House Governmental Affairs Committee, March 26, 2026

Transcript

564 turns. Select a time to play that moment of the video.

1. 0:19:46

   Okay, we're gonna continue at ease for just a few more minutes. Uh, we got a, uh, at least two of our present- presenters that are not here yet. So if y'all will bear with me just another minute or two.

2. 0:24:46

   Okay, if I can have everybody's attention. We're gonna... I'm gonna take a little bit of, uh, chairman's privilege here. And, uh, we're gonna go just, uh, a little off agenda. We're gonna start out. Fir- first of all, I'd like everybody if you'd join me, uh, in a quick word of prayer for our meeting. Just bow your heads please. Dear kind and heavenly Father God, we thank you for the blessings of living in this state, God. We thank you for, uh, the opportunity to represent your people. And God, we ask your wisdom, your discernment, and your consideration as we go about these, the, uh, important work of the State of Georgia.

3. 0:25:18

   In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. Uh, before we get started on the agenda, 'cause we're still waiting on a couple of presenters, I'm gonna ask, uh, Chairman Blake Tillery, uh, if he would like to come up to the table. We have a bill that we, uh, uh, have on consideration today that was, uh, uh, in a bill that, uh, Senator Tillery had originally passed out of the Senate. Uh, and, uh-

4. 0:25:43

   Mr. Chairman, I think you wanted to address the committee

5. 0:25:45

   ... I'm gonna walk you through it.

6. 0:25:45

   Yeah. Thank-

7. 0:25:46

   Yes

8. 0:25:46

   ... well, thank you. I know that Senate Bill 21's on your agenda today. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for hearing it. Let me walk you a little bit through the, through the process of what it's been through so far. The bill simply said that if cities and counties are offering themselves as sanctuary cities, if they're not following Georgia immigration laws, that for Georgians that are harmed because of that, the city and the county waives sovereign immunity. In other words, the city or the county can be held financially responsible for harms to Georgians that result from them not following Georgia immigration laws.

9. 0:26:18

   That's what Senate Bill 21 says. It did pass the Senate. It came over to the House last year. It passed out of the Public Safety Committee. It made it to Rules. Didn't make it across the date on the floor by day 40. Went back to committee. It's been in Public Safety. I know it's been reassigned now to your committee, uh, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate y'all taking, taking it up. I do understa- yes, ma'am, it's, uh, you got a committee substitute that I see that's gonna be presented, and thank you, Molly, for handing it to me when I came in. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for letting me be here. I think I can get on board with a lot of things you're putting into 21.

10. 0:26:48

    I, I don't understand the electrical power part, but I'd be happy to learn more about it. I do understand the DX, annexation part. Would be happy to learn with it. My only request would be that you please consider adding back in my underlying bill that I think protects Georgia families. It promotes sound immigration policy. And, uh, if that's added in, I'm sure that's something we can work out, and appreciate the committee considering it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

11. 0:27:08

    Thank you very much. And just to, for the committee's, uh, sake, uh, Senate Bill 21 you have in front of you is a, a sub, uh, that does not include the original language. Uh, however, uh, Chairman Tillery asked if he could come and, and, uh, request that that be put back into the sub. The, the version that you pull up under SB 21 online, uh, Representative Roberts, is the, is the original version. I apologize. We don't have a copy of that here to share. So, uh, uh, right now what's under consideration for, for this committee is the sub that's in front of you.

12. 0:27:42

    Senator Tillery is asking that we consider adding back his original language, and this was a development that came about this morning, so.

13. 0:27:49

    Yeah. And it already passed out of Public Safety last year. And, uh, it was LC-570224S if you need that for purposes of amendment.

14. 0:27:56

    Okay.

15. 0:27:56

    So thank you a lot.

16. 0:27:57

    And, and the reason, the reason it got transferred from Public Safety to here was because it is in Title 36, and we had some, uh, some things that, uh, that, uh, uh, have already passed this committee that we wanted to see about, uh, getting put into that require Title 36. Uh, we do have a couple of lights flashing if, if, Mr., uh, Senator Tillery, if you have just a moment.

17. 0:28:19

    Sure.

18. 0:28:19

    Uh, Representative Burnough.

19. 0:28:22

    Miss- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, what is the part that you wanna put back in-

20. 0:28:28

    The, the-

21. 0:28:28

    ... that, that we did not allow?

22. 0:28:30

    The, uh, it actually, it's not in your committee sub now.

23. 0:28:32

    Okay.

24. 0:28:32

    It passed out of a House committee last year out of Public Safety. But it, it waives sovereign immunity when cities and counties are not following Georgia law as it relates to immigration.

25. 0:28:43

    Uh, can you give me an example?

26. 0:28:45

    Sure. If Georgia's law says that a sheriff or county has to participate in the 287G program and they do not, and someone then loses their life because of it, then that family could sue that city or county, and that city or county would be held financially responsible for not following Georgia law.

27. 0:29:03

    So you're trying to take the responsibility from the State of Georgia, or-

28. 0:29:10

    No

29. 0:29:10

    ... you're trying to punish the cities and counties because they wanna protect citizens? I'm not really sure what the purpose of that is.

30. 0:29:18

    Uh, I think it's hold them accountable when they're not protecting citizens is what I would say.

31. 0:29:22

    Okay, but if they are protecting them, they have police and fire, they protect them, and, um, some federal people come in and a person gets killed, then you're saying that that's the city and the county's fault?

32. 0:29:34

    No, ma'am. What we're saying is if the city or the county's not following Georgia immigration law, and a citizen of Georgia is hurt in the process, that that citizen should be able to have redress against their government, sue the government for financial damages. I think that that's one way that you'll see Georgia law actually be enforced, because once one city or county is, finds a financial responsibility because they weren't following Georgia immigration laws, then the other 158 counties or 430-plus cities would, would obey Georgia law.

33. 0:30:04

    But who's the determiner that they're not following? Just because a person is killed-

34. 0:30:08

    It's a jury just like last time

35. 0:30:08

    ... doesn't mean that, that... The, just because a person is killed doesn't mean that that's their responsibility or that they're not following a law. So I'm just trying to understand how it can be their fault and who decides that they, that that person died because they didn't follow the law.

36. 0:30:24

    Right. It'd be, it'd be a court case, right?

37. 0:30:26

    Just like it would be in any s- time or instance. But right now, that person would never even be able to get to a courtroom because of the sovereign immunity that cities and counties possess.

38. 0:30:36

    But that's my-

39. 0:30:37

    Sovereign immunity means they can't be sued.

40. 0:30:38

    Okay. Okay. Thank you.

41. 0:30:40

    Yeah.

42. 0:30:41

    Okay, Representative Roberts.

43. 0:30:43

    Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's hard to, um, respond to something I don't have in front of me, and I can't approve anything without... I won't vote for anything that's not in front of me. However, uh, I s- suspect this is our only opportunity to ask you questions. So what specific Georgia immigration laws are you referring to that could be violated?

44. 0:31:02

    Yeah.

45. 0:31:03

    'Cause-

46. 0:31:03

    Non-participation in the 287G program. We've had some cities say it, can declare themselves to be sanctuary cities, which is again against Georgia law. And if that led to the death of a Georgia citizen, I do think that that Georgia family should be able to have redress against the city or county.

47. 0:31:17

    I, I hear your argument. And what cities have declared themselves, in the state of Georgia, as sanctuary cities?

48. 0:31:22

    Yeah. I, I think there's a list of some that have said that in the past, and then you've had some media stories that say, "No, we didn't." Then you've also had some sheriffs who've said in the past they're not gonna follow Georgia immigration law. Then those sheriffs later on when their budget was reduced by the state said, "Nope. We will follow Georgia immigration law." So you've had some back and forth. I don't think it's a punishment. I think it's more like accountability.

49. 0:31:41

    Okay, and you know, we passed tort reform because we were the litigation hell hole, and I keep hearing bills where we are, um, trying to give people the right to sue cities and counties. And I feel like we're putting a lot of unfunded mandates on our local governments, and I don't think it's their job to enforce a federal immigration issue. So I'm not gonna support that.

50. 0:32:04

    Right. It's, it's Georgia law is what I s- well, the bill said that.

51. 0:32:10

    Okay, thank you.

52. 0:32:10

    Thank you.

53. 0:32:11

    Uh, Representative Oliver.

54. 0:32:14

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

55. 0:32:15

    Thank you.

56. 0:32:15

    I'm assuming you're not presenting 21 substitutes-

57. 0:32:19

    I'm not. I think someone else is presenting that one. I, I would not be of a competent witness to do so.

58. 0:32:24

    Okay. And Mr. Chairman, at some point you'll tell me who's gonna explain to me what Section 4 is in relation to the, what I assume is the Paulding County Atlanta Airport property, and why it's in this bill.

59. 0:32:37

    Yes, ma'am.

60. 0:32:37

    It wouldn't be this gentleman.

61. 0:32:38

    That is correct.

62. 0:32:39

    Thank you, sir.

63. 0:32:40

    Thank you.

64. 0:32:41

    Thank you. Uh, Chairman Thomas.

65. 0:32:43

    Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I think what we need to do at this moment is probably table this bill, give it an opportunity to get some language, and then, uh, maybe get back in the front of the committee.

66. 0:32:55

    Okay. There's a motion-

67. 0:32:55

    So I make a motion

68. 0:32:56

    ... to table. Do we, uh... D- doesn't really even require a second, but we'll take it. Uh, no discussion on that. All in favor of tabling Senate Bill 21 say aye.

69. 0:33:06

    Aye.

70. 0:33:07

    Any opposed? Okay, the bill is on the table. Thank you.

71. 0:33:11

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And then the LC is 570224S if you need it for adding back in. I appreciate the committee considering that.

72. 0:33:17

    We, we actually have copies coming that we'll distribute to the committee.

73. 0:33:20

    Thank you so much.

74. 0:33:20

    Thank you, sir.

75. 0:33:24

    Okay, now we're going to move on to, uh...

76. 0:33:30

    Next on the list we have Senate Bill 175. And I'll ask Chairman Powell, would you like to present from the table or where you sit, sir?

77. 0:33:40

    You know, I'm gonna go out once I get to your questions.

78. 0:33:43

    Okay. Yes, sir. Uh, and for the, uh, committee, we did distribute, uh, copies of the subs yesterday, uh, at least as, as accurately as we could. We've had one minor change or two here. Nothing substantive, not on this bill, but on some of the others that we'll address when we get to them. Uh, Senate Bill 175 is, uh, a substitute for a bill, um, but we are hearing this for a second time in this committee. It did pass out of this committee. It's dealing with the preservation and protection for, uh, our monuments and, and, uh, statues in the state.

79. 0:34:18

    So Chairman Powell, I will let you proceed.

80. 0:34:21

    Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen. I bring to you this morning, and a- as the good chairman had said, there's just a few variations to this and the f- bill that you had heard earlier. Um, you know, let me speak and address this. This d- doesn't have anything to do with slavery. Doesn't have anything to do with past history or anything. This has a, this is a pathway to solve a problem that we have in this state. There's been a lot of controversy over the years about monuments, and there's been a lot of things that's said about monuments that, uh, I take, quite frankly, I take odds with.

