House floor session, March 31, 2026 (legislative day 39, part 3)
Video: https://vimeo.com/1179021686 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1179021686#t=<seconds>s)
Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-03-31/house-floor-part-3

This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays.
[0:21:17] All members, right on time, 8:00 sharp.

[0:21:26] All members will please come to the floor. Mr. Clerk, how about ring that bell?

[0:22:24] All members, all members will please come to the floor. Mr. Clerk, why don't you, uh, would you read the caption to a group of privileged resolutions, and we'll give everyone a chance to come in. Mr. Clerk, read the privileged resolutions, please.

[0:22:39] Honoring the life and memory of John Baptist Barranco of Dunwoody, Georgia. Commending Dr. Willie Frank Rainey Jr. Honoring the life and legacy of Betty Becky Lou Ennis Arrington. Honoring the life and legacy of Ms. Tonia Louise Scott. Honoring the life and legacy of Mrs. Thelma Crawford Scott. Recognizing and commending Mrs. Robbie Ruth Gandy Williams for li- her lifelong dedication to faith, family, community, and service.

[0:23:12] Honoring the life and memory of Mrs. Eloise Branton. Recognizing and commending the Odyssey Media Group. Honoring the life and memory of Ms. Larronette Kelly. Recognizing and commending the 90th anni- anni- the 90th Annual Atlanta Dogwood Festival, and recognizing and commending the fifth annual Green Egg and Kegs Festival at Dunwoody Village. And for other purposes, that completes the reading of the privileged resolutions.

[0:23:47] Is there any objection to adopting the privileged, privileged resolution? Hearing none, the resolutions are adopted.

[0:24:15] Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 33, 33?

[0:24:21] Senate Bill 33 by Senator Kirkpatrick of the 32nd, to be entitled, An Act to Amend Chapter 23 of Title 2 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the Georgia Hemp Farming Act, so as to provide limits on the total THC concentration of consumable hemp products. This bill has been heard at the Committee on Agriculture and Consumer Affairs. That committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

[0:24:52] Chairman Dickey is recognized to present Senate Bill 33. Gentleman's recognized.

[0:25:00] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, uh, bring you, uh, SB 33, Georgia Hemp Farming Act. Um, the goal of SB 33 is to draw an important distinction between natural hemp products and synthetic cannabinoids. Now, this bill is vastly different from what came over last year from the Senate. Uh, it has been pared way down and, as I said, um, really drawing the distinction between natural hemp and, uh, synthetics.

[0:25:34] You know, um, many pr- hemp products proven to be effective and useful, uh, but these synthetic canna- cannabinoids are lab-created s- uh, synthetics that pose serious health consequences. And it's really a workaround that these manufacturers, uh, have done. And so this bill, uh, simply is closing this loophole that has been exploited by some bad actors, uh, in these, uh, smoke shops and other retail establishments.

[0:26:06] It's a public and consumer, um, uh, legislation, safety legislation. Um, you know, many a consumers, uh, assume these products are safe. They go in and purchase them. Uh, they're regulated. Our Department of Agriculture is doing a, uh, great job, Tyler Harper, uh, the p- Department of Ag, in regulating the packaging and, uh, and, and, and other type areas of regulation for these. But they're really seeing a need for these synthetics to, to get off the market.

[0:26:40] You know, it's been passed, a lot of past confusion and concerns how this, uh, legislation might affect the hemp industry, but the passage of this crafted sen- uh, House substitute bill would, um, would help the, the ones that are, um, doing a, doing a good job, and get the bad actors out. So this bill simply, uh, creates a regulatory framework for the regulators, for our Department of Ag, to manage and, uh, and keep- Good, safe products out there in the marketplace for consumers.

[0:27:17] I've worked tirelessly with, uh, Commissioner Harper and his department to make sure they can regulate this and get these products off. So many of these manufacturers are using these synthetics because they're cheaper. They're not using hemp, grown hemp-based, uh, products and, and, uh, pr- manufacturing process. So this, uh, bill also gives the department and local, uh, law enforcement the ability to confiscate, uh, these, uh, bad products, illegal products if we pass this bill.

[0:27:54] So I ask your, uh, thoughtful consideration for this SB 33. I'll ask, uh, answer any questions, Mr. Speaker.

[0:28:01] Gentleman has a coup- gentleman has a couple of questions. Um, Representative Anissa Jones is recognized to your left. Recognized for a question.

[0:28:11] Thank you, Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

[0:28:13] I do.

[0:28:15] Um, my question really has to do with the penalties that you're talking about, uh, i- in reference to, uh, being able to confiscate, uh, those goods. Um, will there be anything in place for those folks that have already purchased to, for resale and retail in their stores to be able to recoup or have a timeframe to be able to sell those items prior to any penalties being-

[0:28:44] The, the Department of Ag is, uh, regulating the wholesalers as well as the retailers on this. And so this bill, as it's written, uh, would not go into effect until s- later this year, where these, uh, manufacturers and retailers would have a chance to get rid of the, uh, legal, so-called products before, um, not stocking them anymore. So I think it, uh, works okay for our, our retailers and wholesalers.

[0:29:12] I thank you for the bill.

[0:29:14] Representative Newton to your right is recognized for a question.

[0:29:18] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

[0:29:20] I do.

[0:29:20] Uh, isn't it true that you were part of the Speaker's Blue Ribbon Study Committee on this hemp as well as medical cannabis? And isn't it true that the Department of Ag reported to us that, uh, less than 50% were meeting the regulatory standards that we already have in place, uh, leaving many Georgians at risk from not knowing what they're getting, especially in a, uh, maybe an overseas, uh, grown version? So isn't this a first step to make sure that the worst of these synthetics are not affecting the lungs and the bodies of our, of Georgians?

[0:29:48] Thank you, and, uh, thank you for your work as chairman of that study committee. And yes, this is, will be a first step. Uh, it's more that we could do, uh, in the future and, uh, but this, uh, will take the worst of the worst, I hope, uh, out of the marketplace.

[0:30:03] Thank you very much for the bill.

[0:30:05] We see Representative, um, Reese. Will the gentleman take one more question in the back to your left?

[0:30:13] Yes, I yield.

[0:30:14] Gentleman's recognized.

[0:30:15] Oh.

[0:30:15] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, um, Chairman for, for yielding. Uh, isn't it true that this bill is vastly different and more in line with the Department of Ag request and their presentation in our committee meeting in which they talked about the challenges of synthetic drugs? And so that people here understand just how in-depth they went to this, isn't it true that this bill targets things that are made in labs?

[0:30:45] If there's any ounce of natural sativa in the cannabinoid, then it's not covered by this bill. So isn't it true that it's not going to hurt the hemp industry nor the marijuana industry? This is all about synthetic things being made in labs in which we don't know what is in it, and it's killing our people. Isn't that true?

[0:31:07] That is true, and thank you for, uh, and thank you for the work of this committee, which bill passed that unanimously, and it was some, uh, complicated process, uh, the committee went through to understand, uh, this bill and get it passed. So thank you for those comments. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll yield the well.

[0:31:26] The gentleman has yielded the well. Thank you for the presentation. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no.

[0:31:56] And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:32:47] Have all members voted? Have all members voted? All members voted this, so Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 33, the yeas are 151, the nays are 14. This bill having received and requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed.

[0:34:00] Okay, Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 586? 586.

[0:34:08] Senate Bill 586 by Senator Williams, the 25th, to be entitled an act to amend Code Section 16-11-107 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to interfering with, harming of, or aggravating harming of a public safety animal or a search and rescue animal so as to provide for commendations of public and safety animals and search and rescue animals. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

[0:34:40] I don't know how the bill comes out, but happy birthday to Representative Martin Momtahan. It's today. Let's wish the gentleman a happy birthday.

[0:34:53] Representative Momtahan is recognized to present Senate Bill 586. The gentleman's recognized.

[0:34:59] Okay. Let's see. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. Today I have a, uh, little bill here for our sheriffs out there. Um, this is a House, uh, Senate Bill 586. What Senate Bill 586 does is if a sheriff in our state comes into possession of livestock, so of an animal, and they do not have an owner who comes to find that, uh, that animal, redeem that animal from the sheriff's department, they basically have two options under state law.

