►
Description
House Department of Agencies Subcommittee House Hearing Room 3
A
The
department
agency
subcommittee
is
now
in
session
today's
tuesday
march
8th
we're
in
hearing
room
3
at
3
pm.
We've
got
a
little
bit
of
housekeeping
to
do.
Maybe
I'll
give
members
a
few
minutes
to
arrive.
It's
been
a
day
for
everybody,
I
think
so.
Looking
at
the
calendar
item,
number
three
hb
349
by
johnson
is
rolled
to
the
hill
of
the
calendar
item.
Number
four
is
roll
three
times,
so
it's
gonna
be
sent
to
the
special
calendar
item
number
five's
rolled
one
week.
A
F
Item
number
six
is
in
the
cold
573-204
and
back
in
1939.
This
was
added
to
the
cold
to
keep
a
spouse
of
a
law
enforcement
officer
from
opening
a
alcoholic
store,
a
liquor
store
or
a
spirit
store,
and
I
think
we
have
some
people
that
want
to
talk
on
this
one.
So
chairman,
it's
at
your
discretion.
If
you
want
to
go
out
of
session
and
hear
from.
F
G
F
I
F
and
you
know
9
out
of
10
women
work
outside
the
home.
I
mean
they're,
professional
women.
She
is
a
nurse
we
have
leaders
of
our
state
in
this
world
that
we
live
in
today,
and
you
know
I
was
talking
to
my
wife
last
night
about
this
and
she
didn't
understand.
Also.
You
know
why
the
law
enforcement.
I
understand
why
the
law
was
done
in
1939,
with
the
moonshine
running
and
all
that.
C
A
F
Well,
as
my
understanding,
this
will
be
the
only
liquor
store
in
the
town,
so
I
don't
know
how
favoritism
would
come
in
on
that
part.
But
you
know
in
in
my
town
that
I
live
in.
We
have
two
liquor
stores
in
this
town
and
if
my
sheriff
or
just
a
police
officer
own
one,
that
wouldn't
mean
that
I
would
have
to
frequent
that
liquor
store
as
opposed
to
the
other
liquor
stores.
So
I
don't,
I
don't
see
any
any
draw
in
that
at
all
chairman.
E
The
the
package
or
liquor
store-
I
mean
I
have
many
friends
and
our
chief
of
police
and
knoxville
is
a
woman.
So
so
I
just
kept
wondering:
why
are
we
referring
to
women
owning
when
the
woman
could
be
the
police
officer
and
the
spouse,
be
he
so?
I
just
was
wanting
to
clarify
that
as
to
why
we
are
so
much
being
about
this,
the
spouse,
being
the
woman
of
the
yeah.
A
F
F
But
yes,
it
does
reflect
if
we
take
this
out
and
the
lady
you're
talking
about
who
is
the
police
chief
and
her
husband
wants
to
open
and
own
a
liquor,
store
or
a
spirit
store,
then
that
would
be
allowed
if
we
took
this
out
of
the
claws
and
and
just
left
it
like,
it
is
so
that
would
that's
a
good
point,
but
that
is
correct.
It
is
he
or
she.
A
G
You
chairman
aaron,
rummage
with
the
tennessee
alcoholic
beverage
commission.
We
do
have
some
concerns
about
this.
We
work
with
local
law
enforcement
all
the
time
and
we
think
that
you
know
if
the
police,
chief's
spouse
or
the
sheriff's
spouse,
or
even
an
officer
spouse.
Is
there
it's
going
to
hinder
us?
G
G
Now
this
will
allow
a
spouse
to
have
it,
but
when
we
look
and
the
law
right
now
does
not
consider
a
spouse
to
be
different
than
the
licensee,
because
they're
sharing
the
money-
and
so
in
fact,
there's
another
provision
that
says
the
police
officer
can't
have
make
touch
any
of
the
profits.
So
it's
not
enough
just
to
say
they
can
share
the
money
that
we
we
won't
issue
the
license
for
that.
But
the
main
policy
reason
for
this
is
to
stop
public
corruption
or
even
the
appearance
of
corruption.
G
D
Thank
you,
matt
money
for
leap
from
legal.
