May 19, 2026 · General Government Committee · 12,161 words · 17 speakers · 144 segments
I call this meeting and the House General Government Committee to order. Will the clerk please call the roll? Chair Ray.
Here.
Vice Chair Lareas checked in.
Ranking Member Brent.
Present.
Representative Byrd.
Here.
Bryant Bailey.
Here.
John.
Manning.
McLean.
Here.
Miller.
Olslagers checked in.
Plummer.
Here.
Russo? Here.
Sinnenberg? Here. Okay, we have a quorum present and we'll proceed as a full committee. Please review the minutes from the March 24th committee meeting. Are there any objections to the minutes? Hearing none, the minutes are approved. I will now call up House Bill 710 for its first hearing. I'd like to call forward Representatives Workman and Dimitri O for sponsor testimony.
Thank you, Chair Wray, Vice Chair Luray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony on House Bill 710. Over the last several years, Ohio has seen significant increase in proposed data center development. These projects are often presented as inevitable economic progress and are backed by some of the largest and most powerful corporations in the world. But as legislators, it is our responsibility to look beyond the headlines and ask hard questions about the long-term impact these developments will have on our communities, our infrastructure, our energy grid, and the people we represent. House Bill 710 is rooted in a simple principle. Ohio ratepayers and local communities should not bear the burden of unchecked data center expansion. There is no question that data centers can bring investment and economic activity, but those benefits must be weighed against the real costs that often accompany these projects. Massive electricity demand, strain on utility infrastructure, increased pressure on generation capacity, water usage concerns, loss of farmland, and significant land use changes are all issues that deserve serious scrutiny before additional large-scale projects move forward. For many Ohioans, especially those living in rural and suburban communities, these projects can fundamentally alter the character of the areas they call home. Communities that were built around neighborhoods and farms and small businesses are now facing proposals involving enormous industrial facilities with substantial infrastructure demands and uncertain long-term local benefit. At the same time, everyday Ohioans are already struggling with rising costs. Families and small businesses should not see higher utility bills because infrastructure upgrades are being driven by trillion-dollar technology companies with enormous power demands. If these projects require major investments into the grid or additional generation capacity, those costs should be borne by the companies creating the demand, not shifted onto residential rate pairs in Ohio and small businesses. That is one of the central goals of this legislation. House Bill 710 establishes guardrails to ensure that Ohio approaches future data center development responsibly and transparently. The bill seeks to create greater accountability around infrastructure impacts, utility costs, and long-term project obligations. And it also reinforces the importance of local input and recognizes that communities deserve a meaningful voice when projects of this scale are proposed in their backyards. This legislation is not anti-business, it's not anti-growth or anti-technology. Ohio should absolutely remain competitive and continue attracting investment. But economic development cannot simply become a race to approve every project without fully considering the consequences Being business does not mean rubber stamping every proposal put in front of us It means creating a fair and predictable framework that protects taxpayers protects rate payers and respects local communities, and ensures growth occurs in a responsible and sustainable way. As policy makers, our responsibility is not just to the companies seeking to invest in Ohio today, but to the families, workers, farmers, and communities that will still be living with the consequences decades from now. I look forward to continuing to work with the members of this committee and all interested stakeholders as this legislation moves forward. And I thank you again for your time and consideration. And I'll now turn it over to my joint sponsor, Representative Workman.
Thanks. Thank you, Representative Demetrio.
Thank you, Chair.
Good afternoon, Committee. Chair Ray, Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on House Bill 710 today. I am proud to join Representative Demetrio in sponsoring this legislation. Much of what he has discussed already, I'm going to continue to detail in my testimony. But I do want to say that, as you are all aware, we have just convened, or we will be convening on May 27th, a joint data center study commission. So much of the work and much of what we're discussing here today will be further fleshed out as we continue those conversations. These concerns, of course, are not isolated to one region or political ideology. In fact, the Ohio House recently passed legislation establishing the Ohio Data Center Study Commission with unanimous support, reflecting the growing statewide conversation surrounding data center expansion and its impact on local communities. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure Ohio remains open to economic development, while also ensuring growth occurs responsibly and with appropriate safeguards in place for the people who already live and work in these communities. House Bill 710 is intended to address those guardrails. One of the primary concerns we continually hear from constituents is the impact that data centers may have on electricity rates and grid reliability. These facilities consume enormous amounts of power and often require significant new utility infrastructure. Ohio families, farmers, and small businesses are increasingly concerned. They will ultimately bear the cost through higher electricity bills. HB 710 addresses this concern directly by requiring developers to demonstrate to the Public Utilities Commission that their projects will not increase electricity rates for residential, agricultural, or small business customers. The bill also ensures costs associated with these projects are borne by the developer rather than shifted onto existing Ohio consumers. Another major concern raised by residents throughout Ohio is land use and community impact. Many proposed developments involve hundreds of acres of land and can fundamentally alter agricultural and residential communities. constituents have voiced concerns regarding the loss of prime farmland, increased noise, traffic, water consumption, and strain on local infrastructure. HB 710 responds to these concerns by prohibiting the construction of new data centers on prime farmland, public land, or within platted residential neighborhoods, unless county commissioners explicitly authorize development on voluntarily sold farmland. The bill also clarifies that property cannot be appropriated for use as a new data center under the definition of public use. Finally, this legislation addresses concerns surrounding public incentives for large data center projects. Many residents question why profitable corporations are receiving taxpayer incentives while local communities are left addressing infrastructure and utility impacts HB 710 prohibits state and local incentives for new data centers moving forward This bill is not intended to stop economic development in Ohio. It is intended to ensure development occurs responsibly, transparently, and with the interests of Ohio residents at the forefront. Thanks again for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony, and we are happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the representatives? Representative Russo?
Thank you. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you to the representatives for presenting your bill. I had a question, you know, just looking at this. Do you have a sense of how many current projects this would impact or sort of where it would impact projects that are already in the planning stages? Can you talk a little bit about that?
Chair Ray, Representative Russo, I don't have those figures in front of me. But, I mean, Ohio nationally is, you know, I believe in, like, the top five states right now for data center development. And feel free to fact check me on that, anyone on the committee. But, yeah, don't have the exact number. And good point, you know, kind of interesting point to take away on how to consider, you know, projects that are already, you know, have broken ground. So appreciate the feedback. Okay.
Okay, quick follow-up question.
Did you have something else?
I do. May I follow up, Chair?
So I do believe, if I'm not mistaken, and again, I'm not positive these facts are correct, but I think we're looking at maybe another 130 to 160 projects coming across the state of Ohio that are currently in development, and that's off the top of my head. I would have to double-check that, but it would depend on how quickly we move this bill, and with your support, pass it through the committee process to determine how it would affect them going forward.