[0:35:34] One, they can auction it off, or number two, they can kill the animal. Well, nobody wants to kill the animal. Uh, none of our sheriffs wanna do that. These are nice little pot-bellied pigs. They could be a chicken, could be a little lamb or a goat. They're very cute. Nobody wants to kill them. And so, Mr. Speaker, what this bill does is it says if you have an animal that's in possession of the sheriff, they can now give this to a nonprofit organization like a school.

[0:36:05] They could give it to FFA. They could give it to a number of different organizations, individuals, or any entity that is deemed by the sheriff to have the facilities, land, and resources necessary to take care of these precious little, uh, livestock animals. Well, that, Mr. Speaker, that is the bill. And, uh, be happy to stand for questions. I just ask that this body help me move the bill.

[0:36:35] And don't vote nay.

[0:36:38] You were pretty good until then, but you do have the great restraint by the members. You have no questions. Thank you, members.

[0:36:44] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

[0:36:46] The gentleman is yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:37:20] That can be

[0:37:41] done.

[0:37:41] Have all members voted?

[0:37:43] Mr. Clerk, this is the next one.

[0:37:45] All members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk, will you lock the machine?

[0:38:09] What's the gentleman got against little dogs, uh, la- lambs and goats and anything, pot-bellied pigs?

[0:38:21] On the passage of Senate Bill 586, the yays are 166 and nays one. This bill having received a requisite constitutional majority is therefore passed.

[0:39:13] Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption of House Resolution 1007? 1-0-0-7.

[0:39:21] House Resolution 1007 by Representative Jones, the 25th and others, a resolution acknowledging the effectiveness of arts for health initiatives in improving mental health outcomes and for other purposes. This resolution having been referred to the Committee on Special Rules, that committee recommends that this resolution-

[0:39:42] Be adopted. Chairman Todd Jones is recognized to present House Resolution 1007.

[0:39:53] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I have the honor of speaking on behalf of all of the bill, of the resolution sponsors, specifically Representative Oliver, and I've always appreciated the teamwork that I've had with her, in addition to the entire mental health ecosystem around the state. This resolution effectively allows the House to acknowledge the importance of arts and artists in terms of helping to address mental illness across our entire state. I'll give you one piece of data that I think is very interesting. Our Department of Defense, our Department of War, is now using this for our veterans who are suffering from PTSD.

[0:40:28] We appreciate that that is occurring there. We think it should re- uh, be occurring here in the state of Georgia, and I ask for your favorable consideration for this resolution. The gentleman has so que- We just have one question. Representative Lupton, will the gentleman yield? Uh, yes, sir. Representative Lupton, recognized for a question. Is it not true that I approve this bill tonight? And I will be pressing the button green.

[0:41:04] Yeah.

[0:41:35] That's pretty awesome.

[0:41:44] I've seen a lot, but that probably tops most of it. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered?

[0:41:54] Hearing none, singing none. The question is ordered. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the adoption of the resolution? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this resolution now be adopted? All in favor of the adoption of the resolution will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:42:33] Have all members voted?

[0:42:39] All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the adoption of House Resolution 1007, the yays are 168, the nays are zero. This resolution, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore adopted.

[0:43:10] Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to House Resolution 713, 713?

[0:43:20] House Resolution 713 by Representative Wade of the 9th. A resolution urging healthcare providers across the state of Georgia to help promote the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline and for other purposes. This resolution having been referred to the Committee on Public and Community Health, that committee recommends that this resolution be adopted.

[0:43:46] Representative Will Wade is recognized to present the resolution. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, colleagues. Um, before I present this bill, I couldn't help but think on this evening about a friend of this House who fought diligently and championed what we are now seeing to come to fruition, and that is the fight to address mental health in Georgia. And I know your friend, my friend, our friend, the late Speaker Ralston, made a huge impact on my life as well as this chamber's.

[0:44:18] And in some ways, it's just a humble honor for me to present this in his memory and the effort for what we're doing today. This resolution, House Resolution 713, simply encourages healthcare providers across Georgia to include information about 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline in their recorded messages to patients. This is not a mandate. This is a call to action. The 988 Lifeline is simple, three-digit number available 24/7, connecting individuals w- in crisis with trained professionals right here in our great state of Georgia through the Georgia Crisis & Access Line.

[0:44:56] This is just a small step that can make a big difference, ensuring more Georgians know where to turn in a moment of need. You know, as a parent, my children learned about 911 very early on. And now in our house, we also teach them about 988. To parents and grandparents, I hope you'll do the same, and I hope the medical community will adopt this practice. Thank you, and I respectfully ask for your favorable consideration. The gentleman had no questions. I yield the well. He's yielded the well. Is there any objection to the pre- previous question being ordered?

[0:45:31] Hearing none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the adoption of the resolution? Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this resolution now be adopted? All in favor of the adoption of the resolution will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:46:11] Have all members voted? Have all members voted?

[0:46:16] If

[0:46:27] so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the adoption of House Resolution 713, the yeas are 167, the nays are 0. The resolution having received the requisite constitutional majority is therefore adopted.

[0:46:53] Thank you, Representative Wade, for your remembrance of our dear friend. As he said a few years ago, today hope won. It won again today, so thank you members for supporting these mental health initiatives. Thank you members for bringing them, and all of you that continue to work on what we can do to, um, strengthen our mental health resources in this state.

[0:47:23] Mr. Clerk, will you read the caption to Senate Bill 23? Senate Bill 23.

[0:47:33] Senate Bill 23 by Senator Albers of the 56 and others be titled an Act to Amend Article 7, Chapter 20, Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated, the Public Retirement Systems Investment Authority Law so as to raise the limits for the total percentage of funds that the Employees' Retirement System of Georgia may invest in alternative investments. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Retirement, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by Rules Committee Substitute. Representative Brad Thomas is recognized to present Senate Bill 23.

[0:48:07] Chairman's recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today I rise to present Senate Bill 23, LC560712S. Uh, this bill is about Georgia's public pension funds at, that are here to serve our peace officers, firefighters and municipal employees, and they deserve every tool they can to generate strong, stable returns for the future. This bill gives them two. First, it authorized qualifying large retirement systems to invest in up to 10% of fund assets in real estate, a proven inflationary resistant asset class that every major institutional investor in America already uses.

[0:48:45] Secondly, it raises general ar- uh, a general, general alt- alternative investment ceiling from 10 to 15%, giving investment professionals more flexibility to diversify and protect the, the benefits our public servants have earned. Uh, additionally, I'd like to point out lines 31 through 34 of the bill specifically ensure that no such investment shall be made in any investment vehicle investing in acquiring, purchasing, owning, renting, managing or holding single family homes or residents as a material component of such investment.

[0:49:18] Um, with that being said, Mr. Speaker, uh, our public servants show up for every d- Georgia every day. Let's make sure their retirement is managed with, with the tools that they deserve. And with that, I know you have a speaker who wants to speak, uh, in favor of the bill, and I'll just yield the well. Thank you. The gentleman has yielded the well. We do have a speaker signed up. Chairman of Retirement, Chairman Carson is recognized to speak to Senate Bill 23. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just be brief g- noting the hour.

[0:49:49] Uh, I just wanted to reiterate in regard to what Chairman Thomas mentioned. You can see it up on the screen there. What we've done is we've added some language in lines 31 to 34 to make sure that these investment advisors are not investing in single family residents, okay? They might invest in commercial real estate as far as multifamily or what have you, but we're not in, they're not gonna be allowed to invest in portfolios of homes. The reason we're doing that is to give more options in regard to private equity and private credit. The returns in this i- category are in the teens, particularly compared to fixed income and, and, uh, uh, bonds and so forth.

[0:50:26] So it's a much more lucrative investment for these systems. Large systems, uh, that in, have embraced this include City of Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia Firefighters, Gwinnett County, uh, Public Schools, MARTA, City of Alpharetta and others. I do, would appreciate your, uh, favorable consideration on this, uh, on this substitute. Gentleman, do you yield for a question? I will take one question. Yes, sir. One question. Representative Carter to your left is recognized for a question. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the gentleman yield?

