House Rules Committee, March 6, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1171037704 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1171037704#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-06/house-rules This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:20:58] Good morning, everybody. [0:21:07] Good morning, everybody. [0:21:22] Good morning. Welcome to crossover day. Uh, we'll call the meeting to order and ask to go, Chairman Erwin, if he would open us up with a word of prayer. [0:21:33] Yes, sir. Thank you. Uh, pray with me, please. Dear Lord, thank you for the opportunity to come before you, Lord, and, uh, tell you how much we love you and the, the guidance that you've given us in the past and the successes you have produced for us, Lord. Thank you for the skills of the people in this room. And Lord, uh, very important to us, thank you for the ability to pray to you and the wisdom that you, uh, bestow on us every day to use for what's best for this great state of Georgia. Lord, uh, give us the energy it takes to get through the day and do what it, uh, what, what it takes to do what is best for Georgia. [0:22:11] Please watch over us. Keep us healthy and safe through this process. We ask this in Christ's name. Amen. [0:22:18] Thank you, sir. Okay. Uh, before we get started, just as a point, uh, this will be the last crossover day for some members. I don't have a list of who they may be, but to all of you that, uh, are here maybe for the last crossover day, we appreciate you. Thank you for your service, and thank you for what you do for this state, and, uh, just thank you. [0:22:48] One of them is Max, and he had his wife out for her birthday dinner last night. [0:22:55] Yeah. Um, s- speaking of that, some of you that have been around a while, uh, some of you will remember a gentleman who chaired the Rules Committee back a number of years ago, Mr. Bill Lee, from down south of Atlanta in the Clayton County area down there and all. And I served on Rules with him for a while, and he would always tell me something, and I never really quite understood exactly what he was telling me, but it's become pretty much crystal clear to me now. [0:23:26] He keep, he used to always tell me in Rules, he'd say, "You know, son, many are called, but few are chosen." So that's kind of where we are today. [0:23:47] High and close. Uh, and he had white hair, too. I remember that. But, uh, anyway, uh, many are called, but few are chosen. We're gonna do the best we can. Now, what we're gonna do today is we, we're gonna only hear bills. And some of the bills that we'll hear may not be on your yellow sheet or your blue sheet, but they should be in your binder book there. So we're gonna do that. And this is an, uh, an effort for us to allow those that want to come and ask, and the committee members that might have a request, we can go ahead and have them ask for and, and get that out of the, out of the way. [0:24:22] But, uh, the only one that's gonna matter is what we end up doing as far as the rules calendar, and then we'll s- set a supplemental calendar later on today. It's my understanding that we'll probably break for lunch sometime for a couple of hours, and we'll probably have a rules meeting like 30 minutes before we come back in. So watch your emails, and we'll make an announcement depending on what time they actually break for lunch, and we'll try to make an announcement about that. So having, that having been said, let's go ahead and listen to requests, and, uh, we'll start right now. [0:24:57] Yes, ma'am, Ms. Davis. Go ahead. [0:25:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of all in line to, hoping that we'll, they'll be chosen, I'll start off. My bill reported out yesterday, and it is not on the blue sheet. It is in the book, I'm told. It's House Bill 285. This is a bill that has passed out of this house twice in years gone by and, um, has failed in the Senate. But it is a bill that, um, i- and if someone has been involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital and then they are released, they are, um, purged from the criminal background checklist for purchasing guns by a computer. [0:25:44] We are the only state in the nation that does it this way. What this does is substitute the elimination from the list by the computer with a process of, of a sort of evaluation of their health so that they will not harm themselves or others, uh, to be able to be able to purchase a gun. So I would ask your favorable consideration for HB 285. And while I'm here, I'll also say on page three, the Methodists would love to have 1058. [0:26:15] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [0:26:16] Thank you very much. [0:26:17] I mean Mr. Chairman. [0:26:19] Yes, sir. Come on up. [0:26:23] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I rise to present to you HB 899. That's towards the bottom of page two. Uh, this is a measure to update Georgia's transfer on death deed law. This was, this law was brought into, uh, Georgia in the last biennial- Uh, it is a very consumer-friendly, incredibly popular measure. Allows, uh, Georgians to convey property outside of probate when they pass away. Offers, um, in addition to the s- simplicity of that, it also offers some of the benefits of a trust, uh, without all the expense and complexity. [0:27:02] Uh, anyway, very popular measure. However, once this was brought in, it, we found some, this didn't function well with some of the provisions in the Georgia Code. So that's what this seeks to, to do. This bill seeks to update this law and get it working better with Georgia Code. Um, primarily, uh, had to do mostly with the filing of the deed. Uh, we had people losing their homestead exemptions, unable to refinance, uh, um, you know, and, and, and such as that. So that's what this seeks to do. It's been a collaborative effort, uh, with, uh, senior members of the Real Property Law Section, the Fiduciary Section, and Atlanta Legal Aid, the realtors, the Georgia real estate closing attorneys. [0:27:43] We did our best to get everybody on board, and this, I'm standing in front of you today on crossover day because that collaboration went on a little longer than we intended. But, uh, all the organizations we've worked with, we've, we've gotten them happy with, with what we're doing here today, and I encourage your favorable consideration. It'll help a lot of Georgians if we pass this today. [0:28:02] Okay, we have