►
From YouTube: House - Higher Education Subcommittee - March 9, 2021
Description
House Higher Education Subcommittee House Hearing Room 3
A
Let's
go
ahead
and
begin.
The
subcommittee
of
higher
education
just
found
out
that
that
our
regular
chairman,
justin
lafferty,
had
to
do
some
personal
business,
so
I'm
going
to
fill
his
role
during
committee.
A
A
A
A
Item
number
two
646
by
chairman
faison
deals
with
the
lottery
counter,
we'll
be
going
to
the
lottery
calendar
assigned
to
the
lottery
calendar
item
number
three.
We
will
be
hearing
today
item
number
four
by
chairman
terry.
We
will
be
hearing
items
number
five
by
chairman
vaughn
that
is
rolled
for
one
week
house
bill
443
item
six
by
chairman
white,
that
is
a
lottery
bill.
We
put
on
the
lottery
calendar
as
well
as
item
seven
house
bill
471
by
chairman
white,
going
to
the
lottery
calendar.
A
The
lottery
calendar
by
the
way
is
march
the
23rd.
So
we
hear
all
the
lottery
bills.
If
you
know
of
anyone,
I
should
have.
I
need
to
make
this
announcement
on
the
floor,
but
anyone
that
has
a
bill
that
deals
with
the
lottery
need
to
go
ahead
and
put
it
on
notice.
So
we
can
assign
it
to
the
lottery
calendar
if
you
have
one
of
those
okay.
A
D
Committee
members,
I'm
going
to
do
something
I
don't
usually
do.
Each
of
you
should
have
received
an
email
copy
of
my
talking
points
so
rather
than
dwell
on
the
talking
points.
What
I'm
going
to
do
is
give
you
the
background
very
quickly
of
what
we're
talking
about
here,
so
that
you
will
understand
why
this
bill
exists.
D
I
have
here
a
letter
that
was
sent
to
the
tennessee
department
of
education
office
of
civil
rights
august,
the
29th
2019
that's
18
months
ago,
this
letter
was
sent
out
over
my
signature.
As
the
chair
of
the
joint
government
operations
subcommittee
on
health,
general
health,
education
and
young
welfare
got
that
backwards,
education,
health
and
general
welfare.
D
What
this
letter
did
was
point
out
to
the
office
of
civil
rights
and
the
department
of
education
that
they
were,
in
fact
in
violation
of
several
portions
of
our
state
code,
and
specifically,
I
asked
them
in
the
paragraphs
of
this
letter
to
remove
any
intent
and
wording
in
their
documents
beyond
that
which
was
specifically
specified
within
the
scope
of
tennessee
code
4-4-123,
which
I'll
read
to
you
in
a
minute.
D
In
fact,
just
before
I
came
to
committee,
I
copied
from
their
website
their
manual,
which
basically
says
that
they
are
able
to
hold
proceedings
to
hold,
to
withhold
state
and
federal
funding
from
our
lease
that
they
may
suspend.
That
was
page
10
of
their
office
of
civil
rights
investigation
manual,
page
11.
It
says
to
suspend
and
terminate
state
financial
assistance
made
available
through
tdoe
our
own
department
of
education.
D
4-4
123
does
not
give
them
that
power;
they
are
exercising
power
that
they
do
not
have
under
federal
law
or
state
law
and
oh
by
the
way.
I
will
mention
also
that
the
second
portion
of
this
bill,
which
includes
universities
which,
under
their
offices
of
diversity
and
inclusion,
are
doing
the
same
thing.
D
D
Let
me
back
up
just
a
second.
The
origin
and
genesis
of
this
bill
began
during
the
obama
administration
was
something
known.
As
the
dear
colleague
letters,
the
dear
colleague,
letters
were
published
by
the
us
department
of
education,
where
they
were
putting
out
policies
and
telling
anybody
that
was
receiving
funding,
federal
funding
that
they
had
to
comply
with
these
policies.
Among
these
policies
were
the
transgender
exceptions
and
so
forth.
D
This
bill
specifically
repeats
that
the
trump
administration
came
in
within
a
month
withdrew
that
guidance
and
the
department
of
education
under
the
trump
administration
promulgated,
the
change
in
the
code
of
federal
regulations,
which
basically
means
now
that
we
have
to
comply,
but
they
took
out
that
stuff
that
was
objectionable
and
well.
Let
me
rephrase
that
not
all
of
it
but
anyway.
D
D
This
bill
is
going
to
require
them
to
promulgate
more
rules
which
will
change
policies
that
they
have
into
rules
now,
lest
you
become
concerned
or
they
become
concerned,
I
want
to
go
on
the
record
to
change
a
policy
into
rule.
All
they've
got
to
do
is
just
go
through
the
rule-making
procedure.
