Leaders of the Tennessee House and Senate say they are meeting privately to discuss compromises on two main bills that came directly from Gov. Bill Lee. But in public, negotiations haven’t yet drawn the chambers any closer together.
The two bills — one that centers on instituting universal school vouchers, and another that would reform the state’s business franchise tax — have been lightning rods for debate in both chambers for weeks.
And time is ticking for them to find a way forward. Before the Tennessee House session closed on Thursday, lawmakers voted to enact what’s called “flow motion.” The move suspends certain rules allowing bills to be heard in committee as early as the next day, instead of waiting a week.
In essence, this speeds up the process and gets legislation flowing faster through committees so that it can be brought up sooner on the floor. The legislature still hasn’t announced an end date, but it’s likely lawmakers will no longer be heading to Nashville for session by the start of May.
The governor told reporters Thursday that he’s confident both bills will reach his desk.
The House and Senate have taken very different approaches to getting school vouchers to a full vote. Lee wants to give families about $7,000 for each participating student to put toward attending a private school, with no income limits.
The Senate wants to stick to Lee’s plan for the most part, while the House wants to include money for funding teacher health insurance and increase how much money the state would give to small school systems, effectively creating an education omnibus bill.
The franchise tax bill would make more than $1 billion available to businesses through a tax rebate, while also changing what businesses in the state are taxed on. It came from the governor’s office by way of the state attorney general, who said the state was facing potential lawsuits that would target how the tax is applied.
As it stands, businesses are taxed on property they have in the state. The change would focus on taxing business income instead. But the sticking point is exactly how many years of rebates the state should provide — and whether companies that seek rebates should be publicly named.