[0:50:56] Yes, ma'am. Okay, quick question. In, on line, uh, 39, between 39 and a quarter one, there is an increase of 15% that could be, uh, invested, but then lines 51 and 53, we limited 10% for, I guess it's real estate. Can you just break that down for me what we're doing in section two? Sure. So that's two sections. Yes. In section one, that's in regard to the real estate investments. Those are for large retirement systems eligible to go up to 10% of total, uh, value of the assets in real estate.

[0:51:29] Section two has to do with alternative investments. And what legislative council do, had to, um, they had to structure the paragraph such that there were certain exceptions such as TRS. Uh, representative, uh, does not want to go up to that amount. They want to stay at five, for example, at, at 5%, um, of their portfolio in alternative investments. That's the reason for the, the changes there. Does the gentleman further yield? Yes, please. So, so that I'm clear, the total of alternative investment is 15%, but 10% of that can be real estate?

[0:52:01] Is that what we're saying? Well, 10% of the overall portfolio could be in, potentially in real estate. W- what we're limiting to, to that also c- uh, includes commitment. So they may not be in 10%, they might choose something less, and that includes commitments. So it's 10%, and that's separate from the 15% that could also, uh, in- in- invest in, um, uh-

[0:52:22] other private, uh, investments.

[0:52:24] Okay, 'cause I'm trying to make sure I'm clear. Sure. So, so based on what you just said to me, there's a total of 25% that could be invested, 15% in alternative investment and 10% in real estate. Theoretically, yes. But a- again, they would be, uh, uh, only allowed to commit to that much. Uh, th- really, they, their holdings themselves don't go up that much because they have to allot for a certain amount of committed in that percentage right there. Thank you very much.

[0:52:54] Mr. Chair. Would ask for the body's favorable consideration.

[0:52:59] Gentleman had a couple other questions, but he's yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? Chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to withdrawing the committee substitute? Hearing none, the committee substitute is withdrawn. Is there any objection to adopting the substitute offered by the Committee on Rules? Hearing none, the Rules Committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill?

[0:53:33] Hearing none, the report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All those in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and Mr. Clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:54:01] Have all members voted? For what, for what purst- purpose does Chairman Carpenter rise?

[0:54:10] Parliamentary inquiry.

[0:54:11] State your inquiry, sir.

[0:54:12] Is it not true that I would love to see the state look at, uh, using our retirement systems to invest in some of these Peach Pass lanes, et cetera, so that we could pa- be paying ourself returns?

[0:54:25] Sounds like a noble idea to me. For what purpose does Representative Romman...

[0:54:33] She waives. All members voted. If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of Senate Bill 23, the yays are 166 and nays are 0. This bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

[0:55:05] Clerk will read the caption to S- Senate Bill 261. Senate Bill 261.

[0:55:10] Senate, Senate Bill 261 by Senator Harbin of the 16th and others to be entitled an act to amend Chapter 25 and Title 47 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to the Magistrate's Retirement Fund so as to provide for an early retirement benefit to provide for an employee contribution increase. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Retirement, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

[0:55:36] Chair recognizes Chairman Carson to present the bill.

[0:55:42] Thank you, Madam Chair. This is Senate Bill 261. This is in regard to the pensions for our magistrate court judges. I'm sure some of you have heard from them this, uh, session. Uh, we received, obviously, the bill, um, uh, from, uh, the Senate, but it included, uh, some language in regard to early retirement. That has been taken out. What the bill does is it increases member dues from 3.4% to 4% of their monthly salary, um, increases the benefit multiplier from 4 to 5%, and it increases the cap on benefit of service from 20 to 28 years.

[0:56:14] The funded percentage of the plan goes from 148% to about 128.5% with no new tax revenues. You should have two letters of support on your desk from the Council of Magistrate Court Judges and, uh, their fund. This went through unanimously in both committees in the House and the Senate and passed the s- uh, Senate floor 53 to 1. With that, Madam Speaker, the hour is late, and I'll be happy to take a question. If not, I will yield the well.

[0:56:40] There are no questions.

[0:56:41] I will yield the well and ask for the body's favorable consideration.

[0:56:44] Gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? The chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute? The chair hears none. The committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? The chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machine.

[0:57:34] Have all, have all members voted? If all members voted, if so, the clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of the bill, the yays were 167. The nays were 0. The bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

[0:57:55] Clerk will read the caption to Senate Bill 431. Senate Bill 431.

[0:58:00] Senate Bill 431 by Senator Kirkpatrick of the 32nd and others to be entitled an act to amend Code Section 20-2-670 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to disclosures and information required for permanent enrollment in a grade higher than third. This bill having been referred to the Committee on Education, that committee recommends that this bill do pass by committee substitute.

[0:58:24] Chair recognizes Chairman Camp to present the bill.

[0:58:29] Thank you, Madam Speaker. This bill, Senate Bill 431, is the product of a study committee that was held this summer in the Senate, chaired by Senator Kay Kirkpatrick. And in this study committee, they learned there were children in our state who were in the foster care system who at times were spending up to 30 days before they were enrolled in school. This bill seeks to resolve that issue. Some federal guidelines indicate immediately. We were able to do some deep diving, and actually it means three school business days, no more than three school business days.

[0:59:04] We changed the bill to make sure that it did match the federal guidelines and also match our bill that was passed last year, Senate Bill, I'm sorry, House Bill 268, which is our school safety bill. So it would be less confusion for the school systems. Also, it provides a mechanism for reporting in case a child is not enrolled as they should be, and it also provides reports to come to the lieutenant governor, the speaker, and the chairs of both education committees in the House and the Senate. Um, the bill also

[0:59:37] has the EPC grant, um, which is an inclusive post-secondary education grant for individuals who may have special needs that they can use this grant in private schools, private colleges, which might more accurately fulfill their needs and their desires moving forward. And if there are no questions, um, if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. There are no questions. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I yield the well. The lady has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? The chair hears none. The previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to adopting the committee substitute?

[1:00:09] The chair hears none. The committee substitute is adopted. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? The chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the clerk will unlock the machine.

[1:00:49] Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machine on the passage of the bill. The ayes were 168, the nays were zero. The bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed. Clerk will read the caption to Senate Bill 591. Senate Bill 591. Senate Bill 591 by Senator Gooch of the 51st. To be entitled an act to amend Article 2, Chapter 11 in Title 16 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to offenses against public order so as to prohibit the disruption of, of a religious service.

[1:01:26] This bill having been referred to the Committee on Judiciary , that committee recommends that this bill do pass. Chair recognizes Chairman Silcox to present the bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I come to you this evening with, um, Senate Bill 591. This was, um, the same bill that I had last year, which was House Bill 363, and it would make it a misdemeanor to disrupt either, um, a religious service, funeral, or memorial service within 500 feet, um, of that service.

[1:02:00] And, um, basically the disorderly conduct would be any visual images that convey fighting words or imminent threats of harm, uttering loud, threatening, and abusive language, or attempting to block or blocking pedestrian or vehicul- vehicular access to the site or fac- religious facility. Um, it would be increased to an aggravated misdemeanor if this was a military funeral honor service. So that is the bill, and, um, I'd be glad to take any questions if there are any.

[1:02:32] There are questions. The chair recognizes Whip Park for questions. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the gentle lady yield? I do. Um, so, uh, Chair Lady Silcox, um, the question I had was this 500-foot perimeter, um, around religious services, along with the definition of religious service- Mm-hmm ... which is any public assembly of person, persons for worship. So if we have, um, you know, two to three folks praying at an abortion clinic, would that mean that protests around an abortion clinic and where there is a religious service as defined by this bill would be, would not be permitted within 500 feet?

[1:03:13] Well, it, it does say that it has to be, um, I believe a religious facility as well. Okay. And so, um, it would not include your example. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Berry for a question. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the gentle lady yield? I do. I also have a similar concern with, like, the vagueness around disruption. Let's say I'm in the church, I catch the Holy Spirit, speak in tongue. Is that allowed with this bill? Is there carve-outs for legitimate- Speaking in tongues is part of a religious service, so that would not be included.