They
don't
have
to
change
what
the
policy
does
that
rule-making
procedure
basically
says
you
file
it
with
the
secretary
of
state.
You
put
it
through
the
attorney
general's
office.
You
have
a
60-day
public
comment
period.
D
D
That
process
is
the
same,
the
same
policies
that
they
have
can
be
converted
to
rules.
There
is
no
requirement
to
change.
Some
have
run
around
and
said
well
what,
if
they
whiplash
what
if
they
change
the
policy
and
say
we're
going
to
cut
the
money,
if
you
don't
do
that,
our
state
law
has
something
called
emergency
rules.
D
D
D
D
Essentially,
a
policy
is
anything
that
is
within
the
walls
or
if
you
were
the
the
wiring
diagram
of
an
agency,
if
they
want
to,
they
can
tell
everybody
to
wear
a
black
suit
on
wednesday,
and
that's
a
policy
if
they
want
to,
they
can
say,
fill
out
form
1297
form
a
on
tuesdays
and
pass
it
in
wednesday.
Somebody
that's
a
policy,
but
the
minute
they
do
something
that
affects
somebody
outside
of
their
agency,
as
in
money
allocations
or
requirements
that
they
must
do
certain
things.
D
So
once
again,
I'm
appealing
to
you
and
I
apologize
for
waxing
overly
eloquent
again,
but
I'm
appealing
you
to
make
sure
that
our
state
agencies
are
indeed
setting
the
example.
We
require
everybody
else
to
follow.
The
law
by
golly.
Our
own
state
government
should
follow
the
law.
With
that
explanation,
mr
chairman,
I
stand
ready
to
answer
questions.
A
Thank
you,
chairman
reagan,
and
you
wax
elegant
very
well.
So
thank
you
for
that
that
explanation,
members,
if
you
remember
this
bill,
was
before
us
last
week
and
we
had
some
discussion
and
we
also
had
to
hire
ed
as
chairman
reagan
mentioned
and
they've
got
heartburn
over
this.
We
do
have
two
people
that
requested
24-hour
notice
to
speak
on
this
bill
and
I
can
recognize
them
if
they
still
desire.
A
May
I'll
call
you
a
name
that
these
are
what
I
had
on
my
list
that
requested
24-hour
mr
brian
laps
tbr.
General
counsel.
Is
he
here
before
you
come
up,
sir?
I
will
see
if
the
members
have
any
questions
for
chairman
reagan
and
also
ryan
stinnon
or
david
whitcomb
of
the
ut
general
counsel.
Are
they
here?
Okay?
So
they
are.
They
are
here
okay,
but
before
I
we
go
out
of
session
or
anything.
Let
me
recognize
some
of
our
members
chairman
bond.
E
Thank
you,
chairman
white,
and
I
I've
got
a
a
question
or
two
and
it
might
be
best
for
me
to
ask
chairman
reagan
these
questions
and
then,
if
he
wants
to,
I
don't
know
that
he's
going
to
want
to
defer
any
of
them
to
the
guests,
but
then
they
would
have
heard
the
questions
and
could
comment
on
them.
I
don't.
E
I
understand
that
part
of
the
motivation
for
this
bill
is
the
2011
dear
colleague,
letters
by
the
obama
administration.
I
think
that
is
irritated
chairman
reagan
and
it
irritates
me
too.
I
understand
all
that
I
think
that's
partly
gotten
gotten
us
into
this
mess
is
some
of
the
events
that
that
occurred
inappropriately
ten
years
ago
and
then
to
compound
matters.
The
state
department
of
education
isn't
handling
these
requirements
quite
right
either.
E
I
I
I
think
our
universities
are
concerned
about
this,
and
it
probably
largely
boils
down
to
money
and
you've
said
that,
so
I'm
not
really
saying
anything
new,
I
think
it's
important
to
realize
that
probably
20
or
more
of
the
funding
for
these
colleges
and
universities
comes
from
the
federal
government.
We've
got
some
large
institutions
that
this
amounts
to
over
140
million
dollars
a
year.
E
I
think
that
the
universities
are
concerned
about
it.
The
court
battle
may
take
some
time.
There
could
be
some
legal
fees
involved,
and
so
I
think
the
universities
want
to
want
us
to
consider
leaving
them
out
of
this
bill.
Maybe
if
the
bill
has
two
parts,
the
first
part
and
the
second
part
keep
the
first
part
that
involves
the
state
department
of
education,
but
maybe
not
keep
the
second
part
that
involves
the
our
higher
education,
colleges
and
universities.
E
D
Thank
you
good
question,
and
the
answer
is
by
this
bill.
They
may
respond
to
it.
They
just
may
not
respond
to
it
by
policy.
They
must
respond
by
rule
now.
If
it
affects
anybody
outside
of
the
agency
we're
talking
about
and
again,
we
have
several
means
available
within
our
state
law.
