House Ways & Means Committee, March 5, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1170739121 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1170739121#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-05/house-ways-and-means 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. [0:02:39] Don't [0:15:38] have any choice. What is it? [0:15:39] Hold on. Let, let me get down the tablet. [0:15:43] No. [0:15:44] It's gonna be a substitute. [0:15:45] James, he doesn't have it. [0:16:10] Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to, uh, full committee for Ways and Means. Uh, Chairman Prince, would you be so kind as to open us up in a word of prayer, sir? [0:16:25] My pleasure. Let us pray. Eternal God, our Father, we thank you for this day. We thank you for another opportunity, Father, to do the business of this great state of Georgia. As we work this issues and, uh, the things that, uh, you brought before us, let us do it, uh, with your discernment, your guidance, with your mercy and your grace. Father, it's in your Son Jesus' name we pray. Amen. [0:16:49] Amen. All right, thank you very much. We have a, a couple of measures, um, to go over today, and then we've been asked to add one to the agenda. Um, think all of these are things that have been seen before. Uh, I know Chairman Stevens, we had passed after three, um, subcommittee hearings and a full committee last year, is it HB 317 and, uh, an accompanying resolution, HR 192. [0:17:22] Why don't you start, um, with your bill and then move into the resolution? [0:17:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and, and of course, this one is, um, is a mechanism. Some of you might recall last year I intentionally held off of the, of the, uh, resolution. We had a lot of, um... Uh, it was crowded field this year, so I wanted to make sure that we had room for something of this nature. All of our surrounding states use a mechanism for, um, community development. We call it a RID. Um, Florida started the, the process back decades ago, um, where they use private bonding to, um, to put in infrastructure, extremely expensive infrastructure, uh, where the landowners themselves, um, place the tax on themself for the cost of the bonding, um, if you will, place the bond on themself, the debt on theirself. [0:18:18] And, uh, and it stays there as long as the debt remains, uh, and then comes on. The new people that come in and purchase know that this is on their deed, um, with full disclosure. And again, all of our surrounding states use this mechanism. It works very, very well. I see it more for our rural areas, um, that truly can't afford, um, the, the bonding on themselves. And, and again, this is something we vetted last year, um, both the bill and the constitutional amendment, and I would ask you to support it again. [0:18:54] And, and these are in the same form- [0:18:58] It's the same [0:18:59] ... for, for all year. [0:19:01] Yes, sir. [0:19:01] Yeah. 18 is, uh- [0:19:05] Carpenter [0:19:05] ... Chairman Carpenter. [0:19:06] Thank you very much. Uh, Chairman Stevens, is this, uh... How long... Is there a, is there a... I apologize, I'm looking through it. Is there a length of time on the revenue bonds? [0:19:15] No. [0:19:15] Are they capped at a certain time or anything like that? [0:19:17] It, it, it all depends on the, on the setup for the revenue bonds for whenever they're, um, and the length of time that they're held. And the landowners know this going in. [0:19:26] So, so a quick follow-up. So just, just to be sure, um, if they, if they enter into this bond agreement, this, the, the, the city or county jurisdiction, uh, would, um, kind of go out there on a, on a limb with the idea that they keep a lien on that property until the bond itself is, is squared away. Is that correct? [0:19:49] That is true. And all of these city or county functions, whether it be zoning, ordinances, and so on and so forth, none of this is impacted at all. This is only to put in the infrastructure. [0:19:59] Gotcha. And then it'd be a referendum to, to accept such a mechanism? [0:20:03] Yes, sir. [0:20:04] Thank you. [0:20:08] Representative Frye. [0:20:10] Thank you for those clarifying questions, um, Chairman Carpenter. Um, Chairman Stevens, uh, is it set up to where the folks that are owning the infrastructure, are they able to bill the customers for that infrastructure, or will that billing still be originated through the municipality? [0:20:32] It's, it's typically through the county, and that debt stays with the, uh... through the county as long as the debt, until it's satisfied. And then at that point, typically, if it is a, um, a, a streets and drainage, those can be turned over to the county as typically a, a developer will do. But if it is a water system, the counties might choose to keep that because it's a revenue generator for the county. So, but that's all set up in the beginning before any of this stuff is, um, is laid out. [0:21:06] Thank you. A follow-up, if I may. [0:21:08] Sure. [0:21:09] And just, th- these are friendly questions. I'm just trying to get my head around this, 'cause I, I wasn't, um, thinking that pr- the privatization of the utilities was a good idea. But if the utilities are still m- being managed and the rates are being set by our local governments who have accountability, then I think that it, it makes me feel better about that situation. [0:21:30] Yes, sir. [0:21:30] Thank you, sir. I appreciate you. [0:21:37] I don't see any more questions. Does the committee wish to take action on HB 317? [0:21:45] Motion to pass. [0:21:46] Second. [0:21:46] Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. [0:21:53] Aye. [0:21:53] Those opposed, like sign. All right, HB 317 passes. Uh, any further action on HR 192, the accompanying resolution? [0:22:04] Move to pass. [0:22:05] Have a motion to pass. Is there a second? [0:22:09] Second. [0:22:09] Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. [0:22:14] Aye. [0:22:14] Those opposed. All right, goes back to Rules. Um, is Whip Burchett still with us? Did he have to leave? All right, he had to leave. So, um, [0:22:33] Representative Franklin, HB 1132. [0:22:46] Thank you, uh, Mr. Chairman, members of committee. I, I truly appreciate you, uh, hearing or hearing this bill. I know you guys got a lot of bills to go through and, um, and the time is limited, so I do appreciate it. But this is House Bill 1132, and I'm working off of LC443501S. Um, [0:23:09] you guys heard this bill last year. It was, uh, got to Rules, and then, uh, we just basically ran out of time, so I'm hoping that we could get it through the finish line this year. But you should have a one-sheet on your, in your area that looks like this, as well as some other documents that tells a little bit about Habitat in the area. But if you look at your one sheet, um, it basically breaks down who this is for, and we've designed this to be for Habitat for Humanity. And the, the first paragraph on that one sheet is the language that kind of defines that. So it was, it was geared to be specific for Habitat for Hu- uh, for Humanity, and only for Habitat for Humanity. [0:23:45] So, um, that's what we're gearing it for. But it basically allows us to have a tax exemption for the construction materials for each unit. Um, it doesn't cover the tools or, um, labor or anything like that. It only does for the, uh, construction materials. Um, and