Senate Regulated Industries and Utilities Committee, March 2, 2026

Transcript

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

1. 0:21:53

   This will be our last meeting of the year, and we have only one bill on our agenda today. This is Senate Bill 553, and it is a proposed committee substitute. There were only a couple of very, very minor changes from the bill as originally drafted. Senator Hatchett's carrying this as the floor leader for Governor Kemp, and I will turn the floor over to you, Senator Hatchett, there, if you wanna take that witness to-

2. 0:22:16

   Up here

3. 0:22:16

   ... mic right here will be fine. Um, you're, if you're more comfortable at the podium, that's fine as well. Whatever you like best. Okay. Walk us through it, because it's kind of a late-dropping bill, and I don't expect that many committee members have read your, woo, 50, 60-page bill you got for us here, 60-something.

4. 0:22:35

   I've gotten word that everyone's read it, so, um-

5. 0:22:37

   I'm, I'm sure. We're prepared.

6. 0:22:38

   If you have any questions, just let me know. But no, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Um, I am bringing this on behalf of Governor Kemp. And what this is, is a bill... And the clear objective is to streamline a very confusing and, quite frankly, outdated licensing process in the State of Georgia. I'm sure you, like me, have gotten calls from constituents who have been denied a license for, um, various reasons, sometimes unexplained, and sometimes it leaves you scratching your head a little bit, like, "Well, why would they deny you for that when you know someone else has been approved?" Um, so they're tackling five licensing boards, which is the Division of Electrical Contractor, Division of Low Voltage Contractors, Division of Master Plumbers and Journeyman Plumbers, Division of Utility Contractors, and the Division of Conditioned Air Contractors.

7. 0:23:42

   So these five divisions function individually as their own board to administer licenses within their respective trades, and convene a few times a year as a whole to address matters pertaining to all. Currently, the majority of licensee requirements administered by these five divisions rely on what's called subjective experience standards outlined in board rule. Phrases such as, "to the satisfaction of the division" and significantly res- or "significant responsibility" lack objective definition, creating confusion for applicants seeking licensure.

8. 0:24:22

   This ambiguity often results in wasted time, money, and effort for both applicants and members of the board who must interpret and apply these standards on a case-by-case basis. Recently, the Supreme Court and Republican National c- Committee v. Eternal Vigilance Action, Inc., uh, which is 917 SE Second 125, 2025, reaffirmed Georgia's strict non-delegation doctrine, meaning state boards can only make rules when the legislature clearly authorizes them, and those rules must implement legislative policy rather than expand it.

9. 0:25:03

   Boards can administer the law, but they cannot create new policy or fill in gaps without clear statutory direction. Right now, Chapter 43-14 gives the Construction Industry Licensing Board broad authority to set qualifications, experience requirements, and exam standards through rulemaking alone. And that kind of open-ended delegation raises concerns because substantive standards should be set by the legislature, not by rule. To address this and bring clarity to the process, the governor's office has worked with the secretary of state and industry experts to codify objective, measurable licensing requirements directly into statute.

10. 0:25:45

    That way, and this is the key point, anyone pursuing a trade can read the law and know exactly what they need to do to qualify for licensure. So this bill builds on several measures passed during last year's session, including Senate Bill 635, which clarified and streamlined the Residential and General Contractor Code sections and eliminated individual discretion in determining what types of work qualify toward meeting the ex- exper- excuse me, the requirements.

11. 0:26:15

    By setting objective standards in statute, we ensure fairness, transparency, and predictability for applicants navigating the licensing process.

12. 0:26:25

    Can I stop you for just one second on that? On those residential contractors and general contractors, those are licensed also under the State Construction Industry Licensing Board or a different board?

13. 0:26:38

    The same board.

14. 0:26:39

    Yeah, it's a different board.

15. 0:26:40

    Different board.

16. 0:26:40

    Okay. I wonder, I've just-

17. 0:26:43

    And I, I'm happy to have... Th- these-

18. 0:26:45

    We'll, we'll have to have them-

19. 0:26:46

    Yeah

20. 0:26:46

    ... testify in a moment, um, if needed, 'cause I, I, I understood you were getting all five of these sort of areas of, of, uh, construction trades under, kinda, they're, they're under this State Construction Industry Licensing Board, and I was just wondering if there were any other trades, construction-type trades, that were under another licensing board. Wondered how much consolidation were we doing here. Um, they, they may can answer that for me later, 'cause the questions that I get from constituents are about a residential contractor license or a general contractor's license that, where they, you know, have a delay getting it renewed or something like that, you know.

21. 0:27:32

    Um, so that's something not covered by this, it sounds like.

22. 0:27:36

    Yeah, and, and the experts who-

23. 0:27:38

    Okay

24. 0:27:38

    ... have worked on this bill for the last year are here, and I'm sure-

25. 0:27:41

    Okay

26. 0:27:41

    ... can address a lot of these questions, too.

27. 0:27:43

    All righty. Um, sorry to break your flow, but before my mind got distracted on that, let's, uh, carry on then.

28. 0:27:49

    Yeah, well, the, this bill follows the same approach from House Bill 635 by replacing subjective requirements with measurable criteria. It establishes defined years of experience, requires affidavits from licensed supervisors verifying completion of specific projects that demonstrate required skills, and identifies approved educational programs where applicable. The examination process will be revised to remove the prior authorization requirement for applicants to sit for the licensing exam, requiring applicants to pass the examination portion before submitting an application to the board.

