Senate Children and Families Committee, March 24, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1174118169 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1174118169#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-24/senate-children-and-families 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. [0:09:37] Families, I'm sorry about the confusion, but another committee was occupying our room, and it looked like they were never coming out. So that is why we had to move. And, um, I'm gonna ask Senator Payne to open us up with prayer. [0:09:54] You'll pray with me? Dear Heavenly Father, Lord, we thank You so much for this day. We thank You for the breath of life that You give each and every one of us in this room, Lord, that sustains us and, and makes a way. Lord, I- we just ask You lead us and guide us in all the matters before us, that Your will be done above all and all, all other th- things. For it's in Jesus' name we pray. Amen. [0:10:15] Thank you. Okay. Um, this is very likely our last meeting for this session. And, um, we have three bills today. And we're gonna start with House Bill 943. Representative Silcox, you wanna have a seat up at the table? [0:10:39] Thank you, Madam Chair. I bring to y'all this afternoon, um, House Bill 943. And House Bill 943 is identical to, um, Chairman Tillery's bill on autism, which you heard earlier in the session, I know. Um, and it really represents about five years of work on the part of Dr. Michelle Zena, that I know, um, Dr. Kirkpatrick knows from the Medical Association. She has been working with autistic kids for 25-plus years. She works with patients from over 80 counties. [0:11:11] And, um, she got to work really after she and Candace, um, Broches, or Bros-- I'm, uh, gonna say that wrong. Candace Bros talked, um, because, you know, they were really... DHS was looking for a way to better screen for autism. And so she did this five years of research and has distilled it down to a very, um, uh, affordable set of questions that she wants to train DH workers to learn to be able to screen. And this is a pilot program for five years. [0:11:44] She wants to start with her district and work in the rural districts first, um, and then get to in the central district with City of Atlanta. Um, this is a very ambitious project, but I think the idea that we could screen every foster child for, um, autism would go a long way to helping these kids. The research shows that children that are, that are not diagnosed early with autism, they go through approximately 6.5 placements with DHS versus, um, that is cut in half, um, down to less than three, a little less than three, if they are not, if they are properly diagnosed early. [0:12:24] Um, because quite frankly, they, they get angry, and they develop, um, a strong defiance mechanism that makes them difficult to work with. Um, so I think this would save, um, a lot of kids a lot of psychological trauma. Um, and I think it would also save the state a lot of resources. So I hope you'll support me on House Bill 943. [0:12:45] Thank you very much. Uh, and the LC number that I have is 481741S. [0:12:52] Mm-hmm. [0:12:52] Is that what you have? [0:12:53] That's correct. Mm-hmm. [0:12:54] And the committee, I think you guys already know this, that we had a study committee this summer, and one of the things that we figured out from Dr. Zena's work is that foster kids are s- six times more likely to be autistic than the general population. [0:13:11] Correct. [0:13:12] And we made-- One of our recommendations out of the committee was that if we can pick up autism earlier and get treatment started, that we can alleviate a lot of problems for families, keep kids out of the foster care system, and decrease the cost to the state. So that's where this bill came from. And, um, did anyone sign up to testify? Okay, any questions from the committee? [0:13:40] That'd be the good time. [0:13:40] Okay, I think this is the appropriate time. You're... [0:13:46] 11. [0:13:47] Yes, two. There we go. [0:13:48] Oh. [0:13:48] Well, that's what it says over here. You got it, right? [0:13:51] Okay. [0:13:52] Um, Madam Chair, I move that we do pass on LC 481711S. Nope. Read the wrong number. I apologize. Um, I, I move due pass on LC 481741S. [0:14:07] Second by Senator Brass. Okay, any further discussion? Any amendments? Okay, all in favor say, "Aye." [0:14:16] Aye. [0:14:16] Any opposed? Okay, great job. Thank you very much. [0:14:19] Thank you. [0:14:23] Okay. Next, Representative Gollott. I thought I s- yeah, there you are. Come on up. We have, um, House Bill 256. And just to explain, this bill also now incorporates Senate Bill 525, which did not quite make it across. [0:14:43] Tillery's carrying the bill. [0:14:46] Oh, Tillery's carrying the bill. Thank you. That makes sense. [0:14:54] What was that bill? What was, what was 525? [0:14:56] 525. Well, we'll explain that in just a minute, but that was a Senate bill that, uh, addressed, uh, court