House Technology and Infrastructure Innovation Committee, March 5, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1170714502 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1170714502#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-05/house-technology-and-infrastructure-innovation 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. [0:12:29] Hey, good morning everybody. Day before crossover. I think 11 was a little too early. We probably should have done like 1:00 or 2:00, it would've been a little better for everybody. Um, uh, we're gonna go ahead and hear two bills today. Uh, the first one is going to be, uh, from Representative Adeyina, and then the second one will be from Senator Kirkpatrick. Um, Representative Adeyina, I'll give you the choice. Do you wanna go into the hot seat, or would you like to stay there? It's completely your call, sir. [0:12:57] I'll take the hot seat. [0:12:58] You'll take the hot seat. All right. I like that. [0:13:03] Keep it consistent. [0:13:04] All right. Perfect. If you can, uh, obviously just give us the bill number and the LC, and we can go from there. [0:13:11] All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, members. Um, house bill number 1418, LC 61-0401. [0:13:27] So a couple years ago, my daughter was a junior in high school. She came home and told me something about, she saw that day that really bothered her. A classmate that she rides the bus with had gone into the school trash looking for food. Not looking around, not horseplaying. She was looking for something to eat. That moment stuck with my daughter, and when she told me about it, it stuck with me as a parent, because it made me realize something many of us don't think about enough. [0:14:04] Hunger isn't always somewhere far away. Sometimes it's sitting quietly in a classroom in our own community. [0:14:16] At the same time, we all know another reality. Every day we throw food away in our communities while someone nearby quietly is going hungry. [0:14:30] That simple cont- contradiction is what led me to write House Bill 1418, the Rescuer Act. At its core, the bill is very straightforward. It gives counties and municipalities the authority to establish a food, a voluntary food recovery program that allows members of a local community to share excess food through an organized digital platform. The purpose is simple, to make it easier for communities to recover usable food that might otherwise go to waste, and connect it with neighbors who can use it. [0:15:06] The bill does four primary things. First, it grants local governments the authority to establish voluntary food recovery programs if they believe it would benefit their communities. Second, it allows the use of a digital platform to help organize the program, and when appropriate, limit participation to members within the local community. Third, it provides liability protection for good faith participants while still preserving accountability for reckless and intentional misconduct. [0:15:42] And fourth, it keeps the entire program fully local and completely optional. Just as it, as important is what this bill does not do. HB1418 does not mandate participation by any county, city, business, or resident. It does not regulate food businesses. It does not impose food disposal restriction. It does not create reports and burdens. [0:16:16] It does not require state funding. And it does not change or weaken any existing food safety laws. Everything related to food safety remains exactly the same as it is today. The bill simply provides enabling authority so that if a local government believes a voluntary food recovery program could help their community, they have the legal clarity to create one. Sometimes the best s- solutions are not large or complicated. [0:16:50] Sometimes they're simply about giving communities the ability to organize and help their neighbors. I have a slide that I just wanna share. I don't know if they have it handy. [0:17:05] Uh- [0:17:05] Did you put it onto the laptop? [0:17:07] No, I sent it to your- [0:17:09] You sent it to me? [0:17:09] To your admin. [0:17:10] Oh, Lord. [0:17:12] I can pass it. [0:17:12] Oh, now it's in the ether. [0:17:15] Great. [0:17:16] Yes. [0:17:16] It's in the folder. You can take a look. [0:17:18] Oh, it's in the folder? Okay, thank you. [0:17:19] Yeah, I'll just walk through it. [0:17:20] Okay. [0:17:23] And it just, um, reinforces some of the things I've said. But I wanted to point out, so on slide, again, it's called the Georgia Rescuer Exchange and Sharing for Community Uplift and Emergency Resilience, the Georgia Rescuer Act. Um, of course, we know worldwide several billions tons of meals go to waste while several people are food insecure daily. How does it impact Georgians? And I'll just touch on some of the points. [0:17:56] Based on most recent data available, food residuals make up more than 800 t- thousand tons of the waste sent to Georgia landfills each year, with fif- almost 50% coming from the Greater Atlanta area. Food waste represents the largest single category of solid waste going into Georgia landfills. Organic materials sent to landfills- Not only increase the size of the landfills, but also contribute to methane emissions