MR. SPEAKER: A quorum is present. The House and gallery will please rise for identification.

Chair recognizes Representative Duke to introduce the pastor of the day.

REP. DUKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, Representative Chisum and I invite artisanship, are honored to introduce this pastor of the day. This distinguished gentleman served as pastor for more than 37 years before his retirement in 1993. As pastor he headed nine churches throughout Texas, including in Coryell County, Cedar Park, Madison County, Bryan, Mullin, Ackerle (phonetic), Wink, Onion Creek. And his last church, Boulevard Baptist Church right here in Austin, Texas.

Upon his retirement, you all -- many of you may recall he served as the door keeper of the Senate as well as chaplain from 1997 to 2005, and it just tickles us pink to introduce Don Long.

(Prayer given.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

(Pledge of allegiance delivered.)

MR. SPEAKER: Representative Bohac has important business on the motion of Representative Hamilton. He is representing Madden because of important business on the motion of Representative Bohac. Excuse Representative Doug Miller because of illness on the motion of Representative Jerry Davis. Excuse Representative Flynn because of important business of the district on the motion of Representative Berman.

Any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered.

Members, I spoke this morning with Representative Miller who appreciates all the thoughts and prayers from all of us. He is in a hospital in New Braunfuls, but he sounded good. He is in stable condition and hopes to be back here hopefully in a week. I just thought I would pass that among to you. He appreciates everyone's best wishes.

The following message from the Governor. The clerk will read the message.

THE CLERK: I Rick Perry, governor of the state of Texas, pursuant to Article 3, Section 5 of the Texas constitution, by this message do hereby submit the following emergency matter for immediate consideration to the Senate and House of Representatives of the 82nd legislature now convening.

Legislation requires that voters to provide identification when voting. Respectfully submitted Rick Perry, governor.

I, Rick Perry, governor of the state of Texas, pursuant to Article 3, Section 5 of the Texas constitution by this message do hereby submit the following emergency matter for immediate consideration of the Senate and House of Representatives of the 82nd legislature now convening. Legislation that would provide for a federal balanced budget, amendment to the United States Constitution. Respectfully submitted, Rick Perry, governor.

I, Rick Perry, governor of the State of Texas, pursuant to Article 3, Section 5 five of the Texas constitution by this message do hereby submit the following emergency matter for immediate consideration to the Senate and House of Representatives of the 82nd legislature now convening. Legislation that requires a sonogram before a woman elects to have an abortion to be fully medically informed. Respectfully submitted, Rick Perry governor.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Howard to introduce the doctors of the day.

REP. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members.

We are so fortunate to once again many, many times we've had these wonderful people, John and Judith Ethison (phonetic), who continue to come and help us when we're here, as our doctors of the day, and they tell me they're already seeing a large case of bronchitis, so they are already very busy. But we're so appreciative of their giving of their time to help us stay healthy and well so we can do the People's business. Please welcome them today. Thank you.

(Applause.)

MR. SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Mr. Raymond for a motion.

REP. RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a motion to take up and consider House Resolution 174 proclaiming Laredo Day at the Capitol.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered.

Chair lays out HR174. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR174 by Raymond.

Whereas, (inaudible) are gathering in Austin to celebrate Laredo Day at the State Capitol on January 24th, 2011; and whereas, (inaudible) the city was founded in 1755 as the outpost of the Spanish empire. Laredo belonged to Mexico. After that country gained its independence from Spain in 1821 and served as the capital of the Confederate Republic of the Rio Grande. Laredo became part of Texas in 1846 and subsequently served as the seat of Webb County; and, whereas, (inaudible), the Rio Grande was the trading center for livestock (inaudible) and wool. (Inaudible) the arrival of the railroad in 1881 and with the development of the free trade zone along the borders of the United States and Mexico.

The economy was further helped by coal mining and the induction of onion farming and discovery of rich oil and gas fields. And, whereas, today the city is the largest importer on the Rio Grande and one of the top four ports of commerce in the nation. (Inaudible) benefits (inaudible) import and export of the petroleum industry. In 2008 they handled 40 percent of all trades between the United States and Laredo.

Laredo is also focused on higher education in the Rio Grande as the home of Texas A&M International University, two campuses of Laredo College, Community College and (inaudible) campus of the University of Texas Hope Site at San Antonio. And whereas, visitors and residents alike can explore such areas as (inaudible) Cathedral, the Republic of Rio Grande museum and the Laredo Center of the Arts, or 40 blocks (inaudible) along San Bernardo Avenue shoppers near and far.

In addition, Laredo is the home of the Washington birthday celebration of 414 year old 10-day event that includes the carnival, beauty pageant, (inaudible) festival and parade.

And, whereas, (inaudible) the City of Laredo may, indeed, take great pride in the city's two and a half centuries (inaudible) achievement.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Texas House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas legislature do hereby recognize January 24th, 2011, as Laredo Day at the State Capitol and extends to the visiting delegation sincere best wishes for a memorable and meaningful visit to Austin.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond.

REP. RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I hope you will take a minute to come up here and say hello to our City Council members from the City of Laredo. They do a great job to build this city that is still the first or second fastest growing city in this country. And I'd like y'all to come up and say hello. At this time I'd like to recognize our Council members who are here in attendance, or most of them. Mr. Mike Garza -- Mike's not here. Councilman Esteban Rangel. Councilman Alejandro Perez, Jr. Councilman Juan Narvarez. Councilwoman Cindy Liendo Espinoza. And Councilman Charlie San Miguel. I'd also like to recognize our city manager who has done so much, and I've had the privilege of working with him the whole time I've been in this position. City manager Carlos Villareal. We also have assistant city manager Cynthia Collazo. And in the gallery, I'm not sure -- here we go. In the north gallery, assistant city manager, Jesus Olivares. We have our police chief Carlos Maldonado. Our fire chief Steve Landin. Our park and recreation director (inaudible). We have Jeffrey (inaudible), our registrative liaison. We have Roger -- they misspelled it. Roger Query (phonetic) from Laredo Development Foundation. We have Monica Timato (phonetic). I'm sorry. (Inaudible) writing is just -- and mine's worse. (Inaudible) from the Metro and Tomas Rodriguez, utilities director.

Members, I know all of you work with your cities. I will tell you I doubt that there's any City Council or city manager, assistant city manager that works more closely with their legislation delegation than the City of Laredo does. Many of you helped us to accomplish a lot of things in these recent years. I thank you, I appreciate you. And give them a warm welcome.

And finally, members, I move adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The chair recognizes Mr. Menendez for our recognition.

REP. MENENDEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. I would like you to join me in welcoming a few people that make things happen in our district. You know, we all have folks who put themselves up to lead our neighborhood associations, and they are rarely recognized. And today we have a few of my constituents who are leaders in our communities, they run the Cable Westwood Neighborhood Association, and I want to welcome them. Sitting up here on the northwest side of the gallery waving to us is Ms. Bonnie Weed, Ms. Mary Hall, (inaudible), Mr. Mike Gallan (phonetic), Mrs. Yvonne Gallan, his lovely wife, and Ms. (inaudible). Would you please help me welcome them to their House members. Thank y'all for being here, and thank you for everything you do.

(Applause.)

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes the signing of the following in the presence of the House, SCR No. 6.

The chair recognizes Representative Thompson and Representative King.

REP. THOMPSON: Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules of the House and consider HR181.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing -- the rules are suspended.

The Chair lays out HR181. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR181 by Thompson.

Welcoming Texas Motorcycle to Austin for their legislative day at the State Capitol on January 24th, 2011.

(Applause.)

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The Chair recognizes Ms. Thompson and Ms. King.

REP. THOMPSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. Representative King and I would like you to welcome the bikers from across the state of Texas here today that we've heard from in the gallery. Welcome to the Texas House. The sight of this Mohawk, tattooed motorcycles, the engineering Boost Spudnik (phonetic) who is our friend, who was one of the most effective lobbyist around. We miss him, but we know that from the enthusiasm of the cyclists in the audience that we know that his work is going to be carried on. We welcome you here to the Capitol, and I would like to yield to my colleague, Representative king.

REP. KING: It's an honor to stand here with Representative Thompson from Houston. I want to welcome all the motorcyclists from all over the state, particularly from my district, District 71. They are some of the strongest advocates for liberty and justice

REP. HARPER-BROWN: (continued) -- and you're great patriots. Thank you for being here. Welcome to your House.

[Applause]

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.

REP. THOMPSON: Madame Speaker, on behalf of our friend, the late Sputnik (phonetic), the bikers, I move to pass the resolution.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection?

[Applause]

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Pickett moves that all speakers' names be added to the resolution. Is there any objection? Hearing none, all members names are added.

[Applause]

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.

REP. HARLESS: Mr. Speaker, members, I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 171.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out HR 171. The clerk will read the resolution.

 

THE CLERK: HR 171 by Harless. Congratulating Jack Burke, Jr. on receiving the 2011 William D. Richardson award from the Golf Writers Association of America.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.

REP. HARLESS: Members, this resolution recognizes Jackie Burke for winning the Golf Writers Association of America William D. Richardson Award and celebrating his 88th birthday this weekend. Move adoption.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the resolution is adopted. (Pause.) Members, we are currently waiting for the Wounded Warriors who are over in the Senate to come over to the House. As soon as we finish that presentation or recognition, we will move to the rules. Representative Solomon asks that if you had not had a chance to discuss the rules with him or to make an amendment to the rules that you come up and do that at this time.

(Pause.)

The chair recognizes Representative Menendez.

REP. MENENDEZ: Thanks. Thank you. Madame Speaker and members, there are some very, very important constituents watching at this time. Ten, eight and four years or almost four years old. And that's Dominic, Victoria, we like to call her Tori, and Austin. And their lovely mommy Selah (phonetic). So I just want to wave to them back at the office and let them know we love them and we're so happy that they're here. And Representative Ruthie said to say she says hello too.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The Chair recognizes Representative Aycock for an announcement.

REP. AYCOCK: Members, if I could have your attention just for a moment. In a few minutes we'll be seeing some Wounded Warriors. I want to talk to you about some healthy warriors at Fort Hood, Texas and your chance to go see them this coming Friday. This is the last day, if you want to reserve a space on that Black Hawk helicopter up at Fort Hood for Fort Hood Day, we've got to know today. So if you're going to Fort Hood, come over and see me and we'll call my office or call my office directly, but we need to know who's going to Fort Hood on Fort Hood Day. Many of you have already signed up, and we appreciate that. And look forward to the rest of you that can go. Thank you.

(Break.)

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. Farias.

REP. FARIAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Speaker members, I want to thank you for allowing me to say a few words today in regards to veterans. Thank you to the warriors that are here today. Thank you for your sacrifice and courage. Thank you. Thank you to your families, for they have sacrificed as well. I come from a district that is in San Antonio, and I represent Randolph Air Force base with about 14,000 members of the military and families that are stationed there. Veterans like yourself who have been wounded in battle, it is estimated that there 5 are approximately 330,292 Texas veterans who have sacrificed service connected physical and emotional trauma. More than half of Texas are -- Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are coming back with service connected physical and emotional trauma. As a veteran myself, I spent time in Vietnam, I have seen up close at what war can do to a soldier and to their families. But I want to assure you that this body, the Texas House of Representatives, will do all it can to serve you and your families as you have so bravely served us. Thank you. And Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize one veteran who's here today, who I ran into at their luncheon. When I served on a school board in San Antonio, our superintendent, Dr. Willie (inaudible) Zavala who is here today, who is a decorated Marine veteran with several awards and metals he received while in battle, including the Purple Heart, and I would like first to recognize Dr. Willie Zavala.

[Applause]

REP. FARIAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Berman.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you, Joe. That was a great job. Members, we're going to close this ceremony with a benediction. If you'll just bow with me, please. Father in Heaven, our forefathers knew you in the beginning when they wrote the words of our Declaration of Independence. They said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all man are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That governments are instituted to protect these rights." Lord, we give thanks for these men who served to protect our rights. To allow all of us here today to meet freely, as all of our states and our federal government are to blessed to do in this great nation. Bless each of these Warriors. And, Lord, we ask a special blessing on their families who wait, wonder, and worry about their loved ones. In the name of our Lord God we pray, amen. Members, thank you. And if you'll greet, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REP. GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, as an indication of our deep appreciation and the high esteem in which we hold our veterans, I move that all members' names be added to the resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there an objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. BERMAN: Thank you. That concludes the ceremony. If you would like, to please come up and welcome our guests to the Texas House.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Torres.

REP. TORRES: Mr. Speaker, fellow members, as we gather around thanking these veterans of our present day, I want to bring to your attention to some veterans from not too long ago from the Vietnam Era who are here visiting from my district. I want to tell you a little bit about them, if I may. They were honored with the Senate resolutions in the Senate. Let me tell you first about Ram Chavez (phonetic). Everyone in Corpus Christi knows who Ram Chavez is. He's a native of the great city of Corpus Christi. He served in the U.S. Army from April of '67 to April of '69. He was wounded in action in Vietnam and in the Be Ching (phonetic) district in 1968. Mr. Chavez is a decorated soldier, US Army Combat Medical Badge, Silver Star medal for gallantry, Bronze Star medal with the (audio interruption), Purple Heart, wounded in action, Army Commendation medal, good conduct medal, National (inaudible) medal, the Vietnam Service medal with four bronze service stars, the Republic of Vietnam campaign medal, the Presidential (inaudible), the (inaudible), Meritorious Unit citation, the Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Pong Unit citation, and the Vietnam action medal of honor, the honor medal. He's held several positions, Staff Director appointed by Senator (inaudible) to the Veterans Affairs Military Installation Committee from March of 2000 to September of 2001. Mr. Chavez is from Corpus Christi, an honored member of our community. Another one is Frank Galanice (phonetic). He served in the U.S. Marine Corps from '68 to -- from '66 to '68. And he was wounded in Vietnam on July 8th of 1967. Mr. Galanice is also a well decorated soldier. Purple Heart, Combat Action, National Defense, Vietnam service medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign medical, the Presidential Unit Citation and the Vietnam Gallantry Cross. And, finally, but not least, is another brave soldier of yesterday, Robert Gallego. He is from Corpus Christi. He served in the United States Marine Corps from '66 to '68. He was wounded in Caisson VMV (phonetic) on May 8th of '68. Mr. Gallego also is a decorated soldier. Purple Heart, Conduct Action Ribbon, Good Conduct medal, National Defense medal, Vietnam service medal with three brown stars, and the Republic of Vietnam Campaign medal, Presidential Unit Citation, the Navy Unit Commendation and Meritorious Unit, Vietnam Gallantry Cross, the Vietnam Action medal, and the Marksmanship Rifle badge. Ladies and gentleman, from Corpus Christi, three brave soldiers from the Vietnam Era, Ram Chavez, Frank Galnice, and Robert Gallego. Will you please welcome them here with us today.