proceedings. And, uh, we'll talk about that more in a minute. But, um, the LC number, Representative Gollott, that we have is 481833S. [0:15:21] Uh, possibly. I'm looking at the sub now. I don't have a print, printed copy of that. [0:15:28] Oh. [0:15:28] Sorry. [0:15:29] We can give you a copy of what we have- [0:15:31] That'd be, that'd be amazing. Yes [0:15:32] ... if you've got something different. [0:15:36] Thank you so much. LC 481804 it is. Let's see. [0:15:45] The one that we have is the one that incorporates the 525. [0:15:51] Yeah, I thought that was... [0:15:56] This is a, I have a 1804, so this has been newer. That's, that's good. [0:16:02] Well, we'll give, you've got a copy of the one that we have. [0:16:04] I do. [0:16:04] And, um- [0:16:05] Yeah [0:16:06] ... I think Ms. Quick is here to help you on 525, if you need any help explaining that part. [0:16:13] Okay. Yeah, great. Thank you. Happy to, uh, happy to help with that bill. Um, this is, uh, a bill that's passed the Senate, um, 2023, I believe, by Chairman Brass. Uh, it passed the House in 2024, and they just didn't get an agree. So this is the Foster Parent Bill of Rights. Um, I think we were changing the name slightly to Foster Placement Bill of Rights. Um, but this is something that was im- implemented, um, quite a while ago, uh, early 2000s, I believe, with the Foster Parent Bill of Rights. Um, and what this does is it really just adjusts, um, it adjusts the, the Bill of Rights for how defects, um, placements are done today. [0:16:52] Um, there are foster parents today, um, there are private agency foster parents, there are relative caregivers, and there are fictive kin, um, out there that are routinely, uh, have, have been placed with a child. And this bill just ensures that, um, all these caregivers providing day-to-day care, um, to children in state custody are treated consistently and fairly, um, exclusively as on the relationship between foster caregivers and, and, uh, defects. Um, it does not create any new rights in juvenile court. It does not alter, alter custody or judicial authority, and it does not mandate any new services or expenditures. [0:17:26] Um, but what it does do is it updates existing rights related to communication, um, related to training, um, participation in case planning, um, normalcy for children, and procedural fairness. Um, it reinforces a, a reasonable and prudent parent standard, um, and provides explicit protection against retaliation, uh, and it creates a clear administrative grievance process. Um, it also establishes a certified volunteer advocate program, which is, uh, overseen by the Office of Child Advocate, um, to support, uh, foster parents during administrative investigations and disputes. [0:17:59] Um, this advocate is not legal counsel, uh, and does not interfere with child safety decisions. Um, as we know, foster parents are leaving the system. I'm a, just a little bit of background on me, I'm a foster parent. Um, I adopted my child through defects. Um, he was born into the system. He has a bunch of siblings who are older and a few siblings who are newer. All are in defects. Custody, all are, have been adopted or hopefully gonna be adopted soon. Um, but the process of being a foster parent, um, even in the best situation, is really tough. Um, being a part of that is tough on not just on the foster parent who I'm, I'm looking out for here. [0:18:33] It's tough on the caseworker. It's tough on defects. It's tough on the whole process is, is difficult. Um, but what this does, it just gives that foster parent, um, or that foster placement, which we really redefined as could be include a foster parent, um, j- just an advocate when you have a problem. When you have a problem today with defects, it's you versus defects, and defects is the judge, the jury. This just gives you someone to help you through that process, um, who's not a lawyer. It'll also allow you to hire a lawyer today. Um, and there's, there's a part of the bill that, that, uh, part of the holdup previously was just getting it confidential, getting information that was confidential. [0:19:10] Um, and that was... I think I had that, that section here. Um, it was a confidentiality statement, confidentiality statement, which we've now al- added for the, the foster placements, um, and the certified- [0:19:25] Where is that? [0:19:25] Uh, on the new bill? Good question. [0:19:26] Oh. [0:19:27] 30, you see 29. Um, I think it's on line 70, uh, 70. No, I'm just kidding. That's that part. [0:19:41] Uh, one second. I'm sorry. [0:19:48] Section 2 of my original bill, so as used in the subsection term certified volunteer advocate. Do you see that section? Sorry. [0:19:54] The definition looks like it's on line 83. [0:19:57] There you go. [0:19:58] 84. [0:19:58] There you go. Perfect. As used in this code section. So it's really the, the bottom of that section. Um, [0:20:06] well, I don't know. It's just been redone a little bit. It's not quite