Senate Finance Committee, March 5, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1169732042 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1169732042#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-05/senate-finance This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:13:53] Efficiently. Get, get everybody's attention, especially those over here. Um, we're gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order. And, um, I think most everybody on here has done the invocation once, but I haven't, so I'll, I'll do it today on this, uh, morning. If you could bow your heads. Our dear Heavenly Father, we thank you for all you've done for us. We know you've been good to us in so many ways, and you've blessed us in so many ways. And we ask your forgiveness for when we haven't measured up to your standards, and that you could protect us from evil. [0:14:29] Give us your wisdom and guidance to make intelligent decisions in all we do today and thereafter, and we ask all this in your name and for your sake. Amen. All right, Leader Jones, if you wanna y- come up to the front there. Um, Leader Jones had a, uh, study committee this last year. Um, as people know, this is hearing only, and you can say crossover day, but as we also know, there's multiple ways to advance legislation later on in the session as well. [0:15:03] So, um, we're gonna try to spend about 15 minutes on this and, and maybe 15 on the next. On the third one, we'll have a lot more testimony and, and about 30 minutes on it. So, um, uh, I attended part of the meetings that, that Leader Jones had. They, they always seemed to schedule it every time I had to be in the hospital. It just never worked out too good for me, but that's how it is sometimes. Anyway, let me put your mic on. [0:15:31] Okay. [0:15:31] And, um, go ahead and present your bill here. Um, we're working on, uh, LC52-1059. Is that correct? [0:15:39] That's correct, Mr. Chair. [0:15:40] All right. [0:15:42] I- [0:15:42] Floor is yours. [0:15:43] Based on the limited time, I would say per- most pertinent part would be on page three, which is, um, section three, which attempts to address an issue that we have in Georgia. One of the issues that we have, of course, is that we have, uh, a declining number of actually healthcare workers, especially home healthcare workers, in the state. We're losing, um, you know, thousands each year. Um, we anticipate actually having about 53,000 workers come in, but we're gonna be losing about 173,000, uh, workers leaving, uh, for various reasons. [0:16:14] So this attempts to address that, which when you have a person receiving Medicaid in Georgia and they need healthcare or caregiving services, we come under what's called the Structured Family Caregiving Program. And other states that also do something similar is Indiana, Georgia, obviously Georgia, Connecticut, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Dakota. Um, Indiana would be one, one state to actually pay close attention to because it kind of fits our purposes today. So one of the aspects of the Structured Family Caregiving Program is a rule ba- by the federal government and also by state that says that a spouse cannot actually receive, um, any type of reimbursement or the spouse cannot actually receive any type of pay to be a caregiver. [0:16:54] That's by rule. So what this section three actually tries to address is when, um, it's only state funds involved, because we would not be necessarily change the federal, but where state funds are involved, to actually allow the spouse to be able to receive payment, um, similar to other healthcare workers would, would be able to receive, to address the issue that is squarely facing us, the lack of home healthcare workers. Now, actually how to kind of structure that, I have someone here from Freedom Care that can kind of talk about the details of that particular, um, how we kind of have that rule kind of change and the details about how much it would cost and things of that nature. [0:17:31] I can turn it over to her. [0:17:32] Good morning. [0:17:33] All right. [0:17:33] Morning. [0:17:34] Is this on? [0:17:35] It's on, yeah. [0:17:36] Okay. I'm Lisa Leach. I'm the Director of Operations for Freedom Care. Um- [0:17:39] And get a little closer to the mic maybe. [0:17:42] Okay. And I am here talking about and representing the many patients who are desiring to age gracefully at home, but sometimes are limited in their opportunity to do that because the only caregiver that they have at home would be their spouse, and Georgia does not allow the spouse to be paid a- as a caregiver. Georgia pays a daily stipend for structured family care services, so at the end of the day, it's kind of the, the lowest payment you can make for somebody to be cared for at home. One of the major purposes of that is to reduce institutionalization into nursing homes if we can, when it's appropriate. [0:18:18] But, um, AARP did a study that by 2030, there will be more people over the age of 60 in this country than under the age of 18, because people are living longer, and those, and there are many people who are no longer deciding to have children. So what do we do with all of us? What do we do with everybody? We can't, there's not enough nursing home beds. There's not enough healthcare workers. And so where appropriate, we are asking, um, you to consider what we're offering here is that can the spouse be the paid caregiver? The good thing is, is Georgia doesn't have to break new ground. [0:18:52] Um, Indiana has definitely spearheaded this. It is still under a waiver program. I testified on Tuesday in front of a similar committee for Connecticut who is also passing this bill, um, s- because they recognize that we're, you're paying more money. Um, it's probably 60,000 more dollars per year per member that you are paying to put them in a nursing home versus allowing them to stay home with their spouse. Georgia also is unique in that it does not allow the caregiver under structured family care to work outside the home. [0:19:26] So we're really kind of keeping people at a pover- poverty level unnecessarily. Again, the daily stipend that we are paid is about $110 per day. We're required to pay 60% of that to a, to the caregiver. So that caregiver would get about $66 a day to take care of their wife or their husband, which is significantly cheaper than any other caregiving opportunity. Um, not to mention, you know, if we think about quality of life, we all hope we're going to be able to age gracefully. [0:20:00] We would love to age grace- gracefully at home surrounded by our loved ones and that's really a key component to this from the human factor. Um, so there's, you know, equal human and financial factors related to this. Um, this would change the scope of the way Georgia, Georgia's elderly are taken care of, um, and recognize that those nursing home beds are then available for those who need it most, who don't have a caregiving resource at home or who need it from a medical perspective. [0:20:30] So, so, um, I see on the bill here we've got the, uh, the $750 credit, um, maximum on here. Um, and, and let me back up and say, you know, I think this is a big issue in our state. We have, uh, you know, we talked, you're talking about the aging population. I remember it was, I believe about three years ago or so that we be- we joined Japan in selling more adult diapers than baby diapers. [0:21:00] Mm-hmm. [0:21:01] The, the changing demographics and, you know, for, for many 90% of the healthcare cost is in the last year of their life, uh, because of, of things that