>> FROM OUR STATE HOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M TODD STACY.

WELCOME TO "CAPITOL JOURNAL."

IT WAS COMMITTEE DAY IN THE LEGISLATURE, AS SEVERAL HOUSE AND SENATE COMMITTEES MET TO CONSIDER SOME OF THEIR FIRST LEGISLATION OF THE SESSION.

BUT IT WAS ALSO A LEGISLATIVE DAY, AS THE HOUSE AND SENATE EACH MET BRIEFLY CONSTITUTING THE 6 TH OF THE 30-DAY SESSION.

AFTER MUCH ANTICIPATION, WE ARE FINALLY SEEING DETAILS OF THE SWEEPING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE SUPPORTED BY GOVERNOR KAY IVEY AND LEGISLATIVE LEADERS.

THE BILLS CONSTITUTING WHAT THEY'RE CALLING "“THE GAME PLAN"” WERE INTRODUCED LATE TUESDAY AND GOT THEIR FIRST READINGS TODAY, WHICH STARTS THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.

EACH OF THE BILLS HAVE A HOUSE SPONSOR AND A SENATE SPONSOR.

THE PRIMARY LEGISLATION IS THE ENHANCING ALABAMA'S ECONOMIC PROGRESS ACT.

HOUSE BILL 240 FROM REPRESENTATIVE DANNY GARRETT AND SENATE BILL 164 FROM SENATE PRESIDENT PRO TEM GREG REED.

IT WOULD RENEW THE ALABAMA JOBS ACT, THE STATE'S PRIMARY INDUSTRIAL RECRUITING STATURE WHICH IS SET TO EXPIRE IN JULY.

IT WOULD INCREASE THE CAP THE STATE CAN LEVERAGE TOWARD PROJECTS BY $25 MILLION EACH YEAR TOPPING OUT AT $475 MILLION IN 2027.

IT ALSO INCREASES THE GROWING ALABAMA SITE DEVELOPMENT GRANTS FROM $20 MILLION TO $30 MILLION.

THOSE ARE THE DOLLARS USED TO HELP LOCAL COMMUNITIES IMPROVE SITES TO ATTRACT INDUSTRY.

THE SITE EVALUATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY ACT OR SEEDS.

HOUSE BILL 257 ALSO FROM GARRETT AND SENATE BILL 165 FROM SENATOR ARTHUR ORR.

IT WOULD ALLOW THE STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCELERATE DEVELOPMENT OF INDUSTRY-READY SITES.

IT WOULD ALSO CREATE THE ALABAMA SITE DEVELOPMENT FUND TO ALLOW UP TO $2 MILLION DOLLARS TO PAY FOR SITE ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

THAT'S WHERE LOCAL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS COULD APPLY TO HAVE A SITE EITHER ASSESSED OR FURTHER DEVELOPED.

THE INNOVATION AND SMALL BUSINESS ACT.

HOUSE BILL 247 FROM REPRESENTATIVE ANTHONY DANIELS AND SENATE BILL 152 FROM SENATOR THESE BILLS AIM TO GROW THE STATE'S INNOVATION ECONOMY AND SUPPORT UNDERREPRESENTED BUSINESSES AND ENTERPRISES IN RURAL AREAS.

IT WOULD ALLOW UP TO $25 MILLION IN INNOVATE ALABAMA GRANTS THROUGH THE ALABAMA INNOVATION CORPORATION.

AND FINALLY THE ENHANCING TRANSPARENCY ACT.

HOUSE BILL 240 FROM REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA ALMOND AND SENATE BILL 151 FROM SENATOR GARLAND GUDGER.

IT WOULD AMEND THE JOBS ACT TO REQUIRE THE DEPT.

OF COMMERCE TO PUBLISH INCENTIVIZED PROJECT INFORMATION ONLINE.

THAT INFORMATION WILL INCLUDE THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT FROM INCENTIVES USED.

THESE BILLS ARE EXPECTED TO BE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE COMMITTEES NEXT WEEK.

TODAY IN THE SENATE FINANCE AND TAXATION GENERAL FUND COMMITTEE, LAWMAKERS TOOK UP TWO BILLS RELATED TO RETIREMENT OF STATE EMPLOYEES.