then, uh, if you, uh, it's broken down between the state and the local taxes, and so it's a little over 3% per each. All in all, it's about $7,000 per unit that would be saved, uh, for the organization to be able to, uh, produce more of these homes. [0:24:17] Um, and, uh, that's a, a big savings for them. Obviously it almost would cover the, the cost of the, of the HVAC system, but 7,000 per unit's great. And, um, it's got a sunset of five years on it. Um, we put that in there. But we've gone back and forth and worked it out. I think it was in subcommittee that needed some tweaks, and so we made those changes. And, uh, that's basically the bill. I can go into a lot more detail about it and the breakdown and, um, of all of it, but it's on this one sheet. And if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. [0:24:48] Who's 10? Mr. Chairman Hill? [0:24:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Um, I'll start saying I, I love Habitat. I have built more Habitat b- you know, I've been on the rooftop of more homes than I'd like to, you know, admit, uh, putting in shingles and things that I am absolutely not qualified to do. But I had fun, it was giving back and, and I love it. So it's a great organization. Uh, my concern, and I'd be curious to get your thoughts on this, uh, my wife and I serve a number of charities, and there's fantastic nonprofits all across the state. How do I, how do I get comfortable supporting a bill that's so narrowly tailored to benefit one nonprofit in Georgia? [0:25:26] Well, we did it on purpose, to be honest with you, because, um, we wanted to make it limited in scope to be able to benefit just this one. Um, um, mainly because I thought that it would have a better chance of passing and getting through, uh, this committee, to be honest with you. Um, I know that affordable housing is a, a big issue throughout all of Georgia, um, and we could pos- possibly do more for others. But right now this is tailored, focused, you know, focused for Habitat. [0:25:50] Thank you. [0:25:53] All right, uh, Representative Cannon. [0:25:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, any idea of the impacts, fiscal note-wise, state and local impacts as a result of this exemption? [0:26:03] Yes, absolutely. If you look, look on your second page there, um, it's sort of a semi breakdown of what it is. You've got, um, some renovation homes, about 16 per year, 161 new homes, so the total homes would be about 177. Uh, the average cost to the state is going to be a guesstimate around 1.2 million, with that cap being, you know, a five-year, uh, sunset on it. But the breakdown, you would have, uh, you know, the s- this, the local and the, um, the, uh, uh, state. The state, you're looking at about 3,822 per unit, and then the local would be about 3,248 per unit. [0:26:38] And all together you're around a little over $7,000 per unit. That would be the breakdown. But in my opinion, to be honest with you, you know, we've passed other measures like this to, um, to give a benefit for other, uh, renovations and homes. And I'm told that the, uh, the, the return on your investment for this is about four times what you've invested. So whenever you go in to renovate some homes or put another home in there or put somebody in the home, you're gonna get it back in, um, supposedly about four times the, the investment. [0:27:09] Representative Frye. [0:27:13] Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, um, thank you, sir, for bringing this piece of legislation. I'd just like to real quick say a couple things to, um, and, uh, Representative Hilton, I want you to come to Athens, and you and me are gonna put on some tool belts. We're gonna have some fun, okay? I promise. I got 63 homes I'm building right now. Um, what I want to do is kind of explain real quickly the economic, um, benefit that I've seen for the program. This is my 26th year at Habitat, and I started in 1999 And I told them I was only gonna be there a year, and here I am 26 years later. [0:27:52] We sell, and this is Athens, different affiliates will be relative to their area median income, uh, of their communities. But currently, we're building a house at about $140,000 for a three bedroom, one bath, around 1,000 square feet. We'll sell that home to our customers for 399 plus taxes and insurance at zero interest mortgage like the good book says. And we end up, you can calculate, we know our current rents for a three one in our community are about $2,000 a house. [0:28:29] So then you add taxes and insurance, you're looking at a overall expense of these families that are making 80% or below the area median income, which in Athens is around 50,000 for a family of four. We can save that family, depending on their insurance, $1,200 a month. Now, I hadn't studied this, but I can guarantee you that that $1,200 for that family is spent within five miles of that front door, and I will engage into a study so I can have that fact. [0:29:01] But you see, that freeing up that budget, stabilizing that budget, and offering that opportunity to families that make good decisions, they work as hard as we do. They've got decent credit. The only difference is they can't afford the dirt and the place in which they live, and that's where this comes in. The outcomes we have seen, 90% of the families say children do better in school, 80% of the families report that they can save money for the future, and 70% of those families come off of or reduce all forms of public assistance. [0:29:38] 70%. That's why I stayed here 26 years, and that's why I'm a firm believer in this project, and accelerating the American Dream of homeownership to our, our folks is important. So I appreciate the, your favorable consideration on this piece of legislation. Thank you. [0:30:01] We've got three more quest- I mean, three more light- lights up, so we got a, a pretty full agenda today, and we have a committee meeting after this. I'd ask everybody to be as brief as they can. Chairman Prince. [0:30:13] Oh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, uh, thank you for this bill. Uh, going back to that 70% that, uh, Representative Spr- uh, Frye, excuse me, just talked about, uh, once these families, uh, start growing, uh, and, and getting better, uh, financially and things like that, as they probably have to move out of some of these homes just based on how things are, is there a, uh, amount of, uh... Is there a cap on what they can, for lack of a better word, sell that house for? [0:30:43] Because it, once it's there, coming back up. [0:30:46] Yes. We have that written into the legislation as well, and it's the very bottom of the first paragraph on that sheet. Basically, if they, to, in order to keep it, families from flipping these homes, getting a deal and flipping it like, like you're kinda suggesting, they, the, uh, it has to be, the, the requirement has to be another person, basically, that's under their Habitat for Humanity, um, client or whatever you wanna call it. So they have to meet those same requirements in order to do it. So that limits that flipping aspect of it. [0:31:12] Okay, so the price would... I mean, because, I mean, it could be 10 years before this person decides to grow their family and move out. So that price that they sell it for, for lack of better words, uh, would have to be... I, I know it has to be two, but it has to be at a certain pri- uh, I'm trying to