House Judiciary Committee, February 9, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:12:15

   All right. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We are gonna get started. We started a little late with, uh, uh, everything that went on in the chamber this morning. So with that, uh, Matt, would you please lead us off?

2. 0:12:31

   Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let us pray. Dear Lord, we thank you for this day. Here in Black History Month, we look at that statue of, uh, Martin Luther King out the window and thank you for the work he did in Georgia. And, uh, we ask for your blessings on these proceedings. In Your name we pray, amen.

3. 0:12:45

   Amen. All right. Ms. Hong, you've got, which one? 1187 you wanna do, or 1024?

4. 0:12:54

   Um, I'll start with 1024.

5. 0:12:56

   Okay.

6. 0:12:57

   Which one? I'm sorry.

7. 0:12:59

   1024.

8. 0:13:00

   1024. Okay.

9. 0:13:00

   House Bill 1024. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. Um, 1024, I have LC 44-3365. This deals with bankruptcy homestead exemption. So bankruptcy law is governed by federal law, but with, um, certain exemptions. Different states have different amounts. Um, and what the exemptions are, are basically when you file bankruptcy, there are a certain amount, um, of assets that you can keep.

10. 0:13:34

    And so s- Georgia has a statute that outlines different exemptions. Um, what this bill does is increases the homestead exemption, so therefore, when you file bankruptcy, if you have certain equity in your property, you can take, um... You can keep your property up to a certain amount of exemptions. Um, currently, the exemption is 21,500 for an individual and 43,000 for a joint filing.

11. 0:14:06

    Um, this bill will go ahead and increase that exemption to 50,000 for an individual and 100,000 for a joint filing. There's a handout that I am passing out that goes through all of the exemptions, the homestead exemptions by state. And as you see, Georgia is one of the lowest homestead exemptions, um, that we have. I don't believe that we've had a change in this exemption for, I wanna say, at least 10 years. I, I think it's about 20 years.

12. 0:14:38

    Um, Representative Reeves, thank you. I know you carried this, um, several years ago. And, um, Representative Evans, I know you worked on this as well. I practice bankruptcy law. I've been practicing bankruptcy law for about 18 years now. And, um, as we, as the market, for the housing market, the market values are going up, um, a lot of people that are filing bankruptcy are, um... And, and many that do file bankruptcy, they're, you know, not just frivolous.

13. 0:15:10

    It's because of COVID. It's, they're small business owners. It's unexpected unemployment. It's medical bills. And so, um, they wanna be able to keep their home as much as possible, um, when they are having to file bankruptcy. So I ask for a favorable vote out of this committee.

14. 0:15:29

    Okay.

15. 0:15:29

    And I'll answer any questions. Thank you, Chairman.

16. 0:15:33

    All right.

17. 0:15:33

    Vice Chair Reeves. Thank you for bringing this bill. And Jason Braswell from Athens came and spoke at length on this last time it came and, and gave some deep testimony similar to what you've presented this morning. I appreciate you bringing this bill.

18. 0:15:47

    Thank you.

19. 0:15:48

    Okay.

20. 0:15:51

    Yeah. All right. Anybody else have questions?

21. 0:15:54

    Proper time.

22. 0:15:55

    Oh, okay. All right. Hang on. We have some other witnesses. All right. All right, Ms. Hong. Let me, uh, see who we got.

23. 0:16:09

    Uh, Jason Petty?

24. 0:16:10

    Yes.

25. 0:16:11

    Come on up, sir.

26. 0:16:12

    Good afternoon.

27. 0:16:14

    Good. How are you?

28. 0:16:15

    All right.

29. 0:16:19

    Good afternoon, uh, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Uh, my name is Jason Petty, and I come before you with a unique perspective as a bankruptcy trustee and an attorney for debtors, uh, because I see both, uh, the human side and the, the business side of this every day in my practice. Um, while, while sitting at both sides of the table, I've found that most debtors are generally hardworking, honest people who've hit a rough patch for whatever reason and are looking for a fresh start.

30. 0:16:51

    Um, while I believe that an increase of some amount is warranted, I believe that the proposed increase, um, at lines 13 and 19 in the bill go too far in providing that fresh start and cross over to providing a head start at the expense of the community. Um, and first, to help you understand that, I'd like you to understand the practical side of how the exemption gets applied in bankruptcy, because it's not just a dollar for dollar amount. Um, the exemption, um, uh, the property needs to have equity over and above the exemption amount to cover cost of sale, such as realtor cost, uh, and other administratives cost.

31. 0:17:31

    So that could easily require another 35 to $45,000 over and above the exemption before the property can really be reached by the creditor. So it's not just a dollar for dollar scenario. And, and that amount can be larger depending on, let's say you have a very valuable piece of property and the, the realtor commission is gonna be even larger. So you could easily end up with, um, uh, uh, just on the conservative side, a, a situation where a married couple under the current proposed bill is able to shield about 130 to $140,000 from the reach of their creditors.

32. 0:18:07

    And the, the impact of this is, is clear, because it will result in- fewer creditors getting repaid. Um, to put that in perspective, we currently only have about 10% of cases in Chapter 7 where there's a distribution to creditors, and this proposed increase would easily push that down another 60 to 70% from the cases that I see. So it, it's important for creditors to kind of have a, a reasonable chance of getting repaid, uh, from debtors who can afford it, and so that they can have confidence in the credit system.

33. 0:18:44

    People sometimes think that this is only, uh, uh, gonna affect big banks, but there, there are real-world implications here. Um, fewer distributions in cases would mean, uh, fewer, uh, payments to state taxes, because they're considered as a priority expense in bankruptcy. It would mean fewer payments on things like child support and alimony, also a priority expense, and it would mean fewer, uh, contractors or vendors. So there, there's a, a local, uh, impact as well. Um, for example, I have a case right now where there's a roofing contractor, didn't get paid, and because of the way the insurance company can send the money directly to the homeowner, he just didn't get paid.

34. 0:19:24

    The person went into bankruptcy, and his only chance of getting repaid is in hopes that there can be some, uh, distribution, uh, from equity in the home. And as a Chapter 7 trustee, I can tell you in the real-world practice, a lot of these cases are done with, uh, consent agreements or settlement agreements with the debtors. Um, s- actually stepping in and selling the property is a last resort, um, because it's, it's a much more expensive process, and the, so the court, bankruptcy court is, is eager to see me work out settlements with parties rather than actually stepping in and selling their home.

35. 0:20:00

    And so I just wanted you to understand some of that, that real-world aspect of it. And, uh, I do think, to address th- where Georgia stands kind of on the range of exemptions right now, Georgia has historically taken a, a fairly moderate or, or conservative side on the homestead exemptions, and given larger exemptions, say, on the, um, on the home, the, a thing called a wild card exemption. A wild card exemption is where you get to apply any property, like money in your bank account.

36. 0:20:32

    Uh, so for example, uh, Georgia has a, a sig- a, a smaller exemption than, say, South Carolina, but we have twice as much on our wild card exemption as the state of South Carolina. And so I just wanted to k- kind of provide a little insight into that. Um, lastly, uh, do think there's a potential impact for creditors. Creditors may pull back and make, uh, tighten their underwriting standards or increase the lending cost if they know that there's a much lower chance of getting repaid from a bankruptcy case.

37. 0:21:08

    Uh, so that's a potential consequence as well. And so I just want to propose some increase less than the current proposed 132% increase in the bill. And when this came up two years ago, we did, uh, reach out to committee, and, um, Chairman Reeves had worked with us, and we had kind of talked about a, a much, uh, a smaller amount, kind of in the, the middle range there. And I think that would be a, a more reasonable approach. Um, that way it's, it's not just this big increase.

38. 0:21:39

    'Cause the last time it was increased before this was, I believe, 2011 or 2012. I was at the committee that day. It was increased from $10,000 up to $21,500. And so home prices have gone up, but if you look at it from the point where they were in 2011 when it was increased before this, the current bill would be roughly a 400% increase from that, and home prices haven't gone up 400% in the past 15 years. Um, lastly, uh, there's a change at line 18 that I do wanna applaud the committee, uh, for including, which addresses how the marital exemption is, is handled, and it would require that both spouses still reside in the property.

39. 0:22:21

    Now, I think that's a critical piece because it would help to reduce situations of real-world fraud that we see where you may have parties separated and both parties are claiming a homestead exemption in two different properties. So I wanna th- thank, uh, Chairman Reeves and the committee for including that, that provision. And so overall, that's my proposal is just a, a slightly smaller increase than the 50,000, 100,000.

40. 0:22:45

    So you're talking about just striking the numbers to, into the lower, lower number?

41. 0:22:49

    A, a little bit lower number.

42. 0:22:51

    Okay. All right. Vice Chair Reeves?

43. 0:22:54

    What number?

44. 0:22:55

    Um, I, I think range, I think last time we had talked about, about 35,000. 35,000, 70,000, and that was two years ago. Um, home prices have generally stagnated since then. The condo market has collapsed. But I think somewhere in the range between 35, maybe 37,000 would be a more reasonable increase.

45. 0:23:17

    Well, and Mr. Chairman, if I-

46. 0:23:20

    Mm-hmm

47. 0:23:20

    ... could just follow up. So, you know, in the, uh, since we've looked at this bill last time, Gwinnett County property tax values have continued to go up. And so at least in my area, home values are still rising and, and homeowner property taxes are still rising. And so if it was 35,000 a couple years ago, I think the, the 50,000 sounds in line. But also Florida, Texas, Arizona's 150, Ohio's 132.9. That's for an individual. Florida and Texas are unlimited.

48. 0:23:51

    I mean, it's, it-

49. 0:23:52

    True

50. 0:23:52

    ... this strikes me as pretty modest, uh, and, you know-

51. 0:23:55

    Flo- Florida is a unique situation because they have the unlimited homestead exemption which is written into their constitution, and it actually ends up kind of, uh, causing a negative consequence because they have very low personal property exemptions there. And so, um, that was a, that backfired when they had the last recession because you had situations where people had no equity in their homes, yet they were still having their personal property be subject to creditors. So-

52. 0:24:21

    But, but Texas is unlimited also, right? I mean, when you, when you total up Texas and Florida, that's like a third of the country in, in the way of population.

53. 0:24:29

    Population-wise

54. 0:24:30

    Ohio and, and, um- Arizona, those are big states. Arizona, um, Phoenix and Atlanta I think are compared a lot. It seems like those are pretty comparable, and they are a fraction of what Vice Chair Hong's-

55. 0:24:44

    But, George-

56. 0:24:44

    ... recommending. And based on 35,000 two years ago, this sounds pretty modest.

