02/02/2026 Senate Committee on Public Safety

This meeting of the senate public safety committee to order. I'm gonna ask, very own, chairman of our senate retirement committee, chairman Williams, to open us up in a word of prayer.

Thank you. Let us pray. Dear heavenly father, we come before you today and ask you to give us our courage. Give us wisdom. Give us strength.

Give us the tools needed to carry out the people's work. Dear lord, bless the first responders, the men and women in harm's way. Be with them and watch over them every day. In thy name we pray. Amen.

Amen. Thank you very much, senator. First, in your, folders today are the list of our subcommittees, which are the same ones we had last year. But just a reminder, we have one subcommittee for first responders that certain bills will be assigned to that will be chaired by, senator Robertson. On that committee includes, senator Bearden, Jackson, now Dickerson, on his first subcommittee, and senator Wicks.

We also have, under a general welfare and safety committee, which is chaired by senator Bearden, senator Jones, Paynes Williams, and I participate on those as well. And last, we did have a special one that met this summer, which was chaired by senator Bearden, and that was for Next Generation nine one one, which at this point, may have concluded its work, but we'll see if they need to reconstitute for any specific purpose as we work on that important initiative. We have, four bills, on the calendar today. We did have five, for anybody who was here originally for senator Harbin's AED bill. He requested that we push that out because the folks that, were instrumental in that bill wanna come testify, and we wanted to support him in that matter.

So that will be happening, at this point, scheduled for February 18. So anyone, who has an interest in that, please, plan to be here that day and or reach out directly to the bill's author, senator Harbin. With that in mind, we're gonna begin. There's a sign up sheet in the back of the room. Couple of these bills are bills that we had heard last year.

The ones that we had heard that is the same bill, we are not going to take the same testimonies we did ten months ago. New bills, we will be, for time's sake because we do have to get out of this room because the Health and Human Services Committee is coming in right behind us. So if you wouldn't mind, Kiki grabbing that, and we're gonna begin with senator Hatchett. If you would please come down and talk to us about Senate Bill three eighty four.

Well, thank you, mister chairman and members of the committee. I present to you Senate Bill three eighty four, which you should have a substitute, and I'm working off of l c three nine four eight nine three s. Correct.

So if you look

at this bill, it's about, if I'm not mistaken

30?

It's 29 pages. And I think I I will give credit to the Department of Revenue, alleged counsel, everyone that's been been involved in this since October. A very simple idea, in theory, may be much more complex when you get down to the the the law itself. But just, I'll I'll give a broad overview of the policy that I'm looking to establish with this bill, and then we'll go through sections, just to kinda give the key points from each section. But, essentially, in Georgia, I feel like it should be an option as a motor vehicle owner to purchase a tag that is good for five years.

Instead of having to get a tag every single year and go into the tag office every year, you get one tag, it lasts for five years. Now there's some complexity in accomplishing this goal, which I'll go through briefly. If you, section by section here, if you're looking at section one and three, this essentially clarifies that emission certificates remain valid for one inspection term, requires annual emissions compliance even if a vehicle is registered for five years. So just because you have a five year registration, if your county subjects you to admission centers, you can have to continue to do that annually. They explicitly authorizes counties to suspend a five year registration if emissions compliance is not maintained.

So, historically, if you don't pass emissions, you're not allowed to get a new tag for that year. This would just suspend the five year tag that you have. It preserves existing penalties and DOT funding and portion mechanisms for noncompliance. The key takeaway, I think, for the committee here for sections one through three is that the five year registration does not mean five year emissions exemption. Moving on to section four, electronic notice authorization.

So this is completely optional. Right? If you wanna get a tag every year, you can continue to get a tag every year. If you want to do the five year, then you have to opt in to allow the Department of Revenue to send you electronic notices for emissions noncompliance. And it still requires multiple notices, a thirty day, a twenty day, and a ten day before suspension, and it also requires clear written consent at the time of registration.

But right now, you're not automatically opted in when you buy a one year tag. But if you do the five year tag, you you are subjecting yourself to electronic notification. Section five, this is which motor vehicle is eligible. So it limits the five year registration eligibility to vehicles that are paid TABT. It excludes commercial vehicle, and it abuse and preserves existing tax structures.

