REP. JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Quorum is present. The House and gallery please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Anderson to give the invocation.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Let us pray. Our dear heavenly father, Lord, I thank you so much for this day. I thank you that we can gather here and I pray, Lord, that you will give us your guidance and the bills that we take up today and that we take up in the future. Be with us this day, protect us, Lord; and I just thank you so much for your bountiful blessings. On those of us in this House and in this state and again, Lord, I pray for your grace and I pray for you guidance in Jesus Christ name I pray, amen.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Garza to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

REP. GARZA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, and our guests. Would you join me as we pledge allegiance to our flags. [Pledge]

REP. JOE STRAUS: Representative Garza moves that the House dispense with the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's business. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Howard to introduce our doctor of the day.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Mr. Speaker and members, today's a real pleasure for me to introduce our doctor of the day. Dr. Joe (inaudible). Walk on up, Joe. Joe is a long-term friend. As a matter of fact, when I was in the real word as a real estate developer, Joe was one of the tenants in one of my buildings. He's been in practice in Sugarland for over 25 years, and he's presently the director of Sugarland of Family Practice Physicians. He's also medical director for Emergency Medical Services for the city of the Sugarland and also for the city of Sutton. Dr. (inaudible) right up there somewhere in one of those red coats is Tina Gibson, and she was actually in medical school as nurses training when you were an intern in Houston. So, if you wave up there, that's where she is. So, Dr. (inaudible) thank you very much for being here. Let's give Dr. Joe a warm welcome to the House.

REP. JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Harless for a motion.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Hello, members, Mr. Speaker, we are honored today to have all of Republican colleagues and Democratic male colleagues and some of our Democratic, our Republican, some of our Democratic women are wearing red too, Carol. I want to move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider HR288.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair lays out HR288. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR288 by Harless, whereas, civic-minded women from across the Loan Star State are gathering in Austin on March 3, 2011, to celebrate Texas Federation of Republican Women Day at the Capitol; and Whereas, the Texas Federation of Republican Women was established in San Antonio in October, 1955; with more than 300 delegates present, the organizing convention was led by Mrs. Malcolm Milburn and it resulted in the election of Mrs. R.D. O'Callaghan as the first president in the 56 years since its inception, the organization's membership has grown to include nearly 11,000 participants and more than 160 local clubs in throughout Texas; and Whereas, with the goals of education, electing Republican candidates and encouraging women to run for office, TFRW produces quarterly publication and works closely with the Republican Party to train volunteers and provide support for local and statewide campaigns; and Whereas, this notable organization embodies the spirit of public engagement and its members may indeed reflect with great pride on the exemplary model of citizenship they have set for their fellow Texans; Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize March 3rd, 2011, as Texas Federation of Republican Women Day at the State Capitol and extend a warm welcome to the members of the organization who are visiting on this day.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: Members, today we are joined by civic-minded women from across the state who have come here to celebrate Texas. Established in 1955 with over 300 delegates that attended organizing the convention in San Antonio in 56 states, since. TFRW has grown to more than 11,000 members today. These women embody the spirit of public service, role models for our fellow Texans. They will be visiting your offices today to discuss legislative issues that are of importance to them. All the TFRW ladies, please note that today at 11:00 o'clock on the north steps there will be a picture for all of you. So, they've asked that you please join and take the picture at 11:00 o'clock on the north steps. Also, you'll have a lunch. There's a luncheon today for the TFRW women. Joining us today on the dais is President, Rebecca Bradford -- and she is actually our calendar chair from Corpus Christi, our calendar chairman's home -- First Vice President, Carolyn Hodges; Vice President of Legislation and one of the hardest working women I know, Barbara Larson. They also brought along with them, but she said don't announce her, which is something that you don't tell me to do, but Kay (inaudible) is here from the Katy area. We want to welcome all of you here today. Us standing up here, wouldn't be here without your work; and I don't take much time to do personal stuff, but this is the first Republican Women Day in 30 years that I've been here and my mom hasn't, and my home club's Northwest Forest and Cy-Fair Republican Women and Texas T Women have all been my surrogate moms for over 30 years and I love you and appreciate you. Thank you. Move adoption.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Representative Hunter moves that all members' names be added. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.

REP. RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I stand with my neighbor Representative Mike Hamilton and today we want to welcome some of the finest ladies from southeast Texas, the Golden Triangle Republican Women. My good friend Sherry Arnold, Maurine Wenchle, Maria Maggio, Judy Ware, and Barbara Lieman. I can't see, where y'all at? Welcome to your Capitol. Thank you for being here.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas and Representative Howard for a recognition.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to -- Dr. Zerwas and I would like to recognize the Republican women from Fort Bend County. Would y'all stand up? We want to recognize y'all. You do a great job for us and I tell you what, Fort Bend County continues to be one of the fastest -- there we are -- one of the fastest growing counties in the state and we appreciate your support.

REP. ZERWAS: And I'd like to likewise represent, recognize my women from Waller County. That is a very vibrant group up there, and welcome to your House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Eissler and Representative Creighton and Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to be here, and we all know what the budget woes of Texas are but if we had to pick a day where we're happy to be in the red, it's today. Representative Creighton, Otto, and I would like to welcome our Republican women from Montgomery County. We have three very active Republican women groups and we'd like to thank them for all your hard work and support. We have North Shore Republican Women, President is Ann Kate; the Lake Conroe Area Republican Women, Doris Hickman, who's not in attendance today; and of course, for the Montgomery County Republican Women, Alice Melancon, and see we can say that without reading it. Please stand and be recognized; and of course, in the Woodlands, Ms. Beverly Cyst is here whose son is in the Air Force at Noah's Air Force Base, thank you, thank you, Beverly. I also want to give a special recognition to Irene Kerr, North Shore, she was distinguished as one of TFRW's ten outstanding women in 2009. These clubs combine over 500 active members. They do wonderful work for all of us and for all of Montgomery County, we're glad to have you with us here today; and I see the Maggio twins and good to see you. Welcome to your State Capitol and thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representatives Bohac, Murphy, Callegari, Wooley, Harless, and Riddle; and we apologize if we --

REP. BOHAC: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you. We apologize if we have missed anyone from west and northwest Houston. I don't think Allen Fletcher's up. Allen, if you're in the House, please join us; but I'd like to take a moment to recognize some wonderful Republican ladies from Houston that are here today. I am proud that we all call them friends. We love them from the heart; and we have with us today from the Village Republic Women, the Heritage Republican Women, Memorial West Republican Women, the Cy-Fair Republican Women, Village Republican Women, the Daughters of Liberty, Magic Circle Republican Women, Northwest Forest Republican Women, and the Texas Tea Party. Where is Northwest Forest? Now, before you stand and be recognized, I want to recognize some officers that are here and if we have missed anybody, I apologize. Let me run through a short list of officers; and then, we want y'all to stand and we want to clap for y'all and tell you how much we love you. So, we have Caroline Hodges, who is a TFRW officer; Buffy Engersaw, who is my neighbor and has a gorgeous home by the way, Buffy wherever you are; Nancy Scott; Beverly Roberts; Chris Cobb; Diane Slone; Karen Townsen; Amy Toothel; Theresa (inaudible) also a neighbor of mine; Sharon Cane; Joan Macrackin; Darleen Gardener; Bonnie Lugo; Teresa Green; and Sharon Slover. I apologize, again, if I missed anybody. These groups a here today for TFRW at the Capitol. Please stand, let us love you and put our arms around you symbolically and give you a big handclap. So, please, stand up. I'm going to allow Patricia Harless -- I want to Patricia Harless to introduce somebody. So, Patricia, if you'd come up here.

REP. PATRICIA HARLESS: I just have to acknowledge, we got Dora here. She is our National Republican Committee woman.

REP. BOHAC: Allen Fletcher would like to say a few words, too. We'll keep it brief just like a good sermon. We ought to be short and to the point.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REP. FLETCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just like to say that the media has the distinction of getting a lot of things wrong and that our fabulous success back in November, they credited our success to the tea party across the State of Texas which I think was the fabulous movement; but the men and women standing around this mic knows that the success of the Republican Party in the State of Texas is sitting here today, the Republican women; and those of us that represent the people of Texas and the Republican conservative movement know that you're the people behind us and we won't ever forget it. Thank you.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Amen, Amen; and now David Riddle would like to say a few words from Harris County.

THE CHAIR: The chair recognizes Representative Riddle.

REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Members of Texas Tea Party, we mentioned you once. I want to mention you again. I love you, you're my club; and is there anything more beautiful than this sea of red up here? Congratulations, ladies. Welcome to your House.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: And Representative Callegari from west Houston.

REP. BILL CALEGARI: Thank you. I just want to welcome you here; but particularly, those members from Katy and in particular, I want to thank Kate (inaudible) for being here. Thank you very much.

THE CHAIR: The chair recognizes the dean of the Texas House, Representative Craddick.

REP. CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, I want to recognize as the Republican women from Midland we're elated to have them as one of the best clubs in the state. Thank y'all for coming. We're elated to have you. Thank y'all very much.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Hughes, Representative Simpson Representative Berman, and Representative Cain.

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. It's an honor to be here this morning and a number of ladies I want to recognize. First of all, one of, if not, the largest delegations with 14 members, the Republic Women of Wood County, would you ladies please rise? We welcome you. Welcome. What a big delegation, maybe the largest here. Thank y'all for coming; and I'm joined by my colleagues, we have ladies here from all over east Texas from the Smith County Republican Women, out in northeast Texas, up-shore county, Harrison County. Can we have all the ladies from east Texas please rise so that we can welcome you, and Wood County can join them one again. Welcome ladies. Thank you for of your service. God bless you.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Button.

REP. BUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I am so excited to be here because I'm about to recognize a group of wonderful Republican women from my district, the Richland Republican Women, where are you? Please (inaudible) All right; and I have a (inaudible) who is the president of the club and the Keri Ganz, past president; Kathy Thomas, past president; Karen Johnson; Kenya (inaudible); Joan Remature; Nancy Sanders; and Adot Asler. All right; and we had a wonderful dinner last night hosted by the Senator Carona and I have a resolution HR302 for you. Thank you for being with us, and thank you coming to the Capitol. We love you.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Keffer and Representative Hardcastle.

REP. KEFFER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I'm here with Rick Hardcastle, you know, we're out in the part of the world, we might not have all of the quantity that maybe Harris County has but let me tell you, we got quality. So, I want from Brown County, the ladies from Brown County, if y'all would get up. Mr. Hardcastle.

REP. HARDCASTLE: We'd like to welcome Cook County Republican Women and the Young County Republican Women. We appreciate y'all coming today.

THE CHAIR: The chair -- Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Representative Fletcher said many years ago when a lot of us decided to run for office, the first groups of individuals that a lot of us went to see were the Republican women; and I will tell you that I am so proud to represent my area northeast Harris County and I know that two of my groups are here today. One is the Kingwood Area Republican Women and we know some of our people are here today, Eilene Crossman, Betty Newton -- I can't see that far, I need my glasses to say hello. Thank you and love you guys. Thank you for all you work; and also, the Lake Shore Houston Republican Women from the Atascocita Area are also here today; and hopefully, if you're here, stand up but appreciate everything that you've done for us and welcome to the Texas House of Representatives. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.

REP. SCHWERTNER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Gonzales and myself would like to welcome not one, not two, but three Republican women groups from Williamson County, the second fastest growing county in the State of Texas. We have the Georgetown Area Republican Women, right there; the Williamson County Republican Women; and the Legacy Republican Women. I'd also like to recognize anybody from the Milam County Republican Women here in the audience today. Thank y'all for coming. Welcome to your House.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representatives Isaac, Workman, and Miller.

REP. ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I just wanted to welcome the Caldwell County Republican Women today.

REP. WORKMAN: And the Hill Country Women, where are they at? Okay. We're glad to have you here.

REP. MILLER: And we got Canyon Lake, New Braunfels, Bandera, and Gillispie County I know all is here. Y'all stand up and wave to everybody. I think we might even have comfort here a little bit, too.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, members, and the real Republican women in the Red Mill County, Kerr County, Mason County, Lano County all stand.

REP. ISAAC: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Jackson, Representative Harper-Brown, and Representative Button and Representative Branch.

REP. JACKSON: We want to acknowledge, thank, encourage all the Republican Women of Dallas County who have supported, nourished, loved, advised and, elected us over the years. Thank you ladies. Get up and be recognized, stand and be recognized. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And don't forget the Park City's Republican Women.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REP. LAUBENBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Add to the fabulous list of fabulous women that are here, the Plano Republican Women. Hey, guys, ladies; and the Golden Quarter -- I see Golden Quarter. And (inaudible)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Conner Harington, where are you? Conner Harington Republican Women, where are you?

REP. LAUBENBERG: Did they make it in? I don't know. There's so many of you here, I don't think they got through. All right. Thank y'all.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REP. ALISEDA: I have some very special women from my district here that won the Speaker Straus Award for TFRW the Adisco Republican Women, would you please stand up? Marion Nolton and Texas Moore, thank you.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative King of Parker.

REP. PHIL KING: All right. Parker County Republican Women, Parker County TFRW, Parker County Bush Legacy, would y'all please stand? Great and do we have anybody from Wise County today? I think we had Wise County Republican Women. Great, thank you so much. They are great clubs.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.

REP. KUEMPEL: Good morning, I just wanted to see if they're here. Guadeloupe County, Wilson County, Gonzales County. If you're here, please stand up. There they are. Thank you. Welcome to your House.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REP. DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've got some ladies from Pine Green County including my wife, Florica Darby; my district manager, Sharyl Dakadoba; Liz McGill; Brenda McGill; and Trish Jordan. Would you please stand up, ladies? Where are you? Thank you, girls.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Sarah Davis for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I hate to interrupt this day honoring TFRW but it's another wonderful day here at the Capitol and I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 595 celebrating Rice University Day here in Austin.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objections? The Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair lays out HR595. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR595 by Sarah Davis of Harris, Whereas, the number of proud Texans are visiting Austin on March 3, 2011, to celebrate Rice University Day at the State Capitol; and Whereas, founded in 1912 it was William Marsh Rice Institute for the advancement of Literature, Science, and Art, Rice was the first private nonsectarian University in Texas and the first institution of higher education in Houston. Its first president Edgar Odell Lovett outlined an ambitious vision for a great research university, and the school's faculty, students and alumni have succeeded in fulfilling his dream of excellence; and Whereas, Rice University played a leading role in research fields as nanotechnology, cellular technology, bioinformatics, energy, the environment, and health and it has helped shape the course of human science space exploration; two distinguished alumni, Rice Board of Trustees Chairman George R. Brown and former United States Representative Albert Thomas, worked with the Vice President Lindon Johnson to make Houston the home of the Manned Spacecraft Center, now the Johnson Space Center in 1963, Rice became the first university in the nation to create a dedicated space science department and it has recieved research grants from NASA to launch a total of six Earth-orbiting satellites, which were named after the school mascot, Sammy the Owl; and, Whereas, the President, John F. Kennedy made his famous address announcing the race to the moon at Rice University and the very first lunar landing incorporated a scientific experiment built by Rice professor, John Freedman, the Rice University flag raised on the surface of the moon remains there to this day; moreover, 14 astronauts have the "Rice stuff" among their first female commander of the International Space Station and whereas the 1985, the groundbreaking discovery of buckminsterfullerene, or "buckyballs," on the Rice campus originated and helped launch the field of nanotechnology; Rice professor Richard Smalley and Robert Curl earned the Nobel prize in chemistry for their work which is now leading to momentous breakthroughs in medicine, transportation, energy, the environments, defense, and many other endeavors; Rice University also counts among its noteworthy innovators Sidney Burrus, interim dean of the George R. Brown School of Engineering who created signal-processing algorithms that have led to cell phones, speech recognition, sonar and radar, sensor arrays, digital audio and video, seismic data gathering, biomedical systems, and many more digital tools and devices and whereas the longest-serving lieutenant governor in Texas history, William P. Hobby, Junior, was a his Rice graduate; his fellow alumni include such notables as Pulitzer Prize-winning, Larry McMurtry, Saint Arnold Brewing Company founders Brock Wagner and Kevin Bartol, and three key Texas Monthly magazine staff members, founding editor, Bill Broyles, Junior, longtime editor Gregory Curtis and political analyst, Paul Burka; and where as making its mark in the sports world as well Rice University once owned Yankee Stadium, donated by a successful alumnus in 1962; John Heisman, the namesake of football's most voted trophy, coached the Rice Owls in the 1920s; more recently, the 2003 Owls baseball team made Rice the smallest University to win the NCAA Division I College World Series; and whereas Rice University is admired today as one of the nation's leading institutions of higher education; since U.S. News and World Report began in 1983, Rice has been rated among the top 20 every year; in addition, it is one of only three research universities in the Loan Star State to be a member of the elite Association of American Universities; and, Whereas, the past century, Rice University has contributed to the advancement of human knowledge and the achievements of its faculty and alumni continue to resonate in Texas, the nation, and the world; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas legislature hereby recognize March 3rd, 2011, as Rice University Day at the State Capitol and extend a warm welcome to all those from this august institution who are visiting here today and be it further resolved that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Rice University has an expression of high regard to the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Members, I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objections? The Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Today, we are celebrating Rice University Day here at the Capitol. Commemorating the upcoming 100th anniversary of this esteemed university. Joining us today on the dais today are some of the distinguished faculty of Rice University President David Leebron, Vice President Linda Thrane, Dr. Rebecca Drezek Dr. Jim Tour, and Dr. John McDivit and also in the House gallery we are joined by members of the faculty and otherwise alum. So, if you're here could you please stand up to let us know you are here? Thank you very much. In addition we -- we are lucky to have an honored alum from Rice University, Scott Hockberg. So, please -- please congratulate Rice for turning out such fine leaders.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hockberg.

REP. HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members. Members, I'd like to thank Senator Davis for bringing this resolution. We talk a lot of about in this chamber about creating Tier 1 research universities and an awful lot of people don't realize that we have a crown jewel of a Tier 1 research university in Houston, It's about to celebrate its 100th anniversary, about 50 percent of the kids, about half the kids who attend Rice University are in stem fields. So they are doing exactly what we have been trying to get higher education to do. It's a very valuable asset and they kept me out of trouble for at least five years; and where is Mr. Geren? Wherever? Yeah -- wherever Mr. Geren is, I just want to let him know and let his Hornfrogs know that our baseball team is on its way back and we're going to be seeing you in Omaha next time.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REP. WORKMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. My first trip up here was Hill Country and now I'd like to recognize Austin Republican Women, if they're still in the gallery, I'd love to see them. We appreciate you being here, again, thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REP. KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I know there's some great ladies from Walker County here today. I want to say welcome to you Texas State Capitol. I look forward to seeing you very soon. Thank y'all for being here.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick and Representative Nash.

REP. NASH: Representative Patrick and I want to introduce you to some wonderful ladies from the Tarrant County area that are here with TFRW today. Rhonda Lewis, Lesley Bathene, Mona Bailey, Sherry Munford, Sheryl Plunket, Teresa Rutherford. We appreciate you coming today we're so proud of Republican Women. Thank you.

SENATOR PATRICK: Welcome to your Texas Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Larson.

REP. LYLE LARSON: There we go. I'd like to recognize the folks from Bexar County. If y'all can stand up. The Alamo City Republican Women's Club, the Bexar County Republican Women's Club, the Republican Businesswomen. All of the different groups. These are the folks that support Speaker Straus, myself, and John Garza, and folks throughout the county. So, thank you for your hard work, we appreciate it.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis for an important announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, madam speaker. I want to make sure that everyone in the gallery knows that we are going to be taking pictures with the folks from Rice University, the Lieutenant Governor, who will present the Senate resolution which was adopted yesterday. So, if our guest in the gallery will begin to make their way over to the Senate chamber, that would be great. Go Owls.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REP. TODD SMITH: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules take up and consider HR645 proclaiming Tarrant County Day at the State Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. HR645, clerk read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR645 by Smith of Tarrant, recognizing March 3, 2011, as Tarrant County Day at the State Capitol.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Representative Smith.