57. 0:24:48

    But the Georgia exemption generally tracks the federal exemption. That's, uh... Georgia's considered an opt-out state, so they can't use the federal scheme of exemptions. And under the federal exemption, uh, an, an increase to about 35,000 would keep us in line with the federal exemption, which is where-

58. 0:25:05

    Okay

59. 0:25:05

    ... Georgia has historically been, um, as opposed to the proposed increase, which jumps us, uh, pretty far ahead of that federal exemption.

60. 0:25:14

    Where's the federal exemption?

61. 0:25:15

    I believe right now it is at, I think, 36,200.

62. 0:25:19

    Okay. Thank you.

63. 0:25:20

    Mm.

64. 0:25:21

    Okay. Uh, who's got number five over here?

65. 0:25:24

    I'll actually save till discussion.

66. 0:25:26

    You wait? Okay. And Chairman Leverett.

67. 0:25:30

    Thank you, Chairman. Uh, thank you for coming down here and giving us your testimony today. Uh, I don't do any bankruptcy work, but is there a... Y- you mentioned the federal exemption. I, I, I worked in a firm that used to do some of that, and my recollection was there's a federal exemption and a state exemption. You can either opt or the state can determine whether you could pick one of those. Or how does that work?

68. 0:25:49

    Generally, under, u- under, under state law, you can choose to opt in or opt out. Georgia's an opt-out state, so under the legislature, um, if you are a resident of Georgia, you cannot use the federal exemption.

69. 0:26:02

    Because there's a state one provided?

70. 0:26:03

    Exactly.

71. 0:26:04

    Okay. Okay. And the federal exemption you said is currently 30-

72. 0:26:08

    Th- I, I wanna say it's between 34 and 36,000.

73. 0:26:12

    Okay.

74. 0:26:13

    Um, it, it, it is actually indexed for inflation, so it goes up every couple of years.

75. 0:26:18

    Oh.

76. 0:26:18

    And I do believe it is currently around that 36 mark.

77. 0:26:23

    Okay. So, and, and I guess you're saying that traditionally the state has had a policy of tracking the federal.

78. 0:26:30

    It, it at least has not gotten too far away from the federal exemption.

79. 0:26:34

    Okay.

80. 0:26:34

    And that you'll s- you see that with a lot of our exemption. Our wild card exemption, uh, is, is a little bit less than what the federal exemption is right now. And the other property exemptions, uh, for personal property, like your clothing, jewelry, things like that, Georgia generally tracks the federal exemption.

81. 0:26:51

    Okay. All right. Thank you.

82. 0:26:52

    Okay. All right. Uh, Vice Chair Kelley.

83. 0:26:56

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we're moving forward to, to look at this, whatever number we decide, I hate picking arbitrary numbers. I think you just kinda talked about how the federal government indexes. Do you think we should put a index on this moving forward?

84. 0:27:10

    I think that would be very reasonable.

85. 0:27:12

    Regardless what number we choose?

86. 0:27:13

    Uh, 'cause otherwise, we end up coming back before the situation, like, uh, Representative Hong mentioned how it had been so many years since this was last done, and I, I think it was about 2011. And so we are, here we are, it came up in 2024. It would avoid these situations where we're having to look at it every few years and we've fallen out of line.

87. 0:27:34

    Okay. Thank you so much.

88. 0:27:36

    Okay.

89. 0:27:38

    Who is over here? Oh. Representative Oliver.

90. 0:27:43

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, this is not my area of practice, and candidly, I have a very jaundiced view of bankruptcy, particularly corporate bankruptcy. I think that it's legalized corruption where they just take the carcasses and leave the creditors usually with nothing, and lawyers make a massive sum of money, but I digress. Um, with respect to this, which is individual homeowners, the policy choice that we have in front of us is whether or not we try to keep more people in their homes when they have bankruptcy by raising the exemption versus a, a trade-off of some creditors, as you told us, will not get paid by doing this.

91. 0:28:17

    Is that a fair summation of-

92. 0:28:19

    It, it-

93. 0:28:19

    ... the issue or not?

94. 0:28:20

    It... You're not strictly putting people out of ho- It's, it's determining how many, how much a homeowner would pay, repay in the bankruptcy rather than just saying you can or can't keep the home. Um, because a lot of this plays out in Chapter 13, uh, where there's a payment plan before the court, and it's dictated based on, you know, cost of sale, how much equity's in the home. And so they come up with a payment plan that says this is what's fair for creditors to end up receiving. So as, as I mentioned before, it is a last resort for the homeowner to actually lose their home, and that's usually because of unwillingness to look at other options.

95. 0:28:59

    Okay. So-

96. 0:29:00

    And so there is, that's kind of the balance with the creditors. And it, it's, uh, a, a instilling some sort of confidence in the credit system as to what creditors can reasonably expect if somebody should file bankruptcy.

97. 0:29:17

    I think I understand, which is that this just changes the terms of potential settlement negotiations and not necessarily people losing their homes.

98. 0:29:24

    E- exactly.

99. 0:29:24

    Is that what you just said?

100. 0:29:25

     Exactly. And, and, you know, some people sometimes bring in foreclosures and how this will help to avoid those. That, foreclosures have nothing to do with this. So really, this is strictly about if you have a certain amount of equity or, or it's, like, sitting on cash in your home that you could just say, "I'm not gonna give anything to my creditors." And I think that comes down to kind of a fairness system. If you've got a, a, a significantly large amount, I think it is fair to expect your creditors to get something. It's, that's what we're arguing about here, is what that reasonable amount is that creditors can say, "Hey, I, I, I should get that amount out of it."

101. 0:30:01

     Hm. But that doesn't lead to foreclosure or the loss of homes?

102. 0:30:07

     No. Actually, in foreclosure, because it's a secured loan, um, they have a security agreement. They're not affected by the exemption at all. Um, your, your, your lender, you know, whether you have a homestead exemption or not, can still move forward with foreclosures because they are, your exemption doesn't touch their lien. There, there is nothing to exempt because the lien covers up the entire value of the property.

103. 0:30:31

     Hm.

104. 0:30:32

     And so, so if your... Foreclosures are not gonna be affected by this at all. And, and in fact, sometimes as a, as a trustee, we're able to kind of prevent some of the foreclosures because we can argue there is some equity that... And we can hold off and argue for time. Um, whereas if, if the exemptions were large enough, we would just have to abandon the property and say there's nothing in this 40 estate. So that, to that extent, it might actually make it easier for a lender to foreclose.

105. 0:31:06

     Okay. All right. Thank you.

106. 0:31:07

     Sorry for getting into the weeds there.

107. 0:31:12

     Any other questions? Seeing none. Did you wanna respond? Okay.

108. 0:31:19

     Yes, if I may.

109. 0:31:19

     All right. Let's...

110. 0:31:21

     Oh, gee, let me touch you back.

111. 0:31:22

     Yeah.

112. 0:31:23

     I'm sorry.

113. 0:31:24

     Thank you so much.

114. 0:31:24

     Y'all can swap seats if you want to.

115. 0:31:29

     Um, thank you. I just wanted to address a few things, um, that were brought up. Number one, um, so I just touched up on the just bankruptcy as a whole. But essentially, to keep it as simple as possible, when somebody owns a home with a mortgage and they have a significant amount of equity and you file a chapter 7 bankruptcy, the bankruptcy trustee, um, just like Trustee Petty, gets assigned to the case, and they will force a sale of that home, whether or not...

116. 0:32:04

     The, the debtor has n- absolutely no choice. Um, the trustee will go ahead and hire a realtor, go through and see how much the market value of the home is. Um, potentially there may be a settlement agreement, but that settlement agreement would be the debtor comes up with the amount of the equity instead of selling the home. And so, um, essentially what we're doing here, again, and I think it's been about 11 years since we've changed this homestead amount, and frankly, th- in the last many years that I've filed bankruptcy, I, I...

117. 0:32:39

     most of my clients are not able to keep their home even with this exempt- increased exemption, the 50,000 as an individual. And so what we're trying to do here is to make sure that especially those, um, debtors who are filing bankruptcy who have been making regular mortgage payments, and if you are behind on your mortgage payments, you're, it's, you... like, most likely you're not gonna be able to keep up with the mortgage payments anyway, so they're gonna lose their home even after filing bankruptcy eventually.

118. 0:33:12

     But these are individuals who have been making mortgage payments and, um, and want to keep their home, but they had to file bankruptcy for other reasons, not because they're not paying their home, uh, their mortgage. So, uh, we wanna make sure that we give, um, the chance for individuals filing bankruptcy to keep their home, especially if they have been making payments. And the increase that I've talked about is, as you can see on the chart, I mean, it's going up.

119. 0:33:44

     It's not even to half of the states. And, uh, and I've considered this chart when I was coming up with the, the amount. Um, I think it was brought up about possibly putting an index, and I'd be open to having some kind of language w- with that. Um, but I'd like to keep the amount as is, um, in my bill that is proposed.

120. 0:34:08

     Okay. Any further questions for Vice Chair Hong?

121. 0:34:15

     Hearing none, do I hear a motion?

122. 0:34:18

     Motion passed.

123. 0:34:19

     Second. All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.

124. 0:34:26

     Aye.

125. 0:34:27

     Any opposed? All right. Your bill passed.

126. 0:34:30

     Thank you.

127. 0:34:30

     And so who's 17 over here?

128. 0:34:32

     I'm good.

129. 0:34:33

     You're good? Okay.

130. 0:34:34

     Thank you.

131. 0:34:35

     I think we've seen that too.

132. 0:34:47

     We've seen it.

133. 0:34:55

     Let's see. Okay. That's all it is.

134. 0:34:57

     No.

135. 0:34:58

     No. Too late.

136. 0:35:07

     If everybody speaks, it's gonna be a while, so...

137. 0:35:09

     Sure. Sure. Okay. We'll...

138. 0:35:18

     Sure.

139. 0:35:18

     We're gonna do one more bill before this. Not ours.

140. 0:35:21

     You wanna join me? Hey, he is, he is experienced in bankruptcy too. At least one case.

141. 0:35:28

     Yeah.

142. 0:35:29

     For a city, this is just on the table down here.

143. 0:35:31

     Okay.

144. 0:35:32

     Or the, or the table across from, up before us.

145. 0:35:35

     Just for the record, it's not personal, Hubert.