There's
emergency
rules,
there's
proposed
rules
by
the
way
and
then
there's
the
the
normal
rule
making
process
the
normal
rulemaking
process
is
the
longest
one
that
we
prefer.
However,
as
I
mentioned,
the
emergency
rule
process
is
now
it
can
happen
now.
D
So
changing
a
rule
is
not
something
that
is
going
to
necessarily
take
a
long
time
to
your
point.
If
they
find
it
helpful,
they
can,
as
I
said,
implement
an
emergency
rule
or
and
or
they
can
implement
the
proposed
rule.
Within
the
government
operations
committee
which
I
chair,
we
allow
proposed
rules
which
are
in
fact
designed
to
take
care
of
of
administrative
kinds
of
things
within
the
the
bounds
of
what
they
already
have
on
the
books.
D
We
prefer
to
have
the
public
weigh
in
on
it,
though,
even
if
it's
a
good
thing
and
there's
nothing
wrong
with
it.
In
my
mind,
because
they
are
public
institutions,
we,
the
taxpayers,
pay
for
them.
Federal
government
might
give
20,
but
we,
the
state,
give
most
of
the
universities
at
least
30
percent,
so
we've
got
a
bigger
stake
than
the
federal
government
does
and
we
should
not
be
ignored.
E
E
I
guess
is
the
is
the
phrase
in
section
two
part
b
that
says
it's
just
one
sentence.
It
says,
of
course
I
guess
you
have
to
consider
the
full
context.
It
says
not
include
policy
guidance
issued
by
the
united
states
department
of
education,
so
it
really
prohibits
using
policy
guidance
from
the
united
states
department
of
education.
E
Would
it
be
more
flexible
if
we
said
that
colleges
and
universities
have
the
have
the
option
of
using
or
not
using
policy
guidance
by
the
united
states
department
of
education?
In
other
words,
instead
of
having
a
prohibition,
make
it
make
it
optional?
If
it's
good
good
policy,
it
could
be
incorporated.
If
it's
bad
policy,
it
doesn't
have
to
be
incorporated
by
state
law.
E
Yeah,
I
understand
state
law
already
says
that
rules
should
be
made
and
not
respond
to
guidance.
I
think
I
guess
to
kind
of
reiterate.
I
think
a
little
bit
of
the
concern
is
with
with
part
b
here
section
two
part
b.
That
is
a
prohibition
instead
of
instead
of
giving
giving
the
option,
but
I
understand
what
you're
saying
that
state
law
already
says
that
responding
to
federal
policy
guidance
is
prohibited,
and
so
your
bill
is
is
consistent
with
existing
state
law.
E
Let's
suppose
that
the
federal
government
did
attempt
to
withhold
140
million
dollars
from
a
college
or
university
because
they
weren't
responding
the
way
the
federal
government
wanted
to
a
dear
colleague
letter.
Let's
say
that
event
actually
happened
and
the
matter
had
to
go
to
court.
Would
there
be
a
lag
time
before
the
court
could
resolve
the
matter
and,
in
the
meantime,
the
universities
out
this
amount
of
money,
even
if
they
win
the
court,
even
if
they
win
the
litigation.
E
D
D
D
The
point
I'm
trying
to
make
here
is
the
state
of
tennessee
is
not
forced
to
do
the
federal
government's
bidding
just
because
they
put
out
a
policy
by
the
way,
as
you
can
tell
from
the
thickness
of
my
page
here,
I
I'll
be
willing
to
give
you
more
if
you
want,
but
I
think
it
establishes
the
purpose.
D
Those
two
court
cases,
one
which
is
very
old
and
one
which
is
fairly
new,
the
same
principle-
and
I
will
point
out
too
that
that
injunction
that
I
mentioned
has
been
used
in
several
cases
already
to
prevent
the
enforcement
of
those
mechanisms.
E
Well,
thank
you
for
your
responses
and
for
answering
my
questions.
I
think
your
responses
are
very
well
thought
out.
I'm
just
not
concerned.
We
want
to
run
the
risk
of
of
some
of
the
implications
that
might
occur
by
forcing
our
universities
and
and
colleges
into
into
some
of
this.
But
but
I
understand
the
the
response
to
these
concerns
is
is,
in
many
cases
already
laid
out
in
tennessee
code.
E
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chairman
reagan,
you
mentioned
earlier
some
policies,
maybe
that
are
currently
in
place
that
should
rather
that
should
be
in
rule
rather
than
policy.
Would
you
would
you
have
an
example?
Maybe
of
one
of
those.
D
D
F
F
Absolutely
well
hey,
like
I
think,
that's
something
that
needs
to
be
addressed
and
similar
to
representative
obama.