[Applause]

REP. TORRES: Will you please stand up? Okay. They must have just left. All right. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair lays out HR 4. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 4 by Solomons. Adopting the rules of the House of Representatives of the 82nd Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. We're now on to dealing with HR 4 that I want to lay out, which is dealing with the House rules. And, you know, first of all, I guess what I'd like to do is express my appreciation to all the members who have talked to me last week and even before and throughout the entire process. And, you know, I've been at a variety of things that came up through the department, through Chris Reisel (phonetic), Warren, Chisum, Sylvester. I mean, a variety of members who have some idea as to what the institutional history is with some of these -- with some of the rules. And I appreciate their help and hopefully they will continue to help me today. Let me just go over some things involving some major changes that we made. But for the most part, you know, most of what we did, at least in the bill as it's in the resolution as it's proposed, there are very real substantive changes. There are a few, but very few of those. But one of the things that we continually heard about was about the posting and printing and distribution. Those things really -- those tech changes really came from leg counsel, and to the ability that we're all moving towards electronics and the idea that we could get more information to members sooner electronically. And that the idea is that you'll eventually be able to move, if not this session, next session, the session after, we're going to be moving more and more towards less paperwork, more technology through the Internet and through what we do internally. Because you're just going to be able to find things out sooner. Right now what we've had to do a lot of times, even with technology, is you have -- it's available, you just got to go find it. So now we're going to try to give you that information, and the leg counsel wants to be able to give you that information so you wouldn't have to look as hard and your staffs wouldn't. We also have talked about, you know, saving trees and the number of copies that we need, and quite frankly, it's a reduction. We do have some changes in reduction of number of copies, but I think we flushed that out during the working groups. We tried to meet a couple of days, and some members had questions. So we've done that. Two additional outstanding committees were created -- or were recreated for that matter. We now -- for those members who been here a while, but we have now kind of recreated a government reform called Government Efficiency Reform Committee. We had that one session, I think, and so it was a speaker suggestion that we possibly do that again and give it a try. And also we're taking a committee that we had that was dealing with economic development, and we're going to break that out to focus on economic development and small business issues. And then -- and technology issues, because this state is, quite frankly, moving in that direction as well. We're trying to bring tech companies to Texas. They've got a lot of issues, and we will have an amendment from Mr. Strama about some jurisdictional aspects and make sure it has enough work to do, and there are a lot of those issues that are going to be present. We dealt with the local (inaudible) calendar. I think y'all are familiar with that. But basically what we've done is said you have to finish a local and consent calendar within a calendar day. If you don't -- if we don't for some reason, and it actually applies to all of us. If we don't finish it in a day, then we'll go -- those bills that have not finished on that local and consent would go to the next local and consent calendar, so we would be able to move on the next calendar day to the normal order of business that we would normally do. And when those bills have priority on the next local calendar, they would have priority. But when it was next set for the local and consent calendar. We are trying to -- let's see. We tried to increase some transparency, what the list of items are, must contain the number of Senate amendments, and the length of those amendments have been added to each House bill. We've oftentimes, at the end of the session, whether -- most of the time it's unintentional, I would assume. But there are some issues about knowing what's being put on bills coming from the Senate and what items eligible on Senate amendments. And one of the ways to keep up with that as an alert to you is really how many amendments and how many pages, because it may only be one or two and have a dramatic effect, but you also may have ten the of them and there are 300 pages to a bill that was only 50 pages in the first place. So it kind of alerts the members as to there might be something to look at or ask some questions about. Lastly, we took Mr. Otto's suggestion and Mr. Pitts is all right with it, the appropriations chair, requesting some assistance of the 27 members on the appropriations committee and conference, rather than just for other (inaudible). One thing I would want to go back about, I think one of the members asked me about it, and I want to make sure we're clarifying. When creating the committees that we're doing or recreating a couple of committees, we're really not going outside of what we did before in our budgets. We have the money to do it. The FTEs are not anything greater. We're not just adding on just for the sake of adding on FTEs or increasing our budgets, especially after all of us have taken cuts and we're going through that. It's all within the projected ranges. We've flushed that out pretty well, and we think we're okay with that. So in that connection with the committee creation and/or the recreation of committees, certainly we're not overdoing it. I think if we tried to do anything other than what we're doing, we might be going over that, and I would not think that would be a good idea. But with that, I'll certainly -- we've got some amendments that the members have -- some members have proposed and I'd like to try to have an opportunity to go through those. So if that's okay with y'all, I think we could start.

MR. SPEAKER: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is -- you know, every bill we have around here or every resolution for the new members, oftentimes the author has to file a clarifying or technical amendment of some sort or something was left out that shouldn't have been in there or should have been in there or was until whatever. So at the end what we've done is try -- this amendment that is being proposed has to do with clarifying the fact that we don't have the Texas Residential Construction Commission any longer, and we need to take them out. We're striking the -- on the new committee, the language of the title of it to be "in workforce" because the way it was drafted, it just didn't -- it was too long and it didn't make sense. Okay. Well, we're getting started. We have tech issues. We've inserted in Rule 3, Section 24 involving the second issue involving the Department of Motor Vehicles and the standing committee jurisdiction. In this amendment we've inserted it "transportation will have jurisdiction over the licensing of the vehicles" and the way we prepared it was that licensing administrative procedures would have jurisdiction over auto dealer licensing, just that particular aspect of it. The third thing we did is notification of -- let's see, exchanging provision -- on Sunset bills, when the member -- in talking to Mr. Hainie (phonetic), he had made this suggestion that would be for the benefit of all the members. We've changed that on page 73 about when members will receive notice and the Sunset bills advisory committee's report is available. Instead of the language saying when the report is received in the clerk's office, we'll say when it's posted because sometimes those will come out, they won't be there. So it's going to go when the members have received notice. Chief clerk has advised us that the committee report can come to his office when it's closed, which causes a possible delay, as much as up to six hours sometimes, and that everything else we tried to do is when things are posted and -- electronically, so we made that change. And then we -- and then we did -- you'll also know that when the Sunset bills come out of the committees, you're going to get some advanced notice on that. Right now, unless you keep up with the Sunset bill, you don't know, you have to go hunt when that bill maybe came out of committee. We're going to tell you when that bill came out of committee. We're going to lead you through that process. If you're interested, whether you're interested or not, you're going to get notice of it, and for some members, that will be very, very helpful information. And I already talked about the resolution of the construction commission. And I would move adoption of this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: There's an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Pickett.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.

REP. PICKETT: Mr. Speaker, members. Mr. Solomons had an explanation about in two places the motor vehicle division being put under licensing and administrative procedures and transportation committee. Even though last session we separated it out and it sounds like some of that might go to licensing, we didn't split up what the Department of Motor Vehicle does. It has all those same functions, and there is a correlation with the registration and also with the auto dealers. And this amendment would just basically leave it the way it is, and all of that would stay under the transportation committee as far as what the Department of Motor Vehicles does. And there is occasion that, for instance, if there is a bill -- and in the past I've seen filed that has to deal with amounts of money that dealers can charge for all that paperwork that constituents pay, and those bills still have other areas that they can go. I've seen them go to business and industry. So it wouldn't affect anything like that, but this would keep the Department of Motor Vehicle in whole under one substantive committee, because as it's written, it doesn't split out any duties. And I don't know if that's acceptable to the author or not.

REP. SOLOMONS: It's acceptable to me. I don't have any issues with that. If we -- in part, we stuck that under there, under licensing and administrative procedures because it had the word "auto dealer licensing." But it's okay with what we're doing. I'm okay with it if the House is okay with it. It's acceptable to the author.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Pickett sends up an amendment. The amendment is accepted by the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The question is now in Solomons' amendment. Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REP. TURNER: Thank you. Would the gentleman --

REP. SOLOMONS: I do.

REP. TURNER: Just a quick question. On the government efficiency and reform committee --

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.

REP. TURNER: -- when it says the jurisdiction over all matters pertaining to the Sunset Advisory Commission, the Sunset bills will still be going to the committee of their jurisdiction. Correct?

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir. That's what we have in the bill now. The only idea was, in fact, Sunset was created, as you well know, back in the 70s, and there really -- you know, we've had some members have some concern about Sunset processing or about how we do things, business dealing with Sunset bills, and Mr. Callegari asked, and it seemed to make sense, to put their jurisdiction for looking at those kinds of bills and why be filed, because I understand some members may be filing those bills. So we did it for that purpose. But the bills for Sunset, for example, DIR made state affairs -- you know, a variety of bills. On the subject matter we haven't changed any of that. There may or may not be an amendment that somebody wants to propose about that, and I would probably be against that. But at the end of the day, what we have under consideration right now is just the idea of the Sunset Advisory Commission process. State affairs would continue to have overlapping jurisdiction in some way with that.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So all of the Sunset bills that --

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.

REP. TURNER: -- are being filed in this --

REP. SOLOMONS: That's my intent.

REP. TURNER: -- will go to the existing standing committee?

REP. SOLOMONS: That's my intent, and that's what the bill and the resolution still allows for and does.

REP. TURNER: It does allow?

REP. SOLOMONS: I believe so.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So the -- so the bill dealing with the PSC, the Sunset bill, for example, will go to state affairs?

REP. SOLOMONS: Right. I would not want an amendment where all Sunset bills went to one committee. So I -- this was the -- this was suggested by a parliamentarian, I guess, and it was on these kinds of issues about dealing with the Sunset Advisory Commission as a process; them, in particular that that could go to that committee. It's a referral point versus just common state affairs.

REP. TURNER: Okay. Give me an example of a bill that would go to the Government Efficiency and Reform Committee dealing with the Sunset process that would not be going to an existing, standing committee as in the past.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Elkins -- or Representative Elkins has been concerned about how the Sunset Advisory Commission and how we deal with Sunset Advisory Commission bills. That's a process matter of not only have the Sunset commission issues of recommendations and what format and how legislation is drafted, but also how this House floor or how this body actually considers that, this bill -- or that process. 22 So that's the intent of that.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So the subject matter would go to the existing standing committee.

REP. SOLOMONS: That's my intent, and I believe that's what it does, yes.

REP. TURNER: Okay. Thanks.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?

REP. EILAND: Would the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: I yield.

MR. SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. EILAND: Mr. Solomons' overall page 161 is where we change so that amendments to all Sunset bills must be laid out 24 hours in advance. Correct?

REP. SOLOMONS: I believe so. Let me get to it. 161?

REP. EILAND: Page 161 of the -- of the introduced of the file resolution, line 1.

REP. SOLOMONS: Let me find it. I believe that's what it does. Yes. 161. Yes, sir. Prefiling Sunset amendments, yes. We doubled it from 12 hours to 24.

REP. EILAND: Okay. And so -- but Sunset bills still have the same layout period as all other bills under Rule 616(A) which is a 36-hour layout?

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes.

REP. EILAND: Okay. The only concern that I have --

REP. SOLOMONS: But you're going to know about those Sunset bills moving quicker through the process, so you're going to have greater opportunities to see that bill versus just finding out about it in that 36-hour period.

REP. EILAND: Right. But let's say, for example, a Sunset bill gets kicked out of a committee on a Wednesday and we leave on Thursday, the calendar committee calls a meeting Sunday night at 7:00 and sets the calendar. By the time we come back on Monday morning, it may be too late to offer a Sunset or to even get notification of it electronically, knowing when it was kicked out of committee, when it became a non-eligible, when it gets on the calendar --

REP. SOLOMONS: When it does get set.

REP. EILAND: Right.

REP. SOLOMONS: And then you're going to have time to file your amendments to do that.

REP. EILAND: The point being is you, from now on, with Sunset bills, you've got to prepare your amendments as soon as that bill is kicked out of committee as opposed to being set, because oftentimes the calendar will be set on a Sunday night and you show up Monday, and if you're not paying attention, you're not going able to offer an amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: You're going to know about it in advance, No. 1. But No. 2, when the bill is -- becomes eligible, that's when your time frame starts to run, if I understood the rule.

REP. EILAND: When it becomes eligible.

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, when it's set on the calendar. When you know when it's going to come up on the floor, you have that time frame to get your amendments in beforehand and then hopefully work those amendments out. But, yeah. Right. We're actually both correct according to the parliamentarian.

REP. EILAND: Correct. So, my only point being is that when the bill comes out of committee and is sent to calendars, we're going to be notified at that point in time?

REP. SOLOMONS: Absolutely.

REP. EILAND: Now, that may be several days before the calendar committee actually meets.

REP. SOLOMONS: Right.

REP. EILAND: And so, but once the bill is actually set on the calendar, I think what Mr. Gallego -- the note he put in front of me, you actually only have --

REP. SOLOMONS: Twelve hours.

REP. EILAND: -- 12 hours before it's actually set. Right?

REP. SOLOMONS: I think that's correct.

REP. EILAND: It is.

REP. SOLOMONS: I believe you. I'm just trying to --

REP. EILAND: Okay.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Eiland, what we're going to do is sort of flush that out right now and possibly do an amendment that would allow no less -- well, 24 hours versus 12 hours. Although what we're already doing, so to defend what we're doing, is if we can talk about, Well, what if you missed it. But at the end of the day, you're going to have the 36 or even greater periods of time, plus now 12 plus maybe even another 12.

