►
Description
House Banking & Consumer Affairs Subcommittee House Hearing Room 3
A
Welcome
everyone
to
banking
and
consumer
affairs,
where
floyd
the
barber's
favorite
president
calvin
coolidge
once
said
it's
better
to
kill
a
bad
bill
than
to
pass
a
good
one.
So
that's
kind
of
our
motto
in
here,
but
we're
glad
to
have
everybody
today.
So
thank
you
all
for
coming
out.
I
want
to
recognize,
too
that
we
have
a
group
here
from
the
tennessee
mortgage
bankers
association.
Would
you
all
care
to
stand
or
raise
your
hand?
We
just
want
to
recognize
you
and
thank
you
all
for
coming
out.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
Do
we
have
any
members
that
have
any
kind
of
personal
orders
or
announcements
today
any
at
all?
Okay,
let's
kick
it
off.
We
got
a
little
housekeeping
to
do.
Item
number
four
house
bill.
1856
will
be
placed
on
our
final
calendar.
A
A
And
like
to
all
remind
you
all,
if
y'all
do
have
a
social
media
related
bill
that
it
will
that
will
be
assigned
to
this
committee.
The
last
day
to
put
that
on
notice
is
today
at
three
o'clock:
we're
gonna
have
a
social
media
calendar
next
week.
So
three
o'clock
today
is
the
deadline,
and
that
leaves
us
with
five
bills.
On
calendar
item.
We'll
start
off
with
item
number
one
house
bill
2187
by
chairman,
boyd
chairman,
you
are
recognized
and
we
have
a
motion
a
and.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
This
this
piece
of
legislation
deals
with
workers,
compensation
law,
and
this
makes
some
some
very
minor
changes.
The
2013
reforms
created
the
workers
comp
court
system,
where
there
are
12
trial,
judges
with
one
chief
judge
and
three
appeals
board
judges.
C
The
trial
judges
currently
are
eligible
for
up
to
three
six-year
terms:
the
chief
judge
and
the
appeals
board.
Judges
are
only
eligible
for
two
six-year
terms,
and
this
simply
changes
that
to
allow
for
three
six-year
terms
for
everyone,
which
creates
some
uniformity.
I'll.
Take
any
questions,
mr
chairman,.
A
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee
house
bill
1636
is
the
e-verify
bill.
We
currently
have
e-verify
in
tennessee,
but
it's
limited
to
employers
with
50
or
more
just
briefly,
tennessee
pardon
me.
D
That
sounds
right.
You're,
mr
chairman,.
D
This
amendment
was
drafted
to
to
address
some
of
the
concerns
that
I
believe
general
services
had
concerning
the
bill
and
what
it
would
do.
It
changes
the
definition
of
a
central
procurement
officer,
the
chief
procurement
officer,
and
allows,
if
there's
a
dispute
concerning
e-verify
regarding
state
contracting
or
whatever.
The
general
services
already
has
an
in-house
appeal
procedure
that
they
use
and
what
this
would
do
if,
if
enacted,
if
house
bill
1636
were
enacted,
this
would
allow
any
verify
issues
that
the
state
of
tennessee
has
to
use
the
current
procedure.
That's
in
place.
A
Okay,
okay,
go
ahead
and
want
to
explain
the
bill.
We've
already
added
the
amendment
so
just
to
explain
the
bill
as
amended.
Please.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman
members.
E-Verify
is
a
voluntary
free,
online
workforce
verification
system.
It
acts
as
a
virtual
wall
that
allows
employers
to
compare
information
on
employees,
I-9
records
at
the
department
of
homeland
security
and
social
security
administration.
It
is
in
partial
use
in
22
states,
but
mandatory
in
alabama,
arizona,
mississippi
and
tennessee.
D
It's
one
of
the
highest
rated
government
programs
in
terms
of
user
satisfaction.
E-Verify
is
a
highly
effective
way
to
combat
illegal
immigration
because
it
works
to
eliminate
the
illegal
jobs
magnets.
Several
studies
have
shown
that
the
number
of
recent
immigrants
fell
by
almost
40
percent
when
a
state
had
universal
e-verify
law
and
effect.
D
Illegal
immigration
fell
as
much
as
50
in
a
single
year
in
states
with
mandatory
e-verify
laws.
Mandatory
e-verify
not
only
reduces
illegal
immigration,
but
also
encourages
illegal
workers
to
return
home,
e-verify
protects
american
workers
by
ensuring
employers
only
hire
individuals
authorized
to
work
in
the
united
states
and
as
in
2006,
the
nfib
in
march
and
december
conducted
an
in-depth
poll
regarding
its
members
and
more
than
90
percent
of
the
nfib
members
believe
that
illegal
immigration
is
a
serious
problem.
D
83
percent
of
their
members
agreed
that
employers
who
knowingly
hire
undocumented
workers
should
be
subject
to
fines
and
or
other
penalties
and
74
percent
of
nfib
members
agreed
that
comprehensive
immigration
reform
should
increase
border
patrol
and
improve
technology
on
the
border,
and
73
percent
of
the
members
agreed
that
employers
should
be
required
to
use
a
government-run
non-employer
run
verification
system,
and
with
that
I
moved
for
passage
and
hope
I
can
answer
any
questions
of
any
community
members.
Okay,.
A
And
thank
you
and
thank
you
for
the
bill.
You
know
that
I
agree
with
so
many.
So
many
of
the
things
that
you
that
you
talk
about,
we
always
have
a
little
bit
of
a
complication,
but
you
made
a
great
point
there
and
first
up
on
the
bill
is
chairman:
boyd.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
sponsor
appreciate
your
enthusiasm
for
this.
You
and
I
have
been
working
on
this
since
2019
when
you
ran
your
first
bill
and
we
amended
and
we're
able
to
get
it.
I
think,
to
the
floor
and
we've
we've
been
working
on
this
and
you
brought
some
awareness
to
it
and
probably
breathed
some
some
new
life
into
it.