in the United States according to the EPA. [0:18:30] HB 418 helps solve both food waste and food insecurity, closing this loop in Georgia, and create pathways towards sustainable food systems. Again, this voluntary local food sharing authority, no mandate, no appropriation, and no new agency. Page four, liability and safety, which most people always are concerned about. Again, this is good faith. [0:19:00] Participants are protected from civil and criminal liability. All existing national and state laws for food safety and liability stay in effect. Nothing new. Protection does not apply in cases of recklessness or intentional misconduct. Existing food s- safety laws remain in full effect. No new causes of action are created. [0:19:25] Local and control and fiscal impact, again, participation is entirely voluntary. No reporting requirements imposed by the state, no required infrastructure purchases, no state funding obligation. Local governments decide whether and how to participate. And lastly, again, why this matters, reduce waste, support families, promotes community and positive mental health, expands voluntary food sharing within local boundaries, provides structured coordination while preserving accountability, keeps authority at the local level, costs the state nothing. [0:20:02] Thank you, and I ask for your considerable consideration, and I ask for your support, and I'm open for any questions. [0:20:10] Well, Representative, you do have some questions. We're gonna go ahead and start to my right. Secretary Ehrhart? [0:20:16] Thank you. And thank you, Representative, for bringing the bill. [0:20:19] Thank you. [0:20:20] I love the idea of this. Um, I did have a couple of quick questions. [0:20:23] Okay. [0:20:23] And I realize that it would, it's, it's up to these counties and municipalities to sort of establish what the guidelines for how this works. I, I'm trying to envision, um, if you can maybe, can you give me an example? Like, for example, what would be the mechanism by which you would connect the food supplier with the person receiving? Would, would, w- let's take an, 'cause an easy one for me to imagine would be, say, say, a restaurant. [0:20:47] Yeah. [0:20:47] And I know that there are some programs that exist now. Whether or not they are using a digital system like this to coordinate, which I think is a great idea, I don't know. But, like, I know that the Panera Bread near me, um, does, does something similar, um, with just i- leftover baked goods at the end of the day that are still perfectly good but that they can't resell. Um, w- is, it, would this be that, um, the data system is used to set it all up and coordinate, but then the food is, is delivered, picked up? How do you get it from the people that are supplying it to the people that need it? [0:21:20] Thanks. Thank you for the question. [0:21:22] Mm-hmm. [0:21:23] Um, so there are several, uh, platforms out there today that already are vehicles for communication. One that I'm familiar with is called the Hungry app. There are actually several apps out there that enable you to share, and it's free. You download it on your phone. It doesn't require, um, any technical support. It's just like any other app, like your Uber app, where you're part of that community. So if, if the, uh, municipality decides, okay, we're gonna offer this to, like, the city of Grayson, we want everyone within a 100-mile radius to be able to be, to provide food or receive food. [0:22:03] All you have to do is download the app. The restaurant or the, uh, person who wants to share the food goes in and says, "Food is available at this location." Then the, um, person that wants to get, uh, get the food will see the request, accept the request, and says, "Hey, I can come pick up the food." [0:22:24] Okay. Thank you for clar- so it's not that the food is being taken to a third, uh, party location, like a food bank. It's, it's actual direct communication between the supplier and the person- [0:22:33] Correct [0:22:33] ... or the entity that needs to receive the food. [0:22:35] Correct. [0:22:36] Thank you for clarifying that. [0:22:37] Thank you. [0:22:38] Secretary Ehrhart, thank you. Chairman Prince? [0:22:43] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, thank you for this, uh, uh, uh, for your bill today. And more like the, uh, last, uh, question. I'm just trying to think. Can they not, uh, city, counties, um, municipalities, can they not do this already? [0:23:02] Um, I know counties like mine already have, uh, food pantries and some programs. What makes this unique, uh, again, it's a digital platform. It's promoting a digital platform as a tool to facilitate that, and it also enables, um, um, like in the case of my daughter's friend, uh, it also enables people like her to have easy access while they're trying to find food. [0:23:32] So in terms of the counties- [0:23:34] Yeah [0:23:34] ... they, they do have programs, but I'm not aware of any that utilizes a digital platform or promotes, promotes one like this. [0:23:42] So th- this bill will, uh, and I'm just trying to make sure I understand- [0:23:46] Yeah [0:23:46] ... the intent. Uh, well, the execution piece of it. So this bill will allow them, because they can't