[1:03:48] But thank you for your question. Thank you. I appreciate it. If there are no further questions, I'll yield the well.

[1:03:56] There, there are, uh, if you wanna answer more questions, there's a question or two if you'd like. Okay, I'll take one more. The chair recognizes Representative Lupton for a question. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Does the gentle lady yield? I do. Um, does this have ... Okay. W- w- I live in a big metro area around here, and sometimes protests- Me too. Yeah. But yeah, sometimes protests can get pretty big. Yeah. Say, there's folks marching down the street in a march, and I know, like, especially on Peachtree Street, there's like, I mean, there's First Pres, there's

[1:04:32] Jesus Corner, you know, there's all that kind of stuff.

[1:04:34] Yeah.

[1:04:34] There's lots of churches right there on the road. Would this make those kind of planned protests kind of go out around those churches to give them that 500-foot barrier, or is that still allowable?

[1:04:49] I don't think it prohi- I don't think it prohibits any protests whatsoever.

[1:04:52] Okay.

[1:04:52] It's just disorderly conduct that would interrupt the service.

[1:04:56] Okay. Okay.

[1:04:57] Okay.

[1:04:57] Thank you very much. Thank you.

[1:04:59] Thank you. Okay.

[1:05:00] Chair-

[1:05:00] If there are no furthers, then I will yield the well.

[1:05:02] Oh.

[1:05:02] Thank you.

[1:05:02] Lady yields the well. The chair recognizes Representative Williams to speak to the bill.

[1:05:21] Thank you, Madam Speaker. Before I get into the bill, I'd like to say I was sorry I missed the pro tem's bye-bye speech. She's one of only five people, four that came in with me in 2003, and we'll certainly miss her. Now, let me say, Senate Bill 591, I heard Representative Brice certainly speaking in tongue is not threatening, but in the Black Baptist Church, we can get kind of emotional.

[1:06:04] That can be a little threatening if you misunderstand the intent. My only concern is, and, and I support this bill, I think 500 feet is a bit much. Uh, even where I live, that's across the street in somebody's field. That's a long ways. But it's difficult 500 feet in the city, but I support the bill because, uh, I don't have a problem with preventing the disruption of religious service.

[1:06:38] But I can't help but come to mind, and I had some reluctance at first, because several years ago, as a matter of fact, as a youngster, in 1965 in the movement, I was in Representative Hatchett's town of Dublin, and we went to go see our United States Senator Herman Talmadge speak at First Baptist Church. The chairman of the deacon ministry did not think much of our being there, so he promptly, with a slap jack, knocked out my friend and kicked us off the steps, and we got arrested.

[1:07:19] And I got charged with disturbing divine worship. Now, when I asked the senator this morning in, in, in, in rules whether there was a law against that, he said there wasn't. I beg to differ, because I went to jail on the charge of disturbing divine worship. And the only reason I got out and got the charges reduced and eventually thrown out was a senator, a, a lawyer from Dublin, legendary Wash Law- uh, Lawson represented me and got the charges dropped.

[1:07:53] So I, I, I want to be sure that we don't abuse the bill. And, and, and the First Amendment is the key to our success as a democracy, and certainly we can do that without being disruptive. And I promise you, you could not have been more docile than we were that morning entering First Baptist. And for it, we got several stitches and a couple days in jail.

[1:08:23] We don't want to push it. And I know it's hard for some of you to understand turbulent times, but the law is the law, and the law can be long-term. And, and, and we have to be very careful that we don't abuse the law, because the law can be handled differently in certain law enforcement hands. We want to make sure that the right to protest is protected, but I've always felt like the law, the, the, the right to protest does not give you the right to disrupt necessarily.

[1:09:02] I'm old school protester. I, I was a strong disciple of nonviolence, so the most we disrupted was by singing a song. I support this bill. Sometimes it's needed, and we want to give everybody the right to worship, just as we give them the right to protest, and you have the right. Uh, and, and so I would hope that we would support this bill.

[1:09:34] But keep in mind that there's a very thin line, and lawyers can appreciate this. There's a very thin line between breaking the law and not breaking it. And sometimes... I told a judge one time, who was a friend of mine, and I said, "When I come to your court, I don't need justice, I need mercy."

[1:09:58] Because I'm not always right, but I'm looking for mercy. So when we judge and apply the law with compassion, it works like a beautiful symphony pr- plays. When we try and not only enforce the law but enact the law, the symphony can get off. I thought about that because Representative Lupton, I don't want you to ask me a question unless you can raise a hymn in the ba- Black Baptist tradition.

[1:10:29] If you can't, stay there. That ain't Danny Boy. But thank you all very kindly, and I wish you would support this bill. And with that, Madam Speaker, I yield the well.

[1:10:41] Gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the previous question being ordered? The chair hears none, the previous question is ordered. Is there any objection to agreeing to the report of the committee, which was favorable to the passage of the bill? The chair hears none. The report of the committee is agreed to. Shall this bill now pass? All in favor of the passage of the bill will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machine.

[1:11:25] For what purpose does Representative Romman rise?

[1:11:29] Parliamentary inquiry.

[1:11:30] State your inquiry.

[1:11:31] Is it not true that 500 feet is about one and a half football fields long and could actually inadvertently, uh, cause protests that are maybe two blocks down that way to be wrapped up in this? Additionally, is it not true that on line 23 it says, "Locations both inside and outside," pertaining to the last question?

[1:11:55] The lady has calculated correctly. For what purpose does Representative Carter rise?

[1:12:03] Parliamentary inquiry.

[1:12:04] State your inquiry.

[1:12:05] Um, is it not true that line 11 says that the definition of religious service means any public assembly of persons, uh, for worship, religious observance, or religious purposes, which basically mean you don't have to be inside of a building, is if you're a public assembly, which could be three people outside of a building?

[1:12:27] That is a matter for each and every member to decide for themself, Representative. S- for what purpose does Representative Barnes rise?

[1:12:34] Parliamentary inquiry.

[1:12:36] State your inquiry.

[1:12:37] Thank you. Uh, is it not true that we already have a disorderly conduct law in the state that this would fall under?

[1:12:46] That's a matter for each and every member to decide for themself. Thank you, Representative. Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machine. On the passage of the bill, the yeas were 128, the nays were 39. The bill, having received the requisite constitutional majority, is therefore passed.

[1:13:16] But now I do want...

[1:13:30] Chair recognizes Representative Williams for a motion.

[1:13:45] Uh, thank you, Madam Speaker. I ask that the House, um, agree to the Senate substitute for House Bill 1077.

[1:13:52] Clerk will read the caption.

[1:13:54] House Bill 1077 to be entitled an Act to amend Code Section 48-8-3 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to exemptions from sales and use taxes so as to extend the sunset date applicable to the exemption for sales of tickets, fees, and charges of admission.

[1:14:10] Chair recognizes Chairman Williams to explain the Senate substitute.

[1:14:15] Uh, thank you, Madam Speaker. Uh, this bill that we passed a few weeks ago, um, was for the, the fine arts. No sales and use taxes on fine arts and cultural events, um, for our state. And all we're, the Senate is asking to do is that we add a Georgia National Fair, um, for no sales, use, or tax, um, on any of the sales of items at the Georgia National Fair, and that's, that's all that this bill does. I'd appreciate your favorable consideration.

[1:14:42] There is a question. The chair recognizes Representative Ridley for a question. To your right.

[1:14:49] Yes, sir.

[1:14:50] Do you yield?

[1:14:51] I do.

[1:14:51] Is it not true that your favorite play is The Nutcracker and you played The Nutcracker, and that's the reason you wanted to carry this bill?

[1:14:58] Uh, well, I beg to, uh, differ with you, uh, Representative Ridley. My favorite, um, fine arts event would have been Phantom of the Opera. And the second thing is my grandmother always called it the orchestra. So I, I'm saying that in, in homage to her.

[1:15:14] There's one-

[1:15:14] But thank you for the question

[1:15:14] ... one more question. The chair recognizes Rep- Representative Dunahoo for a question.

[1:15:19] Does the gentleman yield?