Quick follow-up. I'll just clear for my question, but I do actually have a different question. I guess the point, or what I'm trying to assess, is will this be retrospective to those projects that have already started, or will it start with new projects that have not launched? So that's what I'm trying to get clarification on. Through the Chair.
Thank you for the question. I do believe this would be established once we pass the bill going forward. Okay. Unless I'm wrong, Representative. Okay.
And then, Chairwoman, I do have a second question. I was curious about, you know, there's some language in there about eminent domain, and I wonder if this is specific to a project. Do you have an example of where eminent domain has been used for one of these data center projects? I'm curious if that is being put in here because of a specific controversy or project.
Chair Ray, Representative Russo, no project, that wasn't driven by any specific project, just trying to be proactive instead of reactive.
May I follow up, Chair? I do believe that there is something that we're hearing about recently called a fast grab. This is something that some of our data centers have tried to employ at the local level, where they're asking our local elected officials to sign NDAs. So the communities are kept in the dark regarding the scope of the project until they're breaking ground on the construction. So I think the eminent domain in fast grab is something that is considered here so that we can try and offset that activity going forward Certainly something we be discussing more in the committee as well Any other questions for the representatives
Anyone? All right. Thank you very much for your testimony. You did a wonderful job. This concludes the first hearing on House Bill 710. I'd now like to call up the first hearing for Senate Bill number 111. Senator Craig and Senator Johnson, if you'd please come up to the podium. Welcome, gentlemen.
Chairwoman Ray and Vice Chairman Loray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on Senate Bill 111. I was delighted to introduce this important piece of legislation alongside my joint sponsor, Senator Craig. This bill designates October 4th as Henrietta Lacks Day to recognize her lasting impact on the field of medicine. My good friend and colleague, Senator Craig, has done yeoman's work on this legislation and will flesh out the details of Mrs. Lacks' story and our bill. With your permission, I'll turn the podium over to him at this time.
Chair Ray, Vice Chair Lurie, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, let me thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsored testimony on legislation that would designate October 4th as Henry Adelaide's Day in the state of Ohio. legislation that I am certainly proud to introduce alongside my dear friend, Senator Johnson. Mrs. Henrietta Lacks was a remarkable African-American, a woman whose DNA and story continued to shape science, medicine, and research ethics. In 1951, at the age of 31, She was diagnosed with cervical cancer. During her treatment at John Hopkins Hospital, doctors took samples of her cancer cell without her knowledge or consent. Those cells, later known as the Helio cell line, derives from the first two letters of her first and last names because the first immortalized human sail line capable of reproducing infinitely in a laboratory setting. What made Henrietta Lack's sail extraordinary was her unprecedented ability to survive and multiply outside of the human body. Prior to this discovery, scientists have been unable to keep human cells alive in laboratory conditions for extended periods of time, limiting researchers' ability to study disease and test treatment. He-Lea cells changed this forever. Scientists later discovered that Hilae cells' extraordinary durability came from several biological factors. Henrietta Lacks cancer was caused by HBV, which disabled key tumor suppressor genes like P53 and RB that normally Uncontrolled cell growth. The cells also produce the O, the O, I'll get there, meserase, and enzymes that rebuilds chromosomes ends, allowing them to divide endlessly without aging or dividing. In addition, HLL cells had major chromosomal abnormalities, about 76 to 80 chromosomes instead of the normal 46, which helped them grow and multiply rapidly in laboratories. HLL cells lines revolutionized my biomedical research across the globe. These cells were instrumental in the development of the polio vaccines, cancer treatment, gene mapping, and vitro fertilization, and even COVID-19 vaccine research. Tens of thousands of scientific studies and countless medical advancements trace back to the contributions of Henrietta Lacks. Here in Ohio, some of the nation's leading medical institutions, including the Ohio State University, Webster Medical Center, the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, the Cleveland Clinic, the University of Cincinnati continue to utilize ELA sales in ongoing medical and scientific research. The impact of Henrietta Lacks' contribution remains active in laboratories and research centers to this very day, helping scientists pursue cures and treatments that improve and save lives. Yet Mrs. Henrietta Lacks herself never knew of her contribution to science. She passed away on October the 4th, 1951, again at the age of 31, leaving behind her husband and five children. Her family would not learn of the use of her sales until more than two decades later. And for many years, her story went untold. By designating October the 4th at Henrietta Lacks Day, the state of Ohio would join the nation in institutions in recognizing not only her extraordinary impact on modern medicine, but also a story that stands at the intersection of medical innovation, bioethics, and racial justice. This day will not only honor Ms. Lacks' immense contributions to humanity, but also serving as a reminder of the importance of informed consent, equity in research, and respects for human dignity. We are proud to introduce this legislation to ensure that Henrietta Lacks' name and legacy are remembered for generations to come. Her life reminds us that scientific progress must always be guided by justice, transparency, and respects for the individual who make that progress possible. Chairman Ray and members of the committee, thank you for your consideration on this important legislation. And I respectfully ask for your support this time. I would certainly stand to entertain any questions at this time.
Thank you very much, gentlemen. Are there any questions for the senators?
Representative Russo Thank you Chairwoman Let have a question just a statement I may be the only person on this committee who actually worked with HeLaSales when I was in graduate school but there is a great documentary about Henrietta Lacks The Immortal Life if you haven seen it I think it's, I just looked it up. It's on Hulu now. So great. If anyone wants to learn more in terms of what her family went through to get her the recognition for her contribution to medical science.
To the chair, to Representative Russo, thank you very much for your comments.
Are there any other questions? Representative Brent?
In a time where, you know, it's a lot of unsung heroes, and I don't think when she went to, well, from the chair to the sponsors, I don't think when she went to the doctor she ever thought she would have this type of impact in life because she was looking for care and obviously did not get the care she needed, but it's changed a lot of lives. What does impact with this legislation look like long-term when the state of Ohio makes this into a day that we celebrate?
Thank you for your question. Let me first of all again thank Dr. Johnson. He's a physician. I'm so honored to be able to stand next to him regarding this. But I think the impact is clear. We mentioned the facilities, the Ohio State University and many others. You know, my mother died of cancer. My wife is two bouts of cancer. And I think this is in real time to real people. And I think Henrietta, who never got a chance to see this, but generations, her children's children, and many of us will be the beneficiaries of what happened with her and her life. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you. Are there any further questions? Thank you, gentlemen, so much for coming in. It was very good and moving testimony. This now concludes the first hearing on Senate Bill 111. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I would like to now call up House Bill 586 for its first hearing. If we could call Representative Byrd and Representative Lear for their sponsor testimony. Welcome.