29. 0:28:27

    When it comes to the composition of each division, we are expanding inspector eligibility to include individuals who currently work or have previously worked as inspectors for a county, municipality, or third-party inspection agency. All existing licenses and cert- and certificates under each division will remain in place. The reality is that it has become harder to fill these positions under the current requirements, and this change allows us to broaden the pool of qualified candidates while still ensuring board members have real, practical experience in the field.

30. 0:29:02

    Chapter 14 of Title 43, which establishes the framework for the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, has been pieced together over several decades. As a result, the statute has become fragmented and, in many places, confusing, particularly for those navigating construction industry licensing requirements. While this is a lengthy bill, much of it is focusing on restructuring and reorganizing the existing code for clarity. A significant portion of the changes simply creates consistency and parallel structure across the five divisions so the law is easier to understand, administer, and comply with.

31. 0:29:41

    This bill is necessary as we work to ensure consistency and fairness for applicants seeking licensure across these five trades. As our state continues to grow, it is critical that we create the best possible regulatory environment for professional licensing, one that supports industry growth and helps Georgians get to work.

32. 0:30:04

    And if you have any questions about the general changes for each, uh, different type of license, I have witnesses here that can answer them, 'cause it is a complicated issue, and it's taken, um, all the experts to come together. Uh, and I think it's, it, it's truly a, a piece of art at this point, um, with the complexities. And it, it's going to make our system more streamlined, stronger, and, and better for Georgians who are just trying to get to work.

33. 0:30:39

    I got just a couple for you, and then we'll let other members of the committee ask anything they have. I, I like the way your bill kinda clarified what a local government can do, you know, because, uh, I think, I think you keep it clear here that the, the licensing process is under that State Construction Industry Licensing Board. But local governments can have different kind of codes for their communities as far as electrical codes and plumbing codes or whatever requirements for the, the, the, the way the work is done or the standards that it has to be up to.

34. 0:31:17

    Is that... Am I right about that? But no licensing at a local level.

35. 0:31:21

    Correct.

36. 0:31:22

    Okay. Um, um, the, the changes that were brought to my attention in the committee sub were just reducing, uh, the amount of years of experience before getting a license under electrical contractor Class 1 and electrical contractor Class 2. One of them went down from four years to three, and the other went down from six to four. It got my mind thinking about, what is this experience? I guess you would have to, as an apprentice of some sort, work under a licensed contractor for that length of time before you could qualify for your own license.

37. 0:31:58

    Yeah, and the license one and two are essentially restricted and unrestricted, so think more residential and commercial.

38. 0:32:05

    Okay.

39. 0:32:05

    And what we have right now is both licenses required the same amount of time, which was four years. And when you go through that amount of training, of course you're gonna get the unrestricted license. So when you look at the numbers, I think it's, there may be 8,700 licensed, and 8,000 of them are unrestricted, and only 700 are the Class 1. And so what this does is it makes the Class 1 three years, Class 2 four years.

40. 0:32:42

    Okay. Other committee members have questions for Senator Hatchett? All right. Senator Lucas, you're recognized.

41. 0:32:50

    Who verifies the, uh, 2,000 hours continuing education?

42. 0:32:59

    I will have to phone a friend on this one.

43. 0:33:02

    There's gonna be 2,000 hours of continuing education, but for full-time verifiable experience. So currently how it is done is really, really efficient in that, uh, individuals submit these letters of, um, reference. And then... Sorry.

44. 0:33:19

    It's okay.

45. 0:33:19

    And then the, um, staff at Secretary of State's office actually call around and verify this. Now, this verifile, this 2,000-hour, full-time, verify- ugh, verifiable experience, um, will be, you will submit an affidavit through your employer, whose license will be tied to. I mean, if they're deciding to lie, you know, under oath, then their license is tied to that, and they would potentially, you know, have their license revoked later on if they do decide to lie, um, on your behal- To verify your experience.

46. 0:33:51

    So now we will not have Secretary of State's office having to call all of these people and verify that. That is so ... It, it's very cumbersome. It often very much delays the process. And so this, um, is through that. Every, ah, license under this bill, they're all so different, very nuanced. Some of them do allow for trade programs. Um, so that's definitely way easier to verify that experience if it's a certified DOL, um, apprenticeship program. You know, that's a lot easier, cut and paste essentially. You know, you sign off when you, you're finished with that program.

47. 0:34:21

    But, um, the other ones you will, um ... Every section on here, under every single license, we worked with the trade organizations and the board and everyone. And from what we were thinking versus how they're implementing stuff in right now, um, to say these are the things that qualify as experience. So you know that if you did this, um, and you have the hours and everything else in there, and we can verify that you did this, then you get the license. Not, oh, you know, somebody this experience worked.

48. 0:34:53

    Because it does happen unfortunately. And that's really just due to, you know, uh, bias on ... I'm not saying anyone's at fault, but you know, everybody has some sort of, you know, bias or, "Oh, I don't think that counted. That's not hard enough." You know, that kind of stuff, um, to where these individuals know if I completed these tasks, so I have experience in this, I will be eligible for licensure if I can pass the exam.

49. 0:35:17

    So what you're saying, if you do an ap- apprenticeship, the hours are basically collected by the folks who you're working for?

50. 0:35:27

    Yes. There is one, Jacy, if you know the exact per-

51. 0:35:31

    Yeah.