REP. TODD SMITH: Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection?

REP. TODD SMITH: Mr. Speaker and members, we at the podium this morning are very proud to represent citizens in a county which is a destination of choice for individuals across this state and this nation. A county which is on the move, which is on the rise, which Chairman Branch is adding rather than losing legislative seats. The Fort Worth star telegram recently reported that the city of Fort Worth will soon exceed our neighbors to the east in population. We will heretofore refer to you as "Little D." FWD Airport doesn't roll off the tongue but it is our future. We are honored that many of our friends from Tarrant County are here with us today and I would ask all of them to stand and I would ask all of my colleagues even those from "Little D" to join us in welcoming them. We're going to have a picture taken on the stairs right outside the House floor, one level down, if you'll join us there now. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Members, if there is no objection, the resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Legler, Representative John Davis, and Representative Taylor of Harris.

REP. LEGLER: Members, speakers, I want to recognize we have some stuff here from our area. I know I have the Bay Area Republican Women, I don't know if they made it in here. I think they got stuck outside, it was already too full and I want to recognize them from my area and of course Taylor.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you, Representative Legler. We also have the hardest working Republican Women's Club, (inaudible) represented over here; and I also saw Brenda Canteras of the Sand Piper Republican Women here. I don't know -- we have a great area and we're well represented by Republican Women. Thank you so much.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Legler for a motion.

REP. LEGLER: Members, chairman, I'd like to suspend all necessary House rules to take up and consider House Resolution 583 recognizing the Pasadena Volunteer Fire Fighter Department.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered.

THE CLERK: HR583 by Legler, whereas, the Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department has served the city and surrounding communities for more than eight decades and it is indeed fitting to recognize the enormous contributions of this noteworthy organization; and Whereas, the largest single municipality all volunteer fire department in the United States, the Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department was founded in 1930 with an initial membership of 25 firefighters; today, its ranks include more than 200 active firefighters and 50 semi-active firefighters who dedicate themselves to the safety and security of their fellow citizens; and Whereas, PVFD has mutual aid agreements with all of its neighboring cities and many other nearby municipal and industrial fire departments and responds to approximately 170 alarms per month in its almost 60 square mile service area; it provides mutual aid protection to Ellington Field, NASA's Johnson Space Center and the University of Houston-Clear Lake, and it is an active member of the Channel Industries Mutual Aid organization, which responds to emergencies at petrochemical plants and refineries in the region; moreover, the department is the parent organization to the Pasadena Fire Marshal's Office, which handles inspections, fire prevention, and cause and origin investigations; and Whereases, since 2006, the department has benefit from the able guidance of Chief Lanny Armstrong. His strong leadership team includes assistant chief Richard Lawhorn and district chiefs Granville Brasfiled, Frank Butler, Dana Jenkins, Michael Kainer Bill Moon, dwight Ottele, Steve Owen, and John Stokes; and Whereas, the courageous firefighters serving and protecting Pasadena residents over the past 81 years have set the highest standards of excellence and their department is the source of tremendous pride to the community; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas legislature hereby honor the Pasadena Volunteer Fire department and extend its members sincere and best wishes for continued success in their further work; and, be it further resolved that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the department as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.

REP. LEGLER: I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? If there is none, so ordered.

REP. LEGLER: Members, I'd like to -- standing up here, we're going to introduce some of the legislators around me. We've got John Davis, we have Anna Hernandez Luna, and we also have my Wane Smith is coming up here, and we have a honorary citizen from Pasadena; actually, he's a fellow fireman Armondo Martinez. Wane Smith has just joined us. Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department has been established, like I said, 1930 with the membership of 25 firefighters. Now, of course, Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department is the single most municipality. All Volunteer Fire Department in the entire United States, the largest municipality of all Volunteer Fire Department. The department responds to approximately 170 alarms per months. We have roughly 60 square miles. Not only do they handle the city of Pasadena, which is by the way the second largest city in the southeast Texas region just behind Houston. The Pasadena volunteer fire department provides mutual aid not only to the residence but Texas Ellington Field, NASA's Johnson Space Center, other notable landmarks, and refineries and response. I'd like to recognize on the dais today we have Lainy Armstrong, chief; actually, Lainy and I went to school together. He actually looks a lot older, I think. Our assistant chief, John Stokes the district chief, Mike Cainer district chief, Chris Green a firefighters, and Daniel Veras another firefighter. With that, I think we all deserve them a great big round of applause because they not only put their life on the line all of the time, but they basically do it for free. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Davis from Harris moves to add all members to the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REP. LAUBENBERG: Ms. Madam Speaker, I moved to suspend all necessary rules and take up House Resolution 103.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Rules are suspended. Chair lays out HR103. Read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR103 by Laubenberg, whereas Lone Star Association of the Charitable Clinics is holding its fourth annual state conference in Round Rock on March, 3 and 4 of 2011; whereas since its founding in 2005, the association has been dedicated to increasing the access to quality health care for the undeserved, offering networking and educational opportunities for affiliates and collecting the disseminating information relevant to its mission; and Whereas, this worthwhile organization assists 60 member clinics and 5 associate member clinics which together have more than 280,000 patient visits each year often staffed extensively by volunteers, these vital centers provide a practical alternative to costly emergency room care; and Whereas, Lone Star Association of Charitible Clinics has worked to make efficient and effective medical treatment available to those who may otherwise go without; and its efforts have had a profound and positive influence on the citizens of Texas; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize March 3, 2011, as Lone Star Association of Charitable Clinics Day and extend to all involved with the clinics sincere best wishes for continued success with their important work; and be it further resolved that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the group as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REP. JODIE LAUBENBERG: Would the women and gentlemen of the Lone Star Association of the charitable clinics stand up, please? With all that we're hearing about health care these folks are really the front line. They treat -- they treat patients that fall through the cracks uninsured, underinsured, and we just really appreciate what you guys do. Thank you. Oh, madam speaker, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Representative Carter moves to add all members' names to the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Miller of Comal.

REP. MILLER: Thank you, madam speaker. I think we have some special guests from District 73 here with us today. Leadership Gillespie County and Youth Leadership Gillespie County. Are any of you y'all up in the audience today? I know it's pretty packed up in the third floor. I want to recognize these groups in Frederiksberg, they are up at the Capitol visiting they're Capitol today. I sure do appreciate them, and I know they may be over in the Senate right now; but thank you. If you see some folks from Frederiksberg, tell them hello, greet them; and please come to Frederiksberg and spend some money. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REP. TURNER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution 382 recognizing the Texas Association of Black Personnel and Higher Education.

THE CHAIR: Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk please read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR382 by Turner, whereas members of Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education are gathering in Austin on March 3-5, 2011, for their annual state conference; and. Whereas, formed in 1973, the TABPHE works to foster the success and advancement of African American faculty, staff, and administrators in Texas colleges and universities; through the years, the association is served as an advocate for ethnic minorities in education and acted as a unified force in addressing new and recurring challenges in Texas postsecondary instruction and whereas today, the association has more than 1,000 members from all levels of higher education. It provides these esteemed Texans with an opportunity to contribute to their unique knowledge and experience to improving the state's educational system and it fosters collaboration with organizations that share similar goals; and Whereas, through a staunch commitment to its vital mission, the Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education has significantly improved the lives of countless citizens of the Lone Star State; Now, therefore, be it resolved that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize March 3, 2011, as Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education Day and extend to all the members of that organization sincere best wishes for continued success and be it further resolved that a copy of this resolution be prepared for the TABPHE as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dukes.

REP. DUKES: Thank you, madam chairman and members. It is a great pleasure that I introduce to you the officers of the Texas Association of Black Personnel and Higher Education who are joining us this morning, and I would ask them to waive as I recognize them. With us this morning is Dr. Felicia Scott, president of the organization. Also joining us is Dr. Sherry Gooden, President-elect. Also is Loretta Edalin, the daughter of former speaker pro-tim Willamina Delco who is the legislative chair; and also Dr. Rod Fluker the executive director of Texas Association of Black Personnel in Higher Education. Please welcome them to the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Representative Turner moves to have all members added. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Crownover:

REP. CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker, and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR669.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none so ordered. Chair lays out the following resolutions. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR669 by Crownover recognizing March 3, 2011, as Little Elm's Day at the State Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REP. CROWNOVER: Members, I want you to help me welcome the members from the Little Elm and I believe they're up in the north gallery. Oh, there they are. Let's give them a hand. Stand up so we can see where you are. Great, and they will be performing in the Rotunda at noon, so I want you to make sure and enjoy that. Little Elm is the one of the fastest growing municipalities in the State of Texas. It's a beautiful, beautiful place and its got a great small-town feel. We are so happy to have you here in the Capitol today. Thank you. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REP. NAISHTAT: Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 177 which recognize March, 2011, as Professional Social Work Month.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR177 by Naishtat, recognizing March, 2011, as Professional Social Work Month.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REP. NAISHTAT: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REP. NAISHTAT: Members and guests, I am standing here with the Representative Donna Howard. March is Professional Social Worker Month. Today, we are recognizing the more than 25,000 license social workers in Texas. These are highly trained individuals who hold a bachelors masters or doctorate degree in social work. Professional social workers practice in a variety of settings including human services agencies, mental health facilities, schools, hospitals, the political arena, policy development, and private practice. Today is Social Work Advocacy Day at the Legislature. Please join me in honoring and thanking these good people including Dr. Pat Gleason-Wyyn, Texas Chapter President of the National Association of Social Workers from Arlington and Mellisa Milliron Chapter Secretary from Tuscola. We want to thank all of these good people for their service to our state, and Shane Howard, Donna Howard's daughter, we want to offer congratulations and welcome. Please, welcome all of you to the Texas House of Representatives. Thank you for what you do. Let's give them a good recognition.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REP. NAISHTAT: This has nothing to do with professional social work month. Members, the University of Texas at Austin is hosting its 12th annual Explore UT open house on Saturday, this Saturday, March 5th, from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Events will be held across the entire UT Austin main campus on Saturday engaging almost every college school and unit of the University. Explore UT is the biggest open house in Texas. The day in which the University opens its doors to the people of Texas and invites each of them to enter learn, and be inspired. More than 400 activities await school children and families from across our state. Visiters of all ages can conduct hands-on science experiments; listen to lectures on politics, literature language, and history; enjoy performances; and view exhibitions of the important learning and research taking place every day on the UT Austin campus. It's this Saturday on the campus from 11:00 to 5:00 p.m. I hope you and family members can attend. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR676 honoring Dhani Jones for his NFL and media career and his many philanthropic contributions.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Chair lays out HR676. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR676 by Lucio, whereas Cincinnati Bengal linebacker Dhani Jones has distinguished himself through his accomplishments on the gridiron and also as an entrepreneur and entertainer who supports a number of notable philanthropic efforts; and Whereas, born on February 22, 1978, in Potomac, Maryland, Dhani Makalani Jones has a stellar collegiate career at the University Michigan and he was named to the all Big Ten team three times and was an integral part of the Wolverines national title winning team of 1997; and Whereas, chosen by the New York Giants in the sixth round of the 2000 National Football League Draft. He spent three seasons with the team before being signed as a free agent by the Philadelphia Eagles he helped the Eagles win the 2004 NFC Championship and reach Super Bowl 39; he joined the Bengals in 2007 and just completed his fourth season as a middle linebacker and whereas apart from his football career, Mr. Jones stars in the Travel Channel series Dhani Tackles the Globe in which he visits people of different lands to learn about and participate in the sports most central to their cultures; in addition, he has appeared on Man versus Food and enjoys a number of artistic endeavors including photography, poetry, and music; and Whereas, Mr. Jones frequently uses his celebrity to support causes he believes in; He helped create and appeared in public service announcements for the Climate Project, and he was a guest and media correspondent during the 2007 Live Earth Concert; in addition, he is currently involved in 350.org, which also addresses the issue of climate change; and Whereas, in 2007 this dedicated activist visited Africa to bring attention to the efforts of environmental neglect by industrialized countries, moreover, he was featured in two public service announcements for the United Nations World Food Program and currently serves on the entertainment counsel for Feeding America organization; and whereas, long known for wearing bow ties, Mr. Jones created his own brand, Five Star Ties, in 2005; more recently he has turned his sartorial signature into a charity, starting bow ties for a cause which creates and sells bow ties he designs in order to raise funds and awareness for nonprofit organizations; and whereas, a man of diverse interests and talents, Dhani Jones devotes himself to advancing worthwhile initiatives while also excelling as an athlete and television personality and his many fans of the Lone Star State will be closely following his progress in the years ahead; Now, therefore be it resolved that the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor Dhani Jones for his NFL and media careers and his efforts to help others and extend to him sincere best wishes for continued success and be it further resolved that an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Mr. Jones as an expression of high regard for the Texas House of Representatives.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Senator Lucio.

REP. LUCIO: Thank you, madam speaker, members. Today on the House floor, we have two very distinguished guests. You've heard all about Dhani Jones and all the things he does for the NFL being a great ambassador for the National Football League and for hi philanthropy as well. He is a graduate and a very successful player at the University of Michigan and is currently with the Cincinnati Bengals. Others may know him from his career off the field on his show on the Travel Channel, Dhani Tackles the World, and his interest in poetry and music. We also have Jeff Blake, who is now one of our own in Austin. Who has played 13 seasons in the NFL. Also on the dais with the Chicago Bears, New York Jets, Cincinnati Bangles, New Orleans Saints, Baltimore Ravens, Arizona Cardinals, and Philadelphia Eagles. He is also a very proud father. His son played in the National Championship Football game this past -- this past world championship game. Caught a touch down pass from Cam Newton and owes a lot of his success to his wonderful upbringing. We also have with us in the gallery --

REP. HOWARD: Madam Speaker -- Madam Speaker.

REP. LUCIO: I yield, Madam Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Representative Howard, for 1purpose.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: I think we need to say that very slowly that Mr. Blake's son was playing for Auburn University, who won the National Championship and is No. 1 in the United States in football and go Eagle, since that is my alma mater.

REP. LUCIO: Good for you. Good for you. Enjoy it. Enjoy it. We also have with us in the gallery, folks, Jerry Cilvawits -- I think I said that correctly. He's the Travel Channel producer. I love the Travel Channel, Man Versus Food, and all the other things I watch on the Travel Channel; and we have Dhani Jones's business manager, Ryan Hayden. Thank you for being with us today. Members, I also have on a behalf of the governor, an Honorary Texan Certificate to present to Mr. Jones on behalf of our great state; and I'd like to thank you for your time and welcome them and really encourage them to continue to do some of the philanthropic work that they've been doing. Thank you, members. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Representative Howard for what purpose?

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: I'd like to add all members' names to the resolution.

THE CHAIR: Representative Howard moves to add all members to the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Morrison.

REP. MORRISON: Madam Speaker, members, we have got another group of Republican Women that are here today and I brought my adopted Republican Women from Victoria who is part of the family up here. I have Rick Hardcastle and Todd Hunter, and this is my delegation since I'm a delegation of one but we want to recognize the Victory Republican Women, officers that came today. If you'll stand, we've got Susy Newman, Jessica Williams, Amy Monday, and Bonnie Philly. Thank you for being here today, and we'll see you at lunch.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.

REP. GIDDINGS: Madam chair and members, I am delighted that we have in the gallery today a member of the first Academic Bridge class at the University of Texas at Dallas. It has been one of our most successful initiatives where the young people come in there and they graduate sooner than others, where they have a higher GPA, and where they're more likely to graduate from college; and the lady that I'm introducing to you today Natetria McNulty, already has hear masters in education and she is now working on her PHD and I would like to ask Ms. McNulty to please stand up and waive because I'm not sure exactly where you are. Ms. McNulty, are you up there? Okay. Well perhaps she has gone, but let's give hear nice round of applause anyway in absence of her.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REP. JOE STRAUS: Members, to give you an idea of our work schedule, we are going to finish our resolutions here and then move on to the congratulatory and memorial calendar. Then, we will break for lunch until 1:45 and then go on the calendar at 1:45, promptly at 1:45. So, if you have amendments, please free file them.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REP. KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution No. 664.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Chair lays out HR664. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR664 by Kolkhorst, Recognizing March 3, 2011, as Sam Houston Day at the State Capitol.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REP. KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I think you've seen Allen Fletcher and I walking around with these canes right here. This is a replica of the cane that Sam Houston used and is famous for, and they are all in your office; and I have to say that today we are honoring Sam Houston and his birthday was yesterday, he would be 218 years old. He was born in Virginia on March 2nd, 1793. He died in Huntsville, Texas on July 25th, 1863. Many of you know the history of Sam Houston, but if you consider that he was a U.S. congressman from Tennessee, he became the governor of Tennessee, he came Texas he was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, went on to be the Commander and Chief of the Texas Army, he served as the first elective president of the republic of Texas, he served on the Texas Congress, then he became president of the republic of Texas again, and eventually went on to be a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas. He is the only man that has served as governor of two states. His leadership is large. We honor him with a picture right behind the speaker's podium. I know that I am joined by alumni here, Allen Fletcher, Borris Miles. I know that Bill Dedler is here today, too. I think that you'll all be honored to have this in your office to be remind you of the courage that Sam Houston had during very tough times. He overcame so many odds and was the leader for us. I think its very appropriate for us this session. I want to thank the Sam Houston Alumni, and want to remind you that tonight at the Bob Bullock Museum we're celebrating Sam Houston's birthday at 6:30. Hopefully, we'll be through with the bill and we can move there. So, members I move passage of House Resolution No. 664 honoring one of the greatest, biggest, tallest men ever to be a Texas, Sam Houston.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.

REP. FLETCHER: Madam chair and members, I'd like to recognize our alumni over here. Would y'all please stand up? The Sam Houston alumni. There you go, and also I move that we add all members' names.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Members, we have a memorial resolution, if the members will please take their seats. Members, this is a memorial resolution, if you could give your attention to Representative Branch.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR28 honoring the life of Don Meredith.

THE CHAIR: You've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so moved. Chair lays out HCR28. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HCR28 by Branch, WHEREAS, The life of a Texas football icon and American sportscasting legend drew to a close with the passing of Don Meredith on December 5, 2010, at the age of 72; and WHEREAS, Joseph Donald Meredith was born in Mount Vernon on April 10, 1938, to Jeff and Hazel Meredith; while a student at Mount Vernon High School, he was an all-state football and basketball player and president of his senior class; he went on to attend Southern Methodist University and was the Mustangs' starting quarterback from 1957 to 1959, gaining a national reputation for his outstanding performances; one highlight was the 1958 Battle for the Iron Skillet, in which he threw two touchdown passes and ran for another to lead SMU to a 20-13 victory over archrival Texas Christian University; in recognition of his accomplishments, he was named an All-American by the Football Writers Association of America in both 1958 and 1959; and WHEREAS, This skilled competitor was the first player signed to the newly created Dallas Cowboys expansion team that joined the National Football League in 1960; he would spend his entire nine-year NFL career with the Cowboys and had the rare distinction of having never played a home game outside of North Texas as a high school, college, and professional athlete; he took over as the team's starting quarterback in 1963 and helped lead Dallas to its early successes, including appearances in the NFL title game in both 1966 and 1967; he was named the Bert Bell NFL Player of the Year for 1966 and made the Pro Bowl three times; and WHEREAS, Retiring as a player at the end of the 1968 season, Mr. Meredith soon entered broadcasting as a member of the initial Monday Night Football announcing crew, debuting in 1970; his sense of humor, knowledge of the game, and relaxed attitude made him the perfect counterpoint for his co-hosts, the overly articulate Howard Cosell and the all-business former New York Giant Frank Gifford; the adversarial chemistry he developed with Mr. Cosell was especially popular, and Monday Night Football quickly became one of the highest rated shows on television, making "Dandy Don" Meredith into a celebrity who transcended sports; and WHEREAS, He left the show in 1974 to join NBC, and during the next few years he branched out into acting and hosting talk shows in addition to covering football; he returned to the Monday Night Football booth in 1977, staying until his retirement in 1985; through the years, he put his stamp on each game by serenading viewers with Willie Nelson's lyrics "turn out the lights, the party's over" whenever the outcome of a contest was no longer in doubt; and WHEREAS, There were many honors along the way for this charming and affable Texan; SMU gave him the university's Distinguished Alumni Award in 1983 and retired his No. 17 jersey in 2008; he was elected to the Texas Sports Hall of Fame and the College Football Hall of Fame, and the Cowboys added him to their prestigious Ring of Honor; his broadcast career also earned him accolades, including an Emmy Award for broadcasting excellence in 1971 and the Pete Rozelle Radio-Television Award from the Pro Football Hall of Fame in 2007; and WHEREAS, Although his death has brought great sorrow to his loved ones and his numerous fans, Don Meredith leaves behind a legacy of excellence and good humor that will be treasured long into the future; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby pay tribute to the life of Joseph Donald Meredith and extend sincere sympathy to the members of his family: to his wife, Susan; to his children, Mary Donna, Michael, and Heather; to his brother, Jack; and to his other relatives and many friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of Representatives and Senate adjourn this day, they do so in memory of Don Meredith.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, member, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is a memorial resolution, please rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, members, we pause during this week of celebration in the Lone Star State to honor the life of the Dandy Don Meredith a great Texan who passed away late last year. Dandy Don was an all-state football player, as was mentioned in Mount Vernon and Franklin County. I know we have some folks from Franklin County here today, and went on to be the starting quarterback at SMU and ultimately an all American. Don was the first player signed to the Dallas Cowboys franchise in the 1960's. He played all nine of his professional seasons with the Cowboys leaving him distinguished as never having played a game outside of north Texas. Even after his professional career, Don Meredith became a national figure on Monday Night Football. Always, I guess, advancing the face of Texas on that crew with Howard Cocell and the other members that rotated through. Finally, leaving that through with the -- with his final soliloquy song of "Turn Out the Lights, the Party's Over." We're fortunate to have some of Don's family with us today members behind me on the dias is his nephews Jim and Joe Meredith; and longtime friends that grew up with him from Mount Vernon forward Jerry Jumper and Jack Clinton. Thank y'all. This time I'm going to let Representative Cain, who represents Franklin County, say a few remarks.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Cain.

