>>> GOOD EVENING.

FROM OUR STATEHOUSE STUDIO IN MONTGOMERY, I'M DON DAILEY.

THANKS FOR JOINING US!

TOPPING OUR BROADCAST TONIGHT, IT WAS A VERY BUSY LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE DAY, WITH A NUMBER OF HIGH-PROFILE BILLS UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY APPROVED A MEASURE THAT WOULD REPEAL THE STATE'S SO-CALLED ‘THREE STRIKES' SENTENCING LAW KNOWN AS THE HABITUAL FELONY OFFENDER ACT, WHICH GIVES REPEAT OFFENDERS LONGER SENTENCES.

IT'S SPONSORED BY REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS ENGLAND OF TUSCALOOSA, WHO CONTENDS, AMONG OTHER THINGS, THAT THE ACT HAS RESULTED IN LIFE SENTENCES FOR SOME WHO NEVER COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES.

.

>> BECAUSE HABITUAL OFFENDER EXISTS WE HAVE BE COME ADDICTED TO IT AS THOUGH IT'S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN MANAGE OUR CRIMINAL STATE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT SOME JUDGES WHO SAY IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

THE ONLY WAY YOU COMMIT THREE STRIKES AND YOU'RE OUT IS YOU HAVE THREE PRIOR FELONIES AND PLANNED TORE LIFE SENTENCE WITHOUT PATROL IF YOU HAVE A SECOND CLASS A FELONY OF THOSE FOUR PRIORS.

>> REPRESENTATIVE MATT SIMPSON OF DAPHNE, WHO DEBATED THE BILL WITH ENGLAND TODAY, HAS CONTENDED THAT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR JUDGES TO BE ABLE TO PUNISH REPEAT OFFENDERS MORE HARSHLY THAN FIRST-TIMERS.

WITH TODAY'S COMMITTEE APPROVAL, THE BILL TO REPEAL THE HABITUAL OFFENDERS LAW NOW MOVES TO THE FULL HOUSE.

>>> THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY CARRIED OVER FOR A WEEK LEGISLATION THAT WOULD LEGALIZE THE USE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN THE STATE.

THAT AFTER THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SAID SOME LAWMAKERS HAD ASKED FOR A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE BILL WITH ITS SPONSOR, SENATOR TIM MELSON OF FLORENCE.

THE MEASURE, WHICH HAS ALREADY PASSED THE SENATE, IS BEING VETTED BY TWO HOUSE COMMITTEES, WHICH IS AN UNUSUAL STEP.

IF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE APPROVES IT NEXT WEEK, THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA BILL WOULD THEN GO TO THE HOUSE HEALTH COMMITTEE.

>>> THE SENATE EDUCATION POLICY COMMITTEE TODAY UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, WITH ONE ABSTENTION, LEGISLATION DEALING WITH TRANSGENDER ATHLETES IN STATE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

IT'S SPONSORED BY REPUBLICAN REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT STADTHAGEN OF HARTSELLE, WHO RECENTLY SPOKE TO CAPITOL JOURNAL ABOUT HIS MEASURE.

.

>> HB 391 IS A GENDER BILL, BASED OFF THE BIRTH CERTIFICATE, IF IT SAYS YOU ARE A MALE YOU COMPETE IN MALE ATHLETICS K-12 AND IF YOU ARE A FEMALE YOU COMPETE IN FEMALE ATHLETICS.

>> STADTHAGEN HAS SAID THAT HIS LEGISLATION IS ABOUT FAIRNESS IN GIRLS' AND WOMEN'S ATHLETICS, THAT HE FEELS ALLOWING TRANSGENDER PLAYERS TO COMPETE WOULD PRESENT AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE.

TODAY'S UNANIMOUS COMMITTEE VOTE WAS ALSO BIPARTISAN, WITH DEMOCRATS LIKE SENATOR RODGER SMITHERMAN OF BIRMINGHAM, A GIRLS BASKETBALL COACH, SUPPORTING THE MEASURE.

.