52. 0:35:31

    There, a USDOL apprenticeship will count for one of these. Not everyone has-

53. 0:35:35

    Electrical. Um, we added that-

54. 0:35:36

    Uh, uh, ho- hold on just one second. We, we, we're trying to keep a record so that we can have minutes to who's even testified here.

55. 0:35:44

    Oh, I'm sorry.

56. 0:35:44

    Neither of y'all have identified yourselves yet, and you're both talking over each other. So before we go nuts, back here Paige is trying to keep track. Let me get you to identify yourself, who you're working for, and why, why you know something about this subject matter.

57. 0:35:58

    I'm Amy Dorman. I'm the deputy chief operating officer and director of appointments in the governor's office. I work very closely with all the licensing boards and regulatory reform.

58. 0:36:09

    And I'm Jacy Martin in the governor's office. I'm our regulated industries policy advisor.

59. 0:36:13

    And y'all might share how much time you spent on this-

60. 0:36:17

    Mm

61. 0:36:17

    ... uh, epistle here, this 60 something page bill, 'cause I do ... I don't think Senator Hatchett's exaggerating when he says it, it's been a year of labor of love, right?

62. 0:36:25

    Yes. So we started when y'all gaveled out last year. Um, and it took a lot of, a lot of time over the summer researching what other states do, other, you know, regulatory structures. And then also working with each of those, um, associations to make sure that we were not causing any unintended harm to the day-to-day, um, workings of each profession. Uh, we, we do feel that this is a good bill, but I understand it is very lengthy. And so, um, I understand your questions. But is it okay if I answer his question now?

63. 0:36:53

    It, it is now, Jacy. You go right ahead. Just wanted to make sure we were clear-

64. 0:36:56

    Yes

65. 0:36:56

    ... who was speaking.

66. 0:36:57

    Of course.

67. 0:36:57

    Senator Lucas had posed the last question. Feel free to, if you can, can offer any response.

68. 0:37:02

    Well, I, I, I just wanna know because normally people get a job as a helper, and they work, and then they decide that they wanna go in the profession. And you got 2,000 hours, and I wanna know, well, who keeps up with the 2,000 hours? Is it by, uh, uh, uh, work that you did, and you have to show the bills that you, uh, submitted to folks who you did the work for or what?

69. 0:37:38

    So I wouldn't say that it's necessarily based on keeping track of like each individual hour. While, while those all will be, um, in aggregate adding up to the amount of experience, we're really looking at do the individuals within those 2,000 hours, have they, um, completed each of these tasks that are outlined? So we'll use electrical for an example. Um, the class one, which is the residential, um, they need to complete five of eight requirements. And then the class two, which is the unrestricted, they need to complete eight of eight of those tasks.

70. 0:38:12

    So that, if ... Does that answer it a little bit more? So y- it, we're looking at making sure that, um, the experience is really defined, and that is what wasn't being performed previously in code. I will say, um, electrical, they were, um, better than the other trades when it comes to having that experience identified, but it was in rule. And we're, we're really wanting to codify rules because what happens, and this really largely affects Amy's job, is if a applicant is denied based on a board rule re- requirement, then at that point it goes to the governor's office to make a final determination.

71. 0:38:47

    We are obviously not ... Well, we're definitely more experts now than I would say we, we were before. But it shouldn't fall on us to make that, you know, final determination on someone's, um, professional licensing. It should really be based on the board, um, at that point who, they are the experts. And so by codifying these board rules, we're ensuring that, you know, the board has the authority to make that determination.

72. 0:39:09

    So I, I think what Senator Lucas is asking, is this the honor system? Does somebody just say-

73. 0:39:14

    Mm. Yeah

74. 0:39:15

    ... "Hey, I worked 2,000 hours"? Or is there an employer that fills out an affidavit? I know you've got affidavits instead of letters of recommendation now, but I think you have to get three affidavits. But do they have to put each of those how many hours the person worked for them?

75. 0:39:31

    So-

76. 0:39:31

    Uh

77. 0:39:32

    ... if I can answer that one. So essentially, yes. So the affidavits would be what verifies the hours of work. The 2,000 hours is not necessarily something new. Prior to this it was full-time experience. I think people, the full-time experience was kind of like, you know, what is that? Is it 40 hours a week? Do we have vacation? You know, do you have a sick day? That kind of stuff. What if someone is taking off, you know, a couple hours a week, or they do have sick time? So 40 hours a week just got hard. So what a lot of other states under meet the construction industry boards who are looking at the actual hours worked are, um- are simply, um, that's how they define it, 2,000 hours.

78. 0:40:10

    So it could be spread across, you know, entire 365 days. With that being said, for that, the full-time experience is just to say, okay, well, if you are working, um, underneath, uh, a contractor and you are getting experience, um, I hate to say this, snaking a drain. This is the thing I just keep on using, 'cause it's probably the easiest thing that I know, like plumbing-related, but like I can do that. Um, snaking a drain versus actually like working on a hot water heater. But then this person also might be doing a little bit of tile laying and, and all that.

79. 0:40:44

    It is to say that those things unrelated to the, to the actual profession would not count. So if you're painting a wall, that doesn't count as your full-time verifiable experience. It, it really is to, to be there to quantify. Instead of you just did one project while you were working under this person in a whole span of 2,000 hours, that doesn't count as a full-time experience.