[1:15:21] I do.

[1:15:22] My good friend, which LC number are we looking at? I have two on here. Thank you.

[1:15:26] We are look- we are looking at, uh, LC443558S.

[1:15:33] Thank you.

[1:15:34] Yes, sir.

[1:15:34] There are no more questions.

[1:15:36] Thank you, ma'am. I ask for your favorable consideration.

[1:15:39] On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1077, all those in favor will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machines.

[1:16:09] Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machine. On the gentleman's motion, the yeas are 153, the nays are 14, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1077.

[1:16:31] Chair recognizes Leader Efstration for a motion.

[1:16:38] Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move that the House agree to the Senate substitute to HB 1185. Clerk will read the caption.

[1:16:50] House Bill 1185 by Representative Efstration. The under fourth to be entitled an act to amend Title 14 and 15 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to corporations, partnerships, and associations in courts respectively so as to provide for certain shareholder claims to be brought before the Georgia Statewide Business Court. The Chair recognizes Leader Efstration to explain the Senate amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I'm back before you on HB 1185.

[1:17:22] You'll recall that, uh, when I previously presented, uh, this measure to you, I talked about the history of the Georgia Statewide Business Court. So back approximately 2018, um, I carried legislation for a constitutional amendment to create the Georgia Statewide Business Court. There was also accompanying, uh, legislation that, uh, came with that, and there have been several bills that have passed in ensuing years. The objective has always been the same really.

[1:17:52] It's to create a business climate in Georgia where major corporations would seek to incorporate in our state. We've seen states, obviously we're all familiar with Delaware and other states where corporations commonly incorporate, and it's my opinion that that's not necessarily a reflection of the, uh, laws that are maybe on the books. It can have very much to do with the judicial framework that's in place, specifically for complex business litigation.

[1:18:24] Now, in the state of Delaware, for example, there is the Court of Chancery with an extensive history of case law, and our, uh, business litigator members, um, are probably very familiar with this, but with an established pattern of judicial opinions where corporations can draw from that case law in, um, in resolving litigation. There's also, uh, you have judges who are more familiar with complex business litigation are able to provide more expeditious resolutions in this sense.

[1:19:00] If, uh, if otherwise a, a, uh, complex business litigation case were to go to, say, a court that doesn't have that experience, it could result in a much longer period within which to find resolution. And sometimes these corporations or maybe it's a shareholder suit, they're just looking for resolution one way or the other. It's costing them money the longer it goes on and drags on, and they would like to get it to resolution in a court that's really designed for those purposes, win or lose.

[1:19:35] They just would like to get resolution at some certain point in the future. So, uh, that, that was the background initially when, when the constitutional amendment was brought. Now, there were some changes that were made in the state senate that I think led to some questions as to how rollout would ultimately work. And without taking too much time, I know the hour is late, but that really, uh, I think that that is important context for you to be aware of as you consider House Bill 1185 as it was brought this year.

[1:20:06] So, uh, in working with, uh, the governor's office and in taking input with respect to how, um, shareholder dispute claims, other complex business litigation issues may arise, House Bill 1185 was brought. Now, we passed the measure, uh, here in the House and it went to the state senate where, uh, there were some questions on the floor in the senate. Ultimately, the bill was tabled for a period of time, and then there was, uh, there was an am- an amendment, a long amendment which is in your folders, which went through all the different changes to HB 1185.

[1:20:47] And then ultimately it passed on the floor of the state senate by a vote of forty-five to two. So it passed overwhelmingly once, uh, these changes were made. So, uh, let me tell you about the changes which I believe will improve Georgia's standing with respect to bu- its, uh, with respect to encouraging corporations to want to incorporate in the state of Georgia and, um, and thereby I think providing an, an, um, a judicial framework similar to the Court of Chancery or even the Texas Business Court, uh, which is also a good example of a successful system which we drew from in drafting House Bill 1185.

[1:21:34] So first of all, uh, the-- Just to go through the changes that the Senate made, it provides a definition of an internal entity claim which includes brought by a shareholder or member. So there was concern in the Senate that without providing that these shareholder claims brought by, or an internal entity claim, excuse me, without specifying that those are claims actually brought by a shareholder or a member, that there may be misapplication of that jurisdictional determination on the front end.

[1:22:16] And that could then lead to parties compelled to be before the Statewide Business Court that maybe we as a General Assembly did not contemplate in working on this bill. And so that, uh, change was made and I fully support that change. Second, the Senate amendments included expanding access to the Business Court for the most complex corporate claims. Uh, this involves giving the business court mandatory jurisdiction over claims involving public or large companies that have a complex structure, while also preserving a small business' right to choose where it can be sued.

[1:23:06] That's where venue would be proper, and that it could be in a local court. So if a small business owner, um, th- this language has been shored up so that if a small business owner is facing suit, that could be in their home county, county where, um, where they are, as opposed to, surprise, you're, you are going to have to litigate in the Georgia Statewide Business Court. And I think that that was very helpful to reassure, um, that there would not be an unintended application of this bill.

[1:23:42] Additionally, there was a great deal made over, you'll recall me talking about probably fishing expeditions and concern over records inspection requests, which may be made not for legitimate purpose, but, um, can in turn be a very costly and time-consuming process. And so in an effort to address that, uh, the Senate amendment makes clear that entities can refuse records inspection requests only when it reasonably expects litigation.

[1:24:23] In other words, only if you, if the company is truly anticipating that litigation is to ensue could, uh, could the company re- um, uh, could this language from the bill be utilized to prevent unreasonable fishing expeditions from occurring. Additionally, the amendments from the Senate include restoring the presumption that certain actions filed in superior and state court remain in the superior or state court instead of being removed to the business court.

[1:24:59] Now, uh, this goes back to a, a debate that occurred years ago over whether two-party consent was necessary for, uh, litigation to ultimately end up in the business court. And the State Senate has repeatedly, uh, dis- brought this issue up over the years. And the, uh, amendment brought, which as you can tell from the vote total, I submit to you shows true compromise was reached, is that in circumstances where it would be a p- where there's an expectation that a defendant would be able to remain in their local superior or state court, that there would not, there are protections against a surprise of being removed

[1:25:49] to-

[1:25:53] I- is that all?

[1:25:55] I'll, I'm just finishing. My own whip distracted me.

[1:26:00] Well.

[1:26:00] Ma- Madam Speaker.

[1:26:01] But despite that thorough, uh, explanation, there are a couple questions.

[1:26:06] Tha- thank you, Madam Speaker. In, in conclusion.

[1:26:09] Okay. Um.

[1:26:15] Well, the Georgia State-

[1:26:16] The chair recognizes, uh, Representative Evans-

[1:26:23] ... for another, for a question.

[1:26:26] Thank you, Madam Speaker. Does the gentleman li- y- yield?

[1:26:28] Yes, I'll yield.

[1:26:29] Um, I appreciate the changes that were made to tighten up the definition of internal entity claim. I do wanna acknowledge that. Um, I do still have concerns about Section 10, and I, I understand, uh, well, I, I hear you saying you have concerns about fishing expeditions, but I wanna ask, in light of the fact that we are talking about owners, either investors or limited partners that would be asking for Books and Records Act requests, why do we want to limit them so much when states that we are trying to model here, like Delaware, have much more broad parameters for limited partners and investors to be able to ask for books and records?

[1:27:16] And again, we're not talking about, uh, you know, Joe Schmo on the street. We're talking about someone with an interest, someone who's invested in the company.

[1:27:24] All right. Um, so t- in response to your question, what I would just cite to is the discussion around the amendment of that part in the Senate, which went to adjusting the proper purpose definition and the penalties associated with seek- with seeking these records. Uh, first of all, the reasonably expected litigation, um,

[1:27:53] inclusion, it's, it was believed that when determining if a request for records is for a proper purpose, uh, the request is disqualified if it relates to a derivative proceeding or c- civil lawsuit that is reasonably expected to be instituted. And adding that line reasonably, you see in the amendment, and I kn- I'm sure the gentlelady has tracked this on multiple lines.

[1:28:22] Yes.