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
that
we
could,
at
least
in
the
interim,
while
we,
while
we're
kind
of
thinking
through
how
to
address
higher
education,
if
there
might
be
a
way
that
we
could
kind
of
focus
this
in
on
the
department
of
education
kind
of
take
to
take
them
first
and
then
and
then
look
at
higher
education.
I
don't
know
if
that's
something
that
you
might
be
willing
to
to
consider
or
look
at.
D
The
answer
to
your
question
is,
I
have
and
as
I
as
I
mentioned
already
it's
already
in
the
tca
this
bill
restated
what
was
in
the
tca
already
and
it
made
it.
Shall
we
say
perfectly
clear,
whereas
there
may
have
been
some
question,
it's
now
perfectly
clear.
What's
in
the
tca
with
this
bill,
I
don't
have
an
axe
to
grind
with
higher
education.
I
have
three
university
of
tennessee
satellite
campuses
in
my
district,
I
in
no
way
want
to
hurt
higher
education.
F
And
then,
just
one
again,
the
same
subject
section
that
representative
baum
had
mentioned,
I
think
section,
2
b
not
include
policy
guidance
issued
by
the
united
states
department
of
education
with
that,
so
looking
at
the
higher
ed
again,
so
let's
say
maybe
they
got
a
policy
guidance
from
the
u.s
department
of
education
that
they
liked
right.
Let's
say
that
it's
it's
nothing
crazy,
but
it's
something
that
they
see
and
they
think
well,
maybe
that
that's
probably
something
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
adapt
or
to
adopt
to
to
our
policies.
F
So
with
that
subsection.
Could
they
take
that
policy
guidance
that
they
like
and
then
still
come
to
gov
ops
and
say
you
know,
we
would
like
to
promulgate
a
new
rule
based
on
this
policy
guidance,
because
we
think
it
would
be
effective
at
the
university
of
memphis
or
the
university
of
tennessee.
Is
that
possible
for
them
to
do
it's
not
only
possible?
It's.
D
From
doing
that,
there
is
no
prohibition
on
them
promulgating
rules
to
do
what
they
want
to
do.
Okay,
the
prohibition
is
on
them,
saying
that
the
federal
government
policy
is
us.
Therefore,
we
must
do
it.
Okay,
that
that's
and-
and
that's
already
in
other
portions
of
the
tca
okay.
Thank
you.
C
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
chairman
reagan.
One
day
I
hope
to
have
the
depth
of
knowledge
and
understanding
you
have
when
it
comes
to
a
lot
of
our
policies
and
guidelines
and
things
that
nature,
and
I
commend
you
for
that,
sir.
C
What
I
wanted
to
ask
you
is
that
do
how
much
do
we
benefit
so
to
speak
from
putting
our
institutions
of
higher
learning,
in
my
view,
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
between
state
and
federal
compliance,
and
you
know
we
can
be
right
all
day
in
regards
to
whether
state
policy
or
federal
policy
should
guide
it.
But
what
impact
does
it
have
on
the
institutions
that
we
love
and
want
to
see
to
continue
to
be
successful?
C
D
D
Federal
law,
trumps
state
law,
but
the
key
phrase
is
federal
law.
It's
not
federal
policy.
Our
institutions
are
state
institutions.
We
have
chartered
them
within
the
state
of
tennessee.
They
are
in
fact
for
lack
of
a
better
term
equivalent
of
persons
within
our
state.
Everybody
is
obligated
to
follow
the
law
up
to
this
point.
D
They
have
not
been
in
some
cases,
and
this
bill
simply
says
it's
already
in
the
law.
You
must
follow
it
and
it's
restated
in
such
a
way
that
it's
patently
clear
to
your
point
about
hurting
I
submit
to
you
that
you
live
by
the
book.
If
the
book's
wrong
you
change
the
book,
that's
our
job.
We
write
the
laws.
D
And,
frankly,
that's
what's
been
happening
and
I
can't
I
can't
in
good
conscience,
stand
before
my
constituents,
especially
some
who've,
come
to
me
with
some
of
their
relatives
currently
incarcerated
for
having
violated
state
law
and
tell
them.
Well,
I'm
sorry,
your
son
violated
state
law
and
he's
going
to
have
to
serve
his
sentence
when
they
say
well,
we've
got
institutions
out
here
that
are
violating
state
law
and
getting
away
with
it
that
inconsistency
I'm
going
to
use
the
word
hypocrisy
is
something
I
just
won't
tolerate
again.
D
If
the
book
is
wrong,
the
law
book,
those
green
books
on
that
shelf
there
it's
up
to
us
to
change
it
and
I'm
willing
to
entertain
changes.
In
fact,
I
have
changes
from
many
many
sources
and
I
submit
all
of
you
are
as
well,
but
when
we
have
a
situation
where
we
have
discovered
that
violations
of
the
law
are
taking
place,
and
it's
patently
obvious
and
we
choose
to
ignore
it,
we
ourselves
are
becoming
hypocrites
and
I
for
one
won't
stand
for
it.