I
know
it
had
been
a
while,
since
the
legislature
had
addressed
that
you
verify
threshold
and,
as
you
know,
I've
put
together
a
bill
that
have
been
working
on
for
a
couple
of
years.
C
C
It
tied
up
some
loose
ends
in
the
in
the
business
community
and
we
were
able
to
get
that
passed
out
of
the
subcommittee
and
it
passed
yesterday
out
of
full
committee,
and
I
think
it's
it's
got
some
legs
and
it's
well
on
its
way
to
become
a
law,
and
I
appreciate
you
co-sponsoring
it
with
me
as
well
and
your
support
on
that
bill,
and
so
I
think
that
one's
going
to
get
us
where
we
need
to
go
and-
and
like
I
said
I
want
to
thank
you
for
your
support
of
it.
C
But
I
think
we
probably
don't
need
to
pass
anything
that
undoes.
You
know
what
I'm
what
you
and
I
are
working
on
on
that
other
piece
of
legislation.
So
I
think
we
need
to
give
it
some
space
and
and
see
where
it
goes.
So.
Mr
chairman,
I
would
I
would
make
a
motion
that
we
send
this
one
to
summer
study.
A
A
Okay
and
the
next
bill,
also
by
representative
griffey
house,
bill
2313
and
representative
griffin,
you're
recognized
again:
oh
yeah.
We
have
an
amendment
on
this
to
have
a
motion
in
a
second
and
there's
also
an
amendment.
Yes,.
A
D
Thank
you
very
much,
mr
chairman.
The
amendment
was
agree
again
worked
out
with
the
administration
and
I
believe
the
department
of
human
resources
that,
if
this
bill
were
to
pass,
it
would
not
prevent
a
person
or
an
employer
or
employee
to
participate
in
mandatory
compliance
with
federal
civil
rights
law.
It
would
not
prohibit
a
person
from
reviewing
obtain
a
utilizing
democratic
demographic
data
and
is
not
applicable
if
it
would
result
in
the
person
losing
federal
funding.
A
Okay,
we're
voting
on
the
amendment
all
in
favor,
say
aye
all
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it:
okay,
we're
back
on
the
bill
as
amended,
and
I
think
you
have
someone
here
that
that
wants
to
talk
on
the
bill
and
we'll
be
glad
to.
If
you
want
to
introduce
her,
we'll,
be
glad
to
entertain
her
now
and
we'll
go
out
in
session
and
hear
her.
Thank.
D
You
very
much,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee.
I
have
dr
carol
swain,
a
noted
scholar,
legal
scholar,
educator
and
true
patriot
and
it's
my
distinct
privilege
to
introduce
her
now
and
have
her
testify
on
the
importance
of
crt
in
her
book
crt
a
black
eye
for
america,
dr
swain.
A
E
But
as
far
as
my
support
of
this
house
bill,
my
support
is
based
on
our
civil
rights
laws
that
on
the
books,
as
well
as
the
constitution's
equal
protection
clause,
and
I
think
that
there
is
a
problem
with
compelling
individuals
to
engage
in
mandatory
sensitivity
or
diversity.
Training,
where
the
goal
of
the
training
is
not
consistent
with
the
law
and
it
in
it
can
result
in
intimidation
of
certain
people
because
of
their
race
or
their
sex,
as
well
as
their
if
they're
heterosexual
versus
homosexual.
E
There
are
sorts
of
issues
that
are
coming
from
diversity,
training,
the
the
kinds
of
training
that
runs
counter
to
our
constitution
and
civil
rights
laws,
and
so
I
think
that
that
is
the
strongest
case
against
crt
and
the
way
dei
training
has
morphed.
And
when
you
look
at
diversity,
equity
inclusion,
training,
it's
been
around
since
the
1970s
and
1980s,
and
up
until
recently
it
was
consistent
with
affirmative
action.
And
we
know
that
affirmative
action
is
the
law
of
the
land.
Affirmative
action
is
still
very
much
alive.
E
On
the
books,
there
are
laws
prohibiting
sexual
harassment,
discrimination
against
racial
and
ethnic
minorities,
discrimination
against
the
handicapped,
that's
the
law
of
the
land,
and
we
get
in
trouble
when
we're
trying
to
engage
in
social
engineering
and
indoctrination.
That
goes
beyond
the
law.
So
that's
my
little
preface
as
far
as
my
book,
I
have
a
book
that
was
published
last
august
called
black
eye
for
america.
Her
critical
race
theory
is
burning
down
the
house.
E
I
wrote
the
book
because
there
were
so
many
people
trying
to
figure
out
mostly
parents
what
was
taking
place
in
our
public
schools
with
regard
to
crt,
and
so
the
book
explains
what
it
is
where
it
came
from
how
it
manifests
itself
in
our
society
why
it
is,
and,
as
I
argue
in
the
book
which
is
co-authored,
it
runs
counter
to
christian
principles.
E
And
so
that's
what
I
discuss
in
my
book,
black
eye
for
america
and
when
it
comes
to
where
did
crt
come
from
critical
race
theory
is
a
theory
and
it's
been
on
university
campuses
since
the
1970s
and
it
has
morphed
down
to
k
through
12
education
and
the
indoctrination
that's
taken
place
within
our
schools.
E
It
is
easily
documented,
but
it's
also
creating
in
our
workplaces
hostile
work
environments,
because
if
you
don't
participate
with
certain
types
of
of
programs
or
activities,
then
you
cannot
out
yourself.
You
don't
have
your
ability,
based
on
your
conscience,
based
on
what
you
believe
to
opt
out,
and
so
there
may
be
penalties
that
are
paid.
So
that's
why
I
think
this
legislation
is
very
important.
A
Okay,
well,
thank
you
very
much.
Would
we're
going
to
have
some
questions
for
you?
I
think
everybody's
kind
of
interested.