81. 0:34:59

    Uh, monuments are put up for a specific purpose. Most of them that I see are to honor. In the case of, uh, Confederate monuments, there's nothing in those, uh, monuments that were ever meant to reinstill the infighting in this nation. Most of those monuments were placed by the families of the deceased that died. We had multiple generations that died during that day and time. Now, these monuments are across the state and at some point, uh, it becomes an issue to some local governments that they want to relocate or to move those monuments.

82. 0:35:38

    Under the current law under the state, they're supposed to be moved to another location of a prominent location or a similar location for prominence. In a lot of cases, that has not been done. We've got some jurisdictions that have taken down these monuments. Just took them down, not to be seen again. Some were put into fields and some of them are placed otherwise. Case in point, the Lion of Atlanta that stood in Oakland Cemetery for years. That was a monument that was put on top of a mass grave after the Battle of Atlanta, which there were 20 some, 20 some odd hundred citizens that were buried in a mass grave.

83. 0:36:19

    No races, no genders, no particular soldier identification who they were. And the Lion of Atlanta was commissioned, and it was probably one of the most beautiful art pieces that ever been And it was taken down because of people continuing to desecrate, and there was no movement to stop that. My understanding, and it's just an understanding, that that, uh, that monument was placed in a storage container, and it sits somewhere, um, not to be seen or to be viewed.

84. 0:36:53

    Now, what we've had is a situation where for a number of years now, we've had litigation that, uh, historical groups, the Sons of Confed- Veterans, uh, uh, the, the Sons of the American Revolution, all these different groups, they've taken odds at this, and it's wound up in court. Well, there's a few problems there any time you go to court. The courts have con- consistently declared that certain groups have no standing.

85. 0:37:23

    Well, I take offense to that, that yes, they do. If you had ancestry that, uh, served and died or whatever it may be, yes, they have standing. When you have historical groups, whether it's the UDC or the SCV or the MOSB or the DAR, any of these groups, they have standing. But because it's not defined in law, the judges have cursory dismissed these cases, that they didn't have standing. This bill says that who has standing.

86. 0:37:55

    Anyone that has an interest would have standing at that point. It puts certain language in here about the desecration. Uh, if a, you know, if a, a jurisdiction does away with these statues, they need to keep the, the statuary preserved. You know, there's, uh, the obelisk that was at the DeKalb County Courthouse. I don't know whatever happened to it, and nobody else can say what's happened to it, whether it was destroyed. But at any point, if it is removed, someone needs to have the opportunity to replace that statue somewhere, and this is a pathway in this bill.

87. 0:38:36

    Uh, if you'll go to lines, uh, the section starts at 109. You know, what we're saying is that if a local government wants to remove or relocate statuary, then they have to give a 90-day notice. They have to put it in a legal organ of paper, put the world on notice that it's their desire to remove or to relocate. At that point, then an interested party, they can either agree or disagree and take it to court.

88. 0:39:08

    If the judge in that case declares that it's proper to remove or to relocate that statue, then they have another 90 days to find someone who will take that statue. Now, over in the Senate, there was certain issues that were made. But in reality, the concerns that this statue might be turned over to a hate group or to someone improper to receive that statuary is wrong, because the local officials can determine at that point who would be the appropriate source.

89. 0:39:41

    And at that point, they would then pay for it and have it relocated. Uh, that's basically what it does. It gives the, the, uh, cities and the counties and those jurisdiction, government jurisdictions, it gives an opportunity, a pathway toward getting it out of court and stop the bitterness that continues to fester around this. And that's quite frankly what this bill does, ladies and gentlemen.

90. 0:40:06

    Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've got a few, few, uh, people wanting to discuss this. Uh, Representative Sanchez.

91. 0:40:15

    Thank you, Chair. Um, thank you, Chairman Powell. I know we've already talked about this already, um, but you keep talking about standing, standing, standing. Uh, I'm pretty sure the traditional, uh, you know, judiciary process is that you have to have... The reason we have things like standing is to ensure that we don't have, you know, frivolous, uh, unnecessary, um, court proceedings. Um, and it seems like this bill wants to ignore that traditional judicial principle to give a bias towards people who are trying to defend these so-called monuments.

92. 0:40:53

    Um, is there a reason why we're creating a distinct bias in favor of th- these plaintiffs only?

93. 0:40:59

    Well, I disagree. It's not creating a bias, and I'm not an attorney. But I know that if you have an interest, that you should have, be a claimant, that you should have standing. There's no one, I don't know of anyone that's alive today that, uh, donated money or raised money to have this statuary put into place. I, I don't. We have statues over on the, uh, Capitol grounds. Uh, there's one dedicated to the, uh, first Black legislators that came in during Reconstruction, but I dare say anybody knows who donated the money to have that statue put up.

94. 0:41:36

    Right.

95. 0:41:37

    So that being said, I think that if you're a historical, bona fide historical group, that should say enough that they have an interest in it. I think that any citizen has interest should be able to be heard.

96. 0:41:51

    I'm glad you mentioned the original Black legislators, because I think it's very accurate to say that the people who put up these monuments and the people who fought in this war would destroy that monument if they had the chance.

97. 0:42:01

    Well, I'm, I'm not a socialist-

98. 0:42:03

    If that left you

99. 0:42:03

    ... nor am I an anarchist. But I can assure you that people who deface or destroy, and I also remind you again, it's not your First Amendment right to protest, to be heard, to desecrate a statue.

100. 0:42:21

     Okay, I'm gonna, uh... We, we've had, uh, significant debate before on this. We do have several lights blinking. If we can, just limit to one pertinent question possibly that, uh, uh, that may not have been considered before. So we're gonna move on. Uh, Representative Bazemore.

101. 0:42:37

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for explaining the bill once again. My question is, we have three branches of government, correct? Each one functioning within their jurisdiction. So I heard you say earlier that the judge, this is going to court, and judges have made a decision. So do we have the jurisdiction to override what they say?

102. 0:43:03

     To my good friend, we're not overriding. We are a third branch of government. When there are problems that are festering that we can't find solutions to. Right now there's n- there's a solution that needs to be found to this issue about relocating or moving statuary. What's happening right now, that other people, their rights are being abridged by the courts not being able to rule accurately.

103. 0:43:34

     Folks who have standing, claimants who might have action, whether it's a historical group or a religious group or any other group, they should have a right to be heard, and the judges in this particular issue, they're automatically, because there's no definition in law about who has standing, they're being dismissed. So in that case, this issue continues to go down the road. It's kicking the can continuously down the road. This gives, this gives a solution to the problem.

104. 0:44:02

     Thank you. I appreciate your statement. However, we do know that when judgment comes down, it does affect other people negatively and positively. So I don't think it's our place to override what the judges have said. Thank you again.

105. 0:44:17

     Okay, thank you. Uh, Representative Burnough.

106. 0:44:22

     Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I just have one question. Um, are any of these monuments that you're talking about, are they in rural counties? Because the ones that you keep referring to are in DeKalb-

107. 0:44:34

     They're in rural-

108. 0:44:34

     Or you talked about the African American one here, and so since we're not supposed to be talking about race-

109. 0:44:40

     They're statues

110. 0:44:40

     ... we're supposed to be making it equal, I just wanna know, do y'all have those same issues in where you live at? 'Cause-

111. 0:44:46

     There's statue, there's statuary all over this state.

112. 0:44:49

     Okay.

113. 0:44:49

     And it's not just Confederate statuary, it's all statuary. You know, in this day and time that we live in, um, this day that there's a certain level of antisemitism, you know, to me it'd be terrible to displace or to deface anybody's statue, you know? And it's, this affects all statuary, not just, uh, Confederate monuments and things like this.

114. 0:45:15

     Thank you.

115. 0:45:20

     Okay. Uh, Representative Adesanya.

116. 0:45:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, um, Chairman Powell. Um, you mentioned earlier about you're not a socialist. I don't know what that has to do with anything, but my question is, um, the, when the judges makes those decisions to have certain monuments being removed, um, I want us to kn- know that this is not applicable. There's so many monuments in so many areas that are still recognized because as you mentioned, they're probably, you know, ancestry of those who served, and, um, justifiably they should be put up, and they are up.

117. 0:46:01

     But the ones in contention, the ones that judges make those rulings to have them removed, are the Confederate ones, that people this day and age don't wanna be reminded of that. And we've gone over this when you presented the House version of this bill. Um, I, I just don't... My colleagues have mentioned that already, and I don't know if it's reasonable for us to remove those decisions from the judges to do, um, given that the ones that they make tho- those rulings on are controversial ones.

118. 0:46:32

     And I would say rightly they should not be, they should not be in the public. So I'm not sure.

119. 0:46:39

     If I may answer. You know, I've heard this from a couple of the speakers here, but we're not telling judges what they can do. I can assure you, and this is something I've said and I believe, that the only difference between God Almighty and the Georgia Superior Court judge is God Almighty knows he's not a Georgia Superior Court judge. What we have is a glitch in the law that defines claimant. So the courts have no other choice but to rule that when somebody, whether it's a historical society or whether it's an individual that may have had an ancestor that might have been killed in the war, or whatever it may be, the judges are ruling because there's no definition to claimant, because there's no one that's left alive that put those statue ups.

120. 0:47:27

     So what we're putting in the law is giving that judge the right to hear what somebody's got to say and to decide whether they're a claimant or not. Now, this doesn't tell the judges what to do. If the judges decide if a lawsuit is filed, if they decide that it is proper for those statues to be relocated or to be removed, then it, then they can r- rule that way. But there's a process in place at that point that the statuary is then moved, donated, given, to move it to another, to, to an ac- to an applicable par- party.

121. 0:48:05

     And those local officials have that right. I've heard about the Klan. I don't know that there's a Ku Klux Klan left in this state. So, you know. But I know that, but I do know that there's a level of racism that exists on both sides of this issue, quite frankly. So this gives a pathway to move forward.

122. 0:48:30

     Okay, we're gonna move on. Uh, Representative Roberts.

123. 0:48:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so I'm looking at the bill and I see- ... responsibilities on the behalf of the attorney general. Um, I see waivers of, um, what do you call it? Immunity, sovereign immunity. I see costs being assigned for moving the statues. Um, and I guess my question, I, I have lots of questions, but, um, is, has there been a fiscal note done on this?

124. 0:49:07

     Because there are a lot of costs that I can see being imposed, whether it's on local counties, whether it's on the state and the attorney general's office. Oh, also the, I forget the department that has to go through and inventory all of this. Do you know how many monuments there are in the state that are gonna have to be inventoried? Georgia law does require, law, not just some, you know, peripheral rule or agency rule that now we have power over those, too. Georgia law requires a fiscal note on these things, and we disregard that every time I turn around.