the same. Uh, but it, it does get added to, uh, the confidentiality statement, which is 49-5-44, um, so that they can get information about the child. They can get medical records about the child. Um, they can get psychological and psychiatric evaluations, educational records, uh, in order to make good decisions, um, for that child. [0:20:43] Yeah, good question. Where is that now? It's just been re- redone. [0:20:50] Check that one. [0:20:50] Um, I'll look and I'll continue to talk. Uh, actually, here it is. I think it's line foster parent certified advocate's records shall be sub- Yes. [0:20:58] 256. [0:20:58] 71. So, uh, meetings with the department pursuant to Code Section 49-5-281. Uh, any foster placement of certified volunteer advocate who has access to a child's records shall be subject to penalties. So, um- [0:21:11] Yeah, please keep. [0:21:12] This is just saying that, uh, that you, you need to be, that you now have access to that information, but you also have to be very careful of that information. It's still private information. Um, related to the other, the other bill, um, this is related, uh, to, uh, the proceedings, um, and being in the, in the courtroom, the proceedings in the courtroom and being recorded. Um, you're welcome to come up here if you wanna help me. But, um, I think today it's not, there's a, there is a shall, but I don't know if it's a, uh, mandatory shall. [0:21:45] Um, when the, uh, court is there and in progress, um, we want the, we want the recording happening the whole time and not, uh, turned off and turned on, uh, during the proceeding. And so, um- I think that's, really line 44. "An individual shall have a right to full and complete recording of any proceeding under this chapter, um, which such individual as a party should not be required to obtain and produce a court order." So if you're a part of that proceeding, you should have access to it. Um, they should have ... The department should also have the right, uh, to get that proceeding, um, under that order. [0:22:19] And I think line 23, "All proceedings under this chapter shall be recorded." Um, that was on line 23. So I'm sure she can add some color to that. But, uh, basically just when the court's in session, we wanna make sure that, one, the recordings are happening, and two, you have access to those recordings if you need them. [0:22:40] Senator Brass had a question. [0:22:43] Yeah, I'd, I'd like to wait till Jean comes up. That's okay. [0:22:48] Okay. You wanna pull up a chair or, uh ... Those chairs may be all hooked together. [0:22:53] No. [0:22:53] That's ... [0:22:54] Yeah. Right there. [0:22:55] There's another one of these chairs. [0:22:58] Cheers you. [0:23:01] I thought that was non-legislative hazing. [0:23:06] Never for you. [0:23:07] It's not your first bill. [0:23:09] Uh, thank, thank you, Madam Chair, and it's always a pleasure to be before the committee, but also to, uh, try to assist Senator Robertson, who was also trying to assist others when he dropped this bill, dropped it late as a result of the discussions that were being had about court orders, orders for services, delayed orders, which this body has heard, uh, about in terms of, um, uh, not being filed, uh, timely, backlogs. We've had that discussion, uh, around the building. [0:23:42] Um, so, uh, Senator Robertson listened to what was being said and, uh, asked, uh, the commissioner what, what might assist in there being, uh, more clarity in these proceedings. And, uh, this is a very simple thing. Um, it, in section one, and I'll grab the LC 48-1833. In section one, it just makes clear that all proceedings are to be recorded. [0:24:12] And you may be aware that in juvenile court, there's not always a court reporter, uh, present. It's done b- uh, frequently by recording. Um, and when you have to request the record frequently, it, you, you get the, an actual recording. You don't necessarily get a transcript provided. But so section one just makes clear that all proceedings are to be recorded, and section two makes clear that any party, any individual who is a party, has the right to access that record and obtain it. [0:24:47] And then the next, uh, section deals with those circumstances where the department, of course, is a party to a dependency proceeding, but frequently gets called in to, um, uh, summoned, if you will, to discuss something or be present or listen to a proceeding. And, uh, if there is a need to know what the judge ordered, again, it may not be a circumstance where the department is a party, but to know what the judge ordered, uh, or to, uh, get a record if the judge has, for example, um, several sessions ago, the general assembly passed SB 133 to make sure that there was due process and a procedure to be followed if a child was going to be taken into custody from the bench, so to speak, in a different proceeding, not a dependency proceeding. [0:25:43] So D would enable the department to get the recording, the record of