►
Description
House Criminal Justice Committee - March 16, 2022 - House Hearing Room 2
B
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
this
this
afternoon,
I'd
just
like
to
welcome
the
25
for
life
coalition.
That's
with
us
today
in
the
purple
in
the
audience
they
have
traveled
from
all
across
the
state
to
advocate
for
life
with
parole
reform.
Thank
you
guys
for
coming
stand
up
and
let
us
welcome
you.
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
wanted
to
recognize
some
folks
that
I
met
today
in
my
office
and
just
a
real
nice
family.
They
were
all
nice,
so
I'm
not
excluding
anyone,
but
destiny
asked
her
what
her
destiny
was,
and
she
said
to
be
a
nurse
so
she's,
18
and
she's
going
to
be
going
to
school
to
become
a
nurse
so
destiny.
Would
you
stand
up
and
her
two
sisters
are
natasha.
B
A
A
Welcome
sir,
thank
you
for
coming,
and
I
do.
I
also
want
to
introduce
miss
zoe
scott
who's
here
today.
Zoe
is
from
dixon
tennessee,
where
I
live
and
zoe
is
studying
criminal
justice
and
thank
you
and
we
had
a
plan
that
zoe
would
shadow
me
today,
but
I
thought
that
she
would
get
a
whole
lot
more
out
of
shadowing
the
department
of
safety
since
she
was
interested
in
criminal
justice
and
so
she's
she's
kind
of
done
double
duty
today.
So
thank
you
for
being
here
appreciate.
It.
A
The
punxsutawney
phil
jokes
are
coming
out
there.
You
go
members
any
other
personal
orders:
okay,
seeing
none.
Oh
representative,
beck,
you're,
recognized.
B
You
go
that's
right,
yeah,
so
stanley
davis
he's
a
junior
at
fra
here
in
nashville.
A
A
Seeing
no
other
personal
orders,
we
do
have
a
calendar
before
us
today
we
are
going
to
jump
around
just
a
little
bit.
So
if
you
could
just
follow
with
me,
but
we're
going
to
run
to
item
number
10
house
bill
1886
by
representative
gillespie,
sir,
you
have
a
motion
and
a
second.
I
also
see
you
have
an
amendment
coded
one,
four,
eight
one.
Five.
Do
you
wish
to
move
that
amendment,
sir.
F
So
this
amendment
basically
makes
the
bill.
It
would
just
simply
change
well,
it
makes
the
bill.
F
Thank
you
so
much,
mr
chairman
and
committee
again
before
you
with
another
problem
that
I'm
trying
to
address
for
my
community.
We
have
an
increasing
out-of-control
crime
problem
in
the
city
of
memphis
and
surrounding
areas,
and
this
bill
was
brought
to
me
by
multiple
members
of
law
enforcement
and
community
members
and
what
it
would
do
is
if
you
decide
to
evade
the
police
department
or
sheriff's
department
in
a
motor
vehicle,
and
you
happen
to
get
away
from
them,
but
they
later
find
you
and
can
prove
that
you
were
in
the
vehicle.
F
A
G
A
A
C
A
H
And
I
know
we
use
the
vernacular
of
civil
asset
forfeiture
and
criminal
asset
forfeiture,
but
is
it
fair
to
say
that,
under
the
procedures
that
are
in
this
bill
and
in
current
code,
you
have
to
have
a
a
nexus
between
the
criminal
activity
and
the
assets?
In
essence,
the
asset
forfeiture
procedure
that
this
would
follow
is
the
same
once
in
the
code
where
the
state
would
have
to
prove
the
criminality
of
the
item
in
order
for
it
to
be
forfeited.
Is
that
accurate.
A
For
legal
services,
oh
all,
right
members,
that's
it
for
representative
hardaway!
You
recognize.
E
Thank
you
for
counsel,
proving
that
the
nexus
to
criminality
and
etc,
etc.
Does
that
mean
that
there
has
to
be
a
conviction
for
the
forfeiture
to
occur.
E
You
and
leader
were
discussing
the
nexus
between
the
the
criminal
act
and
criminality,
et
cetera,
I'm
seeking
layman's
terms.
Does
that
mean
that
there
has
to
be
a
criminal
conviction
in
order
for
the
forfeiture
process
to
begin
and
actually
occur?.
C
E
A
C
A
non-owner
can
file
a
claim
and
I
believe,
there's
a
process
that
they
have
to
have
a
hearing
and
they
can
present
evidence
that
they
were
unaware
that
the
car
was
being
used
for
that
purpose.
There's
a
whole
process
for
which
someone
who
is
the
owner
of
the
vehicle
to
file
a
claim
against
the
forfeiture,
and
I
hear
there's
a
hearing
process
chairman.
C
A
E
On
the
the
the
procedure
for
the
owner
to
appeal
where
the
department
of
safety
official
presides,
is
there
another
path
that
will
take
the
owner
to
the
courts
for
appeals
of
whatever
the
decision
is
by
the
department
of
safety
officials.
A
J
You,
mr
chairman,
to
the
sponsor
the
way
the
bill
reads:
the
original
violation,
and
then
they
evade
seizure.
J
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
don't
believe
so,
but
I
would
like
to
hear
from
I
I
don't
believe
so.
Doggett.
J
Would
it
be
possible
for
or
we
don't
have
to
do
that
according
to
I'll
defer
to
that
guy
over
there.
H
So,
mr
chairman,
I
I
will
say
that
again,
there
are
two
separate
processes
and
the
example
I've
given
to
this.
In
the
past
there
was
a
a
prominent
individual
from
a
neighboring
county
that
was
prosecuted
in
sumner
county
many
years
ago,
and
they
were
stopped
for
dui
and
the
the
officer
stopped
that
individual,
based
on
crossing
the
fog
line
four
times
and
as
chairman
as
you're
familiar.
There
was
a
time
kind
of
in
in
the
the
case
law
that
that
was
not
sufficient
to
cross
the
fog
line.
H
Four
different
times
now
to
the
officer
when
he
saw
this
guy
weaving
down
the
road
crossing
the
fog
line.
He
stopped
him.
Well,
this,
I
should
say
formerly
prominent
prominent
individual,
had
a
young
lady
with
him
who
was
not
his
wife,
who
had
been
employed
to
be
there
we'll
say
and
had
a
large
amount
of
drugs
that
were
with
him
and
his
case
eventually
was
thrown
out
in
the
criminal
court.