80. 0:41:07

    Okay. So if Senator Lucas is trying to get licensed-

81. 0:41:11

    Mm-hmm

82. 0:41:11

    ... he goes to the board, say he's electrician, that, that sub-board. What paperwork does he have to take with them to prove to them that he has worked the three years and gotten his 2,000 hours and whatever else y'all require? What, what's he have to go c- accumulate, take it with him in his briefcase to, to get his license?

83. 0:41:33

    He has to have all the employers that he worked for, and then detail his ex- like what he actually worked on under them. So I mean, it's similar to like my resume, how I would say, you know, I worked on this, this, and this. I did appointments, you know, agencies. And then, you know, if someone essentially, I guess, wanted to call the governor's office and verify it, instead this would be like me taking it to Lauren Curry, our chief of staff, and having her sign it under oath, and then me submit it. So that is how it will be done and verified.

84. 0:42:00

    Okay.

85. 0:42:00

    So you would just do that on the online portal now.

86. 0:42:04

    Got a question.

87. 0:42:06

    I got one.

88. 0:42:06

    Mr. Vice, hold us. Hang on. We hadn't let him ask his yet. Uh, Senator Ginn, did you have a question?

89. 0:42:12

    I just was trying to get a new, new, ah, snake for the drain.

90. 0:42:16

    Do I have a question on this side? Sen- Senator Harbison, he's got his hand up.

91. 0:42:19

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just wanted to, uh, certainly highlight the fact and appreciation that, uh, it refers to establishing a streamlined license process for current or former military members, and establishes reciprocity and license for out-of-state app- applicants who have met substantially similar requirements. So I just want to commend you for that, for looking out for our military personnel and people who come in the state, bring their spouses and things like that. So thank you for, for bringing this. Appreciate it.

92. 0:42:49

    Yeah.

93. 0:42:50

    Mr. Chairman, I guess I do have one.

94. 0:42:52

    All right. I've got, uh, somebody jumped ahead of you. Now, the vice chairman, Senator Summers, you're recognized for a question-

95. 0:42:57

    Thank you

96. 0:42:57

    ... then you'll be next, Senator Ginn.

97. 0:42:58

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, could you guys kind of go over me? I'm a little confused. I'm not saying I can't figure it out, but it's about where the local, uh, governing authority can adopt in enforcing codes. What, what kind of latitude does that give them there? Because, I mean, we had a situation in one of my communities, I won't say which one, that the, uh, the guy just saw black and white. He just saw no gray area, and it was, it was rough. I mean, he was, you, you know what I'm talking about, when it comes to codes. Is this... Uh, can you, can you go over that part?

98. 0:43:26

    So we haven't changed any of that portion versus what it currently is in law. It does look like it's rewritten, because we basically struck the entire code section for simplicity and rewrote it. Um, but that would simply allow, it does allow some... You know, I live in the City of Atlanta. Um, my house has a different building co- you know. They have to be built to a different standard than, um, someone in Valdosta probably, it, because it's a multi-story condo and that kind of stuff. And so they do have the ability to enforce and adopt certain building codes.

99. 0:44:00

    Um, however, they do not have the power to revoke anyone's license or anything like that for violation of the building codes. Now, if someone is, you know, c- repeatedly, um, if a city notices that an individual is, and we added a provision in here like we did for residential and general contractors, there is such a thing as people basically like giving their licenses to other individuals and able to p- so that they can pull permits. Um, but these people are unlicensed, and it, it has kind of become a, a huge problem. Um, and so we-

100. 0:44:29

     Hold on. Hold on. So, Mr. Chairman-

101. 0:44:31

     Go ahead

102. 0:44:31

     ... so the general contractor now can't let someone pull a permit under his license with this bill?

103. 0:44:37

     No. This is not, s- separate from general contractors.

104. 0:44:40

     Okay.

105. 0:44:40

     Yeah. So this would say if you are, um, a master plumber Class 1, if you don't have anyone who's working under you, if you just said, "If I'm a master plumber Class 1, I don't know you, but you offer to pay me $200 to use my permit to pull a permit," that is, is-

106. 0:44:59

     What about $400?

107. 0:45:02

     So that, that's where, where it is. So if a locality is seeing that that is happening, um, you know, often 'cause they are who are dealing with local permits, they would then-

108. 0:45:10

     And one more follow-up

109. 0:45:11

     ... be able to-

110. 0:45:11

     Go right ahead

111. 0:45:12

     ... report to the board.

112. 0:45:13

     You, you, you emphasize and phrase electrical contractors, I mean, moving their, what Chairman said regarding moving their down-

113. 0:45:19

     Mm-hmm

114. 0:45:19

     ... here. What about, did, is there anywhere in here that does the same thing for plumbers regarding apprentices, master plumbers, et cetera?

115. 0:45:24

     We did. Yes, we actually did do that. So for journeyman plumbers, it used to be not in code, because none of these were in code, but it used to be three years in order to get three years of experience to get your journeyman plumber's license. It is now one year. Um, that was actually done by board rule a few years ago.

116. 0:45:38

     Board rule, right.

117. 0:45:39

     And it really has-

118. 0:45:40

     You codified it with this, though?

119. 0:45:41

     Yes, and we codified it with this. And then additionally, um, this was not done in rule, but we changed in this one, in order to become a master plumber Class 1, which is an, a restricted license, so essentially similar to like a residential versus, um, commercial. And then that used to be five years of experience, and now it's four years of experience. And then we did keep the master plumber Class 2, which is the unrestricted license, at five years.

