Council of Government Ethics Laws. Uh, and they will blast out to everyone that follows. Like, sometimes I think if I have a thought, they're sending an email letting people know. So, uh, I will say if, if there's a group that's involved in the electoral space, there are several different mechanisms where that message is communicated out before anything's signed into law.

108. 0:36:24

     May I add to that, Mr. Chairman?

109. 0:36:26

     Mm-hmm.

110. 0:36:26

     I- in addition to what Mr. Ahmadi just said, there are, I mean, many out-of-state groups right now who are registered. Uh, and then on, you know, so we don't want to seem as if there's not one out of state. As a matter of fact, it's just the opposite. We have a ton of out-of-state, uh, that are registered in our state. Obviously, we'll wanna do more as m- much as we can through what Mr. Ahmadi said. It's actually the bad actors who are hiding, and probably not registering, are the ones that are gonna end up probably in the crosshairs of what this long arm's going to do.

111. 0:36:52

     And are there other states that have a long-arm law as well? Is, are we reciprocal and like is South Carolina doing this, Tennessee?

112. 0:36:59

     Uh, I, I can't name the states, but I know there are several other states that do this.

113. 0:37:02

     Okay. That's all.

114. 0:37:03

     Um, I-- we were at a-- we actually hosted the International Ethics Conference in December, and I talked to some folks who, you know, they do this in their states. Um, I will say, I, I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I, I always try and give you all as much information as I can. Where I've seen these sort of out-of-state bad actors, it's largely in the primaries. Um, in the general elections, those groups tend to be significant enough, playing enough states that they tend to-- It's really where we see sort of whether it's Republican or Democrat, right?

115. 0:37:34

     Mm-hmm.

116. 0:37:34

     It's where these intraparty fights where I see that most often.

117. 0:37:38

     All right. Number ten. Uh, Senator Orrock, do you have a question?

118. 0:37:43

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you for your testimony. Uh, I, I, I'm, uh, I, I have a hard time imagining what you call bad actors. What, what's, what makes s- someone a bad actor o- o- in, in, in this regard? I mean-

119. 0:38:02

     So-

120. 0:38:02

     Where, where are the offenses that you're unable to, that, that you feel offended by, and, and what's the legal basis for being offended by them? And then what would, uh, uh, what steps would this allow you to take?

121. 0:38:15

     So we have seen over the years, uh, a number of instances where, again, particularly in primaries is where we usually see it, where a group that is located out of state will spend a bunch of money, you know, hire a vendor and send in mailers, digital ads, et cetera, targeting a particular candidate, generally in a primary. But because they're out of state, they know they don't have to register, they don't have to disclose, you know, where they're getting the money from, how they're spending it. And when we send a subpoena or reach out, reach out, they essentially say, "Good luck.

122. 0:38:47

     We're out of state. Your subpoenas have no effect on us. They're an administrative subpoena in Georgia." And, um-

123. 0:38:54

     Well, what's an example of, of, of a bad actor that you've sought to get a response from?

124. 0:39:01

     So I don't really wanna use specific names of cases that we-

125. 0:39:05

     If they're bad actors, I mean...

126. 0:39:07

     Yeah, but I-

127. 0:39:09

     I, I-

128. 0:39:09

     ... I'm governed by certain professional bar rules, extrajudicial comments, not in the hearing. I, I don't wanna-- Because any, anyone that we've identified, to your point, we would still have sort of the legal process of preliminary hearings and then a, a, a bench trial in front of an OSA judge. We-

129. 0:39:27

     Would have? W- you would-- When you say you would have-

130. 0:39:29

     We would, yeah

131. 0:39:30

     ... would have if this becomes law.

132. 0:39:31

     Well-

133. 0:39:32

     But what, what, what's happening now?

134. 0:39:33

     So right now, we're sort of at a dead end for the most part with these, with these groups. Um, in a normal case, let's say there's a group in Georgia that is not registered but should be. They're spending money to influence a race. We can file a complaint, issue subpoenas. In state, we typically can identify bank records, where they're at, uh, through different sort of investigatory means, and we can bring it forward for a hearing. We have a preliminary hearing in front of our commission. If they vote there's probable cause, we move on to an OSA trial. But with these out-of-state groups, it's so hard to get any information or sufficient information, I should say, to meet those legal standards that they end up sort of stonewalled at that point.

