►
Description
House Banking & Consumer Affairs Subcommittee House Hearing Room 3
A
Welcome
to
the
banking
and
consumer
comp
affairs
subcommittee
and
we're
not
playing
final
in
jeopardy,
but
this
is
our
final
calendar
and
we'll
have
the
categories
coming
up
here
pretty
soon,
but
for
right
now,
madam
clerk,
would
you
call
the
road.
A
Thank
you
and
do
we
have
any
announcements
or
personal
announcements
from
any
of
our
members,
any
recognition,
okay,
we're
going
to
get
to
a
little
bit
of
homework
here
and
before
we
get
everything
started.
First
of
all,
item
number
one
house
bill
709,
has
been
taken
off
noticed
and
referred
to
the
special
calendar.
A
And
so
the
first
one
on
the
regular
calendar
is
actually
going
to
be.
If
I
can
find
it
item
number
two.
A
C
C
Without
this
amendment,
the
bill
would
simply
move
day
to
day
operations
of
the
utility
consumer
advocate
over
to
t-puck.
I
thought
it
made
sense
to
still
have
the
ag
retain
some
ability
to
weigh
in
if,
if
he
or
staff
see
something
that
comes
out
of
t-puck,
that
shouldn't
or
department
that
doesn't
seem
right.
This
amendment
allows
either
the
director
of
the
new
public
advocate
office
or
the
attorney
general
to
appeal
any
ruling
that
comes
out
of
t
puck
that
they
believe
occurred
in
error.
C
A
D
The
spirit
of
this
amendment
getting
going
along
to
get
along
and
working
in
concert
with
the
ag's
office
as
opposed
to
being
in
conflict
and
we're
all
about
kumbaya
moments
here,
chairman
reagan.
So
thank
you
for.
A
C
You
basically,
this
bill
transfers.
The
consumer
advocate
division
from
the
attorney
general's
office
to
the
public
utility
commission's
function,
and
I
do
this
for
two
reasons.
First,
is
to,
shall
we
say,
properly,
spend
taxpayer
funds
currently
in
the
ag's
office.
C
This
function
is
out
of
the
general
fund
of
the
treasury,
that
is
to
say,
the
taxpayers
are
footing
the
bill
for
the
people
doing
the
work,
no,
no
comments
on
the
quality
of
the
work
or
anything
like
that.
It's
just
that
the
taxpayers
are
paying
for
it
under
the
bill,
as
opposed
the
users
of
this
system
are
the
ones
that
are
paying
for
it.
Therefore,
it
comes
out
from
under
the
taxpayer,
and
even
though
the
amendment
has
left
some
function
in
the
ag,
it
should
be
considerably
cheaper
to
the
taxpayer.
C
The
investigation
and
bringing
complaints
is
an
executive
level
function
by
moving
this
into
an
executive
board.
It
more
closely
aligns
itself,
in
my
opinion,
with
the
tennessee
constitution,
article
two,
which
says
there
are
three
branches
of
government
and
section
one
in
section,
two
states
that
no
branch
shall
interfere
with
the
operations
of
the
other,
so
this
allows
the
executive
level
function
to
be
performed
by
an
executive
level
board
with
an
appeal
process
for
dispute
resolution
to
the
ag's
office.
C
I'll
also
mention,
as
I
mentioned
in
the
amendment
oversight
function,
which
is
now
layered
and
an
improvement,
but
in
addition
to
that,
by
putting
this
into
the
board,
it
also
creates
additional
oversight
in
that
the
comptroller's
office.
Audit
division
will
now
be
auditing
auditing
t-puck
to
include
they
already
do
that,
but
this
will
include
now
this
consumer
advocate
division.
C
Additionally,
because
in
that
cycle
it
will
come
before
government
operations
for
our
review
of
that
audit
and
possible
corrections
of
deficiencies.
So
we
actually
have
increased
the
layers
of
oversight
in
this
case
by
more
than
just
what
the
amendment
said,
there
are
a
number
of
states,
nebraska
and
west
virginia
have
implemented.
This
and
seen
excellent
results.
Our
neighboring
states
of
north
carolina
and
georgia
are
doing
that
north
carolina
is
fairly
recent
and
is
experiencing
outstanding
results.
C
I
will
mention,
though,
that
you
know
this
is
not
across
the
nation.
It's
a
hodgepodge
if
you
will
a
checkerboard
of
different
states,
doing
it
different
ways.
I
think
this
is
the
right
thing
for
tennessee
to
do.
It
also
creates
a
more
efficient
process
which,
to
some
degree,
works
a
little
bit
that
way
now.
Excuse
me
this
formalizes
it.
C
If
you're
interested,
I
will
go
into
detail
on
it,
but
essentially
what
it
does.
Is
it
funds
the
dispute
resolution?
Probably
the
dispute
investigation
resolution
mechanism
from
the
users,
that
is
to
say
those
are
the
public
utility
members,
and
it
also
requires
that
they
do
the
first
cut
at
that.
Hopefully,
it's
resolved
at
the
lowest
level
with
a
minimum
cost.
C
A
The
brevity,
if
you
don't
care
we're
gonna,
have
you
come
back
up
in
a
few
minutes,
but
right
now
we're
gonna
go
out
a
session
just
for
a
moment,
and
we
have
a
couple
of
speakers
that
are
gonna
be
coming
up
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
you.
Just
a.
A
At
this
time
we're
gonna
go
out
of
session.
We
have
attorney
general
herbert
slatery
and
jp
urban
and
if
you
all
would
come
forward
and
state
your
name
and
who
you're
with,
if
you
don't
care,
yeah,
either
either
place
you
want
to
go,
we've
got
three
minutes
each
and
then
we'll
have
a
q
a
after
that.
If
you
don't
care
up
to
three
minutes
each
I'm
sorry,
you
can
take
less.
If
you
want.
F
Thank
you
chairman.
We
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
this
morning
herbert
slater
attorney
general.
I
have
jp
urban
with
me
who's,
the
deputy
of
our
financial
division
and
oversees
the
consumer
advocate
division.
So
thank
you
for
letting
us
speak
to
you
this
morning
on
this
bill.
At
the
outset,
I
would
like
to
thank
chairman
reagan.
We've
we
have
had.
I
know
I've
had
one
significant
discussion
with
him
and
we've
had
other
discussions.
F
We
appreciate
being
able
to
engage
on
the
bill
and,
frankly,
we
think
the
bill
has
some
really
good
aspects
to
it,
particularly
the
funding
piece.
I
think
his
idea
on
funding
is
is
really
real
work.
We
we
have
actually
it
will
work
in
our
office,
because
we
have
a
number
of
positions
that
are
funded
by
interdepartmental
revenues
from
other
departments
or
other
offices.
You
know
across
state
government
so
that
it
would
fit
within
that
structure,
but
that's
a
that
is
a
really
good
change.
F
Think
that
the
independence
of
the
consumer
advocate
division
in
our
offices
is
really
significant,
so
this
move
is
is
very
significant
from
a
consumer
standpoint.
We
we
represent
the
consumer,
we
are
an
advocate
function.
F
An
advocate
function
is
a
judicial
function
and
we
are
part
of
the
judiciary,
for
instance,
when
we,
when
we
defend
your
your
legislation,
we're
an
advocate
for
you.
We
are
an
advocate
for
the
consumer,
so
it
fits
that
way.
It's
been
that
way
since
since
1995,
and
we
think
it's
it's
worked
significance
very
well.
These
the
companies
that
we
that
are
regulated
by
the
by
t
puck,
are
there
two
aspects
I
really
want.
I
want
to
emphasize
to
you
number
one
there.
F
They
are
very
large
companies,
for
instance,
duke
energy,
is
the
paramount,
is
the
parent
of
piedmont
gas,
their
their
market
cap
as
of
december,
and
these
are
all
december
numbers.
77
billion
southern
companies,
the
para,
the
parent
of
chattanooga
gas
company,
68.4
billion
aep,
has
kingsport
power,
they're
41.46
billion
american
water
works
that
has
tennessee.
American
water
company
is
32
billion,
so
these
are
very
sizable
companies.
The
second
factor
I
would
like
for
you
to
consider
is
that
they
are
monopolies,
they
have
no
competition,
so
there
are
not
market
forces
that
hold
them
accountable.
F
The
accountability
comes
through
your
regulatory
structure
and
that's
why
it's
important
to
have
an
independent
advocate
on
behalf
of
the
consumer,
and
we
can
give
you
all
sorts
of
statistics
about.
We
think
we've
saved
the
consumers
a
lot
of
money,
but
this
is
a
real
change,
because
you're
going
to
put
the
bill
proposes
putting
the
advocate
division
within
tpuck,
which
is
the
judicial
determination
division.
So
it's
poor.
It's
like
putting
a
lawyer
in
an
office
of
suites
that
includes
the
judge's
chambers,
so
it's
it
they're,
they're
really
close
together.
F
So
it's
the.