146. 0:35:37

     No, no, no. No,

147. 0:35:41

     no. It's not personal.

148. 0:35:44

     All right, Trey, if you would give us the bill and LC number.

149. 0:35:49

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, members of the committee. I come before you today with a committee substitute on House Bill 211, working off LC449006ORS. Uh, this is a piece of legislation that we have in this committee that's been sitting here for our consideration. There's been a lot of conversation as it relates to PFOS litigation. Uh, we have spent time in this committee debating, uh, extensively language, trying to find a correct balance as it may be, uh, as to preserving the right of individuals to seek redress when they've been harmed, but also trying to put in the proper, uh, legal standard as it relates to, uh, those PFOS receivers.

150. 0:36:36

     Uh, and I've worked to try and strike what I think at least may be a proper balance as we sit here today, knowing that this is something that, uh, does Uh, draw a lot of input. Uh, but I'm bringing this before us today, and essentially we're setting a gross negligence standard, and I'd ask for the committee's support on that today.

151. 0:37:03

     Okay. Uh, Representative Evans?

152. 0:37:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Representative Kelley, we had, I remember last year, we had a pretty robust debate, and we had a lot of folks visit us from Northwest Georgia, where I'm originally from. We had members of the environmental community that have, have looked at the environmental impacts involved here and know more of the science. How many of those folks were involved in this substitute that we're seeing here for the, for the very first time that looks like a completely different bill perhaps than what we looked at last year?

153. 0:37:40

     I sat in here with you for those. And, uh, any time I try to bring forth legislation, I t- try to bring that in a way that takes into consideration all the testimony that I've heard, uh, from, from all sides of the issues, including those who have been impacted by this. As someone who lives in Northwest Georgia, I do know that this is a serious, uh, issue, and it needs to be taken serious. And, uh, I tried to weigh that as I came up with, uh, what we have sitting before us today.

154. 0:38:08

     What groups specifically were dis- were involved in these discussions?

155. 0:38:12

     I didn't consult with any groups. I base it just on what we've, uh, dealt with in the last, uh, year, year and a half as we've been debating this. I didn't specifically speak with any group.

156. 0:38:23

     And given that this was on the table, and so obviously the members are just seeing it for the first time, certainly the public hasn't, do you not share my concern that we are moving forward with a piece of legis- legislation that did instigate a lot of public concern, a lot of public debate, a lot of, um, there's a lot of expertise that comes to bear when we're discussing scientific things like this? Do you not share my concern that we're now debating this here with no notice to the public for them to come and make their voices heard?

157. 0:38:56

     This is part of the process that once a bill is sitting before the committee, it can be called at any time. I think we have heard ample testimony, and I think as the bill moves through the process, each member will have the opportunity to hear those concerns.

158. 0:39:07

     And that process being?

159. 0:39:10

     Hopefully we vote this out of committee today, and it'll move towards the floor.

160. 0:39:13

     And the public will have their voices heard when?

161. 0:39:16

     Throughout this process.

162. 0:39:18

     The Rules Committee?

163. 0:39:20

     Through that and any other time is available.

164. 0:39:24

     Thank you.

165. 0:39:28

     Representative Holcomb.

166. 0:39:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, it looks like we're defining gross negligence with gross negligence at the end of 16 or 17.

167. 0:39:47

     We are referencing in a definition, uh, back to what is a, uh, been known as a, a common law standard.

168. 0:40:00

     I think you were questioning that. Isn't that true?

169. 0:40:04

     Uh, I can see how that will lead to a lot of confusion, where if just above in line 15, if we're saying gross negligence means an intentional deliberate action with reckless disregard of consequences or something less than criminal misconduct, but greater than gross negligence, having the same word be defined within its own definition, I think can be problematic for practitioners to understand.

170. 0:40:33

     We've tried to walk a, uh, fine line here and put some parameters in place as to what would be the standard. I certainly understand your concern, but that's where I, I landed.

171. 0:40:43

     Okay. Then can you help me, um, understand what the legislative intent is on line 17 for quasi-criminal? I, I don't know that I've come across that phrasing before.

172. 0:40:56

     We wanna make clear that should any individuals be acting in a way that could have a deliberate, um, concealment, even though this is a civil standard, uh, that it would be applicable as well.

173. 0:41:10

     Okay. And then last questions are, um, in that same paragraph, and I don't know this because this is not an area that I practice in, but on line 21, such term may include the conscious or intentional violation of definite law or clear rules of conduct. Is there definite law or clear rules of conduct now when it comes to PFAS?

174. 0:41:35

     I think there are certainly some guidance that's been giving through, given through different regulatory agencies.

175. 0:41:41

     EPA or our own?

176. 0:41:43

     EPA, EPD. There's also some other, you know, uh, regulations as it relates to handling chemicals and such.

177. 0:41:52

     Are there any decided cases by either federal or state court in terms of definite law with the common law being built, or is this all pretty new and nebulous?

178. 0:42:03

     There have been some decided cases as it relates to PFAS. I couldn't cite those for you today, though. I apologize.

179. 0:42:10

     Okay. Thank you.

180. 0:42:11

     Thank you.

181. 0:42:14

     Any other questions?

182. 0:42:18

     Seeing none, do I hear a motion?

183. 0:42:20

     Motion to be made.

184. 0:42:22

     A motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor s- Whoop. Hang on.

185. 0:42:29

     Sorry.

186. 0:42:29

     Representative Evans?

187. 0:42:30

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I think it probably claim, came through in my, in my questions, but I just, since we're in discussion, um, one of the things I love about this committee is that we are deliberate, and that we look at matters, and we debate them, and we try to make them better, and we amend, and we hear from the public, and we hear from the public, and we hear from the public again until we're very tired, and we've all missed baseball games and court hearings, who knows what else, to get it right. Um, and I think it's unfortunate that we are here pulling a bill off the table with no public comment, um- And I just wanted to say that for the record.

188. 0:43:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

189. 0:43:10

     All right. All right, all those in favor say aye.

190. 0:43:15

     Aye.

191. 0:43:15

     Any opposed?

192. 0:43:16

     No.

193. 0:43:18

     The ayes have it. Bill passes, it'll go to rules.

194. 0:43:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

195. 0:43:22

     Okay. All right. Ms. Hong, you're back up.

196. 0:43:26

     Oh, thank you.

197. 0:43:30

     Okay. May I proceed, Chairman?

198. 0:43:48

     Go ahead.

199. 0:43:48

     Ready. Thank you, Chairman and members of committee. Um, I am proud to sponsor what we call Trey's, uh, Law today. That is, um, LC49-2538-EC. I'm carrying this on behalf of the governor, the first lady, and the Grace Commission. Um, been very grateful that I have been able to carry a lot of the first lady and Grace Commission's human trafficking bills since I've been in the House, and this is one more piece of legislation that is going to help victims, um, in, in our state.

200. 0:44:31

     What essentially this bill does, it's, it's going to prohibit the use of non-disclosure agreements, or NDAs, in civil settlements involving child sexual abuse, sexual abuse, and human trafficking. These NDAs silence survivors of sexual abuse in civil settlement agreements, and it forces victims to choose between compensation and their voice. The purpose of this law is to ensure that survivors can speak openly about the abuse they suffered, help expose abusers and negligent institutions, and prevent harmful secrecy in future cases.

201. 0:45:11

     Essentially, um, we've been seeing victims entering into civil settlement agreements, and they're forced to sign NDA agreements. And so later on they're not able to speak about the abuse in, um, in getting help, mental help, uh, mental health help. Um, they're not able to talk about their experience. Um, so essentially what this bill does is it frees survivors to share their stories, allows for mental health support, and uncover patterns of institutional silence and negligence.

202. 0:45:49

     Um, it essentially prio- prioritizes survivor voice and public safety over secrecy. Um, this law is named after Trey Carlock, um, who was a Texas resident who also lived in Atlanta for about four years growing up. He was sexually abused as a child at a summer camp, a summer camp, um, that, where Georgia is one of the camp's top markets. In his l- civil lawsuit, Trey was required to sign an NDA that prevented him from sharing his experience, and this legal silence contributed to a lifelong trauma, and he eventually took his life in 2019.

203. 0:46:32

     Um, I am joined here by Trey's sister, Elizabeth, today, who has been an advocate for this bill around the country, and we will be the fifth state to pass this law if it moves forward. So we will be, um, one of the lead states to enact this law as well. Um, if I may, Chairman, b- before I take questions, may I have Elizabeth make a quick statement?

204. 0:46:59

     Yeah, that, that mic is hot, so go ahead.

205. 0:47:01

     Thank you so much.

206. 0:47:03

     Good afternoon, Chair Gunt- Gunter and committee. My name is Elizabeth Phillips, and I'm in town here from Dallas, Texas, although I lived in Atlanta during my middle school years and have so many fond memories of growing up in Georgia. But today I'm going to share about some darkness that remains in this state, and I thank you for your support as I try to get through this. It's emotional, but it's very important. I'm here to speak on behalf of my late brother, Trey Carlock, the namesake of this bill. I adamantly support HB 1187 named in his honor.

207. 0:47:37

     First, I wanna thank bill author Representative Hong, the additional sponsors on this bill, and especially Governor and First Lady Kemp for making the protection of children a priority in this state. Georgia is now part of a national movement, joining states like Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri that say enough is enough. The silence of childhood abuse survivors in state civil courts is no longer for sale or up for negotiation. My late brother Trey was groomed and sexually and spiritually abused from the age of seven to 17 by a serial sex offender named Pete Newman, a camp director at Kanakuk Kountries based in Missouri, but with programs around the country and world.

208. 0:48:20

     Atlanta especially is one of Camp Kanakuk's largest markets. While Trey eventually saw his perpetrator sentenced to three life terms in Missouri in 2010, Trey was silenced in a civil settlement with Kanakuk that included a restrictive NDA when he sought to hold others involved accountable. Due to this NDA lawfully hushing Trey and so many other John Does from talking about what happened to him and everyone involved in the institutional cover-up, there was never justice or true accountability.

209. 0:48:52

     No one was fired or terminated as a result of this abuse, and the same leadership is in place today. His NDA, which I was finally able to see for the first time in September 2025 after we passed Trey's Law in Texas- was extremely intimidating and made him scared to share about his trauma, even in clinical and therapeutic settings. Because of Kanakuk's intimidating legal tactics and the NDA attached to settlement dollars Trey needed for healing, I have learned more about my brother's abuse and his death than I knew in his life.