those transcripts that there may have been a, a bench removal, um, and it not, and not a dependency proceeding. So appreciate, um, what Senator Robertson did, and I believe he and Representative Gullet had already talked about this bill, um, even, even, uh, before, uh, this, uh, I don't know if it's a bill ectomy or what you'd call this- [0:26:10] Marriage [0:26:11] ... when, when you're at ... A marriage. But certainly, it, it, it marries up well, Representative Gullet, to making sure that, uh, your foster parents who might be trying to enforce their bill of rights, uh, might need a record. [0:26:27] S- I know Senator Brass is very interested in this subject matter, 'cause you've had a similar bill previously, hadn't you? [0:26:33] Yeah. Yeah, and then I've, I've got a series of questions, mainly 'cause I think I'm carrying this, right? [0:26:39] You are. [0:26:39] Yeah. So I wanna make sure I fully understand this. Um, number one, uh, we're not adding a party to the cases, correct? [0:26:47] No. [0:26:47] Okay. All right. That was first question. Second question, and, and this goes back to the underlying bill, um, in sect- now section three. So when we strike parents and we add placements, are we getting rid of the foster parent's bill of rights, and now it's basically the foster advocate's bill of rights? [0:27:08] No, you are, you are extending the rights to up placements other than foster parents. Um- [0:27:15] But when, but when we strike parents and put in placements, we're, we're taking parents out of the law and we're putting in advocates. [0:27:24] We, we defined- [0:27:25] Not advocates, uh- [0:27:25] Well, that's what ... Well, it says foster placements- [0:27:28] Right, if you look at- [0:27:28] ... shall be the same as a certified volunteer advocate. So- [0:27:32] So line 86, the definition of foster placement, it means foster parents. Also means relative caregivers, fictive kin, um, who provide ch- uh, childcare. So we didn't wanna- [0:27:42] So it's like a all-encompassing. But if you- [0:27:45] It's the law definition in broad [0:27:46] ... All right. But then I guess that's contradictory to 61 through 64, where it says, "As used in this subsection, the term certified volunteer advocate and foster placement, placement shall have the same meaning as sort set forth in 49-5-281." Which, okay, so then, all right. 'Cause under current 49-5-281 it's, it's a different meaning. So we're, we're read... I see. I got it now. [0:28:15] Yes, sir. [0:28:16] Okay. [0:28:16] That's just referencing back to the definitions of both terms. [0:28:19] And so now we're, we are now saying that foster placement is including the foster parents, the relative caregiver- givers, the fictive kin. Okay, I got it. All right, that answered my questions. Thank you. [0:28:34] There's just a lot more, um, people keeping kids today than just a foster parent in different means. [0:28:39] Got it. No, I, I get that. I was just, I, I've, I was reading that as saying we were, this was gonna be essentially the foster advocate's bill of rights, but I got it. Thank you. [0:28:53] So you said you had a series. That's a series of two. Do you have any more questions? [0:28:57] I think it was a series. Series? A series can be two. [0:29:01] Okay, that's fine. Just wanna be sure you get- [0:29:03] It's more than one [0:29:04] ... just wanna be sure you get everything answered. [0:29:06] I think I did for now. I may have more, but I think I'm good for now. [0:29:11] Other questions from the committee? [0:29:18] Senator Jackson. [0:29:19] Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just wonder, have we contemplated what type of bias might be introduced into the placement when they have access to all of these records for the children? Uh, you know, if I, I get paperwork that says this child has a, a litany of behavioral problems and, and things like that, could it, could it just create an environment where the kid... I just worry about the bias that the, the foster placements have and just wondering. [0:29:49] As far as that information is what you're saying today? [0:29:50] Yeah, about that, having access to that information. They may already have it, so just saying. [0:29:53] The foster parent already has it today. [0:29:54] Okay. [0:29:55] Um, you can't share that today, so, um, part of this is in order for an advocate to help you is basically saying that now an advocate can also have that information to help you just end a dispute with, uh, with DFCS or an accusation ag- that DFCS has made against you. Um, but the foster parent already has it today. Uh, I'm not sure about fictive kin and those, those folks, but generally because they're family, like, they're gonna know a lot more there. But at the end of the day, in order to care for these children best, you need to know this information. And I don't know that, uh, you're probably not a good foster parent if you, if you make a bias and you, you do something along those