If
you
don't
care,
I'm
going
to
ask
one
real,
quick
and
then
if
anybody
else
wants
to
get
on
the
list.
But
when
you
talk
about
and-
and
I
know,
we've
kind
of
worked
on
this
through
k
through
12-
you
know
we-
we
have
that
purview
to
look
to
do
those,
but
when
it
gets
into
you
know
higher
ed
or
the
workplace.
You
know
that
kind
of.
A
Then
we
get
into
some
problems
because
we
don't
want
to
tell
you
know
higher
ed
or
the
workplace
what
to
do
or
what
they
can't
do.
So
we
always
try
to
have
that
freedom,
but
just
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
another,
the
diversity
and
equity
and
inclusion,
even
in
the
college
campuses
and
a
lot
of
other
places
like
that.
A
E
E
It
wasn't
always
that
way
at
one
time
with
diverse
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion.
It
was
about
going
to
maybe
historically
black
or
hispanic
or
native
american
colleges
and
universities
trying
to
recruit
job
applicants
trying
to
recruit
students.
So
it's
really
about
bringing
more
people
into
the
system,
the
meaning
of
equal
opportunity,
that's
pretty
much
been
rejected,
color
blindness
has
been
rejected,
equity
has
been
embraced
and
equity
is
about
equal
outcomes,
not
equal
opportunity
and
so
they've
totally
discarded
equal
opportunity.
E
The
people
that
are
proponents
say
that
racism
is
permanent,
that
only
white
people
can
be
racist
and
so
white
people
have
to
engage
in
the
permanent
work
of
being
anti-racist,
and
I
think
most
of
us
would
recognize
that
any
group
can
be
racist.
It's
not
confined
to
one
group.
We
all
have
work
to
be
anti-racist,
and
so
that's
very
problematic
and
when
it
comes
to
how
it's
been
used
in
k
through
12,
we
find
that
minority
students-
you
know
they're
told
that
that
their
victims
and
standards
are
being
lowered.
Standards
are
being
lowered.
E
We're
told
that
math
now
is
racist
and
that,
depending
on
your
racial
ethnic
group,
you
might
not
get
the
same
answer
to
a
math
equation
and
it's
creating
an
environment
where
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
for
young
people
to
succeed
if
they
come
from
disadvantaged
backgrounds
and
for
people
who
may
may
or
may
not
know
my
background,
I
came
from
poverty.
High
school
dropout
married
at
16,
I
got
a
high
school
equivalency,
went
to
a
community
college
and
earned
the
first
of
five
college
and
university
degrees.
E
I
was
successful,
I
believe,
because
there
was
no
one
telling
me
that
I
was
that
I
couldn't
do
right.
I
believe
that
if
I
worked
hard
you
know
I
could
change
the
circumstances
of
my
birth.
I
was
able
to
do
that.
I
had
plenty
of
helping
hands
along
the
way
that
was
equal
opportunity,
but
we're
told
now
that
you
know
standards
have
to
be
lowered.
E
E
Now,
where
they're
encouraging
people
you
know
to
break
off
in
their
little
affinity
group
to
feel
safe
and
that's
not
conducive
to
keeping
organizations
on
the
mission
on
their
mission,
whether
it's
a
private,
a
public
organization,
it
doesn't
bring
people
together,
it
doesn't
promote
racial
or
reconciliation
and
healing
it's
very
divisive
and
critical
race
theory
and
dei
is
very
much
rooted
in
cultural
marxism
and
cultural
marxism
came
grew
out
of
economic
marxism
and
it's
based
on
conflict
theory.
E
You
cannot
bring
harmony
using
conflict
theory
and
the
research
for
some
time
now
has
shown
that,
often,
when
you
bring
in
diversity,
equity
inclusion
trainers,
it
leaves
the
workplace
worse
off,
because
if
there
wasn't
conflict,
if
everyone
would
were
getting
along
before
the
training
afterwards,
you
know
the
whites
are
ashamed
bullied
or
offended,
and
a
lot
of
the
minorities
are
angry
and
I
don't
know
what
the
goal
is,
because
the
goal
doesn't
seem
to
be
to
bring
people
together
to
bring
about
harmony.
I
think
that
we'd
be
better
off
in
this
nation.
E
If
we
went
back
to
the
original
desire
of
affirmative
action
to
create
opportunities,
equal
opportunities
to
extend
helping
hands,
to
help
people
of
all
races
and
ethnicities,
overcome
disadvantages
and
have
equal
opportunity,
we
have
forgotten
that
and
I'm
very
concerned
about
the
direction
of
our
nation
and
it
started
in
the
university
campuses.
But
it's
everywhere
now
and.
F
E
It's
very
wrong,
I
think
it's
very
dangerous
and-
and
that's
why
I'm
here
today,
yeah.
A
And-
and
I
and
I
agree
with
you-
and
you
made
a
great
point
too-
about
equity
and
equality-
I
mean
equity-
is,
I
think,
from
karl
marx.
I
mean
equal
outcomes
or
equality.
That's
what
we
want
for
everybody.
We
want
equality,
equal
opportunities,
actually
what
we're
wanting
for
everybody,
not
equity,
not
equal
outcomes.
So
I
think
that
word
gets
thrown
around
a
lot
and
everybody
just
kind
of
passes
it
off,
but
real
real
big
difference
between
equal
opportunity
and
equity
and.
E
Social
justice-
I
mean
that
is
a
concept
that
we
hear
a
lot
about,
but
social
justice
is
very
much
rooted
in
marxism.
It's
you
know.
It's
prevalent
in
our
churches.
A
E
It
too
doesn't
mean
justice,
because
when
you
actually
talk
with
the
people
that
are
pushing
for
social
justice,
they
believe
that
they're,
not
they
don't
want
to
they.
They
have
they're,
not
they're,
rejected
right
the
equality
and
non-discrimination
they
very
openly
talk
about.