now- [0:23:54] Correct [0:23:54] ... without this bill, uh, do the digital platform piece, or? [0:23:59] Well, this bill just, uh, encourages counties to, um, enable a policy to, to be able to- [0:24:06] To, to- [0:24:06] ... share food digitally, yes. [0:24:07] Okay, thank, yeah. Thank you for the bill. [0:24:09] Thank you. [0:24:12] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative, I have a couple questions. [0:24:16] Yeah. [0:24:16] Um, I share, well, I don't know if, I don't know if Chairman, uh, Prince has concerns, but my concern, I, I know that I'm a signer on the bill, but it has m- been modified. My concern is- This is something that I believe we already have within the scope of the subdivisions of the state, the ability to implement such a program if there was a will of one of the hundred and fifty nine or five hundred and thirty eight cities. Have you spoken to GMA or ACCG on this? And if, if so, have either one of them taken a position? [0:24:48] Um, I have not spoken to GMA or ACCG on this particular bill. [0:24:54] Okay. So my concern right now, sir, is just, I guess you could say, duplicative type authority being given to the subdivisions. And I'm gonna think out loud, and I'm happy to hear discussion quickly because we have another bill that we need to get done before noon. Um, should we maybe make this more into maybe an urging resolution where the state is urging its subdivisions to consider such an al- an altruistic path? I, I, I think I speak for everyone on the committee. [0:25:25] I don't think anyone would disagree that this isn't, isn't a path that we'd love to see the subdivisions do. But I'm just wondering, do we have to empower them through statute and can this ju- just be done through, I'll say, an urging resolution? I don't see any lights coming on, so maybe there's no opinion on that. But I don't know if maybe you have an opinion on that, sir, or Chairman Thomas. [0:25:45] I actually think that's a great way to handle this. I think you've got a, a really good urging resolution written here. Uh, just put it in res- resolution format and I'd be happy to vote for it. So thank you. [0:25:57] Representative, do you want to respond to that, sir? [0:25:59] Uh, yeah. I, I am open to the resolution- [0:26:02] Okay [0:26:02] ... taking that path. At, at the end of the day, I want to make sure that we make sure that people in Georgia, uh, don't go hungry- [0:26:09] Right [0:26:09] ... and have a, a path to being able to address that need. So I am very open to that resolution. [0:26:15] And unless there's an objection from the committee or from the sponsor, um, the good news about that is that's not subject to tomorrow. Um, uh, so that is, we have, uh, technically 13 days, but we won't be getting together tomorrow, so we have 12 days. But if we, uh, if you would consider doing that, if you, if we consider doing that, I promise you we'll get you slotted onto the agenda and I think we can find a way. And if you could, in the interim, speak to GMA and ACCG- [0:26:44] Yeah [0:26:44] ... and make sure if we're gonna go ahead and look at something like that, if, see if there's maybe some language that they would like to see in there, just to make sure that we have the support from them base, based on our counties and our mu- municipalities. Okay? [0:26:55] Okay. [0:26:56] All right. Thank you, Representative. [0:26:57] All right. [0:26:57] I sure do appreciate it. [0:26:58] Thank you very much. [0:26:58] All right. Next up is Senate Bill 444. Senator Kirkpatrick, can you please come up, please? [0:27:12] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have a handout. I don't know if you- [0:27:17] If you could give it to the lady right behind you, and she will make sure everyone gets it. And Senator Kirkpatrick, welcome to TII. We're glad to have you. And if you can just do the Senate Bill, the AC- the LC and proceed. [0:27:31] Yes. [0:27:31] Thank you. [0:27:32] I have, uh, 461377. [0:27:37] Thank you very much. I have not been to your, uh, same committee before. Uh, normally my bills go to health or insurance. And so I'm happy to be before you today and looking forward to seeing some House bills pretty soon over on our side. This bill is a patient protection bill. We've passed several bills over the last few years related to prior authorization of medical procedures. That's the process that insurance companies use to approve or deny medical procedures. [0:28:09] Most of you know that I'm an orthopedic hand surgeon, and this process adds a lot of complexity, expense, and frustration for doctors and patients. Senate Bill 80, passed in 2021, added transparency guidelines and a definition of a clinical peer who reviews processes before claim denials. We know that AI is a useful tool in automating the parts of the process that make sense, including evaluating coverage, extracting patient data, or automatically approving requests that are clearly allowable, and we want the use of AI to be allowed in Georgia for this process. [0:28:49] The problems occur when there are claims that may be denied where we currently have a law that defines peer-to-peer communication between the physician, dentist, or other provider in the same or similar specialty, so