H
His
now
ex-wife
spent
a
significant
amount
of
time
in
the
civil
courts,
exposing
that
type
of
behavior,
and
so
the
the
civil
processes
do
not.
The
exclusionary
rule
does
not
apply
to
a
civil
process,
and
so,
if
someone's
criminal
case
was
thrown
out
because
of
a
bad
stop
violating
the
the
fourth
amendment,
then
the
exclusionary
rule
keeps
that
evidence
from
being
applied
to
their
criminal
case.
H
But
if
the
criminality
of
the
item
could
still
be
proven,
if
it
had
been
utilized
innovating
arrest,
then
I
don't
think
that
bad
stop
would
preclude
the
state
from
being
at
least
pursued
trying
to
prove
the
criminality
of
that
item.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
example
makes
sense
to
anybody
else,
but
it's
always
made
a
lot
of
sense
to
me.
Just
because
something
doesn't
come
into
criminal
court
doesn't
mean
it
can't
go
into
civil
court,
especially
like
a
divorce
proceeding
or
something
of
that
nature.
A
Thank
you
leader,
next
time,
unless
I
have
representative
griffin,
you
recognized.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
I
appreciate
the
discussion
here
and
I
I
would
simply
add
that
there
is
legislation
pending
to
try
to
address
civil
asset
forfeiture
in
tennessee.
K
I
know
a
number
of
members
have
some
consternation
that
the
hearings
and
resolution
on
civil
asset
forfeitures
conducted
by
the
department
of
safety,
hearing
officers
and
so
forth,
and
I
personally
advocated
that
we
ought
to
go
to
our
general
sessions
in
circuit
courts
so
that
there's
an
independent
body
right
to
a
jury,
trial
and
so
forth.
What
the
actual.
K
Confines
of
that
legislation
plays
out,
I
think,
is
up
to
every
member
in
this
body.
But
to
me,
this
bill
is
a
necessary
tool
and
measure
to
try
to
address
folks
that
are
using
conveyances
vehicles
to
engage
in
criminal,
behavior
and
part
of
the
punishment
for
that
egregious
behavior,
which
is
threatening
the
lives
and
safety
of
innocent
tennesseans
should
be
the
possible
forfeiture
of
that
conveyance.
K
If
you
have
an
innocent
bank
holder
or
a
third
party
that
actually
owns
a
vehicle,
there
is
a
process
under
current
law
where
they
can
seek
to
have
the
vehicle
returned
to
them,
and
there
has
to
be
a
knowing
use
of
the
vehicle
by
the
person
for
a
forfeiture
to
take
place.
So
I'm
in
favor
of
your
bill,
and
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you,
everybody
on
the
committee
for
listening
to
this.
My
diatribe.
A
B
F
Gillespie,
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
while
it's
my
understanding
legally,
yes,
that
would
be
correct,
my
understanding
with
talking
to
multiple
law
enforcement
sources
and
other
officials.
In
that
scenario,
I
just
I
don't
see
that
happening.
I
don't
see
once
the
car
has
been
reported
stolen.
I
don't
see
it
going
down
this
path.
I
I
I
would
like
to
believe
that
at
least
my
intent
would
be
for
once
that
information
is
realized,
that
the
vehicle
would
be
returned
to
grandma
or
a
bank.
If
that's
the
case.
A
By
chairman
sexton
is
that
okay,
next
on
my
list,
I
have
representative
campbell,
you
recognized.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
move
previous
question.
Previous
question
has
been
called.
If
there's
any
objection,
no
objection,
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
1886
as
amended
to
finance,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
The
eyes
have
it.
You
had
to
finance.
If
you
wish
to
be
recorded.
As
a
note,
please
please
let
the
kirk
know
all
right.
That
brings
us
back
to
item
number
one
house
bill
2184
by
representative
garrett,
patiently
waiting.
Thank
you,
sir.
A
I
do
you
have
a
motion
in
a
second
sir,
and
it
looks
like
the
amendment
makes
the
bill
it
does.
If
there's
no
objection
from
the
committee
we'd
go
ahead
and
vote
to
get
this
on.
So
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
code
15118
to
house
bill
2184,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed
you
adopt
we're
on
the
bill
as
amended.
So
are
you
recognized?
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
legislation
is.
L
Brought
to
you
by
the
administration,
the
department
of
safety,
it's
an
update
and
adds
clarity
to
our
interlock
program.
That,
I
believe,
is
a
successful
program
in
case
you're,
not
familiar
with
that
program.
If
you
are
convicted
of
a
dui
fence
and
you
have
an
interlock
device,
that's
attached
to
your
car,
you
actually
have
to
blow
into
that
device
before
your
car
will
start
and
the
amount
of
folks
that
actually
have
this
interlock
device
and
actually
prevents
them
from
starting
their
car
and
driving
drunk.
Those
statistics
are
very,
very
high.
L
A
Passage
members
you've
heard
the
explanation
of
the
bill.
I
have
no
questions,
we're
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
2184
as
a
minute
to
gov
ops,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
You
had
to
govops.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
committee.
Thank
you,
sir,
and
we
are
going
to
jump
to
item
number.
A
A
M
A
We
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
amendment
and
does
the
amendment
make
the
bill?
It
does
all
right
members
without
objection.
We're
going
to
vote
to
get
this
on
the
bill,
all
those
in
favor
of
attaching
amendment
coded
13903
to
house
bill
2236,
please
signify
by
saying
aye.
I
was
opposed
you
adopt
we're
on
the
bill
as
a
minute
ma'am.
M
A
M
We
we
meet
along
with
child
counselors
judges,
law
enforcement,
dcs
workers
and
many
others
each
month
and
do
a
deep
dive
in
the
investigations
of
these
specially
chosen
cases.
The
bill
I
bring
today
is
a
result
of
some
issues
and
roadblocks
we
found
that
have
resulted
in
legislation
that
will
help
the
department
of
children,
services
and
commission
on
children
and
youth
to
do
their
job
and
protect
severely
abused
children.
M
So
this
bill
is
the
trauma
of
children
who
witness
abuse
or
neglect
are
in
traumatic
situations.
The
children
do
not
have
to
be
the
alleged
victims.
The
bill
changes
the
definition
of
child
abuse
for
the
purposes
of
dependency
and
neglect
proceedings,
so
no
one
either
the
victim
or
the
perpetrator
of
domestic
violence
abuse
would
be
charged
with
a
crime.
Under
this
new
definition,
however,
dcs
could
act
to
protect
the
child
based
on
the
founding
of
child
abuse.