SENATE BILL 68 FROM SENATOR CLYDE CHAMBLISS ADDRESSES STATE TROOPERS AND THEIR RETIREMENT.

CHAMBLISS SAID VARIOUS LEGISLATION OVER THE YEARS HAS CREATED SEVERAL DIFFERENT CLASSES OF RETIREMENT LEVELS FOR TROOPERS, WHICH IS PROBLEMATIC.

HIS BILL WOULD STREAMLINE THOSE CATEGORIES WITH ALL TROOPERS BEING PLACED IN EITHER TIER ONE OR TIER TWO OF THE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS OF ALABAMA, BASED ON THEIR START DATE.

>> WE HAVE SEVEN EMPLOYEES ON STATE POLICE TIER TWO, 229 ON FLC TIER TWO, 44 ON FLC TIER ONE, THREE ON FLC TIER TWO.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM ALL OF THOSE SMALL NUMBERS IN SIX DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, IT IS A PROBLEM.

>> IT DOES HAVE A COST TO THE STATE.

THE COST IS $2.8 MILLION THAT, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, THAT IS OFFSET IN THE AMOUNT OF $537 MILLION FOR NET OF SOME 2.2 OR $2.25 MILLION.

>> SENATE BILL 69 FROM SENATOR ANDREW JONES WOULD REMOVE THE TIME LIMIT FOR PURCHASING HAZARDOUS DUTY TIME FOR CERTAIN FIREFIGHTERS, LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS, AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS COVERED BY THE RSA.

>> FOLKS IN THE LINE OF FIRE ARE ABLE TO PURCHASE HAZARDS DUTY PAY.

THEY PAY FOR IT.

AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A TWO-YEAR LIMIT, LIKE, AND THEY COULD ONLY CLAIM IT TWO YEARS AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THE ORIGINAL BILL.

NO ONE CAN FIGURE WHY THAT TWO YEAR LIMIT WAS PUT IN SINCE THEIR A PURCHASING THE TIME.

I WILL DIRECT YOU TO THE FISCAL NOTE WHICH SAYS THEY'RE UNABLE TO CALCULATE A QUANTIFIABLE ESTIMATE BUT RSA BELIEVES IT IS A MINIMAL IMPACT.

>> RSA SAID THERE WOULD BE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THE BUDGET BECAUSE THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE PEOPLE IS ABOUT 300; NO ONE ELSE WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM AND IT WILL NOT BE RENEWED.

OVER IN THE HOUSE, AN ANTI STALKING BILL WAS TAKEN UP IN THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE.

HOUSE BILL 153 FROM REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN TREADAWAY WOULD MAKE IT A CLASS C FELONY TO PUT AN ELECTRONIC TRACKING DEVICE ON ANOTHER PERSON'S BELONGINGS WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT AND "“WITH THE INTENT TO SURVEIL, STALK, OR HARASS, OR FOR ANY OTHER UNLAWFUL PURPOSE.

"” THE BILL WAS APPROVED AND MOVES TO THE HOUSE FLOOR.

MORE THAN $82 MILLION IN TAX CUTS APPROVED BY THE HOUSE WAY AND MEANS EDUCATION COMMITTEE.

HOUSE BILL 116 FROM REPRESENTATIVE DANNY GARRETT WOULD ELIMINATE THE LOWEST STATE INCOME TAX RATE OF 2 PERCENT.

HOUSE BILL 115, ALSO FROM GARRETT, WOULD REDUCE THE HIGHEST RATE OF 5% TO 4.95%.

ALL TOLD THE PROPOSALS WOULD SAVE TAXPAYERS $82.3 MILLION DOLLARS.

BOTH TAX CUTS WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED INCREMENTALLY OVER A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS.

THE HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE APPROVE A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MINOR TO OBTAIN PARENTAL CONSENT IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A VACCINATION.

UNDER CURRENT LAW, A MINOR 14 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER CAN GIVE CONSENT FOR MEDICAL, DENTAL AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FOR HIMSELF OR HERSELF WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF A PARENT.

HOUSE BILL 18 FROM REPRESENTATIVE CHIP BROWN REQUIRE PARENTAL CONSENT FOR ALL MINORS WHEN SEEKING A VACCINATION.