125. 0:49:42

     This has the potential, also, once again, litigation hellhole that we were trying to solve that eliminated victims of rape from being able to sue. But here you're taking away sovereign immunity and creating litigation in between individual citizens, in between an individual and the city and the county, even against the state. So I'm just trying to understand if we've followed the law and we have a fiscal note. Thanks.

126. 0:50:14

     Do you want me to respond to that?

127. 0:50:14

     Thank you. Uh, let's, let's move on. One, one final question.

128. 0:50:18

     There's my-

129. 0:50:18

     Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

130. 0:50:19

     I'll be glad to answer your question.

131. 0:50:19

     Okay. Yes, please. Please do. I'm sorry. I apologize.

132. 0:50:22

     You know, I don't know that there is a fiscal, um, a fiscal note needed for this because these cities, and g- we're passing this down to the folks who want to get rid of a statue. They want to. Under the current law, they can't destroy that statue. So if they want to relocate and it goes through the system, then they can relocate instead of having to pay constant storage for these, these statuaries. Now, me personally, I look at it as monuments for what they are.

133. 0:50:52

     But I also see the artistic beauty to these statuaries. So, you know, there's a lot of sides to this. But as far as a fiscal note, they choose whether they want to relo- If they want to relocate, then they can decide to do it. If they decide to move them, relocate them, then that's up to the local governments.

134. 0:51:11

     What about AG

135. 0:51:13

     You know, I think you just spent a, uh, you just passed a bill yesterday on DA retirement. Somebody's gotta have standing when nobody else has standing, and that would be the district attorney or the attorney's general office, and it doesn't make it mandatory.

136. 0:51:31

     Okay, we're gonna move on to one final question. Representative Oliver.

137. 0:51:36

     I'm familiar with the litigation in DeKalb against the Stone Mountain Authority and against City Decatur by the Sons of Confederacy. Isn't it true that the law does clearly define standing, and that the, your statement that it's not defined is inaccurate? And in fact, the purpose of your statute is to reverse the decisions that the courts have made in relation to the Sons of Confederates' failure to establish standing in front of a court in DeKalb County. Isn't that true?

138. 0:52:04

     It is not true.

139. 0:52:05

     Thank you.

140. 0:52:05

     You're the attorney and I'm not.

141. 0:52:07

     I, I-

142. 0:52:07

     And I know that in law-

143. 0:52:08

     I believe that standing is defined by law

144. 0:52:10

     ... but that's, but standing currently is not-

145. 0:52:10

     And I think the purpose of your bill is to reverse the decision against the Sons of Confederates and put them in a winning position.

146. 0:52:17

     When the Sons of Confederate Veterans have-

147. 0:52:17

     That's my legal opinion

148. 0:52:19

     ... when they have filed in suits around the state, in a lot of cases, those judges have said, "You have no standing."

149. 0:52:26

     That's right. And there are laws that have been defined standing for decades in a sufficient way, and you want to reverse the decisions against the Sons of Confederacy. That's why I'm opposed to your bill.

150. 0:52:37

     Okay.

151. 0:52:38

     Well, that's

152. 0:52:38

     Thank you very much. We will-

153. 0:52:39

     ... fine with me. I'd be shocked otherwise

154. 0:52:40

     ... M- Mr. Chairman, we're gonna move on now. We, uh, I do have a couple of blinking lights, but I think they're to call the question. We're at the point, actually, uh, we're finished with questions on part of the committee. So, uh, we do have two people signed up to speak to the bill, and I do have a question for, uh, for these two people. Uh, let's see, uh...

155. 0:53:04

     Maya, I believe. Maya?

156. 0:53:06

     Maya Peters? Did I say that correctly?

157. 0:53:10

     Uh, Maya Peters.

158. 0:53:11

     Yes. Okay. Were you speaking to this bill or the prev- the bill before it was replaced?

159. 0:53:17

     The bill before.

160. 0:53:18

     Okay. So you waive?

161. 0:53:20

     Yes.

162. 0:53:20

     Okay. All right. And then, uh, Michael Beach, same question.

163. 0:53:25

     I, I don't.

164. 0:53:26

     Waives. Okay. All right. In that case, uh, we're in a posture to entertain a motion regarding the- Motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass.

165. 0:53:36

     Second.

166. 0:53:36

     We have a second. Any discussion? Let's see. Seeing none, uh, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

167. 0:53:46

     No.

168. 0:53:47

     Can we have a hand vote?

169. 0:53:48

     Can we have a hand vote? Yes. All in favor, raise your hand.

170. 0:53:52

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

171. 0:53:57

     Oh, okay.

172. 0:53:58

     Nine.

173. 0:53:58

     Nine, okay. All opposed, raise your hand.

174. 0:54:01

     One, two, three, four, five.

175. 0:54:04

     Okay. The, uh, the ayes have it. The bill passes. Thank you, sir.

176. 0:54:08

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen.

177. 0:54:10

     Okay. Now we're gonna move on to the next bill on the agenda. I'll ask, uh- Well, raise it ... Senator, uh- Sign or something, sure ... yeah, let's, let's, let's kinda keep the quorum please in the committee. Senator, uh, Bearden, if you will please come to the table and let's, uh, discuss Senate Bill 423. And you may proceed when you're ready, sir.

178. 0:54:35

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.

179. 0:54:41

     Got papers going all over the place. Excuse me one second. So we're gonna be going over the substitute to Senate Bill 423, LC number 4239S. This is basically a Georgia finance, or campaign finance transparency bill. So I'm gonna walk through the bill, and we will jump right in here to lines 26

180. 0:55:12

     through 29. What this part of the bill does, it talks about small PACs that spend $25,000 a year. There is a mistake, or let's just say it's cleanup language from last year's Senate Bill 119. Last year's bill had language saying that you don't report, then you do report. It's going back to the original way it was. So if you're a small PAC, you don't spend over $25,000 a year, you do not have to report and do the registration.

181. 0:55:44

     That's the way it used to be. So this cleaned up Senate Bill 119. Now, the moment that you spend $25,000, or $25,001, you do report, you do register, and you do that until the, uh, PAC is dissolved. If you go to line 64 of the bill through 72,

182. 0:56:11

     this is, uh, trying to clean up dark money that's coming into the state. So simply stated, if any independent committee makes expenditures for the purpose of electing or defeating a candidate, and they're using broadcast media, cable, radio, internet, they shall disclose all information required by all applicable federal statutes, FEC, FCC.

183. 0:56:44

     And if they don't, and they're out of compliance with this, the violations are subject to civil penalties under our ethics laws, which is 21-5-6, which follows to the Ethics Commission.

184. 0:57:00

     As said, you can spend what type of money you want, we just wanna know who you are. Section Two of the bill, this is where we get to what I call Georgians Electing Georgians Act.

185. 0:57:15

     Lines 76 through 93 are definitions of a Georgian, a non-Georgia business, or a non-Georgia business. If you look at line 90, currently it says, "As to a campaign committee, independent committee, or a political action committee." I believe there's gonna be an amendment that I'm gonna consider friendly at the proper time. So this section would actually just read, "As to a campaign committee." We're taking it... We'll be taking out if the amendment's offered at the proper time, and I said we'll take that as a friendly amendment.

186. 0:57:48

     So it's just dealing with campaign committees and candidates. So line 94 through 101, so after June 1st, 2026, the total amount of contributions that can come into a candidate or campaign committee from non-Georgians cannot exceed 50%.

187. 0:58:17

     If it goes over 50% during a reporting period, there's 45 days at the end of the reporting period, the money can be returned, or the money cheats back to the state, so it goes to the state.

188. 0:58:33

     Lines 102 through 106, there's a carve-out to make sure people like the DNC, RNC can contribute into the State of Georgia, no issues. Also, a, um, donations from family members, it's in the carve-out as well. Lines 107 through 113, this section, section says, "Who can file a complaint?" Either the attorney general, either at his or her own motion, or at the request of the Ethics Commission, or any resident of this state may petition the Superior Court of the county in which the candidate or campaign committee is domiciled.

189. 0:59:13

     And finally, lines 114 through 125, this is to prohibit straw man donations. So either the person outside the state trying to get someone to take illegal money to donate, or an individual inside the state that's willing and knowingly takes the money from someone outside the state to try to skirt the system, will be subject to a felony, that is a one to 10-year prison sentence and a fine of not more than $10,000. End of the day, this is a good common sense approach to make sure our elections are not interfered with from outside forces, and make sure Georgians are electing Georgians.

190. 0:59:50

     There is transparency, and I ask for your favorable consideration to the bill.

191. 0:59:56

     Okay. Thank you. We have a few questions. Uh, Representative Burnough.

192. 1:00:00

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, can you give me a definition of what dark money is?

193. 1:00:07

     Money that comes in the state and we have no idea where it's coming from.

194. 1:00:11

     Okay. So, um, I saw that you had in here, so both my parents had deceased, so I wanna make that clarification. So my... If my mother was still living, she could give me money even though she lives in Michigan.

195. 1:00:27

     Correct.

196. 1:00:27

     Okay. And so then I would just put her name down if she gave me a large sum of money?

197. 1:00:34

     She would need to make sure she stays within the, uh, ethics-

198. 1:00:37

     Yeah, I know that

199. 1:00:37

     ... or campaign finance laws of how much she can give you.

200. 1:00:38

     Uh-huh. Within, yeah, within the laws.

201. 1:00:40

     But yes.

202. 1:00:40

     Yes.

203. 1:00:40

     Yes.

204. 1:00:40

     Okay. So if she did that, then I... then that would be okay.

205. 1:00:44

     Yeah.

206. 1:00:44

     Okay. But then if, uh, someone else, a friend of mine who lives in Texas did the same thing, then that would be considered as dark money?

207. 1:00:52

     No. That, that, that's not considered dark money. Let's think of if you see a commercial being ran, let's say it's attacking me, and we don't know... They do not file the p- proper paperwork with the FEC that they're supposed to fill out, then that would be dark money, and they allowed that to run. What we're saying is, "You can run the ads. We just wanna know who you are. We just want it to be transparent."

208. 1:01:17

     Okay, so we're going after TV money? Is that what this is?

209. 1:01:21

     Anyone that is, any independent committee that is funding a campaign to either elect or to defeat a candidate, they need to make sure that they fill out all the paperwork on the federal side saying who they are and where the money's coming from. That's where that section does in Section 1 of the bill.

210. 1:01:42

     So this is not about the candidate doing this. This is about that individual that's running the ad on TV?

211. 1:01:48

     If I started, uh, DeSanti for Good Government-

212. 1:01:53

     Mm

213. 1:01:53

     ... and I don't say... That's the only thing I put on the, uh, FEC filing-

214. 1:01:58

     Mm-hmm

215. 1:01:58

     ... and nothing else, we have no idea who DeSanti is. So they've gotta make sure they fill out all the applicable federal laws to make sure that, okay, Tim Bearden's behind DeSanti. So we know Tim Bearden is funding this DeSanti for Good Government, and I'm either attacking or helping that candidate.

216. 1:02:16

     Okay, thank you.

217. 1:02:17

     Okay. Uh, Representative Roberts.