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
that
we've
actually
done
similar
versions
of
this
bill
in
the
past,
but
there's
an
additional
provision
that
really
needs
to
be
amended
for
purposes
of
certain
clarity
and
title
57,
and
that's
just
this
amends
204
b2f
but
b2
k
says
if
your
spouse
is
ineligible
to
receive
a
license,
then
you're
also
ineligible,
and
we
didn't
amend
that
in
this
particular
bill
and
that
probably
needs
to
be
rewritten
so
that
it
doesn't
impact.
We
don't
have
a
conflict
in
the
law.
E
I
just
wanted
to
ask
mr
mundy
so
as
we
stand
here
today,
we're
asking
for
a
police
officer's
spouse,
not
his
wife
but
spouse
to
to
to
be
allowed
to
own
a
package
store.
So
if
a
teacher's
spouse
wanted
to
own
it
on
a
liquor
store
or
a
dog
catcher's
spouse,
we
would
have
to
amend
the
law.
Is
that
correct,
so
we'd
start
have
to
carving
out?
I
don't
see
that
is
that
correct,
or
am
I
am
I
not
thinking
right.
D
Thank
you
for
the
question.
Matt
money
from
legal
there's,
there's
a
exhaustive
list
of
persons
in
certain
categories
who
are
prohibited
from
holding
a
license
and
it
doesn't
apply
to
teachers
and
so
forth,
but
it
does
apply
to
members
of
local
legislative
bodies,
law
enforcement
officers.
People
who
might
you
know
be
in
a
position
of
authority
to
where
it
might
interfere
with
their
ability
to
also
manage
the
liquor
store.
At
least
I
think
that's
the
policy.
D
Yes,
thank
you
for
the
question.
There's
two
different
provisions:
there's
one
that
prevents
law
enforcement
officials
or
those
who
supervise
law
enforcement
officials
from
holding
a
license,
but
then
there's
a
subsequent
provision
subdivision
about
three
or
four
spaces
down
that
says
if
your
spouse
is
ineligible,
then
you're
ineligible.
F
A
F
Representative
travis,
thank
you,
sir
and
aaron
did
a
great
job
for
abc
and
he's
a
good
friend
of
mine
also,
and
he
does
a
great
job
and
the
abc
does
a
great
job
at
that
department
also,
and
if
we
found
out
anything
lately
that
none
of
us
is
above
the
law,
liquor
store
us
nobody's
above
the
law.
So
when
we
talk
about
people
that
was
prosecuted
or
we
had
a
problem
in
1949
that
was
in
1949,
we're
always
going
to
have
a
problem
with
somebody
somewhere.
F
But
I
I
don't
look
for
this
to
be
in
a
problem
whatsoever,
and
you
know
I
feel
comfortable.
Miss
grooms.
I've
talked
to
her
today,
she's
a
nurse
by
profession,
so
she's
got
a
great
education,
she's,
a
smart
business
woman
and
I
think
all
spouses,
all
spouses,
should
have
the
opportunity
if
their
person
is
a
law
enforcement,
at
least
to
have
the
opportunity
to
have
a
liquor
store
error
business
that
they
choose.
A
A
J
J
Restaurants
and
drinking
places
account
for
8.9
percent
of
all
employment
in
tennessee.
An
estimated
76
percent
of
eateries
in
tennessee
are
independently
owned.
Nine
out
of
ten
restaurants
have
fewer
than
50
employees.
7
out
of
10.
Restaurants
are
single
unit
operations.
8
out
of
10
restaurant
owners
started
their
industry
careers
in
entry-level
positions.
J
9
out
of
10
restaurant
managers
started
in
entry
level
positions.
Restaurants
employ
more
minority
managers
than
any
other
industry
nationally.
Since
2019.
Ninety
thousand
restaurant
locations
have
closed
either
temporarily
or
permanently.
At
the
end
of
2021
national
restaurant
industry,
employment
was
down
1
million
people
from
pre-pandemic
levels.
J
Two
study
staffing
challenges
specifically
related
to
the
restaurant
industry,
three
study,
permitting
costs
and
other
costs
relating
to
training
necessary
to
operate
a
local
restaurant
and
four
study,
other
possible
barriers
and
challenges
to
the
restaurant
business
and
how
the
state
could
help
minimize
these
barriers.
Mr
chairman
I'll
try
to
answer
any
additional
questions.
The
committee
may
have.
A
K
A
A
L
B
B
A
B
A
Thank
you
chameleon
chairman
and
committee
hb
819.
Basically,
it's
a
real
simple
bill.