>> AND I'M SAYING I PLAYED AGAINST AS A COACH BECAUSE BACK THEN YOU JUST HAD TO DEAL WITH IT.

BUT HE'S RIGHT ABOUT THAT PART OF KEEPING-- THEY JUST CAN'T DO IT.

>> WITH TODAY'S COMMITTEE APPROVAL, THE TRANSGENDER ATHLETES BILL NEXT MOVES TO THE SENATE FLOOR.

>>> A CLOSELY-WATCHED BILL THAT WOULD ALLOW YOGA TO BE PRACTICED IN STATE SCHOOLS STALLED TODAY.

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DEADLOCKED IN A 4-4 VOTE ON THE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD LIFT A 28-YEAR BAN ON YOGA IN OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS, A BAN THAT SPRANG FROM, AMONG OTHER THINGS, CONCERNS OVER YOGA'S TIES TO EASTERN RELIGIONS.

THAT CONCERN WAS AGAIN RAISED TODAY.

.

>> ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION FROM ALABAMA, IN THEIR PE REQUIREMENTS IT'S SAYS THE COURSE MAY NOT BE CALLED YOGA HOWEVER ONLY YOGA POSES MAY BE INCLUDED IN THIS CONTENT SO THE QUESTION BEFORE YOU IS THIS ONLY ABOUT STRETCHING?

IT IS A SPIRITUAL ACTIVITY.

>> WELL, ALL YOU TALK ABOUT THE RELIGIOUS PART OF THIS, THIS IS TOTALLY-- THIS BILL TO ME IS ONLY TALKING ABOUT STRETCHING IN SCHOOL.

I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU CAN DO THAT NOW IF YOU WANT TO, YOU CAN STRETCH IF YOU WANT TO, IT'S JUST LIKE CHILDREN CAN GO TO SCHOOL AND PRAY IF THEY WANT TO, WE ALL HAVE PRAYER IN SCHOOL BUT YOU SHOULD TEACH YOUR CHILDREN TO PRAY.

>> SENATOR BOBBY SINGLETON, WHO SERVES AS THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER, IS CARRYING THE YOGA BILL IN THE UPPER CHAMBER.

EVEN THOUGH IT STALLED TODAY, THE COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN SAID THE BILL WOULD GET ANOTHER CHANCE LATER.

>>> THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE TODAY APPROVED A BILL THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR CITIZENS TO ACCESS PUBLIC RECORDS.

IT'S SPONSORED BY SENATOR ARTHUR ORR OF DECATUR, WHO DEBATED HIS MEASURE TODAY WITH, AMONG OTHERS, SENATOR SAM GIVHAN OF HUNTSVILLE.

.

>> MACON COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES JEFFERSON COUNTY DOES.

THE TOWN OF GURLY DOESN'T HAVE ACCESS TO RESOURCES THAT THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE HAS, PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, MAYBE THEY ONLY HAVE SHERIFF TAYLOR AND BARNEY FIFE TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS, HOW WILL THEY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS WHEN THEY NEED TO BE ON THE STREET PATROLLING.

>> WE CAN DO BETTER, THESE ARE PUBLIC RECORDS, WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENT WITHOUT CAUSING HAVOC AND PROBLEMS ACROSS STATE GOVERNMENTS, THE CONGRESSMAN'S COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN, I HEAR YOU AND I'M CERTAINLY NOT COMMITTED TO DOING SOMETHING THAT CERTAINLY WILL NOT BE PRUDENT.

>> PROPONENTS OF THE OPEN RECORDS REFORM LAW CONTEND OUR CURRENT LAW LACKS TEETH BECAUSE IT IS TOO VAGUE.

SIMILAR REFORM EFFORTS IN PREVIOUS YEARS HAVE NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

THE NEW OPEN RECORDS BILL NOW MOVES TO THE SENATE FLOOR.

WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.

>> YOU CAN WATCH PAST EPISODES OF CAPITOL JOURNAL ONLINE AT VIDEO APTV.ORG.

EPISODES ARE ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE FREE MOBILE APP.

