Senate Finance Committee, February 18, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1165812933 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1165812933#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-02-18/senate-finance This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:20:25] Members up here, we're, we're gonna get started on the meeting. Um, public, public safety is still going upstairs. They should be joining us pretty quick down here. Um, Senator, uh, Lee Anderson, would you do the invocation? You'll need to go to the next mic. I think that one probably still doesn't work. [0:20:48] Let us pray. Dear Father, thank you for this beautiful day you've given us, dear Lord, and just thank you for all the many blessings that you've bestowed upon us. Dear Lord, give us the wisdom and knowledge to do the right, make the right decision for the great people of the great state of Georgia. Again, we wanna pause and thank you for loving us. And dear Lord, like, again, thank you for your many blessings. Forgive us for our sins. In your name's sake, amen. [0:21:20] All right. Um, [0:21:27] we're gonna, uh, get going. Well, the first item we're gonna talk about is data centers. Now, we had testimony the last meeting on data centers, so we, we're gonna be really limited, um, time-wise on what we can do on it again. Um, we, we've heard several bills on data centers, as a matter of fact. Um, there's a sub in here that is a, uh, kind of a combination of things from Senator Orrock, Senator Brass, and, um, we had one other as well we looked at. [0:21:59] So the fiscal note for this, we haven't gotten the updated fiscal note, and I can explain later what would probably happen on this, um, under this scenario. Um... [0:22:24] All right. Um, go into the sub here a little bit what we have. There's Senator Brass with us now. You can come on up here. [0:22:35] So one of the things we've, we've seen on these numbers, and we've really had a hard time getting good numbers, I think a conversation for another day is gonna be, you know, the Department of Revenue has confidentiality, and when we couldn't get some numbers earlier, they actually weren't providing them to Georgia State FRC because they said the, the amount is so low that we would lose the confidentiality of those that are getting the credits. So I think that's something we might wanna address in the future is if you're getting millions and millions of dollars in credits, do you, do you have confidentiality because we're unable as legislators to get the correct numbers. [0:23:13] And so now they've blown up on us, um, once they started getting the correct numbers over to FRC. This bill, um, and leg council worked on this, um, and he c- you can also address questions to him if you, if you want to or if I'm stating it wrong. But the sub that sort of combines the several, it says that, um, first the section one deals with the, uh, computer equipment credit, and basically it's saying that you can't double-dip in it. [0:23:47] You can't take the data center credit and the computer equipment credit. Um, that one is set to, uh, sunset December 31st, 2028. Now, the last time this was done in 2022, it was extended five years, and the data center credit over the vote of a number of people here was extended for 10 years. Um, or they would've both been sunsetting at that time. [0:24:18] So this is saying that you can't double-dip and get that credit as well because if you saw, I think the, the AJC on the front page Sunday did a fairly accurate job of describing them, and it's about half and half on each one, the way that those, um, close to $3 billion breaks down. So that, that date on 27 is unchanged from current legislation. That's obviously the will of the committee to, to look at on the sunset. But the, uh, the other language up there is that you can't get both at the same time. [0:24:53] Would, would you agree? Am I describing that correctly? [0:24:58] Yes, Chairman. Generally, that's, that's correct. [0:25:00] Okay. Leg council says that's pretty much what it says. The second one, um, says on the... Do you have it? You got a copy, didn't you? [0:25:09] I did. You gave me a copy before today. [0:25:11] Okay, great. I was, um... Says after the effective date of this act, there wouldn't be any new certificates issued, and those that were in effect would continue until January 1st of 2027. So we've seen a bill that stopped them immediately. We've seen a bill that sort of phased them out. This is 2027, so it's gonna be, uh, up to the committee to look at. So I guess at this point I would say, are there any questions or any comments from the committee members? [0:25:42] Senator Dolezal. [0:25:44] Thank you, Chairman. I wanna make sure I understand what we're doing here. The first section that ends in line 23 deals with essentially the, the, the computer credit, the, the purchase of the computers, and says if you're taking the data center credit, you can't use the computer