We
think
we
think
the
current
system
you
know
works
really
well
the
the
amendment-
and
this
is
another
piece
I
would
want
to
emphasize-
that
I
know
time's
running
short,
but
the
amendment
says
that
we
can
that
we
can
appeal,
but
but
our
value
to
t
puck
and
you
can
ask
them
our
value.
Is
we
build
the
record
on
which
they
make
decisions
so
we're
the
ones
that
take
the
depositions?
F
We're
the
ones
that
collect
the
financial
records,
we're
the
ones
that
that
have
the
engage,
the
experts
to
review
the
financials,
we're
the
ones
that
actually
negotiate
a
lot
of
settlements.
So
a
lot
of
these
things
are
settled,
but
we're
the
ones
that
do
all
of
that
and
what
we
do
is
we
build
a
record
and
that's
that's
the
record
on
which
the
commission
makes
it
a
decision
and
that
and
any
lawyer
will
tell
you
that
the
key
to
an
appeal
is
a
really
good
record.
F
The
way
it's
proposed
in
the
amendment
is
that
we
would
come
in.
Perhaps
if
we
ever
got
notice
of
something
we
would
perhaps
have
the
right
to
appeal,
but
we
are
stuck
with
the
record.
That's
already
there,
so
it's
kind
of
like
I'm,
I'm
a
quarterback
that
has
to
come
into
the
in
the
fourth
quarter
and
the
coach
hands
me
a
playbook,
that's
a
new
playbook
and
I
don't
know
the
place.
We've
never
practiced
them.
It's
it's
brand
new
I've
had
no
input
into
that
record,
and
so
I
so
up
on
appeal.
F
F
We
know
exactly
what's
in
the
record
and
that's
going
to
be
a
significant
disadvantage,
and
my
our
final
comment
to
you
is:
these:
companies
are
big,
no
competition,
the
regulations
should
be
robust
and
it
should
be
rigorous,
and
I
think
you
would
want
that
for
your
consumers,
because
they're
490
000
households
that
are
covered
by
this
63
000
businesses-
and
this
is
a
really
really
significant
change.
So
we
we
thank
you
for
your
consideration.
We
would
encourage
that
that
that
the
fee
piece
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
F
We've
also
proposed
an
amendment
to
to
chairman
reagan
that
ramps
up
the
rulemaking
authority
of
the
of
the
commission,
which
government
oz
would
have
to
review.
It
also
incorp
incorporated
an
annual
report
that
we
would
make
to
the
legislature,
which
we
would
be
happy
to
do,
but
all
of
those
things,
I
think
really
would
work
really
well
together
with
the
funding
mechanism,
but
moving
it
from
our
office
is,
is
a
place.
I
don't
think
that
is
a
good
policy.
A
A
Okay:
okay,
thank
you
now,
questions
from
the
committee
please
and
chairman
vaughn,.
D
Yes,
sir,
thanks
for
being
here,
we
some
of
us
spent
some
time
this
earlier
this
session,
learning
about
the
forms
of
different
all
the
monopolies
that
we
see
in
the
state
and
who
regulates
them
and
who
doesn't
and
when
we
heard
a
presentation
from
t-puck,
they
talked
about
the
various
rate
making
systems
that
are
in
place
and
one
being
of
same.
Obviously,
this
must
be
pretty
litigious.
If
you
guys
were
concerned
about
building
the
record,
but
they've
also
moved
into
an
alternative
rate
format.
D
G
Sure
so
the
alternative
rate
making
most
of
the
I
think
four
out
of
five
now
will
have
a
alternative
rate.
Making
procedure
set
up
at
the
public
utility
commission
and
the
consumer
advocate
is
is
always
involved.
In
those
cases
we
intervene
to
make
sure
that
that
expenses
are
proper
or
the
what's
included
in
rate
base
is
proper.
It's
a
very
complex
technical
analysis
for
these,
but
the
alternative
rate
making
becomes
sort
of
many
rate
cases.
G
They
are
certainly
less
of
a
hard
look
than
a
full
full-blown
rate
case
and
they
happen
annually.
So
we
are
involved
in
all
of
those
cases
and
analyze
them
carefully
to
ensure
that
often
multi-million
dollar
rate
increases
each
year
are
reasonable
and
we
we
often
also
settle
those
cases.
So
I,
in
my
time
with
the
office,
I
don't
think
any
of
them
went
to
hearing.
If
I
recall
at
least
the
vast
majority
of
them
have
settled
so
that
that's
our
role
in
those.
D
One
of
the
things
that
we've
been
trying
to
keep
our
eye
on
is
that
these
utilities
that
operate
in
our
state
are
millions,
hundreds
of
millions
or
billion
dollar
businesses,
and
that's
something
that
we
that
we
believe
that
we've
got
on
the
forefront
of
what
we're
what
we're
attempting
to
talk
about
here,
but
whenever
you
get
into
so,
if
you're
is
so
that
sounded.
Like
you
said,
80
of
your
cases
were
alternative
rate,
making
that's
not
as
a
burdensome
process
these
days
as
a
standard
rate
making
case.
Is
that
fair
to
say.
F
Yes,
I
mean
that
we,
the
general
assembly
in
2012,
reformed
it,
was
a
tra
at
that
point
and
then
so
that
was,
I
think
the
industry
was
really
happy
about
that,
and,
and
rightly
so,
and
then
you
decided
to
put
in
the
alternative
rate
mechanism
which
did
simplify
things
and
so
we've
we've
you've
taken
two
really
significant
steps
that
really,
I
think,
have
benefited
the
process
and
benefited
industry,
and
now
they
want
something
additional.
H
D
F
D
And-
and
I
understand
that-
I'm
I'm
sitting
here-
wondering
though
whether
or
not
when
you
talk
about
these,
these
cases
that
whether
we
need
litigious
attorneys
or
do
we
need
really
smart
accountants
looking
at
the
materials,
and
so
that's
that's
just
one
man's
opinion,
and
so
I
I
appreciate
y'all
being
here
and
answering
questions,
though
thank
you.
A
Thank
you.
Were
there
any
other
questions
on
the
committee?
If
not,
I
had
one
real
quick.
I
guess
this
would
be
for
the
attorney
general,
the
history
of
you
mentioned
1995
a
while
ago,
and
I'm
one
of
the
few
people-
and
I
know
you
do
too.
I
remember
the
public
service
commission
and
we
would
elect
one
from
each
grand
division
of
the
state
and
I
think
it
fell
under
that
at
one
time.
A
What
what
was
the
is
that
when
it
was
turned
over
to
your
office
and
and
what
was
the
intent
and
the
process
behind
that.
F
Yeah,
it
was
moved,
it
was
moved
to
our
office
in
1995
and
I
think
the
idea
would
be
to
well
to
take
it
out
of
the
executive
branch
and
and
move
it
over
to
our
office
to
to
have
it.
As
an
advocate
advocate
armed,
you
know,
on
behalf
of
the
consumers.
F
A
A
It
thank
you,
I'm
going
to
go
back
into
session,
colonel
reagan.
You
are
recognized.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
by
way
of
explanation,
the
bill
does
separate
into
a
different
function.
The
dispute
resolution
mechanism-
we're
talking
about
now,
they're
still
attached
in
in
that,
but
that
function
is
intended
to
be
separate.
The
director
is
appointed,
but
the
director,
then,
is
confirmed
by
this
body
and
that
director
has
hiring
and
firing
authority
for
all
those
that
work
in
that
division.
So
it's
it
is
quasi-independent
in
that
respect.
C
By
way
of
parallel,
the
243
boards
and
agencies
that
come
before
government
operations
that
I
see
on
a
routine
basis
have
similar
setups
in
many
of
the
situations.
So
this
is
this
is
not
plowing
new
ground.
This
is
just
taking
advantage
of
that
which
we've
seen
work
in
other
places,
and
I
do
while
I'm
here.
Let
me
compliment
the
attorney
general.
I
think
they've
they've
done
a
good
job.
It's
just
that.
I
feel
that
it's
more
efficient,
as
well
as
being
better
for
the
taxpayer.
J
Chairman
boyd,
thank
you,
mr
chairman
and
and
chairman
reagan,
when
I
first
saw
this.
I
thought
this
is
a.
This
is
a
good
idea
and
at
the
time
we
were
in
full
commerce.
We
were
getting
having
hearings
from
t-puck
and
in
the
comptroller's
office
and
learning
about
utilities
and
and
how
we
got
to
where
we
are,
and
I
like
some
components
of
your
bill.
J
I
like
that,
the
the
cost
savings
to
the
taxpayers,
this
new
way
of
funding
it
and-
and
I
I
think
it
at
first
glance-
it
does
make
sense
to
streamline
it,
move
it
over
there,
but
after
some
of
the
some
of
the
presentations
that
we've
had
and
the
more
I've
learned
as
we've
watched
the
public
service
commission,
you
know
get
downsized
and
tennessee
regulatory
authority
to
t
puck
that
it
is
now
I'm
not
sure
that
they
have
the
capacity
I'm
not
sure
to
to
handle
this
even
moving
them
over
there.