REP. CAIN: Thank you Representative Branch. Miss Speaker, fellow members, this week I've had the honor to welcome so many of my friends and constituents from Franklin County who are in the gallery and the south gallery today. Representative Branch and I found that this week would be an opportunity to honor one of Franklin County's most distinguished and accomplished native sons Don Meredith. So many of the folks visiting us here today knew Don all his life. We honor his memory through those who knew him best. Please accept my sincere thanks to all of you visiting this week from Franklin County. It's an honor to serve you in the Texas House. Welcome to your House.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Don Meredith leaves us a rich legacy. It's interesting that after honoring Sam Houston and having all this history this week on the 175th anniversary, that Don Meredith in his own way was a real Texas folk hero and one of his nephews was telling me at one time in the 70's, there were two people at the top of the list of the most credible testimonials and the chaplains would want to use them more than anyone else to advance their story; and it was Walter Cronkite, a Texan, a most trusted man in America; and No. 2 as the most credible testimonial giver was Don Meredith which I thought was a real tribute to his person that -- thank y'all for being here, and thanks members.

THE CHAIR: Members, we're about to go into the congratulatory and memorial calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Members, I'd just like to -- I'd like to recognize a distinguished citizen from District 111, the honorable Ms. Lesley Thomas who's here and I'd like her to stand if she's still in the audience. She brought her two kids here to work for the state of Texas and find out about this process. So, I'd like to also acknowledge Bill Thomas and Ben. This men will be working as honorary pages today. I think Ms. Thomas is still in the audience. Thank you, members.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Carter.

REPRESENTATIVE STEFANI CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR694 recognizing members of the Garland City Council visiting their State Capitol today. Members, the city of Garland was incorporated in 1891 and since then the city's gone to over 200,000 residents, it's 12th largest city in the state of Texas. Counsel man Larry Justice was with us today, I think he left for a board meeting; but counsel woman Barbara Chick and her family are still here. May I ask them to please rise? Members, although they're not here and it is getting late, please join me in welcoming the members of the Garland City Council. Madam Speaker, I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out resolution No. 694.

THE CLERK: HC694 by Carter recognizing the members of the Garland City Council and their occasion of their visit to the State Capital on March 3, 2011.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognize Representative Carter.

REPRESENTATIVE STEFANI CARTER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The motion is adopted. Representative Sheets moves to have all members' names added to the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members, we're about to go on to the congratulatory and memorial calendars. The following congratulatory resolution have been withdrawn: HR446, HR450, and HR524. Chair lays out the following congratulatory resolutions. The clerk will read the resolutions.

THE CLERK: HCR62, HC16, HR360, HR364, HR362, HR365, HR366, HR367, HR370, HR376, HR377, HR379, HR381, HR460, HR425, HR426, HR435, HR436, HR437, HR438, HR441, HR445, HR447, HR448, HR459, HR460, HR461, HR464, HR467, HR468, HR470, HR473, HR474, HR475, HR476, HR477, HR480, HR482, HR486, HR487, HR492, HR502, HR505, HR506, HR509, HR511, HR528, HR529, HR531, HR533, HR535, HR537, HR539, HR541, HR545, HR546, HR547, HR550, HR551, HR559, HR560, HR561, HR560, HR564.

THE CHAIR: Members, the question is on the adoption of the congratulatory resolutions read by the clerk. Is there objection? Chair hears none. All the congratulatory resolutions are adopted. Members, will you please take your seats. We are about to go on to the memorial calendar if you have conversations, please take them outside the rail. The following memorial resolutions have been withdrawn: HR442 and HR530. Chair lays out the following memorial resolutions. The clerk will read the resolutions.

THE CLERK: HR363, HR371, HR386, HR387, HR388, HR389, HR390, HR391, HR392, HR393, HR394, HR395, HR396, HR397, HR398, HR399, HR400, HR401, HR402, HR403, HR404, HR405, HR406, HR407, HR408, HR409, HR427, HR431, HR440, HR471, HR483, HR485, HR489, HR490, HR491, HR498, HR500, HR507, HR512, HR518, HR519, HR520, HR542, HR543, HR544, HR552, HR568.

THE CHAIR: Members, the question is on the adoption of the memorial resolutions read by the clerk. Members, these are memorial resolutions. All those in favor, please rise. The memorial resolutions are unanimously adopted. Representative Gallego moves to add all members' names to the following resolutions: HR486, HR487, HR492, HR489, HR490, and HR491. Members, are there objections? Chair hears none, so adopted. Representative Creighton?

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REP. CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend the following rule, the five-day posting rule to allow the Committee on State Sovereignty to consider HJR34, HJR18, and HJR 50 at 2:00 p.m. or upon adjournment in E2010.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on State Sovereignty will meet at 2:00 p.m. or upon adjournment on March 3, 2011 at E2.010. This will be a public hearing to consider HJR34, HJR100,HCR18, and HCR50.

THE CHAIR: Members, are there any further announcements? If not, the House stands recessed until 1:45 this afternoon. [RECESS TAKEN]

THE CHAIR: The House will come to order. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 15. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB15 by Miller relating to providing a sonogram before an abortion, providing penalties.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, and members, this is the same bill we had yesterday. It has not changed, I've already layed out. I'm ready to get to work. So, at the will of the House, we'll move right onto Amendment No. 1. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: I would yield.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I'm sorry, but there was still some questions that I had to ask of the intent of the bill. I understand that you were trying -- what you're trying to achieve is informed consent and that was talked about many times, yesterday; and so, I'm just -- I'm a bit concerned because in the language of the bill, it actually explicitly prohibits any discussion about abortion providers. So a woman -- correct?

REP. MILLER: I don't -- I don't believe there's a prohibition on discussion of abortion providers. I'm not ware of that. Would you like to point that out to us, please?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yeah, just a moment.

REP. MILLER: Be hard to prevent since you're at an abortion facility already. Do you have a page and line number?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I'm looking for that.

REP. MILLER: Okay. Take your time. We're in no rush.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. Here it is. Page 2, Line 15. It says that no cost to the pregnant woman and that do not A. Perform abortions that provide abortion related services.

REP. MILLER: Correct.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: B. Make referrals to any abortion provider or C. Affiliate or contract with any entity that performs abortions, provides abortion related services, or makes referral to any abortion provider. So that language is explicitly prohibited from being given to the woman. So, I was just wondering if this was about informed consent and we are saying that women can't have this information at least not in the rest of the state sponsored material. How do you get to -- it seems to me a half truth. So, how can you say then that it is -- it's indeed informed consent?

REP. MILLER: The portion of the bill that you're reciting there refers to the free sonogram. Specifically, it states that they must provide a list of places other than abortion centers that provide free sonograms. So, it's not talking about the abortion or having it done at the abortion center and it's not a requirement that they go there. It's simply just a list of other providers other than the abortion centers and that is giving them more information than they have now. So, it is more information.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: We are steering them, though, towards those free sonogram --

REP. MILLER: Absolutely.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: When sonograms are now -- well they're cost prohibited. So, you're steering them towards a free one. A free one can -- can I please finish Can I please finish?

REP. MILLER: Did you not call for the (inaudible).

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yes, but can I please finish my question because it might enlighten you. So, we have, though, then, we're taking -- we're taking women, we're steering them in one direction but in the direction we're steering them, they're basically -- information is being censored from them and that's my concern.

REP. MILLER: I wouldn't characterize it as that way. In fact, you're referring to more information that is furnished now, that is a more informed consent. The cost of the sonogram costs from 90 to $103 is the average cost.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: But not if they have only been given a half truth. So my concern is it seems to me that the motive of the bill is something different and we'll just disagree about it but perhaps the motive of the bill is to get women to not have abortions. Is that safe to say?

REP. MILLER: That would be fine with me. Sure.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I mean is that what -- it seems that's the design of the bill.

REP. MILLER: Well, the design of the bill is to have a more informed consent. Right now the information is being withheld from the woman even though she is not paying for it --

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: It's not talking about --

REP. MILLER: The (inaudible) put on her own body.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: They're talking about informed consent though. So, you would give all the information and trust her to make the proper decision, correct? I mean, that is -- we've been talking about a lot about constitutional rights and a constitutional, a woman has a constitutional right to privacy and that's what we all do; and so, I don't understand why you wouldn't give her information about a right that she has. Why we would actually censor it. I mean it's in the language of the bill that its censored.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So, do you agree with me on that on that point?

REP. MILLER: No, I think any time you offer more information it's more information. We're not withholding any information, we're giving more information.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So, even a half truth is more information, is what you're saying?

REP. MILLER: That may be the way you characterize it, but all the truths all the available options, all the medical information, all of the choices, all of the providers that provide this information. In this particular section we are providing information for a free sonogram if she chooses. It's not mandatory, but if she chooses, so we will provide her that list. So, we're giving her more opportunity not less.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So, you're saying, though, that half of information is better than nothing?

REP. MILLER: I think all the information is better than nothing, I think that's what it does.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. Would you take an amendment?

REP. MILLER: Currently, you're not provide any information to other providers.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will you accept an amendment then that would strike that language that censoring language?

REP. MILLER: No.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Because it would then be up to the free sonogram providers to decide what to do.

REP. MILLER: You're welcome to offer that amendment --

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right now, you're tying their hands of being able to give information to women.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, please?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: I'd be happy to yield.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Just to clarify what was described yesterday, your bill does not make an exception for rape or incest; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: There is a carve-out for any woman that does not wish to participate. She may choose not to view the sonogram, she may choose not to hear the heartbeat, she may choose not to hear the description for any woman. This is made available if she so chooses.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Is that in the bill? I thought that while she could opt out of viewing the sonogram, if she had to, hear the verbal description and --

REP. MILLER: If you'll -- oh, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I'm looking on -- let's see, on Page 3. It says that she shall -- it shall perform a live sonogram on the pregnant woman, display the live realtime sonogram in (inaudible) in the quality consistent with the medical practice, provide in the manner understandable to the layperson of verbal explanation, including a medical description of the dimensions of the embryo or fetus, the presence of cardiac activity, and the presence of the lungs, make audible the live realtime heart. So, my understanding from your bill is that while she can opt out of viewing the sonogram she still must listen to the heartbeat and to the description of the fetus; is that not correct?

REP. MILLER: That is incorrect. I would refer you to Page 6 of the bill. Line 12, Section 171.05, the section titled Receiving Information During the Sonogram. The physician and pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under this chapter, solely -- here's the keyword or phrase -- solely, because the woman chooses not to receive the information required under this section.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. So, how is that --

REP. MILLER: That explicitly says that she may choose to not receive the information, if she's so chooses, there is no penalty for not receiving the information.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: She would have to get the sonogram and she would be given then the option to view it, hear the heartbeat, and get description or she could opt out of that altogether; is that right?

REP. MILLER: She's going to receive the sonogram whether this bill passes or not. It's standard medical procedure prior to the abortion services. So, she's going to receive that. What this bill does is actually give her an opportunity to view that. In the committee hearing, there was testimony from several women, not just one, that asked to view the sonogram and were denied access to that.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I understand. I just want to get an idea of how it's going to work. Is the doctor going to say, I'm performing this on you now and you have an option to view it if you want to, you have an option to hear the heartbeat if you want to, you have an option to how you are given the description if you want to. Is that how it's suppose work?

REP. MILLER: The -- under the bill, and I can refer you to the section if you'd like but basically it says the doctor must provide the sonogram, a description of the sonogram, and the heartbeat; and section 171.055, it explicitly says, this woman may choose not to participate.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: So, she'll be given the option pulled if she does not have to if she doesn't want to?

REP. MILLER: I don't know if she'll be told, but she does have that option. The bill doesn't address whether to tell her or not.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Because of course they want people to have that option then and need to know that option, correct?

REP. MILLER: They do have that option under this bill.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: All right. Now, what if, for instance -- and that would apply even if, for instance, a woman was going in because her baby had died inside her and there had been a car accident or something had happened that caused her to have to go and have an abortion. It would not matter that she would still have to go in there and have the sonogram and then hear the same things we've been talking about; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: Partly. The part about the fetal abnormality is covered under that section. The car wreck is actually covered under a different section described under Medical Emergencies. Under the case of a medical emergency, none of this is required.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. Now, let me ask you about this because I remember yesterday we were talking about cost and you answered, well, there's no increased cost of there's no cost but we have this 24-hour waiting period here. So, let's say we have a young girl, 16-year-old girl who made this very, very difficult decision after consulting with her family and her clergy man and whoever else, but she's made the decision to do it. She now has to travel -- let's say she lives in a part of Texas that this is not authorized, she would have to go to the clinics, she would have to have the sonogram, she's basically told go sleep on it for 24 hours, and then she's got to go back again.

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: So, we're talking about maybe an overnight stay at a hotel, we're talking about travel cost. That is a cost that in incurred there by having a 24-hour weighting period, is it not?

REP. MILLER: That is correct. You are correct. However, I would make with one caveat. There's no medical procedure that's performed in this state where you just walk in and immediately have the procedure. It's normal, best practices, under the patient-doctor relationship where once you are given a medical procedure where the EKG of your heart, or an MRI, or a cat scan or X ray, at that point, the doctor will sit down with you, the patient, you have a face to face with your doctor and they explain what is happening to your body, what your options are, if you choose a procedure, they will lay out how the procedure is done, what the recovery time is, what the therapy is. Under current procedure, that is not done. So we're not asking anymore of this person than we are of any other patients.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: But under current times -- currently, a woman who chooses -- currently, a woman who chooses to have an abortion is not required to wait a 24-hour period, is she?

REP. MILLER: She is required to wait the 24-hour period, currently. Under current law, the Woman's Right to Know Law requires a 24-period layout. This bill just follows that, but it's already required.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: She's having to go back twice, in other words, now that she wouldn't have to be under current law, is that right?

REP. MILLER: No. Current law requires under the woman's right to know, once she goes into the abortion facility, ask for the abortion, that she wait 24 hours. That is current law. This bill just mirrors that, basically.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: This bill just requires basically two procedures that are done 24 hours apart. Is that --

REP. MILLER: Right. You're correct. Once she goes to the sonogram -- the clock doesn't start ticking until the sonogram is performed. You are correct on that point.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: All right. Well, I think the Senate version did not have that, did it? Doesn't the Senate version have, like, a 2-hour waiting period?

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. So, the Senate version would not require necessarily an overnight stay, whereas, the House version does.

REP. MILLER: Actually, they still have to comply with current law. Under current law, a Woman's Right to Know it's a 24-hour layout. It doesn't -- what my point is, the two hours, you are correct; but it doesn't negate the 24 hours right to know law that we currently have.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. Did -- I was told this, and I don't know if you know or not, but that there were abortion providers in only 17 of the 254 Texas counties? Do you know --

REP. MILLER: Well, I have a map of all of them. If you'd like, I can pull that up.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I was just wondering because this is on the issue of the travel and the issue of the cost. That was, that was something that came up in research, and I just wondered if you knew.

REP. MILLER: I'm sure it's more than that. I think I have a list. It may take me a little bit to find it.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: And right now, the way it works, even though a doctor performs the sonogram as we talked about yesterday, I believe, he does it so he can determine at what period of gestation the pregnancy is and if there's any -- anything he needs to -- for his own purposes, for the doctor's purposes in determining what is medically necessary for the woman; is that right?

REP. MILLER: Could you -- I was looking for that information. I missed the first part of your question. Could you please repeat it?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Currently, when the -- you mentioned that already sonograms were done; but currently, sonograms are done by the doctor so that the doctor can determine for himself at what stage the pregnancy is and he can determine what needs to be done, what is medically necessary for the woman. He doesn't share this information with her because it's not -- it doesn't go to what's medically necessary. Is that the current procedure?

REP. MILLER: Well, apparently not according to the testimony in committee. There was a former administrator of Planned Parenthood testified that they hired high school students to perform the sonogram and because it was much cheaper than hiring a licensed stenographer or a physician to do that; and it's obvious that they're not qualified to interpret that. This legislation requires that the sonogram be performed by licensed stenographer by the national registry or a physician.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I understand that --

REP. MILLER: Currently, there are no RN's or doctors. The common practice is to just have laypeople do that procedure.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: But are you saying that that layperson does it and that no one reviews it to determine at what stage of the pregnancy the woman is in? I would imagine that maybe someone does it and somebody else reviews it. Just like when you go in and you have x-rays and you have someone else read them. Your --

REP. MILLER: It's not --

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: You're not saying they're done by high school kids just for the purpose of being done without anybody actually reading them; is that right?

REP. MILLER: No, I'm not. Obviously, the doctor has a liability in this case and he's going to interpret that sonogram himself; but currently, there's no opportunity, there is no dialogue between the patient and the doctor and that's what this bill intends to do is to create that dialogue so that the patient can actually sit down with their doctor, ask questions, have their procedure explained. Currently, the only time the patient sees the doctor during this abortion procedure is when she is on the operating table and already sedated and the doctor will come in with a cap on his head and a mask on his face and the only thing that's open is his eyes and that's the only contact she has with the doctor now; and this bill attempts to establish a doctor-patient relationship.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Well, and I understand there's dispute as to what the intent of the bill is; but as you mentioned yesterday, your hope is that it's going to limit the number of abortions that we have in the State of Texas; is that right?

REP. MILLER: I -- we don't have any actually figures or comparisons but other states -- the 21 other states that have introduced some form of sonogram legislation, they have seen a reductions in abortions in those states; but I hope both of us can agree that's a good thing.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Well, of course. No one wants to see someone have to make that decision and that is your intent to limit the abortions in our state.

REP. MILLER: This is an informed consent bill. We want to make sure that all women have information made available to them. That's the purpose of the bill.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: So that there would be fewer abortions in our state, right?

REP. MILLER: Could you repeat that, please?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: So, that there would be fewer abortions in our state?

REP. MILLER: Well, we'll see. We don't know.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez, for what purpose?

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: Be happy to yield to my good friend. How you doing, Armando?

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Good. I have a couple of questions for you in regard to exemption of medical emergencies.

REP. MILLER: Sure.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: I have to find and place that information into the record. Who would have access to those records, if you don't mind me asking?