Under
the
definition,
if
enacted
so
we're
changing
trauma
to,
if
a
child
witnesses
trauma
to
child
abuse,.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Just
briefly,
I
I
signed
on
to
co-sponsor
this
bill.
We're
we're
not
charging
individuals,
the
criminal
offense
for
a
child
that
witnesses
abuse,
but,
in
my
experience
as
a
prosecutor
and
I'm
sure
leader
lamberth
has
abuse,
is
a
learned
behavior
and
for
anybody
any
child
to
have
to
sit
there
and
watch
a
spouse,
abuse,
another
spouse
or
so
forth.
That
is
feeding
into
the
continued
cycle
of
abuse
in
our
family
and
our
families
in
tennessee,
and
this
is
a
good
measure
to
try
to
address
it.
A
Thank
you,
representative
griffey,
any
other
questions
for
the
sponsor
chairman
hulsey.
You
recognized.
Okay,
I'm.
G
A
Chairman
holsey,
any
follow-up:
no
okay,
representative
griffey,
you
recognized.
K
Thank
you,
mr
briefly
again,
and
this
is
not
a
subject
of
a
criminal
charge.
This
is
for
the
juvenile
court
judge
or
the
chancellor
to
make
a
determination
whether
there
is
abuse
going
on
in
the
household
such
that
the
state
should
act
to
protect
that
child
from
the
continuing
abuse
that's
going
on
against
another
person,
so
I
I
think
it's
a
smart
bill.
Thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
representative
griffey.
I
do
have
a
question.
We
haven't
had
a
chance
to
talk
about
this,
but
in
b
you
you
begin
with
which
I
think
is
the
new
piece
that
you're
adding,
I
think
a
is
existing
law.
It
says
when
the
subject
child
witnesses
abuse
of
another
child.
I
think
we
all
know
what
you're
getting
at
but
does
do
you
who
does
subject
child
refer
to
legally
in
this.
Do
you.
M
G
Chairman
holsey,
thank
you.
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
a
child
who
observes
his
mom
and
dad
screaming
at
each
other
we're
not
going
to
categorize
that
as
child
abuse,
because
the
child
viewed
that
you're
saying
that
they're
that
the
abuse
that
the
parental
domestic
violence
would
be
such
that
they
could
be
arrested
for
it
criminally,
and
if
the
child
observes
that,
then
this
is
child
abuse.
Is
that
what
we're
saying
I
just
don't
want
to
go
down
too
far
down
the
road
here.
K
K
So,
let's,
let's
take
the
situation
where
there's
abuse
against
one
child
and
there's
a
sibling,
and
that
sibling
is
watching
the
abuse
of
going
on
to
that
child.
Technically
dcs
will
not
be
able
to
take
action
against
the
child,
that's
not
necessarily
being
the
focus
of
the
abuse,
because
that
child
is
not
being
abused.
It's
the
the
brother
or
sister,
but
this
the
brother,
this
other
child.
That's
sitting
there
watching
this
he's
having
to
sit
there
and
watch
us
and
endure
this
trauma.
K
K
Now,
if
there
is
a
criminal
abuse
of
a
spouse
against
another
spouse
or
spouse
against
a
child
that
is
completely
separate
from
what
dcs
is
doing,
to
try
to
protect
a
child
that
is
trying
to
sit
there
and
watch
this
abuse
go
on,
and
without
this
amendment
to
the
law,
the
judge
really
is
not
going
to
have
jurisdiction
to
try
to
protect
child
a
who
is
sitting
there
watching
all
this
abuse
and
trauma
go
on.
If
that
makes
sense,.
A
Thank
you,
representative
griffey,
and
I
think
also
to
your
question
chairman
holy
cause.
I
wanted
to
make
sure
we
got
this
right
as
well.
Just
the
example
you
gave
of
mom
and
dad
shouting
at
each
other.
You
know
married
couples,
get
an
argument.
I
hear
they
get
in
arguments.
It's
never
happened
at
my
house,
but
I
always
just
lose,
but
so
in
b,
what
the
chair
lady
has
done
is
she
says:
witness
domestic
abuse
as
defined
in
363
601.
A
M
A
A
Okay,
representative
hardaway
have
a
question
for
legal
services.
Yes,
sir
okay
you're
right
now,
sir.
E
All
of
the
definition
used
physical
in
the
description
is
emotional
or
mental.
Psychological
trauma
is
any
of
that
classified
anywhere
in
statute
as
criminal
beliefs.
C
Under
current
law
in
what
is
subdivision,
1a
of
the
bill,
which
is
current
law
abuse,
can
include
physical
or
mental,
sustaining
wound,
injury,
disability
or
physical
or
mental
condition
caused
by
brutality,
neglect
or
other
actions
or
inactions
of
a
parent.
E
And
that
would
be
a
criminal
definition,
but
under
this
bill
there
could
be
no
prosecution
for
that,
though,
it
could
be
used
for
the
administrative
move
of
of
putting
the
child
under
state
supervision.
That's
what
I'm
hearing.
E
So
under
this
bill,
would
there
be
an
opportunity
for
the
abuser
of
the
we're
going
to
call
child
a
the
one,
that's
being
directly
abused
shall
be
the
one
being
mentally
emotionally
abused.
Would
that
be
an
opportunity
for
child
b
for
there
to
be
criminal
charges,
brought
about
for
being
forced
to
to
watch
and
be
subjected
to
the
pain,
the
trauma
of
watching
child
a
being
abused?
E
A
C
A
N
M
But
the
intent
of
this
bill
is
to
make
sure
that
all
the
children
that
the
families
get
treatment,
even
if
it
is
domestic
violence,
if
they
get
treatment
for
that
with
parenting
classes
and
some
therapy
great.
A
A
O
Thank
you,
sir,
and
this
expands
the
offense
of
assault
and
aggravated
assault
against
a
first
responder
or
nurse
to
include
offenses
against
health
care
facility
security
guard
officers
who
are
discharging
or
attempting
to
discharge
their
official
duties.
That's
all
it
does
expands
that
adds
these
folks
that
are
the
absolute
first
responders
in
those
situations.
G
There's
three
bills
like
this,
and
so
I
am
going
to
argue
this
with
yours
and
two
others,
but
I'm
just
going
to
argue
it
one
time
and
then
I'll
shut
up
these
bills
trouble
me
because
we've
been
doing
this,
we
started
off
with
police
and
enhancing
the
penalty.