Did
I
answer
your
question,
sir.
A
Okay,
that
was
the
three
members
I
had
that
wanted
to
ask
questions.
It
sounds
like
judging
from
from
the
comments,
the
three
that
spoke,
and
even
the
question
I
have
on
mine
is
the
issue:
is
the
higher
education
getting
that
getting
that
worked
out,
putting
them
between
a
rock
and
a
hard
place
you
have
waxed
eloquently
and
on
your
position
members?
Does
anyone
want
to
hear
from
the
two
guests
that
asked
to
speak
in
higher
education?
Would
you
like
to
go
out
of
session
and
hear
from
them?
A
Okay
without
objection,
then
we're
out
of
session,
and
I'm
going
to
invite
up.
Mr
brian
laps,
tbr
general
counsel,
tennessee
board
of
regents
mr
lapse,
you
can
you
can
come
to
the
podium
if
you
find
and
since
we're
audio
video
streaming
just
state
your
name
and
position
for
the
record.
G
G
I'd
like
to
thank
the
members
of
the
committee,
the
chairman
and
as
well
as
chairman
reagan,
for
the
conversation
he
had
with
us
last
week
to
address
some
of
our
concerns,
but
I
think
the
questions
have
hit
the
nail
on
the
head
in
terms
of
putting
us
behind
a
rock
and
a
hard
place.
I
share
chairman
reagan's
problems
with
the
federal
government
issuing
guidance
and
then
expecting
us
to
follow
it
and
changing
that
guidance
as
they
go
along.
G
I
have
trouble
with
that.
I
don't
like
that.
As
a
lawyer,
I
don't
like
that
as
a
higher
education
lawyer,
I
don't
like
that
as
a
citizen,
but
as
general
counsel
for
the
tennessee
board
of
regents.
My
job
is
to
avoid
that
rock
and
a
hard
place
or
the
choice
between
a
pyrrhic
victory
or
a
loss,
and
it's
not
just
the
fact
that
we
could
be
sued.
It's
the
fact
of
what
happens
if
the
federal
government
does
try
to
get
rid
of
our
federal
funding,
will
it
come
to
that?
Probably
not.
Would
we
change
things?
G
Yes,
but
there's
still
a
lot
of
collateral
damage
in
terms
of
the
time
it
takes
to
fight
that,
in
terms
of
the
other
things,
the
federal
government
can
do
the
other
investigations.
They
can
undertake
the
other
fines
they
can
try
to
levy
and
the
other
things
they
can
look
for
us
if
we're
doing
wrong.
That
could
be
collateral
damage
on
that.
G
The
tennessee
board
of
regents
has
230
million
dollars
of
federal
money
for
the
last
budget
year.
I
think
211
million
dollars
was
the
number
I
saw
that
was
federal
student
aid.
So
it's
not
just
the
institutions,
it's
the
students
and
with
respect
to
tennessee
promise
at
least
the
federal
money
or
the
state
money.
The
federal
money
comes
first
and
then
the
state
money
comes
after
that,
as
this
committee.
Well
knows.
So,
if
there's
any
decrease
or
a
risk
of
decrease
to
federal
money,
it's
also
affect
us
on
the
on
the
state
money
issue.
G
G
That
applies
to
as
I
read
it.
Emergency
rules
proposed
rules
and
rule
making
rules,
so
I
just
don't
want
to
get
caught
in
a
situation
where
we're
threatened
with
the
loss
of
federal
funding,
and
we
have
to
face
the
position
of
getting
into
a
big
fight
about
that,
and
that
fight
could
well
happen
because
the
dear
colleague
letter,
the
2011
dear
colleague,
letter
that
really
set
this
issue
off
isn't
is.
It
is
going
to
be
well
the
title
right.
G
The
title:
nine
regulations
that
replace
that
dear
colleague
letter
are
in
the
crosshairs
of
the
current
administration
they
have
made.
They
have
said
that
they
want
to
change
those.
I
don't
know
whether
they're
going
to
repeal
them
in
total
or
repeal
portions
of
them.
I
don't
know
whether
they're
going
to
repeal
portions
of
them
and
then
issue
guidance
while
they
figure
out
what
they
want
to
do.
G
We
just
don't
know
and
they're,
also
likely
to
resume
what
two
administrations
ago
did
with
respect
to
issuing
dear
colleague
letters
and
when
they
do
that,
we
still
run
into
the
problems
of
okay.
Now,
what
do
we
do?
And
I
just
don't
want
to
have
our
our
hands
tied?
I
want
to
be
able
to
respond
to
these
changes
as
they
come
up
and
I'm
concerned
that
this
bill
ties
our
hands
and
it's
just
not
in
the
best
interest
of
higher
educate,
higher
education
in
general
and
the
tennessee
board
of
regents
in
particular,.