THE HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE ALSO DISCUSSED A BILL AIMING TO CLEAR THE WAY FOR THE ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH TO ISSUE CERTIFICATIONS OF NON-VIABLE BIRTH.

THIS WOULD BE FOR PARENTS WHOSE CHILDREN ARE EITHER STILLBORN OR DIES SHORTLY AFTER BIRTH.

HOUSE BILL 55 IS SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE JUANDALYN GIVAN.

>> THIS IS A BILL THAT SIMPLY, IF ENACTED, SIMPLY STATES, UNDER EXISTING LAW, A PARENT OR A -- A PARENT OF A FETAL DEATH OCCURRING AFTER 20 WEEKS GESTATION MY REQUEST A BIRTH CERTIFICATE RESULTING IN STILLBORN BIRTH.

AND THIS BILL WOULD CREATE THE GENESIS ACT, AND WE WOULD WORK WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO PROVIDE A COPY, A BIRTH CERTIFICATE -- EXCUSE ME -- A CERTIFICATE TO THE PARENT, AND THERE ARE -- YOU WILL SEE IN THE AMENDMENT, BUT IT BASICALLY CREATES A SAFEGUARD OR A MECHANISM FOR NONVIABLE BIRTHS AND LET ME DEFINE WHAT A NONVIABLE BIRTH IS.

NONVIABLE BIRTH MEANS AN UNINTENTIONAL SPONTANEOUS FETAL DEMISE OCCURRING BETWEEN -- AND IT TYPICALLY IS BETWEEN SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 10 WEEKS TO 19 WEEKS.

IT COULD ACTUALLY OCCUR BETWEEN EARLIER THAT BE THAT.

SO OURS BASICALLY SAYS OCCURRING BEFORE THE 20 WEEKS.

AND AGAIN HERE IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA, YOU CAN GET A BIRTH CERTIFICATE IF THE GESTATION IS I NEED THAT 20 WEEK TIME PERIOD.

SO THIS BILL WOULD DO SO IF ENACTED AND IT WOULD GIVE THE STATE DEPARTMENT HERE PERMISSION TO DO SO UPON THE REQUEST OF A MOTHER.

>> THAT BILL ALSO PASSED COMMITTEE AND NOW GOES TO THE FULL HOUSE.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK WITH TONIGHT'S GUESTS.

>> NEXT I'M JOINED BY DEB WE WOOD OF VALLEY AND STATE SENATOR GARLAN GUDGER OF CULLMAN.

THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> YOU HAVE PRETTY TOPICAL LEGISLATION, HOUSE BILL AND SENATE BILL HAVING TO DO WITH VISITATION RIGHTS IN HOSPITALS, NURSING HOMES AND CARE FACILITIES AS IT PERTAINS TO KIND OF STEMMING FROM THE PANDEMIC.

CAN I START WITH YOU, SENATOR, ABOUT WHY YOU BROUGHT THIS BILL AND WHAT DOES IT DO.

>> WE HAD A FRIEND IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY THAT PASSED AWAY AND THEY'RE CONSTITUENTS OF MINE IN PIN OF WINSTON COUNTY AND HE HAD PASSED AWAY.

SO I WENT TO HIS FUNERAL.

WHILE I WAS IN THE LINE, HIS WIDE OWE CAME OVER TO ME AND WAS CRYING AND SAID I NEED YOUR HELP.

I SAID WHAT DOESN'T DO YOU NEED?

HER NAME IS BONNIE.

BONNIE SAID I WANT YOU TO PASS A BILL SO WE HAVE VISITATION RIGHTS IN HEALTH CARE FACILITIES.

THE LAST FEW MONTHS OF MY HUSBAND'S LIFE, AFTER 50 SOMETHING YEARS OF MARRIAGE I WAS NOT ABLE TO SEE HIM BEFORE HE PASSED AMP.

SHE SAID I'M STILL HAVING ISSUES WITH CLOSURE.

I STILL KNOW I COULD HAVE DONE MORE FOR HIM IF I COULD HAVE BEEN THIS AND I QUESTION MYSELF NOW EVEN THOUGH HE IS DECEASED SHOULD I HAVE DONE MORE, WHAT SHOULD I HAVE DONE?

AND IT HIT HOME.