see, are they, could they profit later, you know? [0:31:35] They, they can't. It's desi- it's specifically designed not to be able to do that. [0:31:38] Thank you. [0:31:38] And to my understanding, uh, uh, Habitat holds the note, I believe, so they have, uh, pretty much control of whatever happens with that and who goes into the note, who takes it over. [0:31:50] All right. Uh, Chairman Williamson. [0:31:54] Thank you, Mr., uh, Mr. Chairman. Uh, and, and thank you, Representative, um, uh, um, Lehman, uh, I'm sorry, Fra- Le- Representative Franklin, for bringing this bill, this measure, and I know that we did discuss it extensively in, in, um, in the subcommittee meetings. But, um, Representative Frye has brought to light the fact that, uh, I didn't really contemplate the, the fiscal consequences of this bill. When we're talking about $7,000 a house, uh, Representative Frye just testified, and thank you for your testimony. [0:32:24] I didn't quite catch the question in that, Representative Frye. But, um, the, the, in pushing half a million dollars of, of, uh, of abated taxes just on his portfolio, do you have any idea how many homes in Georgia Habitat for Humanity, uh, built last year? [0:32:41] I do. So I think Frye's market may be a little different. The average home that we calculated, it would be about 273,000. That's the average selling price for the home. Um, all new homes in all the state of Georgia is 161. But in that number, there's been 16 that have been rehabbed. So the annual total, um, uh, cost was, would be, would be about $1.2 million, and that's how we're equating that 7,000. [0:33:08] So what kind of fiscal note are you coming up with on the back of the envelope math? [0:33:13] Well, it'd be 1.2 times five, I guess, for the five year count. [0:33:16] So five or six million. Would you be interested in a, a friendly amendment putting a cap on this? Because I share, uh, uh, Chairman Hilton's, um, reservations about if we do it for one, how do we, how do, where do we stop? If we had a cap on this program, it'd make me feel a whole lot more comfortable. [0:33:33] Well, a- anything to get the bill, uh, through the committee, Mr. Chairman, obviously I would be, uh, welcome. However, I just wanted to say that, um, you know, $7,000 would, is, to me, is a, is a, it's a small amount per unit, and you give them the benefit, but- [0:33:47] It, it, and, and not being disrespectful at all, but it's, you give a mouse a cookie. [0:33:51] Right. [0:33:51] Where, I mean, where does it stop? Uh, it just keeps spreading. Um- [0:33:55] Sure [0:33:56] ... so, and, uh, again, just had my eyes opened when I hear this, the financial, um, uh- Just trying to be fair to everyone, but thank you for your testimony. Yeah. [0:34:09] Mr. 23. [0:34:11] Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I don't have a question, Representative. I just thank you for bringing this bill. Uh, the path to financial stability for most Georgians, working Georgians, is home ownership, and I think it's a great bill, and I look forward to having the opportunity to move for a due pass recommendation at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for bringing the bill. [0:34:37] All right. Well, I, I think the questions have subsided, and, um, I, I would put the, the question before the committee. What is, uh, what's the will of the committee here? Move due pass recommendation. [0:34:55] Move due pass. [0:34:55] I have a motion and a second. Uh, is there any further discussion? I do have a question, Representative Franklin. Would, would these not qualify for a, a homestead exemption? All of... Uh, these, these are homeowners, right? [0:35:09] Uh, I believe they would. [0:35:11] These are all residents that would qualify for homestead exemption. [0:35:13] I think so, yeah. [0:35:14] Okay. Thank you very much. Representative Buckner? [0:35:18] I was just gonna m- make the point, the, the question that was asked, if, if this would apply to any other organization or should we do this for a single organization, and I can't find anybody but Habitat that does this kind of work in Georgia, so. [0:35:31] Well, we, we have an organization rebuilding together that would benefit greatly from this back at home, and I would certainly love to, to, to see them be able to, to exercise this as well, but, um, okay. [0:35:43] Not opening up the flood gates, but we're [0:35:46] Yeah. Th- thank you, Representative. Uh, I don't see any, any further discussion here. Uh, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Those opposed like same. [0:35:55] Aye. [0:35:55] Aye. [0:35:56] No. [0:35:57] All right. Bill passes. Thank you. [0:35:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:36:04] Did you talk to the chair? Chairman Cheokas, um, I'm sorry, I did not see the note that you had another bill to present, so you wanna come on up? [0:36:12] Please. [0:36:13] Yep. HB1285. Oh. [0:36:16] Yes, sir. [0:36:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It was brought to my attention by the chairman, uh, of the Sumter County Commission, uh, David Bowen, and, uh, they wanna use some of their, uh, local option sales tax to, uh... Well, I'll just read it. The measure would remove [0:36:45] The measure would remove the current prohibition that prevents counties with local option sales tax from having, from also having an enhanced homestead option sales tax. This gives counties that want to eliminate the homestead ad valorem tax an alternative source of funding. And this is HB1285 LC 474015. [0:37:14] I don't see any questions. What is the will of the committee? [0:37:31] Are there any questions to the author? [0:37:35] I have a question. [0:37:35] Yep. Representative Camp. [0:37:37] Um, hi. I'm not on the sales tax subcommittee, so please forgive me, Chairman Cheokas. But is this a measure that would be on the ballot for the individuals in the county or is this something that we would pass- [0:37:47] This would be, this, this measure would allow them, should they choose. It doesn't force anyone. It wouldn't be on a ballot. It wouldn't be an amendment or anything like that. But if they wanted to use the monies from an enhanced homestead to take away- [0:38:06] I see [0:38:06] ... the homestead, similar to the legislation we tried to get a constitutional amendment on, it's very similar. It just allows individual counties to do it should they choose. [0:38:16] So each county gets to pick how they do the abatement for taxes. [0:38:19] Thank you. [0:38:19] All right. Thank you so much. [0:38:21] Thank you. [0:38:25] All right. I don't see any other questions. Chair will entertain a motion. [0:38:30] Motion due pass. [0:38:31] Motion due pass. Is there a second? Second. A motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor, please signify by stating aye. Aye. Those opposed like same. All right. Thank you, Chairman. [0:38:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. [0:38:48] Our last, uh, item is HB1370. Uh, Chairman Carson. [0:38:57] What... Let's see. There you go. [0:38:59] 26. [0:38:59] Gotcha. [0:39:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is, uh, a follow-up, uh, to our IRC conformity bill. As you know, the, the one big beautiful bill in July of last year, uh, put in various thresholds for exempting tax on tips and tax on overtime. The Fiscal Research Center, uh, took a look at the revenue impact, and it was quite substantial to the