lines. [0:30:29] Um, and I'm sure there are, there are some out there. But in order, the more information you know, the better decisions you can make for this child while it's in your care. Um, I think that's only a positive thing. [0:30:37] Yep. Thanks. I just wanted to know your thoughts on it. [0:30:42] Anything else from the committee? Okay, no one has signed up to testify, but is there anyone else in the room that wishes to speak? Okay. [0:30:54] Just one question. [0:30:55] Okay. Come on up. [0:31:08] I'm Robert Smith with the Prosecuting Attorneys' Council, and the question I've got is when we start parsing statutes, the bill changes. It sets out and say an individual shall have the right to the complete record. The state is not a party to these actions. The, the case is styled in re, you know, John Doe to cert the child's initials. But the question becomes, when you say individual, are you intending that the prosecuting attorney also be afforded the same opportunities to get the record as the department and as the, um, the child and the child's representatives? [0:31:41] Because when you start doing a list, unfortunately the way our courts work, when you start doing a list of people, it, your, your decision, the legislature's decision to exclude people is deemed to have a purpose. So that's the only question I've got is that since it's not, in a traditional criminal case it says the state versus, and there's a defendant, and we have clearly defined lines. In the juvenile realm, we don't have, it's not state v. So technically, you know, the, if you were to say the prosecuting attorney is a party or are they not a party, I would, I would not, I don't think that the intent is to say that the prosecuting attorney is a party to the action. [0:32:20] I think the party to the action is a whole conglomeration of people. So the small ask I would have is when we talk about that an individual shall have this, the department shall have it, the prosecuting attorney shall have it as well. You know, if you're, if that's, you know, acceptable and that's the will of the committee or if the will is not to allow us to have the record, that's fine as well. We'll have to seek other means to get it if it needs to be appealed or dealt with. Just looking for guidance and direction. [0:32:48] I'd love to get Ms. Quick's perspective on that. You can play a little musical chairs there. [0:32:55] Well, first of all, I can't believe that Senator Robertson, who's may be accused of being pro-prosecution from time... No, kidding. Kidding. Didn't think of this. I can't speak for the senator, um, about how he would want to proceed nor, nor have I looked at the definitions to see how the state has, we're talking about in a CHINS matter and in a delinquency matter here. So, um, I would need to look at the definitions in, in, somebody's got the code. [0:33:24] The Office of the Child Advocate, Mr. Bruce, did you want to comment on that? [0:33:29] Madam Chair, if I may. I'm Jerry Bruce- [0:33:31] Sure [0:33:31] ... the director of the Office of the Child Advocate. The definition section of the juvenile code 15112- [0:33:36] Speak in the mic, please [0:33:37] ... 15112 defines parties and delinquency and CHINS actions as the child and the state. The state is a party to those actions even though they're styled in, in the interest of the child, not state v. So the state is already a party to those actions that would benefit from the current legislation. [0:33:54] So the prosecuting attorney would be- [0:33:56] Yes, they're a party, so- [0:33:56] ... uh, the arm of the state? [0:33:58] Yes. [0:33:59] Okay. Does that answer your question, Mr. Smith? [0:34:02] Yes. [0:34:02] But to, but to Mr. Smith's point, it says individual is what he's concerned about. The, the language is an individual [0:34:11] Who is a party, an individual who is a party. You could just say a party. It's, I think. [0:34:17] Okay. So how does that, how ... If we struck individual and replaced it with what? [0:34:25] A party. [0:34:26] Party. [0:34:27] Would that take care of it? [0:34:29] That would, that would work. Rather than saying individual, saying a party- [0:34:33] So- [0:34:33] ... shall have [0:34:34] So a party shall have the right to the full and complete record. [0:34:40] At line 30 ... Oops. [0:34:42] Pledge counsel, colleague. [0:34:43] 45, 44. [0:34:45] Line 44. [0:34:48] I'd like to ask, uh, Ms. Carter if she could take a look at line 44, line 44, and tell us if that would- [0:34:56] 45 [0:34:57] ... address the concern. [0:34:59] Yes. And what is the amendment? What is the language that you're attempting to specifically on line 44? Where is it being inserted? [0:35:06] So where it says an individual. [0:35:08] Yes. Strike individual. [0:35:10] We'd wanna strike the and and the individual and replace that with party. [0:35:17] A party. And ... So striking and, an, individual, inserting a party? [0:35:24] I don't know if that ... Does that make sense? [0:35:26] I