135. 0:40:12

     This bill would give us, you know, a judicial order in hand to force them under threat of contempt, um, in other states where other states' courts would enforce under the long-arm statute and strengthen our ability to get the information where we could bring that case forward for a hearing.

136. 0:40:27

     And, and how commonplace, uh, i- is, is the s- situation that you're describing? Uh, I, I, I'm at hard press to remember ever seeing anything about it, uh, in, in, um, the coverage by the media in Georgia. What am I missing about that?

137. 0:40:45

     Yeah, I mean, I, I don't really... Whether the media covers it or not, I, I can just tell you I've seen a number of these cases over the, the seven years I've been here. It's not-- This isn't one case here or one case there. We've run into this a number of times.

138. 0:40:59

     We got a few more questions here. Let's get back around over here. Uh, Number Three.

139. 0:41:04

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. At the appropriate time, I move to pass.

140. 0:41:07

     All right. I would say that would probably be now. I think we've talked about this a, a good bit. So I've got a motion on the table for due pass.

141. 0:41:17

     LC473885S.

142. 0:41:20

     Have a second?

143. 0:41:21

     Second.

144. 0:41:22

     Second. All those in favor say aye.

145. 0:41:25

     Aye.

146. 0:41:25

     Any opposed? All right. Thank y'all. Appreciate you working on this bill.

147. 0:41:30

     We got one opposed.

148. 0:41:30

     We have one opposed. Two opposed. Hold the spot.

149. 0:41:34

     Our, our, hold the spot.

150. 0:41:36

     Just to hold the spot. All right. Thank y'all. Uh-

151. 0:41:41

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

152. 0:41:42

     Yep. Thank you. Next, uh, bill up, we have, uh, Senate Bill 422.

153. 0:41:48

     There.

154. 0:41:50

     Uh, Chairman, uh, Bearden, come on down.

155. 0:41:55

     He on committee. He been there in the morning the past six months. He got to go. He going to our 16:00 tonight.

156. 0:42:06

     Randy.

157. 0:42:06

     He had a long day.

158. 0:42:08

     All right. Uh, Chairman Bearden, the, uh, floor is yours.

159. 0:42:12

     Mr. Chairman, committee members, I appreciate it. I don't know what the, uh, ethics commission chairman said about me, but I'll have him in front of my committee soon to find out exactly what happened there. Um, gonna be working off Senate Bill 422, LC473837. Um, before we get into the bill itself, tell you where it kind of came from, or exactly where it came from. Talking to many constituents back home, it was a constant barrage of, "We're always going to the polls. It seems like every time we turn around, we got to the polls.

160. 0:42:44

     W- who, who we voting for?" Uh, then when you go to the polls on a even or odd year, election year, you walk in, there's no one there. Um, the workers are usually by themselves. You ask them how their day is going, "It's very slow. We've had just a few people turn out." Local elections usually draw between 10 to 20%. Some areas in my district draws less than that. So what this bill intends to do, very simple, if it's a local election, odd-year election, it just moves them to even years.

161. 0:43:19

     So give the City of Atlanta an example. All 15 of their council members and the mayor ran in 2025. This bill, we had an option, take a year away from someone who's been elected or add a year. I think it would be unfair to take a year away from anyone that ran for election for a four-year term. So we add a year. So City of Atlanta, they, their next election would actually be in 2030. So, uh, 'cause they would expire right now at from 2025 to 2029, so it would just add a year to that.

162. 0:43:52

     So anyone that's on a odd year would just be extended one year, and the elections would then be on a even year. We always say that voting is very important. Everyone should turn out to vote. We always get great turnouts on presidential elections and governor elections. So let's make sure we have a vote where everyone knows exactly when that vote's occurring and have the highest turnout we possibly can. So that's what the bill does.

163. 0:44:17

     All right. Got a few questions here. Uh, Number Two, Senator Jackson.