happen and so, um, um, this is a, this is a big issue. Now currently who is ... Is it anybody other than the spouse? Who is eligible for the family caregiver? [0:21:22] So anybody over the age of 18- [0:21:24] Mm-hmm [0:21:24] ... who passes a background check and lives in the same home as the c- as the patient. It can be either the caregiver's home or the patient's home because structured family care is 99% of the time it's a family member- [0:21:36] Mm-hmm [0:21:36] ... who's taking care of them. We are missing the opportunity for the spouse to do that, which is really oftentimes the primary caregiver. So we're, in other programs they'll have to rely on other programs that bring in outside people like PSS or PSSX. They're bringing in caregivers from outside the home who come in, take care of them for a portion of the day and then leave. The problem with that is the turnover rate is so high in those caregiver resources that you can't keep a consistent caregiver in the home and oftentimes they're left without a caregiver and it's, then you're back to the spouse who's doing it and doing it because he's choosing to either take care of his wife or go to, go to work. [0:22:17] And, you know, uh, it's not a decision I think anybody should have to make. [0:22:21] So you, you talked about the Indiana waiver, but that's, is that for Medicaid? [0:22:26] It is. It's still- [0:22:26] And what does that do in Indiana? [0:22:28] In Indiana, um, in, in fact there was a PF- there is a PSSX type program. It's called attendant care and that's the caregiver who doesn't live with the person. Um, it used to be in Indiana that under that program the parent of a disabled child or adult could get paid up to 60 hours a week under attendant care to take care of their own child. The secretary, the new secretary came in a year ago and made it that they could only be paid under the structured family care program because the stipend is appropriate for you to take care of your own child- [0:23:05] Mm-hmm [0:23:05] ... but also there's budget predictability. We know how many people would do this. It doesn't, it doesn't go from 40 hours one week to 20 hours another week and go into an overtime and there's reliable caregiver because it's in the family. [0:23:17] And, and is that matching federal funds? [0:23:20] Mm-hmm. [0:23:20] What, do you know, happen to know what their numbers are? [0:23:21] I do not know. [0:23:22] Up there? Okay. Um- [0:23:24] It's Se- it's Secretary Mitch Roob is the director of Medicaid, uh, secretary of Medicaid there. Um, and so we, we worked with their office to find the best way to treat more people. Um, so this was the, the easiest way and to keep people out of the hospitals and nursing homes that didn't really need to go in there, but that was the only place they could have someone change their diaper unfortunately. [0:23:48] All right. I believe Senator Hickman is that you that ... [0:23:51] Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Um, I appreciate you bringing this up. Just one personal note, no questions. Um, we've had, my wife and I have had, we've had long-term care insurance probably 25 years now, 20 years anyway, and one of the first things being I'm a CPA so I've seen some of our clients, their long-term care policies do have that provision of policy due, now not Medicaid, but policy have provision in that, that the caregiver can be the spouse. [0:24:15] Mm-hmm. [0:24:16] And I w- and in our policy I made sure that was the situation that the caregiver, so it's not unusual Mr. Chairman in some of these long-term care policies to have that the caregiver can be the spouse. [0:24:26] Mm-hmm. [0:24:26] Thank you. [0:24:27] All right, thanks. And it is, um, you know, somebody who works in a, in a hospital I do know that, um, institutional care quite often falls short of what that personal care in home can be and it, and obviously multiple times cheaper on that. [0:24:44] Mm-hmm. [0:24:47] Um, so, so, um, your bill's not really looking at a Medicaid waiver though is it or is it? [0:24:52] No. [0:24:52] No. You're just looking at this- [0:24:53] The waiver's already there, the EDWP waiver. [0:24:55] Yeah. [0:24:56] EDWP covers all that. We're just asking for that allowance for the caregiver to, you know, be the spouse. [0:25:02] So currently the allowance is 150, but it's non-spousal. You're recommending to go to 750, uh, against the tax liability. [0:25:12] That's correct. [0:25:13] And then, um- [0:25:16] Mr. Chair? [0:25:17] Yes. [0:25:17] That actually would be in section two. [0:25:19] Okay. [0:25:20] That's, that's a different section. Yeah, that's section two on the, um, tax credit where a person can be reimbursed. [0:25:26] Mm-hmm. [0:25:26] That's that section. And section three would be the, the complete change of the program to allow spouses to actually, um, be paid. [0:25:34] Yeah, it just adds, it adds to the who can be the caregiver part of the EDWP waiver. [0:25:39] Mm-hmm. [0:25:39] Um, so there's a section that outlines that and right now it says the spouse cannot be and we would ask for it to change to the spouse can be. Um, we'll also, you know, I think the financial component, I'm here about the human component. I, I'm, I'll be honest about that. But the financial component cannot be, um, overlooked. If you took somebody right now who was receiving PSSX because they didn't have an in-home, the spouse couldn't be paid, and now they could, you're going to save $60,000 per year per member under structured family care versus PSS. [0:26:14] And, and leave some open beds for people who really need them. [0:26:18] All right. Uh, one more question here, Senator Harbin. [0:26:22] Let me ask this question. If you have a child- [0:26:23] Get the mic close to you if you would. [0:26:25] What... You have a child, for instance, who is, um, in need of care, and does this apply as like a, a mom? [0:26:35] Mm-hmm. [0:26:35] In the case I ha- I have a constituent with an issue where she has to take care of that child. This would apply the... I'm assuming this is dealing with spouse, but I'm assuming a mom or whatever could be the same thing. [0:26:46] It would be a different program. So we're only allowed to handle people for structured family care over the age of 65. [0:26:52] Okay. [0:26:52] But there is another, there i- is another portion, um, another waiver related to 18 to 64 and disabled. We can, um, so we can pay, we can pay a mother under the 1864 disabled, but I can't, if the, if that mother is taking care of a now disabled husband, she wouldn't be able to be paid for. [0:27:13] What's the section on, on that for the 18 to 64? [0:27:16] It's the same waiver, still EDWP. It's just the, the different groups are you have to be over the age of 65 or 18 to 64 and disabled. [0:27:25] Okay. This is a 62-year-old mother and a 40-year-old daughter. [0:27:30] Mm-hmm. [0:27:30] So that's why I'm asking. [0:27:30] Yeah, she could get paid. But if it's a 60, 62-year-old wife- [0:27:36] Okay [0:27:36] ... with a 62-year-old husband who's now disabled- [0:27:40] Right [0:27:40] ... they are now not eligible. [0:27:45] Okay. Thank you. [0:27:45] All right. [0:27:46] Mm-hmm. [0:27:46] I don't see any other questions. We, uh, unfortunately don't have a fiscal note yet on this. Um, I will get it to Leader Jones the second it comes in. [0:27:54] Yes. Thank you. [0:27:55] Thank you. [0:27:55] We appreciate your testimony today and, and this is an important issue. I don't know of anybody that hasn't had dealings with this with family members. So, um, we appreciate you bringing this legislation