218. 1:02:21

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. So if you're saying they're violating federal law, why isn't that being enforced? Why do we need a state law specific to this? And then my second question is, under Buckley versus Valeo-

219. 1:02:35

     Mm

220. 1:02:35

     ... um, we've got, uh, it's a constitutional violation to limit on geography, um, unless you can prove that it's more corrupt. And so I'm trying to understand, um, if there's a way to enforce under federal law how this would be.

221. 1:02:56

     Yeah. Buck- the Buckley ca- case was back in 1976, and that was our first major campaign finance-

222. 1:03:01

     Mm-hmm

223. 1:03:01

     ... law that came to case. Uh, then you have FEC versus McConnell, and then, of course, you got Citizens United case. What we're seeing from the courts, um, and we can even look at Hawaii, that's right now has a 30% cap on outside money, but that covers independent committees, leadership committees and all that. This is not what the bill's doing. So far, Hawaii is, has been good. And when we look at circuit court decisions, we look at our Supreme Court, everyone from Kavanaugh to Kagan has said that we as a state have a interest to the monies coming in.

224. 1:03:34

     But they have not said we have the right to regulate it, but they haven't gave us the guidance to what that number is. They have struck down Alaska, who said you can only take $3,000 max from outside the state. Struck down. Uh, they've struck down a 20%, but again, that's really hitting your independent committees and leadership committees and those type things. But so far, Hawaii has stayed firm at 30%. So what we're doing here, again, we're just dealing with the candidate and the candidate's committee.

225. 1:04:07

     We're not going after the independent committees, the super PACs, or the leadership committees, things like that. That would be accepting the money. If we did, I think we would still be safe, and it would hold constitutional muster on that end. But what we're saying here is 50% of your money. So if you raise $100,000 for your race, you can only raise $50,000 outside of the state of that money. But if you go to $50,001, $1 would need to be returned back to who gave it to you, or that $1 would be chewed back to the state.

226. 1:04:39

     And how is this gonna be enforced? Um, and it seems like there's ways that you could get around it, and it just feels like it's an administrative burden. Um, it also seems like it would limit grassroots campaigns on some level, and it would benefit incumbents because they've already established a base of support in Georgia. And it would, um, unfairly discriminate against challengers in, in my opinion.

227. 1:05:14

     No, it, it, it don't. Um, 'cause when you look at l- lines 82 through 89, you know, entities, and let, let's use Ford Motor Company as an example. While they're probably

228. 1:05:32

     just licensed probably in Delaware or Michigan, one of the two, they have a nexus to this state, so we wouldn't be exempting Ford from if you got a check from Ford Motor Company. They could still send it, and it wouldn't affect them whatsoever, nor your campaign, because there's a nexus to Georgia. They have employees in Georgia. They pay payroll taxes in Georgia. So that's completely fine. What we're t- trying to get to is those that absolutely have no nexus whatsoever to Georgia. They don't pay property taxes. They don't pay payroll taxes.

229. 1:06:02

     They don't file an income tax.

230. 1:06:06

     Nothing to do with the state whatsoever. But we're still saying you can still get 50% of your money from a campaign from outside the state.

231. 1:06:18

     I'm gonna hold off.

232. 1:06:19

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Representative Sanchez.

233. 1:06:25

     Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this bill. I actually really like getting, you know, money out of politics. I really am glad that you're talking about dark money. Um, as a can- as a candidate, I don't take any corporate money. I've made that pledge. So I'm really in favor of, um, amending our campaign finance law, so I'm glad we're taking a step in that direction. However, I, I am a little confused about why you're calling this a dark money bill, because it's not really about dark money at all. This is more about, if you look at Section 2, line 76 through 93, we have way stricter guidelines on what counts as a Georgia individual.

234. 1:07:00

     So they have to live here. They have to-

235. 1:07:02

     Mm-hmm

236. 1:07:02

     ... you know, be a registered voter. But for a company, they don't even have to be- They don't have to have any locations here. They don't have to be based in Georgia. They have to just pay taxes here, which is a very, very easy, uh, you know, thing for companies to go over. So basically, we're not basically limiting any corporations from donating here, which makes it seem like... And then also we're getting, you s- you consider it from the amendment to get rid of line 90 through 91, independent committee and political action committee, where a lot of dark money comes from dark money PACs. So the fact that we're not even prohibiting PACs in this anymore with a friendly amendment would be basically getting rid of any of the dark money r- regulations.

237. 1:07:39

     So my question to you is w- why, why are we calling this a dark money bill when this is really just a non-Georgia bill?

238. 1:07:46

     I believe I mentioned, uh, s- line 64 through 72. It's the dark money section. What section two is, is really the... The whole bill is a transparency bill. Section two is what I consider Georgians electing Georgians. And if you pay taxes into this state, I think you have an interest in this state to what we do as a legislature. So, um, and that's why I think, uh, I think Ford was a good example. I hope they don't mind me using their name. But, um, and the way you mentioned, uh, at first I was, I said I look forward to having your yes vote on this bill.

239. 1:08:16

     So I hope, hope to still have you because sometimes we gotta take smaller steps to get to where we need to go. And if it's a, if the bill's not perfect, let's not kill perfect in the sake of passing something good. So we're gonna make sure we got a good bill. I think this is a great first step, and, uh, I'd love to work with you on cracking down more as we move along in the future.

240. 1:08:36

     Yeah, I would love to work with you as well, and I think that, again, I think the... I don't have a problem with section one. I just think section two is way too strict on individuals and way too loose on corporate entities, and we need to be the, it should be the other way around because those are the ones who are sending most of the money and the ones who are, you know, I would, in my opinion, corrupting a lot of our government. Um, whereas individuals are usually, the vast majority of the time, small-dollar donors-

241. 1:09:03

     Yeah

242. 1:09:03

     ... who are just giving to a grassroots campaign. So wouldn't you think, in this opinion, the way this bill is written right now, it would disadvantage grassroots campaign who depend on small-dollar donors?

243. 1:09:12

     Honestly, I don't. I, I just think that we may have a difference of opinion. I would love to talk to you later down the road, and so maybe even work together on something that we can find some good work on.

244. 1:09:20

     I appreciate it. Thank you.

245. 1:09:21

     You're welcome.

246. 1:09:23

     Okay. Representative Adesanya.

247. 1:09:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator. Um, so as I understand it is when you get a total donation, does that, does the money that you loan to yourself count? Does it give you that buffer?

248. 1:09:41

     Y- you can self-fund a campaign all day long, so you're fine.

249. 1:09:45

     So-

250. 1:09:46

     If you want to self-ca- if you want to self-finance.

251. 1:09:48

     Okay. So I guess, um, I'm gonna rephrase. So if I put in, say, one million into my campaign, and I get one million from out-of-state donation, does that put me into that threshold?

252. 1:10:08

     Well, no, because you still have a million dollars each.

253. 1:10:10

     Oh.

254. 1:10:11

     I'm sorry. Will you say, say that again?

255. 1:10:12

     I said, well, at the scenario that you just gave, you still have a million dollars each. But, um-

256. 1:10:17

     So it means I'm covered. I'm safe.

257. 1:10:18

     Yeah. Honestly, on the scenario that you just gave, if you self-finance your own campaign to a million dollars, and then you're bringing in a million dollars from outside of non-Georgia entities, I think there's probably gonna be a problem with, with that.

258. 1:10:33

     And, and, and that's why I'm bringing this up, because it, I think it's important that this committee really considers this. This is going to be a big issue, and I can see this impacting you all more than what you all may have intended. Um, I mean, we've got people running for governor putting $10 million in their campaign, putting so much money in their campaign. Now, given what I'm hearing from you and what I'm understanding this bill will do, it protects them. It really does.

259. 1:11:00

     I, I don't think it does. I say I think this protects Georgians electing Georgians. Um, yes, there's a lot of money being put into big campaigns right now, and if I got $50 million, I'm living on the beach. I'm not running for governor. So, uh, I'll just go ahead and throw that out there right now. So, um, at the end of the day, though, this bill is designed to try to keep the outside influence affecting our elections and making sure Georgians are electing Georgians.

260. 1:11:27

     A quick follow-up, Mr. Chairman. So, all right, and I hear you. I hear you. But this is not protecting Georgians at all. This bill would not protect Georgia if you, from what I heard and what I quickly scanned through, if 50% of money coming from out of state will be considered, when this bill passes, illegal. I gotta give it to the state. Think about candidates that are going to put their own money into this, um, into their races. So this is going to be unfair. This is actually not going to be, um, protecting Georgians.

261. 1:11:59

     It's going to give a certain candidate who can self-fund a numerous advantage. And think about what you're saying this bill is going to do. It would not accomplish that. So I would urge this committee to carefully think about this. This is going to impact y'all more than the, the intention of the, the gentleman. So I just wanted to implore committee to, to, um, consider this carefully.

262. 1:12:21

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, Chairman Momtahan.

263. 1:12:24

     Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Senator, for bringing the bill. Would you agree that a person who is from another state, like California-

264. 1:12:36

     Mm-hmm

265. 1:12:37

     ... New York, Arkansas, Iowa, that there is really no compelling interest in a state election in that I think even 50%, and based on the, on the court precedent that we have. And we've seen the, the Supreme Court throw out so many of these, the $3,000 in Alaska.

266. 1:13:01

     Yeah.

267. 1:13:02

     And yet we have a state, uh, in fact, a blue state, like Hawaii- ... who has a 30% cap- on out-of-state contributions.

268. 1:13:10

     Yep.

269. 1:13:11

     And those are still standing today.

270. 1:13:13

     Correct.

271. 1:13:13

     That the Supreme Court even said themselves in the ruling, they, they said, "We're not saying that there's not a cap," and when they've stri- when they've struck down these, these percentages in the past, they've said, "We're not saying there's not an amount. We're just saying this is not it. And this far exceeds what those cases have been." For example, the $3,000 cap like in Alaska-

272. 1:13:39

     Yeah

273. 1:13:39

     ... which is I think where that comment came from.

274. 1:13:41

     Yeah.

275. 1:13:41

     So isn't it true that even now, that somebody from Arkansas who's giving bundles of money to these candidates, just as an example, or a contingent of these folks who are from out of state, they really should have no compelling interest in a state election. And by the way, this is just for state elections. This does not affect a federal election. Isn't that true?

276. 1:14:04

     You are correct.

277. 1:14:05

     So the, the... I'm trying to understand the minority party, and I think what I'm starting to understand is that they feel like in a state election, that, that other states or residents of other states should have that have a compelling interest just befuddles me. Isn't that true?

278. 1:14:24

     That is correct, sir.

279. 1:14:25

     Isn't it also true that we have a, we have a transparency piece built into this that seems to be a loophole that needs to be closed so that we all know where money's coming from and where it's being spent? Isn't that also true?

280. 1:14:40

     That is true. Every citizen should know where that money's coming from.

281. 1:14:43

     Well, thank you, Senator. And at the appropriate time, I'd like to make a motion so we can be in the proper, uh, posture to take an amendment.