REP. MILLER: Those records could be accessed in two ways: The Medical Board would access those records if there was a complaint filed against a doctor by a patient, and other would be random audits done by DISHES, periodically. They normally have one audit per year and they would come in and audit facilities filed and that would be need to be in there, obviously, to meet their audit requirements.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Now, this would also fall under the same criteria for HIPAA, am I correct? They would have to follow the HIPAA in order to access those records -- you know, I'm not sure on that. Maybe I can get somebody else -- I'm not familiar with that.

REP. MILLER: Well, get someone who could help us answer that.

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises a point of order. For the gentleman, your time has expired. The point of order is taken.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker, could we extend the gentleman's time, please?

THE CHAIR: Representative Martinez moves to extend the gentleman's time. Are there any objections? Chair hears none, so ordered.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you; and I'm not, it is not a trick question by any means, Mr. Miller, its mainly just saying under HIPAA regulations, the patients themselves would allow for access into their files or anybody trying to to get their information. That's all it is, we deal with it in the medical community all the time. So, just as long as it falls under HIPAA and HIPAA regulations, that was my only concern. Under violation, if a physician violates any of this, they are completely stripped of their certification or their right to practice; and to me, I have a bit of a problem with that mainly because it is not a form of malpractices, that physician is doing, it's just a form of him not following what is in the statutes. Could you explain that to me, if you don't mind?

REP. MILLER: Well, it wouldn't be any violation of this bill. It specifically says -- lays out, that if he does not offer the sonogram, the explanation, and the heartbeat to the patient, then they would be subject to have his license revoked. One caveat with that, there would be due process if those files were not -- I mean those affidavits were not found in the file. It would be due process, make sure that, you know, they were misplaced in a different file or there was a fire or, you know, some other extenuating circumstances.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Because I wouldn't want to put our physicians in any type of situation to where a female who was bothered by this type of issue to go back and say, well he didn't explain this to me and now you have a physician or physicians who now possibly say, well, we're not going to practice or do this because now this is another form of medical liability that we have to face in the future and we don't want any litigation or we don't want to lose our certification. So, that is my concern.

REP. MILLER: I'll have to agree with that, it is a very strong bill with very strong consequences.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Absolutely; and finally, we talked -- I know you had mentioned earlier about the free sonogram and females will not have to pay for these sonograms, but who would actually -- there has been to be a cost involved, and who would actually pickup the cost of this sonogram when it is being performed? Currently, under hospitals, there is a charge of $114 per private pay down in our local communities in the valley, for example, and its private pay or insurance and there's a cost of $114. So, now, you're going to provide this types of sonograms but without a free, and who would pup that cost because there has to be a fee? I'm concerned about that.

REP. MILLER: The list that is provided to them are chairitable organizations. In my home community, the pregnancy crisis center, it's a nonprofit and they rely on the charitable gifts and they offer those currently at no charge along with many other services, I might add. It's a real asset to our community.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REP. GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: Certainly, be glad to.

REP. GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Chairman Miller. I want to set aside the issue of the abortion debate in terms of what side one falls on in that debate. The conversation that I'd like to have with you has to do with physician-patient relationship.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. GIDDINGS: The the TMA, the Texas Medical Association, has a huge number of physicians in their association and in terms of the abortion issue, I know they fall on both sides of that issue, but have they shared with you the concerns they have regarding this bill?

REP. MILLER: They have not. I have not spoken to anyone representing that group, personally.

REP. GIDDINGS: Okay. Well, I will tell you that they have indicated in a letter here that their concern -- that this would lay a foundation for future law makers to sort of establish the details of the interactions between physicians and patients and allow physicians, people like you and me, for instance, to mandate what kind of tests, procedures, and medicines are provided and what time frame. Does that surprise you or concern you about their --

REP. MILLER: It does surprise me a little bit because no one's been to my office to speak to me about it. If I remember correctly, I don't believe they signed in on the witness list when the sonogram legislation was in committee. So, it does -- did surprise me a little bit. This is the first I've heard of it.

REP. GIDDINGS: Okay, and just going on a little bit further, again. We're talking about patients-physician relationships. The AMA has a medical ethics opinion as it relates to their codes and so forth. Are you familiar with that particular opinion?

REP. MILLER: You know, I'm not but I trust that you are. So, why don't you share that with us?

REP. GIDDINGS: I certainly will. It states that physicians should honor patient's requests, not to be informed of certain medical information and that physicians should assess the amount of information a patient is capable of receiving at a given time and should tailor disclosure to meet those patient needs and expectations and in light of their preferences; and I could go on and read that, and so in effect again, my conversation with you has to do with patients and physicians and their relationship. In effect, we are asking physicians with this bill to violate medical ethics.

REP. MILLER: I'm going to strongly disagree because right now there is no doctor-patient relationship, and I think this bill goes a long way to develop that. This is the only procedure that I know of where there is no dialogue between the patient and the doctor. It's just simply not taking place. I think it's a travesty to women, a travesty to the patients; and it's, to me, it is not a good reflection on the medical profession.

REP. GIDDINGS: Well, I understand your point of view on that, Chairman Miller, which is pointedly different from my own; and when I think about this bill, I think of another bill that came before this body perhaps two to four years ago and it had to do with the HTV vaccine for cervical cancer, which this body overwhelmingingly voted against because we were dictating that young girls be given this particular vaccine are not be allowed to go to school or whatever. So, we were dictating that young women had to have this vaccine that was supposed to be life saving and we turned that down because we thought that was too much interference by government into the lives of families and young women. Do you recall that debate?

REP. MILLER: I do recall that debate, and we're going to have that same opportunity today. We're going put this before the full body and ask the body what they want to do with this issue, also.

REP. GIDDINGS: I understand that, and I want -- I will not go so far as to ask you where you stood on that particular issue. We will just let that slide; but for the moment, I want to talk to you a little bit about HIPAA. Somebody in front of me raised the conversation and it's one of the issues that concerns me greatly as it relates to your bill. You indicate that this particular certification by the physician that certain procedures have been done and the requirements of this bill met and that that certificate would then go into the patient's medical records. What do you envision would happen at sometime in the future as it relates to that piece of information in the patient's medical records?

REP. MILLER: Well, I was informed by my good friend, Byron Hughes, that HIPAA does apply in this case. So, anybody --

REP. GIDDINGS: It does what?

REP. MILLER: He said, according to my good friend, Byron Hughes, that this HIPAA does apply, does apply. So, any violations would be dealt with accordingly.

REP. GIDDINGS: Okay. I love him, Byron, be on your side to argue a point with you. He's been on my side arguing various things, but I still haven't gotten the answer to this question. I didn't understand.

REP. MILLER: Would you be so kind as to restate your question?

REP. GIDDINGS: If I am correct in your bill, there is a requirement that warrants a physician complies with the requirements of your bill that there is documentation placed in the patient's medical records; and my question was, what do you envision would happen with that piece of documentation?

REP. MILLER: Okay. The documentation -- I'm sorry, I didn't understand your question the first time, and I apologize for that. The documentation remains in the file for seven years or, in the case of a minor, until that minor reaches the age of 21. That information probably would never be pulled from that file or even be questioned unless it was brought up in a random audit. There's supposed to be an annual from DISHES to each year on all medical facilities including abortion providers, hospitals, and surgical centers and --

REP. GIDDINGS: Where is that? I don't want to interrupt you, I'm sorry. I was going to ask you where is this audit in the bill? Because I'm concerned about the ability of someone with something other than a medical record, than a medical reason being able to go into medical records. We fought for years for patient privacy as it relates to health related issues and it's very, very difficult for anybody to have access to one's medical records.

REP. MILLER: It's not expressly applied in this bill, but its addressed in law and other pages of the statutes. If you wait just a second, I'll get that for you.

REP. GIDDINGS: Okay. Thank you, sir.

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises a point of order. The gentle lady's time is expired, as well. The point of order is well taken into consideration. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CHAIR: Representative Giddings for what purpose?

REP. GIDDINGS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was attempting to be recognized for an extension of time, please.

THE CHAIR: Members, there's a second extension of time that requires unanimous consent. Is there objection? Chair hears objection. The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Alvarado.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.

REP. ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment strikes the enacting clause of the bill.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro for what purpose?

REP. CASTRO: I'll let her lay out the amendment.

THE CHAIR: All right.

REP. ALVARADO: Members and Mr. Speaker, I'm offering this amendment because I don't think that everyone fully understands the level of government intrusion that this bill advocates. As yesterday, I point out that what we were doing was mandating government intrusion and I think something that needs to be pointed out here is that there is no option. The only option that this bill has is for the woman to not have the abortion because if she refuses to see the sonogram, if she refuses to hear detail by detail, she cannot have the abortion. So, I feel that this amendment is necessary so that we all understand what is at stake here; and I will yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro for what purpose?

REP. CASTRO: If the gentle lady will yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Does the lady yield?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes.

REP. CASTRO: Representative Alvarado, can you explain for us the procedure that the woman would have to undergo if this bill is passed?

REP. ALVARADO: Well, the procedure is that there is a probe that's used, a vaginal probe, it's called a transducer and it is covered with a condom and a gel and it is inserted into the uterus and the woman is in a position that she cannot simply get up and walk out if she doesn't want to see something or she doesn't want to hear something. She is lying on the table with her legs spread very far apart and in stirrups and she is unclothed from the waist down. She chooses not to see or hear -- she is not in a position to just get up and walk away. So, it is not an option.

REP. CASTRO: This is not the same as the sonogram with the gel over the belly?

REP. ALVARADO: Well as you can see -- no.

REP. CASTRO: Is that the device there?

REP. ALVARADO: This is the device that is used. It is not jelly on the belly and I think that is something that's gotten lost here in the discussion of this bill because a woman that is 12 weeks pregnant or less, this is the kind of procedure that's used, not the jelly on the belly.

REP. CASTRO: Now, do you know of any other medical procedure where the legislature has directly gotten involved in the physician-patient relationship to this extent?

REP. ALVARADO: I don't know of any, in fact. Even inmates in prison are not forced to undergo medical procedures much less unnecessary medical procedures.

REP. CASTRO: And would you say that this is big government?

REP. ALVARADO: I say it's pretty big. This is government intrusion at an all-time high. Instead of making probing a priority of this session, we ought to be probing on how we fix our 26-million dollar deficit.

REP. CASTRO: So, why would we be considering a big government kind of bill -- do you feel that the author and others who support the bill feel that women are just too dumb to make the decision, that they've contemplated for quite a while?

REP. ALVARADO: I think it's about shaming women, humiliating women, and embarrassing women that they would have to undergo such a mandate.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Giddings for what purpose?

REP. GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield for questions?

THE CHAIR: Lady yield?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Lady yields.

REP. GIDDINGS: Representative, I was speaking regarding HIPAA and an audit, and the author of the bill has just kindly informed me that at this point there is no audit in this bill; and so, the line of questioning in terms of what happens to those -- to that documentation was a legitimate question under those circumstances, would you not say?

REP. ALVARADO: That's correct.

REP. GIDDINGS: There is no audit in the bill at this point and the author was kind enough to point that out. Does it concern you at all, as it relates to HIPAA and the possible violation of the privacy act as it relates to one's health records?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, ma'am, I think it is very concerning and I'm glad that you brought it up.

REP. GIDDINGS: And finally, that the patient-physician relationship is such an important one and just recently, representative, I happen to have a family member in ICU for three weeks and I cannot tell you how important it is for physicians and patients to be able to trust one another and to be able to have open honest communications without being directed from somebody outside of that relationship. Would you agree with that?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, ma'am, I would. Thank you.

REP. GIDDINGS: And finally, this question is indirectly related to this bill, but not exactly. On yesterday when this bill went down, there was a motion to recommit and it required a certain number of votes and most of the members of this body had the courtesy to agree to recommit this bill whether they agreed with this bill or not. Did that not happen?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, ma'am; and we are here back 24 hours later. We are doing the 24-hour waiting period.

REP. GIDDINGS: And that led me to this comment. I think it's a little bit earlier for this body to start cutting off and shutting out members when they're asking legitimate questions that concern them because what goes around, will come around.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Hernandez, for what purpose?

REP. HERNANDEZ: Will the lady yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Lady yield?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Lady yields.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Ms. Alvarado, do you know if there are any extension in the current bill for a woman does not have to undergo that transvaginal probe, for instance, if she's been brutally raped?

REP. ALVARADO: I don't know of any exemptions.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Or if she's a victim of incest or any other code violations?

REP. ALVARADO: No. As I stated yesterday, I think that if you -- if you can just imagine in the description I gave yesterday of how the woman is lying there and she is a victim of rape or incest and then she is forced to undergo this thing. I think it is insensitive, I think it's cruel, and this body or someone wants to mandate it. This ought to be at a doctor's discretion and not -- we should not be forcing any type of procedure.

REP. HERNANDEZ: So, do you believe that we're restricting the doctor's ability to assess the situation, decide which is the best medical practice by mandating that this ultrasound be performed?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, ma'am.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Do you know if there is any exemption if a husband and wife have consulted at home and decided that they don't want to continue with the pregnancy and both husband and wife go to the doctor's consultation room, is there exemption for that?

REP. ALVARADO: No, there's no exemption for that.

REP. HERNANDEZ: So, the state is telling that household, that husband and wife that have consulted with each other, we are mandating this sonogram.

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, ma'am. That is correct.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentle lady yield, please?

THE CHAIR: Lady yield?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Representative Alvarado, so we've been told different things that you can't use -- that the sonogram is not mandatory but under the bill it says it is mandatory. So, there's language in the bill here, though, that talks about how -- how she doesn't have to receive the information. That's what it says on Page 6, Line 15, that she's not required to receive the information; and so, I'm just wondering, if you're on the table like you had described and many of the people in this room know that experience and so you are undergoing this procedure, and how can you avoid receiving the information? I mean, your -- it's not like you can get up off of the table. So, how would a woman be able to avoid the receipt of the information? I mean, she's made her decision, she knows what she's going to do. So, how do you do that?

REP. ALVARADO: Well, I agree, Representative Farrar, and I think what's also been lost in the discussion in the debate of this bill is that while the doctor is performing this procedure, the doctor is giving the description. So, if you -- again, you think about the position the woman is in and what is -- what is happening to her at that time. She cannot just get up and walk off. So, it is not an option.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So, you have to hear. I guess the only alternative would be something like la la la la la, what you used to do as a kid when you didn't want to hear your parents, right? I mean, basically, what a woman is reduced to unless she comes in with earplugs or something. Am I -- tell me if I'm wrong.

REP. ALVARADO: No, you absolutely right.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: To me it seeps like appear very humiliating position to put women in.

REP. ALVARADO: And I -- if I mentioned before that not even inmates in prison are forced to undergo medical procedures, let alone, unnecessary medical procedures. So, we're saying to women, as we celebrate women's history month, that we are going to treat Texas women worse than we treat inmates.

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises a point of order that the lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, if I would like to extend representative's time.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? There is objection. All those in favor say "aye." All those opposed say "no." Record vote has been requested. The record vote is granted. Vote "aye" to extend the time vote "nay" to not extend the time. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Castro voting "aye," Ms. Farrar voting "aye," Mr. Miller voting "no." Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 70 aye's and 72 nay's. One present not voting. The motion to extend time fails.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REP. CASTRO: I would like to request the verification.

THE CHAIR: Members, we can do a verification or we can agree to extend -- to extend the time. Is there objection to extending the time? Chair hears none, so ordered. Ms. Alvarado. Representative Castro for what purpose?

REP. CASTRO: I ask that the gentle lady yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Will the lady yield?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, sir.

REP. CASTRO: I believe you were finishing a line of questioning with Representative Farrar, and I wanted to kind of continue along that line and I know that this is your second term, representative; is that correct?

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, sir.

REP. CASTRO: And in your experience based on what you have experienced as you've been here as a voting member and what you know about legislative history in the last ten years or so, have you seen a legislature that is committed to helping out pregnant women, to helping out folks that are on medicaid, in getting benefits for their kids, and helping them through the prenatal process, and helping setup child support once the children are born?

REP. ALVARADO: No, I haven't seen that; and, in fact, yesterday, as I point out in 2005 there were some pretty severe cuts made to Family Planning Services that have yet to be restored. So, if this is really about saving lives and reducing the number of abortions, then the best way to do that is to fully fund Family Planning Services. So, that's what we need to be focusing on if that's the real issue here.

REP. CASTRO: In fact, I don't know if you knew this or realized this, but in 78th Legislature, when I arrived here in 2003, House Bill 1, the budget bill back then, cut about 8,144 women a month, pregnant women, off of prenatal services based on medicaid. Does that sound like a legislature that supports life from cradle to grave?

REP. ALVARADO: No, I say that's a very antilife, antiwoman, antifamily legislation.

REP. CASTRO: So it begs the question, if we're going to promote life in the pregnancy phase, why do we not promote life after children are born?

REP. ALVARADO: I would agree. I think it's very hypocritical to be concerned about an unborn child but then to turn a blind eye once that child is here.

REP. CASTRO: So, we turn our attention away to as soon as they come out of their mother's womb.

REP. ALVARADO: Yes, I would agree.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you, representative.

REP. ALVARADO: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Alvarado amendment? Chair recognizes Ms. Alvarado to close.

REP. ALVARADO: Speaker, members, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller moves to table the Alvarado amendment. The question occurs on the motion to table. All those in favor, say "aye," opposed "no." It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Ms. Farrar voting "no," Mr. Miller voting "aye." Show Ms. Hernandez Luna voting "no." Have all voted? Being 106 aye's and 41 nay's, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, this is a perfecting amendment dealing with the emergency medical clause. The Texas Hospital Association had some concerns and we're simply striking one word on Page 1, Line 13, the word "itself." Acceptable to author.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to ask some questions to establish intent.

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. Chairman Miller, I just want to ask you some questions to establish legislative intent regarding the exceptions for medical emergency. House Bill 15 states that a physician may perform an abortion without performing a sonogram, only in a medical emergency; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: That is correct.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: So, the exception could include now life threatening physical conditions that are not caused by a pregnancy such as trauma, like that which might occur in a car accident, or for being assaulted?

REP. MILLER: Yes.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Or a life-threatening physical conditions such as a stroke or ruptured spleen that results from some kind of preexisting condition, like heart disease?

REP. MILLER: Yes.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: So, thank you for clarifying this. I just want to make sure that we're broadening the definition of medical emergency to include those that are not arising from the presentation itself.

REP. MILLER: If you'd like to have that reduced to writing, we can do that for you.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Yes, yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered.

REP. ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: Yes, I will yield.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you, Chairman Miller, I'm trying to understand the impact of this amendment. The -- it is a one word amendment where you're striking the word "itself," correct? On line 13, Page 1.

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. So, I just want to understand the practical effects of this amendment because it doesn't seem to square, the back and forth, with Representative Howard that occurred just a moment ago. If I read the medical emergency definition, correctly, it means that the life-threatening physical condition needs to be caused by or arising from the pregnancy, not a car accident, not chemotherapy as a result of treatment for cancer but caused by or arising from the pregnancy, correct?

REP. MILLER: Yes, and I believe it goes on to state or any other bodily -- any other bodily function that maybe impaired.

REP. ANCHIA: But the bodily function that may be impaired is not the cause. So, I believe you're misreading the definition. Even if you removed the word, "itself," it still limits the life-threatening physical condition to something caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, not from some other action but from the pregnancy. Right? So, I just want to understand the language because I don't think it gets us where we need to go in terms of a woman, for example, who may be dealing with a cancer treatment or a woman who is an emergency as a result of a car wreck. So, can you just look at the language and walk me through why you would think it would cover those situations?

REP. MILLER: Here's what I'm basing my decision on that it's satisfactory to reach the means. The Texas Hospital Association expressed you're very concerns. It was their legal counsel that said this would fix the problem and ask us if we would simply make this change to alleviate the problem you just described. So, I would need to refer to my legal counsel, I am not a doctor. So that's the -- where I base my decision.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. So, you, yourself, as the author of the bill, should be able to look at this same language and just sort of walk me through it. So, can you walk me through just how your language, which appears to limited to damage or life-threatening physical condition that occurs from the pregnancy also would pickup a -- the circumstance where you had a car accident or cancer treatment or something else. Just walk me through, just how this language gets us there.