forward. [0:28:07] Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [0:28:08] Thank you. [0:28:09] Thank you for the opportunity. [0:28:17] All right, Senator Roberson, you can, uh, come present this one. Um, [0:28:27] tell us the LC number you've got. I've got, I know there was a sub that didn't have a fiscal note, but I was still working over 59-0355, I believe it is here. Yeah. [0:28:37] Yes, sir. And I've got the, um, the fiscal note here dated March 2nd, uh, 2026. Um, I think that's the one y'all have in your packets. [0:28:49] Correct. [0:28:50] Um, Chairman, I, I think you'll remember, um, I think it was three years ago, I dropped this legislation. It looked a little different. And then last year, uh, one of our friends in the chamber dropped it at the beginning. So I stepped back and let, you know, um, let physics do what physics does. And so this year I wanted to, to reintroduce this back into the conversation. [0:29:21] During this session, we have spoken a lot about tax cuts and offering tax breaks to certain segments of our community. And I think, uh, something that has always stood out to me that when the Dobbs decision came down a few years ago, it shifted the responsibility of taking care of a lot of babies, uh, back to the state of Georgia. And so I think everybody's familiar with the work we've done on adoption, uh, throughout our, our time up here. [0:29:52] And when I say us, I'm talking about the, um, the caucus that I'm a part of. We've really focused a lot of our attention on adoption, foster care, and other things. And so one of the things I want to bring our focus back to is taking care of our single moms, primarily here in Georgia. What we have discovered through, um, through research is that we have large pockets of single parents throughout the state of Georgia with young children, and 80% of those children live in homes with single moms. [0:30:29] Um, I was fortunate enough to be raised primarily by a single mother who was hard worker. She worked, um, night shift in manufacturing and worked anywhere between 20 and 30 hours a week at a fast food restaurant to take care of me and my two sisters. And she did a great job, and my sister had a job, and I had a job, and we, uh, never realized we didn't have a lot of money until we became adults and started getting paychecks, and then we realized that, you know, there was more money in the world than we realized. But, um, we had never felt lacking of anything. [0:31:02] But, um, there are certain things that moms or, especially single moms, have to have. One of those things are feminine hygiene products. And being the only boy in a family of nothing but females, I became very familiar with the costs and purchases of those things from a young age as I was sent to the store many times at 13 years old and, and older to, to get groceries and the other things needed to run our household. So I was never one of those guys that grew up embarrassed about having to walk down certain aisles in the store because I grew up, grew up having to do that and understanding it, and also understood the cost and the importance of those items. [0:31:43] And the same thing as a, um, as a father, and I was just mentioning something to Senator Hodges, uh, my wife will be very interested in the previous legislation as there's a good chance she's gonna be my caregiver here before much too long. Um, yes, I think so as I age. But, um- The other thing, being a, um, a dad again, uh, as everybody knows, a few years ago we were able to bring our baby home, our newborn home. And, uh, we got her home, and a heel prick had shown that she was a GA1 baby, which is a unique, uh, nutritional issue that at that time only six children in Georgia had, which is how their body processes protein. [0:32:24] And so, uh, we got home, there were stacks of diapers and baby wipes and everything in front of our house celebrating the birth of our daughter. We were extremely excited that, that our friends cared about us to do that. But one thing that wasn't there was formula, because Andi was gonna have to be on a unique kind of formula. And that formula, the cost of that formula was about $300 a month. And so we had to join in a co-op out of Washington State. It's where we all put in and help offset the cost of, of this, this, uh, expensive formula. And so I started looking into the costs of formula, diapers, baby wipes, and everything else, and started thinking back once again to that, those many single moms around the State of Georgia who we want to raise their babies into healthy, productive c- citizens, and happy, um, young men and young women here in the State of Georgia, and what we could do to alleviate some of the pressure on them. [0:33:19] And the pressure that was brought on by the Dobbs decision, which we all celebrated, and the pressure brought on by being a single mom, many times single working mom. And so again, I thought it was time to bring this legislation forward and to have a conversation about what we could do to help these, uh, these ladies around the State of Georgia in any way we can. And Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to answer any questions related to the legislation. [0:33:44] So current law, to remind everybody, we do have some sales tax exemptions that exist on food, not- not food that's for immediate consumption, but for preparation at home, would probably be the simplest way to say it. [0:33:58] That's right. [0:33:58] We have it on prescription drugs. Um, this category is not exempt. Um, and you guys see the, the fiscal note on it. Um, so it's, um, you know, it's a issue that I could argue both sides of, I guess, on it. But, um, I, I don't see any questions right now, but it seemed like there was somebody that was wanting to speak on this, but I don't see it on the sheet. Um, if you wanna come up here. [0:34:35] We've got a, a few minutes here, so... [0:34:39] Good morning. Thank you. Uh, my name is Rachel Perlis. I'm with an organization called Georgia STOMP that has been working on a variety of things, but this is the primary advocacy issue that we've been working on. Do you wanna introduce yourself? [0:34:53] Yeah. I'm Jamie Lackey. I'm the founder and CEO of Helping Mamas. We're Georgia's largest baby supply bank. [0:34:58] Um, happy to answer questions. Uh, it's our position, as chairman said, there's plenty of exemptions for other items in the State of Georgia, and this is one of those items that these feminine hygiene products and other sort of baby-related products, sort of an easy way to categorize them, um, have been missed. Um, the cost to the state, by our calculations, if this exemption is granted, is quite small, and the benefit to women throughout the state is quite high. Um, and that's the easiest way to explain why it's a good idea to do it. [0:35:32] Yeah. Um, over the last 12 years, we've distributed over 20 million essential items and period products throughout the State of Georgia because those are the single most expensive items, um, that families have to purchase without any kind of a support or assistance. 