If you look section six, which is a big one, there are no refunds or credits. And this is something that you're gonna know when you walk in there. You buy a five year tag, you will not get your money back. So if you decide to change your tag or get a new if you get a new vehicle or something happens, you've already paid that. That money goes to the state.

You don't get it back. And that's gonna be very clear.

And I just a question just because this bill is so voluminous as we're going through it, Sandra. Would you mind? So let's say I have a a current tag and an automobile that's on, and I buy a new car, but I transfer that same tag. Does that restart the clock over if I have a five year, or does that just continue with my five years?

No. Good question. It will not restart the clock over. You can continue if the tag is able if it's the same type of

vehicle and you can transfer your tag now, like, if you have a one year tag now that you can transfer to

the as long now that you can transfer to the as long as it's the same type of transfer, you don't have to go back through and buy a new five year tag.

Thank you. Okay. Oh, got a question?

I had a question. Perhaps if you were to have an automobile accident and total that vehicle, and so you could transfer that tag maybe to another vehicle that you buy and have credit towards that?

That's correct.

You can.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

And I think those were a couple questions that I would have touched on. Section seven is the core authorization for five year registration. It authorizes owners for of eligible vehicles starting 07/01/2027 to choose the annual registration or the five year registration. It requires payment of five times the annual registration fee, so you're not gonna get a discount. It's not a buy one get one.

It's if it's $20, you're gonna pay a 100. You pay five years in advance. That section also continues to confirm emissions requirements still apply annually. The key point here, just to reiterate, this is optional. You pay upfront.

There's no fee discount, and there's no refund. Section eight adds a definition for eligible motor vehicle registration term, and it aligns renewal deadlines for both annual and five year registrations. Section nine, that's just kind of bringing the code up to speed. Section nine, tag agent reporting. This authorizes the Department of Revenue to adopt rules governing distribution of funds related to five year registration and specialty plates.

So, essentially, right now, when the DOR collects money when you have a specialty tag, like, for a college or something, they have rules as to when they're gonna disperse that. This just gives them the authority to disperse the monies as they see fit, determined on or depending on the number of five year tags they sell. Section 10 deals with the transfers we've talked about. Sections 11 through 28, specialty, prestige, military, and honorary plates. Across these sections, the bill keeps existing annual specialty plate fees intact, adds a five year equivalent fee, which is generally five times the annual fee, preserves free plates where currently authorized and applies five year options consistently across the prestige plates, military and veterans plates, gold star family plates, elected official plates, honorary and organizational plates.

The key point here is sections 11 through 28, mostly just conforming language. It's not new benefits or new fees. Section 29 is about the fee structure. Section 30 deals with emissions and reporting, which I've already touched on. Sections thirty one and thirty two is the effective date, which it will be 07/01/2027.

Essentially, this bill just gives Georgia an optional convenience without weakening emissions enforcement, without costing the state revenue, and without changing who is eligible to register their vehicles in Georgia. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Senator Hatchett, thank you for bringing this bill forward. Very thoughtful. I wanna thank you especially for the time you spent with, the Department of Revenue and all the, interested parties. I'm gonna look over to, Joe at DOR for a a thumbs up that you are okay with this, legislation as you participated in it. Two thumbs up.

That's even better. Okay. Just to make sure. I think it's a great convenience, and and I I personally look forward to doing that as well. So it's a win win.

I've got, a great bill in front of us, and I'll open it up to the committee for any questions for the bill's author. Seeing none, what is the will of the committee? Because I have nobody signed up to speak.

Motion do pass.

Motion do pass from the vice chairman. Do I have a second? I've No. No? Okay.

I've got a second from senator Williams. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say no.

Pass unanimously. Thanks, Gus.

Of luck

in the Senate Rules Committee. Thank you, leader Hatcher. Thank you. Alright. Very good.

Next

bill

on the calendar is going to be house bill 77. Representative Lehman, come on down. Good to see you again as always. We heard this bill last year. This will be very familiar to you.

Because we did, we're not gonna take testimony. This is just kicking it back out through the process. If you just briefly remind everybody what this bill is, it's, pretty much a no brainer, I think. Thank you,

mister chairman. I appreciate it. Members of the committee. So this bill, has passed, actually, I believe, that this committee twice. This will be the third time.

We perfected it or changed it last time. So I think it's really good, but everybody's, super happy about it or happy with it. The Georgia Sheriff Association, just to just to remind you guys, are on board. They've endorsed it. They're fine with it.