They
want
discrimination
for
the
disadvantaged
groups
right
for
the
historically
marginalized
groups,
and
I
think
that
in
many
cases
I
think
blacks
are
getting
the
short
end
of
the
stick,
because
there
are
other
groups.
E
A
F
Dr
swain,
thank
you
so
much
for
being
with
us
today.
I
consider
a
great
privilege
to
speak
with
you
one-on-one
like
this,
and
I
feel
like
I'm
watching
my
tv,
but
I
get
to
talk
back
and
you
can
actually
hear
me.
So
I
see
you
a
lot,
but
thank
you
for
being
with
us
here
today
and
I
completely
agree
with
the
the
the
intent
of
this
bill.
I
mean
about
four
or
five
years
ago.
F
I
found
a
book
on
critical
theory,
not
critical
race
theory,
but
critical
theory,
and
because
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
what
are
they
doing
and
how
are
they
doing
it?
I
found
this
book
on
critical
theory
and
it
really
explained
exactly
how
they're
twisting
people's
minds-
and
you
know
really
what
we
need
to
be
teaching
is
how
to
be
a
critical
thinker,
not
not
a
critical
theory
or
critical
race
theory,
or
anything
like
that,
and
I
I
do
see.
F
I
truly
see
that
right
now
we
are
at
a
time
where
there's
oligarchs
and
they
are
they're,
really
teaching
anti-american
and
communist
theories,
and
it
is
absolutely
disgusting
and
what's
more
disgusting-
is
that
when
people
don't
recognize
it
that
is
really
really
harmful
when
people
don't
recognize
it,
and
you
know,
you'll
have
conversations
with
people
in
the
community
and
they
have
been
taught
these
things
and
they
don't
recognize
it
for
what
it
is
and
it's
very
disappointing
this
bill
has
to
do
with
business,
and
you
know
it
would
be
wonderful
if
we
could
just
do
this.
F
But
can
you
explain
to
me
if
we
pass
this
bill?
How
would
a
court
not
say
that
we
are
limiting
free
speech?
Because
free
speech
is
even
speech?
We
don't
like
it's
speech.
We
don't
like,
and
I
you
know
none
of
us
like
when
we
when
we
hear
people
talking
communism-
and
I
mean
I-
it's
really
they're.
Okay,
they're
teaching
some
very
anti-american
things,
but
how
do
we?
How
would
we
defend
the
spill
in
court
that
we're
not
limiting
free
speech?
I.
E
Think
that
you're
actually
protecting
free
speech
and
the
first
amendment
rights
of
employee
employees
not
to
be
compelled
and
forced
to
engage
in
activities
that
offend
their
conscience
and
with
private
employers.
You
know
they
have
their
own
first
amendment
rights,
and
so
you
know,
universities
mandate
their
employers,
employees
to
participate
in
it
and
people
can
lose
their
jobs
if
they
don't,
and
so
I'm.
E
I
think
that
if
it
is
confined
to
government
employees
and
employers
and
contractors
that
you
own
the
safest
constitutional
grants,
because
the
problem
with
the
mandatory
training
is
that
it
forces
people
and
there
are
all
sorts
of
ways
you
know
to
force
people
to
do
things
and
even
being
silent
like
when
they're
having
you
know
some
type
of
sometimes
gay
pride
activities
and
they
tell
everyone.
You
know
to
wear
a
particular
color.
E
If
you
decide
you
don't
want
to
wear
that
color
you've
added
yourself,
but
maybe
you
just
didn't
you
don't
do
that
kind
of
thing.
Some
people
just
don't
go
along
with
certain
things.
They
have
their
own
routines,
but
you
can
get
yourself
into
a
lot
of
trouble,
and
so
the
problem
is
that
they
have,
I
believe,
violating
some
people's
first
amendment
rights
because
they
are
compelling
them
at
times
they
have
been
situations
where
white
people
were
compelled
to
all
confess
that
racism,
because
with
critical
race
theory,
it's
assumed
that
all
white
people
are
racist.
E
When
we
passed
the
1964
civil
rights
act,
it
prohibited
discrimination
on
the
basis
of
race,
color,
national
origin,
sex
and
something
else
I'm
skipping
my
mind
right
now,
but
would
you
say
yeah,
but
it
prohibited
discrimination
and
it
protected
white
people
too,
and
for
the
longest
time
a
lot
of
white
people
have
not
known
that
they
have
civil
rights
too.
They
do
have
civil
rights
too,
and
and
back
in
the
70s
and
80s,
and
I
guess
even
in
the
90s,
when
white
people
talked
about
reverse
discrimination,
everyone
laughed
now.
E
And
so
I
think,
individual
employees
that
feel
like
they're
victimized
they're,
going
to
have
to
collect
their
data
again
about
the
discrimination
that's
taking
place
in
their
on
their
jobs
and
file,
eeoc
complaints
or
file
discrimination,
other
discrimination,
complaints
against
their
employers.
E
But
I
think
that
this
legislation
is
the
right
thing,
because
it
again
it's
compelling
people
to
do
something
that
may
violate
that
conscience
because
of
the
color
of
their
skin
or
because
of
their
sex
or
because
of
in
some
cases,
it's
heterosexual
versus
homosexual,
with
the
perception
that
all
heterosexuals
are
guilty
of
oppression
and
you
mention
critical
theory.
We're
focused
on
critical
race
theory
but
critical,
queer
theory,
critical,
feminist
theory,
critical
class
theory.
There
are
a
lot
of
critical
theories,
they're
all
based
in
marxism.
F
E
F
Will
I
will
ask
the
sponsor
when
he
comes
up,
but
I
think
this
bill
only
would
base,
especially
since
the
fact
that
it's
in
this
committee
would
only
apply
to
businesses,
but
I
will
clarify
that
with
the
sponsor,
because
it
would
have
to
go
to
another
committee
if
it
did
not
only
apply
to
businesses
and
I'll
tell
you,
my
husband,
and
I
exercise
our
economic
power
constantly
by
not
shopping
at
businesses
that
are
doing
these
things.