that all factors are considered, including those that may not be obvious from the medical record. The bill does not preclude the use of AI, stating, but just states that it cannot be the sole determinant of a denial. This ensures that a clinical peer, as defined in our law, is involved in reviewing the information necessary to make the best decision for the patient. [0:29:24] A recent s- a recent study from Stanford University expresses several concerns. Opacity of algorithms, algorithms that lock in on past unrelated coverage decisions, lack of robust monitoring and governance processes, and lack of consideration of factors that may not be obvious from data available in the medical record, such as social supports at home when considering a discharge from a hospital. A recent AMA white paper indicates that there are much higher rates of denials when using AI. [0:29:58] I belong to the National Council of Physician Legislators within the NCSL, which you all are all familiar with that group, and there's broad consensus that AI is a useful tool in prior authorization, but that a human clinical peer needs to be in the loop before a denial. I also belong to a listserv from the American Society for Surgery of the Hand, where there was a recent thread about this exact topic. The handout I gave you is, um, one that one of the surgeons posted [0:30:29] That's the result of a patient uploading his MRI and asking for an acc- accurate diagram of the wrist bones. This is the result. I've marked the correct anatomy in blue. The, uh, graphic is not even close to what it should be. This bill uses the NIST definitions, the National Institute of, uh, Standards and Technology, I think is what that stands for, and that's a national definition. [0:30:59] The heart of the bill is lines 24 to 26, which basically states that these systems and tools shall not be the sole basis of a, an adverse determination and shall not supersede the judgment of the clinical peer. So that's briefly, uh, what I was thinking when I was doing the bill, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. [0:31:25] Thank you, Senator. Uh, your first question's to your left, Representative Kendrick. Thank you for the... Is it on? Can you hear me? Okay. Thank you for this bill, Senator. I wish we could apply it to, um, to private equity decisions. My question is about, um, 13 through 15. Um, [0:31:43] p- and the reason I ask this an- is I feel like the committee passed a bill that define artificial intelligence, so I'm trying to see how it's going to... Like, what happens when you have two conflicting definitions? Sorry, Representative Kendrick, I don't want to speak for Chairman Thomas. I'll turn on his microphone and... But I think our goal would be as TII to have one consistent. So when the time is right, either this hearing or the next hearing with Senator Capatre, I think we need to re-examine, because we spent, as you recall, with Judiciary Committee in the room- ... [0:32:14] we spent a lot of time defining artificial intelligence. And, uh, I'm not too keen, and I don't think the chairman is either, but Mr. Chairman, do you want to go ahead and speak? Uh, i- d- yes. Uh, thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, there's, uh, two bills right now that have, that use that definition, which is SB9 and HB171. So we'll, we'll work to get that, that, uh, language. C- And, and the, kind of the backstory is it, as you know, I think I was here seven times. I think it was sev- It, it was at least five, uh, uh, working on the definition of artificial intelligence. [0:32:49] And, uh, the Senate had a, I don't remember if you, I'm sure you remember, they had a study committee. Mm-hmm. Um, and we had a subcommittee, an AI subcommittee that was driven out of TII, and the agreed upon terminology was this, uh, one that's in both of those bills, and it was actually a recommendation out of the Senate committee as well. So we'll, uh... It's very close to the NIST definition. Ac- matter of fact, that was kind of the beginning of the NIST definition. Um, and we had experts all across the country that came in, so... I, I, I keep waiting for the NIST definition to pick up the, uh, uh, Georgia General Assembly definition, 'cause I actually think it's actually better than this. [0:33:26] Um, but, but that's, if you ask me for, for my two cents, that is what I think. All right. Thank you, Chairman Thomas. Rep- Rep- Representative Kendrick, thank you for bringing that up. We had flagged that, and we know that we'll have a second hearing with Senator Kirkpatrick, uh, and we thought that maybe at that hearing we would start kind of working with her in terms of just subbing in that, I'll say, AI definition. But thank you. Do you have any other further questions? Okay, thank you. Representative Cox. Yeah. Thank you, Chair, for this. This is much needed, and, uh, Chairman Thomas as well for the work on the AI definition. [0:33:59] Um, one of my thoughts would be lines 16 m- through 17, where we're actually creating the definition for AI system. And as we all know, we've got AGI, ASI, we've got OI, we've got future, future intelligence that we truly don't know, and I'm wondering when we're talking about the artificial intelligence