If
you
fight
with
police
and
then
we
enhanced
it
to
emergency
responders
and
then
we
enhanced
it
to
nurses
and
now
you're
a
security
guard,
and
you
got
two
more
bills
in
here.
G
That's
to
include
teachers
and
my
issue
is
this
justice
and
that's
what
we
we're
supposed
to
be
dealing
with
criminal
justice
in
every
courtroom.
There's
a
lady
with
a
blindfold
over
her
eyes
and
she's
got
a
set
of
scales
and
it
scales
for
justice
and
what
makes
justice
righteous
and
pure
is
that
it's
equal.
G
G
G
If
we
enact
this
law
when
he
punches
the
doctor
in
the
jaw,
he
gets
an
increased
sentence
of
30
days,
minimum
in
jail
that
he
has
to
serve
in
a
5
000,
fine.
So
what
we've
said
by
law?
We
have
made
law.
That
said,
the
doctor's
jaw
is
worth
more
than
the
custodian's
jaw,
it's
worth
5,
000
more
dollars
and
it's
worth
30
more
days
in
jail.
G
Those
kinds
of
things
trouble
me
because
by
law
we
are
saying
some
people
are
more
important
than
other
people,
and
that's
not
what
justice
is
supposed
to
be.
Justice
has
got
a
blindfold.
It
says
everybody
that
comes
in
this
system
gets
the
same
level
playing
field
everybody's
equal
under
the
law.
I've
said
for
a
long
time.
Law
gets
its
righteousness
from
its
equity
because
we
apply
it
to
everybody.
Equally,
I
have
real
problems
with
this
and
I
understand
what
you're
doing
I
really
do.
I
just
have
real
problems.
G
It
would
be
more
just
to
me
and
more
righteous
and
more
constitutional
if
we
just
said
anybody
who
gets
assaulted
in
a
medical
facility.
This
is
what
you
get
that
way.
Everybody
in
the
medical
facility
has
equal
standing
under
the
law
or
you
want
teachers
in
there.
Then
I
think
representative
reed
you've
got
one
coming
up,
then
anybody
who
assaults
somebody
in
an
educational
facility-
this
is
what
you
get
you
get
this
enhanced
penalty.
That
way.
G
Everybody
in
the
facility
is
equal
and
we're
equal
under
law,
and-
and
I
would
much
drew
it
to
do
it-
that
way
than
to
separate
people
and
say
one
person
is
more
important
than
another
person,
particularly
under
law.
So
that's
my
objection.
You're,
my
friend
there's
two
more
bills,
just
like
it
coming
up.
So
I
just
argued
this
one
time,
but
then
here
I
am.
O
I
feel
honored
that
I
got
the
brunt
for
everybody.
I
appreciate
that
sir,
and
I
don't
disagree
with
you
from
the
standpoint
of
righteousness
and
justice.
What
we
have
is
a
law.
That's
been
piecemealed
together,
as
you
know,
and
I'm
just
dealing
with
the
situation
at
hand.
I
would
certainly
accept
what
you
just
said
as
a
friendly
amendment.
If
we
wanted
to
go
that
route,
I'm
sure
the
fiscal
note
will
change
considerably,
but
I
would
not
be
opposed
to
that
to
including
anyone
in
a
medical
facility
to
be
covered.
O
I
just
know
that
these
folks,
some
of
which
are
my
friends
and
yours,
are
the
very
first
ones
that
have
to
show
up
at
the
scene
when
something's
going
on
inside
that
medical
facility.
So
I
would
think
anyone
that
needs.
You
know
the
the
enhanced
protection
there
and
enhanced
punishment.
They
would
be
deserving
of
that.
K
K
So
I
I
again,
your
your
arguments
are
not
without
merit
and
consideration,
but
to
me
the
the
thing
that
tips,
the
scales
is
it's
persons
in
our
community,
her
undertaking
a
task
that
the
community
has
asked
them
to
take
on
and
they
deserve
special
recognition
and
privilege
so
that,
if
someone
is,
does
an
offense
against
them,
it's
not
just
an
offense
against
the
person.
It's
an
offense
against
all
of
us
and
the
it's
an
offense
against
the
function
and
duty.
K
We've
asked
them
to
undertake
so
and
that's
that's
why
I
respectfully
would
argue
and
plead
with
you
to
consider
and
and
that's
why
I'm
going
to
be
supporting
this
bill.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
to
my
good
friend
down
there
you're.
I
love
your
analysis
and
your
thinking
as
always
on
so
many
bills,
and
that's
my
honor
and
privilege
to
serve
with
you.
O
A
A
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
and
committee.
I
guess
I
should
have
been
standing
up
here
in
the
well
with
chairman
todd
and
getting
part
of
that
that
lashing
out,
but
I
I
respect
you
chairman
holsey
on
that
information
and,
of
course,
in
this,
of
course,
current
law
39-13-116
already
covers
its
first
responders
and
nurses,
and-
and
yes,
it's
I'm,
I'm
here
to
support
our
teachers
in
the
classroom
that
these
teachers
share
the
same
building
with
nurses
as
well
and
thinking
they
should
be
just
as
well
protected.
Mr
chairman,.
A
J
J
J
Yes,
sir,
thank
you.
Sorry
about
that
students
have
the
individualized
educational
program
or
pla.
Iep
plan
would
not
be
affected
by
this
legislation.
I
do
know
that
other
members
have
their
thoughts
on
how
this
same
thing
can
be
achieved,
and
so,
if
this
amendment
is
open
to
discussion,
I.
A
A
Thank
you,
chairman
doggett.
I
do
have
leader
lamberth,
which
should
be
recognized
on
the
amendment
you're
recognized
thank.
H
Mr
chairman
and
chairman
dogadab,
I
like,
where
you're
headed
with
this,
but
the
iep
distinction
is
relatively
broad.
My
humble
opinion
I
mean
to
just
have
a
complete
carve
out
for
anybody
that
has
an
iep
could
potentially,
and
I
don't
think
this
is
your
intention,
but
I
think,
could
potentially
create
a
defense
there
for
someone
who
has
intentionally
attacked
a
teacher,
and
I
would
hate
to
see
that
happen
now.
H
I
I
noticed
in
the
bill
as
currently
drafted
that,
like
many
of
these
other
enhancements,
it
deals
with,
I
mean
assault,
is
either
intentionally
knowingly
or
recklessly,
and
I
I
think-
and
please
let
me
know
if
this
is
your
intent-
that
the
goal
here
is
to
make
sure
that
a
child
who
is
disabled
that
is
not
able
to
form
the
intent
to
assault.