REP. MILLER: According to the legal counsel --

REP. ANCHIA: No, no, no, no. I'm asking you. I'm asking you --

REP. MILLER: -- and that's my best example I can give you.

REP. ANCHIA: No, no. Just read the language with me and tell me if you think it really does get us there. I'm not asking somebody who's not on the floor now. I'm asking you.

REP. MILLER: Okay. What I can tell you is, that in consulting with the legal counsel, this is the request to fix the problem you have. So, I'm relying on legal counsel's advice that this gets us where we need to go and that is the reason for the amendment to strike with the word, "itself."

REP. ANCHIA: And I understand. I understand. You said that before, but the language as it currently reads even with your own amendment, says that the medical emergency means the life-threatening physical condition caused by or arising from a pregnancy. A car accident is not a pregnancy. Chemotherapy for cancer is not a pregnancy, and is not nor is it arising out of or caused by a pregnancy. Explain to me how you get there.

REP. MILLER: We'll, it's the same answer I had before. I guess I have to ask my legal counsel.

REP. ANCHIA: No, no, I'm not talking about how legal counsel gets there. I'm talking about how you get there, as the author.

REP. MILLER: I'm advised of legal counsel.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. So, you don't -- can you walk through -- can you walk through -- do you understand my point, at least? Do you understand where I'm coming from?

REP. MILLER: I understand it very clear, and I'm being brutally honest with you. I reached my decision and how I got there on advice of legal counsel. I relied on them to address this situation. So --

REP. ANCHIA: Let me ask this question.

REP. MILLER: That's how -- that's how I got there. You asked me how I got there, that's how I got there.

REP. ANCHIA: So, somebody else got there and that's how you got there. I just want to make sure I understand, Mr. Chairman. Does a life-threatening physical condition caused by a pregnancy include a car accident? Do pregnancies cause car accident?

REP. MILLER: Well, depending on what you're doing at the time of the car accident, I guess.

REP. ANCHIA: I'm not trying to be funny, I'm just trying to -- this is a very serious deal, you know, I know you take it seriously. I'm just trying to get the language here because it doesn't make sense to me. Is the life-threatening physical condition caused by a pregnancy, a car accident?

REP. MILLER: Well, do pregnancies cause car accident, is that your question?

REP. ANCHIA: Sure, answer that question.

REP. MILLER: Well, I guess it's possible, it would be very remote.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. So, there's not causation there, right? You don't think there's causation. Does chemotherapy treatment for cancer --

REP. MILLER: So, to answer you question, I guess if you were pregnant and went into labor, that could cause you to have a accident. So, in that case it would.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. That's a terrific example, but does pregnancy per se cause or give rise to a car accident?

REP. MILLER: State that again.

REP. ANCHIA: Using your language, right, which limits the life-threatening physical condition as being caused by or arising out of the pregnancy, does the pregnancy give rise to the car accident that then causes the life-threatening physical condition?

REP. MILLER: Well, the example I gave you, obviously, it would if you went into labor. If you were birthing or --

REP. ANCHIA: So, this language, then, you would agree with me that if this language only pickups that exception that you discussed, that very narrow exception where at woman goes into labor and then has a car accident, then, what you're saying is that's the only -- that's the one situation that would fall under an exception, correct?

REP. MILLER: Probably not the only exception. It's just the only exception I could think of off the top of my head.

REP. ANCHIA: So, it's a pretty limited circumstance, right?

REP. MILLER: I would think so.

REP. ANCHIA: I'll have an amendment for you.

REP. MILLER: (inaudible).

REP. ANCHIA: I'll have an amendment for you, Mr. Chairman.

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

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio.

REP. LUCIO: I'm trying to -- to -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to understand the amendment. Is your intent of your amendment itself, to allow an opt out provision for those who have a medical emergency not related to a pregnancy like what Representative Anchia addressed car accident, the receiving chemotherapy, they weren't supposed to be pregnant. If they get pregnant because of their cancer because of their cancer treatment, they could possibly be in risk of dying. Does taking itself, does taking itself out of that allow those circumstances to qualify for an exemption?

REP. MILLER: According to the advice of legal counsel, that's what this amendment does. They said it gets them there, just striking that one word.

REP. LUCIO: And I appreciate the advice of legal counsel. Many people have lost millions of dollars because of advice from legal counsel. There could be a challenge. There could be a different alternative viewing of looking at this particular language. Would you be willing to accept an amendment, that would make Mr. Anchia and others comfortable, that the fact is that you are concerned about life-threatening conditions when it comes to women, and we clarify this language and we move on with this amendment.

REP. MILLER: I would not be willing to accept that amendment because the amendment does just that. I think we get there with this. Thank you, though.

REP. LUCIO: But the fact that you think we get there is not definitively getting there --

REP. MILLER: It is in my mind. This defense amendment --

REP. LUCIO: And I appreciate your opinion, sir --

REP. MILLER: I'd have to disagree on that.

REP. LUCIO: -- but if your intent is to protect the sanctity of a woman's life when it is life-threatening, why would you leave it up for alternative interpretation by including --

REP. MILLER: I don't want to leave it up to alternative --

REP. LUCIO: So --

REP. MILLER: That's why I wouldn't take the amendment, obviously -- the amendment I'm going to take. The reason I wouldn't want to take the amendment is because I don't want to keep any loopholes. I want to keep this bill tight.

REP. LUCIO: But emergency life-threatening condition is defined. I don't see how you're creating loopholes if you, yourself, tell me that it's not what we're saying it could be and based on legal counsel, you think is enough.

REP. MILLER: Actually, I am convinced that it is enough. We may disagree on that, but I'm convinced that this does get us there.

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises the point of order, gentleman. Time has expired, point of order is well taken and is sustained. Mr. Miller sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The medical emergency definition, I just had a dialogue with the chairman and I respect his intent on this but what I'm trying to do is clarify his intent in this bill because I don't believe the language that currently exists in the bill gets us where we need to go. I would direct the attention of the members of the House to the medical emergency definition on Page 1, Line 12, and what this amendment seeks to do, it keeps the entirety of the definition but makes it clear that the life-threatening situation for the woman, is not exclusively limited to a life-threatening situation arising out of the pregnancy or caused by the pregnancy. Because if you limit it to just life-threatening situation caused by the pregnancy or arising out of the pregnancy, it doesn't pickup the car accident, where a woman is in a car accident and she's seriously injured; and I know the chairman thinks it pickups it up but it doesn't. She's seriously injured, she wants the baby. This is not a gratuitous, you know, abortion as birth control. This is a woman who wants the baby and is seriously hurt, and she needs to have a difficult decision. It says, listen in those kinds of situations, you know, you don't have to have the sonogram. When we're talking about serious, he even puts the death or serious risk of substantial impairment; and in these types of situations -- I'll tell you, if my wife was in a car accident and we were in something like, dealing with these very difficult decisions, I'd want the law to be perfectly. I'd want us to contemplate these kinds of situations. I don't think the language gets there. I think the chairman, despite his best efforts, has drafted language that does not get there. It also doesn't get us there for a stage-three cancer patient who is undergoing chemotherapy and whose body can't sustain a pregnancy and physically debilitating chemotherapy. This language does not get there because the life-threatening situation is not caused by the pregnancy. So, I'm just asking him to put a clarification in the bill to clarify his intent because the penalties are so great and because of the seriousness of this bill.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gonzales from El Paso, for what purpose?

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Mr. Speaker, is the -- representative will yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. ANCHIA: I will yield. Thank you.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman or Representative Anchia. With regards to this particular amendment, if the woman is taking medications that could possibly lead to birth defects would your particular amendment address this specific issue.

REP. ANCHIA: Exactly, and that's the intent of the amendment because in the case where a women is taking -- has to take medication that may cause a serious birth defect, the current language only limits the medical emergency to that emergency which is arising out of the pregnancy; and that's -- it's just too narrow it's too narrow to pickup that kind of situation, so I think we need to clarify the chairman's intent and fix language.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: And Representative Anchia, are there any other examples of situations that you can think of, not currently under this particular house bill that would require where a woman may experience a medical emergency but is not exempted in the bill from sonogram requirements?

REP. ANCHIA: Well the number -- I mean, I talked about the woman who was a cancer patient, I talked about the car wreck and I found it -- I found it encouraging that the chairman said that the -- he thought the bill would cover a woman that had a medical emergency like a car wreck; however, the language that he had in there and the subsequent amendment that he added removing the word "itself" still doesn't get us there. It doesn't clarify the language of the medical emergency. So, I -- I ask the members of the body to please help me clarify the intent of the chair who said he'd hope this covers those kind of medical emergency. This language will make it perfectly clear. When we're talking about stripping doctor's of their licenses, we need to be perfectly clear. To be fair to Texas doctors, to be fair to women, and to be fair to the unborn.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: And this way there is no doubt that it would constitute the medical emergency?

REP. ANCHIA: That's right. There's no ambiguity. Thank you. Move passage.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Wow. Wow.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez, for what purpose?

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. ANCHIA: I yield.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you. I apologize, I didn't see you back there.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: That's okay, representative; and thank you, I really do like this amendment and especially because of the way it is stated in the bill saying that the medical emergency means a life-threatening physical condition caused by arising from a pregnancy itself, and when you talked about narrowing, a very narrow margin, would you agree with me (inaudible) or gestational diabetes would be those very narrow indicators of that life-threatening emergency?

REP. ANCHIA: Yes.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: And by no means is there any type of detail here that talks about a car accident or any kind of traumatic event, any assault, anything that is traumatic with that patient that could cause her to go through this.

REP. ANCHIA: Yes. I mean this simply acknowledges that there maybe an event in a woman's life other than the pregnancy itself that may be life threatening. That's all this amendment does and it clarifies language that I think was in-artfully drafted and seeks to contemplate the chairman's intent.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: So, what your amendment is doing is further defining what a life-threatening emergency would be, in this case.

REP. ANCHIA: I don't know if I'm further defining it. It's just made perfectly clear by this language.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you very much, I like your amendment.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment?

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm going to ask that you bear with me on this. This would actually -- I think the representative has good intentions but I believe it opens up some loopholes. I'm going to have to move to table.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, do you yield?

REP. MILLER: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Miller, do you acknowledge the point that Mr. Anchia's amendment makes which is that there may be external factors, besides the pregnancy, which may endanger the woman's life?

REP. MILLER: Yes, that's addressed in the bill.

REP. CASTRO: Okay, and didn't we pass in 2003, a bill called the Lacey Peterson Bill.

REP. MILLER: I don't know when that was. I'm sure you're correct, though.

REP. CASTRO: Well, could you explain what the Lacey Peterson legislation was?

REP. MILLER: I'm sure you can do that better than -- I'll let you do that.

REP. CASTRO: Well, I didn't write this bill. You did.

REP. MILLER: Well, I didn't write the Peterson bill, either.

REP. CASTRO: Well, you voted for it and so did I.

REP. MILLER: I can't remember what we did in 2003 on one particular bill. I think we had about 6,000 that session.

REP. CASTRO: You don't remember what the Lacey Peterson Legislation was?

REP. MILLER: Well --

REP. CASTRO: The Lacey Peterson Legislation said that a third party actor, if that person causes the loss of a pregnancy can be held criminally liable. There was a big debate on this House floor about whether that was a way to make a statement that an unborn child was a human life. You and I both voted for that bill.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. CASTRO: Now, wasn't that an acknowledgment by this body that there is a third party external force that can have an effect on an woman's pregnancy that may not arise from within a woman's body herself?

REP. MILLER: Well, actually we dealt with that in 2003. This is a different bill, today; and this is Anchia Amendment. So, that's not the topic we're on.

REP. CASTRO: But what I'm trying to get you to knowledge and realize is that there are other factors which he is describing which have an effect on the woman's pregnancy, whether those are done by somebody else or whether if another medical condition that she may have, that's not directly related to the pregnancy.

REP. MILLER: The intent of this bill is to have a medical emergency provision in it that where the life of the mother or any bodily function of the mother is threatened, that they get an automatic bypass of the requirements of this bill; and that's what we're trying to do here today and the amendment that I offered earlier, addressed that. I would place the continue working on that; however, this amendment, in my opinion, opens it up to a lot of loopholes which I'm not willing to do in the bill. We would intend to take care of the medical emergencies by I do not want to create loopholes allowing for abortion providing doctor to --

REP. CASTRO: What you mean by loopholes? Which loophole are you describing?

REP. MILLER: Well, under this amendment if you allow the doctor to determine a condition might be threatening to a mother, that's his opinion, it could be anything. Maybe she was distraught or may be suicidal, or any other reason; and I -- the intention of the bill is not to be that broad. We want to keep the scope --

REP. CASTRO: Let me make --

REP. MILLER: We want to make very limited to physical condition and bodily harmed.

REP. MILLER: Please, let me finish my question, sir.

REP. CASTRO: Well, please ask my question.

REP. MILLER: Well, you can ask one but can I please finish my answer?

REP. CASTRO: I'm waiting.

REP. MILLER: Okay. Thank you very much. The purpose of this bill, we want to make sure that those medical emergencies are addressed. It's not my intention as author of this bill to, in a medical emergency, to make a woman wait 24 hours. It is also my intention not to create loopholes and use the medical emergency provision of this bill to skirt the issue and not provide the woman a pertinent information required in this bill.

REP. CASTRO: Okay. Thank you. You've described the loophole. I don't quite understand what loophole you're talking about, but here's my question, but Representative Anchia is not presenting you with a poisoned pill. He's presenting you an alternative of that would make you're -- the intent of what you're trying to do, that would help the intent of what you're trying to do. Why wouldn't you accept that amendment?

REP. MILLER: Because I don't believe that's what his amendment does.

REP. CASTRO: Okay. Well, I'm going to let him follow up on his questions.

REP. ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, do you yield?

REP. MILLER: Yes, I'll be glad to yield.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What loopholes would you be referring to? I've heard you say that a few times, now.

REP. MILLER: Currently, the bill is written, would allow for a medical emergency that threatens the life of the mother and or any bodily function of the other, if I read your amendment right, it would now be determined as a condition as determined by the physician. That's simply too broad, in my opinion.

REP. ANCHIA: If I might, Mr. Chairman, if you just look at the language of the bill. The bill still says that -- and I didn't change your language at all related to placing the woman in danger of death or serious risk or impairment of a bodily function, of a bodily function. We're not talking about mental, we're talking about bodily; and I also doesn't change the certification of physician that previously existed in your language. Would it be helpful, and I'm just trying to arrive at clarity in the language, would it be helpful that a medical emergency means a physical condition that as certified by a physician places the woman in danger of death? Because the language that I think is too limiting for your amendment is, the cause by or arising out of the pregnancy. That's the language I think we're wrestling over today; and so, if I heard you earlier, you were concerned that a loophole may authorize a doctor to find mental harm and then not -- and then authorize or allow for an exemption to the -- to the procedure. Right? So, what if we put physical condition back in? Would that would you see that as closing a loophole?

REP. MILLER: I think that would address mental condition but it doesn't address the peripheral issues that concern me, like --

REP. ANCHIA: Like what?

REP. MILLER: Well, maybe a mild heart condition, or slightly high blood pressure, or diabetic condition, that are not currently spelled out in the bill.

REP. ANCHIA: You think a diabetic condition would fall into this category of placing the woman in danger of death or serious risk of substantial impairment? I mean mild diabetes, do you think that would, that loophole is created by your own definition?

REP. MILLER: No, I think it's created by your definition.

REP. ANCHIA: How is it created by mine?

REP. MILLER: Well, because you give it to the discretion of the doctor and you --

REP. ANCHIA: But the discretion of the doctor is not -- I'm not changing the discretion for doctor already contained in your amendment.

REP. MILLER: Well, your striking the portion that says life-threatening physical condition and -- pardon me, and substituting the word simply conditioned. Your taking out word life-threatening physical condition.

REP. ANCHIA: Because the word life-threatening is already contained later on. You have it twice in your definition. It's already contained later on in danger -- with a phrase, in danger of death or serious risk of substantial impairment. So, I mean, my view is, that if you put physical condition in, it covers the car accident, it covers the chemotherapy, but currently, your medical emergency definition by the way that is in other parts of the code, in fact, do you know how many times it appears in our civil code or our Texas statutes?

REP. MILLER: No, I do not.

REP. ANCHIA: It appears 26 times throughout our Texas statute. So, we're creating a very narrow definition here that's not only going to impact this bill but many other parts of the Texas statute and that's why I think it's important not only because of the seriousness of this bill but because of the collateral impact of this language on other statutes that we get this right; and I hope you consider that my intent only. I'm not trying to gut your bill. This is language that's simply trying to improve the language of the medical emergency definition.

REP. MILLER: Well, I believe the previous amendment that I offered addresses that and my concern is that it destroys the intent of the bill by wanting to use any condition to perform the abortion.

REP. ANCHIA: No. It's not any condition. It's condition that places the woman in danger of death or serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. I mean that's your language, and it's in there.

REP. MILLER: Well, in my opinion, it just broadens the justifiable medical condition.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez to speak for the amendment.

REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, memebers. I'm coming in support and speaking in support of Representative Anchia's amendment mainly because of a few words. There's two words that his amendment fixes and if you look at, and in reading that one section means a life threatening physical condition caused by or arising from pregnancy itself. If you look at those two words, pregnancy and self. When we're talking about car accidents, that is not because of pregnancy itself. When we talk about a fall, may be any type of traumatic event. It is not by pregnancy itself. Therefore, I am asking you to support this amendment mainly because we need to look out for those instances when it is not due to pregnancy. Therefore, I believe that his amendment does answer that question; and by no means is it gutting this bill and it is just addressing the incidents of not having to do with pregnancy but other issues or circumstances that may arise because of that. So, members, I ask you is to please loo at those two words, pregnancy and self and support Representative Anchia's amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia to close.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I hope you've all had a chance to listen to the debate and also take a look at the language. I believe that the chairman is sincere when he says he think the existing medical emergency language is language covered, the other situation. I hope you've had a chance to look at the amendment. This is not an intent to gut bill. This is not an -- this is not intended to change the fundamental scope of the bill. This simply wants to make language clear; and again, as I said earlier, I think we owe it to the doctors in Texas who stand to deal with some pretty heavy consequences if they somehow find themselves outside the language of this bill and I want to bring clarity to the process. I think the stakes are too high --

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REP. PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. ANCHIA: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. PHILLIPS: I appreciate your concern to make sure that this is clear and people understand the exception and there's obviously a few disagrees that this is sufficient; but the way I understand it, just for the record, you're proposing to take out life-threatening physical condition; is that correct?

REP. ANCHIA: No, it's not correct. I'm proposing to take out physical condition caused by or arising from a pregnancy. Just so you understand, let me finish my --

REP. PHILLIPS: Let me ask you a question.

REP. ANCHIA: I'd like to finish my answer. So, the reason that's important, chairman Phillips, is if you look a little bit farther down, the qualifier for life threatening, already exists in the second part of the definition. It places -- hold on a second -- places the woman in danger of death or serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily, not mental, bodily function. That's a pretty important part of the definition.

REP. PHILLIPS: I ask you to yield to ask you a question and -- I just want to ask you a question about this.

REP. ANCHIA: May I finish? Look, we've got ten minutes.

REP. PHILLIPS: Let me just ask you a question, and we'll go on.

REP. ANCHIA: Let me finish this dialogue with you, but the reason I think this is an important change, Representative Phillips, if look at the first line --

REP. PHILLIPS: Thank you for letting me ask you some questions.

REP. ANCHIA: All right.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro.

REP. CASTRO: Will the speaker -- will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. ANCHIA: Yes.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Anchia, is your only intention here to clean up the language of that provision in the bill?

REP. ANCHIA: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I think this definition is not written well.

REP. CASTRO: Okay. You're an attorney, aren't you?