J
But
the
other
concern
I
have
is
that
I
I
like
the
wall
of
separation
for
the
for
the
consumer
that
the
attorney
general's
office
has-
and
we
have
traditionally
in
the
last
few
years,
moved
things
over
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
like
the
consumer
protection
division,
that
used
to
be
under
insurance
and
commerce,
and
we
found
that
it
was.
J
They
had
a
good,
strong
cadre
of
attorneys
over
there
at
the
attorney
general's
office
and
and
it
had
more
teeth,
and
so
we
moved
that
over
there
and
and
on
a
side
note
the
human
rights
commission
at
some
point
in
the
future.
I
would
love
to
see
that
moved
over
to
the
attorney
general's
office,
and
so
I
think,
with
them,
advocating
for
the
consumers
out
there,
particularly
on
these
these
rate
cases.
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
leave
them
there
now,
like.
J
I
said
there
are
components
of
this
bill
that
I'd
like
to
see
incorporated,
but,
but
I
I
just
want
to
for
the
record
state
that
that
as
much
as
I
appreciate
the
work
and
and
thought
that
you
put
into
this,
I
I
do
disagree
with
the
heart
of
it.
I
think
the
attorney
general's
office
needs
to
keep
this
keep
this
division
and
continue
the
way
things
are
it
was.
J
It
was,
I'm
sure
there
was
an
incredible
amount
of
thought
that
went
into
it
when
they
did
it
back
in
1995,
and
I
just
think
that's
the
best
place
for
it.
I
think
the
attorney
general
his
example
of
having
the
attorneys
housed
right
there.
Their
offices
with
the
judge,
is
a
great
example
of
it
tonight.
So
I
kind
of
like
the
way
it
is.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Okay,
chairman
rankin.
A
C
C
Tbi
and
twra
are
administratively
attached
to
the
commissions
in
the
executive
branch,
and
yet
we
have
that
wall
of
separation,
if
you
will
for
the
investigator
investigatory
functions
in
there,
just
like
this
bill
proposes
in
t-puck,
so
we
aren't
plowing
new
ground
here
per
se,
we're
just
modeling
what
we've
seen
work
elsewhere
here
and
again,
not
at
the
expense
of
disputing
with
someone
who
may
be
representing
me
in
the
future.
C
So
to
your
point,
this
bill
with
the
amendment
still
leaves
the
attorney
general's
office
function
in
place.
As
the
final
step
there
and
again
I
shouldn't,
say
the
final
step
because
it
could
still
go
to
court,
but
in
this
process,
as
the
final
steps
that
they're
they're
a
part
of,
I
don't
think
that
we're
taking
it
away
from
them.
I
just
think
that
we
are
actually
streamlining
this
process
so
that
the
simple
easy
to
fix
problems
get
fixed
first,
get
fixed
most
cheaply
and
in
fact,
in
the
proper
place.
D
And
and
chairman
reagan,
I've
got
to
disagree
with
my
colleague.
D
I
was
kind
of
struggling
with
this
until
you,
your
amendment,
your
amendment
actually
solved
it
for
me
by
not
eliminating
their
oversight.
I
think
it
was
going
to
be
a
situation
to
where
the
there
was
a
little
bit
too
much
and
potential
for
in
too
much
independence.
I
won't
say
that,
because
I
think
the
people
all
that
participate
in
this
process,
whether
it's
be
through
the
attorney
general's
office
or
through
t
pucker
or
professionals
that
want
the
best
job
for
the
consumers
that
they
can
so
you're.
D
I
tend
to
fall
with
you,
your
your
amendment,
scratched
whatever
edge
I
had
with
regards
to
the
process.
So
thank
you
for
bringing
it.
Thank
you.
A
A
Okay,
item
number
three:
is
roll
to
the
hill,
so
we're
going
to
go
to
item
number
four:
let's
forget
that
item
number
four
house
bill
2114
by
chairman
eldridge,
I'm
sorry.
I
have
gone
I've
skipped
over
here.
Item
number
four
is
off
item
number
five
is
house
bill,
21,
55,
four,
sorry,
21
15..
We
got
a
motion
and
a
second
and
chairman
eldridge
you're
recognized
thank.
K
You
chairman,
there
is
an
amendment
going
with
this
bill.
It's
number
14,
6
30..
Is
that
correct?
I.
K
K
A
K
A
Looking
at
it
wrong,
but
but
we
do
not
have
one
okay,
all
right:
okay,
we'll
go
with.
K
What
this
bill
is
asking
to
do
is
add
to
the
list
of
unfair
and
deceptive
practices
under
tennessee
code.
47
18104b,
the
advertising
of
a
home
warranty
to
consumers
in
this
state,
are
issuing
and
delivering
a
home
warranty
to
the
consumers
in
this
state
without
explicitly
stating
and
writing
in
written
detail
what
the
items
are
covered
and
fully
paid
for
by
the
home
warranty
and
that
that
is
the
bill.
A
We're
going
to
take
a
couple
of
minutes
in
recess
and
get
something
legally
here.
Okay,
thank
you.
A
Okay,
we're
back
in
session,
and
we
are
on
this
bill
without
objection
on
house
bill,
2114
we're
going
to
roll
it
to
the
heel
of
the
calendar
and
then
we'll
be
back
on
that:
okay
without
objection,
roll
to
the
hill
and
the
next
bill
house
bill
2470
by
chairman
bond
chairman
bond,
you
are
recognized.
A
Yes,
there
is,
and
what
number
do
you
have.
A
L
L
This
is
a
bill
that
would
have
the
tennessee
department
of
the
treasury
set
up
a
board
to
administer
retirement
accounts
for
private
sector
employees
that
do
not
currently
have
retirement
accounts
through
their
employers
at
work.
These
would
be
of
a
defined
contribution.
Nature
like
a
roth
ira
or
a
roth
401,
or
a
403
b
type
account.
L
The
contributions
to
these
accounts
would
be
entirely
voluntary
by
the
employee.
The
employee
would
have
a
ira
mandated
minimum
or
maximum
contribution,
or
they
could
opt
out
entirely,
and
if
the
employee
decided
to
contribute
to
these
kinds
of
accounts,
they
again
would
do
so
voluntarily
and
it
would
be
done
through
payroll
deduction.
L
L
These
expenses
would
be
paid
for
with
fees
from
the
accounts.
The
same
way,
retirement
accounts
are,
are
current,
currently
paid
administrative
costs.
With
these
fees,
I
think
a
standard
rate
in
the
private
sector
right
now
is
about
a
quarter
of
a
percent.
The
tennessee
department
of
the
treasury
manages
our
orp
accounts
for
about
that
same
a
fee
about
that
same
level.
L
Now
there
are
in
the
interest
of
full
disclosure.
There
are
three
states
who
are
already
doing
something
like
this
and
they're
very
proud
of
their
plans.
They
believe
they're,
very
successful
private
sector
employees
who
don't
have
retirement
plans
through
their
employers,
have
contributed
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
to
these
plans,
but
in
the
interest
of
full
disclosure,
the
three
states
that
have
done
this
are
oregon,
california
and
illinois,
and
we
typically
don't
want
to
do
anything
that
those
states
have
done.
I
just
it's
just
in
the
interest
of
full
decl
disclosure.
L
I
want
you
to
to
know
that,
but
I
think
that
this
bill
provides
a
way
for
tennessee
to
really
help
people
in
a
meaningful
way
establish
a
mechanism
through
which
to
save
so
they
can
prepare
for
their
retirement.
In
these
other
states,
hundreds
of
millions,
millions
of
dollars
have
been
saved
and
at
a
very,
very
minimal
cost
to
the
state
of
tennessee
administrative
costs
to
replicate
programs
that
are
already
available
for
public
sector
employees,
with
those
administrative
fees
being
paid
for
with
those
administrative
costs
being
paid
for
from
fees
out
of
the
accounts.
A
J
Stop
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
and
representative
baum.
I
appreciate
your
the
spirit
of
what
you're
wanting
to
do
here
and
bringing
awareness
to
this
issue.
People
do
not
save
enough
money
for
retirement
and
I
think,
there's
going
to
be
a
whole
generation
that
you
know
our
parents
generation
had
pensions.
The
generation
that
is
is
primarily
going
to
have
defined
contribution.
Plans
are
not
putting
enough
in
and
they're
going
to
be
in
for
a
a
shock
when
they
get
to
social
security
age.
J
J
I
appreciate
your
transparency
on
the
three
states
that
have
that
have
done
that
and
and
my
understanding
was
they
don't
have
the
participation
that
they
thought
they
would
in
those
states,
but
I
generally
speaking
and
opposed
to
this
idea
of
the
state
getting
involved
in
private
sector
employers
or
employees.