BECAUSE MY FATHER WAS DIABETIC AND IN HIS HOME AT THE END OF HILLS LIFE AND I WAS WITH HIM.

IT CAN'T IMAGINE THE STORIES EVERYONE HAS AND HOW THAT AFFECTS PEOPLE WHEN WE CAN'T CAN HAVE CLOSURE AT THE END OF LIFE OR A FRIEND HAD CHILD BIRTH AND HE COULDN'T GO INTO THE HOSPITAL AND HE HAD A MISCARRIAGE AND HIS WIFE HAD TO GO THROUGH BY HERSELF AND THAT EMOTIONAL STRESS AND HE HAD A SCENE IN THE P. SO THIS BILL IS VERY PERSONAL TO ME AND EVERYONE THAT HAS GONE THROUGH THIS, AND I BELIEVE EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN STORY TO TELL.

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY DON'T YOU HAVE SOME PERM -- >> I DO.

MY MOTHER PASSED AWAY IN '21.

WE THOUGHT THAT THE PANDEMIC WAS GOING AWAY.

AND IT DIDN'T.

AND I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE WITH MY MOTHER AT THE END OF HER LIFE.

I THINK THE HARDEST PART IS DO YOUR LOVED ONES THINK YOU ABANDONED THEM.

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THERE.

BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH PROTOCOL AND WITH RULES.

THEY JUST KNOW YOU'RE NOT THERE HOLDING THEIR HAND.

SO IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO MOORE AND I'M JUST SO THANKFUL I REACHED OUT WHEN I SAW HIS BILL, AND HE SAID, HEY, YOUR STORY IS FANTASTIC.

YOU HAVE THE STORY OF THE LOVED ONE THAT STILL TODAY IN THE HOUSE SAYING, I DON'T HAVE THE CLOSURE THAT I NEED, LIKE MS. BONNIE HAD.

SO IT'S BEEN OUR MISSION TO MAKE SURE LOVED ONES ARE THERE TO BE ABOUT ADVOCATE.

AND IT'S NOT JUST OUR LOVED ONES.

WE LEFT THE HEALTH CARE FACILITIES WITHOUT PEOPLE WILLING TO FEED THEIR MOTHER OR TO BATHE THEIR CHILD THAT LOVED ONES DO WHILE THEIR LOVED ONES ARE IN THE HOSPITAL.

WE WERE TOLD TO LEAVE.

SO IT CREATED A MASSIVE HOME NOT ONLY IN US BUT IN EVERYONE IN OUR HEALTH CARE FACILITY.

>> WALK ME THROUGH WHAT THE LEGISLATION DOES.

>> I CAN START.

THE BILL IN THE END ALLOWS FOR VISITORS TO COME TO THE HOSPITAL AND THE PERSON THAT IS STILL IN CHARGE OF THOSE VISITORS IS STILL THE HOSPITAL IN THEIR POLICY AND PROCEDURE BUT THIS GOES FURTHER AND DOES AN ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER.

SO THE ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER IS DESIGNATED BY THE PATIENT.

AND WE HAVE IN THE BILL THAT AT ANY TIME IS UNCONSCIOUS OR NOT ABLE TO DESIGNATE AN ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER WE HAVE A LIST THROUGH LAW THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY OR FROM THE FAMILY AND WE HAVE AN ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER THAT CAN BE BY THEIR SIDE TWO HOURS A DAY NO MATTER WHAT.

ALSO WITHIN VISITING HOURS.

SO YOU HAVE VISITING HOURS PLUS TWO HOURS A DAY.

VISITING HOURS ARE STILL CONTROLLED BY THE HOSPITAL AND THE TREATING PHYSICIAN.

IF THE TREATING PHYSICIAN SAYS THIS PERSON IS TOO SICK -- FOR EXAMPLE, THEY HAVE WHITE LOW BLOOD CELLS FROM CANCER OR SOMETHING -- >> THAT DOES HAPPEN.

>> AND IT DOES.

AND YOU DON'T NEED PEOPLE IN, MAYBE HAVING THE FLU, SO THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY VISITORS IN THIS ROOM.

BUT THIS BILL GOES TO THE NEXT STEP AND SAYS BUT YOU CAN DESIGNATE A CENTRAL CAREGIVER THAT WILL BE BY THAT PERSON'S BEDSIDE AT LEAST TWO HOURS A DAY.