A
A
F
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
and
appreciate
you
coming
to
testify
and
giving
us
some
some
legal
expertise
there.
I
so
one
follow-up
question
just
on
the
threat
of
losing
federal
funding.
So
without
this.
So
without
this
the
current
bill
that
we're
that
we're
debating,
if
the
federal
government
were
to
issue-
let's
say
some
title
ix
policy
guidance.
F
The
higher
education
institutions
implement
that
that
they
take
that
policy
guidance
and
they
change
they
change
a
rule.
Then
they
come
to
the
government
operate
the
joint
government
operations
committee
to
then
get
that
approved.
We.
We
think
that
that
policy
guidance
is
outlandish.
We
think
it's
really
kind
of
far
outside
the
mainstream
and
we
say
no
yeah.
That's
not
your
we're.
Putting
a
stay
on
that
rule.
You're
not
going
to
do
that.
Is
that
not
the
same
risk
to
federal
funding
or,
if
not,
why
not?.
G
I
think
there
is
it's
a
very
I'd
say
it's
a
similar
risk.
If
we
come
now-
and
you
say
no,
there's
that
risk
to
federal
funding,
but
as
I'm
reading
this
bill,
it
says
we
shall
not
include
federal
policy
guidance
on
it,
okay
and
it
just
causes
additional
problems
and
additional
risk.
I
think
it's
in
the
same
nature,
though,.
F
Okay,
gotcha
and
I
I
certainly
understand
the
university
is
concerned,
and
you
know
I
think
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
the
get
the
language
right.
I
also
want
to
say,
though,
at
some
point
I
think
we
do
have
to
take
a
stand,
even
if
it
does
possibly
put
federal
funding
at
risk
or
if
we
have
to
have
that
fight.
G
A
Anyone
else
want
to
well
talk
to
mr
lapse:
okay,
seeing
none.
Thank
you,
sir
appreciate
that
very
much
we
also
had
was
it,
mr
stinnett,
why
don't
you
come
on
up
and
see
if
he
members
have
a
question
just.
B
Thank
you
chairman.
My
name
is
ryan
stennett,
I'm
the
general
counsel
for
the
university
of
tennessee
system,
and
I
just
want
to
make
a
few
points,
starting
with
appreciation
for
chairman
reagan's
concerns
and
appreciation
for
him
taking
time
last
thursday
to
talk
with
all
of
us
from
higher
ed.
We
had
a
really
good
conversation
again.
We
respect
his
concerns.
We
understand
his
concerns,
but
we
must
respectfully
disagree
on
this
bill
and
I
just
want
to
point
out
reiterating
a
little
bit
of
what
mr
lapp
said,
really
what
our
concerns
are
in
higher
ed.
B
First,
we
think
this
bill
is
duplicative,
as
chairman
reagan
has
said
multiple
times.
This
is
already
in
the
apa
to
a
large
degree,
we've
got
definitions
of
what
a
policy
is
and
what
a
rule
is,
and
chairman
reagan
pointed
out.
I
believe,
momentarily
moments
ago,
that
higher
ed
is
doing
a
good
job
of
complying
of
making
rules
where
rules
should
be
made.
B
B
B
As
to
the
flexibility
point,
we
certainly
agree
that
higher
ed
needs
flexibility
so
that
to
your
point
representative,
we
aren't
stuck
in
that
between
the
rock
and
the
hard
place
when
we
have
federal
guidance
and
we
have
state
expectations
higher,
it
gets
caught
in
the
middle.
We
we
are
at
risk
of
losing
funding
or
even
if
we
win
that
lawsuit
down
the
road,
we're
at
risk
of
losing
funding
temporarily
we're
at
risk
of
having
to
expend
the
money
to
litigate.
B
One
of
these
cases
as
to
the
point
on
emergency
rules,
chairman
reagan
has
has
pointed
out
that
if
we
get
federal
guidance
and
we
need
to
respond
to
it,
we
could
issue
a
promulgated
emergency
rule.
Our
reading
of
this
bill
would
actually
prohibit
that,
if
that
emergency
rule
is
incorporating
federal
guidance,
I
think
that
section
two
that
we're
all
talking
about
you're
all
talking
about
would
say.
I
think
the
literal
interpretation
of
that
language
is
if
we're,
if
we're
promulgating,
an
emergency
rule.
B
B
I
think
the
other
point
that
I
think
is
just
worth
making
is:
there
is
a
significant
to
chairman
reagan's
point
about
the
rule
making
process.
His
committee
government
operations
committee
has
asked
that
higher
ed
do
notice
and
rulemaking.
So
not
the
more,
not
the
proposal
making
approach
and
that's
what
we're
doing
so.