The Georgia Trucking Association is behind it. And I'd I'd I'd I guess I'll say the funeral, caucus of the house and it's certainly behind it, and I hope the senate I I had a little conversation with Rick here. I I know we were on board last year, but I think we're all good, with the bill. But, basically, what it does it came to me because my sheriffs and my deputies were concerned that there was getting, more and more, traffic risk whenever they were given a funeral procession in the area. They were having people come on, on, facing traffic, and there was two incidents where when they were on motorcycles, they were almost got hit by ongoing traffic.

And they explained that it was, it the, the situation was getting worse and worse and worse and something needed to happen with it. So what this bill does is it requires, people that are coming on two lane roads, those rural roads, coming to, facing the the, procession has to pull over on the side of the road, and, and wait till that procession goes by. And, to make it clear with where it begins and ends, there's flashing lights in the front and the rear. I could go in in all the details of it, but it's, it's basically just allows them or tells them to pull over. Now the commercial trucks, if the side of the road is precarious for them, they don't have to go off the side of the road.

They can just pull over, as, you know, using their common sense the best that they can. But that's basically the bill, gentlemen. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions for the bill's author, senator Bearden. Did you say a funeral caucus?

Yeah. I like to say they are a caucus.

Oh, me and my friend from the twenty ninth is gonna do a cop caucus. Unofficial. We're gonna make it official now. Just because they

still wanna be firemen.

We don't speak of that.

Okay. Other questions from the committee members? Seeing none, what's the role of the committee?

Do pass.

Motion do pass. Got a second. Second from senator Payne. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. All opposed, please say no. Passes unanimously. Best of luck in the, Senate Rules Committee and I believe who's carrying this?

I

have to check. Last year, I just need to, confirm that the same person's gonna carry it last year, but I don't have anybody right now. But I can get it to your office.

Bay based on the subject matter, I have a suggestion for you.

Yeah. I think he's carrying a lot right now, but we'll see. Thank you so

much. Alright. Would you get back to us before the end of the day, please? I will. Because we have to turn those in.

Thank you. Thank

you, mister chairman.

Okay. Next bills, house bill five forty nine. Again, another bill we passed out last year. Representative Seebaugh, if you would come up to, the podium here. This is, again, another straight forward one.

Thank you, mister chairman. Committee, house bill four five forty nine did pass this committee last session. And I appreciate you letting me bring it forward again. This is a law enforcement training reimbursement bill. I'm working off LC thirty nine four six four one.

Correct.

The law requiring reimbursement of these officers' initial training expenses is already in place. The changes on line 15 of House Bill five forty nine changes the time frame from fifteen months to thirty six months. In practice, these agencies realize that the fifteen month window was too short as most agencies had not fully recovered their investment by that point, particularly when salary, academy time, field training, and required, equipment are considered. They discovered once the fifteen month mark passes, the originating agency absorbs the full loss even though another agency benefits from a fully trained officer. In online '25 through 33, it defines the total training expenses to be reimbursed, so there's no question there.

All concerned stakeholders, including law enforcement agencies and, training with training interest, are in agreement that this update is reasonable, fair, and necessary. And, senator Tim Bearden will be carrying this bill. And if there are no questions, I'll ask for it to pass.

Thank you for that, good explanation. Questions from the committee members. Question from our vice chairman.

Yeah. Thank you, representative. I'm very supportive of this legislation last year. Has any any consideration being given to who would reimburse if the federal government comes in and offers a $50,000 sign and pull on us, and we lose some of our men and women that have been on the job for thirty six months, whether that might shift back to that individual to reimburse that money? Or is that something that that we can discuss as this I I love the legislation.

It's just something recently that came up and had a question asked of me. Or is it maybe there's because we certainly can't bill the federal government.

But Well, that was the the,

something I'll I'll speak with the senate carrier on that.

Okay. Yeah. That's

fine. But thank you for this.

Appreciate this. Good comments.

Alright. Yeah.

Pleasure of the committee

Other questions from the committee members? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee?

I'll make the motion to pass.

Motion to pass. I have a second. Second from senator Dickerson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye.

Aye. All opposed, please say no. Pass unanimously. And you mentioned that, chairman Beard will be carrying that for you. Very good.

Okay. Stay where you're at. We're gonna go to house bill 61. This again is a bill that we had passed out last session. And why don't you take us through this bill, if you would, please?