120. 0:46:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

121. 0:46:06

     Senator Ginn, you're now recognized for your question.

122. 0:46:09

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Amy, could you- I just wanna make sure. I, I, I'll ask Senator Hatchett. Cynthia, in the bill, Cynthia, uh, you know, we've always had in Georgia where if you wanna do your own electrical or you wanna do your own construction, anything that you wanna do on your own home, you can do that. I wanna make sure that we're not, uh, taking that out or that, you know, you... Somebody that wants to work on their own home, they can, they can do that without having to have a... I don't know.

123. 0:46:37

     Amen.

124. 0:46:37

     You can still do that. Yes.

125. 0:46:38

     That doesn't change.

126. 0:46:38

     And even-

127. 0:46:39

     Thank you

128. 0:46:39

     ... to Senator Lucas's point earlier, employees, um, they do not have to be licensed. So if, if for plumbing, um, as an example, like a journeyman plumber, they do have to be licensed, and that obviously is, um, its own license and then can act as a pathway to licensure for, um, the master class one and two. But if you're an employee working under a journeyman plumber, you do not have to be licensed.

129. 0:47:02

     Thank you.

130. 0:47:02

     Not before, nor now.

131. 0:47:04

     Senator Brass, you're recognized for a question.

132. 0:47:06

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to kinda go back to your, how do they track the hours, and how do they-

133. 0:47:12

     Yes

134. 0:47:12

     ... find that? So as someone who works in construction, we, we don't have licensing in roofing, so this doesn't apply to us, but on a per job basis, I track hours for each employee and how much those hours go to that particular job. And, uh, so most of your GCs are gonna be tracking that. Most of your PMs for all these trades will be tracking that.

135. 0:47:39

     Yeah.

136. 0:47:40

     Um, and so that, that would solve the case of your hourly employees. Where it's gonna get tricky is on your, on your salaried employees. If they decide, let's say in year three, that they want... You know, they got one more year, and they wanna go for this license, um, it's gonna be a little bit difficult to go back. Now, your better companies, your better subcontractors and, and of all these trades, your better ones are gonna know that. They're gonna be able to track it and probably pull it up through HR pretty quickly.

137. 0:48:13

     Sure.

138. 0:48:13

     It's some of your smaller guys, if you've got a, um, if you've got a, a, uh, you know, a laborer, whatever, that started out, and, um, going back to find those hours, that's where it's gonna get... That's where you'll have some issues. And so I don't... And I think to the chairman's point and to Senator Lucas's point is, you know, is that addressed in the bill, um, for those particular people? Or, or is it just gonna be we trust what they say?

139. 0:48:46

     Does that make sense?

140. 0:48:48

     I would say it's probably pretty similar to how, how we do it now. Um, but this does just allow for greater clarification on what full-time work would actually account for. Um, that being said, if someone is, you know, not sure about a few of their hours that they worked and whatnot, I, I think it would be pretty similar to how... I mean, you know, I'm a full-time employee. I definitely work more than 40 hours a week and 2,000 hours a year. But, um, so I think it would be similar-

141. 0:49:14

     Well, not, yeah

142. 0:49:14

     ... to how we're kind of quantifying that. Um, but yeah, it... The full-time portion is really to say that if you are working underneath, let's say, you know, a general contractor, and you are doing other tasks, uh, this is really specific. Uh, utility has an issue with this. So if your tasks really are unrelated to the actual license that you are seeking, that's when it doesn't count. And so, you know, if it says that... So if you worked 40 hours this week, but only 10 of them were working on utility contracting, that wouldn't count.

143. 0:49:45

     So I would say it's less focused on the hourly, you know, what, did you work-

144. 0:49:50

     Mm-hmm

145. 0:49:50

     ... one, two, three hours versus this is what an actual full-time job would account for, not you, um, you know.

146. 0:50:00

     Well, again, if they're hourly, it's gonna be easy-

147. 0:50:03

     Yeah

148. 0:50:03

     ... to quantify that. It's the salaried guys where you might run into some issues, 'cause your salaried employees typically, if they're not on a, on a job, you're probably gonna have them at the shop, you know, cleaning stuff up.

149. 0:50:14

     Yeah.

150. 0:50:14

     And so would that, would those hours count?

151. 0:50:17

     If it's defined in the bill, it would.

152. 0:50:18

     You s- you say it doesn't, but if they, you know, I guess they could kinda sign off on it however they want.

153. 0:50:25

     Yeah.

154. 0:50:25

     But I don't know that you can police that anyway, so.

155. 0:50:28

     Yeah. Yeah, I think it's just important to note that with this bill, we're increasing, you know, accountability there. Because as of right now, it would be, um, a reference, and I mean, largely speaking, you're probably not gonna ask someone who isn't a fan of you to perform a reference. And so right now we're legally tying someone's license, so just adding an extra layer of protection that isn't currently stated in the law. But also reducing the bureaucracy through doing that because now we're not having to call, you know, 10 people who, you know, have verified your experience, um, and your references as well.

156. 0:51:02

     So, um, it is supposed to make it easier. Um, when we met with all of the trades, they seemed perfectly happy with this change. Um...

157. 0:51:12

     That's a good point for me to... Did you have anything further?

158. 0:51:15

     No, sir. That's it.