a question. Representative Evans. [0:28:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Representative. Um, did Legal Aid ultimately come out in support of this bill? I know they had a lot of concerns at one point, and I want to know, since you mentioned them, were, were all of their concerns addressed, and do they support this bill? [0:28:22] Yes. Um, their concern was the original provis- the original bill had an acceptance period with a deadline, so we removed that deadline, uh, the nine-month acceptance period. There is no deadline now. So, uh, they were concerned that people could lose property if they failed to file an affidavit, uh, within that window, and that window is now gone. [0:28:46] Thank you. [0:28:47] Okay. Don't see any other questions. Thank you. [0:28:49] Thank you. [0:28:51] Uh, I know you gentlemen would agree with me that, uh, we'd ask, uh, Chair Lady Kemp to come on up and, uh, present at this time and let the ladies go first. How about that? [0:29:05] Thank you, Mis- thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was tardy, so it certainly was not the gentlemen that were in line. Um, good morning, members. I bring you House Bill 984, [0:29:18] and it should be LC 481654. It is not on your blue sheet. I do apologize. It passed out of judicial non-civil yesterday morning. Um, this bill- [0:29:28] Yes. It's yesterday. Go ahead. [0:29:31] Is it? Okay. Well, this bill allows law enforcement to petition a superior court judge in the case that someone whose welfare and safety is being investigated, a child, a disabled adult, or an elderly person who is in a known address, but suddenly is in an unknown address, to seek a court order from a superior court judge to check on this person to make sure they're safe. Um, unfortunately, sometimes people move to avoid welfare checks and, um, further investigation of potential safety issues. [0:30:04] Okay. [0:30:05] All right. Thank you. [0:30:05] Don't see, don't see any questions. Thank you. [0:30:07] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:30:10] Yes, sir. Come on up, Steve. [0:30:13] Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Uh, House Bill 669 is not on your blue sheet. It came out of a very busy, uh, education committee, uh, yesterday. Uh, thanks to Chairman Ir- Chair- Chairman Irvin. Um, but the, uh, House Bill 669 would allow, uh, school systems to improve, um, uh, access roofing, uh, uh, approve... Let me back up and start again. It would allow school systems to access im- uh, roofing improvements on existing buildings, uh, using a supplier identified through the Cooperative Purchasing Agency and designated by the Georgia Department of Administrative Services ath- as authorized as, uh, as to be able to supply. [0:30:50] Uh, this comes, this procurement method is, uh, for roofing also makes schools eligible for capital outlay reimbursement funds, or in this case, low-wealth schools eligible for, uh, low-wealth capital outlays, and it's only pertaining to roof improvements. [0:31:07] Okay. Don't see any questions. [0:31:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:31:09] Thank you. [0:31:12] Yes, sir, Representative Washburn. [0:31:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, I'm presenting House Bill 1442, which is not on the blue sheet. It just got out of state and local yesterday. This is a very simple bill. It prohibits, uh, local government from imposing a moratorium on any land development in which a permit has already been issued. Uh, we did not have an objection from ACCG during the committee meeting yesterday. GMA did have some concerns. [0:31:46] We worked on the language, and they are now happy with the bill. And so I urge your favorable consideration of this bill, House Bill 1442. [0:31:56] Okay, we have a question for you. Representative Evans. [0:32:02] Thank- [0:32:04] Try it now. [0:32:04] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:32:05] Yeah. [0:32:06] Um, Representative Washburn, can you give me a for instance, like, what, what's a problem that came to your attention that we would solve with this? [0:32:13] Well, we just believe it's an issue of fairness. If anyone has applied to do any sort of land development, uh, uh, project and has satisfied all the local requirements by filing everything that should be filed, and in a lot of cases, spending a lot of money in the process, we just believe if the local government has issued the permit, that it is not fair to come back and suddenly impose a moratorium after everything has been satisfied, all the process has been done. [0:32:45] So we just believe it's an issue of fairness. [0:32:47] What are, but has anybody been denied the ability to build because of- Something that you're speaking of, this hypothetical? I'm sorry, I didn't quite- Has, has there, has anyone been aggrieved that... Has anyone ever been stopped? Yes, it has happened. Uh, I'm not sure of the exact location, but there is a project where a lot of money was spent and every sa- every requirement was satisfied, and then suddenly, uh, the, there was a moratorium issued after the permit was issued. There is a case, yes. [0:33:17] Do you know how long they waited to start the building process? I don't know how long they waited. I know they spent, um, a lot of time and energy, and did everything that was asked of them, but I don't know the details about how long. Mr. Chairman, this was, this one is not, is not only not on the sheet, it's not in our book, so I don't have a way to look. So is, is, there's, there's no limit. Let's say someone gets a permit and they wait 10 years. Uh, I think we all know that com- the complexion of a neighborhood, things can change. Are you saying in no instance could a local government put a limit on the time that someone could start building if they get a permit, whether that's two years, five years, 10 years, 20 years? [0:33:58] The bill simply says they cannot issue a moratorium after a permit has been issued. It's, it's a very simple two-page bill. You, you'll get a copy- Says they cannot do that. You'll get a copy of it and have a chance to look at it before doing anything else with it. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Miller, do you have a question? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your bill. I, I also don't have a copy of it. Can you, in your hypothetical, tell me the reason why the moratorium was issued? I do not know the reason why, uh, it was issued. [0:34:30] It was, uh, issued by a city government here. I don't know the city government. I don't know who it was, but I do know that they had done everything that was required of them and had spent a considerable amount of money in the process to satisfy all the requirements, permits in hand, and then they were suddenly hit with a moratorium. We think that is unfair. Um, land development's important to us economically. We're talking about job creation. We talk about expanding the tax digest, and we just think when people have played by the rules and done what, done what's required of them, it's not fair to issue a moratorium after everything's been done and the permit has been issued. [0:35:09] Okay, and do you have any, not with regard to this particular hypothetical, do you have any sense of moratoriums that have come down wherever that would have, you know, impacted developers who are in this situation? I'm just trying to get a sense for, uh, the gravity or the rationale for the moratorium weighted against all of the, you know, smart things that you just referenced for a reason to, to not allow that. Moratoriums are issued many times over, uh, all types of development. [0:35:40] A lot of times it's residential development where, uh, local governments are concerned, and they just want to slow things down. We see that sometimes. This bill is not about that. Uh, but we, uh... So this is a particular case that, uh, the bill was introduced, uh, because of that case. I'm sure there may be some others, but there was one particular case in which this bill was, uh, why this bill was introduced. Thank you. And we'll make sure you have a copy of all these for, for the next meeting so you'll have a chance to look at them. [0:36:15] Uh, Mr. Chairman, may I present one more? Yes, sir. Go ahead. Uh, House, House Bill 204 is halfway down your blue sheet on page one. Simple bill that just removes the Department of Public Safety controlling pricing on the moving of household goods, and I'd appreciate your consideration of that. Okay. Don't, don't see any questions. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:36:42] Chair Mathiak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Committee. Um, my bill is not on the blue sheet. It came out last night of Health. It's, um, House Bill 1089, and the LC number is LC 461504S. What this bill does is allow ivermectin to be sold over the counter without a prescription. Um, it will be treated similarly, excuse me, as Sudafed. [0:37:14] So the pharmacist will counsel with the customer and, um, it'll be behind the counter, and I'll stand for any questions. Okay. Don't see a question. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Chairman Gunter. [0:37:33] Thank you, Chairman. I have three bills. The first one is, uh, House Bill 1433, the top of page seven. Um, and this is just updates to penalties for practicing law if you're not an attorney. Happy to answer any questions on that one. 1433. Um, next bill is not on the blue sheet. It's House Bill 289. Uh, this authorizes Georgia notaries publics to perform notarizations remotely over secure video technology. Uh, this includes the framework needed to make that, uh, remote online notary legally valid and enforceable under Georgia law. [0:38:08] Happy to answer any questions on that one, too. [0:38:13] And then lastly is House Bill 1227. Uh, this is model legislation that gives newly registered voters from out of state the opportunity to opt in to local, their local registrar and secretary of state to notify the state they came from that they have registered in Georgia. This is already law today, federal law today. This just is a voter service bill to help them, uh, notify the state they came from that, "Hey, I'm in Georgia now and a registered voter." Okay. Thank you. Got a question for you. Okay. Representative Evans has a question. [0:38:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm looking to see if this one is in the book so I can ask more intelligent questions. Um, but could you let us know how the committee went? Was this a u- was it unanimous? Was it divided vote? [0:38:56] I mean, I don't remember- [0:38:57] It's not in our book, so I can't- [0:38:59] So- [0:38:59] ... reference it. [0:39:00] I will... Don't, I don't remember. We had a lot of committees on this. [0:39:03] Is that 1227 you're talking about? [0:39:04] 1227. [0:39:05] 1287, right? [0:39:06] 1287. [0:39:06] Oh, 1227. [0:39:07] 1227. [0:39:11] It's not in the book. [0:39:12] This is the voting though. Can you tell us a little bit more about what it does? [0:39:16] Sure. This is a voter service measure, um, that will go, um, on top of your voter application. You can, it'll opt you in if you decide to, it's completely optional, uh, where you're, you're giving permission for the registrar to notify the Secretary of State and Secretary of State to notify the state you came from that you're registered to vote. [0:39:34] It, it- [0:39:34] Uh, they'll send information to that state about you to say, "This person's registered to vote in Georgia." Um, again, it's hopefully a model legislation that other states adopt, so we are keeping our voter rolls clean from wherever you come from. Again, it's already law, federal law, this is just, uh, allowing... A lot of people don't take the time to do it. [0:39:51] Okay. [0:39:51] So. [0:39:51] 1227, just confirming- [0:39:53] Yes [0:39:53] ... it's not in the book. Um, and it was, came out of governmental affairs? [0:39:57] It did. We had a couple hearings. Uh, Gavrio, uh, we got them good with the measure. Secretary of State. Um, I think most of the people involved were, were good with the language. [0:40:07] Thank you. [0:40:08] Thank you. [0:40:09] Representative Miller has a question. [0:40:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:40:12] Sorry. [0:40:12] Um, sorry. [0:40:14] That's all right. [0:40:14] Just really quick on the, on the 1433 unauthorized practice of law. [0:40:18] Sure. [0:40:18] Um, is there a, some issue or problem we're solving for here, is my first question, and then who opposed this bill in committee? [0:40:28] Who opposed it? [0:40:30] Yeah, if anyone. [0:40:31] I, I was... I don't, don't know that anyone opposed it. I wasn't in committee, to be honest with you. I was somewhere else, and it got- [0:40:35] Okay [0:40:35] ... it got, uh, presented for me while I was not there. Um, but, um, I think there is a problem with some people, some