REP. EILAND: Yeah. And I'm not opposed to what you're trying to do. Although I'm making sure that everyone understands at the time that you really need to prepare your amendments to a Sunset bill is when it gets out of committee.

REP. SOLOMONS: And one of the things that we did it this way, too, is I would anticipate, and one of the reasons we did it this way, and we had this discussion, if you recall, in the working group, I don't know if you were there at that time. But the idea that we have some Sunset bills that are like major bills. I mean, you and I could probably run off probably about eight or ten of them right now that are the bigger ones. And then we have a whole bunch of them that aren't. You know, unless you happen to be paying attention to that particular bill for some reason or for some group or for someone, then what difference does it make if it's 12 hours, you're already going to know. But the idea on the larger bills, we wanted one rule that's applicable to all the bills. So we thought by this process of delivery that you're going to get even more advanced notices to that. So -- but we're going to -- Mr. Gallego is working diligently with someone about amending that particular provision. Allow 24 hours instead of 12. It will end up being a separate amendment. It'll end up being a separate amendment. UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

REP. DUKES: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. SOLOMONS: I yield.

REP. DUKES: Representative Solomons, in the rules, you put a lot of weight on the reliability of the electronic posting and the receiving of the information through the e-mail. Does -- do the rules speak to what will occur if it is an unreliable system where we're unable to receive by electronic post or the e-mail system goes down? It's not out of the question. It has happened.

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, I would assume it would be fall back to when we could get it to you because we'd have to -- well, you're right. If something went down for a 24 hour period, which I don't know, it's not usually that long --

REP. DUKES: If it goes down for --

REP. SOLOMONS: Let's say it's a couple hours or an hour. It's still when it actually comes back up and posted. We're not going to be running time frame when something can't be sent out.

REP. DUKES: Do the rules speak specifically to --

REP. SOLOMONS: No.

REP. DUKES: Okay. The rules need to because otherwise you're establishing a means by which there's a question on when it is received. And a point of order on every measure that comes before the body, because we're now depending on the electronic format as opposed to a hard copy stamped.

REP. SOLOMONS: You're correct. But I don't believe -- I don't believe that the rules actually address what happens if it goes down, but we've done this last session. We had 86 members dealing with this. I don't know if it was a problem. Our office didn't seem to have a problem. I never heard any complaints. I don't know if anybody else did. But you're right, that the resolution doesn't say, Oh, my God, what happens if for some reason it went down for two hours.

REP. DUKES: If our system -- emergency backup systems that we had over in east Texas of all of our Medicaid programs could go down, clearly there are hackers who could find a way to bring down our entire system here in the House of Representatives.

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, I would think that if we couldn't do it, nothing would run until you actually can get it up and post it.

REP. EILAND: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?

REP. EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. SOLOMONS: I do.

MR. SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

REP. EILAND: Mr. Solomons, I think that maybe an amendment would take care of it. But the second part of my concern would be if the chief clerk set a calendar at 7:00 -- or 6:00 on a Sunday evening, how late are they going to be open for us to be able to file those amendments before 7:00 a.m. the next morning?

REP. SOLOMONS: Probably no different than what we do now, which seems to have worked for the most part, as far as I can tell. I -- I -- you know, I can't -- in one sense you can take the rules literally and another sense you can't anticipate everything. But at the end of the day, you and I both know that they go home at some point.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Solomon sends up an amendment. Is there any objection? Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Christian.

REP. CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This says that an emergency bill has been declared by the governor, by the lieutenant governor, and I believe it's only appropriate that we consider the bill immediately when it comes over on voter ID. This calls for us to consider it as a committee as a whole. That keeps it from being delayed by waiting for committees to be appointed, by being assigned to committees, by being several weeks if not a month or so away from considering that. It'll be best to have it debated, since I know there's controversy on both sides of a very contentious issue, and we do that at the time we have time to address this issue rather than to wait for the lay work later in the sessions. So I move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. CHRISTIAN: Yes, ma'am.

REP. FARRAR: So just to be clear, Wayne, what you're saying is that this bill would not be referred to a committee. It would come back to the -- to the entire body?

REP. CHRISTIAN: That is correct. We'd be a committee as a whole.

REP. FARRAR: So we wouldn't be going through the normal channels, the regular process of vetting these things. And even though it's already an emergency, I consider it an emergency item by the governor, you still want to speed it up even further than that?

REP. CHRISTIAN: No, I want to handle it just like they'd handle it in the Senate. They're kicking it out as quickly as possible. They're in the process of doing that. If they do so, this puts it as an emergency item, not emergency item, but as a committee of the whole. Therefore, we don't delay it for several weeks; we get it done now while there's time. And later during the session, as you're aware, we have other issues of importance that we can handle at the regular time and not have this delaying business.

REP. CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.

REP. CHISUM: Wayne, if we do that, then we're going to cut out any public participation in the bill. Is that correct?

REP. CHRISTIAN: That's correct.

REP. CHISUM: So you're in favor of cutting out public participation in the bill as it goes through the process?

REP. CHRISTIAN: I believe at the last session or two that we've considered this, Mr. Chisum, that the public has expressed their desire. I believe in the last couple of years, there's been more than -- the public expressed what they desired, and my constituents have brought to me the things -- at least made a decision in my area. So, I think adequate public participation has been allayed in this during the last several years.

REP. CHISUM: Well, and if you use that analogy, then a lot of the bills that we have heard in committee and stuff, we'd just do away like Sunset of insurance, Sunset of TxDOT. And I just think every legislative session ought to stand on its own. And we ought to give the public an opportunity to come in. And I know we've heard a lot of testimony on this bill but I suspect we hadn't heard of all the 25 million people that occupy Texas. So I would be very reluctant to circumvent that process of involving the public as we go forward.

REP. CHRISTIAN: Well, I appreciate that opinion. I disagree. I don't think we have really time for 25 million people to testify.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members. Let me just give you a history about committees as a whole, as I understand it. And I had to actually go to Ms. Thompson to actually make sure I understood this process about, when we've done it in the past. We did it back in the 70s over impeachment. But we actually took impeachment of some judges or members or somebody that we actually went through the committee, and the committee brought it on impeachment matters only to the entire House. Before that it was done in 1929 for, guess what, an impeachment matter. Went through the ballot, went through the committee and then went to the body. So in the context of the institution, it's unprecedented. And I would think that the body would not want to do that in this context over a particular bill, no matter how important it is to most members. We're going to go ahead and get that done. I would move to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Christian sends up an amendment, Mr. Solomons moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. A record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Show Mr. Solomons is voting aye. Mr. Christian voting no. Mr. Castro voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Having 130 ayes and 13 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

MR. SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Mr. Veasey. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

MR. SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Mr. Christian.

REP. CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment does away with the pledge cards for speaker of the Texas House. I move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REP. KEFFER: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. CHRISTIAN: Yes.

REP. KEFFER: Why?

REP. CHRISTIAN: Because the voters across Texas expressed their disapproval of that process, that you had people leave the session, a prior session, under the consideration, under the umbrella of what has been experienced --

REP. KEFFER: That's the Speaker's statute. Why are we even messing with it here.

REP. CHRISTIAN: Because we can make the rules according to what operates in this house.

REP. KEFFER: But this is within the House is what we're dealing with here, though. Right?

REP. CHRISTIAN: That is correct. And this allows using pledge cards or for them being asked for at the end of any session, for the Speaker.

REP. KEFFER: So our word, our -- I don't -- again, I asked why because I don't know why this is even here to -- you know, this playing "I gotcha' game," we can only take it so far. We have to do our business here in the House. We have to deal with -- we have to look down the road just not just what we're doing here, but also look for the future of this House, too. And, again, I don't understand why you want to do this to that -- why -- as far as the institution goes and where the process has ever broken down, where this House doesn't really -- we are from a district. We are from -- what we do. And, you know, you represent your whole district, not just a few. And I think that's one thing we all have to remember as we go forward, also.

REP. CHRISTIAN: But I think --

REP. KEFFER: Again, I don't know why we would have this up in -- at this time.

REP. CHRISTIAN: I believe a lot of the problems that we experienced this past year with the Speaker's race that I think brought division where it might not have been necessary, and that was caused by people hearing that they had pledged their votes prior to full knowledge of what was being accomplished after the primary. We had an unbelievable change in controlling the legislature, and I believe all the factors were not considered, that pledges were made during a different atmosphere and with as little atmosphere after the election. And for that purpose, I think to tie somebody to a previous experience, to vote in the future is not --

REP. KEFFER: Well, it was a long process and we saw from the beginning to the end that not that much changed. So, again, I think we are creating more problems than we're resolving.

REP. CHRISTIAN: I appreciate your view.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Let me -- apparently Mr. Christian is going to ask most likely for passage and a record vote. The rules have always been intended for this House body separate from the Speaker statute. But for the body itself and its institutional history, it's the respect of members and member -- you know, I could also talk about individual responsibility and individual commitment that members have to whomever is interested in being speaker, and I'm not sure the House rules need to be involved in that. Quite frankly, it -- I'm not even sure I like the wording of the amendment. But at the end of the day, it goes to what Mr. Christian thinks about you as members and your ability to do what you need to do or want to do with someone who is running for Speaker. I don't think personally that that's appropriate. I'm not saying that the public doesn't want, and I think this last election of the Speaker, kind of showed that it may be changing in how we elect Speakers. But the idea of taking and asking you to do this, I would be against that. I don't think it's a place for the rules, and I would move to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Christian to close.

REP. CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. It puts pressure on members, I've seen consistently at the end of a session, to pledge to whomever the Speaker is because of just the office, the power, the respect that it deserves. Whether it be Democrat, Republican, whoever the individual. I assure you this is not reflecting on our current Speaker, nor any other. It is just not the appropriate time to take pledges at the end of a previous session for such an important position. And I move -- I move that you table -- that you not table the amendment and you vote "no" on the motion to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Christian sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. Question occurs on the motion to table. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: The vote is on the motion to table. Mr. Solomons is voting aye, and Mr. Christian is voting nay. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 129 ayes and 13 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey. Excuse Representative Flynn, has some important business on a motion by Representative Berman. Excuse Representative Martinez Fisher because of family business on the motion of Representative Solomons. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.

REP. VEASEY: This amendment, it would basically give members the option to get their amendments and bills through the computer or get them either physically with paper. But the amendment that I have would save us about $451,000, and so I thought that this would be -- particularly now since we're so much in the digital age, even more so than we were two years ago. And it would save quite a bit of money.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose.

REP. SOLOMONS: Would the gentleman yield for a couple questions?

MR. SPEAKER: Gentleman yield?

REP. VEASEY: Yes.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And, Mark, I understand what you're trying to do, and you're moving toward a paperless system probably quicker than what we anticipated doing even in this session's rules. When do you anticipate -- you know, what are your time -- just ensure what members would know what they're voting for. Because, yeah, it's nice to go to that, and I am not necessarily opposing it, but I am wanting to know that you're cutting out distribution pretty much and when those time frames really begin. When are you talking -- for example, the time stamp information?

REP. VEASEY: Well, and I'm not trying to cut out any information at all. What I'm trying to do is make sure that when members receive information, that if they want the information, they can still request that they get the information physically to them and so really nothing would change. What would change is that the House wouldn't just automatically do it. And we could probably save some money that way. Several people probably would still request it physically, but a lot wouldn't. And it would -- we'd probably save several hundred thousand dollars.

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment applies -- essentially I think the single biggest bill that we will debate and one of the most crucial issues facing Texas is the appropriations bill. So what this amendment does is threefold. Essentially, first of all, it requires that every member gets copies of the things that the legislative budget board is preparing for the appropriations committee, so that we can follow along and we can follow along on our TV sets from the office. You don't necessarily have to go and be sitting in the audience. So it requires that you follow along or it gives you the opportunity to follow along. Not only through the appropriations process but all the way -- on through the conference so that the documents that the comparees are working with, and the documents that the comparees are getting, you, as a member of the legislature, would also get that same information so that everybody is operating from the same page. The last thing on there is an issue that came up during the interim. I chaired and had the opportunity to listen as chairman on the Select Committee of Government Efficiency, and many of you members who served on that committee know that when we asked for data about agencies, just raw data, the LBB didn't provide that because they provided it in PDF format so that you wouldn't able to figure out or move documents -- move things from one place to another. And the challenge for us, you-all who served on that committee may remember that we had a young man who was the assistant city manager in Manor, Texas who talked to us about this opportunity to let the public participate in the budgeting process. And what he told us was if you put all the information on the Internet, there's going to be somebody who doesn't sleep, some insomniac somewhere that's going to come up with some idea to do something. If you put all of your documents and all of your information, the raw data, and you make all of it available to the public, then you give the opportunity to the public to come forward and talk to you and send you ideas and those kinds of thing. So what this does is it allows us to have the raw data so that you can put it in a spreadsheet in your office, much like we do redistricting. You can -- in your own office you can draw the lines and move the lines around, you can see what it would look like. It gives you the same opportunity with the financial data, to move it around. If you were to do this and move money from Article I to Article II, what would it look like? If you were to move Article II to Article III, what would it look like? Those are the kind of things that this rule would allow. And I move adoption of the rule.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts, for what purpose?

REP. PITTS: Speaker, would the member yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, do you yield?

REP. GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REP. PITTS: Tell me exactly what you're asking for here. Is it, you've been on appropriations before and you know how it works and where we may ask in the middle of the night the LBB to furnish us something just to see what if we do this, what happens. Are you asking for everything that we ask the LBB to --

REP. GALLEGO: What I would not want and what I don't think to be clear, this amendment would ask is for essentially personal correspondence. But information that is provided to the committee as a whole as it goes through the process. For example, as the committee receives data on public schools and the number of school kids that are in the state and what the formula would look like, that data would be shared. Whatever the official communication would be between the committee and the LBB. Although those documents would be shared with the members.