system, if there's a better definition that we can use there as well, which I'm sure we flagged, but making sure that we don't have to come back to this two, three, four, and five times, that we can grow into. [0:34:38] And, um, that would be something that, um, I think will help because this is moving quickly in the world of AI. Um, thoughts from others? Yeah, Representative Cox, I think you're spot on. Um, we also had flagged 16 to 17, and we feel as if we need to, in a sense, knock that out. We already have a definition in another bill on artificial intelligence system, and we want to see if we either can take that definition and put that in, create a melding. But to your point, um, it seems to be growing tentacles nearly every hour, uh, so we need to think of something that's extensible to your point, and I think we need to do that, again, as we're perfecting the bill. [0:35:17] Anything else? No. Okay, good. Could I just make a comment about that, Mr. Chair? More than welcome, Senator. Yeah. So, uh, our leg council came up with the original definition that was in my first version of the bill, which you haven't seen, and, uh, then it was suggested that we try to come up with a more nationally recognized definition, and that's why we put the NIST defisit- definition in there. But I'm completely open. We've got conflicting definitions on multiple things throughout our code, so it's not unusual to have different definitions and different code sections. [0:35:53] But I'd be very amenable to whatever the committee wants to do from the standpoint of definitions. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate that. And good news, we're using AI to scrape the code on those conflicts. Yeah. Yeah, yeah. So, uh, it's made it pretty easy. Do you want to know how many times we still use horse and buggy in statute? It's pretty amazing. We use facsimile, too. It's kind of interesting. And yet I'm pretty sure that no one in Gen Z knows what that even sounds like- ... to those of us who truly appreciate the whining of a fax machine. Uh, Chairman Crowe. [0:36:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, and, and just to the senator's point, um, this is the definition that is being used in the insurance title, Title 33, in this specific, specific code section, and there are times that we do use different definitions for different purposes. And so this is the one that is being used only for- [0:36:45] Um, this code section that applies to insurance. So it may be that we will have different definitions of different, of artificial intelligence depending on the context in which they're being used. So I don't know it have, if it has to be the same definition. We define weapon differently throughout different parts of the code section, depending on what crime we're using it in or what code section, that sort of thing. Or law enforcement officer is defined differently depending on which code section you're in and that sort of thing. So just wanted to add that commentary. Thank you. [0:37:14] Chairman, I think that's fair, and I think let's go ahead and to kind of move through that in between here and the second hearing, and we can work with the bill sponsor. Okay. Any other questions, concerns for the senator? I don't see anything. Senator, what I would ask is, um, we wanna work with you between now and your second hearing. Um, probably you'll see, uh, Chairman Thomas and I and potentially Representative Cox, and maybe we can find a meeting that we can sit down and kind of coalesce what we need to do in terms of potential sub, uh, for the second hearing. [0:37:46] I would, I would suggest every one of these committee members are absolutely committed to making sure we get the right wording. So I know you're friends with many of them, and let's just go ahead and see if we can knock something out on the interim before we get together. And right now, we would think we would wanna get together next Wednesday. Uh, but if next Wednesday doesn't work, we can do it the following Wednesday. Okay, Senator? [0:38:05] That's absolutely fine. Looking forward to working with you. [0:38:08] Okay. Thank you so much. I didn't realize it. I apologize. Mr. Walker wanted to testify to this, Senator. So if you don't mind, Mr. Walker, uh, come on up, introduce yourself, say who you represent, and, uh, give us a couple minutes please. [0:38:21] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My mic's on. Um, my name is Brent Walker, and I'm General Counsel and Director of Government Relations for the Medical Association of Georgia. Um, just wanted to rise today and let the committee know that the, the, the Medical Association is in favor of this bill. Um, understand that you'll have another hearing on this to work out some of the issues, um, so I'll try to just be brief. Um, you know, we support this bill because it ensures that when artificial intelligence tools are used in health insurance decision-making, a qualified human reviewer must remain responsible for the final determination. [0:38:55] Now, this legislation does not prohibit innovation or the use of AI, but instead establishes a very simple principle. Decisions affecting a patient's access to healthcare should never be made by software