vulnerable populations, um, getting, uh, people pretending to be lawyers to vulnerable populations and rep- trying to represent them, taking their money, and not being lawyers. Um, that seems to be happening throughout. There's also, uh, trying to reinforce the practice of law, um, as we do, uh, closings. If there's other people, parcels in Georgia, you gotta be a Georgia attorney. Uh, and sometimes I believe that that has been, uh, worked around in other places, 'cause not every, uh, not every state needs an attorney for a closing. [0:41:12] And so some attorneys are widespread in, in dealing with the, uh, real estate closings. But, but vulnerable populations is a, is a big component of this. [0:41:22] Did, did the State Bar of, of Georgia weigh in on this or ask for this or what's their position? [0:41:28] So the State Bar has the ability to do it, too. This is just separate. This just gives a, a prosecutor the ability. It's already a misdemeanor, this ups it to a felony. Um, and so it's the exact same language as the misdemeanor, just makes it a felony. [0:41:40] Understood. Thank you. [0:41:41] Thank you. [0:41:42] That's not in the book, and we're making a list of these that, that clerk hadn't got yet, but we'll see that you get them the, the- [0:41:48] That one is in the book. 1433 should be. Is it not? It's on the blue page. Maybe it's not. [0:41:54] 1442 is not in the book. Okay. All right. Representative Evans has another question. [0:41:59] Thank, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry, I'm trying, just trying to keep up. [0:42:02] You're good. [0:42:02] Um, uh, back on House Bill 1227, I'm wondering if the reason that you weren't able to present it is because there was no notice that it was gonna be on the calendar. Were you even aware it was gonna be heard yesterday? [0:42:13] That's a diff- that's a different bill. [0:42:16] Say that one more time. [0:42:17] Is, um, you, you said that you weren't able to be in committee to present 1227. [0:42:21] No. 12, 1227 I presented. 1433, unauthorized practice of law. [0:42:24] Oh, okay. Okay. All right. [0:42:24] That was in Judiciary. [0:42:26] All right. [0:42:26] Yep. [0:42:27] Was there notice that 1227 was gonna be on the agenda for this meeting? [0:42:31] There was. [0:42:31] Okay. [0:42:31] Yeah. [0:42:32] And that was pub- published to the public? [0:42:34] Yeah. [0:42:35] Okay. Thank you. [0:42:36] Mm-hmm. [0:42:37] Okay. No more questions. Thank you. [0:42:40] Thank you. [0:42:41] Representative Franklin. [0:42:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my bill is House Bill 1132. It's not on, uh, the blue sheet, but, um, I'm just kinda hoping to throw a Hail Mary here in the hopes that somebody catches it for the win. Um, I like to call this bill the Affordable Housing Bill. And, um, what it basically does is it allows a tax, uh, ex- um, exemption for, um, the, uh, building of, um, um, uh, building, uh, materials and construction supplies for homes for, um, 501[c][3]s and the Habitat for Humanity, for example, um, that, um, they get a tax exemption for the construction of those homes. [0:43:24] It relates to about $7,000 per unit, um, per savings. Half of that would be from the state, and half of that would be from the local, uh, municipalities. And that's the bill. [0:43:35] Okay. Got a question for you. That's in the book. Uh, Representative Miller. [0:43:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, did you say 1132? [0:43:44] 1132. [0:43:45] And where is it on the blue sheet? [0:43:46] It's not. [0:43:47] It's in the book. [0:43:48] It's in the book? [0:43:49] Yeah. [0:43:49] Okay. Thank you. [0:43:50] Mm-hmm. [0:43:53] Okay. [0:43:53] Thank you. [0:43:54] No more questions. Thank you. Yes, sir. Matt Reed, Representative Reed. [0:43:59] Thank you, Chairman Parrish, and members of the Rules Committee. I have two bills and one resolution that passed out yesterday, so they're not on the blue sheet. The first is House Bill 1254, which has been presented before. No substantive changes, uh, we just merely corrected a clerical error in regulated industries yesterday. It's the Professional Licensing Bill, House Bill 1254. [0:44:20] Okay. Don't see a question. Go ahead. [0:44:22] And then, uh, a resolution and a related, uh, enabling legislation that passed out of Higher Ed, not on the blue sheet, HR 450 and House Bill 686. These are the same language that's been on file for a year with only one substantive change, moving the rate from 24% to 27 and a half percent. [0:44:42] What, give us the numbers again. [0:44:44] Uh, H- HR 450 and House Bill 686. This is online sports betting reso- referendum. The only change is moving the tax rate from 24% to 27 and a half percent. [0:44:57] Yeah, they just met, and that'll be reported out today, so we'll get you copies of that. [0:45:01] Thank you. [0:45:02] Okay [0:45:06] Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have three bills. The first one, they're not on the blue sheet either. Uh, HB968, they're all passed out yesterday. This one's the Kratom Bill. This, uh, does not, is not a ban. Basically puts it behind the pharmacy counter like the Sudafed. Uh, the biggest thing there after consulting and a strong, uh, uh, working relationship with the Georgia Poison Control Center, uh, UGA Pharmacy School, and I even contacted the University of Florida Pharmacy School to get their input because they do a lot of research on Kratom. [0:45:40] And basically, let's get it out of the gas stations, put it behind the counter. Let's do that login system. Uh, allow for online sales as well, as long as they're a Georgia, uh, phar- uh, registered pharmacy. And then, uh, more precautionary statements on the label as well than the advertising restrictions. And that's HB968, constituent-based bill. We just had, uh, someone back home three weeks ago die, Andrew Wood, of Kratom. Okay. Got a question for you. Yes, sir. And that's not in the book. [0:46:10] Thank you for the bill. I remember we've been over here talking about Kratom for a long time now. Just I haven't had a chance to look at, at this bill, but, uh, wondering if it maintained the, uh, financial penalties against, you know, businesses who violate the provisions. Like, what, what's the penalty for the folks who don't follow the rules? Yeah. Once we, um, came to an agreement last time with you and others, we kept the same thing, that kind of language the same. We didn't change it. [0:46:41] So it's