REP. PITTS: So every time that the chairman of the Subcommittee of Education asks the LBB to furnish on a program for TEA and he would ask, Let's see what that does to individual school districts, you would want that to go to other members?

REP. GALLEGO: If you look at this rule, Jim, in -- on line 12, it says "The legislative budget board shall provide that document at the member's request." In other words, if I want to see that document, then you have to show it to me. Because what happens right now, as I indicated my experience over the interim was, you ask for those documents and the LBB says, You're not on the LBB and so we can't show them to you. Or the LBB says, You're not on appropriation, and, therefore, you're not entitled to that data. What this says is if a member wants that information, and it's very clear about that, "shall provide a document to a member at the member's request." So if you're not interested in it, you don't get it. You don't have to -- it's not requiring the LBB to give everybody everything, so that your e-mail is constantly overflowing. But if that member wants it, then that member is entitled to have it. And it's an informational thing for those members who want to follow the process. It gives those members an opportunity to follow the process.

REP. PITTS: So just every run that Scott would ask LBB to do, every single run that may not have anything to do with the final product, you'd -- you'd want a member to ask for it?

REP. GALLEGO: I'm sorry, Jim --

REP. PITTS: Every single run that Scott Hochberg asked LBB to run, even though it's -- may be just something he came up with in the middle of the night, a proposal, you'd want that to be available, even though we weren't going to have anything to do with it, we weren't going to put it on?

REP. GALLEGO: If a member wants to follow the process, then he's entitled or she is entitled to follow the process. What happens now is, as you may know, members who are not on appropriations who go sit and either sit on the bench or they sit in the crowd, and they don't really -- they can't really follow along because they don't have access to the same information that the committee members have. And so what this does is if you want it -- I mean, it doesn't -- a member doesn't have to have it. It doesn't have to ask for it. But if a member wants it, then that member should be entitled to it.

REP. PITTS: I think the amendment says that option is what I was --

REP. GALLEGO: Well, what my understanding, as I read the amendment, it says -- first of all, it says -- in A it says, "The legislative budget board shall make this available to each member of the House." In D it says, "The legislative budget board shall provide the document to the member at the member's request." In C it says, "The budget board shall post the information contained in each version of the bill, including the conference committee report in an open, electronic format." And in D it says if I or any member who manipulates, authors or otherwise changes the data may not attribute the changed data as originating from the LBB. So nothing can happen without the LBB's seal on it or, you know, you can't say that it's from the LBB if you already --

REP. PITTS: What committees were you on last session?

REP. GALLEGO: The committee that I had the experience on was the Select Committee on Government Efficiency.

REP. PITTS: You were chair of criminal jurisprudence or --

REP. GALLEGO: During the session, that's correct.

REP. PITTS: Yes.

REP. GALLEGO: But during the interim, this came up during the interim and it came up as a chair of the Select Committee on Government Efficiency, where we were charged with looking for ways to make government more efficient. And it was pretty hard to make government more efficient when you couldn't figure out what government was spending in the first place.

REP. PITTS: But would you -- I mean, last session, were you keeping anything from members or were members having problems on accessing information on your committee that you chaired?

REP. GALLEGO: Jim, as I indicated, the issue for me was as chairman of the Select Committee. During the interim, when we asked for information from the LBB, the LBB didn't give it. And the LBB said they wouldn't give it because I wasn't on the LBB, even though I was chairman of the committee looking into government efficiency. And so all that this does -- I mean, frankly I am at a loss when all that we're doing is making information public. Why that should be a bad thing. Right now, the LBB is only constituted by so many members. And what we're saying is, If you want this information, you can have it. If you don't want to follow along, that's entirely your prerogative. But if you have -- if you want the information, that you should be entitled to have it.

REP. HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REP. HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields.

REP. HARDCASTLE: And aside from the other questions, Pete, it says in there it'll be available in an open electronic format. What's the definition of "open electronic format"?

REP. GALLEGO: That's actually a regulation. There's already precedent for what that means. But, for example, right now, if you are talking about the appropriations bill, you should haven't to read the whole thing. You can punch in a keyword and, you know, for people in my generation and yours, it may be a little more difficult to explain. But for younger folks, it's essentially a given, that when you're talking about searchable, you're talking about being able to do keywords and just being able to zero in on what is -- as opposed to having to read the whole document.

REP. HARDCASTLE: And my question -- I understand that. But my question is, and I appreciate you acknowledging you and I are old --

REP. GALLEGO: We are. We are.

REP. HARDCASTLE: But how confusing is it going to be to the public when we start having all the runs that are put through the LBB during any school finance debate or any formula change and all the runs we have the LBB run to get us on the right page or to see if X got us to where we needed to be?

REP. GALLEGO: Mr. Hardcastle, I will tell us three things. The first is I think you underestimate the intelligence of the public. Because I don't think you confuse the public by giving them more information. The more information they have, the better decisions they make. No. 2, I will tell you that those runs that currently are done by TEA, and they're done mostly at Mr. Hochberg's request, because, frankly, he's usually the only one of us that understands the details of the formula, but those runs are already public documents. They're already public documents. So this doesn't make any change in terms of what a member would or wouldn't get. The big change is the raw data. That --

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor raised a point of order. Gentleman's time has expired. Point of order's well taken and sustained. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.

REP. VEASEY: Members, all this amendment simply says is that when doing the redistricting that we will comply with the Voting Rights Act and to make sure that we are following all of its guidance to make sure that whatever math we pass is legal. Move to passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker and members, on Mr. Veasey's amendment involving redistricting and the Voting Rights Act, I'm not sure it's in the rules, we need to be putting that in there. I understand what he's trying to get to, and I think every member here will want to abide by and can be supportive of the Voting Rights Act. On the other hand, I don't know that we want to do anything in connection with what we've already always done on redistricting and go through that process. I worry about maybe something I'm not thinking of or the members aren't thinking of or Mr. Veasey hasn't thought about in connection with that. So at this point I would probably either ask him to withdraw it or leave it to the will of the House, and I would oppose it just because I'm not sure what that really means in making a statement and putting that in our rules. Yeah, I would move to table it, then, on that basis.

SPEAKER 2: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey to close.

REP. VEASEY: Members, just because of the issues that we had last districting particularly with the Justice Department in that particular section, the voting rights section, this basically just makes sure that we are following that, since we are a free clearance state and we have to make sure that everything gets lined up properly as it comes to redistricting. Move passage or vote no on tabling.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Veasey sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. All those in favor. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Please vote aye or vote nay on the motion to table. Show Mr. Solomons is voting aye. Mr. Veasey is voting no.

(Clerk rings bell.)

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes and 47 nays, motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt.

REP. TRUITT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members. On pages 35 and 36 there are two references to the jurisdiction of the Human Services Committee. Members, the term "mental retardation" has become regarded as hurtful and out of date in Texas and across the country. You will see legislation in this session which will direct the language in statutes as they are revised or introduced to reference, rather than "mental retardation", "intellectual disabilities." This simply begins the process by amending our rules to reflect respectful language. The amendment is acceptable to the author, and I move adoption.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Ms. Truitt sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Strama.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Mr. Strama.

REP. STRAMA: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. It came to my attention today, I didn't know it was in the rules, but it's been there for 20 years, that a member who is the subject of a pending election contest is not granted the privilege of seniority in the consideration of his or her committee assignments. My view is that once we've made the decision to seat a member, that person is presumptively a member of the House and ought to get the full benefits of House membership, as we do confer them the right to vote on bills, to serve on committees. It seems arbitrary that they not be allowed their seniority in consideration of committee assignments. Furthermore, it's to the detriment of the constituents that they represent and it's even to the detriment of the member who would succeed that member if the election contest ends up changing the represent -- the representation. The district benefits from having the seniority considered. And so I move that we strike that provision from the rules, conforming the rules to our statutory -- statutory consideration that a member is presumptively a member of the House until we have ruled otherwise and subject to an election contest.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Madam Speaker and members, you know, I'm very sympathetic to all of this, but I want to talk a little bit, while I -- if you'd give me just a moment, about the history of this, because I had to find that out this morning actually. Because nobody had brought this up until this morning, so if you'll bear with me. Originally this particular amendment was -- this section was originally adopted because a more senior member of the legislature was being challenged and could lose their seat to what would then be a freshman who would not only have the advantage of committee assignments because of the more senior member's seniority choices, but it could have impacted the seniority choices of all members below the sitting legislature. So that's why we have it in the rules today. And this was way back -- I think this is back in the 80s or maybe before. It's clear right now, we all know we have an election contest going on. And under the current rules whoever it is, but we know we have one now, the member would not be allowed to submit seniority committee requests because of being challenged in an election contest. Doesn't seem quite fair, but on the other hand, standing committee membership, if you recall, in this House is half based on seniority. And so if we adopt Mr. Strama's amendment, I just want y'all to know what you're going to be voting on. If we adopt the amendment, the member could use the seniority to choose committee assignments and the impact would be lost if that member loses the election challenge. Then the incoming freshman member replacing the existing member would receive the committee assignments that were requested by the current member based on that member's seniority, when the slots of those committees could have gone to any one of, say, 62 members between that member's seniority and the incoming freshman. So this affects right now approximately 26 members. So if you want this amendment, you are interfering with the seniority request of 62 members most likely. If we leave it alone, we leave it alone and we don't have that issue. So I'm going to leave this to the will of the House. Because on the one hand it seems kind of fair. On the other hand, it's sort of what we have in place protects those members who are asking for committees based on seniority. So that's all I can tell you at this point.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Phillips.

REP. PHILLIPS: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Solomons, do you yield for a question?

REP. SOLOMONS: I yield.

REP. PHILLIPS: Mr. Solomons, make it clear, what we vote on here has nothing to do with the pending election contest and which way you vote doesn't really matter, have anything to do with that?

REP. SOLOMONS: No, it doesn't have anything to do with the election contest. It only interrupts the process of picking committees with seniority or not having seniority, and other members who have seniority may not get a seat of their pick because of this amendment. Because under the current rules, it doesn't interfere with that.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Ms. Farrar.

REP. FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. SOLOMONS: I yield.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: For what purpose?

REP. SOLOMONS: I yield.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The gentleman yields.

REP. FARRAR: I want to ask you, the theory that you brought up a minute ago about the possibility of the challenger then being seated, can you recall the last time that that occurred? Because my understanding is that it's -- it's been a very long time since the challenger has prevailed.

REP. SOLOMONS: Absolutely -- well, and I've only been here since '95 and I'm only aware of two other election contests. Maybe somebody could correct me, but I'm only remembering two. One back in '95 when we first came in, Jessica, and then one a couple of three sessions ago with Mr. Beau, I think.

REP. FARRAR: Well, and the other with now electronic voting, the chances of these elections being overturned are even slimmer. And so I just ask you to consider that in the scenario that you laid out.

REP. SOLOMONS: But we just -- you just never know what the committee -- what the master is going to find. And you never know what the committee is going to recommend. So just understanding that, we don't know. The history that I know about, it is what it is. But we really need to make a decision as a body what we want to do. I really understand both positions. I just don't even know right now at this moment how I would want to vote. But at the end of the day, I'm -- I kind of would want to lean towards interfering with 62 other members. But I also understand the other side of this.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Mr. Hunter to speak on the amendment.

REP. HUNTER: Members, if you are on the election contest committee or the master, I'm going to suggest that you white light. I'm not going to make any comments one way or the other on the amendment, but if you're on the committee or the master, I am suggesting that you white light this amendment.

SPEAKER 2: Mr. Strama to close.

REP. STRAMA: Burt, thanks for all your work you're doing on this. I know -- I know this is a thankless task to get assigned in the beginning of each session, and I assume it's because somebody thinks you're smart and nobody else wants to do this. The -- members, this isn't actually about the current contest. This is about what the rules should be for any contest. And a couple of members have pointed out to me any of us is susceptible to being contested. There's nothing that prevents this from being -- and my first election was contested, so I'm kind of sensitive to the issue. The real point here is, and I understand the point that there are 60 some members who would advance up one slot in seniority if the member who's contest election is currently being contested gets penalized by being deprived of her seniority, but that isn't going to change your committee assignments. So those 60 some members, that one slot is not worth treating a member here who has the presumption of having been dually elected until this body has ruled otherwise. Treating that member as if he or she did not have the seniority he or she had accrued. And so, while it may be worth one slot in terms of your seniority, it's worth 60 some slots of seniority to that member and the constituents that she represents. I don't want to put it in terms of this one particular contest but that's --

REP. EISSLER: Madam Speaker?

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Eissler, for what purpose?

REP. EISSLER: I want to just ask one question.

SPEAKER 2: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. EISSLER: Isn't it true that any election can be contested, so it's not like you won by 37 votes, it's just so that that would kind of put undue -- extra work on the -- on the House. So I think, you know, to lean toward the seniority might be a good idea. Thank you.

REP. STRAMA: I agree. It has been raised to me by a few different members that any of us could be contested any time. And at the end of the day, we made the decision in law that you get seated and you are a Representative until there has been a -- an adjudication of your case by the House that rules otherwise. We'll have the chance to rule on this case. Until then, our law treats any member whose election is being contested as a member. That's how it should be, no matter whose election is being contested. And so I move adoption of the amendment.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of the Strama amendment. Is there any objection to the Strama amendment? Members, there is objection. A record vote has been requested. A record vote has been granted. Members, the question is on the Strama amendment. Vote yes for the Strama amendment, vote no to oppose it. Clerk will ring the bell.

(Clerk rings bell.)

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 99 ayes, 29 nays, 12 present not voting, the amendment -- the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Hilderbran.

REP. HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I just have a quick introduction. I've got some fine folks from Real County, Texas with us today. Let me tell you if you haven't been to Real County, Texas, it's the most beautiful county in the state. The Frio River, Nueces River. Beautiful, beautiful Texas hill country. We've got the county judge from Real County, Garry Merritt. Please stand, Garry. I think y'all are right over here.