J
Retirement
accounts,
even
if
it's
voluntary,
and
even
if
it's
a
defined
contribution
plan
and
there's
no
matching
or
anything
like
that,
but
the
question
I
would
ask
you
is:
if
the
employees
are
not
saving
for
it
now
they
have
not
gone
to
their
local
bank
or
their
local
financial
advisor,
or
anybody
like
that
or
they're
not
participating
in
a
plan.
What
what
would
make
them
all
of
a
sudden
decide
to
do
it
with
the
state
of
tennessee.
L
These
this
plan
would
be
for
employees
who
work
for
employers
who
don't
currently
offer
plans
through
work.
So
there's
no
mechanism
through
which
an
employee
would
make
a
payroll
deduction
into
a
plan
that
would
be
managed
like
ti
double
a
cref
or
great
west
or
voya.
That
kind
of
thing
the.
If
an
employer
offers
that
kind
of
a
plan,
then
then
this
bill
would
not
would
not
apply
to
those
employees
or
those
employers,
because
the
employer
already
has
a
plan.
L
This
bill
would
just
apply
to
employees
who
work
in
the
private
sector
for
an
employer
who
does
not
offer
anything.
This
would
provide
a
way
for
employees
to
make
those
contributions
with
a
payroll
deduction
into
a
plan.
That's
managed
with
certain
accounts
that
are
earmarked
for
growth
or
international,
investing
or
value
investing
in
a
way
that
employees
currently
don't
have
available.
A
Okay,
chairman
boyd,
thank.
J
You,
mr
chairman,
and
and
so
I
I
appreciate
what
you're
trying
to
do
here
I
and
when
I
spoke
to
a
group
one
time
that
was
very
much
opposed
to
this.
I
told
them.
I
said
you
know
it,
we
it
it's
not
going
to
happen.
I
agree
with
you
on
that,
but
my
challenge
to
them
was:
we've
identified
these
people
out
here
that
don't
have
retirement
accounts
and
and
they
can
go
to
a
to
a
bank
or
to
a
financial
planner.
They
don't
have
to
have
a
group
retirement
plan
to
participate.
J
They
can
do
a
roth
ira
or
traditional
ira.
You
know
their
their
simple
plans,
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
these
folks
could
participate
in,
and
so
my
challenge
to
anybody
that
can
hear
my
voice.
If
you
were
in
that
industry
is,
we
need
to
be
reaching
out
to
these
people
and
and
we
need
to
be
enrolling
them
in
retirement
plans
and
doing
our
part
folks
that
are
in
the
insurance
in
the
financial
services
industry.
J
But
I
I
to
as
politely
as
I
can
thank
you
for
bringing
awareness
this
issue
and
for
your
passion
for
it.
I
will
be
opposing
this
bill,
but
I
I
like
the
spirit
of
what
you're
trying
to
do.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,.
A
Thank
you
and
representative
lynn
you're
next.
H
I
I
think,
I'm
just
going
to
echo
what
chairman
boyd
said,
and
I
truly
appreciate
your
heart.
I
we
all
realize
that
we
don't
save
enough
in
society.
People
are
not
saving
enough
and
we
really
need
to
train
our
children
to
be
savers
for
the
future,
but
I
I
just
don't
think
it
would
be
a
good
idea
to
compete
with
the
private
sector,
like
this,
for
government
to
compete
with
the
private
sector.
H
H
H
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
I'll,
be
brief,
because
I
concur
with
my
colleagues
on
their
comments.
I
will
add
from
from
the
banking
sector,
I
mean
financial
literacy
and
this
kind
of
comes
under
that
financial
literacy
umbrella.
M
We
certainly
need
to
put
more
resources
into
educating
our
public
and
if
there
was
a
bill
to
for
the
tennessee,
to
provide
more
resources
in
public
education
handouts
to
employees
that
are
not
participating
in
plans
to
make
them
try
to
make
them
aware
of
time
marches
on
and
everybody
thinks
they
can
catch
up
in
the
last
few
years
prior
to
retirement,
and
we
know
that
just
doesn't
work
so
again.
I
would
certainly
encourage
another
bill
coming
back
to
put
some
more
resources
in
education
in
this
area.
So
with
that,
mr
chairman,
thank
you.
N
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
representative
for
bringing
this
bill.
I
actually
think
it's
a
good
bill.
I
think
what
the
my
colleague
just
mentioned
about
financial
literacy
is
a
concern
in
this
state
and
I
feel
that
our
treasury
treasurer
has
a
great
amount
of
credibility
across
the
state
he's
been
in
schools
and
all
across
the
state
where
he's
talked
about
the
investments
of
the
state,
the
tennessee
stars
program.
N
So
there's
a
level
of
comfort
in
dealing
with
someone
like
the
treasury
in
the
state
of
tennessee,
based
on
how
we've
been
very
conservative
with
how
we
manage
money
in
this
state.
We
have
also
here
in
the
state
of
tennessee
a
lot
of
people
that
are
caught
in
this
eternal
temporary
work
where
they
may
work
on
an
assignment
on
a
temporary
basis
for
six
months.
They
don't
get
any
benefits
and
then
they
you
know,
they'd
have
to
take
a
break
because
they
could
possibly
be
full
time
and
then
have
to
go
back.
N
So
I
think
this
provides
an
opportunity
for
them
to
make
a
decision
to
put
some
money
aside,
knowing
that
it
will
be
managed
very
conservatively
and
that
they
feel
a
level
of
comfort
and
and
because
investments
are
so
complicated
and
a
lot
of
people
fear
that
they're
going
to
make
the
wrong
decision.
N
They
may
not
go
to
a
traditional
bank
or
or
to
some
broker,
because
they
have
this
level
of
uncertainty,
so
they're
afraid
to
make
the
investment,
and
I
think
that
we've
demonstrated
how
how
very
methodical
we've
been
in
this
state
about
managing
money
and
investments.
In
return,
you
can
look
at
the
status
that
we
have
right
now
with
how
much.
M
N
We
have
in
this
state
because
of
how
great
we've
been
doing
so
I
think
it's
a
good
bill,
I'm
going
to
vote
for
it
and
I
hope
we
can
continue
the
conversation,
move
it
forward
and
continue
the
conversation.
If
people
have
some
reservations,
maybe
we
could
do
something
to
fix
it
as
a
go
to
full
committee.
I
think
it's
a
great
opportunity
for
gig
workers
and
people
that
just
don't
have
these
benefits
available
to
them
and
will
love
the
opportunity.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
thank
you
for
this
bill.
L
Just
respond
to
some
of
the
comments.
First
of
all,
I
think
our
tennessee
general
assembly
is
on
the
right
track.
We
have
designated
october
as
financial
literacy
month,
but
in
addition
to
that,
in
the
field
of
behavioral
economics,
there's
a
theory
called
nudge
theory,
which
means
about
like
what
it
says.
L
How
that
translates
into
this
situation
is
if
an
employee
has
the
option
to
just
simply
check
a
box
and
have
a
part
of
their
payroll
deduction,
be
sent
to
some
kind
of
a
defined
contribution.
Account
that'll,
be
managed
an
investment
and
invested
they're
happy
to
do
it,
but
if
they've
got
to
take
their
time,
get
in
the
car
shop
around
drive
to
a
bank
to
find
an
investor
fill
out
the
paperwork
to
make
contributions
come
directly
out
of
their
account.
L
That's
just
enough
of
a
barrier
that
lots
of
people,
don't
do
it
and
then
what
we
find
is
when
they
have
a
medical
emergency
or
they
need
to
retire.
They
don't
have
the
resources
that
they
need
and
then
it's
society
at
large
that
bears
a
portion
of
those
costs.
According
to
nudge
theory,
if
you
just
provide
these
individuals
with
the
form
where
all
they
have
to
do
is
agree
to
the
contribution
most
people
are
are
happy
to
do
it.
D
That
you
got
to
the
you
kind
of
talked
around
the
point
that
I'm
curious
about
in
this
is
that
why
these
folks
already
have
access
to
be
able
to
save
money?
Invest
money
re
put
together
retirement
plan,
whether
it
be
through
an
independent
broker
or
savings
account
or
whatever?
L
D
All
right,
I
appreciate
it,
it's
a
very
interesting
concept,
one
I
tend
to
well.
No,
I
I
do
not
like
it
when
government
gets
in
and
displaces
private
enterprises
from
being
in
the
marketplace,
but
it
is
your
heart's
in
the
right
place.
I
can
tell
and
you're
a
lot
really
really
smart
guy,
and
I
know
that
you
would
see
this
through
to
make
sure
that
it
worked.
It's
just
something,
I'm
I'm
struggling
with
myself,
but
thank
you.
A
O
O
If
we
got
more
people
that
got
in
the
habit
of
saving,
it
would
actually
benefit
private
sector
because
they
might,
you
know,
look
and
understand
that
the
benefits
from
having
these
manage
accounts
and
might
look
for
other
opportunities
as
well,
but
I
think
that
for
a
lot
of
these
employees,
quite
frankly,
they
are
probably
at
a
lower
income
bracket
and
and
maybe
not
as
attractive
to
these
different
brokers
that
are
out
there
to
try
to
recruit
them
to
save.