F
We
absolutely
will
not
give
our
money
to
those
businesses
and,
as
a
result,
we've
been
shopping
locally
much
more
at
our
community
businesses,
where
we
know
the
people
who
have
have
good
values
and
they're
not
trying
to
indoctrinate
or
brainwash
their
employees
and
listen.
I
think
it's
a
terrible
thing.
I
absolutely
think
it's
a
terrible
thing
and
I
hope
that
everybody
will
utilize
their
economic
power
and
teach
these
businesses
we're
not
going
to
put
up
with
this
anti-american
rhetoric.
This
has
to
stop.
It
is
clearly
communist
and
anti-american.
E
One
thing
I
do
know
is
that
non-discrimination
is
the
law
and
that
covers
private
as
well
as
you
know,
government,
employees
and-
and
so
if
companies
are
discriminating
against
people
because
of
their
race
and
forcing
them
to
do
things.
I
think
it
does
violate
the
1964
civil
rights
act.
F
E
The
constitution's
equal
protection
clause
and
some
parts
of
the
first
amendment,
depending
on
what
they're
doing
and
I'm
speaking
as
not
as
a
constitutional
expert
on
the
bill,
I'm
sure
you
have
plenty
of
people
here
that
can
do
that.
But
based
on
my
knowledge
of
the
law
and
what
I
have
seen
taking
place
in
workplaces.
F
With
this
general
assembly,
we
are
rooting
it
out
in
government.
We
are
everywhere.
We
can
find
it
we're
trying
to
put
a
stop
to
it,
because
everybody
should
be
treated
the
same,
and
we've
passed
a
number
of
pieces
of
legislation
that
apply
to
government
and
public
schools
to
try
to
root
this
out.
When
it
comes
to
private
businesses.
F
Right,
no
they're
not
free
to
discriminate,
but
we're
talking
about
them.
Having
you
know
having
seminars-
and
you
know
I
I-
our
sponsor-
is
an
attorney
so
we'll.
E
Talk
to
him
and
we'll
find
out
from
him
takes
place
in
those
seminars
seminaries
because
seminars,
because
in
some
of
those
seminars,
people
are
required
to
say
certain
things,
yeah
and
I
mean
if
you
would
actually
look,
which
I
have
at
some
of
the
things
that
have
taken
place,
doing
some
of
those
dei
trainings
and
there's
no
standard
to
be
qualified
to
do
a
training.
Almost
anyone
can
hang
up
a
shingle
and
go
out
and
pass
themselves
off
as
a
dei
trainer.
So
that
is
problematic.
E
A
Thank
you.
We
have
some
other
people
want
to
talk
to
you
too,
and
have
some
questions
chairman
bricken,
your
past.
Okay,
I'm
sorry
do
we
have
any
more.
Do
you
want?
You
want
back
on
the
bill?
Okay,
yeah.
Do
you
have
any
more
okay?
Anyone
else?
A
Well,
thank
you
so
much
for
being
here
today.
We
we
really
appreciate
it
and
honored
to
have
you
and
had
to
get
to
talk
to
you
one
on
one
and
and
we
agree
with
so
many
things
that
you
were
talking
about,
but
we
really
yeah.
Thank
you
for
being
here
today
appreciate
it
and
we're
going
to
go
back
in
session
and
representative
griffey.
Do
we
have
any
questions
for
him
chairman
faison.
G
I
am
I'm
a
daddy
to
a
biracial
son,
so
I
have
definitely
spent
some
time
trying
to
get
my
mind
around
the
whole
notion
of
what
critical
race
theory
is
where
it's
been
pushed,
and
I
find
myself
agreeing
that
it's
critical
race
theory
is
a
dangerous
thing.
G
However,
this
bill
has
nothing
to
do
with
critical
race
theory.
From
my
understanding
and
I'll
answer
that
question
in
a
minute,
but
I'm
best,
I'm
a
I'm
a
business
owner.
I
have
pest
control,
several
employees
and
my
short
12
years
up
here.
I
often
thought
what
is
the
ripple
effect
of
the
policies
that
we're
making
what's
going
to
happen
tomorrow,
because
of
what
we've
done
today,
we
are
setting
up
a
foundation
of
what
somebody
else
can
build
on.
G
I've
been
told
that
the
party
in
power
always
likes
big
government.
This
bill
feels
that
way
to
me
and
and
here's
what
makes
me
nervous
at
my
pest
control
business.
There
have
been
times
that
I've
provided
lunch
for
everybody,
we'll
pray,
there's
been
times
that
we've
had
a
bible
study
at
my
pest
control
business
before
business
starts,
your
your
testifier
brought
up
that
if
this
violates
my
conscience,
I'll
not
be
forced
to
do
it.
G
What
stops
us
in
the
future
from
telling
the
private
business
you
can't
teach
the
word
of
god.
You
can't
teach
this
you
we
we
are
creating
and,
from
my
understanding
of
this
bill,
we're
creating
a
foundation
to
tell
businesses
what
they
can
and
can't
teach
in
their
private
business
that
they
own.
I
pay
for
the
lights
I
pay
for
the
chemical
I
pay
for
my
employees.
G
I
built
this
business
and
now
I
feel
like
government.
If
we
passed
a
piece
of
legislation
like
this
is
coming
to
tell
me,
this
might
be
yours,
you're
paying
taxes
you're
doing
everything
right,
but
we
don't
like
what
you're
teaching
and
so
we're
going
to
set
up
a
cause
of
action
for
your
employee
e
to
sue
you
for
violating
their
conscience.
How
am
I,
how
am
I
misunderstanding,
this
bill.
D
Represented
thank
you
well,
this
would
be
my
response.
You
this
bill.