The
purpose
of
it
is
to
close
a
loophole
in
our
law
that
is
unclear
regarding
minimum
markup
of
high-proof
alcohol
and
wine.
Basically,
wine
cannot
be
sold
at
a
minimum
markup
of
20
percent
and
then
high
proof.
Spirits
cannot
be
sell
below
to
a
minimum
markup
of
ten
percent.
It
just
closes
that
loophole
with
that
I'll
turn
it
back
to
you.
B
That
is
a
good
explanation.
Now
my
back
is
to
most
of
the
members.
Do
we
have
any?
I
can't
see,
and
I
have
no
eyes
in
the
back
of
my
head.
We've
got
a
question,
no
questions
all
right,
so
we've
got
a
call
for
the
question.
I
see
no
objections.
Those
lie.
Let's
vote,
those
in
favor
of
house
bill,
819.
B
B
A
B
B
B
Hear
a
call
for
the
question:
yes,
we
do
have
a
call
for
the
question
and
I
see
no
objections.
Let
us
vote
on
house
bill
1689
as
amended.
No
on
the
amendment
on
the
amendment.
I'm
sorry
excuse
me,
members
on
the
amendment,
those
in
favor,
please
say:
aye
opposed
lock,
sign
eyes
have
it
now
we
are
on
the
bill.
B
B
B
All
right
members,
we
are
now
out
of
recess
and
we're
back
and
let's
draw
our
attention
here.
Are
there
any
we've
got
the
motion
and
a
second
any
questions
to
the
sponsor
bill,
sponsor
any
questions,
let's
see
where
we're
on
the
bill
as
amended
all
right.
Do
I
hear
a
call
for
the
question
got
it
called
for
the
question
and
I
see
no
objections.
Let
us
vote
those
in
favor
of
six
of
house
bill
1689
as
amended.
Please
say:
aye
opposed,
lock,
sign,
ice
habit
and
we
are.
B
C
This
was
brought
up
by
in
slavery
and
the
tbi
advisory
board,
and
currently
the
department
of
corrections
does
require
training
in
human
trafficking
and
it
was
created
by
a
non-profit
organization
and
based
on
other
information
with
the
department
of
human
services
and
the
department
of
mental
health
and
substance
abuse.
There'll
be
there's
no
change.
This
can
be
done
during
their
annual
training,
so
that
that
sums
up
the
bill
and
stand
for
questions.
Okay,.
A
C
A
A
C
All
right,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
committee
house,
bill
2222
it
this
simply
authorizes
law
enforcement
to
enforce
the
criminal
laws
of
this
state
and
authorizes
them
to
make
arrests
for
violations
of
eight
usc
one.
Three,
two
four
section
two
and
just
mentioned:
I
have
a
copy
of
that
here.
C
Eight
us
code,
1324,
is
simply
titled
bringing
in
and
harboring
certain
aliens.
The
tennessee
post
commission
should
develop
law
enforcement
training.
That
explains
how
officers
can
already
make
a
rest.
In
compliance
with
this,
when
first
drafting
this
bill,
we
were
trying
to
figure
out
a
way
to
prevent
or
to
somehow
control
people
that
are
coming
into
our
state.
We've
got
people
that
are
being
flown
in
in
the
middle
of
night
in
chattanooga
and
knoxville,
and
maybe
other
places
too.
C
This
with
this
simply
bringing
training
to
them
during
the
post
commission,
and
it
just
pertains
to
anyone
who
facilitates
bringing
illegal
aliens
into
our
state
or
harboring
them
once
they
are
into
our
state.
You
know
the
government,
the
governor
recently
requested
from
the
president
information
regarding
those
who
have
been
transported
to
our
state.
A
Questions
by
the
committee,
your
quiet
group
today
see
now
move
a
question
on
an
amendment
in
favor,
say:
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
we're
now
on
the
bill,
any
any
additional
comments
or
questions
scene?
None
we're
voting
on
two
two,
two
two,
those
in
favor
say
aye
opposed
eyes.
Have
it
you're
putting
on
a
full
all
right.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you
committee.
H
The
invasion
clause
of
article
4,
section
4,
provides
that
the
united
states
shall
protect
each
state
in
the
union
against
invasion.
These
clauses
provide
dual
protection
against
the
invasion.
Broadly
defined,
this
includes
defending
against
actions,
foreign
hostility
and
ambiguous
or
vindictive
enterprise
of
a
state's
more
powerful
neighbors.