74% of those families are working, and 13% of them are working two jobs. Um, any relief that they get inside of a system that wasn't designed for success for all Georgia families, um, is really gonna be a big benefit and a big relief. We recognize it's a high fiscal note, but the fiscal burden on, um, everyday Georgian families is also significant. [0:36:05] Um, like I said, it's evidenced by the fact that we've distributed over 20 million essential items. [0:36:11] All right. Um, I do see a question from Senator Still. [0:36:14] Thank you, Chairman. Ladies, thank y'all for coming to testify on this. Um, I know other states do similar programs. Talk us through... [0:36:25] Like, you know, we're, we're wanting to do this. Like, this will be a, you know, a 2027 project for us to take on. Who's doing it well? What states are doing it well, and what's the benefit to women, um, that are receiving this? Like, how is, how is that, how is this changing, um, women's health? [0:36:44] Sure. Um, the benefit, frankly, is you go to the store, you buy the product, and the sales tax is not assessed on you. So it's just one less item that you have to pay tax on. Um, so it's just a lower bill for you at the end of the day. Women are paying this on a monthly basis, those who are menstruating. For those women who are, you know, have children and babies, they're paying that probably more, so more often than monthly, right? Diapers, formula, you need that every single week. Um, the states that are doing it, there's quite a few. There's 32 states, um, that have either exempted menstrual, uh, feminine hygiene products, menstrual products, or baby-related products, and they often do group them together, um, on one bill when they pass this legislation. [0:37:26] Um, Alabama, Florida, Texas, South Carolina are just a few to name. Um, everyone's tax schemes are a little different, right? So in Georgia, the sales tax is uniformly applied, so this would be an exemption. In other states, they have to, they have to say, you know, "We're eliminating the tax for this particular item." That's not necessarily what we would be doing here, right? We're not eliminating the sales tax. We're just asking for these products to be grouped amongst the numerous other exemptions that Georgia has. Um... [0:37:54] Yeah, I mean, what it's doing is it's, uh, more than just a physical health, it's a mental health, um, strain that we're seeing a relief of the burden on. Um, because when you have literally pennies, um, that you have to make stretch every so far every month, what we're seeing is that that little relief is- ... creating a lot of space in the mental health section of their lives and able to help them focus on other things and put the savings of that towards other things like rent, utilities, um, and keeping their houses safe and stable. [0:38:20] Thank you. [0:38:20] I think the thing that makes this unique is feminine hygiene products particularly, women can't go to work, go to school, uh, participate in society if they don't have access or have the ability to purchase those items. So not only is the expense there, but also there's other consequences that sort of snowball into not being able to have income, not being able to show up to places they're supposed to be. So it really can compound. [0:38:45] We're getting clo- Sorry, let me turn my mic back on. We're getting close to the end of time, but I think Senator Orrock had a question or a comment. [0:38:52] Uh, th- th- thank you. I appreciate the author bringing this bill, and, uh, other states are doing, uh, this. And isn't it true this is an affordability issue? And, uh, you raised an important point, uh, as you closed, and that was that it, it actually, uh, lack of access can keep, uh, women and, uh, young girls from participating in daily activities, like going to school, going to work. Isn't that right? [0:39:21] It is, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. [0:39:22] Thank you for this. [0:39:23] Thank you. [0:39:24] All right. Well, thanks for, uh, all the testimony. I, if you need to wrap up, you can from there if you're, you're done. [0:39:31] You can wrap up. Uh-huh. [0:39:33] I'll, I'll almost say, Mr. Chairman, just thank you for giving me the opportunity to present this, and I look forward as we move through the session to, uh, have, uh, more conversations surrounding this thing that I think is, um, in my mind, is extremely important. And I'll, I appreciate the fact that the lady brought up the mental health aspect of this, too, because it does, it does have a psychological impact, uh, on these ladies raising their babies here in our communities. [0:39:59] All right. Well, thanks. And as you know, we get a, a lot of, uh, bills in this committee, and we're getting through them as fast as we can. Thanks for your testimony. [0:40:07] Thank you so much. [0:40:10] All right. We've got one more bill today. Um, let me tell you how we're gonna do it. And Senator Echols, you can come on up if you're ready. Um, you know, we've got another meeting on top of this one, so we're gonna probably have about 10 minutes for each side to talk, and I may do five and five and five and five, a little bit of back and forth. But y'all might wanna get together and plan accordingly, you know, so that you're efficient with the time that you have, um, if, if y'all wanna discuss among yourselves that. [0:40:41] So, uh, Senator Echols has, uh, greatly increased my social calendar- ... this session. Um, I've, I've had, uh, lots of opportunities to interact with a lot of different, uh, lobbyists and people. So, uh- We, uh, we appreciate, uh, all the new connections you've made with me here. Go ahead and, uh, present your bill, if you would. [0:41:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, uh, members of the committee. Uh, we're, look, we're gonna have just a little bit of fun with this today 'cause it has not been fun the past couple weeks. Um, I've felt like a piñata, uh, or a, or a pinball, so to speak, between, uh, industry then, um... But I do appreciate the hearing this morning. And, um, I think, you know, this is, if nothing else, we're shedding light on an issue, um, that I don't think's going away, and as a matter of fact, um, when we look at, um ... [0:41:38] It, it actually, it could be growing when we look at alternative, um, taxation methods, um, you know, increased sales tax, um, you know, different fees, whatever. So, uh, you know, this thing's only gonna get bigger if we don't address it, uh, now. I'm also, I'm gonna have, uh, Kevin Carroll with me from racetrack. He's gonna sit with me. I'm sure there's gonna be a lot of technical questions, and, um, he'll be happy to go over some of those. But, um, before I get started presenting the bill, I'm gonna ask just a couple questions. [0:42:09] Um, how many- [0:42:11] Now, you don't get to question us. We question you. [0:42:13] Come on, man. How many f- how, how many folks in the room, how, how, on both sides of this issue, how many folks like paying taxes? Raise your hand if you like taxes. Oh, come on now. I believe it. Come on now. You like paying taxes? Support government, support our- Okay. Uh, so we got one. I'm pretty sure that, I'm pretty sure that that's the only thing that, um, each side of this issue's gonna agree on this morning. Wanted to get that out of the way. And then, um, another question, um, anybody, anybody on the committee, y'all know what the license plates say in Washington, DC? [0:42:52] Come on. [0:42:53] Ron? [0:42:54] Huh? [0:42:54] Ron? [0:42:56] You gotta know. [0:42:57] Y- your, your time's limited. You might wanna hurry up here. [0:43:01] You know what the tag says in Washington, DC? [0:43:03] No. [0:43:03] It says, "Taxation without representation." [0:43:06] Yeah. [0:43:06] And, um, I think that, uh, you know, there's a little tide of this. Um, I feel like that, um, that's how, that's how retailers feel. We're stuck, um, right outside of a love triangle of state government, banks, and credit card companies. Um, we're the business owners who stock shelves and build stores and do all the things that it takes to run a business. [0:43:37] We