Someone
would
never
be
prosecuted
under
this,
and
I
know
the
sponsor
of
the
bill
would
never
want
that
either.
H
A
J
You
and,
and
my
intent
with
this
amendment
is
something
that
I
I
really
thought
that
was
covered
last
week
and
with
the
sponsors
intent
on
the
bill
is
to
not
go
after
these
children
that
have
ieps
or
a
part
of
504
plans
that
are
in
the
schools.
I
I've
worked
in
the
schools
for
two
years
in
public
public
education
and
and
observed
a
lot
of
things,
and
so
I
know
that
every
there
are
students
that
have
individual
needs.
J
There
are
students
that
have
special
abilities
and
talents
that
we
would
want
to
make
sure
that
they
are
not
singled
out
and-
and
I
think
that
the
the
sponsor's
original
the
statement
he
made
last
week
in
the
committee
was
that
we
were
not
going
after
students
that
fit
within
these
criteria.
J
This
amendment
was
was
brought
to
me
and
asked
to
to
be
carried
to
further
spell
that
out,
and
so
it's
you
know
I'll
refer
to
the
to
the
sponsor
for
his
thoughts
on
on
this,
if
needed.
Vice.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
and
that's
absolutely
correct,
under
under
the
current
law.
There
still
has
to
be
the
intent
for
the
first
responder
or
the
nurse
for
an
action
to
be
taken
place
in
a
court
of
law,
and
so
it
would
be
the
same
thing
with
let's
go
outside
of
the
iep
idea,
and
just
just
a
student
having
a
coming
around
the
corner
crashing
into
a
teacher
was
their
intent
to
hurt
the
teacher
at
that
time.
No,
no.
B
There
was
not,
and
it's
the
same
thing,
and
I
appreciate
your
heart
for
the
the
iep
the
the
special
needs,
students
and
actually
my
wife,
and
I
we've
done
respite
care
for
for
these
young
individuals
as
well,
and
it's
interesting
that
the
non-verbals
unintentionally
things
happen,
and
so
I
appreciate
the
intent,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
need
to
amend
especially
this
part
of
the
law
with
this
amendment.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
H
Recognized,
mr
chairman,
this
is
a
great
back
and
forth
and
I
I
think
we
have
plenty
of
time
left
in
session
to
be
able
to
work
on
this
before
we
vote
on
this
particular
amendment.
It
sounds
like
there's
not
a
lot
of
daylight
between
the
the
two
gentlemen
here
that
are
debating
this.
Would
it
be
possible-
or
actually
I
will
tender
a
motion
here
to
roll
this
bill
one
week
so
that
we
can
potentially
look
at
some
additional
amendments
that
might
be
able
to
accomplish
this
without
being
so
broad.
A
A
A
H
Mr
chairman,
the
chairman
has
a
wonderful
bill
here
and
I
don't
want
to
delay
him
in
any
way.
That's
being
debated,
but
chairman.
There
was
a
a
very
good
speech
made
and
a
very
good
point
brought
up,
but
one
of
our
members
earlier
and
on
a
bill
of
this
nature
and
you
weren't
here
for
it
and
mr
chairman,
I
wanted
to
give
chairman
jose
an
opportunity
if
he
wanted
to
to
expound
on
his
earlier
tune.
B
M
H
Chairman
vaughn
wasn't
here
for
it,
and
it
was
a
very,
very
good
and
detailed
explanation
of
kind
of
these
issues
he
may
have
it
written
down
now.
Chairman
vaughn
mayer
may
not
want
to
hear
it
if
he
doesn't.
I
totally
respect
that
and
mr
chairman,
I
will
draw
this
idea,
but
it
was
a
really
good
speech.
So
just
something
for
thought.
A
L
Chairman
what
this
bill
is
in
response
to
is
much
like
nashville
experienced
a
tragedy
on
christmas
day.
A
few
years
back,
collierville
also
experienced
tragedy.
On
september
23rd,
we
had
a
mass
shooting,
which
you
know
whenever
you
hear
an
active
shooter
call.
You
know
your,
they
say
your
wife
calls
you
and
says:
hey
don't
go
to
kroger,
because
there's
an
active
shooter
and
you
hang
up
you
go
wait.
Did
she
call
me
from
kroger
or
what
and
you
go?
L
And
you
see
all
these
response
teams
coming
in
everywhere,
no
telling
how
many
police
cars
suspensions
were
broken
coming
across
railroad
tracks.
We
received
shared
support
from
shelby
county
memphis
everywhere
anyway.
What
was
really
difficult
about?
This
is
about
three
months.
Before
that
we
had
officers.
We
had
two
great
female
officers
trying
to
stop
somebody
and
they
got
drug
under
the
car
they
had.
They
went
and
then,
when
we
had
suspects
present
in
the
emergency
room
because
they
had
injuries
to
the
suspects,
they
got
physical
with
nurses
in
the
emergency
room.
L
L
So
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
is
is
we're
just
wanting
to
provide
a
little
more
disincentive
to
those
who
want
to
do
evil
on
the
people.
Who
are
there
to
do
good,
that's
about
the
best
way.
I
have
to
say
it,
and
so
I
understand
hey,
I'm
a
big
boy.
I
understand
this
physical
note,
it's
something
that
we
feel
strongly
about
my
senate
sponsor
and
I
do
because,
whenever
you
have
have
basically,
your
community
has
been
violated
like
that
you
get
a
little
bit
upset
you
get
a
little
bit
frustrated.
L
A
Thank
you,
chairman
vaughn,
and
we
appreciate
that
explanation
of
the
bill.
I
I
will
go
ahead
and
point
out.
I'm
sure
you
know
this,
but
in
case
you
don't.
There
are
three
other
bills
traveling
through
the
system
that
I
imagine
will
have
similar
support
and
all
of
them
will
have
fiscal
notes,
but
you
all
are
attempting
to
get
at
the
same
thing.
So
I,
but
unfortunately,
right
now
all
four
of
these
bills.
Yours
included,
conflict
with
one
another.
They
don't
really
work
that
well
together.
A
So
I
would
just
encourage
you,
assuming
you're,
successful,
passing
out
of
this
chamber
or
out
of
this
committee,
and
then,
when
you
get
behind
the
budget,
you
may
want
to
get
together
with
those
other
bill
sponsors,
because
I
think
there's
a
way
to
make
these
all
work
well
together.
So
I
just
wanted
to
suggest
that
to
you
and
if
you're
not
aware
of
those
bills,
we
can
we
can
get
that
information
to
your
office.