164. 0:44:23

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, so I have only one issue with this bill. What happens in a city where mayors are term limited at eight years, and this would essentially... So I have a city that, where this has actually come up. They're terminally to eight years. This would actually grandfather that person into a ninth year-

165. 0:44:46

     Yep

166. 0:44:46

     ... which would be against the charter of that city-

167. 0:44:49

     Yep

168. 0:44:49

     ... and cause a problem. So have you considered the possibility of letting everybody who was elected on a four-year term complete their four-year term, and then the next group go in knowing that they would be going in on a three-year term, as opposed to giving everybody a fifth year when everybody don't want a fifth year?

169. 0:45:11

     And please, you said you only have one question for me on the bill.

170. 0:45:13

     Oh.

171. 0:45:13

     So, uh, that's good. Uh, the bill was to proceed a local charter, so that's a, bill will allow them to do that extra year to get them on a even year cycle for the cities.

172. 0:45:23

     But did you consider, have you considered the alternative of letting peoples just stay with the four years that they, with that the voters elected them for four years, that's what everybody was expecting, and as we make this transition to say the next go round, everybody can expect you're only gonna be on for three years.

173. 0:45:37

     Okay.

174. 0:45:38

     So it's just fair, right? Like, it, everybody knows going in that they're gonna be in for a shorter time.

175. 0:45:43

     Okay, you have the term be's only three years.

176. 0:45:45

     Or you could do a two years. I'm just trying to get you to your even number, right?

177. 0:45:47

     Yeah.

178. 0:45:48

     So I, I, I'm asking if you would consider leaving mayors and city council members in place for the term that they ran for, which was a four-year term-

179. 0:45:57

     Correct

180. 0:45:57

     ... or two, depending. And then the next cycle, though, having those term limits be, that, that term be in order to get them-

181. 0:46:06

     That's-

182. 0:46:07

     ... on the even page. That would be a three years term or, and you wouldn't want to do it one year.

183. 0:46:11

     Yeah.

184. 0:46:11

     So it would be a three year.

185. 0:46:13

     Um, you know, I pre- I see where you're going with this now, but, uh, at this point, what we was looking at was just go a- go ahead and extend the current term and get this on and go right into the four year term. But, uh, of course, I always leave the, uh, bill to the wisdom of the committee, so...

186. 0:46:31

     All right. Got a few more questions here. Number Eight.

187. 0:46:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing this. Um, have, having been in elections and seeing all the little elections pop up, and then sometimes you'll have an election and nobody comes.

188. 0:46:51

     Yeah.

189. 0:46:52

     But, uh, have you also considered to stop runoffs in December, that you move all the s- municipal elections to May? Uh, already you consolidated coun- counties and cities. There's a non-partisan, and they're in May. And if you move all of the other municipal elections to May, then that would be easier on your elections officials that they're not having runoffs in December.

190. 0:47:25

     Everybody hates runoffs in December. So that's just something for you to think about-

191. 0:47:29

     Yeah

192. 0:47:30

     ... and consider.

193. 0:47:31

     Okay.

194. 0:47:32

     Thank you.

195. 0:47:32

     Thank you.

196. 0:47:33

     All right. Uh, number 10, Senator Orrock.

197. 0:47:36

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I, the, uh, uh, I have a, a, at least a couple or three qu- three questions, uh, for the senator. W- what do the, the, what does the Municipal Association of Georgia think about this proposal?

198. 0:47:54

     No, I split my friends on this one. ACCG's for it and GMA's against it. So, uh, I, I put my two friends against-

199. 0:48:00

     Well

200. 0:48:00

     ... each other on this one.

201. 0:48:01

     I'm here for your friends.

202. 0:48:04

     Right. Right.

203. 0:48:05

     I think we-

204. 0:48:06

     So-

205. 0:48:07

     Yeah.

206. 0:48:07

     So, so-

207. 0:48:07

     They're, um, they, they've signed under this bill, Senator

208. 0:48:08

     ... so there's some unreadiness on the part of the Municipal Association-

209. 0:48:12

     Yeah

210. 0:48:12

     ... uh, to, to take this path. I mean, I, I see it as a, as a, a, a, a, as a kind of a radical thing to, to, to propose when we've been running our elections this way for how many decades?

211. 0:48:28

     I think the last time we had everything on even was back in the '80s.

212. 0:48:31

     Uh, yeah. Well, that, that'd be g- getting up on 40 years.

213. 0:48:35

     It would be.