credit. [0:25:59] Correct. [0:26:00] So it essentially would keep the computer credit in place until 2028, but it would then only be limited to those entities that were buying $15 million or more for a purpose other than use in a data center, assuming that, well, conceivably as long as they weren't taking the tax credit for the actual data center construction. [0:26:17] Yeah. [0:26:18] The second part of what you're doing addresses the data center construction tax credit, the one that was implemented in 2018, and essentially says that we're gonna end that- At the end of this year [0:26:32] Correct. And, you know, this is certainly, this is a starting point if the committee wants some movement either way, we can certainly look at that. And I, and I do wanna make sure everybody understands the computer equipment credit. And we say 15 million, but it's actually a little different than that, in that if you buy 15 million worth of equipment, then you only pay 10% of the tax you would've paid on the first 15 million. So instead of it being 7%, you're paying .7% on the first 15 million, and then you're paying 7%, or, or you're exempted from the whole 7%. [0:27:10] The other question I had- [0:27:11] On the first 15 million [0:27:12] ... do you know why in the fiscal note the numbers quadruple between '28 and '29? [0:27:16] Well, you might not have been here for the conversation, but, um, Georgia State Fiscal Research says they could not get numbers from the Department of Revenue due to confidentiality. They're saying that there were so few people getting the credit at the time that they could not do that without giving away the confidentiality, and I think that's a question for us as legislatures. If we're giving away billions of dollars in credits, you know, should we protect them from us knowing that? [0:27:50] What does that mean as it relates to the fiscal note? Does that mean that they have more visibility in '29 because there's not NDAs on a negotiated deal or something? [0:27:58] There, there's enough, there's enough people getting the credit that the Department of Revenue, and they can certainly speak to this if they're here and want to, but there's enough people getting the credit that they don't identify anybody in particular by putting the numbers out there. [0:28:17] That if, if one person's getting the credit, and you, you know, you can't really necessarily describe it. If everybody knows there's one data center going up, and you give a number out there, then that's, they say, their argument is it takes away the confidentiality. Um, I'm, I'm all for transparency, but I guess that's for another day. Um, the, um, [0:28:41] behind that there's a little three-page stapled together, it's just some writing on the first page which you can read or not. The, um- [0:28:51] Oh, it starts with number four at the bottom of the page [0:28:54] ... says, yeah, number four at the bottom of the page. I just pulled that out of the full report. So if you look at the data center tax credit, um, let's take fiscal year, um, 2027, and this is the state part only, the, the local amount is almost equal to that, a little bit, slightly less than that. It's saying that we're foregoing 761 million in sales tax revenue. [0:29:27] Because of the activity, construction, and those kind of matters, we are taking in 45 million. So we're, we're spending 761 in state revenue to get 45 million in state revenue. So, um, you know, if you look at it from a return on- [0:29:45] 761 [0:29:46] In 2027, if you look down there at the- [0:29:49] 761 [0:29:50] ... 761, 761 million is, is what it's costing in our revenue. Um, and if you, um, the other one, the study that I had done on the computer equipment is fairly old. These numbers on here are way outdated because that one's up to 700 million or so now. But again, then it was saying if you take 2027, on that chart, the last page, it was saying that their estimate, this was done back in 2022, was that if we spent 141 million, we were gonna get back 5 million for a net loss of 136 million. [0:30:24] Now we found out since then that number's already up to 700 million as well. So to put it in perspective, I think I've said this before, but the two credits together in foregone state revenue amounts to more than a month of total personal income tax in Georgia. We're spending over a month of personal income tax for these two credits. Um, but you know, when you, when you look at the diversification of our state economy, it's pretty massive. I think, is that Senator Tillery that's got a question, or? [0:30:55] Yeah. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may be a better question for legislative council. Make sure I'm reading this correctly. It, you got a lot of moving pieces, and so I'm in OCGA 48-8-3, and I'm on line 12. I'm gonna do 12, 13, and 14, relating to exemptions by revising paragraph 68, repealing paragraph 68.1, adding a new sub, subparagraph, and by adding a new paragraph to read as follows, and then I get to F. That F, does it fall in 68? [0:31:30] I think it does, but I need to just make sure. [0:31:39] Yes, Senator Tillery, that, that subparagraph F applies to paragraph 68. [0:31:45] Okay. [0:31:46] And then you'll see- [0:31:48] That you strike paragraph 68.1 in its entirety. [0:31:51] Correct, and it's replaced by what you see beginning at line 28. [0:31:55] Okay. [0:32:00] Thank you for the clarity. [0:32:06] Adding a [0:32:10] new subparagraph. [0:32:10] Yes, uh, if you pull up the original code, it, it's difficult to read it unless you have the original code pulled up beside it. That's why I had... Had more requests. Sorry. Had the wrong one lit up there, so. Do you have a comment? [0:32:28] I did. [0:32:29] Go, go ahead, Senator Albers. [0:32:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, and thank you to, uh, Chairman Brass for bringing this bill forward No? Oh, okay. Well, thank thank you for being involved however it is. [0:32:38] It, it's a, it's a sort of in between of the several bills that were brought to our committee. [0:32:44] I, I, I think what you're bringing up, and just to make a- an extra point, is with a net loss of $702 million per year, nobody here I don't think is an anti-data center, but we are is pro Georgians. Because what we're doing is we're telling everybody else that pays taxes that you're paying for this. Because a net loss of $700 million, that means whoever's going to work every day and having money taken out of their paycheck for the state is paying for someone else. And if you look at the data center companies, which are great companies, whether it be AWS, they're Meta, they're Google, they're Switch, I added up the top 10, and the top 10 make almost a trillion dollars in profit, not revenue, but profit per year. [0:33:30] I don't think they need a tax break from Georgia in order to operate their business effectively. Uh, so just to put things in context as we're going through these deliberations to make sure we have the facts in front of us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:33:42] Thanks. [0:33:47] All right, uh, maybe that's Dolezal again, Senator. Go ahead. [0:33:53] I'm just curious, Chairman, kind of on the policy goal here of this, the merging of these bills. [0:33:59] Well- [0:34:00] This would, this would keep the computer credit in place until '28. Is it- L- let me just, maybe just I'll let you answer that question first and then... [0:34:08] Well, um, we had a study that showed that that credit, I mean, I, I didn't support extending at the time, so if you're asking me, I wish it wasn't in effect right now. Um- [0:34:19] The, the computer one or the, the construction? [0:34:21] The, either one. [0:34:22] Okay. [0:34:22] Either one. I didn't support the extension on them. They were both in the same bill that, um, if I remember right, you voted against it as well, so. Um, but it... This doesn't change that sunset. That's up to the committee. Do you, do you, you know, do you wanna look at an earlier sunset or leaving the sunset at December 31st, 2028? Um, or, [0:34:50] you know, something, something else different altogether. That's, that's more for the will of the committee, I guess. [0:34:54] The original bill that Chairman Brass brought only dealt with the data center construction credit and did not touch the computer equipment credit. [0:35:01] Correct. [0:35:02] The- [0:35:02] And, and in, in delving into this, we found out that that number had blown up as well. And is, you know, it's, it's equal to this, uh, 700 million on the other credit as well. So together, you're looking at about a billion and a half between the two of them. And so part of what this was saying is you, you know, if we don't address this, then they would simply switch from one credit to the other. [0:35:29] On the- [0:35:29] Or maybe both, I don't know. [0:35:31] What happens if someone purchases equipment sometime in the year 2028? [0:35:38] Um, well- [0:35:40] For, for a data center. [0:35:42] For, for a data center? Um, yeah, I think you make a point. I see where you're going with it. That they could... Well, no, we're saying it couldn't switch in the other language. So yeah, for a data center, then it wouldn't be able to be used in this because we've already said if you're eligible for the data center credit. I don't know, I guess need to allege counsel. It may not cover that. You might be right. [0:36:07] Can we ask- [0:36:08] Yes. Sorry, Senator, could you repeat the question please? [0:36:14] Nobody will have a construction credit in 2028 'cause it will have expired. But you could have existing s- existing locations that are doing an equipment repurchase in July of '28. Would they have eligi- access to the credit under the current writing of this language? [0:36:30] For data centers, data centers with an existing certificate of exemption, yes. [0:36:36] Okay. [0:36:37] That's it. [0:36:39] What's the next question? [0:36:39] I- [0:36:39] Please read the question. [0:36:43] Co- come up