even get to charge fees, uh, that the State of Georgia has imposed on us. We're, we're in charge of collecting those. Um, all the while, never getting asked from a bank or a credit card company, "How can we help you?" or, "What do we need to do?" There's a lot of, um, points programs out there for, um, for the people much like myself who are addicted to credit cards. But I've, I've yet to see a, a card company show up at my place of business asking me what, um, what- They can do for us. [0:44:11] Um, and that's just how I feel. I hate to pick on folks, but, uh, I had a therapist a long time ago told me, he said, "You'd be better off to just tell people how you feel." So that's how I feel. I feel like we're, uh- Getting some chuckles out of that. There you go. Um, I feel like we're under- we're, we're not very, um, represented fairly. Uh, the, the retailers are not. And what this legislation, uh, Senate Bill 512, it addresses, um, a long-standing fairness issue in credit card processing by prohibiting interchange fees from being assessed on state and local sales and excise taxes that retailers are l- legally retired- required to collect and remit. [0:44:52] Under current practice, merchants are charged swipe fees on the full transaction amount, including the tax revenue, allowing card networks and issuing banks to profit from funds that belong to the state. States have clear authority to prohibit swipe fees on state sales, use, and excise taxes. By exercising that authority, Georgia can ensure that tax dollars remain in-state, supporting local businesses and stimulating economic activity rather than flow into card networks and banks. This legislation would restore fairness to Georgia's tax system by eliminating the penalty placed on retailers when they perform their state-mandated duty to collect and remit taxes. [0:45:32] Additionally, under this legislation, credit card companies would be given the option to either exclude the amount of any taxes from the calculation of swipe fees specific to the transaction or refund the amount of swipe fees proportionate to the amount attributable to the tax, no later than on a quarterly basis. If a credit card company violates these provisions, they would be subject to a civil penalty of, uh, the, uh, total swipe fees on taxes paid by the retailer plus 10%. Lastly, the legislation would make it unlawful to alter or manipulate a swipe fee by increasing the swipe fee rate imposed on a portion of a credit card or debit card transaction where such increase is not attributable to taxes, where the increase is imposed to circumvent the effect of this legislation. [0:46:22] Uh, I think you're gonna hear a lot about the cost to the banks, and I get it. Listen, there's, there's cost associated with, with it. I'm not naive to that. There's- it costs them money to process that, um, transaction. Um, and I understand that. But this is a tax that's forced on the retailer to collect, and it's, it's a tax on a tax, basically for a, for a retailer. Um, I think you're also gonna hear how difficult the program's gonna be to administer across the state with so many different sales taxes in different counties or municipalities or whatever. [0:46:59] I think my seat mate on each side of me in the chamber there, y'all pretty much know I, I'm pretty technologically handicapped, but I can change the sales tax on items in my business from this phone in about 10 minutes. It's not some huge deal. It, it can be done. The technology's there to do it, and if I can do it, a tractor driver can do it. I think just about anybody can do it. Um, I, I think it probably is gonna be painful, but it's not impossible. [0:47:31] And then you're also gonna hear about this legislation in Illinois as it's tied up in court. Um, but it's already won in a, in one federal, um, court, and it's, now it's in a, a federal appeals court. So, um, uh, I think there's, uh, there's some runway here. And I, I just appreciate you guys, uh, having this hearing. I'm going to, um, turn it over to y'all for questions and hopefully- [0:48:00] Well, let me, let me first all then say basically what I'm seeing in this bill is, is, i- is, besides all the flowery language, is two things: you can't increase the interch- interchange fee rate, and number two, you don't tax the, or you don't put the, the service fee on the taxes. [0:48:20] Correct. [0:48:20] So if I've got $100 bill- [0:48:22] 21 cents [0:48:23] ... and, and the tax rate's $7, then it's 107. So if you tax the whole thing, that's $3.21. If you don't put the fee on the tax, it's $3. So is that correct or you- [0:48:37] The tax remains the same. This is, depending on which card is used and what you buy, we're talking about the 2 to 5% that banks receive from Mastercard and Visa on the tax. That's all it is. So the tax amount never changes. It's just the fee on top of the tax that is charged by Mastercard and Visa. [0:48:58] So, so you're still taxing the $7 of sales tax? [0:49:01] Correct. The tax does not change in any way, shape, or form. [0:49:04] Okay. [0:49:10] All right. Uh, Senator S- who is that? Gooch or Still? [0:49:13] We've got number five. [0:49:13] Sen- Senator Gooch, go ahead. [0:49:14] Senator, how does this bill differ than the one we had a year or two ago? Are you familiar? Maybe- [0:49:20] Uh- [0:49:21] ... your witness here can tell us, too. [0:49:24] Mm-hmm. [0:49:25] I believe the Home Depot Corporation brought it forward, but... I- [0:49:30] Is that the one that Senator Hickman carried? [0:49:32] I don't know if it ever got carried, Mike. [0:49:36] Well... [0:49:36] I don't, I don't think it ever got out of committee. It was in a- [0:49:39] What the... [0:49:40] It was in a different committee. [0:49:42] He was being... I didn't wanna say that, but he's the one sitting beside you. I mean, you could've just asked him off, off the record. [0:49:48] Was it your bill? [0:49:49] That's right. [0:49:51] All right. [0:49:51] It's the same bill. [0:49:53] Okay. [0:49:53] Mm-hmm. [0:49:53] And so am I correct? W- what I think you just cl- clarified is the transaction fee goes against the total price, including the sales tax. Um, but if you go to a restaurant and you- [0:50:10] Leave a 20% tip. The tip is t- 20% of the cost of the food- [0:50:14] Mm-hmm [0:50:15] ... not the sales tax on top of the food or the liquor taxes. [0:50:18] Correct, and we're looking to have the fee removed- [0:50:19] The fee removed [0:50:20] ... that just applies the tax. [0:50:21] Gotcha. Okay. [0:50:23] Okay. Um, Senator Harbin. [0:50:26] I w- Very interesting. In transparency, I would like to see this as a consideration, is that the fee be shown on the receipt so that people are aware of what's being charged, because they're ultimately paying that charge. [0:50:40] Agreed. [0:50:41] And, and, and what I see is this, is that transparency says, "Hey," and more and more vendors are placing a f- two prices: one if you pay by credit card- [0:50:49] Yes [0:50:50] ... one if you pay cash. [0:50:51] Correct. [0:50:51] And I think to put that on the, uh, invoice or the receipt says, "Hey, here's what you're paying for this convenience," and I think that's one of the things we need to l- look at from a standpoint of just transparency, that the end user is aware of what he's paying. And he may choose to pay cash- [0:51:07] Mm-hmm [0:51:07] ... which, uh, uh, is a way to go, but that's something I would encourage y'all. I think we need to let people understand what they're paying. [0:51:14] I would a- I would agree. Merchants put those signs up for transparency so they know why we're charging