>> SENATOR COLEMAN ASKED A QUESTION ON THE SENATE FLOOR ABOUT, LET'S JUST SAY WE'RE IN ANOTHER PANDEMIC, WOULD A HOSPITAL OR A NURSING HOME OR WHATEVER BE ALLOWED TO KEEP THOSE WHO MIGHT BE INFECTED OUT OF THE FACILITY SO THAT THEY DON'T INFECT OTHER PEOPLE AND Y'ALL HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT ON THE FLOOR.

>> SENATOR MERIKA COLEMAN ASKED THAT QUESTION.

WE WORK WITH THE NURSING HOME ASSOCIATION AND EVEN THE TRIAL LAWYERS AND THEN FROM THAT, WE MADE SURE THAT IN THEIR HOSPITAL, EVERY HOSPITAL CAN BE DIFFERENT.

THEIR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES CAN BE DIFFERENT AT EVERY HOSPITAL.

IF THEY SO ZERO CHOOSE TO SEE FIT THEY PUT IN THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THEY NEED SOMEONE TO BE TEST.

IF YOU CAN SEE SOMEONE PHYSICALLY HAVING A RUNNY NOSE OR SYMPTOMS THEN THE HOSPITAL CAN CHOOSE TO BE ABLE TO TEST THAT PERSON BEFORE THEY GO IN.

IT CAN'T BE MORE STRENUOUS THAN WHAT THE NURSES HAVE TO DO IN THAT PARTICULAR ROOM.

SO IF YOU SAID YOU HAVE TO BE IN FULL PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT GOWN, THEN IF THE NURSES AREN'T HAVING TO DO THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE THE CAREGIVER DO THAT ALSO.

>> I KEEP GOING BACK TO THIS QUESTION ABOUT FEDERAL VERSUS STATE REGULATIONS.

BECAUSE MOST OF THESE HOSPITALS AND NURSING HOMES RECEIVE FEDERAL FUNDING FROM CMS, THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

GOD FORBID SAY WE'RE IN ANOTHER PANDEMIC, COULD THIS LAW SET UP A CONFLICT BETWEEN STATE LAW AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS?

AND IF SO, COULDN'T THAT PUT THESE FACILITIES AT RISK OF LOSING THEIR FUNDING IF THEY CHOOSE THE STATE LAW VERSUS THE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS?

>> DO YOU MIND ME ANSWERING THAT.

>> GO RIGHT AHEAD.

>> WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH THE STAKE HOLDERS BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THIS BILL DID NOT PUT THEM IN CONFLICT.

NUMBER 1, CM IS THE ONE THAT FUNDS ALL OF OUR HOSPITALS AND WE DO NOT WANT TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THAT.

LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, EBOLA BROKE OUT.

IF THEY, THE CMS SAID WE HAD TO SHUT THE HOSPITALS DOWN THAT PARTICULAR PART WHERE THEY'RE FUNDING IS GOING TO BE AT RISK THEN THEY'RE STILL ABLE TO DO THAT FROM THE FEDERAL LEVEL BUT OUR STATE IN THIS PARTICULAR BILL WILL NOT AFFECT THAT.

SO IF THE FEDERAL AT CMS SAYS YOU HAVE TO SHUTDOWN YOU HAVE TO SHUT DOWN AND THIS ALLOWS ON THE STATE LEVEL FOR US TO HAVE THAT ESSENTIAL CAREGIVER TO GO IN BUT IF THE CENTIMETERS SAYS YOU HAVE TO SHUT DOWN THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO STANDARD.

>> ALL RIGHT.

YOU WERE GOING TO ADD SOMETHING.

>> WELL, I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO NOT FEEL LIKE WE WERE ATTACKING OUR HEALTH CARE FACILITY.

THEY'RE WONDERFUL.

WE NEED THEM.

THEY'RE VITAL.

>> THEIR WE OUR HEROS.

>> FOR ALL OF US.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO AT NO TIME DID WE WANT THEM TO FEEL THAT WAY.

>> IN CONFLICT?

>> RIGHT.

WE WANTED THEM TO UNDERSTAND OUR SIDE, OUR SIDE OF NOT BEING THERE NOT ONLY FOR OUR LOVED ONES BUT THEM TOO.