here to- [0:36:43] Yeah [0:36:44] ... use my mic and- [0:36:45] Yeah [0:36:45] ... kind of [0:36:45] He could go to Wicks. Why don't you go to Wicks? [0:36:48] Or you can go down there to the witness mic. That's probably better. [0:36:51] You can use the mic that's there. [0:36:59] Chairman, I guess the question I would have on that, if the, if the policy is to get rid of the double-dipping, why not just explicitly restrict data centers as defined in the code from having access to the computer equipment credit altogether as opposed to tying it to the credit with these overlapping dates and everything else? [0:37:20] Okay. You wanna address? [0:37:23] I, I can address that question. Um, I, I believe the intention was twofold. It wasn't simply to prevent double-dipping, it was to also, as I understand it, um, to prevent data centers that would've been eligible for the exemption under 68.1 from simply switching over to 68 as soon as that is repealed. [0:37:46] So this, this language, if the, if the 68.1 is repealed, they won't be able to go over to 68.0 under your language is, would be your interpretation? [0:38:03] No, they would not. [0:38:04] Okay. Senator Tillery. [0:38:06] Can, can you show me how? Because, and here's, I think Senator Dolezal and I are kind of running through the same thing, comparing it back to 4883. I know that's not all, all of 4883's not on the printout sheet. But just pulling up the code beside it, I would argue that the paragraphs aren't standing repealed till December 31st, 2028. But, so that means 68's still live, and 68, 483, what are we in? [0:38:37] 4883, 68. I think- Still says the sale and lease of computer equipment to be incorporated into a facility or facilities of the state to any high technology company classified under these NAICS codes would still receive that benefit of not having to pay sales tax as long as the purchases or leases were worth more than $15 million. So that's... And I'm reading Part A, that, that we didn't strike that, so that, so that's not on here 'cause it's not getting struck, right? [0:39:10] But you got on line 15, we have paragraph F, notwithstanding other provisions in this paragraph, the exemption provided in sub-paragraph A, which is that $15 million exemption, shall not apply to the lease or sale of equipment used or deployed. [0:39:27] Which is our current definition of data centers. [0:39:29] Okay. [0:39:30] The, the, what you're looking at. [0:39:31] The writer then [0:39:33] Okay. [0:39:34] Yeah. [0:39:36] So in your mind, we're- [0:39:37] Yeah, sorry. I don't think- [0:39:37] Yeah [0:39:37] ... I think me and you were both talking it out at the same time. That's- [0:39:40] S- so this, this would 100% preclude any data center from using the computer exemption that is in A? [0:39:51] Correct. [0:39:51] Okay. [0:39:52] Correct. [0:39:56] And they would lose the construction credit under lines 28 through 34. [0:40:00] Starting January 1 of next year. [0:40:02] Well, 2027. [0:40:03] Yeah. [0:40:04] Correct. [0:40:06] All right. That's Senator Lee Anderson. You got a question, comment? [0:40:10] Would, would this pertain to a data center that's already exist, or what about one that's fixing to build if they went on and pre-ordered the equipment? [0:40:26] If they, if, if they have their certificate of exemption approved by the time they, by the time this bill takes effect, then they would get it. They would get the sales tax exemption. That was in the original version. I believe it's in this version as well. [0:40:50] Okay. All right. Any other questions or comments? Now, yours is working now, they tell me. They've actually- [0:40:56] It's working now [0:40:57] ... fixed it, so we'll try it and see. [0:40:59] There you go. [0:41:01] You may not want it to work, Mr. Chairman. Um, Mr. Chair, I propose, I di- I don't know what, sorry I'm late, the intentions of this bill, but just to make sure, I do know the intention of this bill, but in terms of, um, next steps, but it, it may behoove us to, um, maybe work on this a little more and just make sure everybody's clear on kinda what we're putting in front of the committee and make sure it's absolutely perfect, um, and then move this thing out of here. Um, but that's just my two cents. [0:41:33] All right. Um, any other comments from the committee we've got? [0:41:44] All right. Well, I think I'm, I'm willing to wait on this. Let's see, Senator Harbin, you wanted to wait. [0:41:49] Yeah, quick question. So, so what I'm, I'm understanding this, this will not affect any data center that is currently under construction or has a certificate, correct? [0:41:56] Oh, it absolutely will affect them. [0:41:58] Okay. [0:41:58] The way this is written, the way this is... This is not, this, this substitute fundamentally changes what my bill did. [0:42:07] Okay. [0:42:07] Um, we passed a bill to repeal the, to repeal this, uh, two years ago. Made it through the Senate and the House, and the governor vetoed. [0:42:18] Vetoed. Yep. [0:42:20] And