alone, right? And really, there's three reasons from a very high level, and we can dive into this later, but essentially first is that it protects patients from automated errors. A lot of times when we look at algorithmic tools that are being employed, history's full of examples of this. Probably the most readily apparent one after Y2K, right, a simple error propagated throughout the system is things like airline e-ticketing systems that simply don't have enough characters in the name field, and it prevented people from being able to catch their flights. [0:39:32] When we have a system like AI that propagates and learns very quickly, small errors like that can produce unexpected and highly magnified results. And we need to be very careful with that in the context of healthcare and treatment of patients and claims determinations in particular. As a second matter, uh, we're concerned that AI alone, uh, with a human in the loop is what they say when I talk to my data science and AI friends, um, prevents bias and ensures fair treatment. Research has shown time and again that AI systems trained on historical data can produce biased or unequal medical recommendations even when patients present with the same symptoms, right? [0:40:08] So we need to make sure that someone that understands the deep context of the treatment relationship and what a patient and their physician have determined in the treatment space is appropriate and should be covered or not covered. And finally, when we discuss that, and probably most importantly, is that we wanna make sure, and this bill does, that we maintain accountability in healthcare decision-making. By keeping a person in the loop, we should always be able to have a qualified human that stands behind the decision that's been made that affects a patient's care. And that really is an ongoing debate within healthcare these days. [0:40:39] Uh, when we talk about claims determinations and third-party payers about whether or not this implicates clinical decision-making in the patient-physician relationship, whether or not they approve or deny a claim. We see time and again, even from like liability contexts and other places where denied claims lead to delayed treatment, which ultimately leads to adverse outcomes. And while this tool shows incredible promise for streamlining these things, there's always the chance that it could create more problems than it actually solves when it comes to patient treatment and delays or denials of care. [0:41:10] So in closing, uh, this is a valuable tool, and we wanna make sure that it remains just that, a tool, not a substitute for human decision-making in the clinical treatment space. So with that, I urge your favorable consideration of this bill, and I'm happy to take any questions from the committee. [0:41:25] Thank you, Mr. Walker. And like Ed McMahon, you have a question. Representative Cox. [0:41:31] Hey, thank you for the comments. So h- thankful that that's part of the concern is making sure that we have us as doctors or whoever reviewing what artificial intelligence systems is giving. Would it be more appropriate, uh, Chairman Jones, instead of using, m- maybe adding in OI, so original intelligence versus the word h- I mean, as we're doing the definition of intelligence, should that be something that we should be looking at? [0:42:00] I, I think it, that's why I think this committee process exists, and I'm with you. I think at the very least it deserves a intense discussion, not just a cursory one. So absolutely, and I'd love to be able to have that with anyone who wants to join. Uh, I was about to call your by your first name. I apologize. Uh, Rep- Representative Cox and I in that conversation, we can do that informally and have that conversation and then come back to the second hearing if that's okay. [0:42:23] Yeah, that's great. [0:42:24] Okay. Great. Thank you. Mr. Walker, you're off the hot seat, sir. [0:42:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. [0:42:30] Yes, sir. At this time, Senator, uh, you don't have any questions or any comments. I would encourage you to work with every member of the committee. Uh, we work really hard. Uh, we noted, uh, we've got judiciary in here working with us. We've got public safety in here working with us. We do everything we can to try and get the bill right and then send it hopefully to rules and then onto the floor. So we appreciate your time. I apologize. I thought you were off the hook. Chairman Prince. [0:42:54] Yes, Mr. Chairman. So, uh, based on what, uh, conversation I just heard you have, so we're gonna, you're gonna put together maybe a small group or something to have this discussion so that when we do come back and when, uh, the Senate comes back, we sort of have a, a direction on where we wanna try to go. [0:43:12] That would be my goal, Chairman Prince, so then that way- [0:43:14] Well, yeah. [0:43:14] Like- [0:43:14] Please keep us in, in the loop on that. [0:43:16] Uh, you're gonna be on the committee unless you say no. [0:43:19] Oh, I see. Yes. Yes, Chairman. Yes, Chairman. [0:43:25] Come on. You could have done the Animal House, "Thank you, sir. May I have another?" All right. With that stated, we're adjourned. [0:43:30] Thank you.