282. 1:14:50

     Okay. Uh, right now I'm gonna recognize Chairman Thomas.

283. 1:14:55

     Uh, actually, I was gonna make an emotion as well at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman.

284. 1:15:01

     Okay. I've got a few more lights blinking. Uh, we're, we're gonna... We'll make this, if we can make this very quick and concise, uh, we'll allow that real quickly.

285. 1:15:13

     Representative Burnough.

286. 1:15:14

     Ooh, turned myself off. Representative Burnough.

287. 1:15:16

     Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can, um, since this is always a, like a buzz word, and, um, since they're always referring to us as the, I don't know what he just referred to us as, um, what is your definition of, uh, transparency?

288. 1:15:36

     My definition of transparency?

289. 1:15:37

     Uh-huh. Yeah.

290. 1:15:37

     According, according to this bill?

291. 1:15:38

     Since, since that always seems to be the word that's supposed to make everything feel all right. So what does transparency mean?

292. 1:15:46

     That it's open. People can see it. And this is what we're doing with this bill. We're making sure if someone's donating money, that we know who it is. And we're also stopping outside influence to make sure Georgians are electing Georgians, not someone from California or Florida or somewhere else that has, does not have an interest in this state. We're also making sure when someone's running commercials, we know who is running those commercials, where that money's coming from. I think the citizens of this state has that right, and I don't think you can get more transparent than this bill right here.

293. 1:16:18

     But what if I have friends, and, um, they all come together and they decide they wanna donate a large amount of money to my campaign? It's not really dark money. They just love me, and they want to. So if I'm matching funds, so that would be a problem?

294. 1:16:33

     They can donate as long... If there's outside the state, they can donate. But your campaign cannot take 50% of outside money. So I would work really hard in the district or inside the state to also raise money as well, but they're more than happy, we're more than happy to have them to donate to your campaign that's outside-

295. 1:16:52

     Okay.

296. 1:16:53

     Yes, sir

297. 1:16:53

     ... we're gonna move to the next question.

298. 1:16:54

     Thank you.

299. 1:16:54

     Uh, thank you. Representative Adesanya.

300. 1:16:57

     Uh, and I'll be very quick, um, Mr. Chairman. Um, so just wanted to, um, comment in what the gentleman, um, my colleague on the far right mentioned, who was sitting on the far right corner. So is... Not, not far right, not far right conservative. Not far right, not far right Republican, sitting on the far right, right there. So isn't it true- Or maybe both. Maybe both. All right. So isn't it true that he mentioned Hawaii as an example that pushes back and only accept 30% of out-of-state contribution as closing a loophole?

301. 1:17:35

     Isn't that true that we're cl- closing a loophole, well, we're proposing to close a loophole, but then opening another loophole for those who can self and campaign? Isn't that true?

302. 1:17:46

     You self-fund. Self-fund is... You self-fund. That's Georgia dollars. You're giving yourself Georgia dollars, coming into Georgia.

303. 1:17:54

     But that's not fair.

304. 1:17:55

     You can, he can self-fund.

305. 1:17:56

     But, but that's not fair.

306. 1:17:57

     I, I think we just have a complete different take on what we're trying to do here. I don't think there's anything I say to make you to hit a green light-

307. 1:18:05

     But-

308. 1:18:05

     ... or vote yes.

309. 1:18:06

     Right. But-

310. 1:18:07

     But so we can argue this point all day long. It's not gonna change.

311. 1:18:11

     Okay. Let's just-

312. 1:18:12

     Think, think about Brad Jones. Think about Brad Jones, who was putting 10 million into his campaign. He would never get caught up into that 50% trap. He would never come.

313. 1:18:19

     All right. We're gonna, we're gonna move on to, uh, one last question before we... Uh, Representative Roberts.

314. 1:18:23

     I have one procedural question, Mr. Chair.

315. 1:18:25

     Yes.

316. 1:18:25

     Are we... Is there anybody that wants to speak on this bill?

317. 1:18:27

     We have one person signed up to speak.

318. 1:18:29

     Just one.

319. 1:18:30

     And has the secretary of state or whoever is gonna be in charge of enforcing this weighed in on this bill as... I mean, 'cause it's gonna require them to... Before, you just made sure that it wasn't from a foreign country, and that's pretty easy to identify. Now you've gotta run very kinda detailed calculations every reporting period on every single state candidate in the state. So is there a fiscal note? Has the, whoever's in charge of doing that, um, weighed in? And then I...

320. 1:19:01

     Sorry, one last question for you specifically.

321. 1:19:03

     Do you want me to answer the first two first, or...?

322. 1:19:05

     Well, he won't let me give another one, so let me just ask the... The last thing is you're saying that this is... And I agree. I don't know how they're getting around the, the, the ads that we know we're all here for.

323. 1:19:16

     You mentioned the FEC requirements. I'm trying to understand how this bill fixes what they-- Like, what specifically, how did they get around what they did?

324. 1:19:27

     That's a good question. We'd like to find that out, and I have great, uh, respect and, uh, believe our Georgia State Ethics Commission can handle this bill just fine.

325. 1:19:36

     And FEC doesn't have-

326. 1:19:36

     Because it's Georgia State Ethics-

327. 1:19:38

     Oh

328. 1:19:38

     ... is gonna be the one that's handling that.

329. 1:19:40

     Okay.

330. 1:19:41

     Okay. Thank you, and, uh, Chairman Momtahan.

331. 1:19:44

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, uh, to the, to the member for the, uh, astute observation that I am on the very far right. Uh, that's pretty great. Uh, second thing I was gonna say was, uh, number one, the transparency piece, there's two, there's two portions of this bill, and the first portion is about transparency, where funds are coming from and how they're being spent in the state. So we have ads that are being run on TV, radio. We just wanna know who they are. That's the transparency piece. The second piece is the policies decision.

332. 1:20:15

     And so, you know, w- w- I, I think at some point the policy decision has to be, and I think you're starting to see this across the United States, both in, in blue and red states, that the people from that state, and I think in this bill, of course, it's the people in Georgia should be picking their elected, uh, officials.

333. 1:20:38

     Yeah.

334. 1:20:38

     And we wanna make sure that outside money isn't pouring in for anybody's outside interest. Look, folks across this nation have compelling interest in natural resources in different states. We fight with Tennessee about natural resources there. And we wanna make sure that in those types of battles, where you have water wars, where you have natural resource wars, we wanna make sure that the compelling interest has to be for Georgians first. And I applaud the gentleman for bringing this bill. Thank you.

335. 1:21:09

     Okay, we're gonna move on to, uh, signups that we have. Uh, we're gonna ask, uh, Mr. Hackney, if you would, to, uh, come to the podium.

336. 1:21:18

     To the podium?

337. 1:21:19

     Yes, please.

338. 1:21:23

     I'm Don Hackney.

339. 1:21:23

     You may pr- proceed when you're ready, sir. If you will, uh, yeah, just identify yourself and proceed. Thank you.

340. 1:21:29

     Pull your mic down.

341. 1:21:29

     Oh, sorry. I'm Don Hackney, a retired Atlanta attorney, and I have two objections to this bill. First and foremost, it violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled that political contributions are a form of free speech, and that most restrictions on contributions are prohibited. Hawaii is the only state that has a law like this. In other states that have tried to adopt this, the courts have rejected the laws as violations of free speech.

342. 1:22:01

     And most legal experts agree that Hawaii's law will be rejected as soon as it's challenged. The bottom line is forty-eight states have, including every state controlled by Republicans, have recognized that these laws are unconstitutional or misguided. The litigation that will arise from this bill will cause significant confusion to candidates all across the state. My second objection is that this bill will be an administrative and logistical nightmare for almost every candidate for elected office in Georgia, including all of your colleagues in the House, and it is unnecessary and self-inflicted.

343. 1:22:40

     Before taking action, I ask that you pause and ask the people who prepare these already burdensome campaign reports, how are they going to track this new burden on a daily basis? How are they going to check the voter rolls to, to confirm that donors are registered? How are they going to confirm that donors have paid income taxes to Georgia as required by this law? And how do they decide who to turn excess contributions to? And lastly, how do they, how do you all and they make decisions about making advertising commitments and other campaign commitments when you don't know whether you have to return these contributions at the end of every reporting period?

344. 1:23:25

     I was going to-- My last comment was about the very onerous criminal penalties here on the bill that's on the website. But I assume, Senator, you might confirm this, that that's been deleted in the bill before the committee. The, the-

345. 1:23:41

     No, it's still in there.

346. 1:23:42

     What's that?

347. 1:23:45

     The, the, the felony provisions-

348. 1:23:46

     No, it's still there.

349. 1:23:47

     Okay. I, I didn't hear that. But, so, and please remind these folks that are filling out these forms, whether it's you or a volunteer or whoever it might be, that bill, this bill has a way too onerous penalty for violating these rules. It is a felony. It should not even be a crime. It is a felony with a minimum of one year in jail and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars. Who's gonna be willing to take this risk? Who are you gonna ask to take this risk on your behalf when every citizen in the state of Georgia can sue your campaign whether, if they think that you violated this law?

350. 1:24:26

     At a minimum, please delete the felony provisions in this law. Let the State Ethics Co- Commission or the State Election Board handle any type of violation. So these are the reasons that this legislation, uh, that legislatures of all but one state have said no to this type of a bill, particularly when it also happens to be unconstitutional. Thank you.

351. 1:24:50

     Okay, Mr. Hackney. I think we do have one question. Uh, Representative Adesanya.

352. 1:24:55

     Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hackney. Um, so is it not true, as you stated, that this bill, if we allow this type of bill to pass, would create a lot of confusion? And I can also see this creating infighting amongst the Republican Party. We already have that. Um, and I just don't know why we're even moving forward with this because it doesn't solve anything. It only adds to the problems that we already have. Isn't that true?

353. 1:25:24

     Yes, I, I agree with that. I don't ... The, the way the bill is drafted, it seems to me that when you get a check from and Aiken, South Carolina for an election in Augusta, you ha- you're gonna have to determine, or, or, or from anywhere in the state in particular, you're gonna have to determine whether that person has v- is a registered voter in Georgia. Are you gonna have to get voter rolls for all 159 counties? You're gonna have to determine whether they filed tax returns in Ge- in Georgia. How do, how do you all get access to ta- tax returns of individuals?

354. 1:25:57

     The rolls.

355. 1:25:57

     I, I ... And, and what about people who income is not high enough so they don't have to file a tax return? What, what happens to them? Uh, what, what happens, um, to people who've had, uh, business losses and they, in the last calendar year they didn't have to pay taxes? How, how are your volunteers, usually, who handle your campaign contributions going to handle that?

356. 1:26:21

     And, and thank you. And then on top of that, you, you have people who move, right? If I move to Illinois and my tax, um ... Well, say if I move from Illinois to Georgia and my tax returns shows Illinois, how do we navigate the timeline that I came to Georgia? It creates a lot of confusion and-

357. 1:26:37

     I have no idea

358. 1:26:37

     ... a lot of chaos.