I will. And thank you again, committee members. I'm working off l c sixty three zero zero seven three s.

Correct.

Two changes were made online '20, change the date from 2025 to 2026. And on line three twenty, we changed to go into effect upon the governor's signature.

Very good. You want to hit the highlights real quick?

Yep. This bill passed this committee, but failed to get a floor vote. House Bill 61 is a targeted balanced public safety and property rights measure that closes critical loopholes in Georgia law that have been exploited by squatters, fraudsters, and individuals unlawfully occupying property. In 2024, the General Assembly passed House Bill ten seventeen to address squatting, and that legislation was an important first step. But since its enactment, law enforcement, property owners, and the hospitality industry have identified gaps that still prevent timely and effective removal of unauthorized occupants.

House bill 61 responds directly to those concerns. At its core, this bill does three things. First, it gives law enforcement clear authority to act. It expands magistrate court jurisdiction and creates a verified sworn complaint process that allows sheriffs to tenancy exist. This restores the fundamental property right to exclude and prevents officers from being forced into legal uncertainty or inaction.

Second, it strengthens deterrence and accountability. This bill enhances the unlawful squatting statute by requiring alleged squatters to produce valid documentation within a defined time frame and authorizes arrest when that documentation is missing or fraudulent.

Importantly, House Bill 61 creates a

new felony offense for presenting a tactics used to delay removal. Third, it modernizes and clarifies related areas of law. It clarifies the distinction between innkeeper guest relationship and landlord tenant relationships, particularly for extended stay hotels, ensuring that guests do not improperly claim tenant rights. It also shortens delays in executing writs of possession and improves officer safety protocols during removals. This bill is carefully balanced.

It preserves due process, protects legitimate tenants with valid leases, provides civil remedies for wrongful removal, and includes clear safeguards for both property owners and law enforcement officers. House bill 61 is not about eviction reform. It is about addressing situations where no lawful tenancy exist, where property is being occupied through trespass or fraud, and where public safety and property rights are at risk. For these reasons, house bill 61 represents a necessary refinement of Georgia's squatting laws. It reflects the input of law enforcement and industry stakeholders and provides clear constitutional tools to address a growing problem.

I respectfully recommend the committee again give house bill 61 a due pass.

Thank you, representative. Seba. I appreciate the work you did on the original bill and the follow-up language. This has impacted many of my constituents, and I appreciate the good work you've been doing. Questions for the bill's author from the committee members?

They don't work. Just hold up your hand if you don't mind. Thank you, senator Halpern. Recognize you for a question.

Thank you. So I recognize for sure that there is a balance, between the hospitality industry, which, of course, is a business that is renting its rooms and of course, you know, needs to have people pay for those rooms as expected, whether they're renting day by day, week by week, or I don't think most people are renting much longer than week by week. And at the same time, I know also that, there are people who are staying in hotels for long lengths of time. And we hear all the time about the extended stay, hotels, but I but I do believe, from the information I've received that it's beyond just extended stay. So it's your regular everyday hotel as well.

This bill, of course, puts kind of engages law enforcement in the removal of people from a room if they fail to pay, you know, like day one or two or three. I wonder if there's a possibility of amending this or subbing this out further. Just wanna get a sense of your of your openness to create slightly more of that counterbalance because I recognize that people who've been at a hotel for long lengths of time, while they may not, in fact, in this bill, be treated as tenants with the normal eviction proceedings, that that is what they've become accustomed to for now. And at the same time, wanna manage against businesses having to wait months and months and months, which is what a typical eviction proceeding can take, which is, you know, kind of antithetical to that business being able to then pay its own bills if you start to have too many people who aren't paying. But I I I I'm trying to get a sense for just that, like, the that that openness because there seems to be maybe a slightly more middle ground potentially, but I don't know if this is a hearing or if we're taking a vote.

So I just wanted to put that out out there and just get your sense. Obviously, this is your sub. I understand that we passed it last year. But just trying to get your sense of that balance given, both the Supreme Court ruling, some of the misunderstandings that are happening on the ground every day at hotels and law enforcement who feel like right away people should come out and then, you know, that more empathetic side for people who've really made it their home.

Right. And I I appreciate the question. And I assure the committee and and the folks behind me that I have I did not they've been working on this for four years. This we did not go into this lightly. There is mass confusion between the difference between a tenant and a lease and a innkeeper guest relationship.