[Applause]

REP. HILDERBRAN: We've got trustee of Leakey Independent School District, Charles Reagor. Please stand up.

[Applause]

REP. HILDERBRAN: We've got Carl Jensen, a Leakey City Councilman. Please stand. We've got Charles Hunger, Trustee of Nueces Canyon Independent School District. Nueces Canyon is both Barksdale and Camp Wood, Texas. And we've got Karen Dean, the City of Camp Wood. Thank y'all all for being here. This is the state capital. Look forward to working with y'all in this legislative session.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Representative, for what purpose?

PARLIAMENTARIAN: Madam Speaker, parliamentarian inquiry.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: State your inquiry.

PARLIAMENTARIAN: Because we haven't adopted our rules, are there any time limits on debate when we're talking about the back and forth between the amendment offerer and somebody that he is on the back mic?

REP. HARPER-BROWN: In previous legislative sessions, the parliamentarian and the presiding officer --

PARLIAMENTARIAN: Okay, thank you.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: -- use the general principles of presiding law. Yes, Mr. Pickett.

REP. PICKETT: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Yes, state your inquiry.

REP. PICKETT: Madam Chair, we have the FAST system with the amendments on it, and I know the amendments that on our system in the order that they were filed, and I don't want to give Mr. Solomons any extra work. Is it possible that when the parliamentarian knows the order that the amendments are offered, that there's somehow that we can manipulate the system to match that? Is that something that's possible not to put in the rules, I'm just asking parliamentary inquiry as to the way the amendments show up in our system.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The chief clerk informs us -- Mr. Pickett, the chief clerk informs us that there is not currently any way to do that. However, the parliamentarian and the chief clerk work together to try to implement a system that accomplishes that. And for that our part, we will inform you of the amendments that are coming up.

REP. PICKETT: As we do when we get those booklets later in the session that have so many amendments, and we're told what page we're on, could we at least know, for instance, the next couple of amendments that are coming up so that we can pull them up on our system?

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Certainly. We will give you that advanced notice.

REP. PICKETT: Thank you.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: The next amendment is by Mr. Hochberg related to Rule 4 Section 20; then by Mr. Martinez, Rule 4, page 63. And by Mr. Veasey, adding Section 27(a) to Rule 4. Chair recognizes Mr. Hochberg. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hochberg.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Chair recognizes Mr. Hochberg.

REP. HOCHBERG: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. This amendment should be noncontroversial, I believe it to be. Over the interim, Mr. Branch and I held a joint hearing where we brought in an expert witness from out of state without actually bringing him in physically, and we brought him in by Skype and we had a great video conversation. The problem is that the rules are silent as to whether that was legal. If it had been on a real bill and what procedures were necessary to allow us to do that. So this amendment just clarifies that and says basically you can video conference somebody in if they've executed the sworn statement prior to testifying and they filed it and that you maintain two way conversation between the two. It is acceptable to the author, I believe. And I would move adoption.

REP. HARPER-BROWN: Members, you have heard the motion for the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment is adopted. Members, the recognition.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. I'd like to take a moment to recognize a group in our gallery, Leadership in American Government class from the University of Texas. Would y'all please stand. Those folks in the leadership class.

[Applause]

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Thank you for coming to your House.

MR. SPEAKER: The next amendment is by Mr. Veasey relating to Rule 4, Chapter C. The amendment after that is by Mr. Rodriguez relating to Rule 4, Section 33. And the amendment after that is by Mr. Cain relating to the same section. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.

REP. VEASEY: Members, this is another redistricting deal and basically this will allow for the maps to be put out in public 24 hours before so members aren't surprised by what may come through the redistricting committee here. And there's been a lot of talk about districts and rules of Texas being completely eliminated. Districts being combined. And I'd hate for somebody to have their districts, whether it's congressional, House, or state Senate and have it eliminated or have a certain geographic area, you know, sort of -- not have as much clout as they have now. And so this bill would just say that it gives us 24 hours to look at these maps just so there's a fair opportunity for public participation. And if the author doesn't have a problem, I move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons to speak on the amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, members, I don't want to really speak against it, but I do have some concerns. And I probably -- if we have to vote, I'm going to vote against it, but it's really not just that. I believe that anything that we do in the rules involving districting has got consequences. I don't think we need to do it, and I do -- I think that in ail due respect to my good colleague and friend, I do think this amendment could slow down the redistricting processes, which I think that for the members who haven't been here before, you really don't want to be doing that when we usually have issues, it gets out on the floor, it's posted, we have issues on the floor. We resolve those issues. It's not that I want to be against something like this. But I don't think we really want to do it in the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey to close.

REP. VEASEY: Members, I want to close quickly, but, like I stated earlier, with all of the changes that are expected, there's talk about the rural Texas losing clout. There have been talks about even in certain urban areas, in the Metroplex, about maybe even losing, you know, one or two seats and certain areas gaining seats. And so just in case someone's district or area is adversely impacted, we just want to make sure that folks have plenty of time to address that problem. Move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Question occurs on Mr. Veasey's amendment. Is there any objection? There is objection. Record vote has been requested. A record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. All those in favor vote aye. Those opposed vote no. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Show Mr. Solomon is voting no. And Mr. Veasey voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all voted? Being 44 eyes and 97 nays, the amendment fails to -- fails to adoption. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.

REP. VEASEY: Mr. Rodriguez had to step out for a second, and so he asked me to lay out his amendment. And you may have read the paper last week where Ray Perryman, who has done a lot of work for the state as it relates to job and the economy, said that for every single job loss in the public sector that we can expect a negative impact of one and a half job losses in the private sector. This bill -- this amendment will require bills that have been scheduled for a required to include an estimate for private sector jobs that are gained or lost as a result of any budget that we may pass. Move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you. In all due respect to Representative Rodriguez and to Mr. Veasey, Representative Veasey, this has to do with fiscal notes and the LBB is going to be speculating on some of this and probably not going to be able to do it. And if they could do it, probably have to farm it out. And I think it just slows down the process of winning our war. And I would move to table it.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey to close.

REP. VEASEY: I close. Move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is on the motion to table. Members vote aye, vote no. Show Mr. Solomon's is voting aye. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 98 eyes, 38 nays, two present not voting, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Cain.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Cane.

REP. CAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, follow members. This is a simple amendment. It ensures that we have the information we need to make important public policy decisions.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. King, for what purpose.

REP. KING: Parliamentary inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. KING: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry, it's just been a while. I can't remember, is it on their first amendment or is it on the first bill that we really harass the freshman? It's just been so long.

MR. SPEAKER: It's up to you, Mr. King, but traditionally it's on the first bill.

REP. KING: So would it be inappropriate to do it both times?

MR. SPEAKER: In this case, you're welcome to it.

REP. KING: Okay. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Cain.

REP. CAIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Folks, if the legislative budget board can't ascertain a fiscal note or is unable to acquire develop sufficient information --

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REP. KEFFER: Parliamentary inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. KEFFER: Do we have to know when we're making amendment of what actually an agency or group in the government does do?

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Keffer, there is an amendment up here to that effect, but we haven't gotten to it yet.

REP. KEFFER: Is that right? So he's sort of leap frogging -- he ought to wait until that one comes up and then maybe come up and do this amendment. Is that right?

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Cain is doing just fine, and he's getting a little help now. Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REP. KEFFER: We can't see the guy in the middle now. Oh, there he is. There he is. I see him now. Why is he red? Is there blood pressure -- do we have the defibrillator or whatever you call those things somewhere? Yeah, whatever those are. Yes, I know. There you go. There you go. Somebody get down and be a foot stool. What is this?

MR. SPEAKER: All right. Thank you, Mr. Keffer.

REP. KEFFER: Is there something he wants to say?

REP. CAIN: Yes. At the risk of staying at the microphone longer than I would like, I would like to finish my presentation.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Vote.

REP. CAIN: I move adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. When I told Representative Cain that it was going to be acceptable to me, I did leave out this factor as far as him understanding what he was going to endure. And, quite frankly, he got it out of the way early. But it's the easiest thing he's going to do all session. It's acceptable to the author.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Cain sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is objection. A record vote has been requested. A record vote -- a record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 136 ayes and 2 nays, the amendment is adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REP. VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment should be noncontroversial. I've taken it to Mr. Solomons, ran it by Representative Chisum, gotten some feedback to improve it so that it doesn't delay the budget process. We've eliminated the section so this impact statement can be analyzed on the budget. Let me explain what I'm trying to accomplish here. Last legislative session, we authorized the LBB to do a dynamic economic impact analysis on all fees and tax bills. What I'm proposing is that same analysis be done on the budget. We adopted the act last session unanimously, the LBB has it in its authority. If it is not, for some reason, able to perform this impact analysis, they can simply state so. And that thereby completes their analysis. And so that ensures that that does not slow down the budget process.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Villarreal sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Any objection to the adoption of the amendment? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members we have three amendments coming up. Mr. Burnam relating to ties. Gallego's relating to electronic offerings. And Burnam has an amendment relating to admittance to the back hall. Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to lay out his amendment.

REP. BURNAM: Member, speakers, this is a really very simple amendment. And I have named this amendment in honor of Governor Bill Clements. This is the Bill Clements Let Are Necks Free amendment for the summer. As many of you may know, if you follow Texas history, Governor Clements did a proclamation in the summer of 1987 saying that, you know, it's really a waste of energy the way we air condition our state buildings and men should not be required to wear ties. And if you'd like a copy of the proclamation, I would be glad to provide you with a copy. The point of this amendment is if we have to go into special session this summer, the dress code would exempt men from having to wear ties. It would only be for the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day, and if we get our work done, we won't have to worry about this amendment.

REP. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Do you yield?

REP. BURNAM: Yes, I gladly yield.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: He yields.

REP. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, is it true that this amendment would actually be an advantage to the female members (inaudible), as well?

REP. BURNAM: Actually I had the female members in mind as much as my ownself's (sic) personal interest, and that is it would make it easier for them to not have to take a blanket to the floor because we wouldn't have to crank that air conditioning up so much during the summer.

REP. TAYLOR: Great. Thank you. I think it's a great amendment.

REP. BURNAM: Thank you, Larry. I think it may almost be acceptable to the author.

REP. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Howard. Do you yield?

REP. BURNAM: Yes.

REP. HOWARD: You know, you say we don't have to wear a tie. Are we still going to have to wear a coat? Because the air-conditioning, really, it relates to the coat more than the tie. So how does that affect our tie -- our coat?

REP. BURNAM: Mr. Howard, I was trying to take the moderate course here, and while I don't like ties at all and would prefer not to wear them ever, I can understand why certain people would like to see us wear ties during the regular session for decorum purposes. But if we are forced into a series of special sessions this summer and you want to offer an amendment to say we don't have to wear ties -- jackets, you cannot wear a jacket. I would like the freedom -- I don't want government intervention in my personal lifestyle decisions. I would like the freedom to choose not to wear a tie this summer.

REP. HOWARD: Well, I think we're a more professional organization than that, and if you need a tie, just see Representative Hobson over here. I know he will provide you one.

REP. BURNAM: I have plenty of ties. I just don't like wearing them. Thank you. UNKNOWN FEMALE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Do you yield?

REP. BURNAM: I gladly yield.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: You know I represent Austin, Texas and my constituents want to know do we also have to wear shoes.

REP. BURNAM: I'm not prepared to discuss that as an item of business at this time.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker and members, loathe me to be opposing, you know, the tie issue. I know that several members here would love to be able to wear several flip-flops and shorts as well, but we've always maintained some degree of decorum, but I am not going to oppose Mr. Burnam's amendment. But I am going to leave it to the will of the House and ask y'all to vote either up or down on whether you want to adopt this amendment.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Is there any objection? There is objection. The question occurs on the adoption of the Burnam amendment. Vote aye or vote nay, members. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Have all voted? There being 25 ayes, 110 nays, the amendment fails to adopt.

REP. BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So much for freedom of choice.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this particular amendment would allow House audio/video to essentially tag the broadcast of our proceedings so that you can go directly to a link for each bill as opposed to having to search the whole day. It's "may" as opposed to "shall" and it allows the House Committee of Administration to do that when they determine it's practical, and I believe it is acceptable to the author.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.

REP. BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, I know when I'm on a role. I'm going to withdraw this one.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. The clerk will read the amendment. The next amendments -- we have two by Gallego and one by Ms. Howard. Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Gallego.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is an entirely technical amendment. There was -- essentially it deletes a title that should have already been deleted the last time around. But it just didn't get caught in the editing, and so it's an entirely technical amendment and I believe it is acceptable to the author.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? There is none. Amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Gallego to explain his amendment.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, very early on in this process we came to a question about the layout and Representative Eiland raised an issue of the bills -- the calendars would be printed 36 hours in advance and amendments would have to be filed 24 hours in advance. So essentially on a Sunset bill, you only had 12 hours to read it and decide if you wanted to offer amendments and have the amendments drafted and file them. So what this does, you'll recall our earlier conversation in the day, is it the gives an additional 12 hours for the drafts of those amendments and still preserves the ability of the author of the Sunset bill to have at least 24 hours to read all of those amendments, and I believe it is acceptable to the author.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Clerk will read the following amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Howard Travis.