359. 1:26:39

     I have no idea.

360. 1:26:39

     Thank you. Thank you.

361. 1:26:42

     Okay. Thank you. That's all the questions and all the speakers we have. Is the, does the committee here, uh, have a desire on this bill? Is there a motion? Do we have a motion to pass? Do we have a second? We have a second. We're in the posture of, uh, discussion. Uh, let's see. Who was first here? Uh, Representative Sanchez.

362. 1:27:02

     Thank you, Chair. I do have a couple of amendments, uh, to put at this time. So I think if we're gonna talk about actually keeping dark money out of Georgia, then we should have the same restrictions on corporations as we do people. So f- with that, I would like to amend line 84, uh, before the semicolon to add, starting quote here, "comma, except that a foreign corporation registered under Article 15 of Chapter 2 of Title 14, comma, a foreign corporation registered under Article 15 of Chapter 3 of Title 14, comma, or a foreign limited liability company registered under Article 7 of Chapter 11 of Title 14 shall not qualify for this exemption." Basically, what this would do was make that only corporations, LLCs, partnerships, and professional associations that are incorporated in Georgia would qualify under this bill.

363. 1:27:58

     So that way, outside corporations cannot c- would also be under the 50% limit.

364. 1:28:07

     Okay. Is that in the form of a motion?

365. 1:28:10

     Yes.

366. 1:28:11

     We have a motion for the amendment. I will not restate the amendment because I don't remember all those, uh- ... sections. Uh, I think we heard that if we proceed with the amendment, we will get that clarified with legislative council. Do we have a second for the amendment?

367. 1:28:26

     Second.

368. 1:28:27

     Okay. We do have a second. Any discussion on the amendment? Uh, Representative Roberts, I think you're not for this partic- I mean, your, your light was blinking before the amendment was made. Do you have discussion?

369. 1:28:39

     Oh, that amendment. That's not ... I'm sorry.

370. 1:28:40

     Okay. Okay. Uh, Representative, uh, Chairman Gullett.

371. 1:28:44

     Just wanna ask the authors, is this a friendly amendment to you?

372. 1:28:49

     And there's, I believe, the, um, to get this bill the way we need to get it going, it needs to stay like it is with that one friendly amendment.

373. 1:28:57

     Okay. So that-

374. 1:28:57

     That's gonna be offered later.

375. 1:28:58

     To, to, to clarify-

376. 1:28:59

     This-

377. 1:28:59

     ... this is not the friendly amendment you're-

378. 1:29:01

     No

379. 1:29:01

     ... referring to? Okay. Okay. Any other discussion on the amendment? Uh ...

380. 1:29:08

     Hold on a second. I, I-

381. 1:29:09

     Uh, hold, hold on. Hold on.

382. 1:29:14

     We don't want to-

383. 1:29:15

     Just vote on it. Let's just vote on it.

384. 1:29:17

     Okay. We have a motion and we have a second on the, uh, the Sanchez amendment. All in favor say aye.

385. 1:29:25

     Aye.

386. 1:29:26

     All opposed say no.

387. 1:29:28

     No.

388. 1:29:28

     Okay. Amendment is defeated. Uh, Representative Roberts.

389. 1:29:34

     Thank you, Mr. Chair. If this is gonna pass, I would at least, uh, make an amendment that lines 123 to 125 be stricken. This is too much of an administrative burden to put on small races where our budgets are so small, and it puts our volunteer finance directors at risk of a pretty extreme criminal penalty. Um, so I would propose that we strike lines 123 through 125.

390. 1:30:05

     Okay. We have a motion to strike lines 123 through 125. Is there a second?

391. 1:30:10

     Second.

392. 1:30:12

     Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none. All in-

393. 1:30:16

     But wait. The, the sponsor.

394. 1:30:16

     Oh, sorry. Uh, yes.

395. 1:30:18

     I, I just want to clarify-

396. 1:30:19

     Yes

397. 1:30:19

     ... one thing in 123 through 125. This is the straw man pr- provision. Th- so like, just like if someone came from New York and asked me to buy a gun for them, that's a straw man purchase.

398. 1:30:30

     Yes.

399. 1:30:30

     This is the straw man provision with this criminal act is in- involved. So I just want to make sure the committee knew this was a criminal act that's having a criminal penalty.

400. 1:30:39

     So-

401. 1:30:39

     And we would not accept that as a friendly amendment either.

402. 1:30:40

     So basically, what you're saying is, uh, w- that, uh ... So paragraph C only applies to paragraph five in, in your bill-

403. 1:30:49

     That is correct

404. 1:30:49

     ... is that my understanding?

405. 1:30:50

     That's with the criminal offense.

406. 1:30:53

     Okay. Any other discussion on the amendment? All in favor say aye.

407. 1:30:59

     Aye.

408. 1:31:00

     All opposed say no.

409. 1:31:01

     No.

410. 1:31:02

     Okay.

411. 1:31:02

     Can we have a division please?

412. 1:31:04

     Sure. Hand count. All in favor raise your hand.

413. 1:31:07

     No, no, no. I'm sorry. Take it on the next one.

414. 1:31:12

     Six. Okay.

415. 1:31:13

     Back to you, Brad.

416. 1:31:14

     Uh, all opposed to the amendment raise your hand.

417. 1:31:16

     Opposed.

418. 1:31:16

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine. Okay. Amendment fails. Uh, I now recogniz- recognize Chairman Thomas.

419. 1:31:27

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I would also like to propose amendment I feel is probably friendly. Um, that would be lines 90 at this, after, "As to a campaign committee," striking the comma, striking independent committee, striking the comma after independent committee, keeping the word or, and then following the word or, striking political action committee with f- with the comma as well. So it would read like this, "As to a campaign committee or any such committee."

420. 1:32:03

     Okay. Is that, uh, that's, we have that in the form of a motion. Do we have a second?

421. 1:32:09

     Second.

422. 1:32:09

     All right.

423. 1:32:09

     Motion mailed.

424. 1:32:10

     Yes.

425. 1:32:11

     It, I would read it, "As to a campaign committee or any such committee," um, that's-

426. 1:32:16

     What's the other such committee?

427. 1:32:19

     Well, as to a camp- thank you. Uh, if you wanna get legislative counsel if he disagrees with the or.

428. 1:32:26

     Yeah.

429. 1:32:27

     Um, but the way I read, "As to any c- c- as to a campaign committee, any such committee which cannot..." I, I didn't, I thought it felt like it needed a, an something to connect that.

430. 1:32:38

     I thought it just said it'd be a comma after committee.

431. 1:32:41

     Okay.

432. 1:32:42

     As to a campaign-

433. 1:32:42

     Yeah.

434. 1:32:43

     Committee, comma, any.

435. 1:32:45

     So in that case, may I be allowed to restate my-

436. 1:32:47

     Yes, please restate your motion.

437. 1:32:48

     All right. I'm gonna restate my motion as such. After the comma after campaign committee, striking independent committee or political action committee so it reads as follows. "As to a campaign committee, comma, any such commit- committee which cannot demonstrate," and there on out. Is that, is that clear for everybody?

438. 1:33:14

     Yeah.

439. 1:33:15

     Okay.

440. 1:33:16

     We have that, uh, that is a restate of the motion. We had a second. Any change on the second? No change? Okay. We're in a discussion. I'll recognize, uh, I'm assuming, yes, Representative Sanchez.

441. 1:33:28

     Thank you, Chair. Uh, I know I mentioned this previously, but I think this amendment is proof that this is not about dark money at all, and this is not about actually securing our elections in any way, but is actually in fact just a way to, uh, dilute the power of grassroots donors and to make it so that people with a lot of money, either personal funds or huge corporations backing them, or huge super dark PACs backing them are fine, but anyone who gets $5 from another state is not fine. And I think this shows that, that, this clear difference between wealthy and the, the working class.

442. 1:33:59

     So I'm very much against this amendment. Thank you.

443. 1:34:03

     Okay. No further comments on the amendment. All in favor of the Thomas amendment say aye.

444. 1:34:08

     Aye.

445. 1:34:09

     Any opposed?

446. 1:34:11

     No.

447. 1:34:12

     Okay, the ayes have it. The amendment passes. Now we're to the underlying bill as amended. Whoop, we got one-

448. 1:34:21

     Are we discussing the main bill?

449. 1:34:22

     Uh, yes, we're still in discussion on the main bill. Yes. Recognize you, Representative Roberts.

450. 1:34:26

     Um, I was just wondering if I could get a legal opinion from Stuart Murrell on whether or not this would pass equal protection and free speech, um, constitutional challenges.

451. 1:34:39

     Uh, Mr. Murrell, is this a, uh, question you feel could be answered on the fly, or do we need to defer that? Recognize Mr. Murrell.

452. 1:34:53

     As some of the speakers have said, some similar legislation in other states has been struck down by circuit courts. The Supreme Court has not ruled on any of those cases, and it is my understanding that Hawaii's law is still valid and on the books. So I, I can't give you an answer without, you know... There, there is no, there is no case law in the 11th Circuit or the Northern, any Georgia district court. And without any guidance from any court that has jurisdiction over the state, I can't say whether or not it is or it isn't.

453. 1:35:26

     Okay. Thank you. Representative Burnough, we're still in discussion on the, uh, the motion to pass as amended.

454. 1:35:34

     Okay. Um, as, uh, Chairman Powell says, I'm not a lawyer, but, um, my father was one and my brother is currently one. And I just think that if... But you all, you know, do as you please, but when you start striking out specifics like independent committee, political action committee, I think that if it does go to court, that, um, that can become an issue that someone can use against you. Thank you.

455. 1:36:02

     Okay. Thank you. And, uh, uh, okay, I'll allow one last comment if we can keep it short. Representative Adesanya.

456. 1:36:09

     Thank you, Chairman. So while we're, um, still in discussion, um, and I'm glad, um, Stuart Murrell pointed that even though we have a case in court now, it's not a Georgia-related matter. So, um, it is important that we slow this down, because the last thing we wanna do is, you know, eventually get to court, wasting taxpayer money on, on laws that really doesn't do anything to solve the, the main issue. It just create a loophole in another part, which, um, I, I think, um, again, I'm urging this committee to, to slow down and take a look at this.

457. 1:36:51

     Okay. Thank you. Now we're to the question. Uh, all in favor of the passage of Senate Bill 423 as amended, say aye.

458. 1:37:02

     Aye.

459. 1:37:03

     All opposed say no.

460. 1:37:05

     No.

461. 1:37:05

     Okay, we're gonna do a hand count. All in favor, raise your hand.

462. 1:37:07

     One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine.

463. 1:37:13

     Okay. All opposed, raise your hand.

464. 1:37:15

     One, two, three...

465. 1:37:18

     Okay. Motion carries. Bill passes as amended.

466. 1:37:21

     Thank you so much, Mr. Commit, uh, Mr. Chairman and the committee members.