159. 0:51:15

     Okay. Um, I got two of the oldest, most prestigious lobbyists in the capital sitting here with me. I'm staring at Mo Thrash and Lee Lemke, who represent a lot of these trades. Tucker, you're just as prestigious, just a lot younger than these guys. And I don't know ev- all the, the lobbyists here, but nobody signed up to speak against it. Could I get Lee and Mo to just give us a, come to that podium and say, "We're good with this bill," or, "We're not," or, "We got concerns," or, or, "We hadn't read it yet," whatever you wanna say.

160. 0:51:47

     I just, uh, I'm gonna be asked did we vet this bill, and I don't think anybody but me has read all 60 something pages, and I can't profess to understand all of them myself. Mr. Lemke, identify yourself, tell you who you represent, and what are your thoughts on this bill.

161. 0:52:05

     Mr. Chairman, my name is Lee Lemke. I represent the Mechanical Contractors Association, as well as the Plumbers Association, as well as the Atlanta Electrical Contractors Association. We met numerous times with the governor's staff, appreciated their openness and willingness to work with us and talk to us about our concerns, and we are good with the bill as it is. And again, we thank you very much for the hard work that was put into this.

162. 0:52:30

     Any questions for Mr. Lemke? All right. Mr. Thrash.

163. 0:52:34

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I'm Mo Thrash with the Georgia Utility Contractors Association. What he just said about working with the governor's staff is unbelievable. Amy has worked with us day in and day out for about the entire... more than the la- past year. And we're in total agreement with what's in this bill. We appreciate all the work that's been put into it. And all these trades, I think are suited and agreeable to this legislation. And we thank you very much for all your input and all your work.

164. 0:53:04

     We got a question for you from, uh, Senator Rhett.

165. 0:53:10

     Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the only main concern is tracking the hours of people when they're suppo- when they're going through this process. I know it's a streamlined process for licensing, but it's listening to Senator Brass and Senator, uh, Luke, that seems to be the main concern. How do you make sure... 'Cause, you know, let's say like Luke's Lounge, one- one year the light on outside was blinking on and off, and I said, "Why don't you get that fixed?" He said, "Well, I'm gonna call Pookie and Bubba and have them come over here." I said, "But do they have Trust Dale rating on them?" He said, "The heck with Dale." But I think that's the main concern.

166. 0:53:50

     That can't

167. 0:53:51

     ... not know that.

168. 0:53:52

     You can't track it.

169. 0:53:54

     Yeah.

170. 0:53:54

     Thank you. Uh, Senator Lucas, you're recognized for questions for Mo Thrash.

171. 0:53:59

     Look-

172. 0:54:01

     Are you... Is this for Mo-

173. 0:54:02

     ... suppose-

174. 0:54:02

     ... or somebody different?

175. 0:54:03

     Suppose-

176. 0:54:04

     It is for Mo

177. 0:54:05

     ... I'm a mas- uh,

178. 0:54:09

     uh-

179. 0:54:09

     Journey man

180. 0:54:09

     ... I'm a, I'm a master carpenter, and I'm working for a big contract. I read blueprints and everything, decide whe- when it comes from architect, how it goes and that kind of thing. And say I have a guy that's been working for me and doing that, and all of a sudden he wants to be a contractor. Is the exam, is there a exam on general stuff dealing with contractors as- as- as far as getting a license to- to be a contractor rather than a master carpenter?

181. 0:54:42

     Mm-hmm. I'll speak on, I'll speak on that. So this bill is specific to the State Construction Industry Licensing Board, which is the divisions, this, the trade divisions. Now, there is a state board for residential and general contractors, so I'll get back to your point earlier. So there is another board on that, and that is the process that you would go through, through them. Last year in HB 635, we did a lot of what we're doing in this bill, in that bill, and it is starting to help. Um, we sat down with them, and we worked through, you know, these are really, uh, you know, really subjective what is, you know, what would actually count as experience.

182. 0:55:21

     And so it really helped us streamline, um, over there what degree programs count and so on and so forth. Additionally, a lot of this should be more streamlined with the, um, HB 579 should actually... is going into effect July 1 of this next year, which allows a lot of more administrative approval for these licenses. But yes, that would just be a separate licensing process through residential and general contractors.

183. 0:55:44

     Thank you, Mr. Thrash. Appreciate you. Uh, Hunter Green, did you have anything to a- or, I mean, Tucker, you, are you heating and air, if I remember right? Okay. Did you wa- wanna be heard, or you just in favor? C- tell us what you think.

184. 0:56:03

     I'll just echo the same thing. Tucker Green, Condition Air Association of Georgia. We support the bill. We appreciate Amy and Jacy and all the work they've done. They've met with our representatives, uh, that sit on the licensing board who are industry professionals. They had calls as late as last week going over details, and I think everybody feels comfortable with what they're trying to do. A lot of it is how it's practiced now. I think they've simplified some stuff, streamlined some stuff, but they're just codifying things that are m- largely board rules or regulations now.

185. 0:56:33

     All right. All right. Joel, did you wanna be heard as well? Since you're here, might as well earn your paycheck.

186. 0:56:40

     Thank you so much, Chairman. Always happy to address this illustrious committee. And I am Joel Wiggins, representing the Independent Electrical Contractors, and I really wanna echo what's been said, but really commend Amy and Jacy. They brought us in early, and they talked to us often, as recently as last week, to make sure that we took a lot of this complicated board r- rule and regulation and got it into code correctly, and we're, we're really happy with, with the, the work and the process, so thank you.