YOU CAN ALSO CONNECT WITH CAPITOL JOURNAL AND LINK TO PAST EPISODES ON CAPITOL JOURNAL'S FACEBOOK PAGE.

AND YOU CAN LISTEN TO PAST EPISODES OF CAPITOL JOURNAL WHEN DRIVING OR ON THE GO WITH CAPITOL JOURNAL PODCAST.

KEEP UP WITH WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH CAPITOL JOURNAL.

>> NEXT UPON THE BROADCAST REPRESENTATIVE GINNY SHAVER FROM LEASEBURG IS BACK WITH US.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE INVITATION.

>> LET'S STARTS WITH YOUR BORN ALIVE LEGISLATION WHICH IS BACK THIS YEAR, IS THIS THE THIRD YEAR YOU'VE BROUGHT THIS LEGISLATION?

>> YES, TECHNICALLY.

THE FIRST YEAR WE BASSED IT IN THE HOUSE.

THE SECOND YEAR IT WAS VOTED FAVORABLY OUT OF COMMITTEE BUT WE WERE COVIDED AND WEREN'T ABLE TO BRING IT UPON THE FLOOR SO, YES, IT IS THE THIRD SESSION THAT WE'VE SEEN THE BILL AND WE DID PASS IT.

>> IT'S OUT OF THE HOUSE AND ONTO THE SENATE AND I WILL REMIND FOLKS THE GENESIS OF YOUR BILL AND THAT IS DOCTORS COULD FACE CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR NOT DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A BABY THAT IS BORN ALIVE DURING AN ABORTION OR ATTEMPTED ABORTION.

LET'S START THERE BECAUSE IT IS RARE THAT THERE'S KIND OF THINGS HAPPEN BUT THEY CAN AND DO HAPPEN, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT.

IT IS RARE, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED AND IT CAN STILL HAPPEN UNDER THE LAW THAT WE ARE OPERATING UNDER NOW.

>> TELL US ABOUT WHEN WE SAY DOCTORS NEED TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN THEIR POWER TO SAVE THIS CHILD'S LIFE.

>> WELL, WHAT I'M ASKING-- AND FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THIS IS LABELED AN ABORTION BILL BUT IT ACTUALLY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PREVENTING AN ABORTION, WE COVERED THAT IN THE TOTAL BAN WHICH IS GOING THROUGH THE COURTS.

THIS DOES NOTHING TO REGULATE THE ABORTION ITSELF, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION IF THE BABY SURVIVES AND IS BORN ALIVE, WHAT I'M ASKING IS THE DOCTOR PROVIDE THE SAME DILIGENCE AND CARE FOR THAT CHILD AS BORN IN AN ABORTION CLINIC IF THE BABY WERE BORN IN A HOSPITAL OR ANY OTHER SETTING THAT IT WOULD ESTABLISH A DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP SO THE DOCTOR WOULD SEEK CARE FOR THE BABY.

>> AND THERE ARE CERTAIN PENALTIES FOR DOCTORS WHO ARE FOUND TO NOT HAVE TAKEN THOSE PRECAUTIONS.

>> THIS WOULD MAKE IT A CLASS A FELONY, 20 YEARS IN PRISON AND UP TO 25,000 FINE.

>> THE CLARIFICATION OF IT NOT BEING A "ABORTION" BILL, THE WORD ABORTION BEING ATTACHED TO IT MAKES IT CONTROVERSIAL IN PEOPLE'S MINDS AND I THINK THAT CLARIFICATION IS IMPORTANT.

>> IT HAS JUST BECAUSE OF THE CONNOTATION IT BRINGS UP BUT ONCE PEOPLE FIND OUT WHAT IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT MORE SUPPORT FOR IT.

>> I KNOW THAT DURING DEBATE ON THE HOUSE FLOOR BEFORE SPRING BREAK I HEARD SEVERAL PEOPLE GO UP TO THE MIC AND SAY WHY DO WE NEED THIS, THIS RARELY IF EVER HAPPENS.

YOU NEED IT BECAUSE WHEN AND IF IT DOES HAPPEN.