Thank.
L
You,
sir
I'll
work
with
your
office
to
get
that
done.
I
don't
believe
that
we
have
a
license
on
good
ideas,
so
we
will
absolutely
talk
to
those
other
sponsors
and
see
how
we
can
put
those
things
together.
A
B
Chairman
vaughn,
first
of
all,
thank
you
for
this.
I
concur
with
leader
lambert.
This
is
a
fantastic
bill,
but
I
also
want
to
thank
you
for
helping
legislators
not
commit
malpractice
when
they're
in
front
of
your
committee
and
you're
just
a
great
man
and
a
great
human.
Thank
you
so
much
thank.
A
O
O
Last
week
I
told
you
the
story
about
the
little
girl
back
home
that
realized
that
she
had
had
one
place
in
her
vehicle.
She
had
to
go.
She
had
to
move
just
because
of
that.
She
felt
like
that
she
potentially
could
get
trafficked
and
and
anyhow
when
I
got
to
looking
into
it
working
with
a
da's
conference,
we
spent
about
five
to
six
weeks
working
on
this
with
zoe.
O
The
the
efforts
were
to
make
sure
that
we
didn't
prohibit
parents
from
being
able
to
follow
their
children,
make
sure
they
knew
where
their
children
were,
or
even
a
elderly
parent
that
may
have
alzheimer's
or
anything
like
that,
but
guardianships
and
things
like
that.
We
just
want
to
make
sure
we
didn't
go
too
far
there.
But
I
love
that.
Look
there,
chairman
doggett
with
that
I'll,
take
his
question.
A
J
Does
it
address
anything
if
you
wanted
to
maybe
keep
tabs
on
your
spouse
to
make
sure
that
you
know
where
they're
at?
J
I
know
that
on
my
my
phone
has
got
that
the
my
iphone
where's
my
phone,
but
I
can
also
link
up
to
her
so
while
she's
at
work,
she
does
home
health
type
services
and
sometimes
she
won't
have
cell
service
and
will
be
in
different
counties,
and
so
I
can
kind
of
ping
that
and
see
where,
where
she's
located
just
for
safety
purposes,
I
guess
you
could
say,
but
would
this
have
any
effect
on
being
able
to
do
that.
O
Jeremy
curcio,
yes,
sir,
you
recognized
thank
you.
Section
b
of
this
notwithstanding
subdivision.
A1A
includes
one
instance
of
placing
an
electronic
tracking
device
without
the
consent
of
a
person
on
the
person
or
in
the
person's
property.
I
believe
your
wife
would
have
to
go
ahead
and
allow
that
app
to
be
able
to
for
you
to
track
her
on
her
phone.
So
I
think
she
would
have
to
give
you
consent
in
order
to
follow
her.
In
that
instance,.
A
Sir
members,
chairman
russell,
you
recognized.
O
Chairman
thank
you
for
that.
I
do
not
know
what
that
I
don't
know.
If
you
have
to
have
a
certified
letter,
saying
that
you
can
see
it
to
put
that
on
there
or
not.
I
don't
think
that's
the
way
it
works
in
in
other
instances,
but
I
can't
answer
that
with
the
specificity.
I
I
A
A
A
Second,
on
the
amendment,
you
have
a
motion
and
a
second
and
the
amendment
makes
the
bill.
Does
it
not?
Yes,.
A
J
G
Yes,
chairman,
I
don't
even
know
what
this
substance
is.
Can
you
just
explain
that
and
then
all
we've
done.
J
I'll
be
glad
to
thank
you
for
that
question
tie
in
it
team,
and
I
may
not
be
saying
the
word
correctly,
but
it
has
a
street
name
or
label
name
is
zaza
red,
the
other,
the
other
sponsor
of
this
bill.
Representative
cochran
and
I
have
worked
on
this.
What
we're
seeing
is
in
our
areas.
We
live
in
border
counties,
or
at
least-
and
I
know
I
do
it's-
it's
scheduled
too
in
the
state
of
alabama.
J
It's
currently
in
in
stores
here
in
tennessee,
we
have
people
that
are
coming
from
out
of
state
to
come
in
they're
burglarizing
convenience
stores,
they're
being
caught
with
this
or
being
arrested,
maybe
for
driving
under
the
influence
of
this
stuff.
I've
also
had
a
physician
tell
me
that
that's
here
in
nashville
that
one
of
the
worst
cases
of
detox
that
they've
ever
seen
was
or
withdrawals
was
from
a
person
who
was
on
this
drug
that
you
could
go
in
and
buy
in
a
convenience
store.
J
One
of
the
local
police
chiefs
that
I
have
in
a
in
my
district
was
telling
me
a
story
about
a
gentleman
from
south
alabama
who
had
vacationed
in
our
great
state
up
in
the
eastern
part
of
our
state
and
had
discovered
this
drug
in
a
convenience
store
on
his
way
back
home.
He
took
the
drug.
His
wife
had
no
idea
that
he
had
already
become
addicted
to
it.
J
He
was
making
multiple
trips
a
week
into
tennessee
to
purchase
this
drug
at
convenience
stores
in
my
district,
when
he
ran
out
of
money
and
means
to
get
there,
he
stole
a
vehicle
and
drove
to
tennessee
and
burglarized
the
store
they
caught
him
and
and
he
sit
in
jail
and
that's
where
his
wife
found
out
that
he
had
an
issue,
and
so
we
are
seeking
to
remedy
this
and
make
it
punishable
by
hey
misdemeanor.
E
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
chairman
doggett,
looking
at
the
language
substantially
chemically
equivalent
does
that
taken
in
all
of
the
tricks
and
the
gimmicks
where
they're
trying
to
change
just
one
or
two
chemicals
and
a
molecule
or
so
off,
so
this
catches
all
of
those
variants.
E
J
Sir,
that
is
our
intent
that
if
there
is
any
kind
of
tweaking
that
goes
on
there
to
the
chemical
makeup
that
it
would,
it
would
still
fall
as
as
long
as
it's
sometimes
you
can
alter
substances
and
it
creates
an
entire
new
substance,
but
that
our
intent
is
to
do
what
you've
asked.
Yes,
sir.
Okay,
all
right.
Thank
you.
A
You,
sir
and
members
I
apologize,
I
got
a
little
a
little
bit
of
a
hurry
earlier.
We
do
have
two
folks
on
the
list
to
testify
on
this
bill.