House bill 61 clearly defines the difference between that. One is a lease tenant relationship, One is a innkeeper guest relationship with a contract. With a contract that says, you have this room from this date till this date. This, house bill 61 also, gives you have to give prior notice. I think it's twenty four hour notice, that your your contract is is up.

You can either renew it or not renew it. And, but I think house bill 61 explicitly requires a valid written occupancy contract between the innkeeper and the guest. And that contract sets the time period of occupancy. It defines the terms and conditions, and it gives the guest notice of when the stay ends and under what conditions removal may occur. It also gives our lines let me see.

It all well, it all I don't I have to have to find the the exact language, but it gives the, hotel owner, an opportunity to work out payment arrangements with the the guests that's there without penalty. You know, normally, even in a landlord tenant agreement, if you accept a $100 on a thousand dollar rent, and then they paid rent. So you have to start all over. The same thing with the innkeeper bill, but this get this specifically states that they can work, on payments with, these tenants. But from some of the, professionals that I've talked with, you know, most of these are not families that we're dealing with.

These individuals that we're dealing with that that aren't paying their rent. The other argument is that other, agencies, are paying the rent, not the actual tenant, and that there may be some misconception there. But, I would think that it would be up to the hotel owner to work with that paying agent to say, you know, payments we didn't receive payment or payments coming up. So I think house bill 61 addresses that, and the whole idea is not to kick people out of hotels. The the purpose behind this bill, one on the squatter side, is you have people stealing somebody's property.

Common sense tells you you can't walk into somebody's house, change the locks, and claim it as your own, and then wait two years to get your property back. House bill 61 corrects that. You get your property back immediately. And if the owner false testifies that you don't have a right to be in there and you do, then they're convicted of a felony. So I think it's very fair and balanced on the squatter side.

Same thing on the innkeeper hotel side. I mean, a hotel is a temporary living space even though we do have those extended stays. You know, many legislators come up here, and we'll rent a hotel for ninety days. That doesn't make them a tenant in the Georgia Tech Hotel because they stay ninety days, and then they wanna stay another thirty days without paying. Georgia Tech Hotel shouldn't have to go through the eviction process to get somebody out, And that's what's occurring.

And I would say for the majority of these people, these aren't these aren't the people that we work so hard to take care of. These are criminals that know exactly what they're doing for the most part. Not all of them, but for the most part, they know exactly what they're doing. I think House Bill 61 will be some of the strongest squatter legislation in the country. We've had a lot of great people working on this.

It's been a huge problem in Georgia. House Bill ten seventeen really put a dent in squatter, but we found there were still some loopholes that we're closing with this bill. And, I hope that answers your question.

A question from senator Williams.

Thank you. My concern and and I understand the property and squatting, and I agree with that. My concern is some of the families that are living in hotels because they cannot get the first and the last month's rent. They have been evicted before. They are on hard times.

They have small children. This I would hate to see an innkeeper put a family out with small children during this extremely cold weather, and these people have nowhere else to go. This is the something that is in the back of my mind on the innkeepers part of it. Now I I see a different part on a house, by all means. But some of these families with small children because they can't afford anything else.

They're living in hotels. They've been in that hotel for a year. And all of a sudden, they quit getting their SSI checks for some reason. And they get behind and they have small kids and they have nowhere to go, no family, nowhere to go. And those are the people that are helpless, that how do we help them without hurting them?

And that's just coming from my heart.

And I appreciate that comment too because it certainly comes from my heart. I've worked with a number of, nonprofit agencies that help the homeless that help homeless veterans and those kind of things. So don't think that this is, I have to separate this into two separate things. If you have those kind of situations, we have nonprofit charities that can pay that bill and help that.

We don't have that in Baldwin County. I don't have that nonprofit charity. I had phone calls this past weekend.

But there are nonprofits and churches that that could pay that bill.

But they won't. I don't have anybody down there.

So why does that become the hoteler's responsibility to become a charity at that case? That's that's what I'm dealing with. I think most people will do the right thing in those situations, but the law has to address the hotel property owner's rights versus the charitable. I mean, they're they're not a charity. That's not the business that they're in.

I know that they they do work with charitable organizations to house a lot of those. A lot of our homeless folks are are folks that are down on their luck. But that's to me, that's a whole separate issue. I think the law should be clear that the hotel owner has a property right.