REP. HOWARD: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment addresses unfunded mandates by preventing any bill that creates a fiscal implication to local government from being considered until after passage of the budget. Once the budget is passed, such a bill could then be considered. Knowing what the budget actually covers, we can then debate the proposed bill and either find funds to cover costs or find sufficient savings as a result of the bill to cover the costs. Representative Solomons has filed an HJR to amend our constitution to prohibit unfunded mandates, but if his HR is passed, it wouldn't take effect until January 1, 2012. We need to put something in place now to address the budget that's proposing drastic reductions that would impact our local governments. We certainly don't want to compound the serious budget challenges our cities, counties and schools will be facing by saddling them with additional mandates that are not accompanied by the necessary funds to implement those mandates. Move for passage.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to speak on the bill -- on the amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you know, I kind of got the HJR 56 -- oh, by the way, it's over there for co-sponsoring in the clerk's office. But on the other hands, this is going into the rules. And the whole point of the amendment that I am proposing separately from the rules is that we'll have a chance to go through debate, discussion. There are issues involved in doing what we're doing in making sure it's right. It's hard for me or any member here to be against unfunded mandates, but if for nothing -- no other reason, the -- for no other reason, this bill basically says apparently that you can have unfunded mandates, you can't have unfunded mandates, depending on which calendar you're on. So if you read it carefully, it says (inaudible) for the House, any bill or joint resolution other than a bill on local consent calendar that has unfunded mandates. But at the end of the date, I think there is an inconsistency there, I think it could be fixed. The whole point of doing it statutorily and/or within the constitution. And it -- I got to tell you, this is hard for me because I've got the unconstitutional amendment. But the whole point of that, even though it's future in nature, not retrospective, or for this session, is that it can go through that committee process, make sure we do it right, and hopefully make sure we do it where the people of Texas would want to approve it. Now, the one thing I would say on this particular amendment is that at the end of the day, all the members in this body, and I think y'all ought to recognize this, all the members of this body need to be very cognizant of any bill, whether it's on local consent or on the general calendar, about unfunded mandates. But I don't know that this is the best place to put it. Especially if Ms. Howard wants to promote a statutory -- statutory solution to that. I propose a constitutional amendment. But I don't think we need to -- but the other point is, we also have -- we have the right in the committees to look at mandates under the fiscal notes. I yield.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. BRANCH: Mr. Solomons, I agree with you. It seems to me, while the intent may be wise here, we're trying to do too much inside the rules. This is like substantive law inside our rules and even this rule is unclear, because if you take something down, it doesn't -- it seems to me it leaves still a lack of clarity on whether or not you still have an unfunded mandate. So I think I agree with your idea, while the intent of this, the office may have been allottable, I think it's trying to do too much within the rules. This is something we've got to do in statutory law.

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, I would -- my preference would be to pull the amendment down, but if the author of the amendment wishes to go forward, I'm going to -- I'll just ask for an up or down vote. Well, no, I think -- no, you know, actually I think I'll make a motion to table on the amendment. Because I don't think it's the right place to put it in this context in the rules. Although we all know it's an important issue.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REP. COLEMAN: I was just going to ask the author a question, but if we're ready to move forward, we're ready to move forward.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Okay. Ms. Howard to close on her amendment.

REP. COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Yes. For what purpose?

REP. COLEMAN: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. HOWARD: Sure.

REP. COLEMAN: You know, and I'm sure that has happened with you, Representative Howard, that you've heard from people here in Travis County and in city of Austin and the school districts about issues of passing down cost to local governments and that they would absorb a lot of the things that aren't funded at the state level. Is that correct?

REP. HOWARD: Absolutely. And, in fact, I'm hearing form our local governments, our schools, our city councils, our county commissioners. We understand there's going to be severe budget problems here. Do not compound that, please, by giving us any more unfunded mandates.

REP. COLEMAN: Right. And as of now, there's a local impact down in the fiscal note, but that doesn't include schools. Is that correct?

REP. HOWARD: That is correct. And, actually, it seems like most of the time, when I look at the local implications here in the fiscal notes, that typically it says they don't have that information to give us.

REP. COLEMAN: That's correct. So what most importantly we want to do is make sure that we're not passing the buck to local government and then they have to absorb what we don't fund or do, and I think that's why this is a very good amendment.

REP. HOWARD: Thank you.

REP. TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Turner?

REP. TURNER: Would the lady yield?

REP. HOWARD: Yes, I do.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: She yields.

REP. TURNER: Representative Howard, from my clarification, tell me again succinctly what this amendment is intended to do.

REP. HOWARD: Well, basically it's intended to make sure that we don't include any more unfunded mandates before we pass the budget so we can then have an actual discussion about what's available and then can determine can we find funds to cover that or can we find savings that will justify that bill, instead of passing it ahead of time and not having any money to support whatever we're asking the local governments to do.

REP. TURNER: So, essentially, you're saying that anything that we pass in this legislative session, if we mandated on local governments, if we don't pay for it, we shouldn't pass it.

REP. HOWARD: Yes, sir.

REP. TURNER: Right. It has to be paid for here. We can't -- we can't mandate some local unit to do something that we have not paid for in the -- in the appropriations bill.

REP. HOWARD: Or have not been able to show that there would be sufficient savings as a result of that to pay for whatever the bill is asking them to do.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So essentially you're saying, for example, if the feds are doing something, you don't want -- the argument essentially is people who are opposed to the feds mandating something on the states should not do it. You're saying that the state should not do to the locals what the feds are doing? Is that what you're saying?

REP. HOWARD: I'm sorry, you'll have to say that to me differently.

REP. TURNER: In succinct terms, you're saying whatever we are mandating that local units do, we are to pay for those things here.

REP. HOWARD: I'm saying after we pass the budget.

REP. TURNER: That is correct.

REP. HOWARD: Yes.

REP. TURNER: And if we don't do that, don't mandate it.

REP. HOWARD: Correct.

REP. TURNER: That is the intent of this amendment?

REP. HOWARD: That's correct.

REP. TURNER: Okay. I got you.

REP. HOWARD: Thank you.

REP. EISSLER: Will the lady yield?

REP. HOWARD: Yes, sir.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: She yields.

REP. EISSLER: Ms. Howard, so this puts -- this puts mandates in the eyes of the beholders, you know, for example, if we request that, say, according to Ms. Dukes' a teen dating violence program that you can't do because it's not specifically paid for. This puts everything we do on an a la carte basis, and it goes from schools even to local governments. We can't substitute -- do this instead of that because this is more efficient. So, in effect, we can't do anything without the -- without the appropriations bill and then everything has to be in enumerated in the appropriations bill. I don't think this is a good idea for our House rules. I think it's something we can argue on the merits on a -- thank you, Dan -- on a case-by-case basis, on each bill that comes up.

REP. HOWARD: And I appreciate what you're saying. I mean, I think clearly the problem here, of course, is that we're trying to figure out ways to make sure that our local governments have some protection from what's going to be coming out of this legislative session, and there are quite --

REP. EISSLER: And we couldn't case voter ID with this because we haven't had the appropriations bill yet either.

REP. HOWARD: Okay.

REP. EISSLER: So we run into some problems. So in effect -- in effect -- in effect, I don't think this is a good amendment for today.

REP. HOWARD: Thank you.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Ms. Howard, are you -- you're done? Okay. Ms. Howard sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye. Vote nay, members. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Show Representative Veasey voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 99 ayes, 43 nays, the amendment the motion to table prevails. The next three amendments are by Veasey, Elkins, and Farrar. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REP. VEASEY: I'm going to pull this amendment done, but what it addresses is decorum by the House members when the governor is speaking, and I probably should have added some more state-wide elected officials, other than governor, because, as we know, the Supreme Courts, the Supreme Justice will come and speak and give a report on the judiciary. But after the State of Union address where President Obama was rudely interrupted and one of the members of Congress shouted out at him, I thought that would be bad for that to happen here. And so, I wanted to address that. But Chris has pointed out to me that we can already do that in the rules. So -- that a member can already be removed for making rude comments like the one made on the House floor.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Elkins.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.

REP. ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment will just deal with the way that we handle Sunset bills going forward. Simply -- well, I hate to use the word "simply." Complexly -- how about complex amendment. It will just bifurcate the process. Sunset bills or sunset recommendations will have to go through -- or come to this floor as a standalone bill instead of one huge, humongous bill and amendments -- your amendments would not be tremane. They would not be acceptable on the floor. So if the Sunset commission recommended ten recommendations, ten bills have to come, and at the end of the day, you get to vote on the Sunset bill up or down. That's how the process would work. Members, I move passage.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, members, Mr. Elkins has talked to me before about this. We had the discussion in the work groups. Some members have talked about, Do we need to kind of look at the Sunset Advisory Commission in a way that maybe we can do things slightly differently. However, Mr. Elkins is trying to do this within the rules. We have adopted the government reform and efficiency or whatever -- whatever that name was, and we've given that some ability for this to be vetted under that committee, if, in fact, our bills (inaudible) by Mr. Elkins, or perhaps some other members. But let me give you a couple of things that I want to tell you about before we go any further with it. Mr. Elkins, if we actually adopted this in the rules, right today, the sheer workload on amendments would be required of the Sunset Advisory Commission members would be enormous. Most small agencies have about four or five recommendations. The larger controversial agencies usually end up with 12 to 20 recommendations and as I was a member of Sunset and the chair and we have a number of members here who have served on Sunset and carried Sunset bills, you carry those bills in addition to your other legislation. And, you know, for example, I carried seven agency bills, as chair I carried four, members may be differently or however. But at the end of the day, the Office of Public Utility Council had about 17 recommendations. For the members who are here before, when we did House Bill 7 and reformed workers' comp, and I mentioned this to Mr. Elkins, and I really don't doubt that we could have done that under this system. Now, I think it would have been hard to abolish (inaudible) under that system and then go through the variety and myriad of recommendation where we're merging and going through this entire process on a true reform bill. Now, I think that because at the time it had like 31 recommendations and, you know, a variety of things. I know what Mr. Elkins is getting to. At the day, though, I don't know that we don't want to flush it out other than trying to adopt an amendment today on the rules in dealing with this. I would -- I just think it's a bit much right now. And let me see if there's one other thing I wanted to mention. By the way, under House Rule 8, Section 16, it already allows us to consider bills section by section if we so desire and approve by simple majority members present. I don't think we need it in the rules. We want to make substantive changes to Sunset, we ought to do it through that filtering process. So I'm going to move -- regrettably but I'm going to move to table the motion and I would appreciate we table this amount.

REP. FARRAR: Mr. speaker?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Yes. For what purpose?

REP. FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield for questions?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. FARRAR: So --

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes.

REP. FARRAR: -- Mr. Solomons, this means basically that we would not be able to amend Sunset bills; correct? It'd be an up or down vote; correct?

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, he's got it at a bifurcated system. You'd end up in a system where you'd sign No. 1 if you want the AC or not before you even get to the recommendations. That might or might not have some merit. But we've been operating under the rules in the Sunset commission and members in this body have been operating under the system that we have in place. If we're going to make something dramatic like that, I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but I'm not sure it's necessarily the best place to do it in the rules right now, we ought to flush all those questions up and maybe committee -- Mr. Elkins has advised me, and I think he's going to file -- he's working on legislation, there may be other members, about dealing with Sunset. I think that's the appropriate forum.

REP. FARRAR: So this would tie our hands, and we would not be able to make policies as we have in the past; correct?

REP. SOLOMONS: Well, not on the first vote. It's just an up or down vote. If we got to the vote where you say, Yeah, we want to extend it, you -- you would have a chance to look at those recommendations. The one thing I didn't mention, now that you've brought it up, I don't know that if we do this we don't tie our hands and be at a disadvantage with the Senate. I don't think we want to do that.

REP. HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REP. SOLOMONS: I yield.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: For what purpose?

REP. HILDERBRAN: Question and comments.

REP. SOLOMONS: Go ahead and comment.

REP. HILDERBRAN: Mr. Chairman, let me go ahead and ask you. I'm concerned that it's been a tradition that members would have the opportunity on the floor of the House to offer amendments. Now, there have been times when it's been abused. But generally speaking, it's been a very productive exercise where members are able to get bills, especially new members, freshmen, sophomores, that bills are basically tied up in committee by a small number of members, bills that were lobbied. Sometimes I think this is the lobby empowering amendment. Because junior members have a hard time getting their bill out of committee, so they never get a chance to have a vote on the floor of the House. And it's nice to have an opportunity to have a vote on the floor of the House and let your members decide. I'd like us to keep it the way it is.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you. Members, unless somebody else has something else. I think so we could move along, I would like to move to table Mr. Elkins' amendment.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Elkins to close.

REP. ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I just want to ask you one question. We've all been through the Sunset process. The Sunset process is supposed to streamline government and make it more efficient. That's one question. When a Sunset bill leaves this House, does it -- can anybody in good conscience tell me that it's more efficient? If the answer is no, it's not more efficient, then you should vote no on this motion to table. We have a process that right now it is not working. Our government people have spoken. They want smaller, more efficient government. Look, I understand the process, we've all -- we've all used the system. We've all brought amendments to the floor on the Sunset process because we maybe couldn't get it through. But our founding fathers, they had a process designed here in the legislature, this whole process for you new members, you're going to find out, it's designed to kill bills. It's not designed to pass legislation. The Sunset process is now --

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: For what purpose.

REP. ELKINS: Not at this time.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Not at that time. Okay. The Sunset process, we operate under the law of unintended consequences. One of the unattended (sic) consequences of the Sunset process, as it's currently configured is, is that it's supposed to have smaller, more efficient government when it leaves here. But by the time 150 well intentioned members put their amendments on, I can tell you it is not an efficient process. And the agency is not efficient and it cannot function. As far as the recommendation or the concern about the Senate, the Senate didn't like it when we passed rules for end of session rules because it rocked their cradle over there. They're always -- they're going to do things over there -- there are rules that we don't like and we do things that they don't like. This is just giving us more authority and more power over the sunset process, making it where the sunset process will do what it's supposed to do, which is make government efficient. Mr. Speaker, I'll yield.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. JACKSON: Representative, we recalled some Sunset bills from last time. Do you recall how many amendments we had on the transportation bill?

REP. ELKINS: It was in the hundreds.

REP. JACKSON: You know, some of these bills, after we got through with them came to the floor kind of clean, we got through with them, they resemble what we normally call a Christmas tree in government.

REP. ELKINS: That's what I'm trying to stop.

REP. JACKSON: Yes, sir. I think you've got a good idea. Thank you.