So
with
that
objection,
we're
going
to
go
out
of
session
and
the
first
on
our
list
is
dr
steven,
lloyd,
the
chief
medical
officer
at
cedar
recovery
not
available.
So
next
on
our
list,
we
have
mr
patrick
powell,
the
policy
director
for
the
tennessee
bureau
of
investigations.
P
Thank
you,
chairman
patrick
powell
policy,
director
for
the
tennessee
bureau
of
investigation.
We
are
supportive
of
chairman
doggett
and
representative
cochran's
bill.
T
neptein
is
a
drug
that
has
been
as
he
put
it
kind
of
coming
on
to
play
in
our
southern
counties
after
alabama
made
it
to
schedule
two.
P
It's
scheduled
to
also,
I
believe,
in
michigan
and
minnesota.
Italy
has
made
it
a
schedule,
one
it
is
highly
addictive.
Dr
lloyd
is
also
supportive.
He
has
been
treating
people
for
substance,
withdrawals
to
the
level
where
he
thought
he
was
treating
people
for
heroin
withdrawals
and
they
were
only
on
t
neptune.
P
It
is
severely
addictive
to
go
back
to
chairman
russell's
question.
Fda
has
not
approved
it
for
any
use,
so
it
is
significantly
dangerous
and
we
would
support
making
it
a
schedule.
Two.
A
D
You,
mr
chairman,
just
reiteration
of
what
mr
palace
said.
We
had
a
budget
hearing
yesterday
discussing
the
the
effects
of
of
some
of
these
harmful
drugs
and
and
creating
gateway
drugs
for
other
situations.
This
this
drug
is
much
more
serious.
Many
folks
may
re
remember
the
the
bath
salts
scourge
that
we
dealt
with
several
years
ago.
This
is
very
similar
to
that
and
to
the
point
of
of
one
of
my
other
colleagues
that
were
was
talking
about
some
of
the
analogs
of
these
products
that
are
out
there.
D
Now
we're
continually
like
a
dog
chasing
this
tail
as
we're
looking
at
some
of
these
analogs
they're
changing
a
molecule
here,
changing
a
molecule
there,
we're
dealing
with
with
delta,
eights
and
delta
tens,
where
the
the
th,
the
thc
content,
is
substantially
higher
than
anything
we
ever
anticipated
I'll
go
back.
I
was
the
original
sponsor
the
legislation
in
2017-18.
D
It
was
initially
had
kratom
in
as
a
schedule,
2
drug,
and
it
got
pulled
out
for
really
bad
reasons.
So
I'm
glad
to
see
this
back
in
there.
In
addition
to
some
of
these
salts
that
people
are
buying
over
the
counter
thinking,
they're
they're
medically
necessary,
but
again,
there's
nothing
medically
necessary
about
these
drugs.
It's
just
a
bad
way
to
get
a
bad
high,
that's
causing
addictions
in
many
many
ways.
So
thank
you
thank
the
sponsor
for
bringing
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
A
Thank
you,
chairman
hawk.
Next
on
my
list
I
have
chairman
halsey
chairman
holzer
you're,
recognized.
G
P
Mr
powell
you're
recognized
I
apologize
chairman.
My
understanding
is
that
this
is
being
taken
in
pill
form
primarily
whether
or
not
it's
being
you
know,
cracked,
open
and
then
melted
or
injected
or
smoked.
I
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
think
primarily
just
pill
form.
P
I
would
have
to
go
into
the
the
fda
kind
of
language.
I
think
it's
being
marketed
as
an
antidepressant.
In
certain
circumstances,
I
think
it's
attaching
to
the
receptors
in
the
brain
similar
to
opioids,
though
creating
similar
kind
of
withdrawal
effects.
That
again,
as
I
mentioned
with
dr
lloyd's
treatment
of
some
of
his
patients,
that
it's,
he
thought
they
were
heroin
withdrawals.
So
those
kind
of
effects
on
the
brain.
A
P
Powell
you're
recognized
and
represented
griffey.
I
think
you
brought
up
that
kind
of
issue
previously
and
I
I
think
I
may
have
even
provided
you
a
brief
article
from
the
fda
saying
that
it
isn't
approved
for
any
purposes,
but
as
far
as
their
crackdown
I
mean
there
are
a
number
of
substances
out
there
that
are
not
approved
for
any
fda
use
that
are
still
not
made
illegal.
So
it's
one
of
those
they
may
be
in
the
process
now
and
of
course,
states
are
acting.
You've
got
minnesota,
michigan
alabama
and
hopefully
tennessee.
P
A
Your
testimony
members
we'll
go
back
into
session,
we're
back
into
session
and
chairman
doug.
Can
you
address
where?
Because
I've
heard
of
I've
heard
of
the
the
second
substance
in
the
bill,
but
I've
not
heard
of
the
first.
You
said
this
available
just
at
market
just
gas
stations
that
sort
of
thing.
J
I
J
Chairman
doggett,
I
cannot
answer
that.
I
would,
I
can't
tell
you
affirmative
answer
on
that.
To
be
honest
with
you,
if
a
lot
of
these
you
know
you
see
the
the
the
weight,
loss
and
diet
pills
that
are
being
that
are
stimulants
that
are
being
sold
in
the
stores
as
weight,
loss
and
diet,
pills
and
other
different
types
of
supplements
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
them
that
you
can
purchase
so
they
they
may
be
18.
It
may
be
21,
but
I
can't
give
you
a
definition
on
that.
I
J
A
Questions
been
called
on
the
bill
without
objection,
we
are
ready
to
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
sending
house
bill
2043
as
amended
to
finance
police
signify.
By
saying
I,
those
opposed,
sir,
you
had
to
finance.
Thank
you
very
much
members.
That
brings
us
to
item
number.
Two
item
number
two
being
carried
by
vice
chairman
ogles.
It's
house
bill,
2270,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
thank.
N
You
chairman
members
of
the
committee,
this
this
special
legislation.
A
Yes,
sir,
there
we
there's
no
amendment
that
we
need
to
put
on.
I
believe
it
was
put
on
an
ag.
Okay,.
N
Thank
you,
chairman
members,
this
bill
simply
co-mingles
bui
and
dui
together,
one
in
the
water
one
on
land,
so
for
sentencing
it
just
brings
it
over.
This
body
did
great
work
with
this
the
last
couple
years
in
enhancing
and
creating
the
bui.
This
simply
for
the
sake
of
sentencing
and
enhancement.
If
you
get
one
in
the
water,
it's
going
to
count
against
you
on
land
as
well,
and
vice
versa,
and
to
representative
holzey's
question
with
the
sentencing.