the fee. These are, if you wanna call it, hidden fees, and underneath network rules that we have to abide by, we can't put that information on the receipt today. [0:51:28] But, but- [0:51:28] 'Cause the people that set the rates don't allow us to publish that. [0:51:31] Another question. If I t- if I give a tip to someone- [0:51:35] Yes [0:51:36] ... is that that fee is applied to the tip, where if I pay them in cash, that is not applied, of course, because it's not a transaction that goes through. Correct? [0:51:45] Correct. There's no interchange cost to process the card that merchants pay banks on cash. Correct. [0:51:52] But what I'm saying is that if I tip someone, that is not- [0:51:56] In cash? Correct. [0:51:56] It's- [0:51:56] 'Cause it's not included in the card purchase amount. [0:51:59] Right, but in the card, if I pay that tip with a card, that fee is included- [0:52:02] Absolutely correct [0:52:03] ... as part of that. Okay. [0:52:03] Then there'd be whatever the tax is on the $10 tip- [0:52:06] Right [0:52:07] ... and then this 2 to 5% on that tax amount. [0:52:11] Very good. Now you're- [0:52:11] All right [0:52:12] ... with RaceTrac, correct? [0:52:12] Yes, sir. [0:52:13] Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. I j- that's just, I think would make sense, and it's another way for people to make a decision, "Do I wanna pay cash or do I wanna- [0:52:21] Mm-hmm [0:52:21] ... pay that fee?" Okay. Thank you. [0:52:23] Se- Senator Hodges. [0:52:26] Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Chairman Echols, my suite mate. Always good to see you. [0:52:33] It's be- it's been brutal, y'all. [0:52:37] What, what, um... Tell me something. Uh, what are you trying to accomplish with SB 512? [0:52:46] Eliminate a tax on a tax. [0:52:48] What you're trying to do, I think, is lower the cost of collecting sales taxes for the state of Georgia for retailers. Is that what you're trying to do? Aren't you trying to... You, you, you are, you, you do s- you're mandated to collect sales taxes- [0:53:07] Agreed [0:53:07] ... as a retailer. So you do that, and if, and if I come into your store and I pay $100 and you, and there's a 7% tax, I give you my debit or my credit card, and the bank, um, debits my account or my credit card account for $107, the whole amount- [0:53:28] Mm-hmm [0:53:28] ... transmits it, um, through whatever payment system is used, and puts it in your account, the entire $107, right? [0:53:38] No. We get $107 minus- [0:53:41] Minus, minus- [0:53:41] ... the fees [0:53:42] ... well, um, minus, minus the fee. You pay a fee for that. That was my next question. But you get, you get the money and then minus the fee that you pay. And, um, so I'm, so would you... So I still say what you're trying to do is you're trying to lower the cost of, of collecting sales tax for the state of Georgia. You're lowering your cost that you have to pay, and you're doing it, I think, by asking another vendor to pay it for you. [0:54:12] You're asking the bank to forgo income so that your swipe fees aren't as high. Is that right? [0:54:20] Well, I would say, as the senator had said, it's the merchant's responsibility to collect and remit the tax. [0:54:26] I get it. [0:54:27] And there is definitely a cost, 'cause I've worked at banks, I've worked at networks- [0:54:31] Okay [0:54:31] ... right? So I understand the rationale for interchange. It should be there. There is a cost to process cards. [0:54:37] Right. [0:54:37] So we are all on board paying the fee to process the cards. We are not in favor of rewarding the banks for a service we're required to give to the state. [0:54:47] But doesn't the bank, and doesn't the bank give you, doesn't the bank debit my account for the sales tax and send it to your account? [0:54:56] Minus fees, yes. [0:54:57] Minus fees. [0:54:57] The total amount. [0:54:58] Don't they do- [0:54:58] Correct. [0:54:58] Sure. And you don't wanna pay, and they get paid by interchange fees on what they transmit. That's how they make money. [0:55:07] Sure. [0:55:07] There's a sizable investment in their system, just like there's a sizable investment in RaceTrac. There's a sizable investment in Senator Echols' retail operation. [0:55:16] Mm-hmm. [0:55:17] Um, um, all the big box retailers, they all have their costs. [0:55:22] It's a good- [0:55:22] But what you're doing here is you're trying to lower your cost, and you're asking a vendor to pay for it. And why not, why bank? I mean, why don't you ask your lawyer, your CPA, your pest control? I mean, w- w- why specific to the bank to share your costs? [0:55:39] We do with- [0:55:39] You're getting what you're supposed to get from the bank. You're getting your $107- [0:55:43] There's, there's no competition here. There's no... This is a mandate. [0:55:46] Mm-hmm. [0:55:46] This is an absolute mandate. [0:55:47] Well, you know, I just- [0:55:48] The interchange, it, we pay the bank. We have no right to negotiate with the bank. If someone supplies us fuel, I have a right to negotiate the price I buy for fuel. If I buy Snickers bars- [0:55:58] Mm-hmm [0:55:58] ... if I buy beer, I have the right to negotiate with that vendor to lower my cost. In this case, MasterCard and Visa, not banks, MasterCard, Visa, Amex, they dictate and mandate the prices. We have no negotiation rights with any of them. [0:56:14] Well, that, that's a federal problem that you probably ought to go to your congressman and your senator and talk about, because that's a federal issue. But this issue is basically you, you are, it's a money grab. [0:56:27] You're asking, you retailers are asking another one of your vendors to help lower your costs, and I just don't get it. It's not fair. I mean, I, I mean, obviously, I was in the banking business for a long time, and I think that the, you know, a bank provides services just like, just like your services, Senator Echols, just like your gasoline, and people pay a, a fee for it, and the market works. So this is where I'm going with all this. If, if what you're trying to do, and I still, and I'm saying what you're trying to do is lower your cost- [0:57:01] Overall [0:57:01] ... then let's go to the state and say, "You're repr- you are reimbursing us to do this for you. You mandate that we do it, and we want some more damn money to do it." And that's where I- [0:57:13] All right, we're gonna have to, we're gonna have to stop now because we're, we're not gonna d- agree on this. We're gonna run out of- [0:57:17] No, no, that's okay [0:57:17] ... we're gonna run out of time. One more quick question, and we need to have some testimony. Senator Steels. [0:57:24] Thank you, Chairman. Um, I own a couple of businesses that deal with credit cards. Just like when insurance prices go up, just like when fuel costs go up, we increase our price to the consumer 'cause at the end of the day, they're the ones that are gonna have to absorb this, right? So, um, when I'm running heavy trucks on the road, fuel spikes, I put a fuel surcharge on there so that my customer ultimately is gonna have to absorb that- [0:57:53] Mm-hmm [0:57:53] ... so that it doesn't come off my bottom line. How, and, and Senator Echols, I guess just asking this just to bring the temperature down, if this costs a dollar and I gotta pay a 7% sales tax, and you gotta take a 3% add-on to that, so now it's 3% above 107, why not just raise the price from a dollar to $1.15 so that you can do it? Or, uh, where is the tipping point- It never stops ... of the credit card fees? It never stops. The higher you, the higher the price, the higher the taxes, the higher the fee. [0:58:25] But