the reason he vetoed it, 'cause we lured them here with tax incentives, and then we were yanking that away. [0:42:26] Right. [0:42:27] Okay? So the way I wrote my bill was to grandfather those in, say, "Yes, we lured you here." [0:42:36] Understood. [0:42:36] "We have a sunset of 2032. We get that, so let's try this again," get it through the Senate and the House, let the governors, hopefully, uh, he'll understand that, okay, now it's fair. But what this bill does is in 2027- [0:42:55] Mm-hmm [0:42:55] ... it takes, it takes my language, and then it s- moves the sunset from 2032 to January 1 of 2027. [0:43:02] '27. [0:43:03] So I'm, I'm scared we're about to repeat the same thing we did last time. And the, if we wanna get something done, uh, I believe my bill coulda done that, and you coulda added your 68.1 or whatever language you wanted in there, leaving the sunsets alone, but instead we're, we're, uh, someone is trying to change those sunsets, I think is idiotic in my opinion. [0:43:32] I th- I think it does this. It, it addresses an, an integrity of our state where we've brought a business in to our, and given an agreement to what's going on, and then we're turning around and we're changing that. I understand going forward making those changes for new data centers or new, but to, to go back and re-yank that away from what we've already told someone, I don't think is really an ethical thing to do with those that we brought in. [0:43:55] I totally agree. The sunset's there. They, they came in under the risk of that sunset leaving in 2032. [0:44:02] Right. [0:44:02] They knew that risk. They took it. But then we go mid, midterm and say, "All right, we're taking five years off of that," to me is not right. [0:44:12] I w- I would agree with you. That's, and then I, I don't know- [0:44:14] And I, I, I think those, I think those are fair comments. Um, you know, I don't know if, if they had different numbers two years ago than we did. We had numbers of $100 million, now all of a sudden we're looking at a billion and a half. And so that's, that's one of the things we're looking at as well. But we will, um, Senator Dolezal, one comment, and then we'll move, move on. [0:44:34] It's a question for you and maybe Ch- Chairman Brass. As I recall, the 2024 version of this, the industry was asking for a six-month [0:44:43] Window, and I don't wanna mischaracterize. I wanna make sure I'm accurate. Chairman Brass, I don't know if you recall this or not. The bill that we passed, I believe, became, would have become effective, either upon signature or July 1st of that year. As I recall, the industry lobby, me, they were asking for six months. Do you know kinda where either the second floor or the consortium of people that are working on these things in terms of an agreeable window? [0:45:08] I don't, I don't think we've got an answer on, on where that would be. And obviously, whatever we send to the House is gonna then be negotiated and, um, and looked at and- [0:45:20] This- [0:45:20] ... in consultation between the three sides. Yeah. [0:45:23] I can tell you that. [0:45:24] Senator Hodges. [0:45:25] Just, just one question. Was there a fiscal note prepared on Senator Brass' original bill? [0:45:32] There was, and it's in the folder. Um- [0:45:36] It's like January 1. [0:45:38] Um, it should, should be- [0:45:40] It's the first- [0:45:41] ... behind it there. [0:45:42] Maybe the 26th. [0:45:43] Yeah. Let me see if it's... [0:45:50] Okay. [0:45:50] I got it. So there wasn't a lot of impact, um, for a while on it until you start catching up in 2030 and, uh, 2031 in that area. [0:46:06] Well, it's behind my... I'll- [0:46:09] Or I guess I would say half an impact in 2029, and then full impact 2030. Yeah. Senator Tillery. [0:46:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Brass, I think on, so on line 32, the January 1, 2027 is the thing you think is different about- [0:46:26] It's absolutely different. I didn't have a date, so we were leaving it at the same sunset. [0:46:30] Which would have been, so if that was changed to December 31, thir- 2031, which is the current bill, you think that mimics your- [0:46:38] That, that is closer to- [0:46:41] Your other proposal [0:46:41] ... to the, to the bill, the other proposal. Now, one thing I call in the, in my original version that I don't, and I don't, I don't expect this committee to take it out, but, um, maybe some common sense folks can, can, can do it. But, uh, if... I, I think when they go change out their customers, my idea or my thought was if they're here, they came on the tax credit, they should get that until the sunset, and then the legislature make a decision. [0:47:13] Um, and so I don't think the data center customer piece should be in there either. That wasn't my intent of the, of the original bill. But some of that did get in there, and I didn't catch it till later on. Um- [0:47:26] You're talking about on line third, 2031 [0:47:28] ... so my ideal bill would strike on