REP. ANCHIA: I am, but I'm not a constitutional lawyer or a health care lawyer or anything like that; but I can look at language in a definition and I do that everyday, all day in my law practice and I can tell you that this language is too narrow and it doesn't pickup the intent that was articulated by the chairman. I came to the chairman in good faith with this amendment, it's a very narrow amendment and I was hoping he would take it. So, I guess we're going to have to vote.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you.

REP. ANCHIA: Thanks.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Anchia sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves the table. Question is on the motion to table. Vote "aye," vote "no." This is a record vote. Show Mr. Miller voting "aye," Mr. Anchia voting "no." Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 99 "aye's" and 47 "nay's," one present not voting. Motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hernandez Luna.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Hernandez Luna.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment provides for a definition of exemption but many on the House floor, sexual violence is something that we can all agree is one of the most heinous crimes that anyone, male and female, can endure. It is the behavior that is used by perpetrator to gain power over the victim. In most cases, the victim is familiar with the perpetrator and it is a case where they have violated their trust. Victims of rape of any kind gone on through their lives knowing that they may never feel the same. Revisiting every detail of the sexual intercourse, they're forced to have and always wonder when we will I be okay, again? Many may carry false guilt. Guilt that cannot be felt by anyone except their attacker. Yet, this point in time of a victim's, rape victim's life countless with carrying guilt as if they had anything to do with prompting the sequence of events. We have all worked to condemn the act of the predators and preventing individuals from feeling what I just described to you. We try to insure that victims know nothing less but love and comfort when they need it the most. Currently HB15 does not provide for sexual assault exemption. Members, I ask that you vote with me to protect these victims that have been victimized and this bill with further victimize them by forcing them to undergo this procedure.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Mr. Speaker, if Representative Hernandez Luna will yield?

THE CHAIR: Will you Yield?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I will answer her question.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: So, as the bill stands, currently, there is not an exception for these cases of rape and incest; is that correct?

REP. HERNANDEZ: That is correct.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: And so a woman who has been raped or a victim on incest would then have to hear the heartbeat and see the image of the rapist's fetus; is that correct?

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Right. The way the bill stands is that we would have to require that that victim of sexual assault have to relive the entire experience, and in a very intrusive way. We're asking for a vaginal probe of someone that has been raped or a victim of incest.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: So, basically then, the state is compounding the trauma that a woman faces from having been sexually assaulted and having been a victim of incest through not having a safeguard provision in this bill; is that correct?

REP. HERNANDEZ: That is correct. We're making them relive that episode.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you very much.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Miller to peak against the amendment.

REP. MILLER: Members, this is a very important issue and I can appreciate the representative's point of view; but I would just tell you that there is already a carve-out in the bill that this issue has been addressed on Page 6, Line 12. No woman has to view or listen to the sonogram if she so chooses. So, I'm going to oppose the -- have to oppose this amendment, regrettably.

REP. VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, do you yield?

REP. MILLER: Certainly.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. VILLARREAL: Chairman Miller, can you restate the line that provision is found on Page 6?

REP. MILLER: I could read it to you if you'd like. It's on Page 6, Line 12, Section 171.055, receiving information during the sonogram. It states that the physician and the pregnant woman are not subject to a penalty under the subchapter solely because the woman chooses, the woman chooses, not to receive the information.

REP. VILLARREAL: Does that address the performance of the procedure?

REP. MILLER: It addresses all three sections of the sonogram -- viewing the sonogram, the verbal descriptions, and the listening to the heartbeat.

REP. VILLARREAL: So the sonogram --

REP. MILLER: There's no penalty for her, there's no penalty for the doctor, there's no penalty for the medical facility if she chooses not to participate.

REP. VILLARREAL: Does the sonogram still have to be performed?

REP. MILLER: Well, in all cases, a sonogram is performed. It's a standard medical practice prior to an abortion.

REP. VILLARREAL: So, this bill --

REP. MILLER: I think to answer to your question, maybe I'll skirt it a little bit. The sonogram has to be -- it does have to be offered. It does have to be performed because of standard medical procedure. It would have to be offered but she could refuse.

REP. VILLARREAL: So, the sonogram actually could be refused and then it would be up to the abortion doctor, physician, to choose the standard of health care -- just so we're clear. She would have to sign the affidavit saying that it was offered to me and that's spelled out elsewhere in the bill. Saying yes, that we it was offered to me, you know, I refuse but it was offered to me. That clears the doctor of any wrongdoing. We want to make sure that that's the case.

REP. VILLARREAL: And so every requirement in your legislation is bypassed for cases where there's incest and rape.

REP. MILLER: You got it. That's correct,sir. That's correct.

REP. VILLARREAL: Thank you. I believe there's some more questions behind me.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

REP. LUCIO: To ask a few questions.

THE CHAIR: Does the gentleman yield.

REP. MILLER: Yes.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Chairman, we've been back-and-forth regarding different issues regarding this bill and you continuously point to that sections Page 6, Section 12, and I understand the language there; and you're probably right, I think it does cover some of the issues but the problem is at the time when all this information is presented to the woman, she does not know because it does not state that she must be given the information stating that she can refuse. Well in practice -- I'm sorry, in practice, if this bill passes all she's going to be told of all the things she has to do. No information is guaranteed to be given to her that she can receive. So, she's going to think that it is required by law that you do this, or else.

REP. MILLER: Well, that would be explained in the doctor-patient relationship. The doctor would be able to explain the entire medical provision and if you'll look on Page 4, Line 22, it says that she had the opportunity to view. It doesn't say she must view, it says she had the opportunity to view. So, she was provided a manner understanding, she was provided with a live realtime sonogram. Simply states that she has the opportunity --

REP. LUCIO: Would you?

REP. MILLER: I think the bill clearly states that it is not mandatory in that sense.

REP. LUCIO: Would you feel that the position would be subject to sanction, if he stated protocol in his office when presenting this information to any patient seeking an abortion that they had the opportunity to refuse?

REP. MILLER: I think that's a prerogative of the doctor whether they want offer that or not. I understand it's at doctor's-patient relationship and the bill doesn't address that.

REP. LUCIO: Would he be subject to sanctions or would he be subject to the ramifications in this bill if the license would be taken way, if he made a protocol. You understand what I'm saying? If he gets protocol saying oh by the way it says all of this but man you know by state law Page 6, Section 12, you can refuse and the at that point, I don't have to do this.

REP. MILLER: The sanctions for removing the facilities or the doctor's license is failure to have the affidavit in the file saying that the sonogram was offered, and that's the only sanction. There's not a sanction that addresses your issue. Sanction arises when the doctor does not offer the sonogram to be viewed.

REP. LUCIO: So, for legislative intent purposes, would a doctor be complying with the with the philosophy, with the purpose of this bill is at the time he's presenting all the information that he's required to under the bill he also stated but by law and by the way bill is written, you do not have to go through this.

REP. MILLER: I'm not willing to go that far, but I will do this for you. That the only sanction for that doctor the removal or revocation of his license is failing to offer the sonogram and to have the affidavits in the medical file.

REP. LUCIO: Could he -- based on that language, on Page 6, Line 12, that section that refer to, could he tell her you also have the right to refuse to sign the affidavit?

REP. MILLER: The bill doesn't address that specific point. It simply states that there's no penalty if he refuses to do and it also addresses there is a penalty if he refuses to offer it.

REP. LUCIO: I understand that, but respectfully, Mr. Chairman, you're also using that language, which is very obscure, to state -- it's already covered in the bill even though it is exclusively not. When I offered you scenarios regarding women who have had multiple ultrasounds or women who, like this very amendment, are victims of domestic violence to rape. You are using this language which is very obscured to saying it is covered, but when I ask you if for legislative intent purposes whether or not a doctor could routinely state you have the opportunity to refuse to sign this affidavit by law, you're telling me it's not covered by the bill. So, I'm just trying to find some --

REP. MILLER: My answer would be the same. That the bill is silent on that subject.

REP. LUCIO: So, if it's silent, essentially, for legislative intent purposes, he's not subject -- he's following the rule of the bill.

REP. MILLER: No, if I misspoke, they do have the sign the affidavit, even if -- Representative Harper-Brown said I may have misspoken but they do have to sign the affidavit even if they do not review the sonogram, let me make that clear. It has -- it simply has to be offered. Your point, the bill is silent on your point.

REP. LUCIO: Okay. So, you misspoke when you said -- based on this new information presented to you by Representative Harper-Brown -- you misspoke when you said that Representative Hernandez Luna's amendment is covered by the bill, Page 6, Section 12, because they can refuse but based on this additional information, simply refusing is not enough. They still have to sign an affidavit meaning they are the victim of rape or domestic violence are there because they have been violated. Yet, they still have to sign an affidavit with very explicit language about this procedure, even though in a circumstance like this, the majority of this House will agree, if this person is not in a regular circumstance like other seeking abortion --

REP. MILLER: Actually, there's no penalties to the woman if she doesn't sign that, but the doctor will have his license revoked. In all cases, in all cases, the affidavit must be in the file.

REP. LUCIO: Hold on.

REP. MILLER: But in no case, rape, incest, or otherwise is it mandatory that she view the sonogram.

REP. LUCIO: You just said there's no sanctions for the woman but you sanctioned for the doctor. So, a doctor, who has in his office a victim of rape, a child of 14 years old who has been raped or an adult who has been raped, would be in violation of this bill if he doesn't have, even though you're using that section as a basis for saying it's covered in your amendment file where he explained to a 14 year-old rape victim about the consequences of an abortion and having to go through this affidavit. So, he would be subject to sanctions for legislative intent purposes?

REP. MILLER: If the doctor does not offer, he must offer. If the woman does not participate and -- to verify that she was offered that, well the doctor would assume liability, obviously, and he would become liable if there were any complications from that and be subject to a medical malpractice suit that the doctor would perform that operation without the affidavit.

REP. LUCIO: Okay.

REP. MILLER: It must be in the file.

REP. LUCIO: So --

REP. MILLER: That's his liability for protection.

REP. LUCIO: A 19 year-old college student at the University of Texas, very educated in the engineering department knows exactly what she wants out of life, unfortunately on her way home --

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises a point of order, gentlemen. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. MILLER: I move to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

REP. LUCIO: Can I move to extend the gentleman's time?

THE CHAIR: Members, is there objection to the extension of time? Members, there's objection. A record vote is requested. This vote is on the extension of time. Vote "aye" vote "nay." Show Mr. Castro voting "aye." Mr. Legler voting "nay." Mr. Geren voting "aye." Mr. Branch voting "aye." Have all voted? Being 59 "aye's" and 83 "nay's" the extension is not -- is overruled.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Hernandez to close.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Mr. Miller refers to Page 6, Section 171.055 as a section in the bill that provides for the sexual assault exemption, but when you read line 15, if the woman chooses not to receive the information. It does not address whether she chooses not to endure this vaginal probe. But I think this extension is necessary to protect those victims of rape and sexual violence.

REP. DUKES: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Dukes, for what purpose?

REP. DUKES: Would the gentle lady yield?

THE CHAIR: Do you yield?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I yield for questions.

REP. DUKES: Thank you, Representative Hernandez. I had wanted to poses a couple of questions to Chairman Miller; and so, I'm going to divert from those questions just a little bit. I had one, had he ever had a transvaginal sonogram?

REP. HERNANDEZ: Just based on anatomy, I don't think he has.

REP. DUKES: Had he ever experienced being in a position of rape or domestic violence?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I don't know if he has or hasn't but I can imagine the effect that it was a very traumatizing experience --

REP. DUKES: But we know one out of two is truly not a possibility of those questions. So, we don't know if he could ever be in the mind-set of a woman who has been raped or has been through a violation to know what that woman is going through at the time that there are other authority figures around her telling her that she has to have a certain procedure. That she's going to be able to stand up all of a sudden and be strong and say, I don't want to have this.

REP. HERNANDEZ: I agree, and like we discussed earlier, the position the woman is in, she is unclothed on the table, in stirrups, with her legs spread, while this vaginal probe is being --

REP. DUKES: So, basically, if this bill, as written, states that because a situation is not reported as rape when an individual goes in to try to have this procedure, are we not saying that we're being complicit to statutory rape. That we're trying to cover up for statutory rape?

REP. HERNANDEZ: We're not providing, we're not protecting that person that's already been victimized.

REP. DUKES: Because they could be a young person that has some sugar daddy boyfriend who's older than they are and they're below 18, and we're trying to cover up in this law by saying we won't allow them to have an abortion nor will there be any type of information provided. So, we're basically just covering up for some dirty old men by not accepting this amendment.

REP. HERNANDEZ: I agree.

REP. DUKES: You have a good amendment.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?

REP. DONNA HOWARD: To ask a few questions, please.

THE CHAIR: Do you yield?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I yield.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: I've been looking, I don't have all the information before me right now; but the part I'm curious about is the part about minors. My understanding from what I've been able to find here real quickly is that to get a judicial bypass you have to show certain things like being mature and sufficiently well-informed about your pregnancy options to make a decision without a parent or legal guardian being involved?

REP. HERNANDEZ: Correct.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: These young girls can be very, very young and come for me abusive homes, have very severe -- a judge is not going to do this unless there's a serious problem going on for that child.

REP. HERNANDEZ: But we're addressing the issue of incest of rape when they can be impregnated by their father.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Absolutely, and so these young children, essentially, who have gotten pregnant and are traumatized already, obviously, by that and have found a way to get help, to get to a judge, to give judicial bypass, to terminate a pregnancy that was imposed on them in a way that was obviously extremely horrible and inappropriate. We're still going to subject to these young children to this, having to view and hear the sonogram and I understand it says in the bill, as Chairman Miller keeps pointing out, that you don't have to; but the fact is they're being put in a position of even having to say they don't want to do it, rather than never -- not even subjected to it in the first place which they should not be.

REP. HERNANDEZ: I agree.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: I thought you would. Thank you very much.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you, members. I ask that you vote against the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hernandez Luna sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. Question occurs on the motion to table. Vote "aye" vote "nay." It's on a motion to table, members. Show Ms. Hernandez Luna voting "no," show Mr. Miller voting "aye," show Ms. Farrar voting "no," show Mr. Solomons voting "aye." Have all voted? Show Mr. Aycock voting "aye." Have all voted? Being 97 "aye's" and 49 "nay's," one present not voting. Motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Farrar.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members. Under the Texas Penal Code, a physician is afforded a dissent against murder for performing an abortion. The bill as it stands, today, would afford the physician no dissent against a murder charge if he fails to provide written materials to clients in cases where they have not been kindly furnished by the department of state health services. A simple oversight may cause the physician to lose his or her lines. Taking a look at section 1.07A26 of the Texas Penal Code, it defines an individual to include a fetus in any stage of gestation. Therefore, a person who performs an abortion outside of the narrow confines, is considered a murderer. So, unless we correct this bill. A tiny technical violation like not passing out written materials, could theoretically turn a legitimate doctor into a murderer; and this was a real problem in Louisiana recently where doctors did not receive the written materials from the state health department. They had to go to Junction to keep their doors open. Through no fault of their own, they were unable to comply with the requirements of the law; and this amendment simply ensures that if the state -- the state is at fault for not providing the written materials, the doctor and the patient will not be liable.

THE CHAIR: Representative Gonzales, for what purpose?

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would Representative Farrar yield?

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, do you yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Farrar. Can you walk me through this? How exactly can a physician lose his or her license under this bill as is?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, if they don't provide the written materials -- it's a very severe punishment. It's unprecedented. Typically, we go through a series through the medical board and there's all kinds of at last variety of sanctions and steps and so on, but this bill is extremely harsh. They would actually lose their license and as I stated before, and it's a difficult time. We have budget cuts and there's a lot of priorities. I am sure you are hearing from your constituents, I still don't know why we are doing this bill. So, right now when our constituents phones are ringing because of the cuts to the education system, to our universities, and so on; but, nonetheless, we are going -- those cuts are going to affect everything. They're going to be very pervasive; and so, if we are not able to pay for these materials to have them printed then a doctor wouldn't be distribute them and therefore, the doctor couldn't perform abortions or would have to choose between performing an abortion and losing their license.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Well, isn't it normally really easy for a physician to lose his or her license and along that line shouldn't we be in the practice of revoking a license? I'm a licensed attorney, we have licensed attorneys that are colleagues of ours as our license doctors. Shouldn't we be revoking those license if you don't do your jobs correctly?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, certainly, that has a lot to do with your performance; and of course in our state and our country we believe in due process; and so, those due process mechanisms are built into various stages of our government and so it's here in Texas and so -- but in this bill in particular it goes from zero to a hundred miles per hour just like that. It doesn't -- there -- it doesn't have progressive stages.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: And so why is it bad for a physician to lose his license? I mean what are the repercussions in the community?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, full-time, could you imagine, as an attorney, your licensed by the state, you lose your license by the state, your lose your license, you lose your livelihood, you lose your family position in society. There's all kinds of stuff, there's all kinds of ramifications; and in some areas, I imagine your district is a lot like my district where you have a few doctors and the community loses as well.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: And so a physician loses his or her license, what else happens to a doctor under this bill as it stands as is without your amendment?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: They could be considered murders as well. You have to make sure that, you know -- that there aren't unintended consequences to the bill. We know we don't like the bill, but nonetheless, we have to try to make the bill better.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: So, there are potential criminal repercussion under this bill that are not specifically outlined and so these are very real consequences for the doctors of Texas.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: Thank you very much.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. Question occurs on the motion to table. Vote "aye," vote "nay." Show Ms. Farrar voting "nay," Mr. Miller voting "aye." Show Mr. Villarreal voting "nay." Show Representative Alvarado voting "nay." Have all voted? Being 101 "aye's," 43 "nay's," one present not voting, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, again as a law stands today, when providing the required informed consent materials to a woman the individual providing the information are allowed to do so by phone. This new bill, however, would require the physician performing the abortion to provide the informed consent materials face-to-face. This reversal of position is problematic for a few reasons. One, at some facilities physicians work on a shift schedule. The physician who is to provide the abortion may not have been at the facility 24 hours before to provide the informed consent material; and moreover, all physicians undergo extensive medical training and are more than capable of answering all relevant questions a woman may have. It doesn't make a difference whether or not the physician is performing the abortion or not. Any physician is capable of providing the informed consent materials; and second, the law was originally crafted to allow telephoned information for a reason. Women who have to travel long distances from rural areas to get to a safe and regulated medical facility to receive an abortion, may not have the resources or time to come 24 hours in advance to talk face-to-face with a physician. Also, some women may feel more comfortable receiving information over the phone where they can do so in a comfortable and known environment. By allowing the information to be provided over the phone, a physician can still effectively answer any questions an individual may have and completely satisfy the informed consent regulations without placing added unnecessary burden upon a woman. The law was originally written with the understanding that a face-to-face conversation with the physician performing the abortion is not always plausible or practical for either party. If this bill is truly concerned with making sure a woman is fully informed, it would make sure that all methods of communication remain legal. It should not matter how or where the information is received, as long as it's correct and that it is received.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Will the lady yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the lady yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: If I understand your amendment, it's letting a physician provide with the -- provide the information that's being required; is that correct?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yes.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, it's all the information, so it's making it easier for the woman to kind of basically abide by this law?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Because right now as this bill reads, it actually becomes a bit more burdensome for the information that this law is going to be required.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Substantially, more burned-some.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, this is not changing what's been provided, just making it easier for that information to be obtained and provided to the woman.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right. They would still -- they would still be provided with the information. They'd have different options and we always talk about providing people more options, people tend to be more compliant when there are more options and so on; and so this provides that.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, do you think if this bill were to pass, let me think -- with that, your amendment, what do you think the effect would be on women?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I think that -- I mean you could argue that it would have constitutional problems as well because when you start to make the woman's constitutional right more burdensome, then you start getting into an area where you could have legal challenges.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, we're not going after any of the information that Representative Miller is seeking to have the woman get, not changing any of that?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: No. It would be the way it is now.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: We're just making it so that she can get it more readily with her position and in an even more comfortable setting of something that she's familiar with and giving her that option. We're not changing any of the information, right?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Exactly and a lot of women feel more confront with their OBGYN, their family doctor, or whoever. You know, they have a history with that person, and as we know, not all doctors perform abortions. So, it's like -- it's another specialty. So, you -- it would keep the woman feeling comfortable in her medical home.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think you have a good amendment.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Farrar sends up amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. Question is on the motion. Move to table -- to move to table. It's a record vote members. Vote "aye" vote "nay." Show Mr. Miller voting "aye," Ms. Farrar voting "nay." It's a record vote. Show Mr. Lucio voting "no." Everybody voted? Has everyone voted? Well, we're getting close, let's go. Everyone voted? There being 101 "aye's," 41 "nay's," two present, not voting. Motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment is meant to make sure that we inform women who are at the abortion provider that we inform them of medically accurate information about contraception, methods of contraception; and obviously, I think it's very important that these women have this information. Now, the Women's Right to Know Legislation, essentially, said that the provide had to tell them, simply tell them that there were resources out there somewhere else. What our legislation is going to do is to make sure that they get it directly when they go in for the abortion, for the abortion to be performed; and I want to point out that there are about 118,000 medicaid, unintended medicaid births ever year, 118,000. Now, I think, no matter where we stand on this issue or on the issue of abortion, I think all of us can agree that abortion should be a last resort and that the way we make sure that we decrease the number of abortions, is to make sure that nobody has to make a choice about having an abortion and that's the intent of this amendment; and I'll yield to Representative Johnson, if he has a question.