This
encompasses
the
defense
against
the
hostile
non-state
actors,
such
as
cartels
and
gangs
operating
at
the
border
within
a
state.
H
James
madison
specifically
cited
virginia
using
its
militia
to
stop
smugglers
as
an
as
a
valid
as
an
example
of
a
valid
exercise
of
the
invasion
power
and
there's
every
basis
to
conclude
that
the
sovereign
power
was
retained
by
the
states
in
the
self-defense
clause.
So,
in
short,
mr
chairman,
members
of
the
committee,
I
know
the
department
of
safety
feels
like
that.
There's
concerns
or
problems
with
this
bill
legally
constitutionally.
H
I
submit
those
can
be
challenged
in
court
if
they
want
to,
but
I
believe
the
constitution,
as
attorney
general
mark
bronovich
from
arizona,
has
indicated
that
the
state
retains
the
powers
to
take
these
actions.
If
there's
active
invasion
going
on-
and
I
think
we've
seen
from
the
actions
of
a
current
administration
d.c-
that
there
is
an
active
invasion
going
on
at
our
southern
border
and
tennessee-
has
the
obligation
and
the
right
to
act
if
it
so
chooses
and
that's
moved
for
passage
on
that
basis.
E
You
and,
and
normally
I
just
stay
quiet
when
you're
doing
this
political
posturing,
but
you
know
representative
griffey.
This
is
such
a
mean-spirited
and
ugly
bill
you're,
asking
our
department
of
safety
to
hunt
people
down
like
dogs.
This
is
america.
For
god's
sakes,
land
of
the
home
home
of
the
of
the
free
and
land
of
the
brave
we're
not
here
to
like
the
russians,
are
hunting
down
the
the
people
in
ukraine
and
then,
on
top
of
that,
you
want
to
put
them
to
biden's
delaware
or
out
to
california.
E
H
A
M
Yes,
sir
elizabeth
stroker
legislative
director
for
the
department
of
safety,
as
representative
griffey
mentioned,
we
are
philosophically
opposed
to
this
bill.
It
is
not
the
responsibility
of
the
department
of
safety
to
try
to
locate
people
who
are
in
the
country
unlawfully.
We
actually
are
expressly
prohibited
from
doing
that
through
federal
jurisdiction
and
authority.
Immigration
laws
are
specifically
for
federal
jurisdiction.
M
We
can
only
do
that
if
we
are
working
in
conjunction
with
the
feds
to
be
able
to
even
do
that.
Additionally,
it
entering
the
country
unlawfully
is
the
criminal
act.
Remaining
present
is
not,
and
so
there's
no
situation
where
we
are
going
to
be
catching
someone
coming
at
the
border
where
we
could
actually
watch
a
criminal
act
take
place.
M
M
Our
officers
would
be
subject
to
liability
both
criminally
and
civilly,
for
trying
to
locate
these
people
that
we
have
no
information.
If
someone
is
in
the
country
lawfully
or
not,
that
is
verified
through
federal
immigration.
That
is
not
something
that
we
have
access
to
and
if
we
detain
someone
we
could
be
detaining
them
unlawfully
transporting
them
across
state
lines
which
turns
into
federal
kidnapping,
and
we
are
absolutely
not
okay,
with
opening
ourselves
up
to
that
liability
when
we
do
not
have
that
authority
or
jurisdiction
to
do
so.
L
L
A
H
Recognized.
Thank
you,
mr.
I
just
want
to
comment
to
some
of
the
statements
by
the
department
of
safety.
Respectfully
I
I
would
I've
got
a
little
more
faith
in
the
opinion
of
the
attorney
general
of
the
state
of
arizona
than
the
department
of
safety
on
some
of
these
legal
issues.
This
is
going
to
be
a
constitutional
battle.
It's
going
to
be
a
court
battle
and
that's
what
I
think
should
happen.
I
also
would
submit
respectfully
the
department
of
safety's
duty
is
to
do
what
this
body
tells
the
department
of
safety
to
do.
H
A
N
A
N
N
Does
it
codifies
in
the
code
that,
if
one
of
our
restaurants
or
you
know
our
hotels,
wants
to
utilize
their
internet
to
have
people
to
use
their
internet
instead
of
their
phones
right
and
they
come
up
with
a
marketing
strategy
that
would
encourage
people
to
use
their
internet
versus
their
own
personal
phones
to
get
to
sports
gaming?