the same deal we did last time, where we kept the, the clerk really almost held harmless. The consumer definitely is, because they're relying on everybody else. Uh, the only bad guys, basically the manufacturers and the processors, distributors, if they try to trick the pharmacy, if they sell, try to sell stuff above the legal limits. As long as the retailer, the owner, or the, uh, manager, they get really three, three times they even mess up on purpose, um, before they, before the high misdemeanor kicks in for them. So we, we didn't change a thing for that based on what we did two years ago. [0:47:15] Okay. Okay. Next one, uh, Mr. Chair, is HB969. You heard this one before. This is where a school board member ran for school board, and her insurance rates, rates went up going from a retiree and state health benefit plan to being a full-time member of the school board. I worked with ledge council, Department of, uh, DCH, they were heavily involved, and HHS on the federal level to work at where we could make, uh, that board member decide if they wanna be part-time or full-time as soon as they get elected, and then it wouldn't interfere with Medicare at all. [0:47:55] So we've got, we've also gotten approval from the loc- the regional HHS director for the feds. Still waiting to hear from DC, but we've got the regional graces. Okay. This will help school board members who wanna run, teachers who wanna run. Last one, I call it the EpiPen Bill, HB1056. It's really Efren Efferd Bill. Right now, you know, kids are allowed to walk around with an EpiPen if they have a doctor's note because they have a hi- like a tree nut allergy or something like that. This provides for any other type of instruments such as inhaler or pills, if technology's there. [0:48:25] Technology's there for inhaler now to be able to walk around it, too. Restrictions, of course, doctor's note, parent's permission, can't use it inappropriately. And the staff can get trained, and once they're trained, they're allowed to administer as well. This is a school safety bill. If you like school safety, this is excellent. Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I have a, uh, HB1385 passed out of Regulated Industries yesterday unanimously. [0:48:57] It's a department bill for the state insurance commissioner. Uh, two or three things real quick, the main points of the bill. It provides, uh, oversight for deputized personnel to ensure local fire marshals and state inspectors are in compliance with all the operating procedures. It authorizes the commissioner to issue an immediate evacuation order if the building or structure presents an imminent, um, life safety hazard. And the, one of the bigger things, it modernizes some of the fees on, uh, smoke detectors, which now is $15. [0:49:27] This, this bill raises that up to $100, uh, for the fine on smoke detectors. Okay. No questions. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Welcome, Mr. Clawsome. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the Rules Committee. I'm here to present HB206, which is not on your blue sheet, but will be found after HB204 on the first page. Give us the number again. What was it? 206. Um- 206. It would be found on your first page, but we just made it out of the Higher Ed Committee with the help of the chairman and that, and the other members. [0:50:01] Um, but what 206 does, if an individual is convicted of possession of marijuana, they will not lose the HOPE Scholarship. They will continue to be el- eligible to continue their education and become productive members of our society and communities. That's keeping our communities safer. Um, with that, I yield my time and hopeful, and hope for favorable passage of this bill. Thank you. As well as I asked for earlier, which on page two, which is on page three, HB1013, which is to designate lemon pepper the state chicken flavor. Um, thank you to members of the Rural Committee, Mr. Chair, and I yield my time. [0:50:32] Okay, we'll have that other one later today, 206. [0:50:38] Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. I bring to you today House Bill 1282. That's on page five, and it'll be the sixth down from the top. This is a pretty simple targeted change to our code. It would make aggravated sexual battery against a victim under 16 subject to the same extended no limit prosecution timing rules that Georgia law already applies to most of our other serious child victim offenses. What was the number again? It is 1282, Mr. [0:51:08] Chairman. [0:51:09] Page five, sixth down from the top. [0:51:13] Yep. [0:51:13] And then I have one that, uh, was actually passed out of committee yesterday. I know it won't be on your sheet yet, but wanted to just go ahead and briefly mention it. Uh, House Bill 1255, that is actually an update to our discovery procedures here in the state that would actually modernize those discovery procedures on the criminal justice side of our law. [0:51:34] Okay. No questions. [0:51:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:51:38] Okay. Any members of the committee have requests? [0:51:42] Chairman. [0:51:43] Yeah, go ahead, Secretary Kelley. [0:51:48] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, about the middle of, uh, page seven, House Bill 1470 deals with some abusive litigation that's taken place, uh, towards some of our small business owners as it relates to lawsuits being threatened, um, as in violation of our ADA federal statute. The language that sits before you is compromised language from our small business community and the trial bar that passed unanimously at the Judiciary Committee. [0:52:19] Any questions? I don't see any que- Do you have a question? Okay. Chairman Reeves. [0:52:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to, um, uh, uh, Vice Chair, uh, uh, Kelley, thank you very much for asking for this bill. Is it not true that this is a relatively new phenomenon with these out-of-state, uh, abusive lawsuits that are punishing many of our web-based small businesses in Georgia? Is that not true? [0:52:42] It is absolutely correct, and I've, uh, have a strong history of supporting measure tort reform efforts when I think they're necessary. [0:52:51] Okay. Did you have... Go ahead, Leader. [0:52:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page seven- [0:52:57] Hold down the laughter now. Come on [0:52:59] ... on page seven, House Bill 1437, uh, just presenting this on behalf of Representative Gaines. This