I I understand and I agree. You know, I thought the happiest day would of my life was when I bought some rental property. I found out the happiest day of my life was when I sold that rental property. But talk about charity work. What I do for a living, I do a lot of charity work because when people come to me, they will still have the tattoos and the cigarettes and the Mountain Dewes, but they don't they can't pay for a funeral.

They can't do anything for that. I understand that. But it's it's a fine line, and, I guess, maybe this is something we'll have to work through. But I appreciate the bill, and I appreciate the squatting part. I just, when there's small children involved, then I have a problem.

I'm that's why I have an issue.

Senator, I I appreciate that. By the way, I've had those happy days too, and I we're no longer was renting to other people. I appreciate that very much. And I I think that all of us here are very kind and charitable people there. You try to work it out.

I think in your your example is right. If someone comes and you help them with that funeral they couldn't afford, you do it out of the kindness of your heart, but not because we legally tell you you have to host that funeral. And I think that probably is a little bit of a delineation there. We've got several folks in my district to share. We we've had several squatters in houses.

Well, they got the bills for the house. They had to pay for tax to the house, but they couldn't have access to their house. Oh, right. And and they were starting to get foreclosed on the house that they owned, but they couldn't get into. So the victims were actually the other side.

Same is true for a hotel or motel. They were they run on very thin margins as well. So there's victims all around, I guess, is is part of the challenge. Yeah. Senator Robertson.

Yeah. Senator Williams, the morning Teresa wakes up and I don't, I'm a have her reach out to you about mulching me, for charity, if you don't mind. I'm sure there's plenty of people that wanna spread it around. Representative Seba, I appreciate your work on this. And I know you've been working on this for four years, like you've talked about.

Out of out of everybody you've dealt with, how many what percentage, if if you even wanna guess, are the situations that senator Williams is talking about? Are the vast majority, individuals that have moved in there with the intent of paying for a while and then not paying? And I'm talking about the extended stay. I'm not talking about the the squatter side. I'm talking about the hotels where they're coming in there.

Are you finding that the vast majority are moving in there with the intention or or really not caring due to the fact they're gonna take advantage because they're under the impression they would have to go through the normal dispossessory process now. Or you find them where the vast majority of more families and they're, looking for a place to stay that they can afford.

Senator, can I chairman, can I whip? Can I phone a friend?

Sure. Absolutely. If you if you but but I I know you've talked to a lot of them. Yeah. Yeah.

Lisa Andre, is she here? Lisa works with the Gwinnett,

Tourism office.

Tourism office. And she we're she and I were talking about the numbers, of families versus individuals, and taking advantage of

It's what's your what's your last name? I'm sorry.

Hi. My name is Lisa Anders. I'm the COO of Explore Gwinnett, which is the tourism office in Gwinnett County. Thanks for the opportunity to speak, and it's really is a nuanced and complicated issue. And I'm here because my hotels this is the burning issue that they call me about every single solitary week.

And there's different issues. I will say in Gwynedd

Sanders, did you you heard my question though. Correct?

Yeah. I

I I would like to know what the percentage the vast percentage of the individuals you're dealing with. Are we talking about, the example that senator Williams gave where it's a family with small children and all this? Or we find them that's predominantly individuals or couples moving into these places and choosing not to leave?

In my experience, I can give you an anecdotal answer. The vast majority of people that we are currently struggling with are individuals who are systematically abusing the system because they're aware they're able to. Our families typically are either supported we do have some support with nonprofit organizations, and I've got a lot of hotels who, out of their compassion, quite honestly, work with their families because they know they're paycheck to paycheck and they let them pay weekly. The problem, the problem children, as we'll call them, are the ones who know the system doesn't really offer an opportunity for the hotels to force them to leave, and they are primarily male individuals. That's our consistent demographic.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Thank you very much. Okay. Other questions, committee? Alright. Seeing none, what's the role of the committee?

We do pass, senator Payne. Second from senator Robertson. Further discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight.

All those opposed? Mike Sine. Two opposed. Alright. Motion passes.

Best of luck in the Senate Rules Committee, and, I believe senator Still is carrying this bill for you in the senate. Is that correct?

Correct.

Alright. Thank you so much. Alright. Thank you all for being here today. I hope everyone has a wonderful day.

And this meeting is hereby adjourned.