214. 0:48:36

     Yeah. And, and it seemed to me that, that that was a reform at that time to put that in, to have a, have a, uh, a, um, a, a thought-out approach to, uh, elections, uh, o- o- on even years and odd years. And, uh, you have the presidential once every four years. You have the municipals, uh, once every four years. You have the, um, uh, w- w- well, the judges, you know, on and on. But, but we've had a, we've had a very normal, common sense, uh, position on this that's worked in practice for 40 years.

215. 0:49:17

     So, so I just don't get what's broke that needs fixing.

216. 0:49:23

     I think that what's broke is no one's showing up. And I think we wanna make sure as many people as we can show up for our elections. I think that's fair for no matter if you're Republican or Democrat. You want as many people as possible to show up to elections to decide their government. And by putting them back on even year elections, I think that's exactly what we'll get.

217. 0:49:41

     Yeah.

218. 0:49:41

     W- couldn't we contend that, uh, I mean, uh, you know, many voters are, uh, challenged to absorb all the information about the candidates and the procedure, and, and, and now we've got complexity of early voting, uh, et cetera. I- in other words, there's a lot for voters to get their arms around. And if we keep it simple, you don't have to learn the whole panoply of people in all these positions in our state government, uh, at one time to know who to vote for, but this is gonna be your municipal elections.

219. 0:50:18

     I believe my citizens are, uh, very well capable of handling, handling the type of elections where they have multiple candidates on a ballot.

220. 0:50:24

     Yeah. We got a few-

221. 0:50:25

     If you believe that. But I mean-

222. 0:50:27

     I do believe that

223. 0:50:27

     ... uh, it, it's-

224. 0:50:28

     We got a few more questions here.

225. 0:50:29

     All right.

226. 0:50:29

     Why don't we see if we get-

227. 0:50:30

     Mr. Chairman, thank you for, for that

228. 0:50:31

     ... some of that cleared up maybe. Uh, number five, Chairman Burns.

229. 0:50:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the bill. And again, I, I support, uh, the concept of trying to, uh, bring our elections into a more concise calendar schedule, and I certainly support, uh, voter engagement. So I wanna get as many folks on board as possible. I think my concern is with the cities and how they would respond and how it might impact cities. I look forward to hearing from, uh, GMA. But in your conversations with the cities, um, how does this impact their charters, and how that, how would that likely play into their ability to, to shift to a, an even year cycle?

230. 0:51:14

     Again, this bill would supersede the charter. So it's, if it didn't, we'd probably have 600 local bills coming through to put cities right back onto odd year elections. So, uh, this bill would supersede those.

231. 0:51:25

     So it would take all local charters and supersede their election-

232. 0:51:31

     The election. Correct.

233. 0:51:33

     Thank you.

234. 0:51:34

     All right. Uh, number three. Senator Mallow.

235. 0:51:38

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, you know, uh, giving folks a extra year in an elected term, uh, not something that I'm keen on doing. What I, uh, would like to see is that if the city's had the problem and they wanted to opt into it, then let them opt into it. I'm not in a posture to vote for it, because I'm gonna tell you why. If I vote on this, and every mayor in all of the cities I represent in one county get an extra year, folks say, "Hey, I didn't vote for him to be here for five.

236. 0:52:10

     I voted for him to be here for four. I'm ready for him to go right now, and I got an extra year, and you did that," well, then guess what? That's gonna turn around and be on, probably on a time when I'm in a primary, and them folks are gonna remember that. And so I'm not keen to mess with anything local. If they wanna do it, let them opt in. But I'm not gonna put my own neck in a noose to hang myself. You see what I'm saying? Y- you know, in South Georgia we got a saying, "You can shear a sheep year after year, but you're gonna own the skin as buying once." So this is one of those times.

237. 0:52:39

     Yeah. But I'm a little bit concerned on the opt in, opt out pr- provisions. We saw that happen before on bills that were passed in the general assembly.

238. 0:52:49

     All right. Well, that's all the questions, but we got a few folks signed up to speak. Uh, let's, uh, start with, uh, DJ with GMA.