I THINK WE ALL NEED EACH OTHER AND THIS BILL DOES THAT.

IT GIVES US ALL A SENSE THAT, YES, YOU'RE GOING TO STILL GET FUNDING.

YES, THERE'S STILL GOING TO BE AN ACCESS PLAN FOR LOVED ONES TO BE THERE AND WE WORK TOGETHER, AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT IS SO IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS BILL.

IT WASN'T JUST ONE-SIDED.

EVERYONE CAME TO THE TABLE TOGETHER AND EVERYONE MADE VERY WISE DECISIONS.

AND YOU KNOW WHEN WE PASSED THE 1ST BILL, IT WAS SUCH A HARD TIME.

IT WAS STILL VOLATILE.

YOU KNOW, THERE WERE STILL SO MANY EMOTIONS AND NOW EVERYTHING IS CALMED DOWN AND I UNDERSTAND WE CAN THINK CLEARER AND MAKE BETTER CHOICES AND PUT SOME TEETH IN THE BILL SO PEOPLE WHEN THEY SAY, HEY, I WANT TO SEE MY LOVED ONE, THEY CAN.

>> SO WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS?

WAS IT IN COMMITTEE TODAY?

>> YES, SIR.

IT PASSED COMMITTEE.

NOW WHAT WE'RE HOPING IS THAT THE RULES WILL PICK IT SO THAT WE CAN GET IT ON THE FLOOR.

SO WHEN I LEAVE HERE, THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING.

I THINK THE SENDER ALSO HAS ANOTHER APPOINTMENT.

IT'S ALREADY PAST IN THE SENATE.

THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT THE SENATE VERSION DOWN BECAUSE IT TRANSMITTED WITH THE AMENDMENT AND IT WAS READY TO GO.

YOU KNOW IN TIMES LIKE THESE WE JUST NEED TO GET THINGS PASSED.

>> DEPENDING ON THE SPECIAL ORDER IT COULD BE IN THE GOVERN' DESK TOMORROW.

>> IT COULD.

WHICH WOULD BE GREAT.

>> SWITCHING GEARS WHILE WE HAVE BOTH OF YOU, THIS -- THE TOPIC OF THE TAKE, TOPIC OF THE WEEK IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SENATOR, YOU HAVE GOT ONE OF THESE BILLS, 151 DEALING WITH TRANSPARENCY, ONE OF THE FOUR GAME PLAN BILLS.

TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND HOW THE THAT FITS INTO THE LARGER PICTURE.

>> BEING CHAIRMAN OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE SENATE I WAS ASKED TO CARRY ONE OF THE FOUR BILLS IN THE GAME PLAN FROM THE GOVERNOR.

THAT WAS THE TRANSPARENCY BILL.

WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT IN THE PAST.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING HALF BILLION DOLLARS ON ECONOMIC INCENTIVES THROUGHOUT THE STATE FOR LARGE INDUSTRIES AND BRINGING JOBS TO ALABAMA, THE TAXPAYER SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME POINT THEY CAN GO ON TO A WEBSITE AND SEE WHAT INCENTIVE IS THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY GETTING AND ARE WE FOLLOWING WHAT WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO AND ARE WE GIVING TOO MUCH OR TOO LESS BUT WE HAVE PUBLIC OUTCRY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT ALONG WITH THE LEGISLATORS THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT.

SO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE HAVE GOTTEN TOGETHER AND LISTED ABOUT 10 DIFFERENT ITEMS THAT HAPPENED THIS IS WHAT WE NEED THAT WE CAN SHOW SO WE CAN STILL SAY COMPETITIVE FROM OTHER JOBS AND STATES THAT WE COMET AGAINST IN ECONOMIC INVESTMENT BUT IT IS SOMETHING WE'RE ABLE TO SHOW SAYING THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY IS GOING TO.

ANY TIME YOU CAN HAVE TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC ARENA I THINK IS A POSITIVE.

>> AND REPRESENTATIVE, YOU HAVE THIS BILL DEALING WITH COUNTY ROADS THAT GO THROUGH MUNICIPALITIES AND SORT OF THE LINES THERE.

TELL ME WHAT THIS BILL DOES?