is the in-person electronic notary bill. Georgia's one of four states currently in the country that does not allow for this. Would, uh, as long as the parties are in person, the, uh, the document could be notarized electronically, um, on, say, an iPad or similar device. [0:53:26] Okay. Don't see any questions. [0:53:28] Thank you, sir. [0:53:30] Okay. Chair Lady Cooper, you have a request? [0:53:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's House Bill 500. Uh, I've worked on it with Jay Paul, um, uh, for a couple of years. It's to try to help our poor- [0:53:44] Came out yesterday. [0:53:46] Our- [0:53:47] It came out yesterday. [0:53:48] Came out yesterday. It's 500. It's to help our poorest of the people, people who use our TANF assistance. We tried to give them some more money. Their, the amount they have has not been raised in 30 years, and a family of three gets $210. That was gonna cost too much, but in talks with the commissioner, uh, we thought we could help them a little bit if they could have one car. Before, the car could only be valued at about $300,000. Uh, 300, $3,000, and you know how a $3,000 car would run. [0:54:22] And, uh, so they could have one car and another one up to worth $4,650, and basically they could have 5,000 in, um, backup and savings. Uh, a lot of these people are our grandparents taking our, uh, children that are in state custody and raising them to help us out. Thank you very much. [0:54:48] Okay. It's not in the book. Don't see any questions. Okay. Chairman Jasperse. [0:54:56] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask the committee to take a look again at House Bill 810. That's the bill we passed, uh, looked at a few weeks ago. It went back to committee, back and forth a few times. The main change is it, in it is that we're now limiting the application of this law to independent pharmacies of ownership of less than 10 pharmacies. [0:55:21] Okay. [0:55:21] That's it. [0:55:22] Came out yesterday. [0:55:24] Yes, sir. [0:55:25] Okay. Don't see a question. Chairman Powell. [0:55:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the committee on House Bill 467. Uh, this amends the Monument Protection Act for the benefit of the local governments. There's been so much litigation in all filed over the years, uh, on this, on this issue. This sets forth a pathway so that the local governments, if they want to relocate or remove statuary or monuments, that they can do so without it being a constant, uh, thorn in the side of litigation. [0:55:58] Okay. [0:55:59] Second bill, if I may. [0:56:02] What you seconding? And it came out yesterday. That's not in the book. Go ahead with the other one. [0:56:14] Second bill I've already spoke on. It's just a very simple house resolution, 1348, that will allow a constitutional amendment to give those counties, if approved, the option if they want to elect their school superintendents. [0:56:28] Okay. [0:56:31] 1348. Representative Miller, do you have a question? [0:56:37] Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the bill. I just had a question about, um, w- does this bill or is this bill inspired by a particular monument, or does it in any way deal with the city of Atlanta? [0:57:01] This does not. This would have a statewide effect. This has not only been Atlanta, but it's been across the state, even though it doesn't seem to be as prevalent today. But when local officials want to remove or relocate monuments- the process is not simple and it's been embroiled in litigation. This basically sets forth that if a local government wants to relocate or remove, that they post a notice for 90 days, they have the hearings, and once they find a willing donor who will take that statue or that monument, then they're allowed to do so. [0:57:34] And the local government has that control so that scurrilous and questionable crowds can't get control of them, but they can then relocate them and gets it out of the litigation system. [0:57:45] But, but is, is there some reason why we are not allowing local governments to deal with monuments that exist in their jurisdiction? Is there some reason why we have to make this a statewide issue? [0:57:59] Because it is a statewide issue. [0:58:01] Why? [0:58:01] The center of the world doesn't just revolve around Atlanta. You have other jurisdictions and other counties and cities that may wish to relocate or to remove a statuary. [0:58:12] But does something preclude a local jurisdiction from doing it now? [0:58:17] It's called lawsuits. [0:58:20] Okay. Representative Cheatt has a question. [0:58:23] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the bill. Isn't it true that, uh, we passed a law, uh, I think it was 19 or 20, that made it illegal for, uh, local, uh, any, any entity to be able to move, uh, monuments, and, and still we have, uh, jurisdictions, both cities and counties, that are, um, breaking the law. Isn't that true, Mr. Chairman? [0:58:45] That's absolutely true. What you also have in, in the, under the current statute that was passed several years ago, said that they could move these, but they had to be moved to a prominent location. Well, that being said, there has been no prominent location, and a lot of them do not want to, um, for whatever reason, they haven't been. Some have been relocated and others have not. Some of them are sitting in warehouses. Some of them we don't even know where they are. But this would give the cities and the counties a clear pathway to avoid litigation, that if they want to relocate or remove, then they can do so under a proper procedure. [0:59:22] Thank you for bringing the bill. [0:59:24] Yeah. Representative Evans, did you have a question? [0:59:26] I do, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, um, and I haven't had a chance to look at the bill, 'cause I don't also see it in our book. Um, but I had heard some concerns that the, the standing to sue if you're not happy with what a local government is proposing to do with a statue, that can be any interested pers- That could be anybody. They don't have to live in the county or city. They don't have to pay taxes. They don't have to even live here, as far as I'm concerned. Is that accurate? I just can't confirm it 'cause I can't see the language. [0:59:57] What I can tell you, being a non-attorney, is that this has been embroiled in litigation. There are people who have a vested interest, whether it be a historical group or, or a private