Banking subcommittee deadlocks on bill requiring ID checks for in‑person international transfers; education provisions drew sharp testimony

House Bill 0145 failed in the Banking & Consumer Affairs Subcommittee on March 26 after members recorded a 2‑2 tie when the panel called the question.

The bill would have three principal effects, as the sponsor described it to the subcommittee: (1) define terms such as “resident” and “citizen” in state code to mean persons lawfully present in the United States; (2) require retail locations that handle in‑person international money transmissions to verify the lawful immigration status of customers — a requirement limited to in‑person transactions and explicitly excluding fully online electronic transfers — and operate as a two‑year pilot; and (3) require local education agencies to charge out‑of‑county tuition rates to parents the bill describes as present in the country unlawfully, rather than provide free public K‑12 schooling under existing practice.

The sponsor told the panel the in‑person verification would require two forms of identification from a list in the bill (for example, a valid driver’s license, an unexpired U.S. passport, a birth certificate or certain federal immigration documents and a Social Security number). The sponsor also said the bill’s education provision would charge children of persons described as unlawfully present the same out‑of‑county tuition that districts charge other nonresident Tennessee families.

Committee members and witnesses raised practical and policy concerns. Representative Lynn asked how the retailer would implement the ID checks; the sponsor confirmed retailers would be required to request the two forms of identification from anyone seeking an in‑person international transfer. Representative Lam pressed about portability of the listed documents; the sponsor confirmed many items (driver’s license, passport, Social Security number) are typically portable. Representative Hammer and others raised the operational burden on retail clerks and the potential for creating unfunded mandates for lower‑wage workers tasked to verify status.

Witnesses urged rejection of the bill. Giselle Huerta, who testified as a representative of Ejos Emigrantes (presented in testimony as “translated to children of immigrants”), said HB 0145 would deprive children of education and noted immigrants contribute tax revenue. "Plyler v. Doe reminds us that depriving a child of education imposes a lifetime of disability," Huerta said, arguing the Supreme Court decision barred states from denying children access to public education on the basis of immigration status. Ashley Warrington, a parent and PTO president from Davidson County who said she formerly worked as a financial counselor at the Nashville Financial Empowerment Center, told the committee the bill would force families to choose predatory check‑cash services if banks were required to verify and retain sensitive documents for two years. "This bill threatens that banking relationship and will require financial institutions to verify immigration status before international transfers can be made," Warrington said.

Committee discussion also addressed scope: Representative Lynn and others noted that licensed online money‑transfer services (for example, Venmo, Cash App, PayPal) were excluded because users obtain identification when they establish accounts; the sponsor said the bill targets retail walk‑in transactions where no prior customer–retailer relationship exists. Representative Hemmer asked whether the bill targets employers; the sponsor said it does not and noted employers already may use the federal E‑Verify system.

After discussion, Representative Marsh called for the question. The clerk logged two ayes and two nos; the chair ruled that HB 0145 failed for lack of a majority.

Votes at a glance

- HB 0145 — failed (2 ayes, 2 nos): would have required two forms of ID for in‑person international transfers (two‑year pilot) and required LEAs to charge tuition to students whose parents are described as unlawfully present. Outcome: failed for lack of majority. - HB 0791 — failed for lack of a second (no debate): recorded in the session as failing due to no second for the motion.