>> BECAUSE IT HAS HAPPENED AND IT STILL CAN.

WE ALLOW ABORTIONS CURRENTLY UNDER THE LAW WE'RE OPERATING UNDER UP TO 21 WEEKS AND SIX DAYS.

THE LAW REQUIRES A DOCTOR PERFORMING AN ABORTION TO DO FETAL TESTING AT 19 WEEKS OR MORE TO TEST FOR VIABILITY OF THE BABY BECAUSE IF THE BABY IS DETERMINED TO BE VIABLE, THEN THE ABORTION WOULD ONLY BE POSSIBLE TO SAVE THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER AND TAKE PLACE-- OR SERIOUS RISK OF BODILY LEFT ARM TO THE MOTHER AND TAKE PLACE IN A HOSPITAL WITH A SEPARATE TEAM OF DOCTORS AND A PROCEEDURE THAT YOU WOULD BE THE MOST LIKELY FOR THE BABY TO SURVIVE AND THEN THAT SEPARATE TEAM OF DOCTORS TAKE OVER CARE FOR THE BABY, SO THERE'S KIND OF A FOUR-WEEK WINDOW WHERE YOU REALLY ARE NOT EXACT ON VIABILITIES, BECAUSE WE ALLOW ABORTIONS UP TO 21 WEEKS AND 6 DAYS THERE COULD BE A LEGAL ABORTION AT A POINT WHERE A BABY COULD SURVIVE.

WE'RE ALSO EXPERIENCING MEDICAL BREAK THROUGHS AND ADVANCEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY WHERE BABIES ARE LIVING AT YOUNGER AND YOUNGER AGES AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY SURVIVING MORE IN OUR WINDOW, THERE IS ONE IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW THAT WAS BORN AT 19 WEEKS ON THE DAY AND SHE IS OVER TWO MONTHS OLD NOW.

AND, SO, THAT SITUATION, ALTHOUGH BE IT RARE, IT STILL CAN HAPPEN.

>> IT'S OUT OF THE HOUSE AND ONTO THE SENATE.

>> YES.

>> ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THE THIRD TIME WILL BE THE CHARM?

>> WE'RE GETTING IT TO THEM QUICKER, THE FIRST YEAR IT WAS LATE IN THE SINS, NOT TIME TO GET IT ON THE-- LATE IN THE SEASON, NOT TIME TO GET IT ON THE CALENDAR, BUT I'M HOPING IT WILL BE ON THE CALENDAR.

>> LET'S MOVE TO ANOTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION I THINK YOU ARE CARRYING, IT STIPULATES IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL FOR SCHOOL EMPLOYEES TO SEND OBSCENE MATERIAL TO ANYONE, NOT JUST STUDENTS.

>> TO SOLICIT MATERIAL.

IT'S A LOOPHOLE IN THE LAW WE'VE DISCOVERED, THERE'S UNFORTUNATELY BEEN MANY CASES OF INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SCHOOL EMPLOYEES AND STUDENT, IT'S ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW TO SEND OR RECEIVE OBSCENE MATERIAL BUT THIS CLOSES THE LOOPHOLE TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND FOR PROSECUTORS TO BE ABLE TO PROSECUTE CERTAIN CASES WHERE-- SCHOOL EMPLOYEES HAVE SOLICITED OBSCENE MATERIAL FROM A STUDENT.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY WHEN WE SAY "SOLICIT" THEY ASK SOMEONE TO SEND THEM OBSCENE MATERIALS.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> AND OBSCENE MATERIAL HAS A BROAD DEFINITION BUT YOU ARE CLOSING A LOOP HOLE.

>> YES, UNFORTUNATELY THERE HAVE BEEN CASES THAT IT WAS CLEAR SOMETHING HAPPENED INAPPROPRIATE BUT NOT CLEAR FOR BEING ABLE TO SEEK A PROSECUTION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.

>> UNFORTUNATELY THIS HAPPENS MORE OFTEN THAN WE MIGHT LIKE TO ADMIT IN ALABAMA AND MANY OTHER PLACES.