citizen. This allows them to do so. The courts have ruled that if you're not, if you don't have any direct relationship, and these are statues that's, were put up 150 years ago in, like, a lot of cases, so there's nobody that can claim that they had a actual, uh, interest of ownership in them. [1:00:27] So this basically allows for this to happen, uh, cleaning the language up and getting rid of the inconsistencies of law. [1:00:36] So it, it's meant to expand the people that could have standing to sue over monument movement, I think is what I heard. [1:00:43] I think we all... Yes, ma'am, I think we all have a vested interest at some, uh, at some point toward, uh, statues and monument, and monuments. [1:00:52] And where do we draw the line? I mean, we're gonna name some roads later today probably. Sometimes those change over time. People move statues in and out of, inside of buildings, inside cities and counties. They name and rename parks and schools. I mean, where do we draw the line? Why are we gonna allow anybody that remotely thinks they have a claim and have an interest in a statute to sue? Uh, what's to stop someone from claiming an equal protection concern because they can't sue over the name of a park that perhaps used to be named for their family member that's not anymore? [1:01:24] Well, I would encourage you to look a little bit deeper into this bill, because this is for the benefit of local governments. Right now, if they want to relocate or to remove, then it is a, basically a terrible situation, because it gets embroiled in litigation. This gives the local governments a clear pathway and a process that they can remove or relocate monuments. [1:01:48] Okay. Uh, it sounds like it's gonna increase litigation, but I'll, I'll look forward to reading the bill once I have a copy in my book. Thank you, Chairman. [1:01:53] I would certainly encourage you to read the bill. [1:01:56] Chairman Powell, what's that bill number again? [1:01:59] That bill number is HB 467. [1:02:04] 467, okay. Thank you. Chairman Gunter. [1:02:10] Chairman Gunter, you have a reque- Martin, excuse me, go ahead. [1:02:14] Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this is also not, uh, available yet, but it just came out of higher ed. I think it's an important measure, HB 1413, which includes setting up the scholarship and the framework and understood of finance for the needs-based- [1:02:28] It just came out [1:02:29] ... scholarship program that the governor spoke about in the state, of the state address. It also includes a section for the, the First in Georgia Postgraduate Medical, uh, Scholarships, and it, uh, provides some stabili- additional s- stability to the Hope Reserve. [1:02:47] Okay. Don't see, don't see any questions there on that. Does that take care of everybody on the committee? [1:02:55] Mr. Chairman. [1:02:56] Yeah. Bruce Re- Rep- Burchett. [1:02:58] Um, to continue the trend, I have one that came out this morning, House Bill 276, and what the bill does is allow for a tax credit for the construction of, um, uh, woody biomass energy producing facilities. [1:03:15] That, that one will be out later today. [1:03:18] Representative Evans, did you have a question on this one? Sorry. I just, um, was able to look at a, a copy of House Bill 1413. Um, Chairman Martin, you mentioned at the tail end that part of the ... And I'm so in favor of the needs-based aid bill, I can't see straight. But I see you've added Section 3 that changes the shortfall lottery reserve from 50% of the average amount of net proceeds deposited into the account in the preceding three years to 100%, when we have over 2 billion in reserves. [1:03:55] And this body has spent time making sure that those funds start to get spent down because the citizens of Georgia did not pass a lottery to have a lottery. They passed it to support education. This makes it harder to make sure the money's actually gonna go to education, and I, I just wanna know why. That was a request of, uh, the governor's Office of Planning and Budget, and also the appropriations process. And as I said in committee, and I probably should have said it here in Rules, the, the, the change was requested from 50 to 100. I think that's something that will, uh, continue to be discussed as we move it forward, um, so that we hit the right amount with the new, um, scholarships that need to be funded out of there. [1:04:33] We just wanted to be careful with the money. And I, I know the lady's passionate about that, as, as am I, to make sure the money is deployed in the right, um, manner. But that was the, the number that was requested to go into the bill, and we have until April 4th. I think that bill's gonna be worked on as we move forward, and I'd be happy to work with- What was the stated reason why we would possibly need this ... When HOPE was first passed, it started out with a 10% reserve. Then in 2011, we raised it to 50, and then we saw time after time, that year after year, we were stockpiling money that was not going to our students. [1:05:05] What in the world was the reason given why we would possibly need to put a reserve this high? I, I will let you- Was any given? I'm sorry. Was there any reason given? His la- the, I was given the, the suggestion to do that. Um, I would, and I've spoken with the lady before. We, we can talk about this now. The, there's actually additional language that needs to be, you know, worked on in the reserves because the reserves is required, uh, now. It's measured on the last three years' revenue. [1:05:36] A- and I would stipulate that if one is doing a reserve account, you do it on the last three years' spending, not revenue. As is written today, if revenue goes down, spending stays consistent, the reserve requirement would go down. You don't wanna take a reserve requirement go down while your revenues are going down and your spens- spend- spending is going up. So I, I understand the lady's concern, and I would just state this. You've been involved in the process for a long time, and you're gonna be in the, you, you're welcome to be involved in the process as those discussions continue. [1:06:07] But they had, uh, data on which they were relying and asked for that change out of the appropriate office. I would love to see the data. And I don't disagree with spending and, and inputs. That's fine, but that is a big difference between a 50% and 100% reserve. And my name is on this bill. And, and, and I've been talking to