210. 0:49:27

     He died by suicide in 2019 because he wasn't allowed to have a voice, and as anyone in psychology knows, that inhibits healing. A few days before he died by suicide, he told a therapist, "They will always control me, and I'll never be free." He was 28 years old. My brother played NYO baseball in Chastain Park. He was a soloist for the Atlanta's Boy C- Atlanta Boys Choir. He was beloved and talented and brilliant, and had such a bright future ahead of him. Instead, his life was ruined by Kanakuk's institutional abuse on top of the child sexual abuse that led to his death of despair.

211. 0:50:04

     We now know many other suicides associated with Kanakuk abuse, so this is a matter of life and death. This is an urgent matter of public safety and concern. I often say Trey had three abusers. First, the direct perpetrator. Secondly, the institution who knew of Newman's misconduct and promoted him anyways. And lastly, the system that failed him. The short statute of limitations on child sexual abuse and trafficking cases forced Trey to file civil litigation before he was ready, allowing NDAs, and also barring victims from the courts due to short SOLs, makes for a hopeless situation.

212. 0:50:45

     But today, this committee hearing is bringing hope. This room is packed because survivors are finally able to have a venue to be heard in Georgia. Georgia is making a loud and clear statement that this state stands with survivors and wants to hold bad actors accountable. Without traffic- without Trey's Law, civil settlements for child sexual abuse, sexual assault, and trafficking cases can include an NDA as a matter of standard practice in personal injury law. This is widespread, and we must give victims their voices back when they've already endured the unimaginable.

213. 0:51:20

     With your help and other legislators' support, Georgia can make a strong statement to survivors that they matter more than a liable institution's reputation, and that misusing NDAs, initially created to protect trade secrets, not trauma secrets, are no longer acceptable in the great state of Georgia. Since Trey's Law passed in Texas and Missouri, by the way, unanimously and with full bipartisan support, the floodgates have opened. We launched the hashtag #TruthSetFree, and I have heard from countless survivors of sexual abuse across the country and world who have been lawfully hushed in civil court.

214. 0:51:56

     Georgia was the first state where a governor has reached out to me and said this is a priority for him and the First Lady. I cried after I got that call because I finally felt momentum. I felt that lawmakers care, and they want to hear survivors' stories and protect victims' voices by eradicating the misuse of NDAs in these horrific situations. I'm with you, Georgia, and I stand with the many survivors who would like to testify today.

215. 0:52:27

     Let's break the cycle of shame-induced silence that predators rely on. Let's choose to act upon victims' cries for justice and freedom of speech so that they can have the freedom to heal. House Bill 1187 ensures that any clause or agreement intended to conceal the details of childhood sexual abuse is void and unenforceable as a matter of public policy. I'll end with this. There's a quote that says, "Shame dies when stories are told in safe places." By passing Trey's Law in Georgia, you are transforming the legal landscape of this state into a safe place for survivors to heal, for darkness to come to light, and for Trey's life and legacy to matter.

216. 0:53:10

     Let's set truth free. Thank you, and I'm willing to take any questions.

217. 0:53:15

     Okay. Any questions by the committee?

218. 0:53:22

     Mr. Chairman, I have one. Although, it's for the author.

219. 0:53:25

     Chairman Leverett.

220. 0:53:27

     Just, just, I, I think this is clear, but just for those attending, the, the effect of this would be prospective, correct? It's not retroactively nullifying previous NDAs, or is that the intention?

221. 0:53:39

     Um, I know that has come up, and I think that's still in discussion, um, at this moment, so we'll... And, uh, also, while we're talking about that, I think we did pick up on one more thing, is, um, on line 19, um, when we refer to code section 9-3-33.1, uh, regarding childhood sexual abuse, there's two definitions, um, in those two sections. And so, um, we're gonna go ahead and do a sub to refer to both of those sections to make sure that both of the definition for child sexual abuse is included in the bill.

222. 0:54:20

     All right. And Representative Holcomb.

223. 0:54:24

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'm very sorry for your loss. Um, second, I think to Chairman Leverett's point, is we can't abridge anything in contract that is retroactive. That's not operable. Um, but I, I do have a que- couple of questions. I, I'm very, very supportive of what you're trying to do. In listening to what you said, it sounds like your main priority is to ensure that there is no non-disclosure provision that would prohibit speaking about the underlying conduct.

224. 0:54:59

     I have a slight concern about the breadth of the term concealing the details, because I could see somebody arguing that just the settlement payment itself is trying to conceal the details. And, and so I don't know if- Anybody else on the committee sort of shares that? Because I wanna make sure this is as tight as possible to where you can't have, um, anyone try to circumvent it. Substantively, in terms of questions, would be, um, can you explain to me the last two lines, the except clause of the, "Except that identifying information of a victim of childhood sexual abuse shall be deemed and maintained as confidential"?

225. 0:55:43

     Is that for the bad actor that they have to keep it confidential? Like, how is that in practice play out?

226. 0:55:53

     Um, so a few things. Um, on the first portion, Representative, are you, are you saying we should piecemeal what can be n- null and void in an NDA? Is, is that what you were referring to?

227. 0:56:10

     I, I, I-

228. 0:56:11

     As far as, like, should the, the settlement amount or the-

229. 0:56:15

     I'm almost wondering-

230. 0:56:16

     Are you piecemealing it?

231. 0:56:17

     Sorry to talk over you. I'm almost wondering if it, it would be clear to just say something along the lines of, "Any non-disclosure provision contained in one of these types of settlements is not operative or void." In- instead of using a broader, um, phrase of concealing the details, because you just wouldn't want somebody to use a different part of the settlement agreement to, you know, try to get around it, unless, unless we want everything to be open, which I'm fine with that, too, in terms of-

232. 0:56:48

     That's, that was the purpose, is to have everything open-

233. 0:56:50

     So even the amount?

234. 0:56:51

     Other than... Correct.

235. 0:56:52

     Okay.

236. 0:56:53

     Other than the information of a victim of the abuse.

237. 0:56:58

     Okay. Okay. I, I think that makes sense. Um,

238. 0:57:05

     okay. And then can you help me with that, or did you already answer what the

239. 0:57:09

     Other than the information of the victim of this abuse. That's why there's an exception.

240. 0:57:18

     Okay.

241. 0:57:18

     So it shall be null and void, shall be void and unenforceable except that identifying information of the victim is, is gonna be confidential.

242. 0:57:31

     Okay.

243. 0:57:35

     I think, I, I think I understand. Um, all right. And then I'll, I'll ask this just be, i- in terms of with other states or, or otherwise. Like, again, coming from the viewpoint of being fully supportive of what you're trying to do, is there any concern whatsoever about this potentially being a chilling effect of keeping people from entering into settlements?

244. 0:58:00

     May I respond to that?

245. 0:58:02

     Sure.

246. 0:58:02

     We actually have empirical and anecdotal, uh, data on that issue, which is in the packets provided to the, the committee. There's, uh, been a study especially on the enactment of a similar law in California back in 2016.

247. 0:58:16

     Mm-hmm.

248. 0:58:17

     And that shows that it does not have a chilling effect. It does not, uh, affect settlement values. And what we did pass in Texas was retroactive, by the way, uh, because, um, we said that any existing NDAs, um, must have a special court order to remain in effect. So that got around the retroactivity constraint-

249. 0:58:34

     Mm-hmm

250. 0:58:34

     ... which is in the Bill of Rights in the State of Texas. So I just wanted to point that out as well, since you brought it up as, um, a concern, um, uh-

251. 0:58:43

     Yeah

252. 0:58:43

     ... to, to members here. Um, and we have suggested, um, some bill language that would also address the question you had about settlement values being protected. Our goal is to ensure that the ball is in the victim's court as to what information they want shared about their worst abuse. That is the North Star, and we're willing to work with the legislature on tweaking the language, and the bill sponsor, uh, has expressed that as well.

253. 0:59:06

     I, I think I got it. And if so, let me try to reflect back what I think that I heard, which is that this effectively would authorize the victim to release whatever he or she wanted to whatever extent and scope, and then at the same token, that individual's name would be concealed so that release could be done by some other party and not by the victim himself or herself so that anonymity could be retained. But that whoever the bad actor was would be known to the public that they were, in fact, a bad actor.

254. 0:59:41

     Is that correct?

255. 0:59:42

     Correct.

256. 0:59:43

     I got it. All right.

257. 0:59:43

     And that's how we keep the, uh, from passing the trash. That's how we warn the public about who the bad actors are and which institutions and other parties are liable for said abuse.

258. 0:59:54

     Okay. Thank you.

259. 0:59:55

     Thank you.

260. 0:59:57

     Vice Chair.

261. 0:59:58

     And I, um, if I can also... Uh, the way that this bill is wr- written, it, it is effective upon the governor's signature, so it will not be retroactive.

262. 1:00:06

     Okay. All right. Vice Chair Reeves.

263. 1:00:09

     Thank you, Chairman Gunter. Uh, every year, uh, the governor and first lady have been in office, they've moved the needle in a good direction on this, and I appreciate you and, and them bringing this bill. Uh, Friday night in our home county, Gwinnett County, Street Grace got another award for doing good work in this area. Um, our majority leader got a public service award, but Street Grace got it specifically for this. Last year, Attorney Jeff Shaw spent some time at the capital. He's with Freedom Collective. Uh, they are working, you know, in Georgia and around the country on, you know, things like this, of having recourse, uh, in the civil arena.

264. 1:00:45

     Some people, you know, jail time doesn't dissuade them. You gotta hit them in the pocketbook, too. So really appreciate y'all, uh, doing this. Um, you know, the claims are brought in, in the name of Jane Doe or John Doe in court. So this protects them in their settlement agreement, just like they are protected in court, the victims, but the perpetrators don't get that benefit. So really appreciate you bringing this. And this is just one more message to, you know, sex offenders and people preying on, uh, women and children, uh, State of Georgia. You know, uh, uh, we got the Super Bowl coming here in a couple years and the World Cup and all that.

265. 1:01:19

     Uh, this, this kind of stuff's not tolerated here.

266. 1:01:22

     Thank you.

267. 1:01:25

     Representative Evans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for the bill, and thank you for sharing your story of your brother. My kids play NYO baseball, so that, that hits a lot of us at the table really close, and thank you for your bravery. Um, I understand this is written not to be retroactive, and I understand the contracts clause, but given what you said about what happened in Texas, is that a possibility here for us to write something? I guess this is more for Representative Hong, like, can we write something that says they won't, you know, going forward, only if they are ratified by a court could they remain?