>> THERE ARE ACTUALLY COUNTY MAINTAINED ROADS THAT LEAD THROUGH, GO INTO THE MUNICIPALITIES, CORPORATE LIMITS AND THEN EXIT OUT.

SO THE QUESTION IS, WHO HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT?

COUNTY ARE RESPONSIBLE IF THEY MAINTAIN THE ROAD.

SO IF SOMEONE HAS A TRAFFIC ACCIDENT OR IF SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH THAT ROAD THEY'RE THE ONES THAT COME IN.

SO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS SAY A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT ON THAT ROAD BECAUSE COUNTY HAVE TRAFFIC STUDIES.

PRIOR TO THEM DECIDING WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS GOING TO BE.

SO WE WORKED WITH THE MUNICIPALITIES AND CAME UP WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL TODAY THAT WAS ENTERED ON THE FLOOR THAT SAYS THAT IF THEY WANT TO CHANGE THE SPEED LIMIT, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY TO GO ALONG WITH IT THEY CAN.

SO EVERYONE CAME TO THE TABLE.

WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE BILL PASSED AND IT'S ALL ABOUT SAFETY.

IT'S KEEPING OUR ROADS SAFE FOR INDIVIDUALS IN IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA.

>> WELL, WE ALL KNOW THE EXPERIENCE OF THE SPEED LIMIT CHANGING SUDDENLY -- >> I KNOW.

WE DO.

>> 1 OF THE THINGS SENATOR I WAS I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, YOU HAD A BILL ON THE FLOOR OR IT WASN'T YOUR BILL BUT IT WAS THE BILL DEALING WITH A CANNABINOIDS.

DELTA EIGHT AND DELTA NINE -- THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUT RELATED MAYBE.

HIS BILL BASICALLY PROHIBITS THE SALE OF THOSE PRODUCTS TO MINORS, AND HE HAD A TAX ON ALL OF THOSE PRODUCTS OF 5 PERCENT.

YOUR AMENDMENT RAISED IT TO EIGHT.

I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT AND WHY THAT ANTI.

>> THE PARTICULAR BILL DID THREE THINGS.

IT LIMITED THE AGE TO 21.

IT ALSO PUT IT BEHIND THE COUNTER SO YOU COULDN'T WALK UP TO THE COUNTER AND BE ABLE TO PICK THAT UP SO YOU HAVE TO ASK FOR THOSE.

NUMBER 3, THERE WAS A TAX THAT THE INDUSTRY ITSELF PUT ON WHICH A 5 PERCENT.

THEY WEREN'T TAXED BEING NEWER PRODUCTS.

FROM THAT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO UP THAT TAX A LITTLE BIT AND TO 8 PERCENT BUT INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING IN A GENERAL FUND BUTTING IT IN SO WE CAN EARMARK THAT FOR MENTAL HEALTH.

I THOUGHT THOSE TWO WENT HAND AND HAND AND HE WANT TO NEED MORE MONEY FOR MENTAL HEALTH SO THAT WAS MY GOAL TO HAVE MORE TAX TO GO INTO MENTAL HEALTH WHICH PARALLELS THAT PARTICULAR PRODUCT.

>> THIS IS A WEIRD SECTION, WE HAVE DEMOCRATS PROPOSING TAX CUTS AND -- I DON'T KNOW WHICH WAY IS UPSIDE DOWN BUT IT'S AN INTERESTING ISSUE TO FOLLOW.

AND THEN I GUESS IT GOES TO THE HOUSE.

>> YES.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING ON.

THIS IS ALL THE TIME WE HAVE BUT I APPRECIATE Y'ALL BEING WILLING TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT BILLS AND AMENDMENTS AND HOPE TO HAVE YOU BACK SOON.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> WE WILL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> THAT'S OUR SHOW FOR TONIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR WATCHING.

BEFORE WE GO, A SPECIAL HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO OUR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" DIRECTOR JOHN HOLMAN AND MY DAD, BOB STACIE.

WE WILL BE BACK WITH MORE "CAPITOL JOURNAL" TOMORROW NIGHT AT 10:30 RIGHT HERE ON ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION.

FOR OUR "CAPITOL JOURNAL" TEAM, I'M TODD STACEY.