Thank you very much, Chair Wray. Ranking Member Larray and Representative Brent Ranking Member and members of the House General Government Committee. Sorry, I'm still on House Bill 320 from my last committee. But I'm really grateful to be here and talk to you about another election integrity bill, House Bill 586, along with my joint sponsor, Representative Byrd. House Bill 586 is a common-sense measure focused on saving tax dollars, protecting voter confidence, limiting confusion, and improving election integrity. Over the last several election cycles, many Ohio voters have repeatedly received unsolicited absentee ballot request forms. Understandably, during COVID, the Secretary of State wanted to ensure that as much voter participation as possible was happening. And so the legislature, understandably, permitted mailing absentee ballot request forms and funded the practice. The pandemic is over, and the state needs to return to pre-COVID spending levels in every area possible. It is also wise to return to the laws that offer greater protection over absentee ballots by allowing the voters to make the requests for those themselves The bill also prohibits third groups from mailing absentee ballot request forms to Ohio voters There is justifiable concern about election integrity when outside groups get involved in mass mailing voters and trying to push mail-in voting. Ohio law already limits who can return an absentee ballot to the boards of elections. We should also protect voting on the front end by stopping the mass mailing of absentee ballot request forms from third parties which confuse voters and could be used for ballot harvesting. Importantly, this bill does not prevent any eligible Ohioan from voting absentee or requesting an absentee ballot. Voters will continue to have easy access to absentee ballot applications through their county boards of elections and the Secretary of State. At its core, this legislation is about election integrity and eliminating unnecessary costs. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on House Bill 586, I would like to pass the mic to my joint sponsor, Representative Burt.
Thank you, Chair Wray, Vice Chair Larray, Ranking Member Brent. This is a bill, I'll summarize it for you pretty quickly. This is a bill that comes to me personally from my local board of elections. They're the ones who are asking that we end the confusion. And so they have heard from voters that they're confused. Sometimes they get an absentee application in the mail. Sometimes they do not. And so this bill is about ending confusion. It's about saving the state some money for sure. And, you know, we want to make sure that every voter in Ohio has equal access to be able to vote. And that's the genesis for the bill in my mind. And so we certainly hope that we can be able to convince you to vote yes on this. And we thank you for your time. And we stand ready for questions, should you have them.
Thank you very much, representatives. Are there any questions for the members? Representative Russo.
Thank you to the chairwoman. And to the representatives, I'm really struggling to understand why. Could you share more about your board of election and what the confusion is? Because I will just share with you in conversations that I've had with boards of elections, making these absentee voter applications, we're talking about the application, accessible, especially to older citizens, often who are in assisted living facilities, who don't necessarily have the ability to get online, download and print the form, mail it back, call the Board of Elections to get them to send it to them. they are making this as convenient as possible for these consistent voters who have limited mobility, who use and like this form of voting. Why would we prohibit that, especially for our older citizens who, I think, have earned the ability to conveniently vote, and if they are provided with an absentee ballot application, why would we prohibit that?
Yeah, Chair, Representative, I would agree with you that we want everyone to have equal access to vote in Ohio. And I think that your concern is valid and well stated. But what I am trying to address me personally and I believe my joint sponsor is that there confusion over you know are we going to mail them for a presidential general election to everyone in the state of Ohio? Are we going to do that for, you know, midterm elections? Are we going to do it during primaries? Are we going to do it during all of these different kinds of elections? And so what's been reported to me is, from my board of elections, is that they've heard from people in our county that there's confusion. I thought I was going to get an application, and then I didn't. And now I'm rushing at the end to try to get my absentee ballot. And so it's about creating some consistency in my mind.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Representative Byrd, because he always does great with questions.
So I just have a little addition. We didn't do this pre-COVID. So if we're going to continue to do it, do we only choose certain groups that we're going to provide these for? Or are we going to have to continue to provide it for everyone? It wasn't a heavy lift pre-COVID. It shouldn't be a heavy lift now. Those of us that have elderly relatives, we're taking care of them and making sure that they get what they need. but my boards of elections do the same thing to make sure that nursing homes and other places are going to have access to absentee ballots for their patients and their residents. So I don't think that it's as urgent as we believe when we have worked this way in a system for decades prior to COVID. Follow up, please.
Through the Chairwoman, I guess, tell me more about we didn't do this before COVID, because there were boards of elections that were doing this pre-COVID. And I guess if you want to eliminate, yes, pre-COVID, use the right prefix there. If we want to eliminate the confusion, why are we taking away the ability of boards of elections or the Secretary of State to do this as opposed to making it more consistent? I mean, what is the opposition, other than, I guess, your argument about spending money, what is the opposition to proactively mailing these absentee ballot applications, especially to groups like those who live in assisted living facilities or, for example, at our universities? I have a student who is in college. The only way that he can access in a general election when he gets away at school is through mail-in voting, unless he finds a way to get home for the weekend to do early voting. So, well, there's only one weekend now that he can do that. But I guess why are we taking it away as opposed to expanding?
Chair, Representative, you stated in your question that there were some counties that weren't, which of course implies that there were some counties that were not. And so when some counties are doing this, some counties are not, I think we're not providing equal access to the opportunity to vote. And so I don't want to take away accessibility from people in a nursing home. I don't want to take away accessibility to those who are attending college or an institute of higher ed. But I do think that if we're mailing this to every single person in the state of Ohio, I think that's incredibly excessive. I think that if the voter gets used to the fact that an election is coming, I have to apply, and I'm responsible for applying, just like I'm responsible. For driving to the Board of Election, I'm sorry, to my voting precinct on Election Day, that's a fair opportunity to participate. And of course, we want people to do their civic duty and to participate. But when we do it sometimes and not do it other times, when some counties are doing it and others are not doing it, and we have some political groups out there that are mailing them to their universe of supporters, I just don't think that's equal access, and we want to make sure that everybody's treated the same.
One additional follow-up. So if I'm understanding what you are saying correctly, because you can't give equal access, we should just take it away from everyone and prohibit its use. I guess why not allow the flexibility for people to have – or boards of elections. I guess I'm not making the logical jump from you're saying we cannot guarantee equal access to this. So we're just now going to take it away as an option for any board of election or any group to be able to do this.
Chair, Representative, I don't view it as taking away. Those are your words. I don't view it in that way. But that's what your language does. What this does is it's treating everyone the same. And so, you know, I don't think that we should have some counties mailing it out and some counties not mailing it out. I don't think that there are some elections where the Secretary of State mails it out to the entire state, and then some elections where they don't. Voters get easily confused on that, and I want everyone to be treated fairly.