268. 1:02:02

     Because I, I want us to go as far as we absolutely can, um, but it seems like that would be a great additional step if we could possibly do it. I feel like there would be support around the table. Um, so just as- I hope ... um, Elizabeth had testified, in Texas, I think their constitution allowed it. Our Georgia consti- No. It... Is that what it... It's very similar to Georgia's constitution. Okay. But the loophole was that to ma- maintain and enforce an existing NDA, you would have to receive a special court order which allows that remedy that gets around the constitutional conflict in Texas, which is much actually stricter than Georgia's constitution.

269. 1:02:38

     And it's some- we've proposed it as a possibility. Um, this has also been filed in Alabama, Oklahoma, Kansas. Senator Cruz and Gillibrand are about to propose it federally as retroactive. So it's something that we hope to continue discussions around as advocates. And, and certainly we can discuss that too. To, to our knowledge, it's, it can't be because our Georgia constitution prohibits retroactive laws that impair contractual rights. So there's a section in our Georgia constitution that, that prohibits that.

270. 1:03:12

     So- Right. No, I understand. I mean, that's in the federal constitution. Well, I guess we'll look at that. So I just think if, I just think if Texas was able to figure it out, it might be the... I know we all as lawyers immediately think contracts clause. Mm-hmm. But I just want us to... I- if Texas figured out a way to do it, I'm thinking that maybe we could. It would be at least worth a look, and I take Representative Reeves' point that, yes, when you go to the point of having a civil lawsuit, yes, that defendant's name is not, is not John Doe. But so many of these cases settle before there's ever a lawsuit, and we all know that.

271. 1:03:45

     And those people are monsters. And they, they don't deserve to hide behind a cloak. And I think if there's any way that we can figure out to bring those names out, um, we should try. Because I, I get it. I get the contracts clause, and I, I don't want us to do anything that would put the overall law in jeopardy, but it just seems like there may be a way, and it seems like we should try instead of just assuming that we can't. Of course. We'll, we'll continue that conversation. Thank you, Representative. Vice Chair Reeves.

272. 1:04:15

     And I don't think that sex offender perpetrators, um, have the benefit of the contracts clause for criminal behavior of molesting children. Um, I, I, I don't think they can claim under that like, you know, uh, an insurance company on a contract matter or something like that. So I think, uh, keep, keep pushing that because I think you can, um, make this retroactive for that criminal, uh, behavior of preying upon children.

273. 1:04:44

     Anybody else?

274. 1:04:49

     All right. Um,

275. 1:04:53

     ladies and gentlemen, we have, uh, 10 persons that want to come up and speak. Everyone is in support of the bill, so I get that. Um, if you would, please, uh, our time is limited here. Actually, we, we should be ending about now, but, um, if you could just give us a few minutes and highlights and try not to repeat each other, that'd be great. I'm not gonna put time limits on you. Just be mindful of it.

276. 1:05:24

     All right?

277. 1:05:30

     Hale Swenson. Or Haley Swenson. I'm sorry. Is it Haley? It's Haley. Okay.

278. 1:05:42

     Sorry about that misreading. It's okay. Um, thanks for letting me be here. Uh, hello, committee, Chairman. Uh, my name is Haley Swenson. I'm here today in strong support of Trey's Law. There's a quote that stayed with me throughout my healing journey. "Justice is the final stage of healing, but justice only happens when leaders, institutions, uh, are willing to name the truth and willing to take responsibility for it." For me, this issue hits really hard.

279. 1:06:17

     While Trey's Law was born out of the devastating abuse scandal at Kanakuk Ministries, a tragedy that led to lifelong harm for many and to ultimate suicide for Trey and others, this issue is not isolated just to Missouri. As, uh, Elizabeth was sharing, even in, in, for Georgia, um, this issue is not isolated just to, to one state or one institution. I'm a survivor of sexual abuse here in Georgia at a university.

280. 1:06:48

     In my case, leaders used power, authority, fear, grooming, manipulation, and spiritual language to control and exploit. Abuse like this does not rely on physical force. It relies on silence, a power imbalance, and the fear of speaking out. When abuse happens, the harm does not end with the act itself.

281. 1:07:18

     Survivors are not believed. We are silenced. We are left confused and ashamed, blaming ourself for what was done to us.

282. 1:07:30

     For me, the aftermath included years of PTSD, disassociation, medical trauma, seizures, and a long road of counseling and spiritual unlearning just to survive. The damage is compounded when institutions prioritize protecting their reputation over protecting people. As Brené Brown said, "When an institution values power and money and image over human dignity, shame becomes systemic.

283. 1:08:07

     Accountability disappears, control and fear become management tools, and there is always a trail of devastation." I was never personally forced to sign an non-disclosure agreement, but there were others who tried to stand up for me that were made to sign NDAs.

284. 1:08:31

     Passing Trey's Law would help survivors like me in the state of Georgia move forward without fear of being threatened, silenced, or re-traumatized just by telling the truth.

285. 1:08:46

     It's been said, "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can change until it's faced." So today, you've been faced with the truth of what happened to Trey, what happened to someone in Georgia at a university here, and I urge you as elected officials to use the authority entrusted to you to advance and pass this legislation that protects Georgia's survivors and holds abusers accountable.

286. 1:09:19

     To any survivor that may also be in the room or listening, you're not alone. We are standing with you, and the light shines in the darkness. Darkness has not overcome it. Thank you for your time.

287. 1:09:30

     Okay. Thank you.

288. 1:09:35

     Afton Phillips.

289. 1:09:46

     Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Afton Phillips, and I'm an advocate for survivors of clergy sexual abuse through a grassroots online platform that amplifies survivor stories and documents systemic abuse of power in religious institutions. I worked for 12 years at a Christian nonprofit called Orange in Atlanta, Georgia. I gave my life to its mission. At its height, the organization served over 10,000 churches internationally, impacting millions of kids and teenagers.

290. 1:10:20

     Almost two years ago, our founder and CEO was exposed as a groomer and sexual abuser of multiple women within its ministries. This was the catalyst that launched my team's advocacy work. Through our online movement, we've shared experiences, uh, we've gathered experiences from many other women who shared similar experiences, women who were groomed and abused, some as minors, in a church setting. This problem isn't rare. My experience has made clear that abuse occurs far more frequently than people want to believe, in places that should be the safest, by leaders who are trusted, and against those who are the most vulnerable.

291. 1:10:55

     My experience has also taught me that when abuse comes to light, the fight for justice is far from over. When I learned what was happening in the organization I worked for, I expected and wholeheartedly believed the board and other leaders in power would act justly. Instead, the leaders I trusted were silent or minimized the harm or blamed victims or actively covered up the harm done for the sake of the abuser's reputation. I'm here today because something has to change. Survivors should not be silenced.

292. 1:11:26

     They should be supported by organizational leadership and amplified by legislation that exists to protect and defend them. The justice system should not be a place where abusers can hide and perpetrate further harm. Too often abusers have money, power, and influence, and in many states the law, to protect their image and silence their accusers. My hope is that Trey's Law would begin to correct this imbalance by ensuring that the legal system serves survivors rather than enabling further harm. Thank you for your consideration.

293. 1:11:55

     Thank you. Chuck Willis.

294. 1:12:07

     Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Chuck Wills, and I'm from Atlanta, Georgia. I'm here in support of the legislation to bring Trey's Law to our state. I attended Kanakuk from 2002 to 2015 and worked there for a summer. I also served in student ministry for North Point Ministries for over a decade. I'm here today because I care deeply about the safety of young people in ministry environments, and I'm close to this issue. Pete Newman brought me to faith. Joe White baptized me. However, Kanakuk's damage has ruined the lives of my friends and family.

295. 1:12:42

     I have, have had friends directly affected by non-disclosure agreements related to the abuse they've experienced at Kanakuk. I've seen firsthand how these agreements can silence survivors and prevent families from knowing the full truth. Here's what I know. When NDAs are used to conceal the details of childhood sexual abuse, it does not just impact one case. It can prevent pla- patterns from being recognized. It can prevent informed decision-making, and most urgently, it can allow harm to continue in the shadows.

296. 1:13:18

     This bill draws a clear and responsible line. It protects the confidentiality of victims' identities, um, but it prohibits agreements whose purpose or effect is to conceal the details of childhood sexual abuse. As someone who has spent much of my adult life in these ministry environments, I believe this legislation strengthens communities and families by prioritizing truth and accountability over reputation. Survivors deserve privacy. Institutions do not deserve secrecy.

297. 1:13:49

     Transparency protects children. I respectfully ask to, for you to support this bill, and thank you for your time.

298. 1:13:56

     Thank you. Christopher Epling.

299. 1:14:14

     Good afternoon. My name's, uh, Dr. Christopher Epling. I'd like to thank the chairman and members of the committee, uh, for your consideration of HB 1187. I live a little north of here in Alto, House District 27. Uh, I'd like to take a moment of your time to speak in favor of HB 1187. I'm an ordained Baptist minister, and I work in Christian higher education. While I am not a sexual abuse survivor, I have personal firsthand experience with being given a choice between signing an NDA and receiving a severance package or not signing and being fired outright with zero severance.

300. 1:14:50

     The reason for my termination, I believe, was to cover up what would come to be known as an alleged case of sexual abuse by an administrator with a student. That student would later become an employee of the university. I believe r- the reason I lost my job was for starting an investigation into this case and then attempting to get the president of the institution to perform a thorough investigation of the events in question. I was not allowed to continue any investigation into these matters. There may be appropriate reasons for certain organizations to use NDAs, such as protecting proprietary technology, techniques, or data from competitors.

301. 1:15:24

     There may, may, there may be some places where even faith-based institutions could be served by issuing an NDA, such as protecting salary information or giving records. The idea, however, that a faith-based organization, or any organization for that matter,

302. 1:15:43

     would use an NDA to keep a victim or a whistleblower quiet, that idea is unconscionable. In John 14:6, Jesus says, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." Now, I'm not here to debate the theology of this verse, but I feel that this verse points out a truth that bears on our discussion today. If someone in a position of power requires a person to suppress the truth, that mean, but through the means of any document, it seems to me that they are acting in a way that's antithetical to the life, character, and teachings of Jesus Christ.

303. 1:16:19

     I wish I could say this only happens in faraway places. That's not the case. This happens in our great state of Georgia. It happened to me. I wish I could say that people who claim to be followers of Christ did not resort to such tactics. That is not the case. This is perpetuated, sadly, by those who claim to speak on the behalf of God. I wish I could say that the stakes are not that high or the problem we're discussing is not that bad. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not the case.