Then
they
wouldn't
be
swarmed
by
tbi.
N
N
It
ensures
that
they
are
not
touching
anything
related
to
the
actual
bit
or
the
individual's
information
that
goes
to
let's
say
fanduel
or
whoever
it
is
that's,
that's
they
go
to
to
take
the
bit.
It
kind
is
kind
of
similar
to
when,
if
you
get
on
an
airplane
and
utilize
their
internet,
they
show
you
all
the
stuff.
N
You
know
wherever
you
want
to
go
in
sports
gaming.
So
that's
what
this
is.
I
was
just
trying
to
find
a
way
for
our
people
in
tennessee
that
are
in
hospitality
or
arenas
to
be
able
to
allow
for
the
use
of
their
internet
to
get
to
sports
gaming
without
it
being
thought
of,
as
they
are
tied
to
sports
gaming.
If
that
makes
any
sense.
So
that's
all
this
bill
does.
A
N
N
A
A
A
A
A
O
Is
a
compact
to
be
part
of
that
application
to
the
federal
government
and
again
that
that
property
is
located
in
henning
tennessee,
which
is
on
the
south
end
of
lauderdale
county
right
on
highway
51..
It
was
designated
in
2000
2012
as
federal
ground,
and
with
that,
mr
chairman
I'll
answer,
any
questions.
E
O
It's
we
have
always
had
the
choctaw
there
on
that
ground
and,
and
they
have
the
larger
part
of
their.
Their
establishment
is
in
mississippi
down
in
the
area
philadelphia
down
through
south
mid
and
south
mississippi.
But
there
have
always
been
choctaw
in
that
area
of
lauderdale
county,
yes,
sir,
but
it
was
just
designated
in
2012
as
sovereign
ground
where
they
have
now
their
own
police,
their
own
police
law
enforcement
and
their
own
community,
but
they're
all
associated
with
the
tribe
there
in
philadelphia,
mississippi
where
their
chief
resides
and
their
their
commission
resides.
E
O
Sir,
exactly
and
actually
kind
of
what
we
were
told
is
during
the
trail
of
tears,
they
kind
of
made
their
way
through
that
area
crossing
the
mississippi
heading
out
to
oklahoma
and
that's
kind
of
when
they
came
back
through
that's
where
a
lot
of
them
stayed
and
as
far
as
agriculture
kept
them
there
and
then,
of
course,
he
saw
the
chief
also
told
us
in
hiding
state
in
that
area.
So
yes,
ever
since
I
can
remember,
they
have
been
there.
O
O
L
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I'm
certainly
I'm
generally
supportive
of
indian
tribes
getting
into
the
casino
business.
I
I
just
I'm
curious
on
a
couple
of
levels.
If
1642
passes,
what
is
the
progression
of
legislation
or
state
involvement
from
this
piece
of
legislation
to
actually
operational
casino
in
tennessee,
I
mean
you
know
in
in
the
conversations
we've
had.
You
know.
L
I've
heard
the
term
compact
and
it
sounded
like
that
was
a
mutual
agreement
between
the
tribe,
local
government
and,
I
think
state
government,
and
so,
but
I
don't
know,
I
mean
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
progression
of
this
authorization
that
this
initial.
If
this
is
just
an
initial
bill,
to
start
the
ball
rolling
and
then
kind
of
where
will
it
go
from
there.
O
Yes,
sir,
thank
you
for
that,
because
I
would
like
the
opportunity
to
clear
that
up
and
the
way
I
understand
it
is
this
legislation
would
allow
them
to
start
discussions
with
local
and
state
government
to
come
to
a
enter
into
a
compact
which
is
different
in
every
state.
It's
a
negotiation
between
the
tribe
and
the
government
and
our
government
on
the
fees
they
pay
in
they'd
like
to
come
to
agreement
with
impact
fees
to
pay
the
the
locals
up
to
the
state.
L
O
O
D
L
Thank
you.
I
just
think
we
need
to
get
clarification
that
that
it's
going
to
come
back
to
to
this
somebody
in
the
state
at
the
level,
whether
it's
in
the
general
assembly,
I
would
hope
to
to
to
be
certain
that
the
components
of
it
are
in
the
best
interest
for
tennesseans.
So
again
from
the
calendar
standpoint.
I
don't
know
if
a
week,
if
we're
gonna
meet
next
week,
and
we
maybe
could
clarify
that
before
we
actually
vote
on
it.