O
And
so
I
think
that
anything
we
can
do
as
a
state
to
create
savings,
for
people
ultimately
will
be
a
great
benefit,
not
only
the
tennesseans
but
the
state
as
a
whole,
because
what
happens,
as
you
pointed
out,
is
when
people
don't
have
these
savings
in
these
accounts
in
place?
Is
they
near
retirement?
Are
they
near
as
they
as
they
approach
different
health
crises
that
might
exist?
O
What
ends
up
happening
is
the
state
ends
up
bearing
that
burden,
as
we
know,
and
so
I
think
this
is
a
very
you-
know,
prudent
manner
to
go
about
doing
this.
I
think
it's
very
fiscally
responsible.
That's
going
to
help
save
the
state.
A
lot
of
money
in
the
long
run
not
only
help
tennessee
and
save
money,
but
help
the
state
of
tennessee
save
a
lot
of
money.
O
So
I
appreciate
you
bringing
this
bill
and
I
would
just
say
you
know,
I
hope-
and
this
has
been
said,
but
that
these
these
entities
that
are
out
there
that
have
these
accounts
will
continue
to
not
just
you
know,
the
high
dollar,
the
high
dollar
high
net
worth
individuals
are
great,
but
it's
the
the
average
worker,
the
person
that
that
really
needs
us,
the
most
that
will
benefit
the
most
and
I
think,
ultimately,
that's
what
government
should
be
in
the
business
of
doing
is
helping
make
sure
that
we
serve
all
tennesseans
who
might
not
have
access
to
something.
L
Chairman,
I
I
think
you're
right,
representative
powell
there's
lots
of
low-income
workers
who,
for
whatever
reason,
do
not
elect
to
save
on
their
own,
and
I
should
add
that,
even
though
we've
only
been
talking
about
the
benefits
to
the
employees,
there
are
certain
benefits
to
the
employers
in
this
bill
that
don't
currently
offer
retirement
plans
in
that
they're
able
to
recruit
workers
without
saying
we
don't
offer
a
retirement
benefit
now
they
offer,
then
they
would
offer
a
retirement
benefit.
L
It
would
sort
of
help
them
level
the
playing
field
with
other
employers
that
do
offer
their
own
retirement
plans.
This
could
be
particularly
important
in
today's
economy,
where
we
have
a
labor
shortage.
This
bill
would
benefit
these
employers,
who
are
not
currently
offering
retirement
accounts.
By
being
able,
they
could
claim
that
they
actually
do
provide
retirement
benefits,
be
through
the
department
of
the
treasury,
but
those
benefits
would
be
available.
H
L
Nudge
theory
suggests
that,
when
things
are
made
easy
like
that,
you're
going
through
a
piece
of
paper
and
you're
checking
whether
you
want
dental
benefits
and
vision,
benefits
and
long-term
disability
benefits.
If
it's
as
simple
as
checking
a
box
saying
yes,
I
want
to
have
five
percent
of
my
payroll
deducted
and
sent
into
this
retirement
account.
People
are
really
happy
to
do
it,
but
it's
when
the
barrier
is
as
large
as
shopping
around
getting
in
the
car.
L
Finding
an
investment
advisor
taking
the
afternoon
to
do
it
filling
out
what
would
probably
be
a
lot
more
in
the
form
of
paperwork?
That's
just
enough
of
a
barrier
that
lots
of
people
aren't
willing
to
go
through
the
process
to
do
it
on
their
own.
H
The
thing
that
concerns
me
greatly
about
that
idea
is
that
really
puts
the
government
in
direct
competition
with
you
know:
private
businesses
that
offer
retirement
accounts
and
the
maintenance
of
retirement
accounts-
and
you
know,
wouldn't
it
be
nice
if
you
were
a
private
business
to
you-
know,
have
when
everybody's
onboarded
to
have
that
there
every
single
time,
because
this
really
isn't
the
company's
retirement
plan.
H
Just
it
feels
to
me
like
an
unfair
competitive
advantage
with
the
private
sector,
under
the
guise
of
you
know,
of
it
being
government
of
it
being
government
other
other
businesses
aren't
having
the
same
advantage
of
having
that
offered
at
the
same
time
it
it
just
doesn't
feel
right
and,
like
I
said
I,
I
think
you're
you're
right
on
point
that
people
are
not
saving
enough
and
they
need
to
save
they
need
to
save,
but
it
it
just
really
doesn't
feel
right
to
me
for
the
government
to
be
doing
this.
So
thank
you.
A
Chairman
bond
did
you
happen,
got
a
question
on
the
bill.
Question
on
the
bill.
Question's
been
called
without
objection,
we're
going
to
be
voting
on
house
bill
2470
all
in
favor,
say
aye
aye
I'll
oppose
no
looks
like
the
nose
habit.
Sorry
chairman,
thank
you
all
bill
fails.
Thank
you
for
your
work
on
this.
A
House
bill
2473,
I'm
sorry
2733
by
chairman
wendell
cameron,
wendell
you're,
almost
late,
but
you're
here
glad
to
have
you
and
I
think
you
have
it
did
you
have
an
amendment
on
the
bill
too
sure
got
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
amendment
and
we're
then
we're
on
the
amendment
right
now.
The
amendment.
P
Was
offered
by
governor
lee's
office,
I
accepted
the
amendment.
This
amends
the
bill
that
allows
veterans
the
possibility
of
a
day
off
on
veterans
day
if
they
request
the
day
off
at
the
discretion.
The
employer
they'll,
get
veterans
day
off
and
I'd
appreciate
your
consideration.
What's.
A
That's
what
we
have
okay!
Thank
you.
So
we're
going
to
be
voting
on
the
amendment
right
now
to
put
it
on
the
bill,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed.
The
amendment
goes
on
the
bill
and
did
you
have
any
other
comments
on
the
blr.
H
Didn't
really
understand
your
explanation
of
the
bill.
Couldn't
any
employee
right
now
request
the
day
off
from
their
employer,
for
veterans
day
and
and
and
get
the
day
off,
you
know
if
that's
a
pto
or
whatever
chairman.
P
And
the
bill
is
originally
drafted
would
have
given
no
discretion
to
the
employer
but
accepted
governor
lee's
amendment.
I
I'm
not
totally
pleased
with
it,
but
it
dilutes
the
bill
makes
it
permissive,
and
my
preference
would
be
that
a
veteran
should
be
allowed
to
have
veterans
day
off
at
their
own
discretion,
not
to
discretion
the
employer.
But
this
bill,
you
correctly
point
out,
is
at
the
discretion
the
employer,
so
it
certainly
dilutes
the
bill
and
makes
it
permissive.
H
H
I
would
like
veterans
day
off
and
you
know,
use
their
pto
or
whatever,
and
I.
A
P
That
was
not
my
regional
bill.
The
governor's
office
did
not
wish
for
employ
for
veterans
to
have
the
option
to
have
the
day
off.
So
I
accepted
the
amendment
at
the
request,
the
governor's
office.
You
are
right.
This
amendment
certainly
weakens
the
rights
of
veterans
for
the
day
off.
It
does
you're
correct.
H
The
opposition,
in
opposition
by
our
forefathers
to
the
amendments
to
the
constitution.
They
feared
you
know
they.
They
felt
that
our
constitution
gave
the
citizens
all
rights.
It
gave
the
citizens
the
right
to
bear
arms
the
freedom
of
speech,
the
freedom
of
religion.
There
was
no
reason
to
restate
it
in
the
amendments
and
what
they
feared
was
is
that
people
would
assume
that
those
rights
are
coming
to
them
from
government
and
that
those
those
were
the
only
rights
that
they
had,
and
it
kind
of
reminds
me
of
that.
H
H
A
P
Was
the
amendment
clearly,
I
agree
with
you,
a
thousand
percent
and
if
you
want
to
make
an
amendment
to
put
it
back
to
the
original
format,
I
will
accept
your
amendment
I'll.
Consider
it
a
friendly
amendment
and
we'll
go
back
to
the
original
bill
and
we'll
try
to
pass
it
as
it
was.
But
I
did
make
an
agreement
with
governor
lee's
office
that
we
would
put
this
to
make
it
permissive
with
the
employer,
and
I
understand,
where
they're
coming
from
and
from
a
philosophical
standpoint.
P
But
if
karen
camper
served
her
country
in
the
united
states
army
for
25
plus
years
and
it's
veterans
day
and
she
wants
to
spend
that
day
with
her
family,
I
think
she
ought
to
be
allowed
to
and
that's
the
purpose
of
the
bill,
but-
and
I
also
understand
the
other
side-
that
we
shouldn't
be
dictating
employers
what
they
can
or
can't
do
and
the
bill
as
if
you
accept
this
amendment
is
permissive
and
they
don't
get
paid
for
the
day
off.
This
is
if
karen
kemper
wants
to
take
the
day
off.
P
A
And
are
you
you
know,
okay,
we're
going
to
go
out
of
system.