304. 1:16:51

     The stakes are the lives of children, ladies, mothers, daughters, men, sons, and others that you and I love. The stakes could not be higher. We need laws in this state like HB 1187. I'm eternally grateful that you're considering it and any others that protect those who are victims of these heinous acts or those trying to bring to light the types of atro- these types of atrocities. I implore you to pass HB 1187 and other bills like it. Thank you.

305. 1:17:21

     Thank you. Elizabeth Phillips. Oh, I'm sorry. Wait a minute. Hold on. Uh, I left somebody off. Vice Chair Reeves.

306. 1:17:32

     I thought of something as you were saying, um, you, you have custody of the minors. Um, uh, mandatory reporting, that's been the law in Georgia since 2012 or earlier, right? So if somebody who had, you know, care over a minor and they knew about sexual abuse, and instead of reporting that sexual abuse they were obligated by law to do, they had the minor and the minor's family do an NDA, that's the opposite of what the law required, right?

307. 1:18:02

     So that would be-

308. 1:18:03

     Oh

309. 1:18:03

     ... an illegal contract in Georgia that they wouldn't be able to claim this retroactive argument, uh, under, I believe. So that's, that's just something to look into there about mandatory reporting being the way to wipe out this retroactive argument that, uh, child molesters may make.

310. 1:18:20

     Okay. Okay. You, any other questions?

311. 1:18:27

     All right. Elizabeth Phillips.

312. 1:18:29

     She's, she's already spoken.

313. 1:18:30

     Oh, I'm sorry. Ruth Mahorta? Mahorta.

314. 1:18:38

     Thank you.

315. 1:18:38

     Hope I got that right.

316. 1:18:39

     Yes, you did. I know it's a hard one to say. Thank you so much, Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Ruth Mahorta, and I'm here to testify in favor of House Bill 1187. I am a lifelong Georgia resident, and I was actually one of the whistleblowers in the Ravi Zacharias abuse crisis. For nearly a decade, I served as the spokesperson for RZIM, an international Christian ministry that was headquartered here in Alpharetta, Georgia, founded by Ravi Zacharias. I believed deeply in its mission, and I also believed that the people I was working for were telling me the truth.

317. 1:19:16

     I never imagined that I would have a front row seat to one of the biggest sexual abuse scandals in modern evangelicalism, and what I witnessed still haunts me today. In 2017, when a woman came forward with allegations of sexual and spiritual abuse, the response was not transparency or investigation. It was containment, a financial settlement paired with a draconian nondisclosure agreement that permanently silenced her. I was asked to defend that outcome publicly, even as serious questions were raised privately and dismissed.

318. 1:19:49

     The NDA did not protect justice. It protected power. After Ravi Zacharias' death, multiple women from within and beyond the Atlanta area came forward with credible allegations of sexual abuse. An independent investigation in which I became a key witness confirmed a long-term pattern of abuse and misconduct. By then, it was painfully clear that the silence had not prevented harm, but rather had enabled it, as many of these women had been under restrictive NDAs.

319. 1:20:20

     The decision to blow the whistle was clear for me, but the cost was high. My employer labeled me unsafe for going public and terminated me without severance when I refused to sign an NDA. All I wanted was to turn the lights on and push for truth and transparency. And while I've received widespread support from allies in this fight, many are who are in this room, I'm still wrestling with my own complicity from years in a celebrity-driven machine that covered for the guy at the top while silencing those who sought justice.

320. 1:20:54

     Sadly, as you heard, this story is not unique. Clergy sexual abuse is rampant and well-documented across denominations, faith traditions, different institutions impacting all age groups and ethnicities. Time and again, NDAs suppress disclosure, isolate victims, and shield organizations from scrutiny. They don't just silence individuals, they conceal patterns. They're not neutral legal tools. I know others have spoken to that.

321. 1:21:25

     Um, rather, survivors are asked to trade their voices for safety, stability, or closure. That's not a fair bargain, and it's certainly not justice. Trey's Law would draw a necessary and principle boundary across the use of NDAs. As we've heard, survivors of abuse should never be contractually muzzled for the price of being believed, compensated, or allowed to move forward with their lives. In closing, I'll just say that the last time I testified here at the Georgia Capitol was twenty years ago.

322. 1:21:56

     I was a college student at Georgia Tech fighting for the free speech rights of students on our campuses. Many of you in this room were supportive of that effort. Today, I come here again, this time to advocate for the free speech of victims who were told that their silence was the price of survival. This is not a partisan issue. It's about accountability, transparency, and basic human dignity, values I trust that you all champion. No matter our political affiliation, I hope we can agree that protecting vulnerable people is more important than protecting the reputations of the powerful.

323. 1:22:32

     The truth will set us free always, even when it's disruptive truth. I urge you to support House Bill 1187, Trey's Law, and to stand together in affirming that here in Georgia, justice requires truth, not silence. Thank you.

324. 1:22:49

     Thank you.

325. 1:22:52

     Uh, Cindy Clemishire?

326. 1:22:57

     I know I probably butchered that one, so.

327. 1:22:59

     No, you did great.

328. 1:23:00

     Oh, okay.

329. 1:23:00

     Thank you.

330. 1:23:04

     Hello, and as you said, my name is Cindy Clemishire. I am here from Oklahoma. Um, I, I grew up in a small town, Hominy, Oklahoma. And at the age of twelve years old, I was groomed and abused by a predator disguised as a preacher. Robert Morris was a traveling evangelist from Texas at the time, and later became the founding pastor of Gateway Church in Southlake, Texas. He and his wife and children stayed in my family's home when he would come to preach at our church, and they quickly became family friends, people that my parents and others in the community trusted.

331. 1:23:41

     My abuse started on Christmas night, December 25th of 1982. That was the night Robert Morris made the premeditated decision to violate and defile my innocence and purity. I want to be clear with you so you understand exactly what we're talking about when we say the word abuse. This man, trusted by so many as a preacher of God's Word, took advantage of a vulnerable child. I remember exactly what I was wearing, my favorite pink pajamas and bloomers with the robe snapped completely up.

332. 1:24:18

     However, he found a way to get through that, and in, by Oklahoma standards, considered, it is considered rape by instrumentation, what he did to me on Christmas night. He touched me, um, for many years after that. It continued. The word rape often suggests brutality, but these predators are calculated. They don't just groom the child.

333. 1:24:49

     They groom the parents and others around them to gain access. The abuse is often subtle, gentle, not to protect the child, but to keep the child confused and quiet. The first time Robert ever assaulted me, the first thing he said to me was, "You can never tell anyone, or it will ruin everything." The abuse and rape continued countless times over the next four years until I did finally tell at age seventeen.

334. 1:25:19

     Sadly, when I told, it seemed as though Robert was right. The truth, I told the truth, and it did seem to ruin at least everything in my world. Friendships ended. Marriages of mutual family friends fell apart. My relationships with others changed instantly, and at just seventeen years old, I thought it was all my fault. As I began the lifelong journey of dealing with the aftermath of child sexual abuse, my life seemed to attract more shame because shame often attracts more shame, while Robert attracted more fame.

335. 1:25:58

     I was in one, in, in and out of marriages and spent over a decade in counseling and tried to find healing through various churches and seminars. I was searching for understanding, for peace, and for forgiveness. By two thousand and seven, twenty years after the abuse ended, I contacted my attorney in hopes to re-recover some of my counseling expenses. My attorney, who happens to now be the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Gittner Drummond, sent a letter asking for fifty thousand dollars, just enough to cover the cost of counseling.

336. 1:26:34

     Robert's attorney responded not with compassion, but with a letter accusing me, a twelve-year-old little girl, of pursuing my abuser. They countered with twenty-five thousand dollars as long as I would sign a non-disclosure agreement, which I refused. Had I agreed to that NDA, Robert would have continued to have power over me. Instead, I kept telling people, I kept seeking truth, and I kept healing.

337. 1:27:08

     Because I refused to sign that NDA in two thousand and seven at the age of thirty-seven years old, on March 12th of twenty twenty-five, my abuser was indicted by the Oklahoma Grand Jury on five counts of lewd acts with a child. Because I refused to sign that NDA, on October second of twenty twenty-five, Robert Morris pled guilty to all five counts and is now sitting behind bars in the Osage County Jail.

338. 1:27:42

     He will serve six months behind bars and the remaining ten-year sentence at home.

339. 1:27:50

     Because I refused to sign that NDA, I can sit here today at fifty six years old, a mom of three boys and a grandmother of three.

340. 1:28:02

     It's really five because I have a couple step grandkids too, three stepkids. Um, and that's what happens when survivors are not silenced. NDAs may pre- be presented as legal formalities, but in cases like mine and Trey's,

341. 1:28:22

     they are tools that continue the abuse. They protect the abuser and keep victims in shame. They prevent children from being protected and make it harder to stop abuse from happening again. The only way we will ever have a chance at ending child sexual abuse is to tell the truth, to speak it, share it, and expose it. When NDAs are used to silence victims, we're not protecting the victims and their families, we are protecting the people destroying them.

342. 1:28:58

     Lastly, I, I'm going to add a little bit to the sentence that I did say in Texas.

343. 1:29:07

     Anyone who doesn't support Trey's Law, waters it down, or prevents it from being passed, or doesn't wanna find a loophole to make it retroactive, my question is who are you trying to protect and why? Thank you.

344. 1:29:29

     Thank you. Holly Haynes?

345. 1:29:35

     She's not here. She, she sent her written testimony. Oh, we have it in the file?

346. 1:29:44

     We have someone here on her behalf. Oh, okay. She can give it aloud after, um- I'll, uh, refer to the file for everyone. All right. And Teddy Perkins?

347. 1:30:04

     Good afternoon, Chair Gunter and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Teddy Perkins, and I live here in Atlanta. I work as a clinical trauma therapist and have completed six additional years of graduate research on sexual violence prevention and response. There's a famous fairy tale written by Hans Christian Andersen and later developed into a classic Disney movie about a little mermaid. In this story, the villain presents the young girl with a cruel dialectic. If she wants to walk freely among people on the Earth, she must give up her voice. The evil of this offer is found in the exploitation of Ariel's desire for agency, the promise of the world in exchange for the freedom to speak.