Thank you. Are there any other questions? Representative Sinnenberg.
Thank you, Chair Wray. Thank you both for bringing this forward. So easy to vote, hard to cheat is the slogan for the Secretary of State's office, I believe, for the last two Secretary of State's. And now I just Googled it. There's a bunch of other groups that are now using that as a slogan. I'd fail to see how this has anything to do with making it harder, easier to cheat, but only making it harder to vote this bill. So I don't see how it accomplishes the easy-to-vote, hard-to-cheat goal of the state of Ohio per the Secretary of State's office slogan. As an alternative, wouldn't it be easier, I believe, and we have a bill pending, that since certain people vote absentee every single election and they prefer that as their means of voting, shouldn't we have an automatic absentee voting system where if somebody wants to vote absentee, they can sign up once and therefore every single subsequent election, primary, general, presidential, governor, whatever, local, levy, they are automatically sent a primary, sorry, a ballot, not an application, the actual ballot. And if they want to get off it, they can, you know, submit their name to be, to vote in person. And obviously, if they're, if they're deceased, we go through the normal process to get them purged and they, so they don't get sent it. But I think that's the most uniform, common sense solution here to this,
this issue. Through the chair to Representative Sindenburg, and I'll allow happily my joint sponsor to also address this, but the issue for us is consistency, applying the law consistently, treating Ohioans equally. We've had a system that worked for decades before COVID came along. There shouldn't be some counties doing it, some counties not, and to have legislation that would automatically send absentee actual ballots out in my opinion that encourages shenanigans rather than making sure that we getting someone who we know lives in the same house who we know is still going to that university who we know is a resident of that nursing home. We should allow them the opportunity to request it when they want it and make accessing an absentee ballot easy like it has always been without using state funds to direct
it to just certain people. Chair, Representative, you said easy to vote, hard to cheat, and I like that slogan, and I agree with that, but I would say there's nothing about this bill that all of a sudden makes it easier to cheat, okay? We're not interested in that. We're not willing to, we don't, you know, I would say, despite the fact that I agree with that slogan, and I like it, and all of that I don't believe that this bill changes easy to vote, hard to cheat. Okay? I wouldn't compare the two. This is about lack of confusion. We want to eliminate any possible confusion, and we want to make sure that we're treating every voter the same.
Any other questions?
Just as a follow-up, I hear your point, Representative Lear, regarding that they should still be sent an application each election to confirm that they still live there, et cetera. So I guess I would just say let's make that automatic. Throughout the state, all ADA counties, everybody for every election should be sent an absentee, an application if they want to vote absentee. I imagine the cost is, there is a cost, yes, but the state just found $1.2 billion last week that we're over in income exceeding our expectations for this year. I think having a system that everybody believes in, a voting system that's fair and that's uniform that everybody believes in, is worth whatever millions of dollars. Yes, that would cost, but I think it's worth it.
Chair, Representative, I agree with you. We want easy to vote, hard to cheat. But I do not agree with you that we should mail an absentee application to every voter for every election. I think that is excessive. It's unnecessary. Ohio has voted successfully with absentee ballots for many, many years without that happening.
Any other questions for the representatives? Representative Brian Bailey.
Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. You all have consistently talked about you feeling like this is causing confusion. And confusion isn't fraud. and I'm glad that I'm not hearing that. But my question is, why does this elevate to a felony then if you're saying the consequence is confusion, right? So that seems like a very strong penalty for confusion and not fraud.
Thank you, Chair. Representative Bailey, one accident, one unintentional response is not a felony. Doing it twice is intentional, and that's voter fraud. And that's the reason that we believe this is serious. We need to take it seriously and make sure that we're encouraging election integrity every step along the way.
If I could jump in there, Chair Representative. if I if this committee thinks that that's too harsh I'm willing to work with this committee to find something that fair I I not you know gonna die on that hill and to be fair right I not if something becomes law I never want to encourage folks to break that law But I did just want to ask just in general, just off of the impetus for the bill, but
I know my colleagues have already said this a few times, but are you typically for increasing our electorate and increasing access to voting?
Chair, Representative, I want every person in Ohio that is allowed to vote, legally allowed to vote, and is certified, they should all be participating. We all have a civic duty to vote. Yes, I want people to vote. I want people to participate. And I think that should be the goal for all of us in the state of Ohio.
I have a question real quick. and this is a concern that I know during the COVID situation where ballots were mailed to everyone. We had people that perhaps the person who originally lived at the House moved. They get an absentee ballot. They assume they're registered because why would they get one in the mail if they're not? They filled it out, and there was no ballot forthcoming because they weren't registered to vote. And there was a little bit of frustration. I know we saw a little bit of medina during that time period. Did you hear any of those complaints from your local boards of election?
Was that something that was brought up? Chair, yes. Thank you for that question. We not only had concerns, but we actually had an elected official who was found guilty of voter fraud because he received his deceased father's application for an absentee ballot, filled it out, and proceeded to vote for him. So there are things that come up as a result of us being too loosey-goosey with our laws, and so we want to make sure that we're clamping down on that so that we can make sure that all of the people who are registered and able to vote have the ability to do that, but not the extra opportunity to vote fraudulently.
Any other questions? Representative Brent?
Thank you, Chairwoman, from the Chairwoman to the Witnesses. we are, and I always like to give a piece of history, so I'm going to just start out with a disclaimer. Since we tend to lose institutional knowledge here, we've been doing, sending vote-by-mail applications since 2012. Under now, former Secretary of State John Husted, who is now our U.S. Senator. That's when we started off in 2012, started doing that. 2014, Ryan Smith, who was the Speaker of the House, did a, what is it called, the Vote Ballot Application Mail Fund because they wanted to make sure that people had access to the ballot and making sure that we have funds in our operating budget, which we still pay for, to make sure that folks, our Secretary of State, could be able to send it out. That was a Republican-led initiative. Underneath the Speaker of the House, the Secretary of State, also working with the Senate President, working together. So I like to put that disclaimer out because I don't want people to think that it's just us Democrats who want people to have access to the ballot is also with the Republicans. And we've had it every two years since that, even underneath Frank LaRose, of having access to applications. My concern with all of this, and I always like to give the background story for the grandmas who are at home who don't know that we've been sending out applications since 2012 so they can be able to vote. why is that an issue now? In a time where we've had our current Secretary of State talk about very low voter fraud or voter problems here within the state of Ohio now you trying to make it inaccessible for people to do that And then also adding a penalty of a misdemeanor a felony all those different types of things. When this is an initiative that your caucus came up with, and now you're trying to get rid of it off of things that, I'm trying to see the factual basis behind it of things, why we cannot send out applications, especially particularly, you're talking about candidates can't send it out, nonprofits can't send it out, the Secretary of State can't send it out. It's like, do you really want people to vote? And it's, yeah. Go ahead.