state. Uh, a- and I think as a committee, as a house, we have, uh, really more adopted a, uh, a philosophy and a platform of reducing taxes for everybody. [0:39:32] However, we are coming back with this one measure to give some relief to those that do receive tax, uh, d- that do receive tips and overtime income. A s- Tha- this would be an exemption, a state exemption of $2,500. Uh, and I wanna thank, uh, the work of the Department of Revenue for working with this, uh, as well as, um, uh, a few other groups. Um, this would be, uh, an exemption of $2,500 on tax on overtime and also a $2,500 exemption on tax on tips. [0:40:09] Uh, there's a couple items that were, uh, included just for clarity. Uh, this is for tax years '26, '27, and '28, as opposed to the big beautiful bill that was '25 through '28. Uh, and there was also a da- a clarifying language in lines 54 through 58 in regard to this applies to TTOCs or treasury tipped occupation codes, so your servers, your, uh, hairdressers, things like that. That's essentially the bill, Mr. Chairman. [0:40:39] Okay. All right. Thank you, Chairman. Uh, Chairman Carpenter has a comment or question. [0:40:44] Yeah, I got a comment. I'm gonna make a motion, but I, I do wanna say thanks, uh, Chairman Carson, for making those changes because I do believe that, um, like we said, you know, tip, tipped employees typically do pretty well. It's the people, um, in the restaurant business in the back that struggle more. So, and I think the overtime piece actually applies to a lot of other industries as well. So we're incentivizing people to work, and that's, to me, is always a good thing. So thank you for making those changes. And, and actually, I think you changed it to '26. The original conversation was trying to get it implemented by '27, I think. [0:41:16] So thank you for ... So that it'll actually help people this year as they can change their withholding, et cetera. So thank you for that, and I make a motion. [0:41:25] If I could just respond to that, Mr. Chairman. When Fiscal Research did the analysis on this bill, removing the tax on tips with the $25,000 threshold was somewhat of a revenue hit potentially to the state. To the Chairman Carpenter's point, removing or putting in a, uh, an exemption for tax on overtime was a substantial hit potentially to state revenue. So I agree with the Chairman. [0:41:50] Thank you. [0:41:51] Representative Frye. [0:41:53] Chairman Carson, I just wanna thank you for coming back with this and, um, appreciate the fiscal concern. And, uh, Mr. Chair, at the appropriate time, I'll second this motion. Thank you, sir. [0:42:08] Well, I believe we have a motion and a second on the floor. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying I. [0:42:17] I. [0:42:17] Those opposed, uh, like sign. All right, bill passes. Anybody have anything further for the good of the order? No. Hearing none, we're adjourned. [0:42:35] All right, everyone. We're gonna get, uh, pretty quickly moving to the 2:00 or the 1:30 now Compliance Subcommittee of Ways and Means. Uh, we're going to give just a short minute for individuals who would like to sign up to speak. I'm gonna have David- It's on the desk. Uh, there's a signup sheet on the desk up there. We have this room until 2:00. This will be a hearing only, uh, today, and what I'm going to do is allow the bill presenter to present, and then I'm going to take the time, uh, that is, uh, left between then and 2:00, and I'm going to divide it equally among the, uh, proponents of the bill and the opponents of the bill, and we will move forward in that regard. [0:43:21] I'm not gonna say such a thing. You say, come say it to me. Tell me ... Yeah. [0:43:48] All right, everyone. We're gonna get started. I don't wanna waste any time. This is an important issue to, uh, citizens across the state, and, uh, I know someone who's familiar with that is Chairman Carpenter. Chairman Carpenter, I'm gonna let you kick us off today, okay? [0:44:04] Thank you, Chairman. So first of all, just I, I look across the room and I know I got a lot of people from my district here, and I just wanna tell you thank you for being here, being a part of this conversation. I know it's not an easy topic. I know we don't agree on, on methods, but I just want you to know that it isn't easy to get down here. I do it every day, four days a week, and it's a pain, and I just wanna thank you for coming. I look forward to the conversation. Obviously, we, we're not, we're not on the same side on a lot of this stuff, but truly know that, uh, I, my heart is to see this stuff get cleaned up. [0:44:35] And, you know, we get there different ways, but I appreciate you being here, and thank you. [0:44:45] All right. Chairman Stephens, I'm gonna let you present the bill, and then we will look at the signup sheet and, uh, uh, start dividing up anyone else who wants to speak as well. Okay? [0:44:58] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, this is a difficult issue to talk about. Uh, it's, um, uh, House Bill 212. If you're looking and following along, it is, uh, LC 44-33-45. I'm gonna hit the high spots 'cause we've only got about 25 minutes to, uh, for the room. Um, PFAS, otherwise known as polyfluoroalkyl substances or forever, uh, chemicals, um, that are in the ground and in the water and, and a, and a real issue. [0:45:35] Um, and the reason that I'm presenting this thing is, is we really need a mechanism, uh, over a period of time to make sure the, the environment and manufacturers can coexist, uh, and m- even further to make sure that our, uh, children, grandchildren, and these communities stay clean. So the legislation essentially prioritizes environmental cleanup. Uh, PFAS contaminants pose a very serious risk to the Georgia land, water, and public health The bill ensures that money awarded specifically for environmental cleanup is used for cleanup. [0:46:16] Without this policy, contaminated land will remain polluted even after damages are paid. Like, the key message in this, Mr. Chairman, and then I want some others to talk about that, is that the settlement funds are intended to clean up the pollution they should actually be used for the cleanup. It prevents windfall payments that leave contamination behind. Um, this legislation recognizes that the damages are awarded for remediation, but not to... [0:46:50] Excuse me, for remediation, but not used for remediation, it effectively becomes a, when not used for remediation, it is a windfall. Meanwhile, the contamination remains behind and continuing neighboring landowners, waterways, and communities. The key message in this whole bill, Mr. Chairman, uh, is the discharge payouts that enrich individuals while pollutants remain unaddressed. This bill will do that. [0:47:21] Mr. Chairman, with the shortness of time, I'd like to turn it over to one of these two that are with me today to, um, hit some high points on the bill, if I may. [0:47:33] If you'll introduce yourself. [0:47:36] Go ahead, and are you gonna start bringing in witness testimony? [0:47:39] Yes. [0:47:40] Okay. All right. We're at, um, one hour and, uh, 1:35, 1:34. So we'll have 26 minutes that, uh, we are going to, uh, be able to take testimony today. And I know there are people who've driven from all over the state to be here. And so what I'm gonna do is with our 26 minutes remaining, I'm now gonna take testimony of those who wanna speak in favor of