[1:28:23] That, that would be for the purpose of, um, of truly providing that limitation when it is in a, uh, what I'd characterize as an abusive circumstance of r- of requesting the records. In other words, a fishing expedition.

[1:28:41] Will you yield for a follow-up?

[1:28:42] Uh, just if I, if I may, just a-

[1:28:44] Yeah. Okay

[1:28:44] ... I will yield, but if I may just also-

[1:28:47] Sure

[1:28:47] ... also, I think it's important to note in the discussions with the Senate, there was also re-

[1:28:51] Um, a discretionary element to the attorney's fees, which was part of our debate previously, which I do think also is help- is helpful in consideration of, um, records that may have been reasonably requested and, and, um, an onus or a danger of attorney's fees not being added on due to a judicial determination at a later point in time, which was part of our debate before. And I, and I'm happy to yield. Thank you. And that, and that discretion on attorney's fees is appreciated, 'cause it's very rare that we put into code shall do attorney's fees.

[1:29:25] Um, my follow-up question is I, I do understand the insertion of the word reasonably, and reasonable minds can disagree on whether that changes the definition of expected or reasonably expected. But my question to you is, I don't think it's clear in the bill, and maybe you can point me to somewhere that it is, whose reasonable expectation? The requester or the company receiving the request? I interpret that as the finder of fact. So the, um, so the, um, it is, uh, it is the...

[1:29:57] Well, I interpret that as the requester, and whether it's reasonable is the, uh, the finder of fact will determine. So what the re- what the requester, whether the requester is reasonably expecting litigation? That's how I interpret it. Okay. One follow-up, one- Yes, ma'am ... uh, and this will be my last one. Sure. Um, 'cause I can tell people are very excited about this legislation. Um,

[1:30:23] and now I lost my train of thought, because I tried to make a joke. Yeah, take your time. That's not good. Um,

[1:30:32] my concern that I expressed in the well when this bill came over here was that if I'm an investor or I'm a limited partner and I make a Books and Records Act request, it's not because I think things are going well. So the idea that I'm gonna make a Books and Records Act request and not have in my mind a thought that I might uncover something that is going to lead to litigation is probably a rare circumstance, and I think that's why Delaware doesn't have this kind of restrictive language. So with that concern, could you, could you give me a scenario where you could argue that a, an investor who wants to check on their investment, wants access to the books and records, give me a scenario where that requester who thinks there's a problem c- would still have the right to get access to information about their investment, but not run afoul of a reasonable expectation of litigation.

[1:31:23] My inter- 'Cause I'm having a hard time finding that. So my interpretation, and I can extend this to an example potentially, but the point is, I think if it's a good faith request by the person that's, uh, by the requester, um, for the documents or information that's requested, and, um, and that in my mind would be, that's a reasonable request under the circumstances. If it's done for some, uh, um, purpose because of expected litigation in the near term, then that may be a different circumstance, and that would potentially be distinguishable.

[1:32:01] I think that that was the, um... So in other words, it, if, uh, if a person is trying to just get the information or if they are trying to create a cause of action that may not otherwise exist, but they're clearly seeking, they're, they're going about it with the purpose of, um, of tr- of having a fishing expedition, just look- trying to see what they can come up with for the purpose of wi- with a litigious intent, that that would not be proper.

[1:32:36] Now, that's just my interpretation. As, with respect to your question as to whether language is or isn't in the chan- the, uh, state of Delaware with respect to this, I do know that language was drawn from the state of Texas as well in the drafting of this measure. It could be that that, uh, uh, my recollection is that does follow more with Texas. And, um, and so I c- I can't further explain why it's not in Delaware code, but I do support it being, um, but I do support it being in Georgia's code.

[1:33:07] Well, I appreciate the response. There are other questions. I, I just wish we had put in more guardrails around just because you think there's a problem does not mean you're reasonably expecting litigation. It's unfortunate we don't have it in here. But thank you for your answers. I, I respect the gentlelady's opinion, and, uh- The chair recognizes Representative Kelly for a question. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the leader yield? Yes, sir. Mr. Leader, I, at the end of your presentation, I think you were hitting on the one party versus two party consent. Is there any language in the Senate amendments that weakens the two party consent language that was originally established with the business court?

[1:33:44] So there was language in the original bill that would allow for shareholder-broad actions or actions where in the business court, I'm sorry, in the entity's, uh, internal, uh, documents, such as their operating agreement, that, um, that, uh, jurisdiction would be in the business court. And that has not been weakened. In fact, that has been, uh, the two party has been, uh, strengthened in this sense, that there is, we have maintained the presumption of that existing framework rather than doing away with the presumption, which could have led to a more broad entry to business court.

[1:34:36] Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Clark for a question.

[1:34:46] Thank you, uh, Madam Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes. I actually think you might have answered this question, um, earlier, but I just want to

[1:34:56] Make sure. Um, so on the House side, when this bill was on the House side, there were a bunch of mandates, it appears, having to do with attorney's fees, and it looks like the Senate took all those out and made that optional, changed a bunch of shalls to may, and I just want to, um, be clear you are okay with those particular changes, um, because it, they just did a bunch of them, uh, 180, line 214, um, line 275.

[1:35:29] They removed a bunch of shalls.

[1:35:30] So I agree with the gentlelady's, uh, summary on those, in those three locations. The shall is now may, providing dis- uh, discretionary level as to the award of attorney's fees, and certainly as part of the compromise between the two chambers in, in the in- interest of advancing the legislation, I support, uh, I support the, I support the Senate amendments, and I'm asking that the House agree to the Senate amendments.

[1:35:57] Okay. Thank you.

[1:35:58] Thank you.

[1:36:00] The Chair recognizes Representative Kendrick for a question.

[1:36:04] Oh, okay. My answer. Thank you.

[1:36:07] Does the gentleman yield?

[1:36:08] Yes, I'll yield.

[1:36:08] Um, I have a few clarifying questions on the definition of internal entity claim. Um, so on the amendment under B2, it says, "The entity is a public company, comma, a, a private company..." Oh, never mind. I think I understand it now, but my second q- Does the gentleman further yield?

[1:36:29] Yes.

[1:36:29] I have a second question. Um, they have under here a tier two offering under a Reg A, and I know that there's a tier one offering. Both of them are pre-IPO. Is there a reason they left out the tier one offering and only included the tier two offering?

[1:36:47] Okay. I, um, I am not an expert on, I guess, size classifications of businesses, but my understanding was the objective was to distinguish between very large corporations and smaller corporations.

[1:37:02] Well, the difference between tier one and tier two is the amount of the raise. It's not the amount, uh, the size of the company. So it's interesting that they, that they left that out. Um, my second... Oh, does the gentleman yield for another question?

[1:37:14] Yes, I'll yield.

[1:37:15] Uh, the end of this talks about an entity composed exclusively of individuals or entities that would otherwise qualify as accredited investors under Rule 501. So that would include, like, private equity, venture capital firms, special purpose vehicles. Um, was the intent to include those items so that they automatically go to the court? And the reason I, I, I ask that is because there are different sizes of each one of these entities.

[1:37:47] I mean, I can start an SPV with two members of the House, uh, right now if I wanted to. So if they were trying to distinguish between big companies and small companies, I'm trying to understand why they would include language that i- uh, where, where SPVs and other entities can be as small as three or four individuals and be, and be composed of accredited investors.

[1:38:11] Well, I think that was one aspect of, uh, of the jurisdiction, uh, issue, but another was if, if, if within the inter- within the operating agreement of the corporation, if it was anticipated that disputes would be resolved in the statewide business court, that that would provide jurisdiction was the original intent of the bill. And so, um, it's my belief that that helped inform the ultimate, uh, negotiated outcome here, that for the, uh, shareholder-initiated actions, um, those may be different from, um, actions brought due to a dispute where it's contemplated in the articles of incorporation that the business court is where those disputes would be resolved.

[1:39:01] Unbelievably, there are no more questions.

[1:39:05] Madam Speaker, I'd urge the body's favorable consideration to the Senate amendments to HB1185, and I yield the well.

[1:39:16] On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 1185, all those in favor will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machine.

[1:39:59] Have all members voted?