D
D
I'll
get
closer
okay,
so
I
think
you
could
possibly
face
a
discrimination
case
in
the
in
that
instance,
and
so
that
would
be
sort
of
the
same
thing
with
this
bill.
I
think
what
we're
trying
to
do
is
protect
against
discriminatory
practices
by
an
employer,
because
these
principles,
these
nine
principles
that
are
laid
out,
that
one
race
or
sex,
is
inherently
superior
to
another
race
or
sex.
An
individual
by
virtue
of
an
individual's
race
or
sex,
is
inherently
privileged
racist,
sexist
or
oppressive.
D
Whether
consciously
or
subconsciously,
an
individual
should
be
discriminated
against,
receive
adverse
treatment
because
of
the
individual's
race
or
sex.
An
individual's
moral
character
is
determined
by
an
individual's
race
or
sex.
An
individual
by
virtue
of
the
individual's
race
or
sex,
bears
responsibility
for
actions
committed
in
the
past
by
other
members
of
the
same
race
or
sex.
An
individual
should
feel
discomfort,
guilt,
anguish
or
other
forms
of
psychological
distress
solely
because
of
the
individual's
race
or
sex.
D
A
meritocracy
is
inherently
racist
or
sexist
and
designed
by
a
particular
race
or
sex
to
oppress
members
of
another
race
or
sex,
promoting
division
between
resentment
of
a
race,
sex,
religion,
creed,
non-violent,
political
affiliation,
social
class
or
class
of
people,
or
ascribing
a
character,
trait
values,
moral
ethics,
code,
privileges
or
beliefs
to
a
race
or
sex,
or
to
an
individual
because
of
the
individual's
race
or
sex.
So
what
this
bill
will
actually
do
is
prevent
employers
from
engaging
in
discriminatory
practices.
D
Again,
I
don't
think
we
have
any
constitutional
problems
with
this,
because
it's
it's
voluntary.
If
an
employer
wants
to
put
on
these
principles
that
outline
these
things,
an
employee
can
certainly
sit
there
and
listen
to
they
want
to.
But
I
don't
think
we
should
allow
an
employer
to
take
adverse
employment
action
against
someone
if
they
choose
not
to
sit
through
these
inherently
un-american
prejudicial
discriminatory
practices,
indoctrination
and
training,
and
in
fact
we
already
do
that
in
our
civil
rights
law
of
1964..
D
We
don't
allow
people
to
take
action
against
other
people
based
upon
their
race,
sexual
preference,
creed,
belief,
system,
religion.
So
I
think
this
is
an
addition
to
and
not
a
additional
burden
or
herding
hurdle
for
for
an
employer
and,
mr
chairman,
can
I
please
get
a
roll
call
on
this
bill.
Please.
A
D
D
A
G
G
When
you
get
hired,
you
are
told
that
you
will
wear
pp,
proper
protective
equipment.
I
make
them
if
you're
going
to
work
with
me,
you're
going
to
put
on
gloves
you're
going
to
wear
a
mask
every
time,
you're
spraying
at
somebody's
house.
Now,
as
we
got
into
the
pandemic,
it
started
to
bother
people.
There
was
some
people
like
why
are
y'all
wearing
a
mask?
We
always
where
our
boss
makes
us
wear
a
mask.
G
A
couple
of
my
guys,
like
jeremy
we're.
This
is
so
crazy,
we're
and
it
doesn't
matter
how
crazy
that
some
of
our
customers
don't
like
it
or
this
or
that
or
it's
political.
Now
when
you
came
here,
you
understood
what
I
was
going
to
do
as
the
business
owner
committee.
We
are
getting
into
a
place
now
that
we're
telling
a
business
owner
how
you
feel
can't
be
shared
with
your
employers,
but
guys
this
is
my
business.
G
I
agree
that
critical
race
theory
is
not
right.
However,
I
don't
agree
with
telling
me
what
I
can
and
can't
teach
and
I'll
leave
the
committee
with
this.
What
we
do
today
has
a
huge
ripple
effect
tomorrow.
There
will
be
somebody
else
there
years
from
now,
standing
in
that
well,
who
doesn't
like
what's
being
taught
what's
in
vogue,
then
guys
this
is
incredibly
dangerous
and
remember
whatever.
G
D
D
There's
a
difference
in
whether
you
require
your
employees
to
do
or
do
or
not
do
some
kind
of
action
based
upon
some
non-discriminatory
non-belief
system,
but
when
you
start
requiring
your
employees
to
adhere
to
a
religion,
political
philosophy,
whatever
that's
where
we
get
danger
dangerous
and
that's
what
the
civil
rights
law
is
already
designed
to
protect
and
again
I
submit
this
is
an
enhancement
to
it
to
prevent
a
distortion
and
an
anti-american
indoctrination
program
from
filtering
into
our
state
of
tennessee,
and
I
would
ask
you
to
pass
this
bill
on
that
basis.
Thank
you.
D
A
And
I
we've
got
a
couple
other
questions
too.
I
have
one
real
quick,
don't
they
based
on
what
you
already
said,
and
what
dr
swain
did
about
the
civil
rights
act?
Don't
they
already
have
a
personal
right
to
action
if
they're,
if
they're,
in
disagreement
with
that,
isn't
that
already
part
of
the
law?
I
know
you're
a
lawyer
until
you
know
that
so
I
can't
it
looks
like
it's
already
in
the
law
that
that
they
have
to
add
there.
D
F
F
Nobody
should
be
teaching
that
to
their
employees,
it's
ridiculous.
It's
absolutely.
Nobody
should
be
teaching
that,
but
you
did
say
something
about
the
bill
and
that's
not
what
your
bill
does.
This
says
a
person
shall
not
require
an
individual
employer
applicant
for
employment
to
complete
or
participate
in
training
orientation
or
any
other
instructional
informational
program
that
promotes
any
of
the
following
concepts.