mean- [0:35:26] A party shall have the right to which such a ven- individual is a party? [0:35:31] I think it does make sense. [0:35:33] No, we haven't. We haven't gotten to that line yet. [0:35:35] Senator Jackson. [0:35:35] What if we just said an, an individual in reference to that code section he just referenced? Or ... [0:35:43] Sen- [0:35:44] I think, I think if we use the word party, we're gonna have to do a little more- [0:35:47] Yeah [0:35:47] ... slicing and dicing, 'cause then- [0:35:50] So would you rather- [0:35:51] ... if we use the word party on 44- [0:35:52] ... refer to the code section? [0:35:54] It'd have to be a p- 'cause you would say, "As to which such party is a party." So I think- [0:36:00] Yeah [0:36:00] ... I mean, Robert, w- w- with individual on line 44- [0:36:07] Let's see. Copy that line [0:36:07] ... line 45 where it says under this chapter, "To which such individual is a party," does that not take care of your concerns where they specifically state that individual does have to be a party? [0:36:26] The concern I have is the state is not considered to be an individual. The state is considered to be the state. That was, that was my concern, is that you, when you start to find individuals, we were talking about specific indi- specific people. And when you start talking about the state as a corporate entity- [0:36:43] So if you put- [0:36:44] ... or a party. [0:36:48] Yeah. There you go. An individual or party shall have a right. That's how it has to be. [0:36:52] And I would point out that, um, as the gentleman said earlier, the, a party, from your definition, reaches the state, a child, parent, guardian, legal custodian, or other person subject to jurisdiction. Which I'm sure that this committee knows better, and I'm just reading that into the record. [0:37:11] Could you read that again? [0:37:13] Party means the state, a child, parent, guardian, legal custodian, or other person subject to any judicial proceeding under this chapter. [0:37:26] Okay. [0:37:28] Uh, Senator Jackson. [0:37:29] I don't know how you do parties. [0:37:29] So, Madam Chair, I, I wonder if it would be cleaner if we just struck on line 45 the language, "To which such individual is a party and." If we struck that language, because we've already established that they are a party. I think that makes it cleaner. So the sentence would read line, beginning on line 44, "A party shall have the right to the full and complete record of any proceedings under this chapter, and- [0:37:57] And shall not [0:37:58] ... shall not," don't strike and, "and shall not be required to obtain or produce a court order." We've already established that they're a party, so. [0:38:06] That makes sense. Okay. Did you wanna ... [0:38:08] Yeah. So I ... When it, when the appropriate time is- [0:38:10] Yeah. Right [0:38:10] ... I'll make the amendment. [0:38:11] Okay. So, um, any other discussion? What's the will of the committee? [0:38:17] Thank you. [0:38:18] Move to pass, Madam Chair. [0:38:19] Okay. [0:38:19] Second. [0:38:20] Second. [0:38:20] Second. [0:38:20] Okay. And, uh, amendments. [0:38:23] Yes. Move, Madam Chair. [0:38:26] Read it again, please. [0:38:28] Yes. Uh, Madam Chair, I move that we amend LC 4818 336 by striking an individual- [0:38:36] Yes [0:38:36] ... on line 44, replacing that with a party. And then on line 45, striking to which such individual is a party. Just strike that language. That's my motion. [0:38:55] Yes. [0:38:55] Yes. [0:38:57] I understand that party may be inclusive ... Well, hang on a second. Party includes the state. [0:39:04] Yeah. That's what- [0:39:05] Are all individuals that are entitled to this included in the definition of a party? [0:39:12] Not the department. [0:39:13] So- [0:39:13] You'd, sure you still need the next line to give the department co- access as well. [0:39:17] So would it be cleaner if we said an individual or party? Or, or, or party including the department? Or how would you wanna- [0:39:26] There's a separate section- [0:39:28] The party is [0:39:28] ... in the, the department [0:39:29] ... Okay. So for this- [0:39:31] The department [0:39:31] ... this definition, though, I mean, they chose individual for a reason. When we put party in, does that include all individuals that could have a right? [0:39:39] Yes, sir. [0:39:39] Okay. [0:39:42] Does that answer your question? [0:39:45] Yes. [0:39:45] Okay. Any other questions? So is that a motion, Senator Jackson? [0:39:50] Motion. [0:39:50] Okay. [0:39:51] Second. [0:39:52] Second. Second. Okay. Anything else? All right. All in favor, let's raise our hands on this one. Raise your hand please if you're in favor for the amendment. Okay, sounds good. Now we're up to the underlying bill as amended. Everyone in favor, raise your hand. Okay. Senator G- R- Representative Gullet, your bill passes. And I think you said Senator Brass is carrying it. [0:40:23] Okay. Good luck in rules. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.