the bill. And so I'm gonna let y'all start, and then we'll, we'll let y'all kinda divide that amongst, amongst yourselves as, as you would like to. [0:48:12] Right now it looks like, uh... And Mr. Parrish, are you, are you speaking for or against here? [0:48:19] For. [0:48:19] For? Okay. So there's three people signed up. Four with, uh, 26 minutes remaining, 13 each. We're looking at about four minutes for each, each person. You go ahead. [0:48:34] Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, uh, and committee. Thank you, uh, Chairman Stevens, for bringing this bill. My name is Brittany Hole. I am the Vice President of Government Affairs for Georgia Association of Manufacturers. We represent over 200,000, uh, manufacturing employees here in Georgia, and of those, some lawfully used PFOS-containing materials as part of the complex industrial process, often decades ago, and in reliance on products lawfully sold, federally approved, and widely used across the country. [0:49:07] HB 1212 applies only to damages that explicitly pay for PFOS abatement, removal, or remediation. It does not apply to compensation for bodily injury, loss of use, or emotional distress. If a landowner receives funds specifically intended for cleaning up PFOS contamination but does not use those funds for cleanup, the bill treats that unused portion, uh, as a policy problem and not a private windfall. The bill does not force a landowner to remediate their property. [0:49:40] Instead, this bill creates a clear financial incentive to do so. Landowners can fully offset the excess tax by spending the funds on cleanup or placing the funds in a trust dedicated solely to remediation. In other words, those who clean up PFOS contamination pay no tax on their settlement or judgment for that piece. Only those who divert the cleanup funds elsewhere are subject to the excess tax. [0:50:08] The bill, it creates a 50% excess tax on remediation damages that are not used for cleanup. It also provides, again, as I mentioned, a, a trust for those funds that can be placed in for remediation down the road, and it creates a strong incentive structure. It allows the funds to use for contamination cleanup, you don't pay any taxes. If you use the funds, if you take the funds and don't clean up, then you're gonna pay a 50% excess tax on that. [0:50:41] The bill also allows three years for the landowner to do that from the moment they receive the settlements. They have three years to go in and clean up. If they don't get it done in that three years, they move the money into a trust. Um, Mr. Chairman, this is really the crux of the bill. We came to the table because we wanted to come with a solution. We understand that there's a problem out there, but if you don't fix the problem, the problem continues, and that is the reason that we support this bill. [0:51:12] Thank you. You have a question from Chairman Carpenter. [0:51:15] And, uh, looking through the bill, was there ever conversations about making sure municipalities did clean up with the money that they received? I know we- we've- we've all talked about the Rome lawsuit and the amount of money, and the- the focus of the lawsuit was to make sure that they changed their water filtration system for the residents of Rome. Has there been conversations to make sure that that kind of money gets done as well? Because I think it's important. Um, I don't know if- if, let's per se Rome didn't, I know they are, but what if they weren't do- re-rehabilitating their filtration system, and they decided to use it for a pet project, a park over here, this, that, and the other? [0:51:52] Uh, how does... I guess, has there been conversation about that? 'Cause to me, that's important as well. If you're gonna receive funds for a filtration system, the residents and the citizens of that community should expect that that money be spent that way. [0:52:05] Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Um, yes, the conversations have happened. We actually have a bill across the hall to help address some of the funding for that as well. Um, but this would also from my understanding, apply. I might let our attorney really delve into that, but my understanding is if you receive funding in a- any lawsuit, then you've got to use that funding to upgrade the system. [0:52:29] I just wanted to make sure, 'cause it says, it says landowners, so I was just concerned. But I guess the c- the city is suing based on the land that they own, so they - [0:52:37] Over and out. [0:52:37] Okay. [0:52:41] All right. Thank you, uh, Chairman Carpenter. And we're right on time with, with you, Brittany. And, uh, and I guess you're attorney. Are you, are you Mr. Blount? Is that correct? [0:52:51] I am. [0:52:51] All right. [0:52:51] Greg Blount. [0:52:52] All right, Greg. [0:52:53] I- [0:52:53] We've got you on the, on the clock here. You have 10 minutes. [0:52:56] Well, I'll be, I'll be brief. [0:52:57] Thank you. [0:52:57] Believe it or not. Um, I've been environmental counsel for this trade association for almost 30 years, and this PFAS, um, conundrum really eclipses anything else we've seen in Georgia from an environmental impact standpoint. And I would commend to the committee this creative solution. Uh, there are other solutions in the works, too. And the reason this is so important, because in Georgia, we're in PFAS no man's land. We do not have regulations currently to address this from a command and control, um, regulatory standpoint. [0:53:33] So our challenge is we're left with the courts. So if the courts are gonna be part of the solution, the goal of this bill is to steer the money towards, um, good use of the money and, and cleanups where we currently don't have standards or regulatory requirements in Georgia to do that. Thank you. [0:53:53] All right. I don't see any other, uh, any other questions. Y'all have anything y'all wanna, wanna add, Mr. Chairman? [0:54:01] Nope. [0:54:02] I'm gonna bring, uh, Trey Paris. [0:54:04] Welcome. [0:54:05] Okay. All right. Hang on just a minute. Chairman Williamson has a question. [0:54:09] Mr. Blount. [0:54:11] Yeah. [0:54:11] Do I not recall having met you about 44 years ago when you were in a pickup truck at a wedding in Monroe, Georgia, and you were pulling a little, uh, uh, yo- it was a fishing boat, as I recall. [0:54:20] Right. We didn't know about PFAS then. [0:54:23] We didn't. I, uh, I should have guessed that you were gonna be a environmental lawyer when... I've never seen anybody else come to a, a wedding, uh, pulling a, a fishing boat, so. Good to see you again. [0:54:33] Good to see you. [0:54:34] Fond memories from days gone by. [0:54:37] That's right. [0:54:37] All right. Uh, Mr., uh, Mr. Paris. You got four minutes. [0:54:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I'll be very brief. I'm Trey Paris with Freeman Mathis Decisions, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Georgia Paper and Forest Products Association. I'm here to voice our seconding support for House Bill 1212. We appreciate the leadership of Chairman Stephens and the bill sponsors on this important legislation. You've heard from others detailing the bill and expressing their support, so again, I'll be brief. This legislation establishes a responsible framework ensuring judgment and settlement proceeds that are intended for PFAS abatement will actually be spent on addressing environmental concerns and