Chair, Representative, thank you for some of that passed. But we do have term limits in Ohio, and none of us were here then, except maybe the two senators that have left. But times change. The revised code changes, and, you know, I mean, we make changes to the Ohio revised code all of the time. And so I bring forward a bill, honestly, organically, because my local board of elections thinks that what we're currently doing in Ohio is confusing. Okay, so I would tell you that we're not trying to keep anyone from voting. Everyone still has the opportunity to vote. They all have a duty to vote. and I think that we just want to make sure that everybody's treated the same.
Any other questions for the representatives? Representative Brad.
Thank you from the chair to the member.
And you can give me this information later on.
What was your voter turnout in your primaries in your counties?
Chair, representative, I'd have to look that up for you. I'm not sure.
Please make sure you give me that.
I would love to see it if I don't find it first.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Thank you very much for your testimony, representatives. This concludes the first hearing on House Bill 586. I'd like to now call up amended Senate Bill 320 for its first hearing. Senator Rogan, welcome.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair Ray and Vice Chair Larray, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide sponsor testimony this afternoon on Senate Bill 320, which upon enactment would join Ohio to the Athletic Trainer Compact. This bill recognizes the modern reality of health care delivery. Athletic trainers increasingly practice across state lines, whether supporting traveling teams, working with collegiate or professional athletes, serving patients through telehealth, or relocating due to family or military obligations. Under the current system, licensed athletic trainers must obtain and maintain separate licenses in every state where they practice, even when those states impose substantially similar education, examination, and professional standards. This compact provides a streamlined, secure mechanism for interstate practice while maintaining each state's full authority over licensure, discipline, and scope of practice. The Athletic Trainer Compact does not create a national license, nor does it weaken Ohio's regulatory authority. Instead, it allows an athletic trainer who holds an unencumbered license in a member state and meets uniform eligibility requirements to obtain a compact privilege to practice in other member states. Ohio retains complete authority to regulate athletic trainers practicing within its borders, enforce Ohio scope of practice laws investigate complaints and take disciplinary action when necessary in fact The compact strengthens public protection by improving real-time information sharing among states regarding licensure status, disciplinary actions, significant investigative findings. This legislation establishes clear eligibility standards to ensure that only qualified professionals may participate. To exercise compact privileges, an athletic trainer must hold a qualifying license, meet education and examination requirements tied to nationally recognized accreditation and certification standards, complete a criminal background check, maintain continuing competence, and have no recent license encumbrances. These safeguards ensure that mobility is extended only to practitioners who are in good standing and meet high professional standards. Public safety is further enforced through robust enforcement mechanisms. If an athletic trainer violates Ohio law while practicing in this state, Ohio may take immediate action against that individual's compact privilege, including suspension or removal, just as it would with a traditional license. Any disciplinary action taken by a member state is communicated through the compact shared data system, ensuring that problematic conduct cannot be hidden by crossing state lines. Rather than diminishing accountability, the compact enhances it by closing regulatory blind spots that currently exist between states. The bill also provides important workforce benefits. By reducing duplicative licensure requirements, the compact supports workforce development and helps address shortages in athletic training services, particularly in rural or underserved areas. It also offers meaningful support to active military members and their spouses, who are often required to relocate across state lines and face unnecessary professional barriers as a result. Under the compact, these individuals can continue practicing without repeated delays, fees, administrative hurdles, while still remaining subject to Ohio's laws and oversight. The first seven states to pass legislation for a particular compact form what's called the Compact Commission, and they have authority over rulemaking and performance as well as a permanent representation within the compact. Member states retain control over fees and licensure decisions, and the compact includes clear auditing, reporting, and transparency requirement. So when we first introduced this bill, there were just a couple states that had passed it, But now, as of today, there are already seven states that have enacted this athletic trainer compact legislation. That's Nebraska, South Dakota, Kansas, Iowa, Kentucky, Alabama, and Virginia. Although Ohio will not be part of the compact commission, expedited enactment of the compact still signals that Ohio will continue to be a national leader in increasing access to care for patients and maximizing mobility for licensed professionals. By the way, six other states already have this athletic trainer compact legislation filed and is working through their process, including Minnesota, Oklahoma, Missouri, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and Ohio. Importantly, Ohio may withdraw in the future through legislative action if participation no longer serves our interests. So we can join through legislation. We can also withdraw through legislation. In conclusion, this bill modernizes athletic trainer licensure in a way that reflects today's healthcare environment while preserving Ohio's regulatory authority and commitment to public safety. It expands access to care, supports a mobile and highly trained workforce, enhances interstate cooperation and strengthens the oversight through shared data and enforcement I love it because it tears down these artificial government barriers and allows people to work and do what they do best in serving patients It helps not only the professional but it helps the patients as well By the way, in the Senate Health Committee, the bill was reported favorably by unanimous 7-0 vote, and it also passed the Senate unanimously with a floor vote of 33-0, as have the vast majority of all our compacts that we've passed both through the Senate and through the House. And so I want to thank every House member in here who has voted for so many of these compacts that have come before this one, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.
Thank you very much, Senator. Representative Brisson?
Thank you to the chairwoman. Thank you, Senator. Remind me, I'm trying to remember, and I should note this, which board controls the licensure for athletic trainers? Do they have their own separate board or it's under one of the other boards?
boards. They have their own. They have their own board. Okay. I'm just curious, you know, because
this obviously would be beneficial to those athletic trainers that cross state lines. Do you have a sense of how many of the licensed athletic trainers here in the state of Ohio this might impact?
To the chair, to the representative, I mean, to clarify, so athletic trainers are already allowed to travel with their teams, right? So you'll see the teams on their buses and they're going across state lines, and so you can already do that. So this would really specifically help athletic trainers that are traveling separate from their teams for whatever reason, so I thought that was of interest. In terms of the actual number of athletic trainers, we can get that to you through the chair's office. I don't have it off the top of my head, although I did just attend last week their state, the athletic trainer state conference was held in northeast Ohio, and I happened to be there at the end of last week, and I communicated with the chair asking if they could add this to the agenda because they were so excited, all these athletic trainers from all of your districts. There were so many of them there, and they absolutely loved this. So I will get the answer to your question about the number of athletic trainers in this state.