Just
a
minute,
she's
going
to
legal
is
going
to
talk
to
us
about
what
the
discretion
right
there.
A
Going
to
go
back
and
talk
about
that,
we're
going
to
go
out
of
session.
E
Jamie
shanks
office
of
legal
services,
the
amendment
that
you've
adopted
what
it
provides
is
says
that
an
employer
shall
allow
the
veteran
employees
to
have
veterans
day
as
an
unpaid
holiday.
If
first,
the
employee
provides
at
least
one
month's
written
notice,
two,
the
employee
provides
proof
of
veteran
status
and
number
three,
which
is
the
discretionary
part,
provides
that
the
employee's
absence
either
alone
or
in
combination
with
other
veteran
employees.
E
A
H
E
As
long
as
there's
the
one
month's
notice
proof
of
veteran
status
and
that
the
absence,
either
alone
or
with
other
veterans,
would
not
cause
the
significant
economic
or
safety
or
health
problems,
and
that
determination
would
be
within
the
employer,
sole
discretion
right.
H
E
You're
asking
if
an
employee,
if
an
employee
outside
of
this
just
ask
the
employer,
may
I
have
the
day
off
and
then
the
employer
at
their
own
discretion
would
give
them
the
day
off.
I
believe
this
doesn't
interfere
with
that,
and
this
bill,
as
amended,
also
says
that
this
doesn't
prohibit
an
employer
from
allowing
the
employees
to
have
the
day
as
a
paid
holiday
either.
So.
H
Well,
what
I
think,
what
I'm
really
saying
is:
is
this
the
one
and
only
day
where
an
employee
is
actually
going
to
have
to
provide
proof
of
their
reason
for
wanting
a
day
off.
I
think
that's
what
I'm
saying
is
this
the
one
the
only
day
we're
going
to
codify
this
in
law,
where
an
employee
is
going
to
have
to
provide
proof
for
their
wanting
a
day
off?
I
can't.
C
A
Okay,
we're
going
to
go
back
into
session
unless
there
are
any
other
questions
for
legal
and
did
you
have
a
comment
or
we're
going
to
chairman
bricken
or
do
you
have
any
appreciation
consideration.
P
A
Yeah
we're
on
the
bill.
Okay,
so
question
on
the
bill:
okay,
we're
going
to
be
voting
on
house
bill,
2733,
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed,
no,
the
eyes
have
it
and
you
are
going
to
be
sent
to
state
and
local
government.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members.
I'm
sorry
sorry,
I
sent
commerce
full
sorry.
C
A
Thank
you
for
coming
today,
chairman
hall,
this
house
bill
375,
chairman
hawk.
You
are
recognized.
I
I
Thank
you.
We
do
have
amendments
code,
zero,
one,
four,
nine,
four
three.
It
is
essentially
making
this
an
effective
date
for
this
calendar
year
and
we
need
a
motion.
A
I
You,
mr
chairman
members,
I
I'd
like
each
of
you
to
go
back
in
time
to
when
you
first
decided
to
run
for
office
and
what
was
on
your
mind
at
the
time
and
on
my
mind
at
the
time
22
years
ago,
was
the
frustration
I
was
feeling
with
some
governmental
entities.
I
was
in
the
retail
business
and
we
as
retailers
and
other
businesses
across
the
state
of
tennessee.
I
We
are
the
point
of
tax
collection
on
sales
taxes
and,
at
that
point,
in
time
we
were
businesses
were
receiving
roughly
a
two
percent
rebate
on
vendors
compensation
on
sales
tax
collection.
We
call
it
vendors
compensation
on
the
first
2500
of
taxes
collected
sales
taxes
collected,
it
was
50
bucks.
It
wasn't
much.
It
really
wasn't
enough
to
cover
your
expenses,
but
it
at
least
made
it
less
painful
to
be
the
tax
collector
for
the
state
of
tennessee
fast
forward
to
some
years
where
the
income
tax
debate
was
going
on.
I
I
But
now
business
largely
is
done
with
a
swipe
of
a
debit
card
or
a
credit
card.
Seven
million
tennesseans,
roughly
five
and
a
half
million
tennessee-
is
either
through
themselves
or
through
their
family.
They
have
some
type
of
credit
or
debit
card
and
they'll
use
it
at
least
once
a
day.
The
majority
of
these
transactions
that
we
have
that
are
collecting
sales
taxes
are
used
by
are
utilized
in
a
credit
card
debit
card
swipe.
So
what
this
legislation
discusses-
and
this
is
not
the
first
time
it's
come
before
you,
but
what
this
legislation
discusses.
I
Is
that
we're
fine
with
keeping
the
swipe
fee?
Now
there
is
a
fee
for
every
time
that
swipe
goes
through.
It
can
be
anywhere
between
two
and
four
percent
that
is
collected
by
the
by
the
the
credit
card
issuer
the
credit
card
companies
in
order
for
the
for
the
company
for
the
business,
the
retailer
to
use
their
machineries
to
accept
credit
cards
hope
I
hope
I
explained
that
correctly.
I
So,
the
three
the
two
to
three
percent.
They
were
charging
on
the
item,
that's
purchased
or
the
meal
or
the
hotel
room
whatever.
That
is
we're
fine.
With
that
being
on
the
cost
of
the
of
the
product,
the
hundred
dollar
item
that
may
be
purchased
swipe
fees.
Fine,
the
two
to
four
percent
on
the
swipe
fee
for
that
hundred
dollars
is
fine,
but
the
pass-through
cost
of
the
sales
taxes.
I
That's
the
conundrum
that
we've
got
because
the
swipe
fee
on
the
sales
tax
is
not
something
that
the
business
has
the
ability
to
mark
their
product
up
to
collect
that
that's
a
pass-through
cost
where
the
retailers
essentially
going
backwards,
every
time
that
swipe
fee
goes
through
on
the
sales
tax
portion
of
it.
So
I
hope
I
did
justice
in
explaining
that.
Essentially
what
this
legislation
does
is
says
that
a
swipe
fee
by
a
retail
excuse
me
by
a
credit
card
company
cannot
be
charged
on
the
sales
tax
portion
of
the
transaction.
I
It
is
an
interesting
conversation
that
we've
had
for
quite
some
time.
I
do
know
that
we've
got
folks
on
both
sides
of
the
issue
who
would
like
to
say
a
word
or
two.
I
must
say
that
I
was
on
the
sixth
floor
yesterday
and
and
to
quote
comedian
bill
murray.
It
was
like
cats
and
dogs
getting
along
with
each
other,
as
I'm
looking
at
both
the
bankers
and
the
grocers,
the
retail
community.
I
A
Yes,
thank
you
and
without
objection,
we're
going
to
go
out
of
session
and
hear
from
both
of
them
and
the
first
one
we
have
is,
I'm
sorry
rob
eichard
with
the
tennessee
grocers
and
then
we
will
hear
from
amy
hesslet
with
the
tennessee
bankers
and
we'll
give
you
happy
three
minutes
each.
If
you
don't
care,
please.
K
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
rob
eichardt
from
the
tennessee
grocers
and
convenience
store
association,
and
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
just
say
a
couple
of
words
about
this.
I
really
want
to
thank
chairman
hawk
for
bringing
this
legislation.
K
It
has
spurred
some
really
good
conversations
with
all
of
you
and,
and
I
think
that
the
awareness
of
of
what
merchants
and
retailers
go
through
to
serve
the
state,
as
its
number
one
tax
collector
has
has
become
more
apparent
to
to
you
lawmakers
it's
a
conversation
that
has
not
been
had
for
for
many
many
years.
K
Of
course,
when
vendors
compensation
went
away
22
years
ago
that
that
left,
the
merchants
of
the
state
as
your
unpaid
partners
in
the
state's
revenue
system
and
and
that's
okay,
collecting
taxes
for
the
state
is
a
cost
of
doing
business
here,
and
it's
something
that
we're
honored
to
do
of
course.
But
but,
as
you
all
now
know,
much
better,
it
doesn't
come
for
free
merchants,
incur
expenses
from
manpower
to
time
to
investments
in
software
and
and
the
the
probably
the
biggest
and
and
definitely
the
the
most
quickly
growing
expense.
K
Is
this
interchange
fee
that
we
pay
to
the
payment
card
companies
and,
of
course,
that
that
is
part
of
the
payment
agreements
that
we
have
with
the
card
companies,
but
to
put
it
in
perspective,
when
vendors
compensation
went
away
22
years
ago,
about
30
percent
of
payments
were
done
with
payment
cards,
and
today
it's
about
75,
so
the
cost,
the
interchange
fee,
cost
of
collecting
taxes
for
the
state
has
just
continued
to
grow
and
grow,
and
it
grows
also
because
the
card
companies
alter
their
rates
and
they
they've
consistently
gone
up
and
they're
they're
going
to
go
up
again
in
the
near
future.
K
So
just
thank
you
for
hearing
us
on
this
and
and
we
look
forward
to
the
conversation
going
forward.