467. 1:37:25

     Thank you. Okay, the last, uh- Oh, uh, yes. Who's, who's the House sponsor for you, Senator Benton? Uh, Representative Jason Ridley. Jason Ridley? Yes, sir. Okay. Representative Ridley. Yes. Okay, now we're down to our last bill. The, uh, the Senate sponsor of the bill is unable to be here because he's, uh, presiding over meetings passing House bills now, he says. So, uh, I will t- attempt to go through, uh, Senate Bill 437. Uh, I have, uh, uh, fortunately, uh, uh, took just a moment as I left my office earlier to do a little section-by-section, uh, review of this with ChatGPT, so hopefully I catch the high points.

468. 1:38:03

     We've got some folks in the audience who can, uh, pick up the fumble if I, if I do that. But, uh, we're gonna start out. Uh, again, this is Senate Bill 437. Uh, we are working from LC474283S. Let me just verify. Yes. This is a committee substitute from, uh, from what was presented and, and passed out of the Senate. Uh, and just to kind of start off, the first section of this, uh, let me get my notes straight here.

469. 1:38:38

     We're, we're gonna be talking about, uh, residential building inspection reform. The, uh... This applies only to single-family residential structures, townhomes, or condominiums less than or equal to three stories. Uh, section, uh...

470. 1:39:03

     And I apologize. I'm having to kind of work on the fly here. Section one, uh, describes that. It also covers definitions. We define complete applications, private professional providers, uh, regulatory fees, and regulatory requirements in the bill. Section, uh, or paragraph, subparagraph H3, transparency in fees and requirements. Uh, local governments must publish fee schedules, regulatory requirements, and documentation needed for a complete application.

471. 1:39:34

     Fees must reflect actual cost of regulation. Uh, H4, uh, application completeness timeline within five business days. Uh, if incomplete, they must provide written notice of the deficiencies, and review timeline is a 15-day total review clock. Uh, tolling applica- a- applies if incomplete. Inspection availability, H5, uh, within two business days. Local governments must state whether inspection can occur within two business days.

472. 1:40:08

     Uh, let's see then. H6, right to use private professional providers. Uh, this defines that the f- there's a fee reduction of 50% for the use of private, private professional providers because you're not utilizing the, uh, municipal's resources or the county's resources. Uh, there's a prohibition against, uh, convenience fees being, uh, added to those fees also. Let's see. H7 covers notice requirements for the, uh, use of private professional providers.

473. 1:40:43

     Uh, H8, inspection standards. The inspections must be equal in rigor to government inspections. Uh, a lot of this is currently being utilized. I'll kind of start off with that way. The, these, these types of inspections are currently being done in a lot of our major cities and a lot of areas that don't have the resources or the time themselves to take care of it, so that's just a side note. Uh, applicant still pays reduced regulatory fees to local government. That was defined before. Insurance requirements. The provider must carry errors and omissions insurance.

474. 1:41:14

     Uh, great, uh, less than or equal to $5 million pro- dollar projects would require 1 million in coverage. Um, and then 5 million and above would require 2 million in coverage. Uh, must con- the coverage must extend post-project. A lot of this, some of this is current code, some of this is new. The, uh, scope of the authority. Limitations. Cannot issue a certificate of occupancy. This is for the, uh, uh, private providers. They, uh, they may perform all required inspections, but now these are single-trade inspections, so they can't be inspecting two or three different trades at one time, and there are requirements for who can do the inspections.

475. 1:41:54

     They can inspect footings, frames, framing, electrical, HVAC, et cetera. And, uh, only the local government may issue the certificate of occupancy. The, uh, the provider's inspection, the local governments must accept the, the reports, and the exception, they must notify deficiencies within two days, two business days. Uh, and then here we go. Pre-qualification of the providers. Local governments may establish pre-qualification systems. They must publicly advertise requirements, uh, and base the criteria on exper- experience only.

476. 1:42:32

     Preservation of legal rights. Does not limit consumer legal remedies in any way. Uh, the permit denial and stop work orders, that does not change. Local officials may deny permits or CO, issue stop work orders, requires notice and opportunity to cure, dispute process, meeting within two business days, appeal to a board or DCA, and that would be the local zoning and planning board, uh, or whatever the local jurisdiction board would cover this.

477. 1:43:03

     Let's see. Uh, government immunity. Local governments are not liable for private provider actions. Uh, we require them to have their insurance to cover those. Limits on local regulation. Local governments cannot impose stricter requirements than state law. Uh, this does not, and that would be on the, the private pro- provider, uh, inspections. The, uh, does not preempt plan submission processes. Uh, let's see. Emergen s- I- Immediate stop work allowed for public safety threats And then there are remedies against the public provider.

478. 1:43:41

     They are subject to professional licensing, licensing board reviews, and local officials may reject repeat deficient providers. Uh, this does not apply to inspections already exempt under the law. And, uh, that's about it. The, uh, the effective date of this would be July 1st of 2026. So that's a, that's a quick run through. And as I say, we do have some speakers that'll be speaking to the bill that were actually an integral part of the development of this bill.

479. 1:44:12

     So, uh, uh, I see we have a question. Representative Roberts?

480. 1:44:17

     Oh, no. So, uh, did I hear my-

481. 1:44:19

     Yeah.

482. 1:44:19

     So sorry.

483. 1:44:20

     Okay. Uh, uh, Represe- I'm sorry. Representative Adesanya. My bad.

484. 1:44:25

     Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know you're, um, you know, been a great gentleman filling in for your colleague who is not here, um, to present a bill. Um, so I don't know if you're in the best position to answer my question, but I'll still, you know, um, make the attempt, see if you can, um, make some clarification. Um, so this bill now, um, which I, I think I agree to a point where allowing private companies to come in and do certain work speeds the timeline and the process, but does that, do they still own the liability when that happen, when negligence occurs, or does it shift to the county?

485. 1:45:01

     Okay. And, and that's a real good question, and, uh, I, I kind of... Again, I was going through this summary fairly quick 'cause it's, it's, there's a lot in there, but the, uh, uh, if the, uh, the private provider provides that service, they're require- they are liable for that service rather than the county. I think, uh, Chairman Thomas, you wanna weigh in on that?

486. 1:45:19

     Yeah. Yeah. I, I, I just wanna... The county's never liable. I wanna make that very clear. When they do their inspections, they are not liable for anything. Ultimately, the contractor is liable. So the liability sits with the con- whoever the contractor developer is. Just standard. When you bring in a third-party provider, a third-party provider has to provi- have what they call errors and omissions insurance. Um, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are, have no, are completely liable for anything that goes wrong on that project, but it does bring a level of liability in that, quite frankly, is not available with, with the county, uh, through the inspections department.

487. 1:45:55

     And, and I would also just mention one other thing, that when you bring a private provider in, which is gonna be a licensed certified engineer, they're more knowledgeable about how, the methods of, uh, of construction and, uh, design techniques than you're gonna get out of an inspector. So you actually got a better qualified person that's doing it who has insurance versus... And, uh, we have wonderful inspectors. I'm not trying to ding any inspectors here, but, but they don't have the level of qualifications or education that a private provider would.

488. 1:46:23

     And just a quick follow-up.

489. 1:46:24

     Yeah.

490. 1:46:24

     So, um, are we vetting the, um, insurance coverage? Who is vetting the insurance coverage from the private provider?

491. 1:46:31

     No, no, that's, that's actually a really good question. So, uh, the insurance companies, um, the... So every engineer is required to have a seal, which is a, you know, a standard-

492. 1:46:40

     Right

493. 1:46:40

     ... that's set by the state. Every engineering company, uh, is also required to have their own, um, ins- uh, license that's covered by the PELS board. Um, in, in the case that, um, so the level of education, I guess, is already set. The in- uh, what all the insurance companies vet that. Obviously, they're insurance companies about risk, so they, they look at the, the history of the engineers, uh, specifically whoever the principal engineer of the company is, um, and then they look at the records for claims. So it's, it's got, that's how they do, you know, insurance.

494. 1:47:10

     And I point it out because given the size and scope of work-

495. 1:47:13

     Mm-hmm

496. 1:47:13

     ... the, um, insurance re- requirement might change given the size of the project.

497. 1:47:20

     That, that is correct. Yes.

498. 1:47:21

     It would change.

499. 1:47:22

     Yeah. And, and I, I would agree-

500. 1:47:23

     Something to consider

501. 1:47:24

     ... I, I, I would agree to that. I would also let you know that typical, on a, a construction project, the engineering fee typically is about 10% of the overall cost, so just kinda keep that m- in, in mind as well.

502. 1:47:37

     Okay.

503. 1:47:38

     Thanks.

504. 1:47:39

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, I see no other questions from the committee, so we do have a few people signed up to speak to the bill. I'll, uh, invite, uh, Joel Truss with ACCG. Please come up, identify yourself, and, uh, proceed, sir.

505. 1:47:55

     Yes, sir. And thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Joel Truss. I'm with the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia. We represent all 159 counties of the state. We work very closely with Chairman Anderson and as well as Senator Clint Dixon on this bill and the other permitting bill that was in the House Natural Resources Committee. I just wanna personally again thank Chairman Anderson for his work on this, as well as this committee hearing this bill. We got this bill today. I just got it an hour ago. And, um, unfortunately, my mama wanted me to be a lawyer. I am also not a lawyer. So I will have to take this back to our membership and our legal team.

506. 1:48:28

     But we thank you for your work, and we hope to get back to, in touch with you soon.

507. 1:48:32

     Okay. Thank you. Uh, next,

508. 1:48:38

     Steve Hoakler.

509. 1:48:42

     Thank you, Chairman. Steve Holder. I am a board member for the Building Officials Association of Georgia. Representing that group today. Um, we, we are not in favor of this bill. This, this directly affects local control. Some of the descriptions you had left out the part that we have to accept a private provider's review, and we have to accept their inspections, and that takes us out of that aspect. And we, we are all here to protect the end user, which is the homeowner.

510. 1:49:17

     Uh, yes, the, the liability's off the city and county. It always has been. But the liability still falls back between the contractor and the ability of that homeowner to have the funds to sue that contractor, and we would like to be more involved in that process. Um, what's not mentioned is the building permit is the last item up on the table for zoning and tree preservation and sidewalk funds, all the other things that in- they're involved, it's not just the building permit.

511. 1:49:54

     That's just the common terminology that's used. So therefore, all those other items, that zoning review people, that what your planning commission may do, if there's any zoning standards that may be placed, an engineer doesn't have that training to look at that. So you've got a staff of people that your city and counties have, that you're, you're assuming that you're moving forward in a, in a much quicker pace when you're skipping.

512. 1:50:25

     And when that happens, it causes lots of confusion. The stop work orders are gonna go up. Uh, the project's gonna be on hold. More confusion, more phone calls to your elected officials. And we would ask that, uh, we stick with the system we have. Uh, all cities and counties have a great relationship with the current third-party provider system. It works. When, when, when the workload goes up, they are able to come in and help and keep things going on a day-to-day basis, and we appreciate that process and what we've been able to do with it, and would like to stick with it.