So follow-up. That's an important clarification. So as long as they travel with the team, so I represent a major university, as long as they travel with the team, they can still practice even in that state. And the reason I'm asking this is because as I'm looking at your map that you provided, I think it was in your testimony here. It looks like the only border state that we have that has actually is part of this compact already is Kentucky. It looks like Pennsylvania is considering, but, you know, all of our other neighboring states, there's no introduced legislation. So I'm trying to understand, you know, how how long people will actually from now people actually get some benefit from this compact to the real benefit.
Through the chair to the representative. Excellent question. Thank you for that. So as I look back over, I think we can use the previous compacts as examples, right? And so, I mean, we passed the nurse licensure compact. And gosh, they have well over 40 member states already. And then we passed the physical therapy licensure compact. There's 32 member states. And my list is old, so there's probably even more than that now. Then we had the medical licensure for docs. That's 41 member states. Occupational therapy, we have 32 member states. And it happens within months. As I mentioned, when I first introduced this bill, there were how many? Like two or three that had already enacted, maybe? And now there's already seven. So this is catching on nationwide because it just makes sense. It's taking down the barriers. It good for the patients It good for the professionals So even though the map you looking at right now we only have you know Kentucky is a member state that has enacted this I can almost guarantee you in a couple months from now that map will be fleshed out much further than it is now Just look at the other compacts by way of example. And the excitement that I saw in the room last week from the athletic trainers that were there, they're passionate about this. So, yeah, we'll see.
Any other questions? Representative Brand.
Thank you. And I do agree. I've sat on multiple committees where your compacts, Senator, has been, so I know this is your thing of doing the compacts. You're the compact queen. But real question, particularly when it comes to this, how do you think this will affect if you have an athletic trainer who gets in trouble in a different state? Will they be able to come to Ohio and practice if we're still part of this compact?
Thank you. To the chair, to the representative. No, so one of the common denominators between all these compacts is there's a commission that's formed, that establishes the rules. There's also a database. and so if there's any adverse actions by any, whether it's a nurse or a physical therapist, I mean for their particular compact, in this case the athletic trainer, say they do something wrong in another state, that gets put into that database and then all states are made aware of that. So if you're thinking of bringing that particular individual into your state, you'd be aware of it. Again, the home state still, they could also yank their license. You're also allowed to say if you don't want someone to say they do something horrible in Ohio, God forbid, and we're like, no, we don't want them here, that goes on their record. They can't come to Ohio. So we still retain authority here in Ohio, which is a beautiful thing about these compacts.
I have one more follow-up, Chairwoman.
Yes.
Thank you, Chairwoman, to our senator. Just because this always comes down to the bottom dollar of how much these fees are going to cost if we join this compact. What's going to happen? Is the fees going to be affected? Are we going to have to increase the fees to be a part so members can be a part of this compact?
Yeah, so thank you to the chair and to the representative. So all the fees are typically established by the commission, so they'll set the rates for the members. But from previous examples, and again, we have a lot of other compacts to go off of, it's de minimis. I mean, we're talking like maybe $65, $85, and then your license is good and all these member states. So these professionals are delighted to pay it. But again, I can't say right now what that's going to be because it's determined by the commission. But historically, it's been fine. It's been set well and low.
Thank you, Chair.
You're welcome. Any other questions for the Senator? This concludes the first hearing on amended Senate Bill 320. Thank you very much.
Thank you.
I will now call up House Bill 272 for its third hearing. I'd like to call forward Susan Tevnon from AGC America for permanent testimony.
Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Ray, members of the committee. My name is Susan Tevnon, and testifying here today on behalf of AGC America. AGC is a global innovator with advanced manufacturing and R&D facilities in the United States. AGC shares your goal of addressing PFAS contamination and has supported legislation in other states that restricts PFAS in consumer products when those restrictions are clear and targeted We support the intent of House Bill 272 which seeks to protect public health and safety by restricting the use of PFAS in various consumer products while allowing the continued and uninterrupted use of fluoropolymers that are essential in products critical to society. We are particularly pleased that House Bill 272 recognizes that products using fluoropolymers, a small, well-studied subset of PFAS, are treated differently than other PFAS. For example, PFOA and PFOS are the PFAS which are largely responsible for the contamination across the country. This is not the case for fluoropolymers, which are not found in soil, water, or in our bodies. For these reasons, we support House Bill 272, restricting the use of PFAS in certain consumer products, while allowing products containing fluoropolymers, such as wiring for airplanes, gaskets and O-rings in vehicles and manufacturing equipment, protective coatings for bridges and water infrastructure, and in medical devices like pacemakers and heart stents, to continue to be used in commerce in Ohio. There are, however, several areas that we recommend some technical improvements to the bill. First, because of a grammatical inconsistency in the fluoropolymer exemption, we recommend a technical fix to clarify that solid fluoropolymers are exempt when they are suspended in an aqueous dispersion. Think of something analogous to a snow globe that has been shaken. This will ensure that solids that are in an aqueous dispersion for application purposes are not inadvertently prohibited. Another clarification that we would recommend is the reordering of the exemption list. For example, the placement of the exemption of equipment used in the manufacture of any other exempted product should be moved to the end of that exemption list, so not as to inadvertently exclude the equipment used to manufacture any of the exempted products that precede it. In addition to these clarifications, we would recommend a few additional technical amendments and are happy to provide those to you that would address a few other small inadvertent emissions that would make the bill consistent with other states. We thank Rep. Zuli and the staff for meeting with us on the issue, and we thank you for your time, and I'm happy to work with the committee and you to consider this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Bren?
Thank you, Chairwoman, from the Chairwoman to the witness. Thank you so much for coming and providing your subject matter expertness to our committee. I do know particularly like in Europe, we've got Denmark, France, Norway, Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden, they've already banned PFAS. But here in the United States, we have had, I've seen multiple states bring up PFAS bills to put a ban on it, and it never passes. and because we have tons of corporations that kind of turn on the members in different states, not saying that they should turn on us here in Ohio. What do you think we should do differently to make sure that Ohio is successful to be able to get rid of PFAS, this forever chemical?
Well, a lot of the PFAS bills I believe that you're addressing in those circumstances, they're just too wide. PFAS is a group of over 14,000-plus chemists. In our case, the fluoropolymers are just a small exemption, a small subset of that. So it's to narrow it, as we said, and to keep this focused on the ones that are really the bad outliers and that are causing the contamination. Fluoropolymers, for example, are not water-soluble. They're large and stable. They don't degrade. They're also not bioavailable. Because they're large, they don't break the skin barrier. So they're not causing the problems that are related to this contamination. And it's similar to fishing with a large net, and we're catching the dolphins that everyone likes and needs. And they're in a lot of very important products. I don't know that I want to be in an airplane where the wiring is not protected with fluoropolymers against heat and stress. So we need to be reasonable in terms of absolutely need to clean up PFAS. There's no question about that. We need to be careful in terms of how we're addressing it and make sure that we keep the products that are critical to society. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Thank you.
Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. At this time, I'd like to call forward Andrew Bemis from Sustainable PFAS Action Network for proponent testimony. Welcome.
Hello. Chair Ray, Vice Chair Larray, members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to provide proponent testimony on HB 272. The Sustainable PFAS Action Network is a coalition of PFAS users and producers that are committed to sustainable, risk-based PFAS management. Our members advocate for responsible policies that assure long-term human health and environmental protection, while recognizing the critical need for certain PFAS materials as a contributor to U.S. economic growth and competitiveness. SPAN has been involved with consumer product legislation in several states since our founding, and we believe that this bill contains several elements of a responsible risk-based PFAS program in Ohio. We would like to thank the sponsor and his staff for working with SPAN on several components of HB 272, specifically the recent changes that the committee adopted. Firstly, HB 272 contains a targeted definition of PFAS that focuses on commercially active compounds. This definition has been used by U.S. EPA since 2023. While other states have used an overly broad definition of PFAS that is estimated to contain over 10,000 compounds, U.S. EPA has stated that this definition focuses on less than 1,000 PFAS compounds that are expected to be commercially active. HB 272's use of this definition ensures that Ohio's PFAS program is risk-based and targeted. HB 272 also carefully considers essential industries that are critical to Ohio's economy. The exemption list contained in HB 272 reflects essential use exemptions that have been passed in other states and is an important step to ensure that critical industries that use PFAS in federally approved manners are not unintentionally impacted. These essential uses are absolutely critical for the modern 21st century economy and must be handled in a sustainable and responsible manner. HB 272's inclusion of this essential use exemption list is an important step in the right direction. HB 272 also requires the Director of Ohio EPA submit a report to the legislature by 2032 on the status of implementation of the state's PFAS program, as well as relevant data and information regarding other states' PFAS laws, as well as U.S. EPA's own PFAS reporting program that is currently ongoing. Including this study ensures that after HB 272 risk provisions are implemented there is an avenue for stakeholders and legislators to review the program and ensure that federal PFAS policy is also considered SPAN has been happy to work with the sponsor on HB 272 to include responsible risk-based provisions. The bill reflects many of the best practices that SPAN has seen in states that are implementing PFAS consumer product legislation. While there are components of HB 272 that SPAN will continue to work with the sponsor on, we strongly urge the committee to give 272 further consideration. Thank you for considering SPAN's testimony. We look forward to working with legislators and stakeholders on finding a sustainable path forward for PFAS policy in Ohio. I am happy to answer any questions the committee may have.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for the witness? No?
Representative Brent. Thank you, Chairwoman. From the Chairwoman to the witness, thank you so much for providing your subject matter expertness in this topic of these forever chemicals, as I like to call it. When it comes to our federal EPA, how does this interact with what's already going on on a federal level?
Sure. Well, Chair, Representative, thank you very much for the question. So U.S. EPA, both in the previous administration and the current one, is, we think, really taking PFAS seriously. In fact, Administrator Zeldin, one of the environmental issues he had the most experience on prior to coming to EPA was with PFAS while he was in Congress, and actually had a fairly progressive record. He voted for some PFAS pieces of legislation and addressed funding in his district as well. So they're doing a few things that we think will be helpful for PFAS policy in the states. What I mentioned in my testimony is they're currently working on their own reporting program. So they're requiring manufacturers in the country to report their PFAS usage between 2011 and 2023. This is ongoing. It began in the previous administration and has continued with this one. And as we understand it, it's going to have a lot of data on PFAS usage throughout the country. and so essentially with EPA doing that right now, we don't think it's smart for states to replicate that program. In fact, some other states have tried and have ended up rolling back their programs. So we think the reporting program and the data that will come from that will be very helpful and we've encouraged states to hold off on their own program to gather that data and in fact the report that's in HB 272 now would require that information further on.
Any further?
Go ahead.
Thank you, Chairwoman. My next question is, here in the state of Ohio, we put fluoride in our water. That has been a very controversial topic that has come up just nationwide, and everybody has their own different opinions about needing fluoride in the water. I know with this bill, it would actually regulate, and I'm not a subject matter expert at it, but I believe this bill would regulate on how much fluoride or if there's fluoride in the water with that. how does that look like in a practical sense? Because I was just in a state that does not have fluoride. It's a difference of health dynamics in this state. Health outcomes is very low compared to ours. And one of the things that they have that's a difference between us and them and this other state I was just saying is that they don't have fluoride in their water. And it shows up in other ways.
Sure. Well, Chair, Representative, so my testimony is only on the PFAS components of the bill. And as I understand it with the recent sub that the committee considered those components are no longer in the legislation So I don have any further information on that That it Okay Any other questions No Thank you very much for your testimony Thank you much
Committee members, please see the written testimony for House Bill 272 that is available on your iPads. This concludes the third hearing on House Bill 272. I will now call up House Bill 554 for a second hearing. I'd like to call forward Sharon Montgomery for proponent testimony.
Welcome. Thank you. The floor is yours. Thank you. Chair Wray, Vice Chair LeRae, Ranking Member Brent, and members of the House General Government Committee, I've read this bill and the sponsor's testimony and heard your discussion last November on the Ohio Channel. It seems to me that this is definitely an idea worth considering. If it needs some tweaking to get your approval, sponsor Thomas has indicated he's willing to do so. The basic concept is solid, though. People who cannot or prefer not to use the growing number of electronic payment methods should still be able to purchase goods and services that are provided to the general public. And the suggestion that they just go somewhere else assumes there is always a comparable somewhere else that everyone can get to. This is a false assumption. I'm in the category of consumers who prefer to use cash because there's already too much personal information about me out in cyberspace that I can't prevent or protect. I choose to do all I can to keep the amount of information at a minimum to reduce my risk of suffering the many consequences, serious consequences, of having my assets or worse, my identity stolen. There is a category of consumers who need more consideration, though, than we who choose to use cash. Some people, for a variety of reasons, should not have credit cards because it's too easy to run up huge balances which they can't afford to pay and which are increased by large interest charges which they also cannot afford. For whatever reason, some people are not able to distinguish between need and want, and if their income should be limiting them to entirely or mostly to needs, can't keep themselves within those limits, except by using cash, where when the cash is gone, spending stops. If retailers are worried about the safety of having cash in a cash drawer easily accessible to customers when open for making change, or even to dishonest employees, convert to machines like the self-checkout lanes. They don't have to eliminate cashiers and put more people out of work, just eliminate the open cash drawer. Parking facilities that still take cash have these machines also. Sponsor Thomas also mentioned the option of a kiosk to convert cash to a limited amount card. From the sponsor testimonies and ensuing committee discussions of the Senate and now the House versions of these bills, it certainly appears that what Representative Thomas referred to as a bifurcated system is a completely fair and workable solution. I strongly support a cash option and thank Representative Thomas for introducing House Bill 554 which at the very least starts an important discussion People who can have banks and or credit card should not be denied the goods and services the rest of us can have People who shouldn have banks and or credit card should not be denied the goods and services the rest of us can have People who shouldn have credit cards deserve our help Those of us who are not willing to put ourselves at risk of having personal information stolen and then misused should not have, I'm sorry, should have that choice. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for the witness? Thank you.