people throughout this process, and I have never heard anyone say that we need that. So I would like to see that data right now. If it was presented in committee, it seems like it should be shared right now. Uh, to, to be clear, uh, what I said in committee was it was 50%. [1:06:41] We requested to move it to 100%, and there would be ongoing discussions. I don't have that data myself. I relied on information that, that I was given and from people that you, you know in the body. And we can, you and I can go and sit with them. I'd be happy to do that with you. Is it, I'm being nothing but upfront and honest. I was that in committee, and I'm being that right now. We wanna do what's right by the, the citizens of Georgia, but I think you and I both agree, is it not true, that we want to make sure HOPE is preserved, uh, while we, we spend at the level that is sustainable. [1:07:12] Okay. We absolutely wanna make sure that HOPE is preserved, but this does exactly the opposite. It, what we really wanted to make sure is that students can go to college. This takes money off the table. Okay. Got some other questions. Whip Park, you have a question on this? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, Chairman Martin, while I respect, uh, the work you do, I do not recall you mentioning this, uh, this morning. Um, so, so all due respect, um, again, my, my hope is that before this is taken up, that whatever reasoning or documentation is provided to Representative Evans as well as members of the minority caucus. [1:07:47] Thank you. I, I appreciate the gentleman. Just in response to that, I'm, I am positive it was mentioned. I know there was a lot going on this morning, but, and you, we'll, I'll be happy to sit down with you and, and look, look at it. Yes, sir. Okay. We'll get you guys together and y'all can talk about that and work all that out, okay? Chairman Lunsford, do you have a request? Yes. Mr. Chairman, House Bill 868 passed out of the committee yesterday. Uh, it's not on the blue sheet. Uh, this is a bill that came at the request of the, uh, Constitutional Officers Association. [1:08:19] Uh, it addresses, uh, a, a revenue neutral way for, uh, these long serving, for long serving officers to, uh, help defray their, uh, health insurance expense, uh, at, between, when they retire between the ages of 55 and 65. Okay. Don't see any question. Chairman Cheokas, you got a request? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, um, for being late. I've got two bills that are not on the blue sheet. House Bill 1285 would remove the current prohibition that prevents counties with local option sales tax from also having an enhanced homestead option sales tax. [1:09:02] This gives counties that want to eliminate the homestead tax, ad valorem tax, an alternative source of funding. And then the second bill is- Hold on just a minute. Yes, sir. You got a question. I have. Okay. Lady Hugley has a question for you. Thank, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't quite hear what you said. Would you say that again? [1:09:25] Would you repeat what you said clearly? Okay. Speak right into the mic. They can hear you better. Yes, yes, sir. This measure would remove the current prohibition that prevents counties with local option sales tax 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 it would only go into effect after a local referendum. [1:09:57] And that one's in your book? Okay. What's your other one? Next one, next one, next one is, uh, a measure that, uh- What's the number? ... Chair- Oh, excuse me. 1242, a measure that, uh, Chairman Erwin helped me with. Um, currently, children or Girl Scouts that come to the Capitol, and my granddaughter's a Girl Scout, this is her bill, that come to the Capitol, uh, do not get an, uh, are not considered present by the school. [1:10:41] They're considered absent. And my daughter wants my granddaughter to have perfect attendance. And so this, about a month or so ago, she was unable to come to the Capitol to visit me in her Girl Scout uniform because she was gonna miss perfect attendance. And so that's what this bill does. It allows them to be checked as present, similar to the way the pages are done. Okay. And it only pertains to Girl Scouts 'cause my granddaughter's a Girl Scout. [1:11:12] Okay, this, this is in your book. Have a, have a question. Whip Hart, do you have a question? [1:11:21] I have a question. Okay, I thought you didn't have a question. Okay. Leader Hugley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I love Girl Scouts too, but we have some other, uh, notable activities. Boys and Girls Clubs come here, uh, and several other important entities bring students here. So, uh, you're not even including Boy Scouts, you're just doing Girl Scouts? [1:11:49] Well, the Girl Scouts was founded in 1912 in Savannah. I, I, I understand that. And I realize the importance of- And I've been lugging Girl Scout cookies up here for years- Oh, all right ... because I have a Girl Scout, but- Let's do this. Let's ask a question and let's answer a question. Okay. The, the question is, I'm trying to understand why are we exclu- if this is important, it should be important to all students who are similarly situated. And so that's what I'm trying to get to. [1:12:22] Okay. Representative Miller has a question for you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. H- have you considered on your Girl Scout bill whether or not it would be subject to an equal protection challenge because you can't treat one group of folks different than the others? Have you considered that, whether legally the state can treat similarly situated groups differently? [1:12:53] And if the rational basis is, "'Cause it's my granddaughter," do you think that would survive constitutional scrutiny? [1:13:01] It simply allows the child to be considered present. That's all it does. Okay. No more questions. Thank you. [1:13:19] Thank you. No. Okay. Okay, I, I think we've exhausted the wall, we've exhausted the members, and we've exhausted our list. Thank y'all for your patience and flexibility. Um, we will, we will meet again later today, I would guess. Uh, probably, I mentioned to you, I think we'll have a lunch break, and we'll have time during that that we'll meet. We'll make an announcement, and watch your emails, and, and we'll get that together. So, thank you, all. I think we can get in time to not make the Speaker mad with us. [1:13:50] We're adjourned.