your margin has increased when you increase. If, if you need to bump up your margin 3% to cover the 3% sales tax, or, or not sales tax, the 3% credit card fee, if you're able to adjust there, like, where, where, whether it's big box retail, whether it's gas stations, whether it's small businesses like yours and mine, where's the vector of increasing price to the consumer to absorb that convenience fee? [0:58:56] Because we see a lot of service stations now that'll offer a cash price and a credit card price. [0:59:02] Mm-hmm. [0:59:02] So how come businesses like yours and mine don't do the same, or should we? I think we built a society, uh, very, uh, very much centered around a credit card. Uh, it's, it's 100% out of convenience. Listen, I'm, I'm not blasting the, uh, rewards and the, and all the, the goodie that comes with it. I've, I've got about four of them in my pocket. Um, hope they're all paid up. [0:59:27] All right. [0:59:28] But what you're talking about is, is on that, I, I mean, that, in essence, going up on the price is at the end game, in the end game rewards the credit card company. [0:59:38] All right, we gotta move on to testimony here. Um, I see four speaking against it. Um, you can have two and a half minutes each, or you can negotiate with each other and have a couple of spokesmen, whatever. Joel Wiggins is listed first against it. Y'all need to... [1:00:01] Not hearing any, any agreement. I guess you got two and a half minutes, Joel. [1:00:07] Go ahead. [1:00:07] I'll abide by the five Bs, and be brief, brother. Be brief. My name is Joel Wiggins- ... with the, uh, Southern Group of Georgia, representing the Electronic Transactions Association. You probably heard Metro Atlanta referred to as Transaction Alley, and that's because of the 12.7 billion in annual GDP and 71,000 jobs the industry is responsible for, and it is on behalf of that industry that I'm here to just kind of caution the committee and, and this illustrious committee that looks at taxes every day. [1:00:38] I know you understand this issue, and we, we do warn of the far-reaching impacts of w- uh, the simple explanation of a tax on a tax, what that would mean, creating a new system. Looking at, as you know, there are four different tax rates in Fulton County alone. There's two in Clayton County. There's, this would be a geographical nightmare for a system to come into and try to understand, and we are, are very much, uh, open. We've been talking to Chairman Echols. We, uh, have enjoyed our discussions. [1:01:09] We've talked to our retailer friends, and we'd like to continue discussing and educating on the far-reaching impacts of this piece of legislation. Appreciate the consideration of this committee, and I'll... [1:01:19] All right. Well, thank, thank you. Appreciate it, Joel. Lori Godfrey with, um, the, uh, Community Bankers. [1:01:37] Good morning, Chairman Hufstetler, mem- members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Uh, my name is Lori Godfrey, and I'm the chief operating officer at Community Bankers Association of Georgia, and we represent all the community banks in Georgia. I'm here to testify in opposition to Senate Bill S- 512, and, but first I'd like to thank Senator Echols for allowing our association to express our concerns with the bill. We appreciate the dialogue, but we do stand firm that this is an issue that needs to be addressed at the federal level. The bill would increase costs for Georgia consumers, create a logistical nightmare for small businesses, and threaten the stability of the local banks that fuel Georgia's economy. [1:02:16] There is a misconception that interchange on tax is a tax on tax. In reality, interchange is a fee for a guaranteed service. Part of that service is fraud protection, and when a customer swipes a card at a merchant, our community banks take 100% of that risk. If that $100 transaction is fraudulent, our institutions lose the full $100, including the portion that was the sales tax. If this bill passes, banks are being asked to provide the same fraud protection, the same immediate funding, and the same digital security for a portion of the transaction, the tax, completely for free. [1:02:51] No other industry is mandated by law to provide its core service at a loss. I urge the committee to reject 512, and at the very least, Georgia should wait for the federal courts to finish their review of the Illinois law before we inject the level um, uncertainty in our state's economy. I would also encourage you to consider House Bill 439 that is before the committee that deals with vendor compensation, which would be a way to address how retailers could receive more for the collection of the state sales taxes to address the concerns that they have. [1:03:22] Thank you for your time and consideration. [1:03:24] Thank you. [1:03:28] Both sides would agree to stick it on the government, it sounds like. Uh, Tripp with the Georgia Bankers Association. [1:03:40] Uh, yes, sir. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here. I'm Tripp Coffield, president of the Georgia Bankers Association. I also want to thank Mr. Echols, uh, as, as Lori did, for working with us and, uh, and hearing us out on this issue. In the interest of time, I will do my best to be brief. Uh, I had some prepared remarks, but I'm gonna try to skip through those. Heard a lot about costs, uh, suggested there's a cost to the banks for processing the transactions. That's absolutely the case, but that's not the only cost that we're looking at here. There's also preventing fraud, absorbing fraud losses, extending credit, funding purchases, and servicing customer accounts. [1:04:12] All of that is a cost for this. Uh, the majority of the interchange fee does go to the banks. The banks are issuing the credit cards. They're extending the credit, advancing funds to merchants, absorbing fraud losses, and maintaining, uh, the technology and customer service infrastructure that the customers and, and the merchants rely on, uh, each and every day. Uh, there was also a suggestion that this is a mandate from the state on the merchants, uh, and they don't feel like they're compensated enough for that. Banks certainly understand that. We, uh, in 2022, uh, the legislature made us mandatory, or made us build a, made banks build a system and maintain it to, to respond to the Department of Revenue, uh, request to identify delinquent taxpayer accounts. [1:04:48] Uh, for years we've assisted the state, banks have assisted the state, uh, in, in locating child support, locating folks who are, who are not following through on their child support obligations. Uh, we're also mandatory reporters of suspected elder fraud abuse, and these are important public priorities. We understand that, and Georgia banks fulfill them, but it illustrates the point that, that many industries are called on, uh, to service the state in that respect. Um, we also support, uh, the idea of increasing vendor compensation. You all know that, uh, House Study Committee, uh, two years ago took a look at this issue, spent months studying it, and that was their recommendation to the state. [1:05:20] We would certainly support that. Uh, at the end of the day, uh, we do believe SB 512 would effectively direct the state, uh, to step into the private market and reallocate revenue, uh, from one industry to another, and that would be a significant and, and troubling precedent for the number one state in which to do business. Uh, look, we have earned a favorable reputation in the State of Georgia over the years for having predictable legal and regulatory markets, uh, and, and