A
Thank
you
and
we'll
have
some
follow-up
questions
when,
when
you,
both
after
you
both
present
and
would
you
state
your
name
and
who
you're
with
please.
Q
Q
If
passed,
this
bill
would
make
tennessee
the
only
state
in
the
country
that
prohibits
interchange
fees
from
being
charged
on
the
sales
tax
portion
of
credit
and
debit
card
transactions,
and
currently
the
technology
does
not
even
exist
to
apply
the
interchange
or
the
swipe
fee
to
the
purchase
price.
Only
additionally,
the
interchange
fees
that
banks
receive
are
critical
to
helping
banks
offset
their
cost
to
issue
and
reissue
cards.
Q
Maintaining
service
cards
for
customers,
resolve
customer
disputes,
guarantee
100
payment
to
retailers
and,
most
importantly,
cover
customers,
monetary
losses
in
the
instances
and
fraud.
While
we're
sympathetic
to
the
costs
associated
with
merchants
serving
as
the
primary
sales
tax
collectors
for
the
state,
we
feel
that
this
legislation
is
not
the
right
solution
to
address
that
issue.
A
M
M
Certainly,
it's
very
well
proven
that
the
use
of
plastics
debit
cards
or
credit
cards
certainly
has
in
the
form
of
whether
it's
makes
you
feel
either
empowered,
somewhat
disconnected
or
whatever
has
greatly
increased
the
size
of
purchases
and
and
the
revenues
of
all
merchants
in
the
state.
So
the
that
ship
is
sailed,
I
mean
we
are
in
a
plastic
dominated
society,
so
it's
it's
kind
of
a
good
news,
bad
news
in
a
way,
but
certainly
the
form
of
vendor
compensation.
I
think,
certainly
needs
to
be
addressed.
M
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
I
work
for
a
company
and
most
of
our
sales
are
credit
card
sales,
and
I
totally
get
it
the
interchange
fees.
In
fact,
I
did
a
study
of
our
credit
card
company
invoices
that
we
get
and
the
interchange
fees
are
very,
very
high.
The
only
thing
I
can't
get
over
logically
is
that
when
a
transaction
is
financed,
the
entire
transaction
is
financed,
the
purchase
of
the
item
and
the
taxes.
H
You
don't
buy
something
for
ten
dollars
and
then
take
ninety
cents
out
of
your
pocket
and
pay
your
taxes
you
buy
for
ten
dollars
and
ninety
cents
and
therefore
the
credit
card
company
is
financing
the
entire
transaction,
and
it
just
seems
logical
that
you
know
that
has
to
be
considered
the
whole
amount,
and
you
know
as
much
as
I
hate
it.
That's
what
seems
logical
to
me.
So
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
thank
you
chairman
hawk
for
bringing
this
back
and
remarkably
my
position.
Hadn't
changed.
D
D
D
I
struggle
all
the
time
with
mandates
that
are
passed
down
and
their
their
unfunded
mandates,
and
that's
really
what
we've
done
to
retailers
is.
We
have
told
them,
you
are
going
to
collect
sales
tax
for
the
state
and
you
will
not
receive
compensation
for
them
and
that
in
a
day
and
time
to
where
our
collections
are,
where
they
are,
are
the
our
economy
is
booming.
D
They
were
stripped
from
that
compensation
at
a
time
when
things
were
dire,
and
so
I
see
this
as
two
fully
separate
issues,
whether
or
not
we
take
from
one
and
give
to
the
other.
I
think
the
bankers
have
made
a
valid
case
for
the
math
of
the
guarantees
and
and
charges
that
they
have,
but
it
still
doesn't
make
it
right
what's
happening
to
the
retailers,
and
I
would
be
happy
to
co-sign
with
anybody
that
wants
to
sponsor
a
bill
either.
D
It's
getting
late
in
this
season,
but
particularly
next
year
for
vendor
compensation
to
be
brought
back
and
recognize
the
job
that
they
do
supporting
the
state
of
tennessee,
and
so
that
I
can't
vote
for
this.
But
I
could
sure
vote
for
something
else.
If
I
had
the
opportunity.
Thank
you.
A
And
I
I
concur
with
the
chairman
too.
A
I
think
that
we
really-
and
I
I
appreciate
first
of
all,
chairman
hawking
and
both
of
you
all
for
coming
in-
and
I
know
we've
been
working
on
this
for
a
long
time
for
many
years
and
and
I
think
that
may
be
the
only
solution
that
we
can't
finally
get
to
and
it's
a
great
compromise
and-
and
I
hope
we
can
work
that
out-
if
not
this
year
or
next
year-
and
I
would
certainly
be
for
that
too,
do
we
have
any
other
questions
for
our
guests.
I
I
I
look
forward
to
you
signing
on
house
bill
536,
which
does
exactly
what
you
asked
to
return:
vendors
compensation
and
surely
with
your
influence
and
and
those
on
this
committee
that
we'll
get
that
passed
this
year.
So
I
certainly
look
forward
to
once
again
house
bill.
536.
I
In
I,
I
truly
enjoy
the
sport
of
of
the
in
the
argument
nature
of
our
work,
and
I
would
love
to
to
comment
on
on
some
of
those
things
that
were
said
on
both
sides,
and
I
probably
could
have
done
a
little
bit
better
and
more
eloquently
describing
the
situation.
But
hopefully
you
got
the
gist
of
what
we're
talking
about.
I
Stating
that
technology
does
not
exist
currently
is
like
saying
well
well
I'll
I'll
leave
it
at
that
technology
will
follow.
If
we,
if
we
say
that
this
is
something
we
need
to
do
so
technology
could
and
would
follow
very
quickly.
That
being
said,
respect
for
both
of
the
ladies
and
gentlemen,
who
spoke
and
the
industries
who
are
concerned
about
this
piece
of
legislation.
I
A
A
B
B
Two
out
of
forty
will
show
the
reason
we
opened
this
originally
caption
bill
was
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
solve
this
issue.
I
know
that
there
is
already
a
system
in
place
where
companies
can
go
back
to
the
employment
office
and
say
hey.
This
person
showed
up,
checked
the
box,
but
then
wouldn't
show
up
for
an
interview,
but
that
system
is
not
working,
and
so
we
need
to
re-look
at
this,
and
we
need
to
rework
this.
B
I
have
spoken
with
tia
and,
and
I've
spoken
with
chairman
vaughn
on
many
occasions
on
this
over
the
past
few
weeks,
and
we
have
decided
that
we
would
like
to
take
this
bill
off
notice
work
on.
How
can
we
solve
this
issue
with
our
people
not
coming
back
for
an
interview
when
they've
been
called
to
do
so?
We
have
got
to
get
our
people
back
to
work,
and
so
I'd
like
to
take
this
bill
off
a
notice
work
with
the
department
and
with
chairman
and
make
it
a
good
bill.
A
Okay
and
thank
you
very
much
and-
and
I
know
the
problem
and
and
I've
seen
it
firsthand
and
seeing
people
get
their
card
signed
just
to
get
it
have
it
signed,
but
never
never
really
want
the
job
or
never
show
back
up
for
the
interview
and
we've
had
a
lot
of
that
happen
in
my
area
and
all
across
the
state
and-
and
we
appreciate
you
bringing
this
done
well,.
B
A
A
R
Right,
the
the
conditional
amendment
is
zero
one:
five,
zero,
seven,
nine.
A
That's
the
one
we
need
to
put
on
first,
and
we
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
end
and
okay
and
all
in
favor
of
that
amendment
say
aye
all
opposed.
No,
the
amendment
is
adopted.
Now
we
need
to
do
the
second
one.
Please,
okay,.
R
That's
one:
five:
zero,
seven,
nine!
Yes,
you
want
me
to
explain
that.
A
Yes,
I'm
sorry
taser
did
it
motion
in
a
second
first
yeah.
I'm
sorry,
my
second
yes
yeah!
If
you
want
to
explain
to
me,
okay,.
R
Thank
you.
Tasser
did
a
study
this
past
summer
on
the
gold
depository
and
they
made
the
point
that,
as
long
as
the
state
of
tennessee
has
income
tax
or
not
income
tax,
but
sales
tax
on
gold,
bullion
rare
coins
and
pre
and
paper
money,
there's
no
sense
in
having
a
depository,
and
so
I
have
a
bill.
That's
behind
the
budget
that
will
do
away
with
sales
tax
on
on
gold,
bullion
and
and
rare
coins
and
paper
money.
R
R
A
R
For
seven
years
I
have
been
working
on
this.
Seven
years
ago,
this
assembly
voted
100
on
a
joint
resolution
to
establish
a
gold
depository.
It
has
been
seven
years
to
get
it
to
this
place,
so
I
want
to
explain
a
little
bit
about
it.
R
Gold
has
a
5
000
year
history
as
money
par
excellence.
Gold
is
the
world's
only
long-term
surviving
form
of
money,
and
it
represents
the
only
financial
asset
asset.