[1:40:05] Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machines on the gentleman's motion. The yeas are 97, the nays are 65, and the House has agreed to the Senate amendment to House Bill 1185.

[1:40:33] Does not have to be so deliberate this time.

[1:40:36] And does he not?

[1:40:37] Yes.

[1:40:38] Okay.

[1:40:39] But that's a good place.

[1:40:41] Yeah.

[1:40:42] The Chair recognizes Leader Efstration for another motion.

[1:40:53] Thank you, Madam Sp- Speaker. I move that the House agree to the substitute to SB207 as amended by the House

[1:41:05] Clerk will read the caption. Senate Bill 207 to be entitled an Act to Amend Titles 20, 26, 31, 33 and 43 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to education, food, drugs, cosmetics, health insurance and professions and businesses. The Chair recognizes Leader Efstration to explain the Senate and the House amendments. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Unless the House, uh, needs further explanation, I plan to be pretty succinct with this one. Uh, Senate Bill 207 reflects years of work and discussion around allowing for individuals who may have licenses from the State of Georgia but also have a criminal history for a process by which consideration of their criminal history can be made.

[1:41:53] This only applies to certain boards and it only ap- applies to specific professions, but will allow individuals, in effect, that may have a prior, uh, prior criminal record to be able to, in effect, require that the licensing board be able to show a connection to the nature of their profession, where they'll be working, if it's to be a basis with which to deny their, um, deny their license. I would like to thank the majority caucus chairman for the many hours that, uh, he put in on this measure.

[1:42:28] And I'd like to thank the judiciary chairman in the Senate for working with me on this issue over the years. And Madam Speaker, I'm happy to yield for any questions. There's just one question. The Chair recognizes Chairman Parsons for a question. Thank you, Speaker. Does the gentleman yield? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. I think I can understand why that some of the licensees might get that privilege, you know, depending what their license was for. But isn't it really, though, isn't it an issue that regular guy who has some kind of a record, maybe the, uh, the same criminal record as one of those, couldn't as easily get his record?

[1:43:10] I don't think we expunge them, but whatever the, the, the, the word would be to do it. It just seems like it's not quite fair. Well, uh, thank you, sir, for the question. I'll just explain it this way. I've received feedback from the business community that there is a need for labor right now across the state, that if licenses cannot be issued for maybe, um, sometimes it's, it's very important work that's being done, say, uh, plumbers, construction work. Um, we have a variety of different professions in here.

[1:43:43] Um, there, there's a need to hire these people, but they cannot get their license renewed or cannot get a license because of a previous conviction, possibly even unrelated to the work that they're to be doing. So I can just tell you that there's been extensive work on this legislation, this amendment that's before you now, to take out certain professions where there are particular concerns about, uh, sensitive nature of the work and that, uh, where a licensing board may need added discretion to give greater consideration.

[1:44:19] But for, uh, for the professions included here, there would be a means by which the board, um, well, the board could or could not have a presumption to receive those records, what type of records they could receive, and then how the applicant could appeal that decision if they believe it was an unfair determination reached by the board. Yes, sir. If the gentleman would f- uh, further yield. Yes, sir. One more. Um, isn't it true that... I, I do understand that. I do understand, and I'm, I'm glad that this bill is coming forward.

[1:44:52] I think it's good. But isn't it true that for, uh, somebody trying to get a job, uh, in a warehouse trying to support their family or get their life back together, it could be just as important to that person, it could be just as important to, uh, the supervisor of a warehouse to get somebody to work there, too. But anyway, I, I do understand and I appreciate the bill. Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. Madam Speaker, I know the hour is late. I'll yield the well and ask for the body's favorable consideration. The gentleman has yielded the well. Is there any objection to the adoption of the House Amendment?

[1:45:24] The Chair hears none and the House Amendment is adopted. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate Amendment to the House Substitute to Senate Bill 207 as amended by the House, all those in favor will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machines.

[1:46:02] Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machine on the gentleman's motion. The yays were 160, the nays were three, and the House has agreed to the Senate Amendment to the House Substitute to Senate Bill 207 as amended by the House.

[1:46:29] Chair recognizes Chairman Smith for a motion.

[1:46:34] Thank you, Madam Speaker Pro Tem. I move that the House agree to the Senate Substitute to House Bill 535. Clerk will read the caption. House Bill 535 to be entitled an Act to Amend Code Section 42-8-38 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to arrest or graduated sanctions for probationers violating terms, hearing, disposition of charge, and procedure. Chair recognizes Chairman Smith to explain the Senate Substitute.

[1:47:05] Thank you, Madam Speaker Pro Tem. Uh, ladies and gentlemen of this most learned House, wanted to bring to you, uh, House Bill 535 as amended in the Senate. If you'll recall, the original bill that we passed out of this house last session was affixed to the Kellum decision that our friends over there across the road in the Court of Appeals had made concerning, uh, calculation of time served. The amendment in the Senate was to actually, uh, do some clarification to Senate Bill 79, if you'll recall, the, uh, Fentanyl Eradication and Removal Act, and the clarification is, as follows.

[1:47:47] It would clarify that to be charged with a trafficking of fentanyl, trafficking amount of fentanyl, an individual needs to have four grams of actual fentanyl. Just so you know what this looks like in real-world terms, four g- grams of fentanyl could kill right around 2,000 people. Uh, there are studies that show that two milligrams alone could be a potential fatal dose.

[1:48:17] So, uh, second, this would also address the sentencing range when a prosecutor consents to depart from the mandatory minimum sentence for fentanyl distribution, and this would increase the maximum pri- prison sentence and fine for those situations where a prosecutor has requested a downward departure from the court. It would not change the minimum fine or prison sentence. It simply broadens the possible range in these downward departure scenarios. That, Madam Speaker Pro Tem, is the bill, and I'll yield for a couple questions.

[1:48:51] There are no questions.

[1:48:52] Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I'll yield well and ask this body's favorable consideration.

[1:48:57] Gentleman has yielded the well. On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute to House Bill 535, all those in favor will vote yes, all those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will unlock the machines.

[1:49:28] Have all members voted? Have all members voted? If so, the clerk will lock the machine. On the gentleman's motion, the yeas are 160, the nays are zero, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 535.

[1:49:48] Chair recognizes Chairman Carpenter for a motion.

[1:49:54] What's the right word here? Let me see if I can get this right.

[1:50:00] I, uh, move that the House agr- uh, agree to the Senate am- hmm.

[1:50:10] Whoo. It's a lot of words, folks. It's late in the night. I mean, we've seen a lot of people get confused up here. I, I move that the House agree to the Senate substitute as amended by the House.

[1:50:23] Rep- Chairman Carpenter moves that the House agree to the Senate substitute-

[1:50:27] 328

[1:50:27] ... House Bill 328 as amended by the House. The clerk will read the caption.

[1:50:34] House Bill 328, to be entitled An Act to Amend Article 2, Chapter 7 of Title 48 of the Official Code of Georgia Annotated relating to income tax imposition, rate computation, exemptions, and credits.

[1:50:46] Chair recognizes Chairman Carpenter to explain the Senate substitute and the House amendment.

[1:50:51] Thank you so much, uh, Madam Speaker. So, as you can imagine, the Senate messed some stuff up in my bill, and so I'm here to amend it. Um, there's two amendments on your table. Disregard the first amendment. The amendment that we are accepting is Amendment 490333. I'm gonna go through it real, real quick. It's quick so you don't get too excited. Uh, we added, House Bill 328 was, uh, Representative Bethany Ballard's stuff was added to it on the IEPs and the s- uh, and the military students.

[1:51:28] We also added representative, uh, language from represent- or Chairman, uh, Matt Dubnik's, uh, bill on, uh, making sure online classrooms, um, we're not closing the loophole, um, for some virtual schools in the state. We moved the cap on the SSO. The Senate had it two- $220 million. We moved it back down to, uh, $150 million.

[1:51:59] We also added, um, the PEACH, uh, school tax credit. We moved that to $25 million. Uh, that was on a bill that passed out of here from my man, uh, Rick Townsend. And then Section 8, uh, and Section 9 is about transit elections, uh, and making sure that we allow the local communities, when one fails, that they do not, uh, bring them back up for another eight years.