REP. ELKINS: I ask the members to vote no on the motion to table.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Elkins sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moved to table. The question occurs on a motion to table the amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Have all voted? Have all voted? Oops. Members, 121 ayes and 20 nays.The motion to table prevails.

REP. ELKINS: Members, thanks for the use of the House.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Members, the next three amendments are by Farrar, Gutierrez, and Chisum. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.

REP. FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members. As you know, we have been transitioning to an electronic posting on bills and calendars. And at the same time, we have taken a 10 percent cut in our budget. So that -- my case it meant that one staff member and in the case of others, it might have meant more. So what I'm asking with this amendment is that we double the time that we -- there's different circumstances, but it's 24 hours to 48 hours, just to give us and our offices a bit more time as we get bombarded by notices on calendars and committee reports to become available, and all the other items that become available, it's going to take us time. And some of our offices are going to be turning toward printing in office of some of the items. So just I think we need to have a little bit of time to transition, especially given the circumstances under which we don't have sufficient staff. We heard in the last election the complaints that bills weren't read and that we were looking for more open, honest and transparency in government. And so that's what this amendment attempts to do.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members. I, unfortunately and regrettably, I have to be against this amendment. Ms. Farrar actually -- and I appreciate it very much. She actually has been talking to me about it, she called in advance. She's had some legitimate concerns in connection with budgets and staffing and some of you may or may not have those concerns. But if you look at this amendment in doubling everything, all you're doing is slowing down the process. And it's already, in my opinion, fast enough and slow enough at times. At the end of the day, I would have to move that we table this amendment respectfully, because it just creates a nightmare in scheduling and finishing our work this session. So I would move to table the amendment.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close on her amendment.

REP. FARRAR: Speaker and members, the intent is not to delay. The intent is actually to be able to vette some of the things that we're going to be voting on, especially given the volume, especially toward the end. I ask you to vote against the motion to table.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Farr sends up the amendment. Representative Solomon moves to table. The motion is to table the amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Representative King voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 101 ayes, 41 nays, the motion to table prevails.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.

REP. GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, you'll recall last year or last session during House Bill 3, that Chairman Eissler was kind of enough to give us financial runs of what each and every one of our school districts was going to lose and gain. And so what this amendment seeks to do is it asks the legislative budget board to provide each member of the House of the effect of the general appropriations bill. I.e, how many prison guards we're going to lose in our district, how many health and human services workers are we -- how many funeral commission inspectors we're going to lose. We are facing the largest budget shortfall heretofore, and I think that our constituents deserve a -- deserve the idea of what that loss is going to bring to each of our districts. As a compromise, I have omitted legislative district, and I have put in county. And that's as a compromise to Representative Solomons. So at this time, I'd like to ask for your consideration.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to speak against the amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, members, I understand what we're trying to do in this amendment. It's very -- it's kind of like one of the other amendments. The amount of burden you're putting on LBB is enormous, No. 1. And quite frankly, I understand the need for information, but unfortunately this is the first I've seen this amendment, and I don't know the ramifications of LBB. I think Mr. Chisum may have some other thoughts, having been a former appropriations chairman, but I'm going to move to ask you to table the motion. It just needs more forethought to make sure what we're doing and how it would be done and how much burden that is to the people that support us in this entire process on appropriations. Oh, I'm sorry. I withdraw the motion at this moment so other people can speak.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to speak against the amendment.

REP. CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a noble thing to know how much each the appropriations bill affects each one of our counties, and that's what he's trying to do here. But it's one of those deals that you can't very well do and it doesn't get down to the district because a appropriations bill in a county like Harris County is going to be a huge amount of decrease if we decrease our appropriations to the $72.5 billion that we get in appropriations. We know it's going to be a big decrease to each of us. It's just a report that we can't do, and if we could do it, we could do it without it being in the rules. So there's no need in us going in here --

REP. HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. CHISUM: I yield.

REP. HOWARD: Mr. Chisum, this says for each member's county. How many counties do you have?

REP. CHISUM: I have 19.

REP. HOWARD: Which county would that mean if we pass that bill, which one of those counties would this --

REP. CHISUM: I have 19. I don't have a clue, Charlie.

REP. HOWARD: And a member of Harris County, like Mr. Murphy over here, he would have 1/25th of Harris County. So would that calculation have to be made for 1/25th?

REP. CHISUM: Well, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't say that. But it -- what I'm saying is that this is a report that we're not able to pull out of LBB because the numbers are not broken down that way. That's the bad part about this, and they're broken down by school districts, they're broken down -- you know, some of the things we do but the amount of money decreased in the budget per county, because you'll find some counties that don't get any money from the state, so they might not have any. So I just think this is a bad deal. I think Mr. Solomons is going to move to table.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Move to table.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez to close on his amendment.

REP. GUTIERREZ: You know, members, most of you have met my little girl, she's about four now. And when I tell her that she can't do something, she looks at me and she says, Really, daddy, really? We've got all the computers in the world, and all we want to do is to have accountability to our constituents and an open and obvious government. We are going to lose many jobs in this session, and so we need to be able to tell our constituents where those cuts are going to come out and how they're going to affect them in their day-to-day lives. I'm already getting the calls. And this bill is only -- I mean, this amendment is only there to try to have that kind of clarity in government. I think it's important.

REP. BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: For what purpose?

REP. BURNAM: I'd like to ask him a couple questions about his amendment.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Do you yield?

REP. GUTIERREZ: I yield, sir.

REP. BURNAM: I have the impression, Roland, that maybe you're rejecting the notion that we couldn't figure this out if we wanted to figure it out. And, in fact, that was a nonresponse.

REP. GUTIERREZ: Well, I will respond. My daughter would reject the notion as well. So, yes, Representative, I'm rejecting that notion.

REP. BURNAM: So what you're trying to accomplish here is you think we should know what's going to be done to our respective counties regardless of whether you represent just a part of the county like I do? I mean, my paper reported yesterday that there will be a thousand jobs lost in the school district. I don't know whether that's right or not. I'd like to know from an official run. Wouldn't you like to know that?

REP. GUTIERREZ: Representative, I'll tell you, this is not a partisan deal. This is about the idea that each and every one of us has to account to our constituents and tell them how much we're going to lose in our representative districts, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to tell them and it's certainly incumbent upon us to know.

REP. BURNAM: And so you think maybe the biggest issue of the session, we should all have a right to know and have access to the information about what kind of impact we're talking about on our districts?

REP. GUTIERREZ: Most definitely.

REP. BURNAM: Thank you for offering the amendment.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez sends up an amendment. Representative Solomons moves to table. The question is on the motion to table the Gutierrez amendment. Vote aye. Vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez is voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 95 ayes, 48 nays, the amendment is tabled. The next three amendments are by Mr. Chisum, Mr. Callegari, and Mr. Burnam. Following the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum.

REP. CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment just tries to get at the issue we always deal with when we're into the Sunset bills and the amendments to come on. We just want them to be germane to the bill. I believe Mr. Hartnett has an amendment to my amendment. This is acceptable. Mr. Solomons will lay out Mr. Hartnett's amendment, I bet you.

UNKNOWN MALE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hartnett.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.

REP. HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment deletes everything but the change on, I think it's, line three. So it narrows the amendment quite a bit.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Hartnett sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment, Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum to close.

REP. CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, at the end of the day all we have here is just says that current law that only amendments pertaining to the Sunset bill are germane.

REP. TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.

REP. TURNER: Warren, go ahead and finish up, though.

REP. CHISUM: No, I'm finished.

REP. TURNER: So basically the way this amendment is read with Representative Hartnett's amendment is that only amendments pertaining to the organization, powers, regulation and management of the agency --

REP. CHISUM: Organization, powers, regulatory. Yeah, that's exactly right. So in other words, you can't bring an amendment to it that's not germane to one of those issue that Sunset looks at.

REP. TURNER: I guess I'm at a loss even to understand. Is it your understanding that with the amendment that Representative Hartnett put on that we are back to where we were, that there's no --

REP. CHISUM: Not necessarily. It just says you can't bring an amendment that doesn't pertain to these things that Sunset looks at. So, in other words, if Sunset doesn't look at the appropriations to an agency or commission, then you couldn't bring an amendment that deals with their appropriations.

REP. TURNER: That's why for -- so that we can clearly understand the legislative intent of this amendment.

REP. CHISUM: Yes.

REP. TURNER: What will this amendment do differently than the status quo now?

REP. CHISUM: Well, it keeps any amendments from being brought that are not pertaining to the regulations, powers, organization and the management of the agency. So if you have something -- those are the issues that Sunset looks at, and so now you can't bring amendments that does something that Sunset doesn't look at.

REP. TURNER: Is it the intent of your amendment to keep something from happening that can happen right now?

REP. CHISUM: Yes.

REP. TURNER: And tell us specifically what that is so that we will be clear.

REP. CHISUM: Well, it keeps it from being a Christmas tree. And I had an example of House Bill 300 last year which was the transportation bill. And we had amendments to the transportation bill that dealt with the election of the highway commissioner should they resign. And it was proposed to be elected by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Well, those are appointed by the governor and so it -- that would have not been germane to the bill.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So that everybody is clear, the initial amendment that you had, Representative Hartnett struck all the language, the new language that was underlined below; correct?

REP. CHISUM: That's correct. Yes.

REP. TURNER: Okay. So Representative Hartnett's amendment left only amendments as a part of the amendment that's before us right now.

REP. CHISUM: Yes.

REP. TURNER: Okay. I guess I don't know, Representative Chisum, whether or not this amendment clarifies anything because of -- I'm not the parliamentarian but, quite frankly, I can't figure out what this amendment will do that we can not do already, to be honest with you. I -- for legislative intent and for the parliamentarian, I am just as confused with this amendment in terms of what you are attempting to do. And I will tell you as a lawyer for 30 years, this gives me no direction, no guidance. I'm confused.

REP. CHISUM: You're not telling me that you might not vote for my amendment. I'm hurt. But if you'd come down, we can talk to the parliamentarian.

REP. TURNER: Well, we can talk to the parliamentarian. But since we are establishing House rules today, this amendment, I guess -- I mean, you can put it on but I would -- for legislative intent purposes, when we are dealing with Sunset bills down the road, I simply do not have any --

REP. CHISUM: Well, Sylvester, you and I have both been here a long time, and you know that --

REP. TURNER: You been here for a longer time than I.

REP. CHISUM: No, we came the same day.

REP. TURNER: I just got here a few sessions ago.

REP. CHISUM: But we know that Sunset bills have always been Christmas trees, and that's -- this is what this is making an attempt to not have Christmas trees come on this floor but to get to the business of going through the Sunset and straightening these agencies up so that they can function better.

REP. TURNER: Right. And I understand --

REP. CHISUM: That's the intent of what I'm trying to do here.

REP. TURNER: And I understand what you are intending to do --

REP. CHISUM: Yeah.

REP. TURNER: -- and just like we have the discussion with Representative Elkins on his amendment, the only point that I'm -- the only reason why I am standing back here is that I am still very much unclear as to what this amendment will do separate and apart from what the status quo allows.

REP. CHISUM: I understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REP. BRANCH: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. CHISUM: I yield.

REP. BRANCH: In taking up on the colloquy that you continued with Representative Turner, here's my concern, Warren. Let me give you an example. When you say no amendment affecting substantive law is germane, okay, so you'd say well, let's say you had an issue about it was an insurance -- Department of Insurance Sunset bill, and so someone wanted to bring an amendment on substantive insurance law. Okay? But then if you go down to the limitations and you see -- right -- okay, so we're taking out -- but he's still -- will pointed out that he's dropping all the underline language in his amendment to your amendment. But now it reads "only amendments pertaining to the organization, powers, regulation, and management of the agency." Well, when we're talking about regulation, so in my examples of a Department of Insurance bill, sunset bill, and now someone is going to bring an amendment that has something to do with insurance, isn't that regulation or isn't that within the powers of the Department of Insurance? And I think that's why Representative Turner had such a hard time seeing what was -- what this actually did.

REP. CHISUM: I understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Smith, he raised a point of order. Gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and is sustained. The amendment is withdrawn. Next three amendments are by Mr. Burnam, Mr. Burnam and Mr. Gallego. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam to explain his amendment.

REP. BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an important procedural issue that I think a lot of us have become familiar with. That is at the end of the session, when we have all these conference committees coming together and they kind of meet in relay and nobody really knows what is going on and they don't know what that final bill looks like, it's one of the reasons that we're at an all time low in respect from the general public. I thinks it is a very small measure that we can address to have these bills actually voted on, reported out of the conference committee so people can know what the bill looks like and understand what the process is. I move its adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons to speak against the amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: Members, you might want to be aware of this, and also for new members, new legislators. Let me explain a couple of things. One is there is no -- you don't even have to have a conference committee meeting. All the conference committee happens is basically appointees by the Senate and for the lieutenant governor and speaker to iron out some differences. You don't have to even have a meeting, No. 1. And No. 2, if you do have a couple members get together, I do think you want to be cognizant of what you're doing here. And I understand where Mr. Burnam is coming from on this issue. But I see this has an issue as well. I understand what he's trying to do on transparency, but at the end of the day, when you have to do business in this floor and you've got conference committees, I am guaranteeing you, you will rue the day when you mandate upon yourselves some abilities or impede your ability to get your bill out of conference committee. So with that, I move to table this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam to close.

REP. BURNAM: Members, this is not about all bills. This is about emergency bills and major state. These are the major pieces of legislation, and I just had a side conversation with one of our colleagues and he said, He's making sure that we look like we have a good process by wearing ties. You know, we can talk about the superficial things, the side things, but this is real deal. This is the important deal. This is talking about the process and whether or not people are going to know what is in those bills before they come to the House floor. This particular session, in particular, we need to open up and make this transparent and make it accessible to the public. MR. MILES: Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: He yields. MR. MILES: Lon, this amendment would only apply to bills of major states' calendars. Is that correct?

REP. BURNAM: That's correct.