THE CHAIR: Representative Johnson, for what purpose?

REP. JOHNSON: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield? The gentleman yields.

REP. CASTRO: I will.

REP. JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question about what we currently provide. Could you sort of elaborate on what information our current informed consent law requires that we provide to a woman seeking an abortion with respect to unplanned pregnancy prevention?

REP. CASTRO: Sure. It's very scant actually. What we basically do is send them out the door and say here are some places that can help you out and give you information about the attorney general services, about medicaid, about maybe about contraception but we're not very good about actually providing it on the spot, so to speak; and that's why I propose this amendment.

REP. JOHNSON: One more question.

REP. CASTRO: Sure.

REP. JOHNSON: You mentioned in your remarks of that we have 118,000 or so, unintended medicaid births ever year in Texas. Is there a cost associated, a number, a dollar amount that you can attach to these medicaid births every year, those unintended medicaid births?

REP. CASTRO: That, there is. In 2007, for example, there were 118,524 unintended medicaid births. The cost to the state of Texas was $1.2 billion, $1.2 billion dollars; and this legislation is meant to cut down on unintended pregnancies to help women be informed and the effect will be to save the state of Texas a lot of money, hopefully.

REP. JOHNSON: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. Is there anyone -- motion is on -- motion is on the motion to table. Record vote? Record vote is requested. Is this an up or down vote? Okay. Members, let's backtrack. Mr. Miller and Mr. Castro decided to have an up or down vote on the amendment. Those in favor vote "aye," those against the amendment, vote "no." Mr. Castro, those in favor of the amendment vote "aye." those against the amendment vote "nay." Show Mr. Castro voting "aye," show Mr. Miller voting "no." Members, it's a record vote. Bell is ringing. Show Ms. Farrar voting "aye." Already? Everybody voted? There bag 45 "aye's," 101 "nay's," two present not voting, the amendment fails to adopt. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment makes quite clear that a woman has a right to refuse hearing the information that we are offering up to her. Obviously, not a refusal to have the sonogram as has been stated, that's part of the law already. It simply makes it clear to her that she can refuse this. Now, I know that Mr. Miller has told us that at the end of the bill, if you look at the bill, near the end, there's a section that says that neither the doctor nor the woman will be penalized if she refuses. All this amendment is doing, is putting in language that makes it clear to her, telling her, hey, you have the right to refuse. You can say that you don't want to see this or hear this; and that is the purpose of the amendment, that's all it does. I would also mention, that in the Senate, there is a -- the Senate Bill that will be making it very clear that, in fact, the woman has a right to refuse. So, I'm not doing anything that Dan Patrick over in the Senate, hasn't already done.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Representative Naishtat, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. CASTRO: I will.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Thank you. Isn't it true that several states have passed sonogram bills that give a woman the actual option to opt out?

REP. CASTRO: Yes, 20 states to be exact. Oklahoma is the only state that made they're bill completely mandatory. So, only one of the 20 states have made their bill completely mandatory and three years later, their legislation is still held up in court. It's never taken effective because it's still lost in the judicial process.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Thank you. Tell me, would this amendment make the state mandated procedure optional? Is it the intent of your amendment to create an opt out provision?

REP. CASTRO: No, it isn't. You know, it's clear that an opt-out provision is not acceptable to the author of this bill. This bill will simply let the woman know, up front, that she has a right to refuse, to see or hear the sonogram that's mandated by the bill which is the intent of the author so begin with. Remember, Representative Miller is saying that there's no penalty if she decides not to. I'm simply asking that we let her know right away at the beginning that she has a right to refuse, which is consistent with what the Senate is doing.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: So, what you're saying is that House Bill 15 already states that hearing or seeing the sonogram is optional?

REP. CASTRO: That's right. That's right. At the end of the bill, it says there's no penalty if she refuses.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: This is about informing a woman of her rights in a timely manner?

REP. CASTRO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: It's a good amendment.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: All right. Mr. Castro moves adoption of the amendment. Mr. Miller -- Mr. Miller wants to move to table, this amendment. So, question is on the motion to table. Vote "aye," vote "no," members. It is a record vote on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Miller voting "aye," Mr. Castro voting "no." Have all the members voted? All members voted? Show the chair voting "aye." There being 99 ayes, 48 nays, one present not voting; the motion on the table prevails. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes (inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, just a little ahead of you. I'm sorry. HB15 mandates that any facility that has provided free sonogram services cannot provide abortions in any wa or be affiliated with the procedure. This effectively rules out the hospitals, clinics and regelated abortion facilities which have a medical professional who can handle any crisis that can occur when a sonogram is being performed. Instead, women will be forced to go largely to unregulated facilities in order to receive a free sonogram. Therefore, all I ask in this amendment is that if a woman is to receive a sonogram at one of these free sonogram clinics, we ensure that these clinics will provide a licensed sonographer. So no matter where the sonogram is received, it is only right that this licensed professional perform the procedure. And that is mainly what my amendment does.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: For what purposes, Farrar?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. MARTINEZ: Absolutely.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Martinez, are you telling me that women are getting sonograms from unlicensed folks?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, Ms. Farrar, currently in the State of Texas we do not license -- or the State of Texas does not license or register the profession of diagnostic medical sonographer.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So how does that work?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, most sonographers who are employed in credible medical facilities are registered with the American Registry for Diagnostic sonography and, thus, they have diagnostic registered sonographer credential. However, the credential is highly recommended but not necessary. And it's not necessary to be a registered sonographer. So, to answer the your question, the State does not regulate, nor does it license sonographers and the national certification is not recommended -- is recommended but not required.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. So I'm just wondering, I mean you can imagine you have to have some sort of training because an ultrasound device is a heat machine and I can imagine -- and I've actually heard that it could actually cause damage to a fetus if it's used improperly.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, that's correct, Ms. Farrar. Because anybody who is going to be performing any type of diagnostics should be trained and certified. In order for you to provide any type of emergency medical service here in the State of Texas you must be certified as an EMT or as a Medic. In order for you to -- to start an IV on a patient you must be trained and certified to do that. In order for you to intubate a patient on out on the field you must be trained and certified to do. So all we are saying is if a person is going to be using -- doing any type of sonography they should be trained and certified in the State of Texas.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right. Because I've had the concern in the past; people, for all sorts of reasons, not just at different facilities where women are seeking advice or counseling about abortions, sometimes if you've seen -- maybe you haven't, but couples will get an image of the fetus because, you know, it's a great time and it's something to show the family and it's the beginning of the baby album. But I have been concerned because, as I have said before, that if you have -- it is a heat device and used improperly or used excessively or something could actually cause harm. I am concerned about the use of medical equipment, and what this bill does, and is in a way that is not medically certified.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What concerns me, Ms. Farrar, is that who is not medically certified to be able to provide this procedure; even though at a national level they may be certified, or it is recommended, but is not required here in the State of Texas. So I would like to see that we can have some sort of certification here in the State of Texas to say that you are certified to utilize this type of equipment, in order to provide a sonogram.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So your goal then is that it alleviate the concerns that I have had in the past, that the procedure is done by someone that's trying to do so in a safe way, in her best medical interests and so on; is that correct?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Absolutely. Let me just get on to something here: In addition to that, as a National Registry Paramedic you are certified at the National Registry level but, in order to provide emergency medical services in the State of Texas you must still register and certify yourself here in the State of Texas so you could provide that level of service. So all we're saying is yes, if you're certified at the national level, in order for you to do that so people could feel comfortable and know that you are certified when you are providing that type of procedure.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: All right. Members, Mr. Martinez sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Directed vote members vote aye, vote nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye, Mr. Martinez voting nay. All members voted? All members voted. Mr. Veasey, you've voted? All members voted. Being 98 ayes, 47 nays and Motion to Table prevails. Clerk lays out the following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.

REP. WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there has been a lot of discussion this session about unfunded mandates on counties and school districts. This amendment assures that Texas does not place an unfunded mandate on individuals and their health providers. HB15 promises free sonograms, but there is no guarantee that these free services will be available in a particular locality from a nationally registered sonographer. This amendment stipulates that the will pay for the sonogram if the cost accrues to the patient. The state will be charged for the procedure in an amount not to exceed the reimbursement rate set by the department. I've heard lots of complaints about the federal government making you buy health insurance. Well, what the if the government went further and told you and your doctor which medical procedures to have. Would you want the cost to come of your pocketbook? If we want the government to butt out of our personal affairs then let us be consistent. Members, I think it's only fair that we mandate a new procedure, we not pass the costs on to patients. I move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. WALLE: I will.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Walle, does this bill assure that the patient does not pay?

REP. WALLE: Well, the issue is that we're trying to provide an opportunity for women to have a free sonogram, because this is mandated by this body.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there a fiscal note to this bill?

REP. WALLE: Apparently there's no fiscal note to this bill.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Somebody pays. Then who is paying for these sonograms?

REP. WALLE: Well, the understanding is that they are free sonograms.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Okay. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Is there any member wishing to speak, to go on for or against the motion? If not, Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I have great respect for Representative Walle, he brought this amendment to me yesterday and we discussed it. I understand what he is trying to do. There is no fiscal note on the bill, he is correct. But we in the State of Texas we perform about 80,000 abortions per year and we are --

REP. DUKES: Mr. Speaker?

REP. MILLER: Just a minute, just a second, please.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose Ms. Duke?

REP. DUKES: I have a question.

THE CHAIR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: Just a second.

THE CHAIR: Not at this time, Ms. Dukes.

REP. MILLER: What he is asking to do is that the state pay for all of these sonograms that average a hundred dollars apiece; so this is going to be an $800,000 fiscal note. I will be glad to yield.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Dukes, for what purpose?

REP. DUKES: A question, please.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields?

REP. MILLER: Yes, I do.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. DUKES: Chairman Miller, does the bill have any provisions that allows for a woman to acquire a sonogram from an entity that does not charge?

REP. MILLER: Yes, it does. And if -- And are they required to provide a list of those organizations. That is correct.

REP. DUKES: Are you familiar with the requirements under the Health and Human Services Code that a list of Medicaid providers be made available to any individual that is in need of a Medicaid -- of a doctor who accepts Medicaid?

REP. MILLER: Okay, yes.

REP. DUKES: Are you familiar with that or are you taking my word?

REP. MILLER: I'm taking your word for it.

REP. DUKES: Okay. Thank you for taking my word for it, because I put it in statute because there were questions about whether or not they were physicians who would accept Medicaid. It so happens that the lists were made available. Are you aware that even though these lists were made available, many of the physicians on this list for Medicaid were not accepting patients and those patients could not find a provider.

REP. MILLER: I have found that to be true in my district, in doing constituent work.

REP. DUKES: That's unfortunate, isn't it?

REP. MILLER: It is. It is.

REP. DUKES: So what provisions are made in your bill when alleged providers who are to provide free sonograms don't provide them the same way the list for Medicaid is not providing the list of doctors who accept Medicaid patients?

REP. MILLER: Could you restate that? I'm not sure -- I -- there's a lot of noise up there.

REP. DUKES: I know, cacophony is bad.

THE CHAIR: The House will come to order, members.

REP. DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What does a woman do who would need the services of a free sonogram if the list is provided to her and there's not an entity that would provide a free sonogram?

REP. MILLER: Well, I haven't seen the list yet, but I do know what's on the list. The list is to be provided to every service in the county, or surrounding counties, that provide a sonogram service free of charge. Most of those are going to be nonprofits.

REP. DUKES: That's very similar to that Medicaid list that individuals in your district are not able to find a Medicaid provider. So what would happen, your bill says that an individual would have to have the sonogram somewhere between 42 to 78 hours prior. What happens to people who cannot find an entity anywhere that can provide a free sonogram?

REP. MILLER: Well, actually, even the sonogram that is provided by the free entity can't -- it most likely would not be used by the abortion provider, because of liability reasons. The doctor at that clinic would want to perform his own sonogram. But, right now, it's a standard medical procedure prior to the abort procedure to do that.

REP. DUKES: So if the sonogram from a free entity cannot be utilized, what's the point in having a list of free sonogram providers?

REP. MILLER: What we want to do is make sure that a woman is fully informed that she does receive that list if she wants to have a free sonogram prior to making her final decision to have the procedure done. She can go and have that done at no cost. It's not mandatory but --

REP. DUKES: She could have it at free cost some place else, but it could be used when she goes to have -- so it's

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. DUKES: So she's going to be mandated to have it at the time that she goes in?

REP. MILLER: She is now. It's the standard medical procedure now.

REP. DUKES: And because it's not going to be free when she goes into the doctor's office, or is it going to be free when she goes to the doctor that's going perform the procedure?

REP. MILLER: Whether this bill passes or not, current standard medical practice is that they perform that sonogram.

REP. DUKES: And who pays for it?

REP. MILLER: She is required to pay for that.

REP. DUKES: So, okay, so you're pushing an unfunded mandate that she has to have a medical procedure, one that you probably oppose in the Patient Protection Act from the Federal Government on Health Care, but you're going to require it to be done in this procedure?

REP. MILLER: Well, actually the procedure -- the sonogram procedure is already being performed. What the bill does is require that the information from the sonogram be made available.

REP. DUKES: But you're going make it mandatory that she has to have it and you are going to make it cost prohibitive, if it is her choice to go through with this procedure, to force additional cost on her?

REP. MILLER: Actually, there's no additional cost. She's already bearing the cost today, even though this law's not in effect of the sonogram.

REP. DUKES: But you're making it mandatory that this be done?

REP. MILLER: We're making it mandatory that the sonogram result be made available to her, along with a description of it. Plus, if there's an audible heartbeat, that be made available, too.

REP. DUKES: Mandated that she would have to have these things, like an unfunded mandate?

REP. MILLER: That they would be available to her for viewing, yes.

REP. DUKES: I don't understand why you have a free list if it can't be used. Can you explain that to me?

REP. MILLER: Well, we would hope that the lady would go there, view the sonogram, and that would defray the expense if she decided not to have the procedure, she would not be out any money. If doesn't go to the free facility and she decides to have it done at the abortion provider, she would have to pay for that, even though maybe she changes her mind and doesn't have the procedure done.

REP. DUKES: So it's more for persuasion of her mind-set?

REP. MILLER: It's a cost-saving measure and it's just another piece of information that we use -- want to use on the bill that makes sure that she's fully informed that those services are available. It's not mandatory.

REP. DUKES: If your bill does not have a fiscal note, how is it a cost saving measure?

REP. MILLER: (inaudible).

REP. DUKES: How does it factor as a cost saving measure.

REP. MILLER: The bill does not have a cost saving to the state, the savings I think you're referring to would be to the woman. She would, obviously receive a free sonogram, if she so choose.

REP. DUKES: Okay. We could go in circles. But you you're already aware of people in your district, as it relates to those who accept Medicaid really don't, and they can't find a provide that does so.

REP. MILLER: Actually, I live in a very rural district and there are many nonprofit agencies that offer counseling and free sonogram. I live in a small down, but there's actually one there. Pregnancy Crisis Center does this now in my hometown of Stevenville.

REP. DUKES: Emergency Crisis Center?

REP. MILLER: Yes.

REP. DUKES: They have telephones. I don't think that they have the transvaginal ultrasounds.

REP. MILLER: They do ultrasounds there.

REP. DUKES: The ones that I have researched don't necessarily do so. Thank you for answering my question. I understand it's now just a tactic just to try and frighten the woman into not the having the procedure, as though she didn't already have the mental capacity to make the decision.

REP. MILLER: Well, I respectfully disagree, but thank you for your comments. Move to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle, close.

REP. WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When the state mandates a medical procedure, like vaccinations for children, generally we make funds available to support that activity. Last session we appropriated about $57 million for immunizations. I would also add that these sonograms are medical unnecessary and do absolutely nothing to improve the health of a patient. I think for all of us over the detrimental health affects of abortion, the only abortions that are proven dangerous are those performed outside the supervision of the law. As all abortions were before Roe V. Wade. With that, Mr. Speaker, I move against the Motion to Table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle sends up a motion -- amendment, excuse me. Mr. Walle sends up an amendment. Representative Miller Moves to Table. The. Question is on the amendment. And, I'm sorry, back up; members. The question is on the Motion to Table. It's a record vote. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed to the Motion to Table say nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Mr. Walle voting no. Record vote. Show Mr. Smith voting aye. Mr. Legler voting aye. All members voted? All members voted? It being 105 ayes, 42 nays, the Motion to Table prevails. The following amendment -- the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hernandez luna.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hernandez Luna.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment provides the woman the discretion to opt out of the sonogram bill. The current law, we have the woman's right to know that was enacted in 2003, it's this pamphlet that a woman receives 24 hours prior to the abortion, and these are 22 pages that provide the woman with information on the risk of the abortion, the risk of carrying the pregnancy to full term, options they have, information on public and private adoption agencies. And it also goes into the characteristics of the unborn child. It includes the description of the growth and development. It also includes pictures, sonogram pictures, of weeks four, six, eight; throughout the pregnancy. So I believe, women are well informed and have the capacity to make this decision after they consult with their doctors, and should be able to waive. And the amendment includes the language for that waiver. Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentle lady yield?

THE CHAIR: Does the gentle lady yield? Gentle lady yields. Ms. Farrar?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Since this is not a medical -- medically necessary procedure, why is the state mandating that it become one?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I am unsure. I think we have a couple -- two or three medical professionals in the House. But, other than that, I don't think that I, as State Representative, or that the state should mandate a medical procedure. And, in fact, the medical associations are against procedure specific requirements.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Is the woman at any time allowed to express that she doesn't want to receive these materials?

REP. HERNANDEZ: This is going clarify. We've had a lot of discussion today about the woman having the option to opt out and not receive this information. Well, this will make it very clear and empower the woman to make that decision for herself and what will be done to her body.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So the argument has been about informed consent. So, you're making sure that a woman has all the options and not just half truths; is that correct?

REP. HERNANDEZ: That's right. That's why I referred to the woman's right to know as the informed consent. It's 22 pages of information of what they're going to go through for the pregnancy, about the risks. And so there -- I believe they're well informed when they come in and they have to wait 24 hours to allow them enough time to review this material.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hernandez Luna sends up an amendment and Mr. Miller votes -- No, there's not a motion. Mr. Miller? Mr. Miller was having a conversation with the Dean of the House. That has a high priority. Representative Hernandez Luna sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. The question is on the Motion to Table. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. It's a direct vote. All members voted? All members voted? There being a 103 ayes, 44 nays. Motion to Table prevails. Following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio? Chair recognizes Mr. Lucio for an amendment.