line 29, I would strike or high technology data center customer, 'cause then that, that language there would allow them when a, when... I don't know, let's say it's a Facebook, and then their new customer's Google. And I'm just making stuff up, but if they switch out their customer, they're gonna have new equipment. Again, their, that, that, that warehouse, if you will, um, you know, is there, and the, it came here on the, on the tax credits that we promised them until 2032. [0:48:05] And so in my mind, it should, it should stay that way. [0:48:09] Yeah. I, I, I can go with you on the second one, the fir- uh, the first one, probably not the second one. And Mr. Chairman, I- [0:48:16] What's the second one? Which- [0:48:17] The one you talked about, the customers. I think that actually eviscerates your bill, but we'll talk about that later on. [0:48:23] Right. [0:48:23] The- [0:48:23] Well, I, I, as I stated, I wouldn't expect this committee to go for that. [0:48:28] To eviscerate your bill? We'd never do that to you, Mr. Chairman. [0:48:31] No, y'all never done it to anybody else either, but. [0:48:34] The date change, I do think though would mimic the credit cut that we made in the s- the income tax proposal in Senate Bill 476. So the date change, Mr. Chairman, probably lines up with what we've already passed, um, with the 2031 date. Just for discussion for a later date. [0:48:56] Right. And, and actually, it, it does on this but not on the computer equipment. It's a year later it wouldn't make- [0:49:02] And truth is, I mean, if you're gonna, if you're gonna move the sunset, sunset up, I don't know why you wouldn't mimic it with, with the other credit. I don't know why those wouldn't be lined up. But again, I'll use common sense, so I don't expect anything- [0:49:16] I, I didn't hear... I, I basically had this as a starting point for the committee to talk about, you know. Um, it didn't change the sunset on the, uh, computer equipment, but that's something for the committee to look at, will of the committee. All right. Um, I don't see any other questions. We'll continue to work on this. I think we had a good discussion on it, and, uh, we'll all try to come to consensus on this bill. Thank you for coming to the meeting. [0:49:47] We're gonna move on to Senator Robertson's bill. Is he here? [0:49:51] Yes, sir, he is. [0:49:52] All right, great. [0:49:53] I just wanted to give hotel/motel tax to that senator. [0:49:56] Uh, sit, sit down first, Senator. [0:49:59] Object. [0:50:02] Um, we, we don't want the millions watching online to miss your comments, so I wanted to wait till you sat down, you know? [0:50:08] Yes, sir. [0:50:11] Millions watching. [0:50:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, if I can proceed, I'm, I'm looking at LC473777. Is that correct? [0:50:23] Um, no, I've got a- [0:50:27] You have a substitute? [0:50:28] Well, I think they're making everybody a substitute this year. I ran into that in regulated industries. Even though you got the same language- [0:50:34] If somebody has a copy of the substitute, I can- [0:50:35] Yeah, let's get, we'll get you a copy of it. [0:50:40] I had a bill that was word for word as last year, but they said you can't use that number. It takes a new number. So that may be what we're running into. [0:50:49] It's L- LC473971S. S. [0:51:01] Mr. Chairman, after, after what y'all just went through, I think this is gonna be fairly simple. All I'm doing here is currently we have a structure for hotel/motel tax to be used for tourism within communities. And, um, I represent several communities that have military museums. And these, some of these military museums you would expect to see on the Mall in Washington, DC. They're incredible, especially the one out near Fort Benning, the National Infantry Museum. Um, takes our American history back to when this country was founded, um, which I believe is almost 250 years ago, um, up until our most recent war on terrorism and other things we're doing. [0:51:42] And there's been some confusion by some of the parties whether military museums and other museums qualify, uh, to be considered when this money is distributed. And all this does, it does not have an amount or anything, but if you look on the substitute on, um, line 33, what we did is we removed, uh, museums and planetariums out of line 33, Section N, and we just created Section R at line 38. [0:52:14] It says, "Museums including, but not limited to military museums or any other institutions dedicated to preserving, exhibiting, and interpreting the history of conflicts and military actions of the United States Armed Forces and its service members through artifacts, documents, and other memorabilia organized for similar purposes." It's just a, a clarification. [0:52:35] So the, the museums that were originally in the bill on line 33, you're saying there was confusion around that. [0:52:40] Yes, sir. They were saying that their interpretation of a museum was a T-Rex, and they were not