I
think
the
following
concepts
are
absolutely
egregious
and,
as
you
know,
we
are
routing
them
out
and
rooting
them
out
in
state
government
and
education.
F
F
If
we
pass
this,
does
an
employer
not
bring
us
to
court
and
say
I'm
simply
having
them
participate
in
training
or
orientation.
There
do
not
necessarily
require
them.
To
repeat
something
or
believe
something
or
change
their
creed,
of
course
we
know
this
brainwashing
will
have
an
effect
on
people.
Unfortunately,
but
how
do
we
not?
How?
F
How
does
the
state
not
end
up
in
court
for
these
things,
because
what
your
your
bill
isn't
saying
that
they
can't
make
an
employee
sit
there
and
say
I'm
bad,
because
I'm
white,
they
can't
do
that,
and
but
your
bill's
not
saying
that.
That's
not
what
your
bill
is
saying.
Your
your
bill
is
really.
F
D
D
Well,
what
will
probably
happen
if
an
employee
brings
an
action
says
that
they
were
forced
to
sit
through
one
of
these
things
and
they
filed
discriminatory
action
against
employer.
The
employer
is
going
to
file
a
defense
and
say,
and
that
statute
is
unconstitutional,
violates
my
acts
of
free
speech,
because
it's
a
challenge
to
the
constitution
of
a
state
state
statute.
The
attorney
general
is
going
to
have
to
defend
that
look
at
the
case
and
make
the
decision
nation
whether
to
file
an
appearance
or
defend
it.
D
I
think
when
we
passed
this
for
k-12
education,
I
think
we
had
some
concerns
about
that
and
I
felt
like
everyone
in
the
general
assembly
was
pretty
safe,
that
it
was
not
unconstitutional
for
us
to
limit
this
anti-american
marxist,
discriminatory
practices
from
being
put
in
place
and
talked
to
our
children
and
based
on
what
dr
twain
is.
Indicating
employers
are
doing
this.
D
They
are
forcing
certain
employees
based
upon
the
color
of
their
skin,
to
admit
certain
things
you
know
being
shamed
or
felt
bad
regarding
nothing
else
in
base
point
color
of
the
skin,
and
you
know
that
that's
what
we
need
to
get
past
in
america.
D
The
color
of
your
skin
has
nothing
to
do
with
the
content
of
your
character,
and
this
this
bill
is
designed
to
protect
that
in
force
that
enhance
that
promote
that
you
know
american
principles.
We've
got
to
all
come
together
as
americans,
and
this
is
nothing
more
than
divisive
derisive
brainwashing
that
I
think
the
state
of
tennessee
has
legitimate
compelling
interest
in
protecting
all
tennesseans
from
being
subjected
to
discriminatory
practices.
E
F
Described
about
the
employee,
the
employee
has
a
cause
of
action
there.
They
absolutely
have
a
cause
of
action
there
they
do.
I
just
I
just
don't
know
that
you
know
that
we
would
win
based
on
what
your
bill
says.
Your
bill's
not
actually
saying
what
you're
saying
and
that
employee,
if
they're
forced
to
say
something
repeat,
something
whatever
they.
They
have
a
cause
of
action.
They
absolutely
right.
Now
right
now
have
a
cause
of
action.
F
I
I
I
don't
know
I
I'm
not
a
constitutional
law
law
scholar,
but
I've
sat
through
enough
committee
meetings
to
realize
when
we
might
be
treading
in
a
free
speech
area,
even
though
it's
speech
we
despise,
we
hate
it.
It
has
to
do
with
not
government,
it's
private,
and
you
know
we.
We
have
the
right
to
say
government,
you
can't
do
this
schools,
public
schools,
you
can't
do
this.
Absolutely
we
have
that
right
as
the
legislature.
F
I
think
what
has
been
shown
many
times
is
that
you
know,
unfortunately,
even
speech.
We
don't
like.
We
don't
always
have
that
power,
but
people
do
have
the
power
to
sue
their
employer
if
their
employer
is
violating
their
civil
rights
or
their
constitutional
rights.
D
The
employer
still
retains
absolute
freedom
to
promote
these
principles,
do
whatever
they
want
to
speak
speech
about
them.
Whatever.
What
this
bill
is
saying,
is
you
don't
have
a
right
as
an
employer,
to
force
an
employee
to
sit
through
this
derisive
un?
I
think
unconstitutional
discriminatory
practices,
because
what
it
does
is
it
targets
people
based
upon
the
color
of
their
skin,
their
religious
belief,
their
sex
and
so
forth.
It's
the
flip
side,
it's
the
inverse
discrimination
discrimination
and
this
bill
is
designed
to
prevent
that.
A
Are
you
done
chairman
vaughn.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
bill
sponsor.
Thank
you
for
bringing
dr
swain.
I
appreciate
your
words
today
and,
and
we've
we've
had.
We've
spent
a
great
deal
of
time
today
talking
about
things
that
that
are
on
a
lot
of
people's
minds
and
and
have
a
lot
of
people
share
concerns
with
regards
to
what
you're
talking
about.
H
But
you
know,
unfortunately,
we're
not
here
to
we're
not
here,
to
to
espouse
our
belief
system
with
regards
to
to
various
matters
that
are
here,
even
if
I
may
be
in
violent
agreement
with
your
presenter
and
her
thoughts
on
it.
We're
here
today
to
vote
on
a
particular
piece
of
legislation
and
how
this
piece
of
legislation
deals
with
and
treats
businesses
in
the
state
of
tennessee.
H
The
one
thing
that
I
would
note
two
things
I'd
note
about.
The
testimony
that
we've
heard
today
is
that
we've
already
heard
that
individuals
have
protection
under
the
constitution
and
under
the
existing
civil
rights
laws
to
bring
cases
for
discrimination.
We've
we've
heard
that
in
testimony
from
both
the
sponsor
and
and
our
the
expert
that
he
brought
so
people
have
remedies
if
they
find
themselves
in
this
position,
and
with
regards
to,
I
think
I
think
it's
something
that
the
the
doctor
discussed,
and
I
I
picked
up
on
a
word.