348. 1:30:40

     I am here today as someone who has been personally and professionally impacted by the real-life analog of this fairy tale, a cruelty that is unfortunately not at all rare. It is a common and well-established practice for victims of sexual violence who pursue criminal recourse to be cajoled into signing NDAs, either as independent documents or as clauses in longer settlement forms. Traumatologists often reference a phenomenon called secondary victimization. In the aftermath of sexual abuse and assault, when victims have already had their agency stripped from them, the injury is further compounded by subsequent harm enacted by institutions, courts, or society.

349. 1:31:19

     NDAs are an especially violent weapon of secondary victimization. Not only th- do they extend and expand the forced abnegation of agency from the primary assault, they also strip survivors of the most sacred parts of themselves, their stories. On an individual level, NDAs inhibit the possibility of connection required to facilitate healing after trauma. And on a societal level, NDAs prevent communities from accessing the data they need to recognize patterns of harm, apprehend abusers, and develop policy measures to appropriately and effectively mitigate the continuance of sexual violence.

350. 1:31:55

     I have seen in my work NDAs used by churches, childcare centers Hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, schools, and nonprofits. Some of these nonprofits ironically claim to be on the front lines of sexual violence prevention. It is a cudgel that enables people who have the power to protect children to shirk that responsibility, avoid accountability, and pretend ignorance at the expense of present and future victims. I am here today on behalf of those who have been silenced, some to the point of catastrophic mental energy, injury, others to the point of death.

351. 1:32:32

     Imagine supporting someone who has ex- significant trauma related to trafficking or abuse but is trapped under an NDA. Imagine watching them navigate the psychological consequences of trauma, the panic, the dissociation, the nightmares, the terror, the addiction, the self-harm. And now imagine they are not allowed to tell anyone, not their therapists, not their families, not their partners, not their siblings, not their friends about anything that is happening in their heads. Imagine being in the victim's shoes.

352. 1:33:03

     That loneliness is reified. It is made interminable through an NDA. I respectfully urge you to advance this law. The villainy is so apparent it is the driving force of a children's bedtime story, a Disney cartoon. No one should be pressured, coerced, or enabled to trade their stories, especially not in the name of justice. Secrets should not be allowed to die in darkness. Survivors should not be sentenced to a life in the shadows. Thank you for your consideration. I'm happy to answer any questions.

353. 1:33:34

     All right. I don't see any questions. Thank you. Kitty Mayo.

354. 1:33:47

     I have copies for everybody. Okay.

355. 1:33:55

     Good morning. I recognize a few of your faces. I've worked with some of you on some other legislation regarding children, and I'm here today. My name is Kitty Mayo. I am the founder of Georgia Protective Parents. We are a nonprofit, and we are a group of concerned Georgia families who advocate and with legislators on reform for courts and state protection for children. I am here today to stand in unwavering support of Trey's Law.

356. 1:34:25

     Our organization represents families who have walked through the fire of the Georgia court system to protect their children from harm. We have soon-- We have seen where the law works, and we have definitely seen where the law does not. Today, we are discussing one of the most dangerous failures, and that is non-disclosure agreements. Um, in the dark corners of our legal system, these gag orders, if you will, have been repurposed as a tool to buy the silence of adults as, who were abused as children or even witnessed this deviance.

357. 1:35:04

     Today, we are asking you, is an institution's reputation worth more than a person's life? My stance on this isn't just based on my work as an advocate, it is also rooted in my background. I am a pastor's daughter and a former children's pastor. I have spent years working with church staffs and seen the inner workings of the organizations that are built and promised to be safe havens. I have seen the bad side of silence, and I have seen what happens when an organization is driven by misguided sense of protecting the mission instead of protecting their flock.

358. 1:35:47

     Choose-- They have to choose a settlement check to ensure a victim never speaks again. When we silence a survivor, we don't just protect the abuser, we empower them. We allow them to move from church to church, from organization to organization, from community center to the next when there is no public record of their wreckage that they have left behind. In my experience, this is a slow-burning trauma that destroys the survivor while the institution pretends the problem has been solved.

359. 1:36:24

     An NDA tells a survivor that their pain is a liability and their voice is a threat. Tragically, Trey died. He is no longer here. He's no longer here to advocate for himself, but we will.

360. 1:36:43

     But his story is a haunting reminder that while an NDA may protect a balance sheet or a company's image, it can break a human soul. We cannot continue to allow our legal system to facilitate the spiritual and emotional execution of survivors. As a founder of Georgia Protective Parents, we are taking a stand because we know the cycle that abuse thrives in the dark. When a predator or negligent organization knows that they can settle their way out of public accountability, the incentive to change never arrives.

361. 1:37:21

     Opponents of this bill m- may argue that NDAs provide closure for family. But as someone who works with protective parents every day, I assure you there is no closure with gag orders or NDAs. True healing requires the freedom to speak, to warn others, and to ensure that your nightmare isn't repeated to the family next door.

362. 1:37:47

     Georgia has the opportunity to lead. I was raised as a pastor's daughter to believe that the truth sets you free, but our current law allows the truth to be purchased and locked away in a drawer

363. 1:38:00

     By passing Trey's Law, you are declaring that in the state of Georgia, a child's safety is not negotiable and is, and it, or is not a commodity. You are telling survivors that their voices are more valued than an institution's PR strategy. Let's stop protecting the bad actors and start protecting the children. Let's pass Trey's Law and finally give truth the light it deserves. Thank you.

364. 1:38:27

     Okay. All right. Thank you, ma'am. All right. That's all the folks I have on the list. Is there anybody that might have missed getting on the list?

365. 1:38:39

     Back here.

366. 1:38:39

     You wanna come up?

367. 1:38:50

     Just tell us your name and what you're, what you want, what you want us to know.

368. 1:38:56

     Okay. It'll be really quick, because everybody else has already given a broad and very detailed account to what's going on. My name is Dr. Margie Gill, and I am the chair of work group seven, work group nine, the Human Trafficking Task Force here in the State of Georgia. I sit on two committees because this is my passion. I strongly believe that this law that we're talk- this bill that we're talking about today, it really needs to be passed, because I work with survivors day in and day out of all ages, all genders, all races throughout the State of Georgia.

369. 1:39:33

     The organization that I represent is Tabitha's House. We are one of the leading organizations here in the State of Georgia. We work with Jeff Shaw. We work with Wellsprings Living. The, we are one of the main contact locations for the state. Um, as it relates to the biological functions, there is empirically validated research that shows the trau- what trauma does to the brain. When I am not in the role of executive director and founder of Tabitha's House, I work at Brenau University as a full psychology professor.

370. 1:40:07

     And so in that role, I'm teaching other grad students and other clinicians how to work with people who have been exposed to trauma, and so that they fully understand how the brain changes when trauma presents. When that trauma presents, even if it's at five years old, the brain halts development, and that person has to go through extensive treatment in order to... I, I can't say that they will ever, their chronological age will ever match their developmental age.

371. 1:40:40

     They learn how to function. And so I just wanted to just shed more insight and more light on the impact of trauma, the role of, you know, just having the support of the committee to advance the bill that's presented before you today. W- do you have any questions?

372. 1:41:01

     I don't see any. Thank you very much.

373. 1:41:02

     Thank you.

374. 1:41:04

     Anybody else, just to make sure? All right. Ms. Hong, anything y- else you wanna tell us?

375. 1:41:12

     Um, I just wanna thank everyone for coming and, um, and having the courage to share their stories, and I ask this committee to pass HB1187.

376. 1:41:22

     Okay. As is or with amendments?

377. 1:41:25

     Um, it, I'd be happy to entertain any amendments if, um, committee members have any language, but we will be working on the retroactive, um, as Representative Evans mentioned, and, um, if there's any other suggestions-

378. 1:41:45

     Okay

379. 1:41:45

     ... or amendments, I'd be happy to.

380. 1:41:47

     All right. Vice Chair Reeves.

381. 1:41:49

     Motion at the appropriate time.

382. 1:41:51

     Uh, let's go ahead and make that motion.

383. 1:41:52

     Move do pass.

384. 1:41:53

     Second.

385. 1:41:54

     All right, I got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Representative Evans.

386. 1:42:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, while we were here, I was able to go back and look at the Texas law, and I compared Texas' constitution to our constitution, to the US Constitution. Essentially, the contracts clause in all three of those is the same.

387. 1:42:14

     Mm-hmm.

388. 1:42:15

     Um, and it looks like the Texas language, the way they got around it was there is a public policy exception to the contracts clause. And I think combine a statement about these provisions being against public policy, it being very tight and excluding, uh, or allowing the continuation of the ability to keep, like, the amount secret. It's just, just the, um, the sexual abuse and, um, acts relating to the sexual abuse, it's very specific.

389. 1:42:46

     And then it also had language that said that you, you could only enforce a prior agreement that kept you from talking about these things if you had a declaratory judgment from a court. So I think that's the, that's sort of a two-pronged way to protect it. I just sent that language brought to you and also to Ms. Little outside. If, if somebody could print that, they could pass it around, um, I think it would work. I think this committee could probably wordsmith whatever was left over. But to me, the language, and I wish we h- we'll, we'll hopefully have it in front of us in a minute, um, would do right by victims, um, but also keep us true to the rule of law.

390. 1:43:29

     Um, but show us to be what we are, which I think is people of goodwill who want to try. Um, and I'd, I'd, I believe we would be being allegiant to both of our duties here if we were to pass something like this. Um, so that language will hopefully come around. And, um, it's a little bit of discussion, too. I, I wanted to ask the chairman, uh, I don't know if the question would be appropriate to you, Chairman or Vice Chairman or Representative Hong. Um, I know the last time we really talked about bills that got to childhood sexual assault, we had a lot of folks come in here and testify for protective measures, just like we had today, which is really hard to do, and this committee listened, um, which is our duty and our obligation.

391. 1:44:16

     But there was all of this, um- There were a lot of folks outside that were opposed to what we were trying to do, and they testified in the dark. They sent their objection in the dark, and I was wondering if the chairman or Representative Hong could share if they have been approached in the negative on this, and those folks were just not strong or just not willing to let their faces be shown here today and said that they were against something like this, for the good of the committee to know.

392. 1:44:47

     I, I have not heard from anyone opposing this legislation.

393. 1:44:53

     I don't recall that either.

394. 1:44:54

     Excellent.

395. 1:44:55

     And I, yeah, I have not and, and, uh, I've got confidence in Vice Chair Hong and the governor's office to, uh, get a legally enforceable, um, retroactive application because I think it's an illegal contract under 1381 for somebody to, to get an NDA for childhood sexual abuse. I think it's illegal.