239. 0:53:02

     Good evening everyone. Chairmans, member of committee, uh, thank you for allowing me to speak today. Uh, my name is DJ Waller. I represent Georgia Municipal Association. We represent all 536 cities in Georgia. Um, we do have concerns about the bill. Um, I'll start with concern, concern with moving municipal elections to even number of years will cause local races and local issues to be overshadowed by high profile and federal statewide contests. Um, municipal elections focus on public safety, infrastructure, budgeting, zoning and service delivery.

240. 0:53:33

     These issues often receive far less attention when placed on the same ballot as statewide or federal races. Related to that concern is media visibility. Odd-year elections provide cities and municipal candidates with greater opportunity for media coverage and public discussion. During even-year election cycles, media attention is understandably focused on statewide and national races, leaving municipal contests with limited coverage and fewer opportunities for voters to learn about local candidates and issues. Also, municipal elections in Georgia are intentionally non-partisan.

241. 0:54:04

     Municipal elections are structured without party primaries, are designed to keep the focus on local leadership and community needs. I don't think we've ever seen a Democrat or Republican pothole. And also important to know that municipal elections traditionally operate on a different timeline. Qualifying for most municipal elections occur in August for the November election. This reflects the non-partisan structure of municipal races and creates a shorter, more focused campaign cycle on roughly three months. That structure help keep campaigns affordable, accessible, and centered on municipal issues.

242. 0:54:36

     This bill will also impose an, a significant administrative burden on cities. Many cities will be required to restructure elections, charters, calendars, modify term links, re-educate voters, and manage complex transition periods. Also, um, in many cases, if munipali- municipal elections are moved to even number of years, uh, that interaction of how candidate qualifying exists with constitutional requirements, um, municipal officers typically qualify in late August because they are non-partisan. But when municipal official qualify for state or federal office in March, that could still create extended vacancies under existing constitutional rules.

243. 0:55:13

     In many cases, cities would be forces, forced to hold additional special elections or make interim appointments, which is the very situation this bill appeared intended to reduce. Also, add, um, for Senator Robinson, um, for the haircut, uh, my barber is still alive. You're looking at him right now

244. 0:55:36

     Thank you. That's all I have.

245. 0:55:37

     You want to ro- respond to that?

246. 0:55:38

     Yeah. Well, yeah. I got, I got some legitimate questions, but DJ, I know God is your barber, so-

247. 0:55:47

     Yeah. Yeah.

248. 0:55:47

     He's a good one.

249. 0:55:50

     Um, talking about, talking about them being overshadowed by the federal elections that they would coincide with, um, what cost savings do you think there would be if we put them all there together?

250. 0:56:05

     I think that's a great question. I don't think it's necessarily any cost savings. I think what you would see is more people show up for a municipal election, which is understandable, but also you're required to have more staff training, more equipment, um, more people to help run the elections, and those costs would still be on the city 'cause it's still city elections on there. So I don't think it'll be any additional cost.

251. 0:56:26

     Well, DJ, I, uh, I find it hard to see that because you have the same number of machines operating, you have the same number of poll workers there. You just have a longer ballot, right?

252. 0:56:39

     I would agree. I think, I think that's something that works out, that's worked out with the city and the county through IGA or however they figure out how much the elections cost. But I think, I honestly don't think that those cities will save money by, by doing that.

253. 0:56:52

     Well, I, I, I have to disagree with you on that.

254. 0:56:56

     Absolutely.

255. 0:56:56

     I think, I think holding an election, holding an election two years and then two years again, and would this solve one of the problems that we have in where you have a, a non-partisan, and man, that's a sweet word, and I wish it were true, municipal election? You have a non-partisan in, in theory. But when you have an election in May, and it's a contested election, and you elect somebody, then that person's not sworn in till January.

256. 0:57:28

     So the person that's sitting in that seat is a lame duck if they've lost their re-election from May to January, correct?

257. 0:57:38

     Yes.

258. 0:57:38

     And we see the potential of there being some issues with that, I would think, right? Where currently municipal elections held in the consolidated government that I represent-

259. 0:57:47

     Mm-hmm

260. 0:57:48

     ... are also done at the same time as primary elections. So where there, those are partisan elections, say for sheriff-

261. 0:57:56

     Mm-hmm

262. 0:57:56

     ... if you will. So you, you go through that, but then you actually elect city councilors, mayors, things of that nature. So you do have a substantial lag time from the May election to the January swearing in, correct?