remediation. [0:55:24] This PFAS issue is important to the paper and for- p- forest products industry. Their members comprise more than 175 facilities in Georgia, and they employ more than 50,000 people with an economic output of more than $20 billion annually. Their industry is vital to the success of rural Georgia. Although this is a hearing only, as we know, the paper and forest products industry remains committed to continuing the search for sensible science-based solutions to address per- and polyfluorinated chemicals in a way that protects both public health and enhances Georgia's economic competitiveness. [0:56:02] HB 1212 would be a very good first step towards that goal. Thank you. [0:56:11] All right. Any questions for Mr. Paris? [0:56:16] All right, don't see any. [0:56:18] Thank you. [0:56:20] All right, now we're going to move on to our, uh, against, uh, portion of the, uh, testimony today. We're tracking right on, uh, cue here. So is it Mr. Tom Cosby? [0:56:34] Yes, sir. [0:56:35] Okay. Mr. Cosby, just sit down for us. Again, give us your name and kind of tell us your perspective from where you're coming from today. [0:56:42] Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of this committee, for the time to speak in front of you. My name is Tom Cosby. I am from Dalton, Georgia. I'm an attorney engaged in the practice of law, and specifically have been engaged in the practice of PFAS litigation in one form or fashion since it started within the state of Georgia. To give you all a background in this, uh, 31 states have pursued an action in one way or another against the manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as forever chemicals. Five states have proceeded and obtained a settlement to deal with their problems and continuing contamination, including Delaware, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Ohio. [0:57:20] The state of Texas has proceeded in its own action filed by Ken Paxton, and that's proceeding in court, and I have the case numbers for all of those if, if the members of this committee would like them. States all over this country have introduced legislation to address this crisis and to address the cleanup of these chemicals, to address the cleanup of legacy sites. To my knowledge, and after my brief search, no state has introduced any legislation to penalize or punish those who would pursue cleanup of their land. So, so you know, I represent a class of individuals in Summer- Summerville, Georgia, who are ratepayers, who have the single highest contamination of their drinking water within the state of Georgia and one of the highest within the United States. [0:58:01] Uh, I represent landowners in Gordon County and landowners across Northwest Georgia i- in broadly the 14th District, and I can tell you with a certainty that no one I represent, no one involved in any of this litigation feels as though they've received a windfall. No one involved in any of this litigation wants anything other than their land cleaned up. A- a- and so, so you know what you are addressing and dealing with, the city of Somerville's filed an action, the city of Rome has filed an action and received a settlement. [0:58:32] There's ac- an accompanying class. The city of Dalton, through Dalton Utilities, has filed an action. The city of Calhoun has filed an action. The city of Chatsworth has filed an action. Gordon County, Catoosa County, Walker County, Chattooga County, and Murray Counties have all sued to remediate their PFAS problems. There is a pending claim for a class action lawsuit in the Middle District of Georgia to remediate all the county landfills within the state of Georgia from their continuing contamination. A- and so in looking at this bill, there, there are parts of it that I agree with. Uh, contamination of the natural resources of this state by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances is a continuing catastrophe. [0:59:09] But in addressing it, the general assembly, if, if you promote this bill and pass it out of this committee, y- you penalize the very people who are seeking to address the problem. You are penalizing the very people who have filed suit to address the problem, and you're penalizing them in the cruelest way because in Georgia, if they recover damages sufficient to remediate their property, there's no way that they can do so within the three-year time period prescribed. There is no provision within this bill for the expenditures that it takes to bring an action like this to trial and to judgment or to settlement for the recouping of those fees. [0:59:46] These are tremendously expensive actions to try, both from the point of view of your attorney's costs and the cost of experts and materials and expense to bring these things to trial. But the portion of the bill I agree with, s- the sound public policy of this state should encourage PFAS abatement, removal, and remediation. What this bill would do is if funds were received to address that problem, there's no provision for a fund within the state of Georgia to use it. There's no language within this bill that says the 50% that we might tax right off the top won't just be dropped into the general fund and to be used for any purpose. [1:00:23] So the bill itself is in disagreement with itself. If, if you truly wish to encourage resolution of this continuing problem, there ought to be provision in this bill to provide for a mechanism by which these funds that you take in the form of a tax would be used to address the problem. Otherwise, the state itself would receive a windfall. Uh- [1:00:45] Mr. Cosby, you've hit the four minutes we're allocating for each individual. You have a question, so I'm gonna recognize Chairman Carpenter. [1:00:53] Appreciate you being here, Tom. Uh, so r- so would you s- the, the conversation on my end had, with the author had always been to put it into the hazardous waste trust. I think that makes the most sense, and to issue out, uh, community grants to, for the remediation. Would you suggest that, um, the, the li- the, the language of the bill state begin remediation in those three years? And is, if that's the case, does that satisfy what your concern is? [1:01:24] Um, obviously not finishing with remediation, but within three years to begin the process of remediation. Because I, I, I, nobody here wants to penalize people, but we do wanna make sure that the, the portion of for remediation is used for re- remediation and not, uh, take, take the funds and leave, and then the mess is still there for the neighbors and everybody else to deal with. So that, that's, it's not to penalize people. It's to make sure that that portion of the money is actually used for that portion of the money. [1:01:55] No different than if a tree fell on your house and your insurance company gave you the money to fix your house for the tree, that you fix, fix your roof with the tree, if that makes, if that makes sense. [1:02:05] It would, but under that scenario, if you received an insurance check, you'd be permitted to keep it and do whatever you wanted with, with y- with your property. But, but here, no, I agree with the fact that I don't represent a single person that if they receive funds, they would not apply it to remediation of their property. But this bill does not provide for the costs it takes that person to get there. In other words, if the excise tax is levied upon them, they're not whole. They, they