House debate centers on bill barring community benefits agreements for state-incentivized projects

The Tennessee House debated House Bill 10,96 on the chamber floor, a measure the sponsor described as preventing companies that receive state economic incentives from being contractually bound by community benefits agreements as a condition of approval.

Chairman Vaughn, the bill’s sponsor, said community benefits agreements are “an instrument that contractually binds the employer to fund or provide specific attributes, service or amenities, mitigations, or anything of value to a community, or ... a nongovernmental organization,” and argued the bill would stop such agreements from being used as a compulsory condition for projects that receive state incentives. “If an employer or a project has been approved for economic incentives by the state of Tennessee, then they can no longer enter into a community benefits agreement,” he said, adding that companies remain free to make voluntary commitments.

Representative Behn spoke against the measure, saying it “deincentivizes and not only that, but it punishes companies who wanna be acting in good faith and good neighbors and good stewards in their communities.” Behn argued communities should be able to negotiate with companies that seek to locate or expand locally and that the bill would undercut community bargaining power, including on labor standards.

Proponents said the bill simply prevents compulsion and leaves voluntary private agreements intact. Representative Todd said many businesses already invest in local communities voluntarily and that the bill would not stop those contributions.

On procedure, the House adopted a committee amendment that rewrote the bill before floor debate. Members attempted three additional floor amendments from Representative Bane; the speaker and counsel deemed amendments 2, 3 and 4 out of the scope of the caption and out of order.

The floor record includes a roll-call tally announced by the clerk as 72 yeas and 18 nays. The clerk’s further floor announcement about whether a constitutional majority had been received in the transcript was phrased unclearly. The debate highlighted a split between members emphasizing protection of businesses from contractual compulsion and members who argued for preserving community leverage—and, in some views, worker protections—when projects are proposed.

Chairman Vaughn said the bill’s intent is to “remove[] the compelling nature of a contract, forcing these people to accept this as a condition of getting their project approved and getting shovels in the ground,” while critics said communities seeking wage, hiring, or safety commitments would lose leverage if state incentives could not be tied to negotiated agreements. The transcript shows the question was put and votes were recorded on the floor.