396. 1:45:17

     I will say as the language is coming around, I do think, um, you'll need to add back in, Texas had a, a different way of defining sexual abuse and I think we were referring to code sections. That would need to be added into this language. Um, but this I think are the applicable parts of the Texas law that I think would allow us to do what it feels like is the will of the committee to do here.

397. 1:45:42

     Okay.

398. 1:45:44

     And this would probably be inserted, um, line 16 through 22, I think would be the, how this would work if you also add in the definition of sexual abuse.

399. 1:45:59

     Representative Hong.

400. 1:46:01

     Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I wanted to, um, just personally thank everybody that testified. It was very, very helpful. Um, and so thank you for your courage in coming forward. I have very little personal experience with, um, child abuse, but I have a significant amount of experience with sexual abuse of adults by, uh, many interactions with both advocates and survivors, and the neurobiology of trauma is real, and it's significant, and it's long lasting. And there is a real societal impact on the relationships that, uh, the victims then have later in life.

401. 1:46:40

     And it strikes me that one of the other benefits to this legislation, besides what has been expressed in terms of prohibiting and, and preventing additional harm because of the, um, the confidentiality of treatment is, while likely somewhat minor but still minor matters because it can impact individual lives, would be this could potentially operate as a disincentive for people to know that this isn't gonna be something that's hidden just because you can afford to write a check.

402. 1:47:15

     And I also support what Representative Evans is trying to do. Thank you.

403. 1:47:25

     All right.

404. 1:47:28

     I, I have a copy.

405. 1:47:29

     Oh, yeah.

406. 1:47:30

     Oh, sorry.

407. 1:47:32

     Those, those sections are good. We probably need to add the word childhood too.

408. 1:47:40

     Right. Every word sexual abuse or childhood abuse.

409. 1:47:43

     Yeah.

410. 1:47:47

     Yeah.

411. 1:47:47

     All right. I think at this time, do I hear any motions for amending

412. 1:47:57

     the bill?

413. 1:48:02

     Representative Evans.

414. 1:48:03

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, I would, I would move, or if the representative would accept it as a friendly amendment to substitute lines 16 through 22 with the language that's been circulated with, um, a couple of, uh, additions to the printed language, which would be that the term sexual abuse would be substituted for childhood sexual abuse, and that the first instance of that term would say as defined in code section, and then Representative Hong would fill in those two code sections.

415. 1:48:36

     Um, but that would be the, um, either amendment to move or an amendment to, um, proffer as a friendly amendment.

416. 1:48:54

     Okay.

417. 1:48:54

     Chairman, um, given that this is the first time I'm looking at the language, I, um, would... We can go ahead and make any changes in a sub, but, um, I would like to pass it as is at this time.

418. 1:49:14

     In response to her, um, Representative Evans asking if it's a friendly amendment, certainly we're gonna look at it.

419. 1:49:20

     Mm-hmm.

420. 1:49:20

     Um, it is not that we oppose it. We just wanna s- go through the language and make sure...

421. 1:49:29

     Well, I'll, I'll-

422. 1:49:30

     So-

423. 1:49:30

     ... I'll move it if it, if it won't be accepted as friendly.

424. 1:49:33

     So do you, do you want this passed today or you want me to take, have, or hold it until next meeting?

425. 1:49:41

     I'll, I'll leave that up to you, Chairman. If we do, I know there was a, a move to pass, and we would like to have it passed as is, um, if we can move forward, um, so that we can work on a sub, or if the chairman wishes, we can go ahead and come back. I would like to see this pass given the fact that we have many who are here, um, and I, I would not want them to be coming back for another committee hearing because I know several have traveled a lot-

426. 1:50:11

     Right

427. 1:50:11

     ... um, to be here. And certainly I'll be in contact with them as far as if there's any subs. And again, it's, it's not that I oppose the language. It is just that I want to make sure that we're looking at it, um, and we're looking at, uh- You know, I want to make sure that we're able to do this and, um, and do some research.

428. 1:50:33

     Okay.

429. 1:50:45

     I'll move it. If it's the will of the committee to vote down the amendment, that's fine, and I, I just want us to do the best we can. This is a committee of learned attorneys. Um, the State of Texas had the courage to do, uh, a bill that included the language that I've passed around as an amendment. Um, I've explained why I think it would pass constitutional muster, and why it would be about the best thing I could think that this committee could do to make sure that we are protecting the most victims of childhood sexual assault as possible.

430. 1:51:18

     If we, if we pass it out of here, the next opportunity we have to amend it would be in rules, I think. So ...

431. 1:51:26

     Which is not easy.

432. 1:51:27

     Yeah, that's not easy. Um, so that's why I'm trying to figure out, either we take a rec- recess today and look it over and see if we can't come to a conclusion, and then come back in here and vote it in or vote it out, whichever way you see it, and then, uh, and then have a final vote to get it to rules. But that, we're gonna need to, to break, and it's gonna take a little while for us to figure that out, so ...

433. 1:52:02

     Well, I'll move it, Chairman.

434. 1:52:03

     So I'll move that.

435. 1:52:03

     I'll move it, and we'll see. I mean, the committee will do what they do.

436. 1:52:06

     Okay. So, all right.

437. 1:52:11

     Is there a second on that?

438. 1:52:13

     Second. Okay, we have a second. A motion and a second on the amendment. Uh, has everybody had a chance to look at it? Any questions or discussion about it before we vote?

439. 1:52:27

     All right, hearing none, all those in favor of the amendment say aye.

440. 1:52:32

     Aye.

441. 1:52:33

     Any opposed? Okay, the amendment's in.

442. 1:52:43

     We need to do the bill as amended.

443. 1:52:44

     All right. Is, is, is there any further discussion, any other ame- amendments to the bill? Hearing none, all those in favor of the bill say aye.

444. 1:52:52

     Aye.

445. 1:52:52

     As amended? Any opposed? All right, the bill's passed.

446. 1:52:57

     Thank you, committee. Thank you, Chairman.

447. 1:53:04

     Okay.

448. 1:53:10

     One more.

449. 1:53:14

     Oh, gosh, man. All right, we got one more bill.

450. 1:53:21

     Hey, sir, these are the things we said we would pass out. Can I just give them to you?

451. 1:53:29

     You want to say something to the committee? Oh, we had these.

452. 1:53:32

     1042.

453. 1:53:33

     Oh, 1042. Yeah, okay.

454. 1:53:38

     All right, next we're taking up House Bill 1042, and I'll call on, uh, Vice Chair Reeves to explain the bill.

455. 1:53:46

     We're returning to House Bill 1042 from the other day. We've got LC 49-2632S. I appreciate input from various members of the committee and others, uh, at the last hearing. There are no changes to the judicial security portion of the bill or the special master portion of the bill. On page two, the top half of the page, we did add cash back in. Uh, we did keep cashier's checks in addition to cash. Uh, we updated certified check to certified funds, and then we added credit unions in in addition to FDIC and savings and loans.

456. 1:54:23

     And then, um, we codify credit bids, uh, which based on Peachtree Homes state court case, and Bullock versus New T- New Tech federal court case, and many other cases, um, is the current practice in, uh, reported case law legal landscape, which gets codified here. So respectfully request your approval of, uh, LC 49-2632, House Bill 1042.

457. 1:54:49

     You're a pretty good fella, man.

458. 1:54:53

     All right, I got, uh ... I'll tell you what I'm gonna say.

459. 1:54:54

     Hezzy, tell him what everything says.

460. 1:54:55

     Hang on. I got, um, Chairman Smith.

461. 1:54:59

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you Vice Chairman Reeves for your brilliant, uh, wordsmithing and making this a lot better, uh, piece of legislation. It, it was good before, but now it's great. Do have a question. Lines 25 through 27. Just wanted to make sure in, in reading that language, uh, at first glance, just wanted to make sure that, uh, there's not a way within that language for someone to still prohibit someone using cash to pay.

462. 1:55:33

     Correct. This would be the, the lender conducting the sale, not the buyer.

463. 1:55:39

     Okay.

464. 1:55:39

     So the buyer can still bring cash, cashier's check, or certified funds.

465. 1:55:43

     Okay. Thank you.

466. 1:55:45

     Okay. And Chairman Leverett?

467. 1:55:48

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, that, that was exactly my question, too. I, I ... A- and this, this was my thinking. When this, that language initially was inserted, we were gonna be striking cash. If we're leaving cash in, did we need to say in lieu of cash or a s- cashier's or certified check?

468. 1:56:05

     I, I would be fine if you want to add cash in on line 27, uh, after in lieu of insert cash, comma, cashier's check or certified funds. Uh, I see that certified check got left in there, so cash, comma, cashier's check, comma, or certified funds would be a friendly amendment, or I would offer that amendment.

469. 1:56:31

     Appropriate ti- this is appropriate for a second on that yet, Mr. Chairman?

470. 1:56:34

     Not yet.

471. 1:56:35

     Okay.

472. 1:56:36

     All right. Any fur-

473. 1:56:37

     Well, I, I'd like to reserve my spot if I can.

474. 1:56:39

     You got it. All right. Any further discussion on the bill?

475. 1:56:44

     Move to pass.

476. 1:56:45

     Second. All right, got a motion and a second. All right. Now, now would be the time for the amendment.

477. 1:56:53

     Well, uh, all right. It, uh, I think, I thought Representative Reeves was good, but I'll, I'll, I'll move if Representative Reeves doesn't mind me making that motion to amend in accordance with the, uh, amendment he proposed.

478. 1:57:04

     Everybody understand the amendment?

479. 1:57:06

     I believe it was to just make the, the, the end of line 27 read in lieu of cash, comma, a cashier's check, comma, or certified funds. Changing check at the very end of funds to make it consistent with the language earlier in the bill.

480. 1:57:22

     All right. Second the amendment, I guess. Did we get a second in? All right. Yeah. Motion and a second on the amendment. Any further discussion on the amendment?

481. 1:57:33

     Any other amendments?

482. 1:57:38

     All right, let's see. All those in favor of the amendment, uh, as stated by Chairman Leverett, say aye.

483. 1:57:47

     Aye.

484. 1:57:47

     Any opposed?

485. 1:57:48

     Nay.

486. 1:57:49

     All right, we have that on. Any further discussion about the bill? Any other amendments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the bill say aye.

487. 1:57:58

     Aye.

488. 1:57:58

     Any opposed? All right, bill passes. And we're done. Thank you.

489. 1:58:06

     William.

490. 1:58:06

     All right, I'm gonna come, come back and see you guys outside.

491. 1:58:10

     That's fine.