In
the
background
check
the
offenses
will
pop
up.
N
I
didn't
think
when
I
asked
the
question
I
didn't
think
we
had
to
do
anything
else
as
far
as
having
somebody
send
something
over.
So
I
hope
that
explanation
suits
your
previous
question.
Thank
you,
chairman.
A
N
I
N
My
understanding
was
drafting
the
legislation
that
it
would
affect
both
I
mean
it,
we're
simply
we're
simply
stating
that
if
you
have
one
in
the
water
or
one
in
the
land,
it's
it's
being
counted
as
a
previous
right
now,
if
you
have
a
bui
and
then
you
have
a
dui
when
you
get
that
third
offense
on
land,
for
instance,
it'll
only
show
up
as
having
one
previous
offense
and
not
to.
A
On
my
list
I
have
representative
griffey
you're
recognized.
K
G
Third
offense
dui:
I
understand
that
you,
you
lose
your
driver's
license
for
a
year.
I
believe,
but
of
course,
if
you're
just
driving
the
boat
and
you
get
arrested
three
times
for
driving
the
boat,
there's
no
license
to
lose.
N
You
chairman,
I'm,
is
that
a
statement
or
a
question.
G
I
think
twra
can
pull
your
the
the
license
that
allows
you
to
have
a
boat
in
the
water.
It's
not
a
license
that
allows
you
to
operate
the
boat,
but
the
whatever
that
little
sticker
is.
I
think
they
can
pull
that.
If
I
recall
talking
to
twi,
I
think
they
can
pull
that
license
or
registration,
but,
of
course
that
causes
other
problems.
I'm
just
thinking
out
loud
about
a
wife
who
would
like
to
go
down
and
drive
her
own
boat
and.
G
A
Thank
you,
chairman
holsey,
vice
chairman
ogle's.
Any
response
to
that.
A
Seeing
none
others,
we
are
ready
to
vote.
Oh
leader,
lamberth,
you're,
recognized
service
chairman.
H
I
started
to
belabor
the
point
here,
but
it
it's
it's
the
voting
privileges
that
are
suspended
under
the
bui,
and
this
would
change
it.
Where
exactly
what
representative
holzey
said,
I
mean,
regardless
of
what
type
of
vehicle
you
are
operating.
If
you
were
to
then
get
a
dui
on
the
roadway,
you
obviously
have
a
history
of
very
dangerous
behavior
and
it
would
then
enhance
that
dui
and
I
think
it's
a
wonderful
idea.
H
Somebody
that's
doing
that,
but
this
deals
with
the
driver's
license
when
somebody
has
been
convicted
of
those
voting
in
their
influences
and
that's
easy
to
prove
you
pull
the
criminal
history,
they're
able
to
go
and
get
those
judgments,
and
then
that's
like
anything
else.
So
I
am
glad
that
you
didn't
go
down
the
road
to
try
to
say
if
you
get
a
bui,
it
takes
your
driver's
license
everything
else.
H
I
mean
that's
a
much
harder
thing
to
try
to
navigate
just
making
sure
that
these
count
for
purpose
of
enhancement
to
me
seems
like
a
good
idea,
and
I
did
want
to
ask
one
question
on
this:
to
make
sure
it's
in
the
bill.
Would
these
buis
just
like
duis
are
now?
Would
they
enhance
a
vehicular
assault
or
a
vehicle
or
homicide
up
to
an
aggravated
vehicular
assault
or
aggravated
vehicular
homicide?
H
If
the
sponsor
knows
to
answer
that
question
or
we
can
go
to
legal,
I
just
I
want
to
make
sure,
because
we've
had
some
pretty
deadly
issues
in
summer
county,
where
you
get
someone
that's
out
on
the
lake
and
they're
busted
several
times
promoting
the
influence
and
then
all
of
a
sudden
they
get
in
a
car
crash
and
kill
somebody.
I
I
just
think
it
should
be
taken
into
account
for
that
type
of
behavior.
Vice
chairman
ogles.
H
H
A
I
just
wanted
to
clarify,
because
maybe
I
got
a
little
wrapped
around
the
axle,
but
we're
talking
about
boating
privileges
being
able
to
operate
your
boat.
But
that's
not
that's,
not
the
subject
of
this
bill.
It's
just
the
number
of
dui's
that
you
have
so
if
you
show
up
you've,
had
two
in
your
vehicle
and
you've
had
one
in
your
boat.
That's
going
to
count
as
three
is
that
correct.
A
A
A
Thank
you.
We
are
back
in
session.
Thank
you,
members
for
your
patience
before
we
head
to
the
next
item.
I
have
leader
lamberth
on
my
list.
You
wish
to
be
recognized.
Sir
leader,
lambert,
you're
recognized
oh
on
the
bill.
I'm
sorry,
okay!
Well,
the
next
item
on
our
calendar
is
item
number
three
house
bill
2244
by
vice
chairman
ogles,
sir.
You
have
a
motion
and
a
second
and
I
do
have
leader
lamberth
on
my
list.
That
wishes
to
be
recognized.
Mr.
H
A
H
Sir
and
we've
got
plenty
of
time
and
I
hadn't
had
a
chance
to
talk
to
the
sponsor,
but
we
I
do
have
a
meeting.
I
need
to
run
to
pretty
quickly
and
I
want
time
to
be
able
to
really
look
that
amendment
over.
This
is
a
fantastic
bill.
I
think
the
amendment
probably
strengthens
it,
but
given
the
fact
that
we're
still
relatively
early
in
session
with
plenty
of
time,
I
would
make
a
motion
at
this
time
to
roll
this
one
week.
Just
so
the
amendment
is
timely.
We
can
consider
it
at
that
time.
H
The
sponsor
of
the
bill
was
vigorously
shaking
his
head
side
to
side
as
a
no
on
that
a
while
ago.
But,
mr
chairman,
I
do
think
that
would
be
best
policy.
That's
what
we've
done
with
other
bills
to
make
sure
that
the
amendment
is
timely.
So,
mr
chairman,
I
would
make
a
motion
to
roll
one
week.
Thank.
A
You
leader,
that
is
a
proper
motion
proper.
Second,
we
must
dispense
with
that
motion.
Any
discussion
seeing
none
all
those
in
favor
of
the
motion,
please
signify
by
saying
aye
aye
those
opposed,
sir.
We
roll
one
week.
Members.
That
concludes
our
business
for
the
day.
Thank
you
very
much
and
we
are
adjourned.