still have to pay whatever costs they have in bringing the action, prosecuting the action, a- and, and they're left with, with, uh, an amputated recovery, if that makes sense- [1:02:36] Yeah [1:02:36] ... if something like this were, were passed. [1:02:40] All right. Thank you, Mr. Cosby. We got Chairman Williamson, and again, we have e- e- 11 minutes here, and I know I got two other... Let me do this. Let me, just 'cause I wanna get this heard. We got people who've came here to testify today. I'm gonna take the two testimony and whatever we have left after that in the remaining time, four minutes each, two people. I'm gonna take questions for the remaining three minutes from whoever wants to, wants to ask. So Nick Jackson. [1:03:09] You got four minutes, Mr. Jackson. [1:03:11] Four minutes, got it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, so my name is Nick Jackson. I'm an attorney in, in Atlanta, Columbus, and Dalton. Uh, and I have the honor of representing 1,100 Georgians in Northwest Georgia as it relates to PFAS contamination on their property. I also represent several cities and counties across the state. Uh, the, the class action that, that Mr. Cosby referred to, that's my class action. Uh, I also filed a wastewater treatment class action as well. [1:03:42] I represent Catoosa, Gordon, Murray Counties. Uh, many of these cities and municipalities are either within many of your districts or are in close proximity to your districts. Uh, let me be very clear. Uh, this bill is a tax It is a penalty, and it penalizes true victims of environmental contamination and not the pollution. That does not make sense from a public policy perspective. That is not what this body should stand for at a time when many people are standing up and, and, and arguing that taxes should be reduced in the form of property tax, income tax, et cetera. [1:04:16] This is a new tax this body has intr- that, that could go before this body, uh, and that is being set forth by, uh, sp- sponsors of this committee, uh, that penalizes true victims of environmental contamination. I represent farmers, landowners, small businesses, uh, individuals, uh, and most importantly, cities and municipalities, uh, or cities and counties. Uh, Mr. Carpenter, uh, is, is right. There is no carve-out, uh, for cities, uh, and counties i- i- as this bill is currently written. [1:04:48] It would be devastating to small cities and counties across this state. But also, as currently written, uh, landowner could also mean the State of Georgia. This bill is actually a tax on the State of Georgia. Uh, so make no mistake about it, uh, this bill is a full attack on victims who are everyday Georgians and who have done nothing wrong. Uh, I have some of my clients down here today, uh, like Martha Bradford. Uh, she's sitting right behind me. Uh, very appreciative of her coming down today. Martha Bradford's a Whitfield County, uh, public school bus driver who's retired and lives on a family farm. [1:05:22] That family farm is contaminated with PFOS contaminants. She's had uterine cancer and kidney cancer. Her daughter had uterine cancer and had to have a complete hysterectomy in her 20s. There is no windfall to someone like Martha Bradford. All she wants to do is clean up her property so that something like this does not happen again. I have the Fletcher family with me, whose creek in their backyard is downstream from a Mohawk plant and runs at nearly 2,000 times the EPA drinking water limit. They, they raised their family, they homeschooled their kids on their property, they eat crops that they grow, and they raise chickens. [1:05:57] They don't do any of that anymore. There is no windfall for a family like the Fletcher family. They are true victims. I am not your average plaintiff's attorney. I am a special assistant attorney general. My day job is I defend the State of Georgia in litigated matters all the way from Clayton to Thomasville in wrongful death actions. This is not your average piece of litigation. This is different. This is about people, and this is a tax on people. It's an attack on victims, and if passed in its current form, it's my personal belief that it's shameful. [1:06:31] Thank you. Any questions? [1:06:33] Uh, thank you for being with us, Mr. Jackson. What we're gonna do is I got one more person signed up to, uh, speak against the measure, and any commitme- committee members that have questions, I'm gonna start with Chairman Williamson since he was kinda left right there. I'll let you direct who you wanna bring up for your question, and we'll just kinda proceed through there. Okay? All right. Dan Snipes with the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association. Dan, you got four minutes. [1:06:56] I think most of you know me. I practice law in the Statesboro. I think a fundamental problem with House Bill 1212 is it doesn't reflect how civil litigation is resolved, okay? And this is a prime example. But the authors of the bill who are coming to you and saying what they want, they've not admitted liability in any of the cases pending against them. They've not admitted to the degree of harm or damages in any of the cases pending. When civil litigation is settled, that means by its very nature it's a compromise. [1:07:27] That means that one side had one point of view, another party had other contentions, and the settlement's where they come together. So in the context of remediation, by its very nature, the party whose land it is, if they resolve the case, they've already agreed to a compromise. So this Bill 1212 starts about talking about the gross value of the settlement that's for remediation, and gross means that's the top line. That doesn't include what the plaintiffs would incur in expenses and f- and fees, but the gross amount would be taxed. [1:08:01] All right? So first of all, that's wrong. But secondly, the gross amount there would also be by its very nature a compromise. And then when these cases are resolved in any civil litigation, and I was involved in the Ogeechee River fish kill litigation, when those cases were resolved, you're not delineating the types of damages in a settlement agreement. What the defendants and insurers want is a release. They want out of the litigation, and they pay a lump sum of money in exchange for that that doesn't delineate these forms of money. All right? [1:08:31] But beyond that, these types of damages are not taxable. For property damage, whether it's remediation, loss of enjoyment of use, diminution in value, those aren't taxable. So plaintiffs' lawyers don't issue their clients a K-1. All right? So there are, there, there are just fundamental mechanisms this bill doesn't address that are not in our system. The only way this could ever possibly come into effect would be if you had a jury verdict, and if the judge used a special verdict form, and that's up to the judge based on the nature of the case and based on his jury, then he decides what verdict form to use with input from the parties. [1:09:11] This bill doesn't address how this is really gonna happen. What it is is a tax, and an excise tax is meant to discourage activity. And we have an access tax on cigarettes because there's a public cost and we wanna discourage smoking. And what this is is an excise tax to discourage litigation, and it's nothing more than a way to discourage people who have been harmed from bringing claims. Thank