REP. MILES: And in doing that it would only apply to every bill -- it would not apply to bills that would go to the conference committees?

REP. BURNAM: It would -- it's about 95 percent of the bills that come to this House floor and are referred to conference committee. It would only refer to that 5 to 7 percent of the bills that are considered emergency by the governor or major state, and it is so we can have access to and know what's going on. As most people will admit in private, we don't know what we're voting on most of the time when we're voting on these conference bills. I think it's time that we know what we're voting on and have access to that information.

REP. MILES: And not only us, Lon, but you want the people in the great state of Texas to understand what it is that we're voting on as well. Correct?

REP. BURNAM: Yes. I think it's fine that we have a representative form of government, but I think the people have a right to know.

REP. MILES: A transparent form of government.

REP. BURNAM: I think transparency is very important in this process.

REP. MILES: I think transparency would be very important in this process especially during this session. I support you in this.

REP. BURNAM: Thank you for supporting me, Morris.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. Record vote. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Go ahead and ring the bell . (Clerk rings the bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Have all voted? Have all voted? By record vote of 108 ayes, 32 nays and two present not voting, the motion fails to prevail. Motion to table prevails. Mr. Burnham. Next amendment by Mr. Burnam. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam to explain his amendment.

REP. BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, I have trimmed myself in expectations for open government, and I have reduced my hopes to just having open government when it comes handling the appropriations bill and the Sunset bill. So I've cut my amendment in half and would appreciate your voting for open government for the process for the people of Texas.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons to speak against the amendment.

REP. SOLOMONS: Yes. Unfortunately, yes, I do. Although everyone here wants as much transparency as possible, but I would be concerned about us being able to move this -- move and get these conference committees done in a way that actually can get -- we can get through this in 140 days. These are hard issues for all the members, because I think everyone in here wants to be transparent. But on the other hand, we need to get our business done, and we're very limited in the time upon which we can do it. So reluctantly, I would ask the membership to table this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnham to close.

REP. BURNAM: Members, I just want to remind you what I just said. We're talking about maybe 20 bills gone to conference committee including the appropriations bill that maybe we should have open, accessible government for the people in the state. I would appreciate your vote against the motion to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. Record vote. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Members vote aye to table. No to table. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Have all voted? All voted? By vote of 110 ayes, 30 nays, two present not voting, the motion prevails to table. Following amendment by Mr. Gallego. The clerk will read the amendment. Gallego. I'm sorry.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

MR. SPEAKER: Representative Gallego to explain his amendment. Mr. Pitts. Recognize Mr. Gallego to explain his amendment. Recognize Mr. Gallego again to explain his amendment.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this particular amendment relates to only one document, and that is when the appropriations conference committee comes back, we get what's called an outside of the bounds resolution wherever the committee went outside the bounds. And what that means is that if the conference committee -- they have a choice of taking the House members, the House version of the bill or the Senate version of the bill or they can create their own new version of the bill. And when they create their own new version of the bill, what this asks them to do is in that report, where you're going to get a column, you're going to get a report that says, We went outside the bounds and we won't outside of bounds on this area. We would ask for a new column that says, We went outside the bounds on this area and by this much money. So that you actually can look at your outside the bounds resolution, and it actually provides useful information. It actually tells you how much money you went up or how much money you went down from the bill as it left the House. Because right now, all that resolution tells you is, We adopted the House version or we adopted the Senate version. You really don't get much usefulness out of that. What this does is it will tell you, We adopted the House version, or we adopted the Senate version or we went above the House version by this many millions of dollars or above -- and that way you can look at that document and you can see the areas where the comparees spent more money or the areas where the comparees spent less money. And you can look at it and you don't have to read the whole appropriations bill, you look at your outside the bounds resolution and it'll actually tell you that. So I believe that this -- it can be done. I move adoption of the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. Truitt for an announcement.

REP. TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, in this lull of the moment here, let's take a moment to congratulate a brand-new grandmother. Dianne Patrick's daughter just had her sixth grandchild, Ms. Pierce Castille (phonetic). And while she's here dedicated to the folks of Texas, her daughter in Georgia just had her sixth grandchild. Congratulations, Dianne.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Members, Mr. Pitts has been on the phone with the appropriate people. Pete has an amendment that actually I think we can do as long as it's not a separate document. So with that understanding, without having to go any further --

REP. PITTS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman? Pete Gallego, would Representative Gallego yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REP. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my motion which was for adoption of the amendment so that Mr. Pitts can ask a question.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts, for what purpose?

REP. PITTS: Will the gentleman yield?

MR. SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. GALLEGO: Of course.

REP. PITTS: Pete, I just want to make sure that we understand. This is not a separate document. It's all part of the same resolution about going out of bounds.

REP. GALLEGO: Mr. Pitts, I'm not advocating that we create more paper.

REP. PITTS: Thank you.

REP. GALLEGO: What I'm advocating is that the paper that we get be useful for something. And so if you add an extra column that actually tells us how much more we spent or how much less we spent, that makes the current piece of paper useful.

REP. PITTS: It's a good amendment. Thank you, Pete.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to reduce that to writing in the journal, the conversation between Representative Gallego and and Chairman Pitts or both chairmen.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle. MR. WALLE: Mr. Speaker, members, the concept behind this bill -- or this amendment, I'm sorry, has been championed by members of both the Senate and the House. This amendment will give members as well as ordinary Texan a slightly wider window to fully comprehend the version of the bill -- the final version of the budget before we take a vote on it by allowing a five-day layout period on the conference committee report. The reason why is very simple. We need to know exactly what we're voting on. There are four community colleges on the chopping block with an estimated 12,000 students who will want to understand how the final budget proposal affects them, not to mention the faculty and administration. I'm sure we've seen all the estimates by the school finance experts that local school districts will have to drop anywhere from 80 to 100,000 employees because of this budget. There are countless parents, teachers, administrative and school board trustees who want to have a full understanding of the final budget we vote on. The conference committee report on the budget has a potential to have substantial and far reaching effects on the Texas economy and will ultimately -- will ultimately affect every single Texas family. Giving our constituents one short business week to give the chance to review how this budget closes the gap on a record $27 billion shortfall is the least we can afford them. This proposal has received support from both the progressive leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities as well as the conservative leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomon to speak in opposition.

REP. SOLOMONS: Sorry. This is kind of goes throughout the day in connection with people wanting more time, but at the end of the day we have put into the House resolution what we think is the appropriate time of 48 hours or a couple of days in context with the appropriations bill. I think five days really throws everything off. I would ask the -- I think it slows the process -- it creates a real nightmare at the end of the session, and I would ask the membership to please table this -- table this amendment. Motion to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to close. MR. WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To be frank, I mean, we could get the bill sooner and get to the business of working on this budget and we could also suspend the rules if need be. But at the end of the day, I move passage.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Walle sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves to table. Question occurs on the motion to table. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote no. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Show Mr. Solomons voting aye. Mr. Walle voting no. Mr. Veasey voting no. Have all voted? Show Mr. Taylor voting aye. Larry Taylor. Have all voted? There being 102 ayes, 41 nays, motion to table prevails. This is the final amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REP. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the amendment that we withdrew several times so that the concerns of some of the members could be addressed. Ms. Harper-Brown and some of the Mr. Hochberg and some of the others. So here's what it reads now. It says, "At the request of a member of the House, the LBB shall make available to the member any document that any employee of the board has prepared," that's a change because it has to be something that the LBB has prepared, "and provides to the committee on appropriations, the subcommittee, any of the subcommittees or to the members of the conference." That's a change because now any individual member and their correspondence back and forth to the LBB is now left out of that. This just applies to documents that are prepared by the LBB and distributed for use by the whole committee or by the whole subcommittee. The next change in that amendment is in that third section C which again is provided in an open electronic format so it's readable and searchable and editable, and you'll be able to use that raw data to be able to essentially make your own models of how you would do it if you were in -- had the ability to do it. And it gives you the ability to make suggestions. And lastly it provides that if you change that data in any way, you can't say that it came from the LBB. So those are the changes that were made. They address the concerns by Mr. Hochberg, for example, that all of the runs on individual school districts that they would request would be caught. Now it makes it clear it that's just documents that are prepared by the LBB for use by the whole committee or for use by the subcommittee. And I would move adoption of this amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts to speak in opposition.

REP. PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this sounds good maybe on paper, but No. 1, we can't do it. It's not available. LBB said that they are trying to get it on electronic format. It's on PDF format today. If you get it sent to you on electronic, it wouldn't even look like the bill. You couldn't get anything out of it. Everything else on A and B, it would be every communication that we had or LBB would have would be subject to full disclosure, and the way we do appropriations Bill is we just get runs. We get information from LBB that are just proposals that shouldn't have anything to do with getting it to the members. I move to table.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to close.

REP. GALLEGO: Here's the argument that I understood from Mr. Pitts. You get a lot of drafts. You get a lot of suggestions. You get a lot of ideas. And that's fine. The truth is that he gets a lot of ideas. He gets a lot of suggestions, and he gets a lot of drafts. The truth is that those are not usually distributed to the committee, and that's fine. This amendment doesn't touch that topside or bottom. When a document is presented to the entire committee, which is a limited set of circumstances, but when a document is presented to the entire committee, you should be able to see it too. Each and every single one of you in a session where we're all talking about budget, in a session where individuals were elected on the basis of what they said about how the state would spend its money and how the taxpayers' money would be guarded, you need to know how those decisions are being made. And frankly, that data should already been public anyway. And in most circumstances it is. This amendment just simply makes it very clear that these documents that go to the whole committee or to the whole subcommittee. If you want to see them, you get to see them. And that's all this amendment does.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?

REP. HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield for a question, please?

REP. GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REP. HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pete, you've been on appropriations. I've been on appropriations. The documents we get that are prepared for the committee or the subcommittee, at least everyone I can remember typically is cc'd to a whole bunch of people including the Speaker, the Speaker's staff, the lieutenant governor, the lieutenant governor's staff. They all come in with a long trail of cc on it. So doesn't it make sense that these documents are already in a number of people's hands? They're not secret documents.

REP. GALLEGO: They're not secret.

REP. HOCHBERG: We're not talking about work documents or anything like that.

REP. GALLEGO: In fact, I was always -- on the times that I was the comparee on the appropriations bill, it was a frustration of mine that everybody on the committee got to see everything that I asked for, because it was automatically -- and now, having not been a comparee, and now I understand why more people are interested in it and why the members are interested in it. And frankly, I think that's just good public policy, that the members should be involved and should see, as opposed to just cc'ing the individuals who are on the LBB. Because, you know, for those that are on the LBB, that's a wonderful thing. But there's 150 of us in this chamber. That means there's what, 142 of us who are not on the LBB -- or 146 that are not on the LBB. And for those who are not on the LBB, it gives them an opportunity to see those documents.

REP. HOCHBERG: And clearly, you're not talking about work product. You're talking about requests for information that the LBB develops for the entire subcommittee or the entire full committee of appropriations that would be able if you came into the room and stood there and asked for a copy. Right?

REP. GALLEGO: Right. If you were sitting there in the room, that's the whole purpose of this amendment, Mr. Hochberg, is right now you have to actually be there. And you have to sit and you have to find somebody that as a copy and then they'll give it to you. This would allow the members to follow along just the way that our staffs are watching this on our TV system. Just the way that some members are not on the floor and have the opportunity to watch it from different places. That's what this does, is it gives you the opportunity to see the documents, and you don't have to be there in person.

REP. HOCHBERG: And our friends at Helicon (phonetic) and some of those other organizations probably grab a copy and post them so the lobby has them if they're willing to pay --

REP. GALLEGO: Well, and that's the frustrating part, again, is that people get this information before the members do. Where the process is supposed to be -- frankly it should be somewhat member centric. You, as the elected representative from your area, should see that before anybody else does. And this is a very basic -- it -- I guess I don't understand the controversy here, because it's about access to stuff that we should be interested in anyway. And if you want to opt out, you can opt out. But if you want to see this stuff, you get to see it.

REP. HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Gallego.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. Mr. Pitts moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk, ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Show Mr. Solomons voting aye. Show Mr. Gallego voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Having 94 ayes and 48 nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons to close.

REP. SOLOMONS: I just wanted to thank all the members for their work and cooperation in going through the afternoon, and actually it's been kind of an interesting experience. But y'all ought to congratulate yourselves for working with everybody.

MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I simply like to -- Mr. Solomons put a lot of time and effort in working with individual members on the rules, and I'd simply like the House -- I'd ask the House to say thank you to Mr. Solomons for his efforts.

[Applause]

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: I move to move adoption of whatever we're doing anymore, HR 4. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: I need to withdraw that motion at the very moment because Mr. Hunter has a reminder for you about white lights.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hunter.

REP. HUNTER: Members, the white light for the committee and the master is registered so you're allowed to vote whichever way you want on the rules. But you've already registered it, so you don't need to be concerned in connection with the election contest committee and master.

MR. SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch.

REP. BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, I move that all colloquies between the members, the front and back of the mic be entered in the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REP. SOLOMONS: I'll just kill a bunch of trees, but I move adoption of House resolution 4. Thank you, members.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, the question occurs on the adoption of HR 4. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. (Clerk rings bell.)

MR. SPEAKER: Have all voted? Have all voted? 143 ayes and 0 nays, HR 4 is adopted. Members, the speaker's desk is clear if you have any announcements, bring them up front. Chair recognizes Ms. Farrar.

REP. FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, I just want to remind the Democratic caucus that we have a meeting upon adjournment in the Court of Criminal Appeals on the third floor. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Members, a little bit later today you should have information related to your committee assignments, including your cards. We're going to ask that the cards be due back on Wednesday at 6:00 p.m. Members, are there any other announcements? There being none, Representative Solomons moves that the House stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow in honor of Haley Solomons of Carlton on the occasion of her 20th birthday on Saturday January 29th, 2011. House stands adjourned.

(Adjourned.)