>> IT'S SAD, I GUESS CARRYING THIS BILL MAKES ME A LITTLE MORE AWARE WHEN I SEE THE NEWS REPORTS OF YET ANOTHER CASE HAPPENING BECAUSE OUR CHILDREN ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE AND, SO, JUST SEEKING TO PROTECT OUR CHILDREN.

>> THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER STEP IN FURTHER PROTECTING OUR CHILDREN.

>> YES.

>> THE ARGUMENT IS OFTEN MADE ABOUT HOW WORLDLY TEENAGERS ARE TODAY BUT THAT'S REALLY NO EXCUSE FOR EXPLOITING UNDERAGED CHILDREN.

>> NO, ADULTS STILL NEED TO BE THE ADULT AND REFRAIN FROM DOING ANYTHING INAPPROPRIATE.

>> I WANT TO SPEND THE LAST FEW MINUTES TALKING ABOUT A BOATING SAFETY BILL, IT WAS IN COMMITTEE TODAY, AND I KNOW BOATING IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO YOU LIVING ON THE LAKE AND ON THE EASTERN PART OF THE STATE.

>> THEY SAY IF YOU WRITE A BOOK WRITE SOMETHING YOU KNOW AND I THINK THE SAME IS ABOUT THIS.

THE BOATING ISSUE WAS IMPORTANT HAVING LIVED ON THE LAKE FOR 40 YEARS AND SEEN THERE WERE SOME NEEDS THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED, SO I FIRST BROUGHT THE BILL IN 2019, BEGAN WORKING ON IT AND THEN, UNFORTUNATELY, IN 2019 WE HAD ONE OF THE MOST DEADLY YEARS ON OUR WATERWAYS IN THE STATE AND I WAS CONTACTED BY ALEA, THEY WANTED TO HELP ME WORK ON THE BILL SO WE SPENT TWO YEARS WORKING ON IT AND CAME UP WITH WHAT WE HAVE.

>> PAINT THE BROAD STROKES FOR US, WHAT DOES YOUR BILL DO?

>> IT DOES FOUR THINGS, WE LOOKED AT THE FATALITIES, INJURIES AND ACCIDENTS AND WHAT THE CAUSES WERE AND ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE DEATHS WERE DUE TO ALCOHOL.

SO, ONE OF THE ISSUES BEING ADDRESSED IS TO MAKE BUI AND DUI NONMUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE MEANING THE PENALTIES FOR ONE OR THE OTHER WOULD CARRY ON AT THE SAME TIME LIKE FOR CURRENTLY A BUI, THE VESSEL LICENSE IS AN ENDORSEMENT ON A DRIVER'S LICENSE, SO CURRENTLY A BUI ONLY SUSPENDS THE VESSEL ENDORSEMENT.

>> BUI BEING-- >> BOATING UNDER THE INFLUENCE.

THIS WOULD CAUSAL SO THE DRIVER'S LICENSE TO BE SUSPENDED OR REVOKED DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF VIOLATIONS AND VICE VERSA.

JUST LIKE WITH A MOTORCYCLE ENDORSEMENTS, IF SOMEBODY GETS A DUI ON A MOTORCYCLE, THEIR LICENSE IS SUSPENDED.

THAT'S ONE OF THE AREAS.

SECONDLY BOATING INEXPERIENCE.

CURRENTLY AN OUT OF STATE VISITOR CAN COME TO ALABAMA AND OPERATE ON OUR WATERS UP TO 45 DAYS AND A YEAR WITHOUT A LICENSE, SO SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE AN OUT OF STATE OPERATOR IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A LICENSE FROM THEIR HOME STATE, IT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO TAKE OUR BOATING CERTIFICATION COURSE AND THEY CAN DO IT ONLINE, IT PRINTS OUT A CARD AT THE END OR TAKE THE DRIVER'S LICENSE OFFICE AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO OPERATE ON THE WATERS.