187. 0:57:11

     Great. Thank you. Um-

188. 0:57:13

     One more question.

189. 0:57:14

     One more... Who's it to? Who's the question for? All right. Senator Rhett, you're recognized.

190. 0:57:20

     No, I was just gonna thank... Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

191. 0:57:22

     Yeah.

192. 0:57:22

     I was just gonna thank them for streamlining this, and particularly making a provision, as Senator Harbison said, for the veterans. Me being a disabled veteran, I, I understand how that process work, so I just wanna thank you for your efforts in that area.

193. 0:57:38

     Senator Hatchett, um, we've had such a lengthy discussion in this committee the last several years about licensing. And we're juxtaposing new licenses, codifying licensing things at the same time that we're having to roll back red tape and try to eliminate licenses. You know, I'm just... Give me the philosophy or public policy reason why should we even license any of these contractors? Why not just- ... let capitalism work? Is it to protect them from competition? Is it to protect the public?

194. 0:58:09

     Is it to give all these government bureaucrats something to do? T- tell, tell me why we need to even be licensing any of these construction trades.

195. 0:58:16

     I think it's public safety. I think it's when you hang a shingle out and represent yourself as a plumber, that you should at least, that you should have the training and requisite knowledge to ensure that the product that you're Building for a paying customer is up to code and isn't gonna end up costing you more money in the long run. I think you know the joke, nothing will cost you more than a cheap lawyer. I think the same applies to these trades as well.

196. 0:58:48

     Um-

197. 0:58:48

     That's what everybody-

198. 0:58:50

     What I'm wondering is we have building inspectors. We have codes that the work has to be done up to code, and we have inspectors to make sure it is.

199. 0:58:57

     I see.

200. 0:58:58

     So why do we care if it's done by somebody that we've touched the wand on them, given them a license, versus somebody that's just been a hardworking kid their whole life and is good at it?

201. 0:59:08

     I think it just goes back to the fact that if you're a hardworking kid that just is good at it, you're not considered a plumber, right? And so there's professional standards that I think these trades bring with them, with the experience, uh, with the training, with the test. And when you hire someone to do a job, whether it be a... I mean, especially with electrical. I mean, you're talking about house fires. You're talking about real issues that can occur, and I think having these licenses will allow someone who is in the general public to know that when they hire someone that has a license, they have met these requirements, and so they can feel confident in moving forward with doing business with that person.

202. 0:59:51

     And Chairman, if you'll allow, I'm happy to add something to that. So this is-

203. 0:59:54

     Sure, I'll... You're gonna be next, Jacy. I was gonna ask if you had anything to add, and then Amy, and then we're gonna wrap up.

204. 0:59:59

     Yeah, so appreciate the question. Um, this has been honestly a guiding light for Amy and I over, um, like I said, since y'all gaveled out. But in addition, we have another bill in the House, which we hope, um, will, will make its way here. But, um, we're looking at the two Supreme Court decisions, uh, from last year in 2025. One of those being Jackson v. Raffensperger, and one of... What it essentially decided was that, um, our interpretation for this specific instance was that boards are unable to impose significant restrictions on a lawful profession without a real and substantial connection to protecting public health, safety, and welfare.

205. 1:00:34

     And I think if you look at licensing from that perspective, you know, that has been our barometer of, you know, what do we feel, um, should be licensed and, and what do we think, um, could have a little, uh, lighter licensing restrictions. Um, and so I think, you know, if you, you look at it from that perspective of it is consumer protection, um, and making sure that it would fall within the health, safety, or welfare. And so we feel that, that this would largely be safety.

206. 1:01:01

     Okay. And what was that other Supreme Court case?

207. 1:01:03

     The other one was Eternal Vigilance v., um, Republican National Committee.

208. 1:01:07

     Okay.

209. 1:01:07

     And so that was more so on non-delegation, ensuring that boards are not, um, making regulatory, um, rules in board rule, that those would need to be codified. And so that was, um, to our point about codifying a lot of board rules right now, um, and then additionally, what, how that interacts with the governor's office, um, for denials.

210. 1:01:28

     After that case came out, it made it clear that we can't just give these broad delegations power.

211. 1:01:33

     Right.

212. 1:01:33

     We have to be much more specific, so we're retroactively doing- ... that to comply with the-

213. 1:01:40

     Yes

214. 1:01:40

     ... the new decision.

215. 1:01:41

     For example, um, continuing education. So there were random continuing education blurps, whether in rule or in code. And so what we made was, um, a centralized r- continuing education provision that would authorize the board to, you know, um, to... What's the word I'm looking for? Um, accept, like, certain programs of continuing education and things like that. But that will be performed in board rule. And so that's just to give an example of what we think should be codified, such as what would be, um, defined as experience versus somebody, or a board, uh, making a board rule for which continuing education programs are acceptable.

216. 1:02:24

     Senator Lucas, you're recognized for a question.

217. 1:02:26

     Uh, do you young ladies have a card?

218. 1:02:30

     A card?

219. 1:02:31

     A card. 'Cause if I start catching hell about this, I'm gonna be able to come to you all.

220. 1:02:37

     Per-

221. 1:02:37

     Yes.

222. 1:02:38

     You can put me on speed dial.

223. 1:02:41

     All right. I, I, I just wanna know.