H
That
was
very
it
kind
of
rang
true
to
me,
and
the
reason
that
this
legislature
has
been
concerned
about
these
issues
in
our
educational
system
is
because,
in
that
setting
and
in
that
environment
she
used
the
word
compel
children
are
compelled
to
be
there
to
listen
to
it.
No
one
compels
you
to
stay
at
a
job.
H
They
have
a
boss,
that's
not
understanding,
and
so
people
have
the
ability
to
be
mobile
and
to
get
out
of
the
environment,
whatever
environment
their
employer
chooses
to
put
them
in,
whereas
in
cases
school
children
do
not-
and
that's
that's
one
of
my
concerns
here.
The
other
issue
is
getting
back
to
the
bill
itself.
Not
let's
take
this
out
of
the
sphere
of
of
theoretical
and
get
to
the
bill.
H
H
To
pursue
up
to
750
000
for
non-economic
damages
that
to
me
is
one
of
the
most
anti-business
pieces
of
legislation
that
we've
seen
in
a
while.
It's
a
trial,
lawyer's
dream.
It
says
we
can.
People
can
come
along
and
say:
well
that's
what
I
was
made
to
do.
That's
what
I
was
told
to
do
so.
Therefore,
mr
business
owner
you're
going
to
have
as
opposed
to
me,
leaving
your
employee,
I'm
going
to
have
file
suit
for
you.
H
The
next
thing
we
can
do
is,
I
imagine
you
know
you
know
how
we
see
the
asbestos
lawsuits
and
and
the
the
hernia
screens
and
all
that
stuff.
That's
the
type
of
whenever
employees
become
offended
by
what
their
employer
is
doing
in
the
workplace
and
give
them
a
private
cause
of
action.
I
think
this
would
be
a
tremendous
tremendous
detriment
to
our
business
community
and
that's
why
mr
chairman.
G
A
Thank
you
all
for
being
here
and
thank
you
for
making
him
my
office
mate
when
we
first
got
here.
I
learned
a
lot
from
him.
Not
really
I'm
kidding.
Okay.
Item
number:
five,
chairman
holstein:
are
you
still
here?
Hey
all
right,
great
house
bill
2068
by
chairman
halsey
chairman,
you
are
recognized.
B
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
if
you'll
indulge
me
just
a
minute,
I'm
probably
going
to
take
this
bill
off
notice,
but
I
wanted
to
explain
it
because
there's
a
lot
of
confusion
about
it
and
I
haven't
no
luck
when
it
comes
to
bills
in
front
of
this
committee.
So.
A
Oh
yeah,
we
need
a
motion
on
the
bill.
First
of
all,
foreign
and
the
second
okay,
you
got
that
now.
We're
gonna
put.
Have
an
amendment
see
okay,
I
got
a
motion
and
a
second
zero
one.
Three,
nine
one,
seven!
Is
that
what
you
have
that's?
What.
A
B
A
We
I'm
sorry,
we've
already
voted
on
the
amendment.
So
if
you
want
to
go
ahead
and
describe
the
bill
as
amended,
okay.
B
The
reason
that
I
brought
this
is
because
when
osha
mandate
was
still
in
effect
and
we
were
under
the
the
charge
of
emperor
fauci
and
and
all
his
minions,
it
seemed
at
that
time
that
businesses
were
were
taking
unvaccinated
people
and
discriminated
against
them
and
forced
them
to
test,
and
in
some
cases
up
in
in
my
area
or
forcing
them
to
test
every
week
and
making
them
pay
for
it,
and
my
whole
gist
of
the
bill
was
that
it's
unjust
because
unvaccinated
people
are
not
who's
spreading
this
the
most.
B
B
The
last
numbers
coming
out
of
the
european
union
two
weeks
ago,
took
the
country
of
ireland
that
has
one
of
the
highest
vaccination
rates
in
the
world.
92
percent,
and
yet
their
infection
rates
are
soaring
and
of
all
the
people
who
died
in
ireland
from
this
virus
between
april
and
october
were
fully
vaccinated.
44
were
fully
vaccinated,
so
I
was
just
trying
to
level
the
playing
field
and
take
the
discrimination
off
off
of
unvaccinated
people,
and
the
bill
said
it
was
the
gist
of
it
was
if
you're
going
to
test
unvaccinated
people.
B
A
Okay,
we
have
a
question
before
you
take
it
off
notice.
If
you
would
like
to
talk
about
a
little
bit
representative
powell,
more
just
to
comment
chairman,
I
just
want
to
let
you
know
I've
been
carrying
cash
ever
since
your
last
bill.
B
A
A
We'll
pay
you
in
cash,
okay,
the
next
one
is
item
number
seven
house
bill
2733
by
chairman
wendell
chairman,
when
you
get
to
the
podium
you're
recognized.
We've
got
a
motion
in
a
second,
mr
chairman,
and
members.
C
A
C
You,
mr
chairman,
and
and
chairman,
I
appreciate
you
allowing
me
to
get
this
on
the
calendar
today,
while
the
mortgage
loan
originators
are
here
visiting
today,
and
so
this
bill
simply
clears
up
some
ambiguity
and
statute
with
regard
to
mortgage
loan
originators
when
they
need
to
work
outside
of
their
offices.
So
this
defines
a
remote
location
as
other
than
the
licensed
facility.
It
makes
sure
each
company
has
security
policies
and
procedures
in
place
that
protect
consumer
data
and
records.
C
A
Okay,
is
there
any
discussion
on
the
bill
today?
No,
no
move
it
out
got
the
question
on
the
bill,
all
in
favor
say:
aye
all
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it
your
bill
moves
on
to
full
commerce,
and
so
are
there
any
other
announcements
or
anything
on
by
the
committee
at
all?