THIRDLY, MOST OF THE ACCIDENTS, OVER HALF OF THE ACCIDENTS HAPPEN BECAUSE OF SOMEONE, A BOATER, OPERATOR HITTING ANOTHER BOAT, AN OBJECT IN THE WATER, A PERSON IN THE WATER, SO WE HAVE A PROXIMITY LAW, THERE'S NO SPEED LIMIT ON THE WATERS AND THIS WOULD REQUIRE IN AREAS OVER 300 FEET IN WIDTH, WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE SHORE LINE APPEAR A MODER BOAT, PERSON IN THE WATER, TO BE AT IDLE SPEED WITHIN 100 FEET AND IF THE PROXIMITY IS LESS, IT DROPS TO 50.

>> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU, DON, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

>> REPRESENTATIVE GINNY SHAVER, ALWAYS APPRECIATE IT.

>> YOU CAN WATCH PAST EPISODES OF CAPITOL JOURNAL ONLINE AT ANY TIME AT ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISIONS WEBSITE APTV.ORG, CLICK ON THE ONLINE VIDEO PAGE ON THE MAIN PAGE.

YOU CAN CONNECT WITH CAPITOL JOURNAL AND LINK TO PAST EPISODES ON CAPITOL JOURNAL'S FACEBOOK PAGE.

>> NEXT UPON THE BROADCAST REPRESENTATIVE KYLE SOUTH IS BACK IN THE STUDIO WITH US.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US.

>> YOU HAVE A STUDENTS ATHLETE BILL CLOSELY WATCHED THIS SESSION, IT'S ALREADY PAST THE HOUSE AND NOW IN THE SENATE.

IT SAYS STUDENT ATHLETES COULD PROFIT FROM THEIR NAME, LIKENESS AND IMAGE.

TELL US ABOUT BRINGING THIS BILL IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> YEAH, SO MY PREFERENCE FROM THE OUTSET OF THIS WOULD BE FOR CONGRESS TO PASS A SET OF LAWS THAT WOULD AFFECT EVERY STATE THE SAME, BUT THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A PUSH IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA BECAUSE THE STATE OF FLORIDA HAS A SIMILAR BILL THAT WILL GO INTO EFFECT JULY 1 OF THIS YEAR AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE OUR IN STATE UNIVERSITIES WERE NOT AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE RECRUITING STUDENT ATHLETES.

THAT WAS THE PREMISE OF THE BILL.

OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T AGREE WITH THE PREMISE OF PAYING STUDENT ATHLETES AND MAYBE THEIR SCHOLARSHIPS ARE ENOUGH OF A PAYMENT TO BEGIN WITH, BUT MY ENTIRE GOAL WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT STUDENT ATHLETES IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA WERE NOT TREATED UNFAIRLY AS OPPOSED TO OUR SISTER STATES.

>> THERE IS THIS WHOLE NATIONAL DEBATE ABOUT PRESERVING WHAT IS REFERRED TO AS AMATEURISM IN COLLEGE SPORTS AND I KNOW YOU BATTLE AGAINST THAT SOMEWHAT IN BRINGING THE LEGISLATION BUT IT PASSED THE HOUSE AND ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC IN THE SENATE?

>> YES, OPTIMISTIC AND I THINK THEY WILL START MOVING THINGS PRETTY QUICK ON THIS TOPIC, SO I AM CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL BECOME LAW.

I THINK ONE THING TO NOTE DURING THIS, THOUGH, THIS HAS REALLY NO STANDING CURRENTLY BECAUSE IT IS STILL AGAINST NCAA RULES, OBVIOUSLY THEY ARE BRINGING THAT FORTH IN DISCUSSIONS TO CHANGE THEIR BYLAWS, BUT UNTIL THEIR BYLAWS ARE CHANGED IT'S STILL ILLEGAL TO PAY A STUDENT ATHLETE FOR THEIR NAME OR LIKENESS IN THE STATE OF ALABAMA A.

THIS IS A PREEMPTIVE LEGISLATION SO IF THOSE RULES CHANGE, IN THE MEANTIME WE ARE ALREADY PREPARED.