That
is
not
somebody
else's
liability
to
repay
you
and
it's
the
only
medal
not
consumed.
Hence
its
use
as
a
reserve
asset.
Even
among
central
banks
is
a
pretty
big
deal.
R
Gold
is
treated
as
a
tier
one
asset
under
bazel
three
regulations,
which
I
had
no
idea.
What
all
that
meant,
but
you,
banking
folks,
would
know
those
are
international
banking
regulations
and
under
a
tier
one
asset,
it
means
that
there
is
zero
risk,
it's
a
zero
risk
asset
and,
of
course,
that's
why
most
people
believe
that,
if
you're
going
to
hold
gold,
you
should
do
it
outside
the
banking
system,
monetary
and
physical
risk.
In
this
country,
I
don't
think,
has
been
any
more
pronounced
than
it
is
now.
R
R
It
seems
like
the
next
phase
that
the
deep
state
folks
are
pushing
for
is,
and
I've
talked
about
it
before
is
the
roll
out
of
a
central
bank
digital
currency
and
to
do
away
with
currency,
as
we
know
it
followed
by
universal
basic
income,
those
things
scare
me
and
they
keep
me
awake
at
night
thinking
what
I
should
do
as
a
representative
and
a
responsibility
in
this
state
to
do
all
we
can
do
to
protect
tennessee
people
and
keep
them
solvent.
So
that's
why,
for
seven
years,
we've
we've
been
working
on
this.
R
This
depository
will
not
cost
tennessee
taxpayers
one
dime.
There
are
investors
who
want
to
build
it
staff
it
maintain
it.
R
They
want
two
things
in
exchange
for
that
they
want
to
be
able
to
use
the
word
tennessee
state
depository
and
they
want
to
be
audited
by
the
comptroller's
office
every
year
and
they
will
pay
for
the
audit.
So
that's
why
there
is
no
physical
note
on
this
at
all,
be
staffed
to
maintain,
but
to
be
controlled
by
the
treasure,
the
treasurer's
office
for
the
state
of
tennessee.
R
R
At
the
end
of
the
day,
it
gives
tennessee
an
advantage
that
other
states
don't
have
with
a
currency
collapse.
Hyperinflation
push
come
to
shove.
If
we
went
to
a
digital
forced
currency,
people
could
still
survive.
We
had.
We
would
have
the
option
by
the
way
tennessee
state,
the
state
of
tennessee
at
the
direction
of
the
legislature
can
put
gold
gold
bullion
in
this
depository
and
it
doesn't
cost
us
a
dime.
R
We
get
to
store
it
there
for
nothing
when
they
get
up
and
running
and
solvent
the
state
of
tennessee
gets
a
revenue
stream
off
of
it.
So
I
don't
think
we
could
ask
for
anything
better
than
this,
and
I
think
this
is
the
time
because
it's
our
duty
to
keep
tennessee
people
solvent
secure,
and
so
so
I
I'm
just
happy
to
be
here.
A
And
we're
happy
to
have
you?
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
the
sponsor.
O
Thank
you
chairman,
so
just
so
I
fully
understand
so
who
would
be
able
to
put
money
in
the
depository?
Is
it
regular,
tennesseans
the
government
who
and
then
how
is
that
the
ability
to
take
the
money
out
to
or
take
obviously
not
money
with
gold
so
like?
What
can
you
kind
of
walk
through
that
process
and
what
that
looks
like
chairman,
thank
you
for.
R
The
question:
yes,
any
anybody
in
the
public
can
put
gold
in
this
depositor.
As
a
matter
of
fact,
I
have
had
people
in
tennessee
who
own
gold
bullion,
but
they
have
it
stored
in
other
depositories
or
offshore,
and
they
are
excited
about
this
because
they
want
to
transfer
it
here
in
state
where
they
live.
So,
yes,
anybody
in
the
public
can
put
it
in
there.
The
state
of
tennessee
can
also
store
it
in
there
at
no
cost.
But
yes,
that's
the
whole
purpose
of
it.
O
R
O
Yeah,
thank
you
for
that.
So,
if,
if
I'm
out
of
state,
are
you
if
I'm
not
a
tennessean,
you
know
let's
say
I'm
in
new
york.
Can
you
still
put
money
in
this
depository
chairman
house.
R
O
Powell
and
my
final
question,
I
guess-
and
I'm
leaning
towards
actually
supporting
this,
so
you
might
have
finally
struck
gold
with
me
the
first
bill.
I
voted
in
this
committee,
but
anyways.
What
what
can?
Can
you
tell
me
if,
okay,
so,
if
I'm
in
state,
I
can
make
it
if
I'm
out
of
state,
I
can
make
it
the.
How
many
other
states
are
doing
something
similar
to
this
and
are
we
competing
with
other
states?
Is
this
something
that
other
states
have
and
we
just
don't.
R
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Yes,
there
are
seven
gold
depositories
in
the
united
states.
Actually
texas
built
their
first
one
in
2018
and
they're
building
a
second
one
now,
but
anybody
anywhere
can
deposit
and
there
is
a
fee
for
it.
But
but
yes
you
we
would
compete
with
other
states,
but
but
the
the
folks
who
want
to
invest
in
this
know
that.
O
And
sorry,
one
last
comment
here
and
and
again
I
think
I'm
missing
fortune
legislation,
but
I
do
want
to
say
that
I
mean
technically,
there
is
a
private
marketplace.
If
I
wanted
to,
I
could
put
my
money
into
a
bank
safety
deposit
box
right
if
I
had
gold-
and
so
you
know,
I
just
think
it's
a
little
bit
ironic-
that
one
bill
we're
talking
about
savings
and
people
being
able
to
take
care
of
themselves.
We
defeated,
but
here
we
are
talking
about
government,
creating
a
depository
for
gold
for
savings.
O
So
I
just
again
I
go
back
to
this.
I
think
that
your
bill
as
it's
written
is
a
prob.
You
know
is
a
worthy
task
and
worth
of
the
government
taking
on
because,
ultimately
you
know
I
agree
it.
Gold
is
a
pretty
good
hedge
against
a
lot
of
things
for
people
as
an
investment
and,
quite
frankly,
I
wish
I
had
purchased
more
interest
in
gold
as
we
continue
to
see
different.
The
price
has
gone
up
quite
a
bit,
but
I
just
think
again
going
back
to
some
other
legislation.
O
Is
you
know
these
types
of
things?
We
need
to
look
at
because
this
is
a
good
option
for
tennesseans
to
have,
and
essentially
it's
tennessee
getting
in
the
business
of
gold
depository,
and
so
you
know,
I
think
it's
worthwhile.
For
that
reason,
I
will
support
your
bill
cameron.
Thank.
R
M
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
for
fellow
members,
if
you
would
go
to
the
texas
depository
website,
this
is
a
fascinated
website
and
obviously
you
can
go
around
tennessee
and
look
at
all
the
daggum
storage
buildings
we
have
in
tennessee.
This
country
is
a
storage
people.
I
guess
I'm
not
sure
how
to
say
it.
M
We
we
store
every
damn
thing
the
yeah
hoarders
probably,
but
you
know,
of
course,
the
comment
right
here:
tennessee
citizens
do
have
a
way
of
storing
their
gold
and
silver
and
all
in
in
banks
and
safety
deposit
boxes,
but
the
sizes
of
bank,
safe
deposit
boxes,
probably
aren't
intended
for
the
size
of
these
gold
depositories.
M
I
have
no
trouble
if
a
private
sector
company
thinks
is,
they
can
lay
out
a
business
plan
to
make
it
profitable
in
tennessee
to
create
a
storage
facility
for
us,
and
I
guess
my
only
question-
does
texas
exempt
a
gold
from
sales
tax
sales
in
texas,
chairman
halsey.
R
M
Mr
chairman
final
question:
so
we
understand
it
if
we
would
pass
this,
this
bill
would
only
become
effective
if
we
pass
the
sales
tax
exemption
and
that's
running
under
another
bill
right.
Is
that
correct?
That's
exactly.
R
J
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
representative,
just
a
quick
question.
I
want
to
make
sure
I
got
this
right
it.
It
sounds
like
that.
Your
your
bill
allows
for
for
private
investors
to
use
private
capital
to
build
this
and
that
they
will
charge
citizens
a
fee
to
do
it,
and-
and
the
only
thing
public
I've
really
heard
so
far-
is
that
the
state
can
store
gold
there
for
free
and
the
comptroller
audits
it.
It
sounds
like
this
is
a
private
venture.
I'm
just
wondering
why
we're
even
running
legislation
to
do
this?
R
R
R
R
A
Okay,
we're
running
up
on
the
clock.
I'm
sorry
we're
been
told
that
we're
going
to
have
to
leave
here
in
a
minute
because
we've
got
another
committee
coming
in,
so
without
objection,
we're
going
to
adjourn
and
all
the
bills.
All
the
remaining
bills
that
are
on
here
will
be
heard
next
week.