A
O
Mr
chair,
I
would,
I
would
respectfully
ask
to
see
if
we
can
get
this
moving
and
have
these
discussions,
and
you
know,
get
clarification
as
as
I
mean
I
feel
like
we,
the
state
will
have
plenty
of
input
on
that
and
the
locals
will-
and
I
would
like
to
if
it
be
the
will
of
the
committee
to
move
this
forward
and
continue
with
this
being
the
last
caller.
Next
week
you
said
was
the
last
calendar.
O
Me
rephrase
that
mystery,
I
was,
I
guess
I
went
brain
dead
there
for
a
second.
I
was
thinking
this
week
so
next
week,
being
the
last
calendar,
I'm
good
with
rolling
it
until
next
week
and
continue
these
discussions
and
see
if
we
need
to
amend
it
to
add
something
in
there
or
if
we're
comfortable
with
where
it
is
right
now,
but
that's
a
absolutely
relevant
question.
Mr
chair.
E
D
E
D
Thank
you
matt
money
for
the
firm
illegal.
I
don't
think
that
the
tennis,
the
state
of
tennessee,
would
have
a
pecuniary
interest
in
the
taxes
themselves
because
they
would
be
diverted
to
the
indian
tribe
for
their
benefit,
but
they
may
have
some
you.
You
may
get
some
peripheral
income
from
the
operation
of
the
casino.
All.
That
being
said,
I
think
the
compact,
the
terms
of
the
contract
need
to
be
generally
agreed
to
before
the
application
process.
It
even
begins
before
you
go
in
front
of
the
federal
indian
gaming
commission.
D
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
that.
What
I
do
know
is
that,
once
their
with
a
state
recognizes
them
in
the
federal
plan
it's
already
held
in
trust
for
the
benefit
of
the
tribe,
I
suspect
that
they're
entitled
to
whatever
income
that
they
generate
on
that
property,
because
it's
not
state
property,
it's
federal
property
held
in
trust
for
the
tribe
and
so
to
the
extent
that
they
wanted
to
enter
into
negotiations
for
the
purposes
of
getting
the
state's
permission
to
build
this
casino
and
recognize
them.
A
K
A
K
K
The
bureau
of
indiana
affairs
in
washington
city
d.c
recognizes
no
tribe
in
tennessee,
no
federally
land
in
tennessee.
I
don't
know
how
they
think
they
have
it,
but
I
can
take
you
to
that
website
and
they'll
show
you.
I
had
the
department
of
interior
bureau,
a
native
american
person
who
was
a
cherokee
from
tennessee
point
that
out
to
me
there
are
no
tribes.
The
only
three
tribes
related
to
tennessee
are
choctaws
in
mississippi,
not
tennessee,
the
creeks
in
alabama,
not
tennessee,
and
the
cherokees
in
north
carolina,
not
tennessee,
no
one
else
around.
K
This
becomes
casinos
with
native
americans,
become
an
economic
black
hole
where
money
goes
out
of
the
state
instead
of
for
local
goods
and
services,
it
goes
into
another
state
where
the
tribe
is
held.
So
there
will
not
be
a
windfall
of
money
coming
to
tennessee,
we
may
get
reimbursement,
but
that
has
to
be
on
the
front
end.
K
The
provision
in
the
1988,
the
indian
affairs
regula
indian
gaming
regulatory
act
says
very
specifically
that
a
third
option
is
the
secretary
of
interior
may
approve
gambling
on
land.
That
is
not
federally
recognized
as
state
recognized
as
a
reserve.
Thus
it's
no
guarantee
it's
going
to
stay
there.
Next,
this
bill
does
not
specify
a
tribe,
in
particular,
it
says,
native
american
tribes,
on
federal
lands.
K
This
then
approves
over
500,
fairly
recognized
tribes
throughout
the
world
throughout
the
united
states,
and
every
one
of
them
can
have
the
option
of
coming
to
tennessee.
The
seminoles
in
florida
purchased
the
hard
rock
cafe
worldwide
and
they're
turning
them
into
casinos,
and
they
if
they
can
get
the
biden
administrators
department
of
interior,
to
approve
the
casino.
K
K
B
B
That's
been
distressed,
I
might
add,
for
a
long
time
he's
tired
of
being
distressed.
So
is
the
community
it's
bringing
jobs
to
that
community?
Yes,
there's
downside
to
that.