>> THE U.S. SUPREME COURT THIS WEEK SAID IT WAS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE SO IT IS CERTAINLY ON TOP OF MIND FOR A LOT OF FOLKS.

DID YOU HEAR FROM A LOT OF COLLEGIATE ATHLETES?

>> HEARD FROM SEVERAL.

TALKED TO THE UNIVERSITIES AS WE WERE DRAFTING THE LEGISLATION JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE DOING IT IN A FASHION WHICH THEY COULD CONTROL AND MONITOR, BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS CONVERSATION STARTED, I THINK IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN IN ABOUT 1993 WITH THE O'BANNON CASE, ONE THING TO SPEED IT, THE VIDEO GAMES ARE COMING OUT THIS FALL SO IF THERE IS GOING TO BE A NAME, IMAGE, LIKENESS PORTION OF THE VIDEO GAMES THEN COMPENSATION WILL BE HAD FOR THOSE THAT ARE PARTICIPATING BECAUSE OF THAT CASE BACK IN THE 90s.

>> SPORTS RELATED LEGISLATION HAS BEEN A PASSION FOR YOURS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS.

>> YES, NOT MUCH OF AN ATHLETE MY SELF.

>> BUT YOU LIKE TO WATCH.

>> YES, I LIKE TO WATCH.

LIVING IN ALABAMA, COLLEGIATE SPORTS IS BIG, AS WE KNOW, I'M A SPORT SO IT'S A PASSION IN A LOT OF WAYS.

>> ALONG THOSE LINES I WONDER IF I COULD GET YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE BILL DEALING WITH PUBLIC SCHOOL ATHLETES BEING REQUIRED TO PARTICIPATE IN SPORTS BASED ON THE GENDER OF THEIR BIRTH CERTIFICATE.

THIS GOT OUT OF A SENATE COMMITTEE TODAY AND IS ADVANCING.

IT'S CONTROVERSIAL BY NATURE, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON THAT ISSUE?

>> I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE BILL.

OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A BYLAW ALREADY IN EFFECT WITH THE ASHAH BUT THIS WOULD COMPLETELY BAN IT GOING FORWARD, THEY COULDN'T CHANGE THEIR BYLAWS, BEING THE FATHER OF TWO LITTLE GIRLS I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS ON A FAIR PLAYING FIELD, SO I THINK IT'S A FAIRNESS ISSUE AND FULLY SUPPORTED THE BILL AS IT MOVED THROUGH THE HOUSE.

>> YOUR COLLEAGUE IN THE HOUSE IS SPONSORING THIS LEGISLATION AND HE'S SAID FROM THE OUTSET THIS WASN'T TO HIM AGAINST TRANSGENDERS, IT'S FOR GIRLS AND ATHLETES RIGHTS.

>> I THINK HE'S DEAD ON AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD WHEN IT COMES TO SPORTS ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM.

>> REPRESENTATIVE, YOU SIT ON THE HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE, THEY ARE MOVING, BOTH ARE OUT OF THEIR HOUSES OF ORIGIN BEFORE SPRING BREAK AND I DON'T THINK YOU SEE THAT EVERY YEAR.

>> THAT'S RIGHT, I THINK IT WAS PREPARATION IN CASE WE HAD A COVID-RELATED OUTBREAK OR HESITATION BY THE BODY WHERE WE HAD INCIDENCES, ESPECIALLY AFTER GOING THROUGH WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR THAT WE MAKE-- PRIORITIZE THE BUDGETS, GET THEM IN THE POSITION TO BE PASSED IN THE CASE THAT HAPPENS.

>> THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET THAT CAME OUT OF THE HOUSE, A LOT OF PEOPLE SAID THAT THEY WERE VERY PLEASED WITH IT GIVEN WHAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN WITH THE PANDEMIC'S AFFECT ON OUR BUDGET.

>> YES, SAVINGS IN MEDICAID CREATED SOMEONE TIME MONEYS THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE NEXT YEAR, SO, AS YOU SEE THE BUDGET MOVE FORWARD, THERE WERE ONE TIME EXPENDITURES WE TRIED TO FOCUS ON RATHER THAN PUTTING A BURDEN ON FUTURE GENERAL FUND BUDGETS, SO WHILE THINGS ARE GOOD, WE STILL HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL AS TO HOW WE APPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS.