263. 0:58:10

     Yes.

264. 0:58:10

     Okay. And I represent a lot of small cities, too. Would you agree with me that having elections when nobody's showing up are expensive for small cities, looking at the requirements of how many poll workers they have, or excuse me, how many paid employees they have to have there to watch three voting machines in a, in a courthouse somewhere like Shiloh, Georgia?

265. 0:58:35

     Yeah. Is, is, I will say too, it's very rare that I disagree with you, and I don't disagree with you on this.

266. 0:58:39

     Yeah.

267. 0:58:39

     But our, from our standpoint, I think too it goes back to the overshadowing. That's what we're really trying to protect here and make sure people are making their vote for who they want as their mayors.

268. 0:58:49

     And isn't it up to the candidate to make sure they're not overshadowed?

269. 0:58:52

     Absolutely.

270. 0:58:52

     And I mean, y- you're right, you and I rarely disagree on anything. Uh, and so, but I, I appreciate your frankness and all.

271. 0:58:59

     Absolutely.

272. 0:59:00

     As always, I appreciate the way you represent your, your constituents.

273. 0:59:02

     Absolutely.

274. 0:59:03

     Thank you.

275. 0:59:03

     Yes, sir.

276. 0:59:04

     All right. Chairman Burns

277. 0:59:07

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I wanna revisit something I think that, uh, Senator Williams pointed out is, and we've talked about it a couple of times, about moving municipals into the May timeframe, um, similar to what we do in consolidated cities elections. How would you respond to that consideration?

278. 0:59:26

     Can you repeat the question again? I'm sorry.

279. 0:59:27

     I'm just saying, if we were to mo- take ... If we took Senator Williams's, uh, suggestion in saying not in November of even-numbered years, but in May of even-numbered years to, to pair them with the primaries, because we already have certain consolidated governments that are nonpartisan in that timeframe. How, how would you respond to that concept?

280. 0:59:56

     I think it's a, a great question. Um, and I, I think it would go back to the overshadowing, um, as well. But I don't ... That's, that's a tough question. That's a good question. Um, and I haven't, haven't thought about that one just yet. But thank you.

281. 1:00:10

     I'd ask you to give it some thought-

282. 1:00:11

     Absolutely

283. 1:00:11

     ... give some feedback. If I could, one more thing, Mr. Chairman.

284. 1:00:14

     Yeah.

285. 1:00:14

     Um, I- I'm a, I'm a local control kinda guy.

286. 1:00:18

     Me too.

287. 1:00:18

     And, and so I'm a little concerned about this legislation coming in and superseding.

288. 1:00:24

     Absolutely.

289. 1:00:24

     And I do agree with the author that, uh, if we opt in, that's a, that's a, an un- likely an untamable position to be in. How would you respond to the proposal to have th- this legislation basically, um, control the election cycle for all cities?

290. 1:00:43

     I would say, um, we don't want our elections to go to even-numbered years. That's, that's first and foremost. Um, but I think if we're talking about local control, that's the option of the will of the committee. I mean, I can't argue with that one. But I will say, first and foremost, we would love for it to be in odd-numbered years.

291. 1:00:59

     All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

292. 1:01:01

     Senator Mallow.

293. 1:01:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The more I sat, the more I thought. Uh, when it comes down to, uh, local districts, most cities set their own districts. Uh, my concern now if you were to move that and put it on a much larger combination would be the ballot combination and the ballot style, and getting that information to the appropriate people so that they could take those districts and ensure that the right people are voting in the right precincts for the right city council person, because they get to set their own maps.

294. 1:01:35

     And since they set their own maps, they draw their own districts. We don't draw city districts. And the chance that a ballot combination could be wrong in a precinct because they get dicey, in my opinion, moving this into a much larger election, uh, it would be greater error for ci- for cities in ballot combinations and styles, because that puts, in my opinion, more pressure on local election workers to make sure you get the right ballot combo style. Um, have y'all taken a position on that and worked through that?

295. 1:02:06

     That haven't been brought to us. Um, so I, I think that's a great point as well. But I think adding to that will create more confusion, not just for the voter, but also for the people running the election as well, so.