513. 1:51:02

     Okay, thank you. I got a couple of quest- uh, Chairman Thomas. Whoops.

514. 1:51:07

     Sure.

515. 1:51:07

     Hold on. I just touched the wrong thing. Chairman Thomas.

516. 1:51:10

     Uh, uh, and, and thank you. And, and I, and I appreciate that, and we may have a bit of a difference of opinion in this particular case. A- and I'd like to provide a case in point that, that I know happened in Cobb County. Um, the, one of the inspectors in Cobb County, um, went to an HVAC technician and told the HVAC technician that they were not allowed to provide, and I'm sorry, y'all, I'm about to get real technical here, uh, a splice in a 200, uh, 220 volt HVA, I'm sorry, 240 volt electrical system, and, because it had a junction box.

517. 1:51:48

     And, um, because of that, I was doing my own inspection. I did call the inspection office to come out and, and do it. Um, uh, during that conversation I said, "Have you ever heard of this rule?" And, uh, the Cherokee County side of the border said, "I've never heard of that." And what my issue is, is now that HVAC contractor got into this position where they had to pay to, a- an electrician to re-run all of the wires, and that was at their cost.

518. 1:52:19

     But in reality, there is no code, there is no NEC code that says that you can't have a junction box in that type of system. And I think that this has created such a situation where to say that an e- engineer doesn't necessarily understand, they're not out in the field, I would say somewhat that there is some truth to that. There are some, uh, uh, uh, professional providers that aren't always in the field, but there are a lot that are. Um, and there's a lot of situations where engineers, for a living, they actually go out and do s- inspections full time.

519. 1:52:50

     Um, I, I think that, I guess my, my question to you, uh, 'cause I should probably put this on a form of a question, is what, what is the resistance that you really have? I think you've explained some of it, but what's the re- resistance that you have for having a, a third party be able to have the ability to come in and take a look if they have all the proper, um, state level, you know, recognition and, and have met every requirement that, of education and, and testing that would be required of that?

520. 1:53:20

     There's no opposition to as we do it today.

521. 1:53:23

     Uh, so when you say as we do it today, what does that mean?

522. 1:53:25

     When this bill changes the fact that you're forcing the city or county to accept that provider's review and inspection.

523. 1:53:36

     So what-

524. 1:53:36

     No questions asked. There's, there's no ... But today we can, we can spot check. We can go, we've got two days to go look at a report. They give us a report as they do them, so we've got a couple of days to go behind. We've all got horror stories. I've, I went on a job site and found a blank engineer's report, signed and stamped, nothing in the header, ready for the builder to fill out for his self as he needed it. So th- that's, that's not, that's not fair to pick and choose the extremes.

525. 1:54:07

     To, generally speaking, the, the system works as it is today. It's been tweaked four times at least, and it works. We, we need the partnership of the third party to help with workload. We need that engineer on a unique situation. Um-

526. 1:54:24

     But, but let me, uh, sorry, I, I just want to interject. But the problem is, is when you deal with the zoning department, that when that case happens and there is an inspector who does come in to, to, and says, "No, this is wrong," even though that that's, their, their ruling is incorrect, there's no remedy for that. So y- this provides a remedy where a third party inspector could come in who is a licensed engineer who do, does have the ability and knowledge to be able to, to make such determinations and provides an extra opportunity for, for whoever the developer is, or whoever the builder is, or whoever ...

527. 1:54:58

     And, but, you know, m- Mr. Chairman, I, I do believe this is specific to residential properties, correct?

528. 1:55:04

     That is correct.

529. 1:55:04

     Which is, I think everybody considers to be kind of a, in the levels residential, commercial, and then, and then you get into industrial work. So it's pretty low level, what I would say, lower level, um, experience that you would need to even do residential work. So I, I, I, I, I just, I, I don't, like I said, I don't think we're gonna agree on this one, but, uh, but I, I do appreciate your input.

530. 1:55:27

     Okay.

531. 1:55:27

     Yeah.

532. 1:55:27

     Okay. We do have one other question. Uh, just to posture, we're in, we got about 15 minutes left, and we do have to vacate this room, so, uh, Representative Adesanya, do you have a question for the speaker?

533. 1:55:36

     Um, yes, um, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you.

534. 1:55:39

     Yes.

535. 1:55:39

     Um, I believe you mentioned that we stick to the way it is, and, um, and I wanted to ask you Um, leaving it the way it is, we've done it how you proposed, right? And I was wondering what, why are we changing it now? And I think, um, uh, Representative, um, Thomas may have also, um, answered a part of that, which I think is even concerning. Because if we have just one situation in Cobb County, Cobb County, just one situation, and then is that the reason why we're changing the laws just because there's a, you know, disagreement in one county and we're changing the whole laws for that?

536. 1:56:20

     Or have you all had many cases of event where counties are, you know, not being able to step up to the task? I guess I asked, have you, have counties encountered so many issues where they're not able to handle the work and they need a private contractor to, to get the work done?

537. 1:56:40

     Th- there's a lot of that where they do need the help. They do need with the workload, yes.

538. 1:56:45

     So there, there's instances where they, they needed that help.

539. 1:56:47

     And they're doing it, yes. They're able to do it today.

540. 1:56:56

     That's an answer to that one.

541. 1:56:57

     Okay. Uh, I'll tell you what, we're gonna move on to the next speaker. Thank you. Thank you very much, sir. Uh, next speaker is Ian Cohen. If you'll just, uh, introduce yourself and, uh, proceed, sir.

542. 1:57:09

     Sure. Uh, so, uh, I'm used to speaking in boardrooms and not in front of committees, so I apologize about my, my, my style or anything like that. So some of the questions that came up, uh, and that you've answered I think have been, been almost perfect at this point. The reason this bill is being put in, uh, is being amended at this point is because it's time for small optimizations to how it's being performed right now. For example, the ability to perform virtual, the ability for contractors to ch- you know, to ch- I should say, fee, uh, fee owners or contractors to choose out of the gate to work with a private provider as opposed to waiting a perceived period of time.

543. 1:57:51

     What the person, what, uh, Mr. Holder?

544. 1:57:55

     Yes.

545. 1:57:55

     Hol- what Mr. Holder didn't say to you when he introduced himself is that he works for CAA as well. CAA staffs building departments with inspectors that come from outside of the building department. So what we're saying is, as a private provider, we can perform those same exact services, we can perform them th- with the same licensure that the people that Mr. Holder has, and then we can do it in a much more efficient manner. We're not sending people out there to drive across counties or anything like that. And when you do it virtually, there's actually a digital record.

546. 1:58:26

     The City of Atlanta is already doing this. As a matter of fact, the City of Atlanta specifically says on their website, "Remote video inspections keep us all safer." So again, I'm, I'm just trying to get to the simplest form here. I know we're pressed for time. Is all we're doing is codifying what is already in place. That's all we're doing. And so, and, and at the same time, giving contractors more clarity around when they can choose to work with a private provider as opposed to a, a perceived, uh, interpretation by building officials that can be one way or the other throughout the state.

547. 1:59:07

     Okay. I have one question. We're gonna make it kind of quick so we can get, uh, Representative Adesanya.

548. 1:59:12

     I will make it quick. So what I'm hearing is that when counties, uh, when it's left to the counties to perform the task, are there, there are delays, and private contractors come and streamline the process. It makes the process better and quicker?

549. 1:59:26

     Yes. So basically, it's giving contractors a choice. If they're very frustrated with the timing or with, uh, the ability for those, those inspectors to, to meet their requirements, um, they're able to use a private professional provider. But let me just remind you, it's the same licensure. They don't have different licenses than the building department or anything like that. And if anything, the liability that we carry is much higher than a building department would.

550. 1:59:53

     All right. That, that's reasonable. Um, I don't see anything wrong with it. Thank you.

551. 1:59:58

     Okay. Thank you. I see no other questions. Uh, and that's the, everyone who had signed up to speak to the bill. What is the will of the committee?

552. 2:00:06

     Motion to pass.

553. 2:00:06

     We have a motion to pass. Do we have a second?

554. 2:00:08

     Second.

555. 2:00:09

     Okay. Any, uh, uh, let's see. I'm gonna recogni- recognize Chairman Thomas.

556. 2:00:15

     Uh, uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I do want to, because of my experience in industry, I, I would like to make one small, offer one small amendment, and I'm gonna explain why I want to do this. I can tell you, getting E&O insurance for $2 million or higher for small, uh, smaller engineering firms is extremely difficult. Um, it, and I'm concerned that creating a situation, and I, I appreciate the, the step up because there is, you know, bigger projects, but I'll tell you that you're gonna shut a lot of small firms out, out of this doing, s- writing it the way that it's written.

557. 2:00:51

     So I'd like to offer one small amendment. I'd like to make two changes. Um, line 141 where it says, uh, I'm gonna start on line 40, "One million aggregate coverage for any project with a construction cost of five million." I would like to change that to 10 or less.

558. 2:01:10

     Change the, uh, five million-

559. 2:01:12

     Five, five, five million to read 10 million, and it's also referenced on line 142 from five million to 10 million, and that aligns with that 10% cost that I, I had talked about with engineering companies' typical, um, cost per project. So, um, that, uh, that will make sure that smaller firms have an opportunity not to be shut out at these, these processes who really could benefit from most, and quite frankly, it's probably the ones that, that would be most involved in these projects. So, uh, thank you.

560. 2:01:40

     Okay. We have a motion. Uh, do we have a sec- yep Okay, we have second on the amendment. Uh, Representative Roberts? Can you clarify that one more time for me? So the five is going to 10. What's happening with the two million per claim? Once you get into $10 million projects and larger, a smaller firm isn't gonna be able to tackle those anyway. Um- But were you deleting those? No, I'm not deleting it. I'm changing the five million to 10 million. That's it. That's it. That's all I'm doing. Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. That's what I wanted to understand. Thank you. Okay, so we have that clarification. Is the two million lowered to one million?

561. 2:02:11

     N- no, we're gonna keep the two million for $10 million projects and above, which is smaller, a smaller firm can't really go after a project that- that's that large. Uh, but the 10 million and under with a $1 million, uh, you know, policy, that- that's- that's about right. L- let me restate the- the amendment as I understand it, and- and you can correct me if I'm incorrect on this. On line 141, we are striking five and replacing it with 10. Correct. And on line 142, we're doing the same, striking five and replacing it with 10.

562. 2:02:43

     Everything else stays the same. Correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Okay. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Do we have any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Amendment passes. Now we're back to the, uh, underlying bill as amended. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Bill carries, and, uh, we'll- we'll let Senator Dixon know that his bill is car- is, uh, passed, and I'll get with him on, as amended, and I'll get with him on who the House sponsor will be.

563. 2:03:14

     Uh, just, uh, quite possibly our last governmental affairs meeting of the year, folks. Uh, thank you all. Um, yeah. Listen, I know- I know you're not disappointed, so . So anyway, the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all. Yeah, yeah. Take

564. 2:04:15

     care.