>> THE GENERAL FUND OBVIOUSLY HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MORE CHALLENGING BECAUSE THE REVENUE STREAMS HAVEN'T BEEN AS STABLE AS THE ONES IN THE EDUCATION ALTHOUGH IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WITH THE INTERNET TAX, WE SEE THE FUND GROWING DESPITE THE PANDEMIC.

>> AND MAYBE THE PANDEMIC CONTRIBUTING TO IT, PEOPLE ARE STUCK AT HOME DOING MORE SHOPPING ONLINE, IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW BEHAVIORS WILL CHANGE AND IF IT WILL BE THE CASE.

>> DO YOU PROJECT BOTH BUDGETS WILL GET FINAL PASSAGE THIS YEAR THAN THEY WOULD NORMALLY?

>> I WOULDN'T GET MY HOPES UP TOO MUCH, WE LIKE TO STRETCH THAT PROCESS OUT AND FOR GOOD REASON, SO, THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THE FISCAL YEAR A LOT OF TIMES THE BETTER DECISION MAKING YOU CAN DO.

>> WE'VE BEEN MOVING AT A PRETTY FAST CLIP THIS LEGISLATION SESSION AND MAINLY DUE TO WHAT YOU ALLUDED TO THE UNKNOWNS, THINGS COVID MIGHT THROW INTO IT, KNOCK ON THE PLASTIC WHEEL, BUT SO MUCH IS GOING ON, LEGISLATORS ARE DEALING WITH PRESSING ISSUES AND TRY TO MAKE UP FOR TIME YOU LOST LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF THE COVID-SHORTENED SESSION.

>> YES, A LOT OF GOOD BILLS FAILED AT THE END OF LAST YEAR JUST DUE TO THE SHORTENING OF THE SESSION AND WE CAME BACK AFTER OUR BREAK FROM COVID AND BASICALLY PRIORITIZED ONLY THE BUDGETS AND HAD TO SET EVERYTHING ELSE TO THE SIDE, SO, YES, A LOT OF FOCUS ON BILLS THAT MAYBE WERE IN THE PROCESS LAST YEAR AND JUST BRINGING THEM BACK THIS YEAR, SO, A LITTLE BIT OF A HEAVY WORK LOAD.

>> INDEED.

REPRESENTATIVE KYLE SOUTH, IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU ON THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR BEING HERE.

>> AND CAPITOL JOURNAL WILL BE BACK IN A MOMENT.

>> STAY IN TOUCH ON FACEBOOK AND TWITTER, YOU CAN CONTACT US BY EMAIL AT DDAILY AT APTV.ORG OR BY MAIL.

>> AND THAT'S CAPITOL JOURNAL FOR TONIGHT.

COMING UP TOMORROW NIGHT AT 10:30, WE'LL HAVE THE LATEST FROM THE STATEHOUSE, INCLUDING POSSIBLE SENATE CONSIDERATION OF A CLOSELY-WATCHED BAIL REFORM BILL CALLED "ANIAH'S LAW."

IT WAS ON TUESDAY'S CALENDAR, BUT THE SENATE ADJOURNED WITHOUT GETTING TO IT.

AND WE'LL BE JOINED BY REPRESENTATIVE JEREMY GRAY OF OPELIKA, WHO WILL DISCUSS HIS BILL TO LIFT A BAN ON YOGA IN STATE SCHOOLS, WHICH STALLED IN COMMITTEE TODAY.

WE'LL ALSO BE JOINED BY SENATOR SAM GIVHAN OF HUNTSVILLE, WHO WILL DISCUSS RENEWED TALK OF A COMPREHENSIVE GAMING BILL AND THE NATIONAL DEBATE OVER SO-CALLED "VACCINATION PASSPORTS."

FOR ALL OF US AT CAPITOL JOURNAL, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

I'M DON DAILEY.