296. 1:02:19

     All right. We got a couple people signed up to speak. Uh-

297. 1:02:22

     One point.

298. 1:02:23

     Yeah. Chairman Bearden.

299. 1:02:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanna say two things. We heard the word overshadow twice. It's hard for me to comprehend overshadow when 10 to 20% of the people are showing up. And number two, DJ's a great friend, but he sold my bill for me when he said more people would show up if this, in local elections, if this bill was passed. That's exactly what this legislation is meant to do, is to get more people to show up to the election and to the voters polls.

300. 1:02:51

     All right. Thank you. We got a couple people signed up. Um, Ms. James, did you wanna speak? Can you be brief, please?

301. 1:02:59

     I'll be brief. I'll ... He's my senator, by the way. I'm in his district. That's-

302. 1:03:05

     Well, it's a good thing I'm gonna let you speak then, I reckon.

303. 1:03:09

     That's not why I'm in favor of it, but, but I like to spend time with him. Um, okay. Real quick, um, and it's good to see you all, if I didn't say that earlier. Um, I am in support of, uh, Senate Bill, uh, 422 for a couple of reasons. Uh, one, personally, I'm a super voter. I vote in every election, no matter what it is. Every election. Um, and in my district, in the last election, only 14% out of a- close to over 100,000 voters showed up.

304. 1:03:44

     So only 14% is deciding who's gonna lead that district, and that is a sad state. We need voter p- uh, more voter participation. But this legislation represents an important step towards strengthening our democracy at a local level, 'cause I believe that all politics are local, uh, whether they are part, uh, they, well, they should be nonpartisan, but whether they're which side of the aisle you're on. Um, but one, it's gonna increase voter participation.

305. 1:04:18

     Um, two, it's gonna save money in municipalities, especially since I'm a rural kinda, I'm a rural Georgia kinda girl. So you know, rural Georgia don't have a whole lot of money. Um, but I believe that it's gonna save, uh, money for those municipalities, um, and it's gonna redirect resources toward, uh, the community as a priority. It's gonna simplify election, the election calendar. As I said, I vote every year. I'm a super voter, so no matter what it is, whether it is state, federal, local, I'm gonna make sure that I vote.

306. 1:04:53

     Um, but it's sad to see when I go into an election booth and only 10 people have voted in, in my precinct. Um- And it's also gonna promote, uh, accountability by increasing voter partici- participation, streaming the election processes. Um, this bill ensures that local officials remain accountability to the citizens they serve. In conclusion, SB 422 is practical, cost-effective, and voter-focused reform. I respectfully urge the committee to support this bill so that Georgia municipalities can benefit from a higher civic participation.

307. 1:05:29

     Thank you so much.

308. 1:05:31

     All right. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Fraser, can you be brief as well, please?

309. 1:05:41

     Good evening, everybody. Thank you so much. Um, I just happened to be walking by and saw this, um, and I'm really glad you're letting me speak. Um, municipals are near and dear to my heart. I'm on the ground for them for, like, 10 years. I do a lot of help with those. Um, so this bill did concern me, and I heard a lot of really good points from both sides. I, I can't really go against saying I don't like cost savings. I love simplicity and cost savings. But I will say there's something I'm, I'm, I'm really wor- worried about with doing even-numbered years versus odd.

310. 1:06:12

     In the municipal cycle, um, as a community, we, we really focus on different issues that are, you know, in a city than you would in anything above a city, like in state, um, level. And we really come together in a nonpartisan way when we do our elections. And I mean, we, we kinda support... You know, there's both sides. Like, everybody comes together from both sides in a municipal. I mean, we really just focus on who wants the best for the city. So that's my only concern. It might take that flavor, that atmosphere. Taking that away might, might hurt that.

311. 1:06:43

     And I, I guess I would put community over the cost savings, which is really rare for me to say normally. And I really appreciate what you guys do for us, um, with elections, um, a lot of the time. I just thought I should say this 'cause I, I just feel like we might be taking something away. Um, maybe some cost savings ideas. Uh, I, I didn't know what a jungle primary was until this year or last year, but they've been happening a lot. Maybe we can not have those anymore.