I
get
it,
but
you
know
he's
just
working
his
heart
out
for
his
community
and
I
might
add,
but
when
I
was
approached
about
this,
the
first
question
I
ask
well:
is
the
local
community
behind
this
representative
back
and
you
know
what
I
got.
I
got
a
resolution.
B
B
So
I
I
appreciate
this
and
I
appreciate
this
effort
on
representatives
hurts
behalf
for
his
community.
That's
what
he's
doing
here
today
for
them
to
legal,
mr
chairman,
if
I
may
this
final
or
this
question,
what
the
colleague
or
the
sponsor
has
indicated,
mr
mundy,
that
he's
going
to
he
would
like
to
roll
this
to
the
following
week.
A
B
D
O
Again
I
ask
that
we
roll
this
bill
and,
as
we
move
forward,
I
would
pursue
the
same
on
the
next.
I
don't
want
to
get
off
the
bill,
but
before
we
close,
we'll
have
more
discussion
on
this
next
week
and
I'll
be
around
to
visit
each
of
you.
I
have
the
the
paperwork
here
of
what
he
was.
Basically
accusing
me
of
in
front
of
us,
so
I'll
be
glad
to
get
that
to
each
of
each
of
you
to
to
build
on
what
my
representative
said
there.
O
I
will
say
to
answer
my
colleagues
question
here
on
the
compact
that
the
impact
fees
are
agreed
to,
which
is
money,
that
they
will
agree
to
pay
the
state
and
the
locals
in
the
compact.
So
that's
all
part
of
it
that
compact
has
to
be
part
of
the
application
of
which
they
apply,
so
all
of
that
it
may
be.
It
could
be
a
situation
where
that
nothing
can
be
agreed
to,
and
there
never
becomes
a
compact,
which
means
nothing
ever
happens.
O
So
when
you
ask
about
the
taxes
that
they'll
pay,
they
agree
to
that
on
the
front
end
with
projections
of
business
and
things
and
they've
done
it
in
other
states.
In
order
to
come
to
an
agreement
with
the
state
and
the
state
has
to
be
comfortable
with
what
they're
paying
for
what
they're
doing,
or
there
will
never
be
an
agreement
that
is
part
of
the
compact.
O
So
to
say
there
will
be
no
taxes,
they
don't
pay
per
se
taxes,
so
they
want
in
being
a
good
neighbor.
What
they
want
to
do,
or
what
they
have
to
do
is
come
to
an
agreement
in
the
compact
with
the
state
in
order
of
what
they're
going
to
pay
and
they're
called
impact
fees
because
they
want
to
pay
their
part
for
what
they're
bringing-
and
I
know
we'll
have
more
discussion
on
this
as
we
move
forward
probably
next
week.
O
O
A
What
I
would
also
be
interested
in
I'm
sure,
you're
gonna
work
the
committee
this
week
and
with
details,
but
maybe
even
pull
some
information
from
tunica,
which
it's
so
close
to
us
to
see
how
that's
impacted
you
know
the
community
and
that
kind
of
stuff
in
a
favor
or
negative
manner.
So
with
that
being
said,
we're
going
to
roll
it
one
week.
A
P
Thank
you,
mr
chair
and
committee,
and
and
I
have
a
witness
to
testify
who
was
flying
in
that's
the
reason
it
was
rolled.
Okay,
very
briefly,
let
me
introduce
the
bill
before
I
ask
for
testimony
house
bill.
1749
prohibits
the
deferring
to
state
agencies
over
contested
cases
under
title
iv,
chapter
5,
which
is
the
uapa.
A
P
P
Basically,
the
amendment
adds
the
following
new
section
to
the
bill:
interpreting
a
state
statute
to
rule
a
court
presiding
over
the
appeal
of
a
judgment
of
a
contested
case
shall
not
defer
to
the
state
agency's
interpretation
of
the
statute
or
rule
and
shall
interpret
the
statute
or
rule
de
novo,
in
other
words,
from
the
beginning.
After
applying
the
customary
rules
of
interpretation,
the
state
shall
not
resolve
any
remaining
ambiguity
or
probably
shall
resolve
any
remaining
ambiguity
against
the
state
agency.
P
The
administrative
procedures
act
creates
a
path
of
due
diligence
which
is
outside
the
normal
court
routine.