certain people- [1:05:41] 30 seconds. Just so you know. [1:05:43] Yes, sir. Well, I will close it out there, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your time. [1:05:45] All right. We appreciate the testimony. Sorry for this, but we're, we're stacked on another meeting. Sydney with the credit unions. [1:05:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Sydney Serrell. I'm the Chief Advocacy Officer for the Georgia Credit Union Association. Uh, and when you're up, you know, right after your, your peers at the banks and we're saying the same thing, you know there's a problem. Um, and we are all, um, we're very much united on this and our concerns with Senate Bill 512. This is not the first time Georgia has seen, uh, legislation introduced to, um, put government in the middle of two private business agreements. Um, our biggest concern representing the 2.2, uh, millions of Georgians who, who find financial services with credit unions is putting some context around fraud. [1:06:34] Georgia is top three in the nation, sometimes in the, sometimes two, sometimes one, it just depends, right behind Florida and Washington, D.C., uh, for many things related to credit card disputes and otherwise. By manipulating the, uh, by manipulating the electronic payment system, you're gonna introduce operational challenges, but also diverting resources that our institutions need so desperately to fight the rampant fraud across the state. We don't want to be top three at all it, when it pertains to fraud, and it's very real. [1:07:06] Uh, some of our institutions have been kind enough to share what the direct impact is. It's millions of dollars for some of our smallest institutions, and if you start picking apart this very, uh, seamless process, you introduce a lot of risk and complexity, and that takes resources away from where we need to be investing it most to get us out of the top three, um, fighting fraud. Um, also, I know the gentleman before me mentioned the average interchange fee. For credit unions, that's gonna be, for credit cards, it's gonna be about 1.7 to 2%. [1:07:39] And also, the interchange fee is just part of the overall transaction fee. There are a lot of other parts to this. This is a very specific fee. Part of that transaction that goes directly to the card issuers, your credit unions, your banks, your, you know, otherwise, who are issuing and guaranteeing full payment immediately at point of sale, assuming full liability. And, uh, when our members call and say their card has been compromised at a, at a nearby retailer, w- we're gonna com- we're going to reimburse them for the entirety of that transaction- [1:08:09] You have 15 seconds left [1:08:10] ... because that's what matters. Uh, we want to continue serving, uh, Georgians with secure and, um, safe, um, safe payments. And so if we're gonna have this conversation, we would welcome the opportunity to also address it simultaneously with, uh, equal liability around fraud. [1:08:27] All right. Thank you. We're out of time. [1:08:28] Thank you very much. [1:08:29] Thank you, Sydney, for your testimony. I think, uh, Kevin with the racetrack wanted to speak on it, too, on his own for a couple of minutes if you want to. [1:08:40] We, we've had a- [1:08:41] Mr. Chairman [1:08:41] ... good bit of testimony, but we can give two minutes here, I guess, for, for your own testimony. [1:08:45] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Committee members, thank you. Um- [1:08:49] So I've worked at credit unions, banks, processors like Fiserv, based here. Worked 14 years at MasterCard. I have two patents on interchange. When we talk about technical, today there are specific cards, commercial cards to buy fuel, purchase cards your office may have. We are required to separate tax into a new field for those cards today. The members of the ETA support that today. Members of the ETA sell services that provide that tax information to banks. They collect it today. We're asking for that to be applied to all cards, not limited cards. [1:09:22] There's no change in the tax collection process. It's still the merchant's burden, nobody else's. Um, we talked about, and, and I've heard people talk about market interference. If I can't negotiate with somebody to change a rate, how does this interfere? I, I personally, I'm not a lawyer, not a member of Congress or the Senate, I don't understand that piece. If I can't negotiate with you, how can anybody else interfere? Um, other count- people have talked about removing rewards. Other countries have far lower interchange than we do and haven't removed rewards. [1:09:57] I can't believe our banks aren't as smart as banks in other countries and can't find a way around this. Um, talked about fraud, okay? Yes, if, if a consumer says, "Fraud was committed against me," the bank gives them credit, they immediately do a chargeback and take the funds out of my account before I have a chance to prove they were there with video, and it's them with their card, with their car. Money's taken out of my account instantly, and I have no recourse until I go fight the process. [1:10:29] And banks have two or three rounds to try and keep that money. [1:10:33] About 15 seconds left. [1:10:34] Thank you, sir. Um, I, I just, it's not as technically challenging as people think it is. It exists today, and again, we just think we want to not pay banks for our responsibility to collect and remit tax to the state. Thank you very much. [1:10:48] All right, thank you. Steven Loftin, I don't know if we heard from Steven yet, so we can give a couple of quick minutes here. We're running up on the top of the hour, and then we'll try to give the sponsor of the bill maybe 60 seconds to close. [1:11:02] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. Appreciate your, uh, uh, time. This is, I'm Steven Loftin. I represent the Georgia Retailers on this issue. Uh, we are in support of Senate Bill 512. I just wanted to give a little bit of scale to the issue. Um, as you know, retailers, uh, work on very thin margins, razor thin, 2 to 5% in most cases. Uh, in 2024, the fees on just the sales tax in the state of Georgia were $325 million. [1:11:32] 325 million. The vendors' comp that was received by retailers back from the state was 103 million. So we're talking about a $220 million delta, a $220 million difference for these businesses that are operating right on the edge. So we just wanted to communicate that to you. Um, appreciate your support for the bill. Thank you so much. [1:11:53] All right, thank you very much. All right, Senator Echols, you can come up and give us a, a closing on this. [1:12:03] Just apologize to you, Mr. Chairman, for, uh, making such a popular guy- [1:12:08] Yeah [1:12:08] ... over the past few weeks. No, obviously, listen, there's a lot of passion, uh, a lot of passion here, and just it's, it's, in what, in what world is a, a tax on a tax all right? And you just heard, um, $300 million worth of, um, interchange fees, uh, versus $100 million worth of, of vendor comps. Uh, I'll leave you with, uh, and the committee with the, the retailers truly are on the tip of the- [1:12:38] All right [1:12:38] ... tip of the spear and not really invited to the party, uh, when it comes to, uh, when it comes to, um, negotiating. There, there are no negotiations. So thank you for your time, and I appreciate the, uh, the hearing. Thank you. [1:12:52] Thank you all for the testimony. I know this has been a, uh, a issue that I can certainly see both sides of, I'll say that, and we'll continue to look at it moving forward. Meeting adjourned.