That
process
is
quite
burdensome
from
an
administrative
pursuit
process
takes
a
number
of
months,
a
lot
of
hours
of
work,
we're
happy
to
do
it.
B
That's
what
the
committee
has
it's
at
the
will
of
the
committee,
certainly,
but,
but
if
this
is
going
to
lead
to
a
lot
more
rules
that
hired
has
to
make
it
does
create
an
additional
administrative
burden
that
is
concerning
for
us
as
well
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
very
much
members,
any
questions
of
our
guest
he's
up
on
the
podium,
seeing
none.
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you.
Okay.
Without
objection,
we're
back
we're
back
in
session
now
members,
okay,
chairman
reagan,
we
have
house
bill
576
before
us
members
any
more
questions
to
chairman
reagan.
At
this
time,
chairman
reagan.
D
My
closing
statement
is
this:
these
fine
gentlemen,
representing
higher
education,
have
made
good
points,
but
let
me
distill
it
down
to
the
core.
D
D
A
H
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
chairman
reagan.
Thank
you
for
your
for
your
comments
in
regards
to
the
leveraging
of
money
from
the
federal
government
to
the
state.
If
you
don't
do
what
we
say,
we're
going
to
take
the
money
away
from
you,
but
mr
chairman
reagan,
respectfully,
I
submit
that
is
exactly
what
the
state
does
to
our
counties
in
our
cities,
and
so
it
appears
to
be
that
the
abused
is
amusing.
H
Also-
and
you
know,
and
and
I
would
love
to
support
you
if
we
could
get
the
same
guarantees
that
the
state
won't
bear
down
on
the
cities
and
counties
as
the
federal
government
is
bearing
down
on
on
the
state
and
and
you
and
you
know,
and
we
cannot,
we
cannot
say
one
or
you
know
without
seeing
the
other
and
and
and
so
and
that's
all.
I
I
wanted
to
point
out
in
this
discussion
and
thank
you,
mr
chair,
and
thank
you
chairman
reagan.
Karen
reagan.
D
Mr
chair,
I
would
respond
in
this
fashion.
The
state
is
a
sovereign
entity.
The
states
created
the
federal
government
cities
and
counties
within
our
state
are
subunits
of
state
government.
They
did
not
create
state
government,
state
government
created
them.
In
fact,
we
used
to
have
one
more
county
than
we
have
now.
The
state
government
created
and
then
dissolved
it.
D
So
those
entities
do
not
have
the
same
rights
toward
the
state,
as
our
state
has
toward
the
federal
government
bearing
down
as
you
called
it
is
the
function
that
we
serve
up
here.
We
represent
those
people.
If
we
choose,
then
that's
the
way.
It
is,
however,
within
our
constitution
we
must
abide
by
those
rules
and
what
I'm
saying
is
there
is
no
fourth
branch
of
federal
government.
There
is
no
administrative
branch.
D
H
You,
mr
chair,
and
and
thank
you
chairman
rick,
and
I
understand
that
and
and
and
I
don't
necessarily
disagree
with
you
at
all
in
what
you
just
said,
but
it's
a
matter
of
how
you
use
your
power,
you
have
power
and
yes,
you
have
power.
We
all
have
power
up
here.
The
governor
has
power,
so
does
the
united
states
congress
and
senate,
which
are
all
represent
us
as
states?
That's
the
only
part
of
what
you
said
that
I
disagree
with,
because
there
are
representatives
up
there
too,
and
they
can
make
this
decision
there.
H
H
We
are
using
our
power
not
necessarily
to
build,
but
in
a
lot
of
cases
destroyed
now,
doesn't
abdicate
the
the
the
fact
that
you
have
the
power,
because
we're
a
sovereign
entity
and
and
the
cities
and
counties
are
not
that's
understandable,
and
I
I
have
no
push
back
on
you
with
you
with
that.
But
where
I
do
have
pushback
is
how
we
choose
to
use
our
power.
Now,
the
federal
government
is
choosing
to
use
the
power
of
the
purse
on
the
state
of
tennessee.
H
Based
on
what
you're
saying
we
choose
to
use
our
power
to
bear
down
on
counties
when
they
don't
do
our
cities,
when
they
don't
do
what
we
want
them
to
do
now,
but
we
don't
have
to
it's
a
choice
and
so
I'll
leave
that
at
that,
without
making
this
running
debate,
mr
chair
and
and
chairman
reagan
respectfully,
you
know
I
I
submit
that.
Thank
you,
mr
chair.