224. 1:02:45

     Senator Brass, you're recognized for a question.

225. 1:02:47

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So w- I guess what I've learned in my 10 years in, in being on this committee, not that I've been on it the full 10, but I think I've been on it eight, is, you know, licensing always comes about in the name of, of protecting the public. And then it's, not always, but in many cases, it turns into, uh, protecting whoever gets the license. And so, you know, it seems to me we're always trying to fi- thread the needle on, okay, what protects the public and what has gone too far to where it's too cumbersome for, for more people to enter the, the, the workforce?

226. 1:03:29

     And, um, you know, you look at these trades, and we're, you know, our state is lacking in these areas, uh, as far as, uh, you know, we have a good workforce, we have a competent workforce, we just don't have enough of them. And so I guess my question is, is that the full intent of this bill, is to thread that needle of, of we're dialing back so we're not turf guarding, um, but we're still protecting the public?

227. 1:03:56

     Yeah. I would love to answer that one. So we are keenly aware of the protectionist, how it gets with, with different boards. I think, you know, we have talked with every associat- s- association about this. Um, and you know, the conversation started out, you know, we've had so many conversations over this course- But my interest is not protecting someone's paycheck. Like, I'm not interested in protecting your business. If you're good at your job, you'll continue to get business. It, you know, that- that's-

228. 1:04:22

     Mm-hmm

229. 1:04:22

     ... kind of how- how we posed it. And so that is not the intent. This bill is supposed to, one, make it so that these boards can't say, "Oh no, you're gonna be a competitor with me, so that experience doesn't qualify." We are saying, this ex- is the experience that qualifies. If you have it, you get it, and you can now become a competitor. Um, and so that is really where we have been focused on this. I, we have another bill, hopefully y'all will see it once it crosses over, that is getting rid of licenses and getting rid of boards.

230. 1:04:53

     This was not an industry that we felt, uh, we should do that simply because, yes, we do have a huge, you know, public safety concern when it comes to, you know, fire, um, water can truly damage things so quickly and all of that. You, also for some of these, it totally outside of the scope of here, but medical gas piping, you have to have a license under this board to then get a medical gas piping certificate. And so with that being said, like, those are, are very, very important, um, sections of the industry that we do feel it is, it is necessary to have this in place more so for an accountability perspective so that you have someone to come back and follow up that license.

231. 1:05:33

     It's not just someone random. So you could have someone doing plumbing work in your house, that's not against, you know, if they're not a licensed master plumber, that's totally fine. The master plumber just has to be their j- their boss. Um, and so we feel that this is threading the needle by, one, streamlining those licensing requirements, two, getting rid of some of them. I mean, some of them were good moral character, not someone who drinks a, in excess alcohol and whatnot. I don't feel that that's the position of a board or anyone good moral character. I mean, only God can judge, so i- that's not for the position of the board to take.

232. 1:06:06

     And so we really did try and, you know, preserve the integrity of, of what this was initially intended to do, but we are not interested in a protectionistic environment. That is why we are taking away the board's ability to, you know, s- decide, oh, well, is this person, was this experience good enough? Um, so that is what we feel like this bill accomplishes and what we're hoping, um, it accomplishes-

233. 1:06:31

     You have a motion?

234. 1:06:31

     ... at the end of the day.

235. 1:06:32

     I mean, at the appropriate time, if you don't have a-

236. 1:06:35

     I-

237. 1:06:35

     I'm more than willing to offer anything up.

238. 1:06:38

     I have Senator Albers' line on that.

239. 1:06:40

     I don't, I'm, I'm gonna defer to my good friend, the rules chairman, because this is part of his livelihood, and I think he would be appropriate to make the motion. I'd be honored to second.

240. 1:06:48

     You don't have any licenses.

241. 1:06:50

     I don't have a li- we don't have licenses.

242. 1:06:51

     Chairman Brass-

243. 1:06:51

     Some people want them

244. 1:06:52

     ... Chairman Brass, you are recognized.

245. 1:06:54

     We can discuss that at a later date. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, uh, would like to move that we do pass SB 553 substitute by substitute.

246. 1:07:07

     All right.

247. 1:07:07

     LC 560640 ECS, I believe is correct, LC.

248. 1:07:13

     You can tell us what ECS stands for. You, your motion will be ...

249. 1:07:17

     Um, I can electronic-

250. 1:07:20

     You wanna call a friend, Amy? Uh.

251. 1:07:23

     Uh, it's executive council substitute.

252. 1:07:25

     Executive council.

253. 1:07:27

     And we have a second from Senator Albers.

254. 1:07:29

     Y'all can do that?

255. 1:07:30

     Is there any discussion or is there-

256. 1:07:31

     We'll have that discussion later

257. 1:07:33

     ... or any proposed amendments? All right. All in favor, raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. All opposed? No opposed. It passes unanimously eight to nothing. You are on to the dreaded rules committee.

258. 1:07:46

     Thank you.

259. 1:07:46

     Good luck, Senator.

260. 1:07:47

     Thank you. We do still have to go through ledge council. Poor Ben Huntington, bless his soul.

261. 1:07:52

     We are adjourned.

262. 1:07:52

     He's our expert on this.

263. 1:07:53

     That's our last, uh, meeting before crossover day. Everybody work hard. Go to all your committees and-

264. 1:07:58

     The first actually

265. 1:07:59

     ...

266. 1:08:11

     see you.