you. [1:09:38] Thank you, Mr. Snipes. Thank you for being cognizant of our time. We have four minutes here, everyone, so I'm gonna recognize Chairman Williamson. Chairman Williamson, just tell us who you'd like to address your question to, and if who, uh, that question is addressed, who will speak to, uh, step to the podium. We'll try to move through this, uh, these last four minutes before the, uh, next committee starts. Chairman Williamson. [1:09:58] Thank you, Chairman Kelly. Uh, and it was directed to Mr. Cosby, as, but as usual, uh, uh, Dan Snipes did a great job of kind of almost answering the question. And that was gonna be my question. So we were talking about gross amounts, and obviously, the gross amount includes the, uh, the attorney's fees, I'm, I'm assuming. [1:10:15] Presumably it would, yes. [1:10:17] Yeah, and you know, which I, I can understand that that needs to be- That's something that would fundamentally need to be addressed because you're talking about net proceeds available to, to, to, to distribute or use according to some formula if that moved down this path. So, um, uh, thank you, Mr. Snipes. You answered my question. So that, that's, that's, I just wanted to confirm that. [1:10:41] All right. Chairman Carpenter. [1:10:44] I actually had a question for, um, uh, Ni- M- Nick, sorry. I apologize. I lost your last name. Jackson, correct? [1:10:52] Yes, that's right. [1:10:53] Appreciate it. So let me ask you a question. So as you go through these, um, the standard fee structure on, on, uh, on PFAS Georgia, is it a 40%, uh, off the, off the gross plus legal fees? Are the legal fees taken out before the 40 percent's figured? And if so, do you have a rough estimate as you've modeled this? What does that fee structure look like? What do you feel like the legal fees is gonna be, uh, in, in such, such case? [1:11:21] Well- [1:11:21] Since you said it, it was a big, you know, a lot to do. [1:11:24] Thank you for your question. Uh, Representative Carter, or Y- uh, uh, Carpenter, I'm sorry, are you referring to legal fees meaning expenses? Because the percentage itself is the actual fee. Does that, does that make sense? [1:11:34] That, that's right. So I'm, so i- if it's my understanding, let's say it's $100 million. You take legal fees out first, expenses- [1:11:41] Mm-hmm [1:11:41] ... and then you split the, split the settlement 60/40, 60 to the family, 40 to the firm. Is that how it's laid out? [1:11:48] Yes, in general. [1:11:49] So roughly, what do you see the percentage of expenses being in such a heavy, um, heavy work case? [1:11:56] Well, I, I'll tell you, um, so m- my firm has filed two class actions, uh, which is generally where, uh, one or a select number of individuals, in this case cities and counties, represent all of those across the state. But the individual actions that I've filed on behalf of land owners are all being brought as what's called a mass tort. [1:12:16] Sure. [1:12:16] Okay? It's not a class action. It's brought on an individual basis, meaning each individual family, land owner, business owner, farmer, whatever it may be, they have their own, uh, their own contract. They have their own story. [1:12:30] Right. [1:12:30] And so, uh, the expenses associated with every single, uh, client of mine vary widely. Um, I have some, some clients that we have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars for already. [1:12:41] Sure. [1:12:41] Um, I have some where I maybe have spent, you know, a couple of hundred. It, it just varies from every single client, and that's why legislation like this, um, it, it, it's just not tailored to each specific, uh, you know, situation, and as a result, many people, uh, will be penalized for that, for that. [1:13:00] Yeah, yeah, but I, and, and I hear you on the penalized part, but if, if, w- which it doesn't really matter from listening to, um, uh, Mr. Snipes talk about the, the, the lack of delineation. But it's, you're not penalized if you take the money for cleanup to clean up, though. So I don't, I don't really think of it as a, you know, you're, you're harmed. That's a different piece. Your loss of use is a different piece. That, if we said those things would be part of the equation, then that would be, to me, hurting people. [1:13:32] But if you're just saying the cleanup piece, I don't, you're not, I don't know how you're harming somebody to, to, does that make, I mean, I, I know we're on the diff- different sides of the issue, but I don't see where the, I don't see where you're harming somebody to do the int- the, the way the money was given to them, using it, the, the intentions of the way they've asked for it. Because when you ask for the money, you ask for the cleanup portion in your ask, I assume. [1:13:56] We ask for the cleanup portion, but we also ask for a lot of different things. I think what Mr. Snipes said was correct as far as from a legal standpoint. Uh, this creates a massive hurdle for plaintiffs across the country, or across the state, I'm sorry. Um, it, the, the jury verdicts would have to be, uh, earmarked. Uh, settlements would have to be earmarked. This creates a massive hurdle. If those are not, uh, these individual land owners, counties, municipalities, and possibly even the state would have to pay a tax. It is ultimately a tax. [1:14:27] I mean, there is a credit that's associated with it, um, but, but a credit, uh, i- is not, you know, uh, uh, no one likes taxation, me included. [1:14:37] Sure. [1:14:37] Um, a- and so, uh, in my view, this, voting for a bill like this, in support of a bill like this, is a vote for big government. This empowers big government, and it does not empower the individual land owner in South Whitfield County like Martha Bradford is. [1:14:52] All right, everyone. [1:14:53] Yeah. [1:14:53] We are, we are running on our 2:00 timeline. Chairman Parsons is here, and I, I try to respect us on busy days of commi- committee days. Chairman Parsons, I would ask you, could I give two minutes to Chairman Stephens if he wants to, wants to wrap up? Would that be okay if I give him two minutes? And, and I promise you we'll clear the room in a expeditious fashion for you. [1:15:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:15:17] Chairman Stephens. [1:15:17] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, and again, I'd like for the committee to, this is such a big issue. I'd like the committee to focus on the word cleanup. Um, let's keep in mind some of these land owners aren't even in the state. Um, this issue of holding the revenue until it's cleaned up with the tax credit to come, uh, is important. Some of these folks don't live in Georgia. Uh, that's important. Um, but, and again, the bottom line for me, this is a beginning conversation. [1:15:49] Um, and let's stay focused on cleanup so that we don't leave this for our children and grandchildren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:15:55] Thank you, Chairman Stephens. Thank you to the committee members. Chairman Parsons, thank you for the leeway there. This is an important issue. Thank you to the citizens who traveled down to be with us. I'll also note that the Georgia Chamber of Commerce had sent a letter that we were trying to get on everyone's desk before the meeting in support of this, but we'll make sure that gets distributed out to everyone as well. Thank you for your patience. This meeting shall stand adjourned.