Representative Brent? Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Chairwoman. And thank you for providing this testimony and coming in. And just like you said, you came on your free will. So for one, I'm glad you do watch us, because sometimes I don't know who actually watches us in these committees. So I'm glad to hear that you came and came and provided testimony at the People's House. When it comes to concerns of, I know you say you had concerns about people's identity being taken if they are using credit cards. are there other ways that you feel as though people could have identity theft stolen from them outside of using credit cards or non-cashless methods?
Are there, I'm sorry, the chair, the...
So you said that you don't like to use credit cards because you're concerned about your identity,
your information being... Since I use cash, I'm not as familiar with all the modern ways. I do know that some people can pay by their phone. I don't have a cell phone, partly for the same reasons I don't use credit cards very much. I just don't want a presence in cyberspace. I just don't feel that it's safe.
So my question was –
Oh, I'm sorry.
No, no, no.
It's okay because I wasn't fully done seeing the question. You're fine.
Have you had any problems with using cash and where somebody denied you from using cash? Like is that an issue?
Like is that a current issue for you?
to the chairman, to the representative,
I could have had problems. I have avoided them. For instance, there are some places I go where I'm going to have to use a credit card to park, so I take the bus, which is also cheaper, but it takes longer. I have to drive to a park and ride, which takes a little time, and then take the bus. Unfortunately, most of the places that I need to go from where I live, I can take the C bus, which is sort of a semi-express, so it doesn't stop at every stop. But then I have to walk from the bus off to the thing, and some days I have time to do that, sometimes I don't. I'm retired, but some of you may know I'm very involved in traffic safety advocacy, and I'm on the go a lot. So sometimes it's convenient to spend that extra time, and sometimes it's not. But the other choice is to park and use my credit card. My limits for credit card, if it's an individual business, I don't mind using my credit card. If it's anything that's big enough to tempt a hacker, they don't get my number. Does that answer your question?
Yes, it does. I do have a small follow-up. I'll be quick. I want to thank you again for even providing that information. Thank you for taking the public transit out here. Shout out to, you know, we're the 14th highest in the state, but only 45th when it comes to funding. so I thank you for taking public transit. When it particularly comes to this situation,
I'll digress.
That's okay. I might even go there.
I'll digress.
That's okay. That's okay. Thank you, Chairwoman. Thank you very much for coming in today.
Thank you.
I'd now like to call forward Marsha Forsen from the Catholic Conference of Ohio for proponent testimony. Welcome.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Wray. Vice Chair Leroy, ranking and members of the House General Government Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide proponent testimony. My name is Marsha Forsen, and I have the pleasure of serving as an Associate Director with the Catholic Conference of Ohio. The conference is the official voice of the Church in Ohio on matters of public policy, and we're pleased to support House Bill 554 to require entities to accept cash as payment. Motivated by belief in a God who became poor out of love for the whole human race, the Church proclaims that the human person is the source, the center, and the purpose of all economic and social life. Participation in economic life must be assured so that people can utilize the fruits of their labor to acquire the things necessary for a dignified life. Indeed, as Pope Leo recently reminded us, Christ experienced the same exclusion that is the lot of the poor, the outcast of society. Jesus is a manifestation of this, what we call a privilegium purum, otherwise known as the Church's teaching on the preferential option for the poor. The 2023 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked Households found that 4 of U homes which represent about 5 million households were unbanked which is defined as no one in the home having a checking or savings account at a bank or credit union 66 of unbanked households were cash only or households that used neither online payment services nor prepaid cards, and presumably rely on cash or other paper instruments such as money orders. Respondents to the survey stated that their reasons for not having a bank account included not having enough money to meet a minimum balance, not being able to pay bank fees, a lack of trust in banks, and privacy concerns, as we just heard. Cash-only unbanked rates were higher among lower-income households, less-educated households, those working-age households with a disability, and households with income that varied a lot on a month-to-month basis. The severely under-resourced, the prudent laborer, and those who know all too well the risk of excess spending when funds are expended through digital means are among the Ohioans who conduct their transactions by cash. HB 554 protects their place in our society. This bill makes sure that all Ohioans seeking those things necessary for life, food, water, clothing etc can do so with the most traditional use of currency This bill will also help Christians and others of good will to give to God what is God ensuring that an act of charity for the hungry in the form of a few dollars is not rendered useless in a market designed for expediency rather than humanity For these reasons, we urge the committee to pass House Bill 554, and I thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I welcome any questions. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Are there any questions for the witness? Representative Brett?
Thank you from the chairwoman to the witness. Thank you for coming and providing. There's definitely a different way of just thinking about this bill. My thought is there any appetite for making some type of exceptions to this bill, particularly when you think about airports, stadiums, or different places where people are using cash. And I'm just going to make the personal assumption, not the factual assumption, that if you're going to the airport, you probably have some type of access to income and you had to have a card or things. Because I know like and I kind of fleshing this out but certain places you already have to have a credit card just to purchase a ticket like a sports facility a sporting game already Could there be room for being an exception since you are already in a secure place and you doing transactions there such as the airport?
Through the chair to the ranking member, thank you for the question. My understanding in reviewing the first sponsor hearing and the bill text is that there is an exception for airports, and I want to say for larger facilities like stadiums as well, but I'm pretty confident of the airports.
I appreciate it.
Are there any other questions for the witness? Thank you very much for coming in today. Committee members, please see the written testimony on House Bill 554 that is available on your iPads. There are several, several, several written testimonies. This concludes the second hearing on House Bill 554. I will now call up House Bill 582 for its third hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to testify on House Bill 582? Seeing none, this concludes the third hearing on House Bill 582. Seeing no further business before the committee, the House General Government Committee stands adjourned.