C
If
I
may-
and
I
guess
it's
not
always
what
we
say
but
the
way
we
say
it
and
the
piece
about
30
pieces
of
silver,
I
believe
it
was,
I
think,
if
we
look
at
our
institutions
of
higher
learning,
if
the
numbers
I
heard
correctly
about
80
of
those
dollars
that
come
from
the
federal
government
goes
to
the
students,
and
so
it's
not
a
matter
of
you
know
just
getting
money
and
hoarding
it,
but
these
are
monies
that
are
utilized
for
our
children
and
if
the
federal
government
doesn't
do
it
and
if
we
want
to
at
least
keep
the
level
of
our
young
people
graduating
from
college,
that
means
that
we're
going
to
have
to
come
up
with
additional
dollars
and
and
that's
a
concern.
C
A
I
guess
where
I'm
coming
down
right
now,
you've
done
such
an
eloquent
job
of
of
presenting
this
is
you
see
any
opportunity
to
work
with
higher
education
and
and
help
them
to
to
ease
any
issues
as
far
as
making
this
palatable
to
them,
you
recognize.
D
Well,
as
was
pointed
out,
I
met
with
them.
I
also
met
with
the
president
of
university
of
tennessee
as
a
matter
of
fact,
friday
of
last
week,
and
I
have
reached
out
the
issue
with
due
respect.
Let
me
let
me
specify
here
the
issue
is
not
telling
them
that
they
can't
do
this.
It's
telling
them
that
they
must
do
it
in
accordance
with
the
law.
D
D
D
D
Rules
must
be
promulgated,
rules
can
be
heard.
We
can
know,
what's
going
on
we're,
not
telling
them
what
they
must
do
in
that
respect,
they
can
do
what
they
want
to.
We
just
say
the
way
you
do
it.
You've
got
to
do
it
with
full
transparency,
creating
rules,
and
I
would
I
would
submit
to
you
that
we
all
of
us
here,
the
guardians
of
our
constitution.
D
A
You,
chairman
reagan,
members.
I
feel
like
a
non-lawyer
on
the
supreme
court,
trying
to
figure
this
on
that
and
I'm
trying
to
be
a
fire
arbiter
on
this.
You
know
I
hear
my
higher
ed
and
their
concerns
and
I
hear
you
make
such
adequate
points.
Are
you
wanting
to
bring
this
to
a
vote
today?.
D
A
A
Thank
you
and
thank
you
for
such
an
eloquent
job.
You've
taught
us
a
lot
members.
We
got
one
more.
We've
got
one
more
chairman,
terry
house,
bill,
5,
10
56,
I
believe
chairman
terry
you're
recognized.
We
got
a
motion
I
heard
this.
Did
I
hear
a
second
second.
B
Thank
you
chairman
and
committee.
This
bill
actually
is
something
I
worked
on
last
session
and
I
was
able
unable
to
run
that,
obviously,
because
of
the
pandemic,
and
I
worked
on
the
concept
with
the
university
of
memphis
university
tennessee
and
the
bill
that
you
have
before
you
is
language
that
they
presented
to
me.
B
This
body
previously
passed
the
campus
free
speech,
protection
act
in
it
in
section
497
2405.
It
directs
the
governing
bodies
of
every
institution
to
adopt
a
policy
that
affirms
17
principles
of
free
speech,
which
are
the
public
policy
of
the
state.
I've
consistently
heard
from
students
and
professors
that
there
are
issues
on
campuses
related
to
free
speech,
as
it
relates
to
political
viewpoints,
including
the
need
for
students,
sometimes
for
self-censorship,
for
risk
of
their
grades
and
for
risk
of
getting
recommendations.
B
The
yale,
william,
f
buckley
program
surveys,
students
on
this
topic
of
free
speech
and
they
consistently
report
that
students
feel
intimidated
and
restricted
in
their
expression
of
their
ideals.
And
additionally,
a
report
came
out
last
week
from
the
center
for
the
study
of
partisanship
and
ideology
that
spoke
to
political
discrimination
in
academia.
B
The
second
principle
that
this
bill
is
amending
that
current
statutes
says
an
institution
shall
be
committed
to
giving
students
the
broadest
possible
attitude
to
speak,
write,
listen,
challenge,
learn
and
discuss
any
issue
subject
to
section
497
2408
and
this
bill
as
it's
written,
simply
amends
that
to
add
in
including
political
viewpoints
and
then
subject
to
that
section.
497
2408,
free
from
discrimination
or
retaliation
based
on
the
content
or
viewpoint
of
the
student's
expression.
H
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
terry.
Where
can
I
sign
on.
A
A
Terry
is
this
having
dear
colleague
letters
in
it
or
anything
like
that.
I've
heard
nothing
but
good
support
on
this,
I'm
in
favor
of
your
bill.
Anyone
else
want
to
question
been
called
any
objection
to
the
question
hearing.
None
all
those
in
favor
of
moving
house
bill,
1056
out
of
this
committee
into
full
committee
indicator,
saying
I
opposed
the
eyes.
Have
it
it
moves
out.
Thank
you,
chairman
committee
members.
I
believe
that
completes
our
calendar.