312. 1:07:13

     Maybe just take that off, and can we just move those into election, n- normal election times, um, if it's close enough. And then, um, the only other thing I might suggest is if we can agree to a really good hand-marked paper ballot process. That would save a ton of money. I know it's a really difficult thing to come up with, a good process. I mean, there is a lot of concerns, I understand, with changing something from what we have. Um, but if we could just come together and figure out a really good process for hand-marked paper ballots, um, and just not have machines anymore, we would save a ton of money, and I think the process would be easier.

313. 1:07:49

     And, um, people from the community could work the elections easier 'cause right now people just have a lot of training to go through to work those machines, and some people don't want to. They shy away from it. I would just love to have more community involvement in our elections if it was just simple, and we just put, have to put our trust in the community, um, to do their job in the precincts. Um, you know. So that's all.

314. 1:08:10

     All right. Yeah.

315. 1:08:10

     Thank you.

316. 1:08:10

     One question here, uh, number eight. Chairman Williams?

317. 1:08:13

     Thank you. Thank you for those comments. You know, I keep hearing cost savings, cost savings. I did elections for 16 years. You know what the biggest waste is? T splost, or these special splost elections. They cost basically probably, one of my counties I know, over $50,000. And it- they do it because they know it's gonna be low turnout.

318. 1:08:44

     Mm.

319. 1:08:45

     That's where we need to stop-

320. 1:08:47

     Okay

321. 1:08:47

     ... and combine them and do away with those special splost elections. So I would like to amend your bill to do that, that, uh, if it's gonna pass- ... that your bill will also do away with those splost elections, and they will only be done at the same time we do away with drop boxes. Thank you.

322. 1:09:15

     Is that, is that an official motion?

323. 1:09:17

     Merry Christmas, everybody.

324. 1:09:18

     Yes.

325. 1:09:19

     I vote for the kitchen sink.

326. 1:09:20

     Yeah.

327. 1:09:21

     Uh, number five. Chairman Burns.

328. 1:09:23

     I just, uh, uh, just an inquiry, Mr. Chairman. Uh, was, is it not true that, uh, Senator Robertson had a bill to consolidate s- uh, these splost elections into particular time frames? Is that not true, Senator?

329. 1:09:34

     It is true. And during one of the hearings, my good friend, um, made a motion that we eliminate drop boxes.

330. 1:09:43

     I did, yes.

331. 1:09:45

     All right. Uh, Lucy, who are you? Uh, what's your organization?

332. 1:09:48

     Uh, I'm not, I'm just a citizen.

333. 1:09:49

     Okay. Thank you. We just need to put it in for the record.

334. 1:09:52

     Okay.

335. 1:09:53

     All right. Uh-

336. 1:09:55

     Point of order, Mr. Chairman

337. 1:09:56

     ... number six.

338. 1:09:57

     Was that a motion that he made?

339. 1:10:00

     No.

340. 1:10:02

     No. After a while.

341. 1:10:04

     Any further questions for the author of the bill?

342. 1:10:10

     All right, at this time I'll entertain a motion to move on the bill.

343. 1:10:21

     Number 11.

344. 1:10:22

     Yes, sir. Uh, I'd like to make a motion to pass.

345. 1:10:26

     Do pass. Anybody second?

346. 1:10:34

     I'll second.

347. 1:10:35

     Got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

348. 1:10:43

     Aye.

349. 1:10:43

     Raise your hand. Let me get a right count.

350. 1:10:50

     Any opposed, raise your hand.

351. 1:10:55

     Well, we got 5-5. Do I get to break the tie? Is that right?

352. 1:11:01

     Five and five.

353. 1:11:05

     Was it five?

354. 1:11:07

     Let's do it one more time.

355. 1:11:08

     What was the tie?

356. 1:11:08

     Can we raise it one more time?

357. 1:11:08

     Let's do hands one more time. In favor, raise your hand. One, two. Five. All right, opposed?

358. 1:11:20

     5-5.

359. 1:11:20

     As book's made, let's raise.

360. 1:11:22

     I'm break the tie in favor of the bill.

361. 1:11:26

     Thank you, sir.

362. 1:11:26

     Mr. Chairman, thank you for being here. Thank all you committee members for being here at this late hour, and, uh, we'll see you tomorrow.