[1:52:31] And with that, I yield the well.

[1:52:37] Gentleman has yielded the well. For what purpose does Representative Wilkerson rise?

[1:52:44] Thank you. Um, parliamentary inquiry, I guess. He's not in the well, so, um, I, i- parliamentary inquiry.

[1:52:52] State your inquiry.

[1:52:53] Is it not true I was gonna ask about the 25% increase in the student scholarship tax credit that goes to private schools?

[1:53:01] The gentleman was going to ask about the 25% increase. That is correct

[1:53:08] For what purpose does Representative Carter or Representative Oliver rise? Parliamentary inquiry, ma'am. State your inquiry. Isn't it true that Section 9 is, 9 is intended to prohibit, um, a new vote on a MARTA expansion in counties that are about to vote for or against MARTA? Isn't that the purpose of that strategically, to limit the opportunity for counties to vote on whether to expand their transit into MARTA? If that is as the lady states, I know she believes that to be true.

[1:53:42] For what purpose does Representative Romman rise? Parliamentary inquiry. State your inquiry. Is it not true that traffic is already bad enough and is probably gonna get way worse in eight years if we keep doing this? Chair is sure that that is what the lady believes. For what purpose does Representative Clark rise? Parliamentary inquiry, Madam Speaker. State, state your inquiry. Is it not true that a lot can change in eight years? For example, I got here eight years ago, and now I am leaving.

[1:54:14] But also, eight years ago, we all had buttons and a headphone jack on our phone, and now neither one of those are even in existence today. And so I'm very concerned about Section 9 of this amendment. Chair knows that time passes quickly. The chair recognizes Representative Townsend for a question. Parliamentary inquiry. State your inquiry. Is it not true that the, um, GOAL scholarship benefits the special needs students, the PEACH scholar- scholarship tax credits for both parts, uh, the PEACH tax credits benefit public school kids?

[1:55:01] For what purpose does Representative Efstration rise? Parliamentary inquiry. State your inquiry. Madam Speaker, is it not true that Sections 8 and 9 passed the House Transportation Committee, Senate Committee, and passed on the floor of the Senate, and that they do not relate to MARTA tax, they relate to transit, uh, referendums only, not MARTA. And that it's, and it's only for a limited number of counties as well. Is that not true?

[1:55:31] The gentleman so states. For what purpose does Representative Sanchez rise? Parliamentary inquiry. State your inquiry. Isn't it true that the country my family comes from, Colombia, has much better public transit than the State of Georgia, and we should be ashamed that we're, in this state, have worse public transit than a third world country? We should probably not ban public transit referendums for eight years. Well, when the chair visited Colombia, that certainly didn't appear to be true for the portions of Colombia that she saw. But, uh, I'm sure the gentleman believes that to be true.

[1:56:01] And last question, for what purpose does Representative Evans rise? Parliamentary inquiry. State your inquiry. Isn't it true that this will be the second legislative day in a row that this body has chosen to single out metro counties to apply restrictions that don't apply to the rest of the state in Section 8 and 9, as the leader just also pointed out? I'm sure the lady believes that to be true. Is there any objection to the adoption of the House Amendment? The chair hears none, and the House Amendment is adopted.

[1:56:32] On the gentleman's motion that the House agree to the Senate substitute House Bill 328 as amended by the House, all those in favor will vote yes. All those opposed will vote no. And the clerk will unlock the machine.

[1:57:11] Have all members voted?

[1:57:30] All members voted? If so, Mr. Clerk will lock the machine.

[1:57:38] On the gentleman's motion, the yays are 99, the nays are 67, and the House has agreed to the Senate substitute to House Bill 328 as amended by the House.

[1:58:10] Okay, members.

[1:58:14] This is the ones we've been looking for. Senate Bill 437 and Senate Bill 446 will be postponed to the next legislative day.

[1:58:30] We have some afternoon orders that are going to occur at about 10 till 10, so I'm gonna encourage you all to be brief. We'll begin with Representative Byrd, and she's gonna recognize the birthday of Representative Charlice Byrd.

[1:58:52] She waves.

[1:58:56] Representative Schofield with-

[1:59:04] Members, I, don't, I, I'm gonna ask you all to, um, after Representative Schofield, I'm gonna go ahead and do, um-

[1:59:13] Chairman Sainz. Representative Schofield, if you'll go and then we're gonna recognize Chairman Sainz on something we'll all want to be a part of. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As members of the House, thank you to all that have made the donations for the eye classes and your old readers. We, uh, have only 63 more to go, and we will meet our goal of a hun- of 200. So thank you for all those that have bought them. Thank you Deborah Bazemore and all of the others. But we just need a few more volunteers.

[1:59:44] If you have old glasses that you just need to be recycled, please drop them on my desk, my legislative desk. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well.

[1:59:56] Let's give Chairman Sainz a moment. So we'll, um, recognize Chair Lady Lynn Smith for an afternoon order. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. Tomorrow we're gonna be celebrating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America, but in 2001, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of Georgia, and I found stickers that designate that time. I have them to hand out to you on Thursday if you're interested.

[2:00:30] Representative Ali, recognized.

[2:00:37] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of this House, as is always, I have a foster child to highlight. Uh, this is Daniel, who was born in 2010. He is 16 years old. He is currently amazing at art, amazing at school, and also learning how to drive. And so as always, we can make his adoption possible at itsmyturnnow.dhs.georgia.gov. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I yield the well.

[2:01:06] So members, I'll let him have at a morning or afternoon order on Thursday. But what Representative Sainz, um, wanted to, uh, go a little more detail on is what I mentioned this morning, the death of, um, former member Cecily Hill from down in, um, St. Mary's. Uh, her funeral services will be on Friday. So I'll just ask you, he can, um, bring some more information and make some comments on a wonderful lady that many of us knew that served with her, but her funeral service will be Friday.

[2:01:40] S- former member Chair Lady Cecily Hill, and so I'll ask you to keep that family in your prayers between now and then. Uh, lost a mother, and she has a, a daughter and some other children. But, um, we'll ask you to keep them in your prayers and your thoughts as they go through this, um, time the next few days. They'll need lots of comfort. So I don't... Do we have any pages that are still here?

[2:02:12] Y'all come on down. I thought we did.

[2:02:38] This is Eden Bethel. Now, and represent, uh, Chairman Petrie. So she's ... Where are you from? I live in Jackson County. Yeah, she li- I didn't think she lived in Savannah. She lives in Jackson County, so we're good to have her. Thanks for staying with us. Let's give her another round of applause.

[2:03:08] We recognize Chairman Martin Montahan for having a birthday a little bit earlier. I don't know about what y'all know, but I know something that's been a great day to be a Georgian. Thank y'all for y'all's work on the literacy bill and great success we had that day. That, that success comes to all of us in this House, so thank you all for your work. And, uh, it's gonna be great for our state, great for our young people. I don't think we have anything else. I'm gonna recognize the majority.

[2:03:39] Announcements. Oh, we have announcements. I was trying to get out of here without doing those. Let's see. Representative Gamble, you still hanging out for an announcement? Let's hear it. Mr. Speaker, most importantly, tomorrow morning at 7:00 AM we'll meet for fellowship, the last time of the year, so I hope y'all will join us in the morning. Chairman Corbett, recognized for an announcement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Rural Caucus will be having our fish fry tomorrow for lunch.

[2:04:11] Come join us.

[2:04:15] Chairman Hawkins, recognized for an announcement.

[2:04:22] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Health Committee will meet tomorrow at 2:00 in 403.

[2:04:41] That completes our announcements. Now, been a long day. The majority leader of this House is recognized for a motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that this House stand adjourned until Thursday, April 2nd, 2026 at 10:00 AM. Another month. Wow. On the motion of majority leader Efstration, that this House stand adjourned until 10:00 AM Thursday, April the 2nd, day 40, 2026.

[2:05:16] All those in favor will say, "Aye." Aye. Absolutely. All those opposed will say, "No." No. It's pretty clear to me. Y'all have a good, um, evening and be safe, and we'll see you back here Thursday.