The
final
step
in
that
uapa
is
a
court,
though
the
courts
when
they
take
up
a
case
that
comes
to
them,
use
something
called
judicial
deference
and
that
deference
basically
gives
the
the
agency
that
brought
the
rules
which
are
being
contested.
P
P
By
way
of
explanation,
colorado
has
adopted
similar
legislation.
Mississippi
has
adopted
similar
legislation.
Georgia
has
adopted
similar
legislation,
arkansas
has
adopted
solar
legislation,
wisconsin
has
adopted
it.
Florida
has
adopted
mississippi
arizona
and
I
could
go
on.
The
point
is
that
giving
the
agency
two
bites
at
the
apple
is
wrong
when
they
make
a
rule,
it
comes
through
us,
meaning
the
government
operations
committee,
the
general
assembly
votes
on
it.
P
That
rule
is
then
in
place
and
if
it's
contested,
the
agency
shouldn't
be
able
to
step
in
and
say
well
we
really
meant
this
with
that
and
therefore
the
judge
should
rule
in
their
favor.
With
that
explanation,
sir,
I
would
like
to
go
out
of
session
and
let
you
hear
from
the
person
that
flew
in
to
testify
on
this.
A
A
I
I
When
people
have
their
day
in
court,
they
expect
that
the
judge
will
be
a
neutral
party
that
ensures
laws
are
followed,
and
neither
party
is
given
an
unfair
advantage.
Unfortunately,
many
courts,
including
those
here
in
tennessee,
have
adopted
a
practice
that
ensures
when
its
citizens
go
up
against
the
government.
The
government
always
has
an
advantage.
I
Judicial
bias
violates
the
separation
of
powers
by
allowing
regulatory
agencies
to
make
and
force
and
interpret
the
law
when
a
court
defers
to
an
agency's
interpretation
of
a
law
in
a
way
that
differs
from
its
fairest
reading.
The
agency
is
no
longer
constrained
by
the
policy
that
the
legislature
adopted.
I
I
Knowing
the
courts
will
almost
certainly
approve
an
agency's
interpretation
incentivizes
the
agency
to
adopt
an
expansive
interpretation
of
the
law
in
order
to
maximize
its
regulatory
authority
and
I'll
just
note
that
in
2019,
this
body
adopted
a
joint
resolution
urging
the
courts
to
to
not
defer
to
agencies,
interpretations
of
statutes
or
its
regulations
and,
as
as
representative
reagan
mentioned,
tennessee
is,
is
not
alone.
In
doing
this,
a
lot
of
states
have
done
this
and
in
fact,
in
tennessee
code
already
around
60
times,
the
the
legislature
has
instructed
courts
to
review
different
issues
de
novo.
E
I
Through
the
chair
representative,
that's
a
great
question.
So
what
this?
What
happens
is
when
there's
any
ambiguity
and
and
when
looking
at
regulatory
questions,
the
definition
of
ambiguity
is
different
than
it
would
be
say
in
a
criminal
court.
What
what
courts
have
basically
said
is
agencies.
You
are
the
the
expert
on
these
issues.
So
as
long
as
your
interpretation
isn't
clearly
contradictory
to
the
language
of
the
regulation
or
the
statute,
we're
gonna
we're
going
to
give
deference
to
your
interpretation.
I
So
there
may
be
some
some
application
that
that
wasn't
necessarily
intended
by
the
regulation.
But
then
the
agency
wants
to
use
that
regulation
to
enforce
against
a
private
citizen
and
when
the,
when
the
courts
defer
they'll
just
go
with
what
the
agency
says-
and
this
is
a
particular
problem
when
you
have
a
change
in
philosophy
among
the
agencies,
because
we've
seen
this
at
the
federal
level,
particularly
where
you
have
a
regulation
and
different
administrations,
come
in
and
interpret
that
regulation
differently
and
and
the
government
wins
in
both
cases.
A
P
I'll
close
with
one
state
and
call
for
a
vote.
Okay,
the
statement,
I'll
close
for,
ladies
and
gentlemen,
is
a
quotation
of
article
two
from
the
tennessee
constitution
section
one.
The
powers
of
government
shall
be
divided
into
three
distinct
departments:
legislative,
executive
and
judicial
section.
Two
no
person
or
persons
belonging
to
one
of
these
departments
shall
exercise
any
of
the
powers
properly
belonging
to
either
of
the
others,
except
in
the
cases
here
and
permitted.
There
aren't
any
permitted.