recognizing these military museums, which, uh, I know, uh, we have, uh, some Marines in the Senate. I've been through the Marine Museum at Quantico and- [0:52:56] Mm-hmm [0:52:56] ... and the Infantry Museum, and these are full-fledged, incredible, um, buildings that are dedicated to our armed forces, and I think they should have the opportunity. And they draw in many times. At Fort Benning, I can tell you, um, thousands and thousands and thousands of people come to Muscogee County every year to visit that museum because of Fort Benning and of the Ranger schools and airborne schools there. [0:53:22] Make a motion at the appropriate time. [0:53:25] I don't see any comments. Any questions from the committee members? We'll go ahead and take a motion. Senator Albers. [0:53:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I'd like to move we pass this excellent bill, Senate Bill 430, LC 473971S. Second. [0:53:39] Motion second. Any discussion? If not, all in favor say aye. [0:53:43] Aye. [0:53:43] Any opposed? Motion carries. [0:53:46] Thank y'all, appreciate it. Thank y'all for voting on a tax bill. [0:53:54] All right. Senator Rhett, you can do it from there, up at the podium, whatever you wanna do. We were gonna give your bill a hearing today. [0:54:02] 14. [0:54:02] Okay. 14's lit up. [0:54:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very simple bill. It's not a tax bill. But basically what it does is the legislation would allow, would, would consolidate and allow the tax commissioner, or the Department of Revenue, I mean, to establish rules and regulations determining the cost of living to military retirement pay. Basically, the commissioner may use the consumer price index as reported by the Department of Labor to determine the cost of living adjustments. [0:54:42] And basically, basically, all they're doing is just consolidating it into one entity, so that way that person can determine whether or not, [0:54:54] following the, the, uh, index, if it should reflect how inflation or deflation may affect retirement income. So it's just one person now who's gonna make that decision whether they should or not, and they look at different index and make that decision. It doesn't cost the department any more or less, but creates efficiency and support of our veterans. [0:55:18] So when you say one person looking at the decision, who's looking at it now? [0:55:23] Well, what they do is they go to many different entities and ask for their input. Right now, it would just come under tax. [0:55:36] Um, I know we, we had raised that a while back. Um, I, I guess what you're saying is that this would automatically increase with the rate of inflation. Is that what- [0:55:49] It just depends. If, if the, if the tax, if Department of Revenue determine that based on the, the different index that it should be increased, they would. But if they don't think it should be, then they won't increase it. [0:56:07] Well, I don't know that they're the ones that actually make that determination, but okay. Senator Albers. [0:56:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, uh, Senator Rhett. I, I know this comes from, uh, um, from your heart and your background in service, so thank you for that. I do have a couple questions. I, I am concerned of how they, A, would determine that, but B, you know, uh, if you look at what Senator Tillery's bill did, uh, in order to eliminate the first, uh, 50,000 per individual and $100,000 for a family, and then lower the overall rate, is this not all gonna be duplicative anyway? [0:56:43] Well, you never know. Things can change. But basically we're just having one person make that decision whether or not, because you still have to deal with cost of living. That's basically all they're looking at. Whether or not it should stay where it's at, increase, or decrease [0:57:03] I, and I, and I appreciate that. A- again, I, I know- [0:57:05] Mm-hmm [0:57:05] ... this comes from a great place, uh, from your heart [0:57:08] Mm-hmm. [0:57:08] My concern would be is I believe it would really be incumbent upon the legislature to make that decision based on what we see the numbers versus giving that to, uh, someone who is unelected. Uh, we'd have to look at that and then decide whether we should change the official code of Georgia to raise that exemption in the code. I'm just not sure that that ties together in something that we would do, because it could set some dangerous precedents for us. [0:57:36] I'm open for suggestions. [0:57:37] Thank you. [0:57:40] All right, any other questions by the committee? So, um, I think we've got a few things on this one to, to work on as well. So we'll continue to work on it and have some discussions with DOR as well on this, which way we go on this. There is a fiscal note in here, um, in your folder, just so you have that for informational purposes as well. All right, those were the three bills, uh, for the committee today. We appreciate everyone coming, and the meeting's adjourned.