MR. LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, here's my concern with this amendment. What this amendment does is the state shall pay -- this is -- I'm just going read it. The state shall pay the cost providing the service required under subsection A at no cost to the pregnant woman. If the woman's residence is not located within 45 miles of a health care provider facility or clinic in the list described by this subsection 171.05283 -- think about this, members, for very underserved areas like the border, like Brownsville, I was speaking to some of my providers; I don't think there's somewhere that they can get a free sonogram that is not -- that is within the 45-mile radius. Those of us in rural areas, think about our lack of infrastructure health care, and if we're going to require that the woman get this in order to make this informed decision in cases where she truly has no accessibility, and if she does then she does not qualify, then there's no problem. But in cases of where she does not have accessibility we will pay for the cost of this. This is going to -- I understand the purpose of the bill. I understand that information is good. But, why are we going trap a woman to not being able to make this decision if she cannot afford a sonogram? All this is saying is that within a 45-mile radius she cannot get a free sonogram, which is the basis of what they are saying, there is no fiscal note, then she would be able to qualify for state funding of a sonogram.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. LUCIO: Yes, ma'am.

THE CHAIR: The gentleman yields.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: It seems to me -- did you hear yesterday when Mr. Miller said that he would put money over life any day? I mean -- I'm sorry, the opposite. Forgive me. He would put life over money any day? So I am sort of thinking --

REP. LUCIO: I was here, yes, ma'am. And, again, all I'm trying to do is not prevent that this information be shared, but in cases, especially in rural areas, underserved areas where we have very little medical infrastructure, not all of us are from Houston, Ms. Farrar, and I think that's great that you have so many services available to your constituents. Some of us are from areas where this is not readily available. And, unfortunately, if they say there going to get -- require this, why not assist them in getting the information that they so desperately want that woman to have.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So you're really trying to make the bill less burdensome, correct?

REP. LUCIO: That's correct.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: To past constitutional muster, correct?

REP. LUCIO: That's correct.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: I would move to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller sends up a Motion to Table. The question will be on the Motion to Table. All those -- it's a record vote. All those in favor the Motion to Table vote aye, those opposed to voting vote nay. Mr. Lucio voting nay. Mr. Miller voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all voted? There being 101 ayes, 45 nays, the Motion to Table prevails, the following amendment the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REP. DUTTON: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this bill has been advertised as the Woman's Right to Know Bill. But I think, if you look at the bill, one of things you realize is that it's about changing a woman's mind, because the people sponsoring the bill want this to be about a child's right to live. And what this amendment simply does is it says that if the woman changes her mind, who has already gone to the abortion clinic to have an abortion, if she changes her mind as a result of having to go through these procedures, then there's a benefit that the state provides. And what this amendment says is that the benefit is that we would pay for this child's college tuition. And I move passage.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton sends up an amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully Move to Table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller Moves to Table. The question occurs -- Or are you going to close? Sure. Sure. Mr. Dutton, close.

REP. DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I wish I knew why Mr. Miller chooses to oppose this amendment. As a practicing Catholic, I don't really believe that abortion ought to take place. As a member of the state legislature, however, I didn't come here just to represent my faith. But my faith tells me this: That if a woman chooses, as a result of what we've provided that she should go through, if a woman chooses to change her mind, and say look, I want to have this child. I think that after looking at the sonogram, after discussing this with my doctor I think it's important that I go ahead and change my mind and have this child. And if she does that I wonder if the state's obligation to that child ends at that point. This amendment says it doesn't. This amendment says the state's obligation doesn't end at the point in which she changes her mind and chooses to have this child. And I don't know whether this would affect one, two, or five thousand children. I have no idea. But I do know that for a woman who changes her mind that this legislature ought to say to that woman, thank you. But we ought to say more to the child. We ought to say to the child that we not only respect and encourage your right to live, we will actually provide another benefit. We'll provide a benefit that says if you are responsive enough to now move to the point where you can go to college in the State of Texas, or to a University in Texas, we're going pay for that. I don't think that's too much to ask, members. I mean, if we want to make sure that every child is born we ought to make sure that every child has a chance. And that's what this amendment does. And I would ask you to vote no on the Motion to Table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. The question, members, is on the Motion to Table. It's a record vote. Vote aye or nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Show Mr. Dutton voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 106 ayes, 39 nays. The motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Well, the first vote was with your heart. Sorry, I'm wrong, I changed my mind. The first vote was with your head. This is a vote that you can make with your heart, because what it says is that what the state's responsibility to the child, to the woman who changes her mind, is that we'll provide health care to that child till that child's 18th birthday. I don't think that's too much to ask, members. I don't think that's too much to ask because, let me tell you, we're asking a person to make a most difficult decision. I don't know why the woman ended up at the abortion clinic, and perhaps that's even unimportant to the issue we're trying to decide today, but I do recognize that one of the reasons to do this is to encourage, if not insist, that women change their mind after getting to the abortion clinic so that they will choose to have the child. I think it's incumbent upon us, if we're going to do that and we're going to encourage the woman to have the child, we ought to also recognize our obligation to that child. And so what this amendment does is simply says if, after being provided with the sonogram and the information required, the pregnant woman chooses not to have an abortion, that the state shall provide, at no cost, health care for the unborn child until the child's 18th birthday. Mr. Speaker and members, vote with your heart. Vote for this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Anyone wish to speak on, for or against the Dutton amendment? Chair recognizes Representative Miller in opposition.

REP. MILLER: It pains me greatly to go against my friend, Mr. Dutton. But I'm going to have to Move to Table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton to close.

REP. DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And I know he said he regretfully does this and I know he probably does. Because what this amendment does is this amendment says more about us than it says about the woman who is at the abortion clinic. And what it says about us, if we choose not to do this, is that we really don't care whether this woman chooses to change her mind or not, that this is about something else. And what I'm trying to say to you today, members, is let's don't make it about something else, let's make it about real children. Let's make it so that if a child comes into this world, and certainly comes into this world by way of us having encouraged, if not actively participated in that child coming into this world, we ought to be willing to stand up and fess up and say to that child and to that mother we will take care of this child, at least provide the health care for the child. Because, if we don't, what are we saying about us? What we're saying is that well, we want to see all of these children around but the State of Texas ends its obligation to that child from the time that child is born. We want it born, but we don't want to do our duty to take care of the child, at least to provide health care. I wish I knew why Mr. Miller didn't want this amendment on there, but all he did was move to table. Let me ask you members, let me ask you, really: Look beyond party, look beyond politics, look beyond personalities. Look at the child. Imagine today, that because of what we did here today, the woman tomorrow decided that I am going to have this child. And then she comes to the lobby out there and says --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REP. TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. DUTTON: In just a second. But she comes to the -- She comes and stands out there where the lobby is and sends us a note saying, "Can you come out for a minute? I need to talk to you about the health care for my child. I need to ask you to come and let me show you what you did. You encouraged me to have the child. I have him. I brought him to you at the Legislature." And, yet, nobody in this room decides to go out. And when you do, you turn your head and you look the other way and you never look at the child. Voting against this amendment is essentially what you do. Means you are saying yeah, I want this woman to have the child but I want absolutely -- Texas -- the State of Texas to have absolutely nothing to do with it beyond causing it to be born. I think, members, our obligation as statesman, our obligation as legislators, but our moral obligation as human beings tells me that we are to say no on the Motion to Table. And I'll be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REP. TURNER: Yes. Would the gentleman yield?

REP. DUTTON: I yield, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. TURNER: Just very briefly, Representative Dutton; basically you're saying that we ought to take care of all our children --

REP. DUTTON: Absolutely.

REP. TURNER: -- those that's unborn as well as those born?

REP. DUTTON: Especially since -- Mr. Speaker, what we're doing is encouraging it to be born. Because what this legislation is designed to do is to change a woman's mind. Because, remember, because this legislation only applies once she shows up at the abortion clinic. It doesn't start at church or home or someplace else, it only becomes effective from the time she gets to the abortion clinic, which means she's already made a decision. And what this legislation attempts to do is to somehow or another not interfere, necessarily, but I'll accept their statement, to provide more information to the female in hopes that she changes her mind. And what this amendment does is say, if they're successful -- if we are successful in changing her mind then why wouldn't we provide health care to the child?

REP. TURNER: I think Representative Dutton it will have an opportunity very shortly to see whether or not the board will light up a hundred and one when we are voting on the appropriation bill to fund those children that are already born.

REP. DUTTON: Well, I -- and that's -- and that's another issue, Mr. Speaker, because I think that what we have is an obligation to children. One of highest obligations we have in this House is to the children of the State of Texas. And if today we say good, we think it's great that a mother went to an abortion clinic and changed her mind but, after that, we'll decide not to look at these children, we'll decide to assume that they somehow or another they became invisible. Well today, members, I don't think we ought to be invisible. I think today each one of us -- each one of us, the moral vote is to vote no on the motion to table. And, other than that, I suppose you can do what you'd like.

THE CHAIR: Representative Dutton sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. The question is on the Motion to Table. Vote aye, vote nay. It's a record vote. Show Mr. Dutton voting no. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 100 ayes, 45 nays and one present not voting. The Motion to Table prevails. Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for some questions?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller?

REP. MILLER: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been listening to the debate and been paying attention and being involved in some of the discussions on the floor with the members, trying to work through some of the more contentious points of this bill. And I wanted to ask you some questions about the definition you put in this bill, on the medical emergency and the amendment that you added to this bill, to change that definition ever so slightly. And my question is that I wanted you to tell me how you knew how many times the word medical emergency was used in various subchapters from the Agriculture Code to the Water Code.

REP. MILLER: I believe Representative Anchia stated earlier that it was 26.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I believe it was 25, maybe 26.

REP. MILLER: Twenty-five. I'll give you that.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Now, do you know whether or not in those 25 references is there a definition of medical emergency that goes along with the reference in that subchapter?

REP. MILLER: I know one of members brought me three different definitions a while ago, so it kind of -- it's not entirely consistent all over.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, I haven't been able to find any. So I'd be curious, if any of those members are still here and they're paying attention, I'd love for them to come show me those definitions, because I can't find one. But in those 25 references, I found about eight references in the Health and Safety Code, and we're here on the Health and Safety Code. So I'd like to give you copies of that, if you don't mind.

REP. MILLER: Sure.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Representative Anchia is going to bring you copies of the Health and Safety Code. And I've tabbed for you the areas that I want to inquire with you on to --

REP. MILLER: Would you pardon me just a minute? I left my bill on my desk.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. No, no problem.

REP. MILLER: Okay. I'm ready.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you. I was looking at Chapter 81 of the Health and Safety Code, and it's on page 367. Just tell me when you're there. I think it's the first yellow tab that you may have.

REP. MILLER: Could you repeat that notation?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. At page 367 and it is -- it's Section 81, Chapter 81 entitled Communicable Diseases.

REP. MILLER: Okay. I'm there.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. At the top of the paragraph it says, "To medical personnel, to the extent necessary in a medical emergency to protect the health of life of the person identified in the information", did I read that correctly?

REP. MILLER: That's verbatim.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. At page 349 and, where the other yellow tab is, that subchapter, that's where the definitions are for that subchapter. And I want you to tell me if you see a definition for medical emergency in 81.003 at page 349.

REP. MILLER: Let's see. There's definitions of the health authority, health professional, health department, public health district, public health disaster, reportable disease, resident of the state, school authority. I don't -- No. I don't think there is.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I don't think there's one either. I would submit to you that I don't believe that there's one. If we go on to chapter 84, which is at page 483, and it's a -- chapter 84, dealing with occupational conditions. And there's a section on confidentiality at the 84.00. Tell me when you're there.

REP. MILLER: I'm there.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: In sub 3 it reads to medical personnel in a medical emergency to the extent necessary to protect the health or life of a named person. Did I read that correct?

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And at page 480 at section 84.002 in the definition section, I was looking to see if they defined medical emergency there and I couldn't find it. Or do you see it?

REP. MILLER: I don't see it.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. So it's not there, either. Going to chapter 88 of the Health and Safety Code in a section that deals with confidentiality also, at page 550, at subsection five, there is a section that says to medical personnel, to the extent necessary in an medical emergency to protect the health or life of a child identified in the information.

REP. MILLER: All right. Yes, I believe it's addressing the confidentiality of the --

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And I was wanting to look at the beginning of chapter 88 to see if there was a definition of medical emergency at page 548. I couldn't find that. I wanted to see if you could find it.

REP. MILLER: I don't see one.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And then in chapter 92 of the Health and Safety Code at page 575, another section dealing with confidentiality for injury prevention, there's another reference to subsection three of page 575, says to medical personnel in a medical emergency to defend or protect the health or life of the named person. Did I read that correctly?

REP. MILLER: Yeah, and it's also addressing confidentiality.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. And at section 92.001 in the definition section, there is no definition of medical emergency. I didn't find one. I don't know if you see one there.

REP. MILLER: No, no, there's not one.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I didn't see one, either. At chapter 168 of the Health and Safety Code on section dealing with students with disabilities, at page 603 there's a subsection F, and it says an unlicensed diabetes care assistant may exercise reasonable judgment in deciding whether to contact --

REP. MILLER: Can you hang on just a minute? I'm not there yet.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I'm sorry.

REP. MILLER: What section and page, again?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Section 603 chapter 158, section .008 subsection F. It's almost a three quarters of the bottom of the page.

REP. MILLER: Page 603?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. Of the Health and Safety Code. It might be a second -- it might be the next book. I'm sorry.

REP. MILLER: Oh, I don't have that book up here. The Health and Safety code? Go ahead. You've got it. Tell us what it says.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, I think you have it. If you want, Representative Anchia can help you find it. It'd be doing both of us a good favor. Well, it says on subsection F that an unlicensed diabetes care assistant may exercise reasonable judgment in deciding whether to contact a health care provider in the event of a medical emergency involving a student with diabetes.

REP. MILLER: It was in the second volume?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. On page 603 it said --

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. Did you see it?

REP. MILLER: Yes, sir.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. And at page 598, which is the beginning of chapter 168, it say care of students with diabetes, there's a definition section and I was looking for the definition of a medical emergency and I didn't find one. I don't know if you see one.

REP. MILLER: There's not one.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. And chapter 171, which is the section -- the chapter that deals with abortion, which is the subject matter which we are debating today; at page 612 we have a section called voluntary and informed consent, at page 12 subsection A.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And it reads there on the very top, except in the case of a medical emergency, consent to a abortion is voluntary and informed only if -- Did you see that?

REP. MILLER: Yeah, I'm following with you.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. So, thank you. I went to page 609 which is a definition of that section, at 171.002, and I couldn't find a definition of medical emergency. I don't see it on -- I know you spent a lot of time writing this bill. Do you see a definition, page 609?

REP. MILLER: No. Not on 609.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. Now, for the very first time, you are setting a new definition of what a medical emergency is in your bill. And I guess it's on House Bill 15, page 1 at lines 12 through 16, that's correct?

REP. MILLER: On the bill?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.

REP. MILLER: Yes, that's -- that's correct.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. So, we have a definition for the first time in section 1671.051 that you are proposing, and at 171 on that same chapter you do not have a prior definition. And so we're clear on that, correct?

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: So at chapter 241 that deals with hospitals, I came across another section in the Health and Safety code and that's at page 208 and at section 241.154. Let me know when you get there.

REP. MILLER: I'm there.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: At subsection B it says except as provided by subsection D, the hospital or its agent may charge a reasonable fee for providing the health care information, except payment information, and is not required to permit the examination copying or release of the information until the fee is paid, unless there is a medical emergency. Did I read that right?

REP. MILLER: I believe that's correct.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: So, now I went to section 241.003, which is the definition section for that same chapter, and I couldn't find a definition for medical emergency. I want to know if you see one in the book that I provided for you.

REP. MILLER: No, I do not.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you for bearing with me. This is my last one.

REP. MILLER: That's okay. Take your time.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: On page 611 on another subchapter of the Health and Safety Code on an issue dealing with mental health records at section 611.008, sub B; tell me where you're there.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. At sub B, I'm going to read it; it says unless provided for by other state laws the professional may charge a reasonable fee for retrieving or copying mental health care information, and is not required to permit examination or copying until the fee is paid, unless there is a medical emergency. Did I read that one okay?

REP. MILLER: Yes, sir.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And at page 571 -- Now, in that section, I'm sorry in section six -- chapter 611, there is no section that provides for definitions. If there was, it'd be at the beginning of the chapter. I didn't see one and you certainly can reserve judgment to look for yourself because I didn't see an express section. But I submit to you there that there is not a definition to medical emergency as it applies to chapter 611, 0.008 sub B. And so, finally, at page 571, there's a section 595.005 --

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: -- that deals with records. And at A1 it says medical personnel to the extent necessary to meet a medical emergency. And did I read that right?

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I couldn't find in that section either any definition or a definition section that even defines medical emergency. And I'll give you the opportunity to reserve answering that, because you might want to look for yourself. But there is no definition section, period, or anything. And so just in the Health and Safety Code, just to summarize, we have about 25 references to medical records or -- excuse me, to emergency -- to a medical emergency we have 25 references to medical emergency from the Agriculture Code to the Water Code. I was surprised to know that there was one in the Agriculture Code.

REP. MILLER: Don't count us Ag boys out.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: You know, I don't get to that section of the book too much but I would certainly not ask you any questions about anything in that book. I would feel like you would take me to school. But 25 references, various subchapters, not one definition, eight specific references in the Health and Safety Code, no accompanying definitions. And, for the very first time, in your bill at page one, lines 12 through 16, you define medical emergency. And it's been the subject of a lot of debate. And that's what got me sort of curious, listening to the debate, wondering what all the fuss was because I thought a medical emergency was a medical emergency. But the for the first time you defined it. And some argue you have limited it. And so would you agree with you that that's a pretty far departure in our Health and Safety Code, to define a medical emergency, as the conversation we just had?

REP. MILLER: The locations you just pointed out do not define them. I actually haven't time to research it myself.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: So, this is the first time that you did it, and this is the first time that anybody in the legislature has ever defined it in the Health and Safety Code; do you agree with me?

REP. MILLER: Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you, because I have three different sections here where it is defined, that Representative Phil King just provided for me.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: In the Health and Safety Code?

REP. MILLER: Yes. And, actually, some of it's in the family code.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, I'm in the Health and Safety Code, because at 25 references. But I'd love to see a copy.

REP. MILLER: One is in the Occupation Code, Health Professionals. And this one deals with abortions. The other one is in the Family Code and deals with abortions and it defines medical emergency. And the third one is also in the Health Professionals Code of Occupation Code and deals with third trimester abortions.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: So, you have definitions for medical emergency in the code?

REP. MILLER: Yes.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: In the Family Code?

REP. MILLER: Yes. Dealing with abortions.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Now, I want to take a look at them in a minute. But in the Health and Safety code, it's not defined?

REP. MILLER: Not in there, as you pointed out, no, sir.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. So I wanted you to tell me where, in your bill analysis, did you define medical emergency? And I'm looking at it at page one. And you talk about medical emergency at page two and second to the last paragraph.

REP. MILLER: In the bill analysis, under section one, it says -- it adds 171.051 provides abortion provider medical emergency and sonogram.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Now, on the section that defines -- that exempts a physician to perform a sonogram, it says the bill creates an exception to sonogram requirements for a physician performing an abortion in a medical emergency, did I read that right?

REP. MILLER: Where are you reading that?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I'm on page two, second to the last paragraph, second section --

REP. MILLER: Are you in the bill analysis or on the bill?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Bill analysis, sir. Page two.

REP. MILLER: Okay. Which paragraph are you on?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Second to the last, second from the bottom.

REP. MILLER: Section -- Section where it talks about section six?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: It starts by saying -- And I'm looking at the House Committee report and it says -- It's the second to last paragraph and it starts TSAD exempt the physician.

REP. MILLER: I'm not sure that we have the same bill on that. Are you sure you are on the committee substitute and not the original --

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I have the -- I have the House Committee report. It came out of committee.

REP. MILLER: Okay. I'm looking at the bill analysis. Didn't you ask me about the bill analysis?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. And on the bill analysis it has the bill and then it has the committee action, the votes.

REP. MILLER: Okay.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Then it has the bill analysis. And the analysis that at least attaches the committee report that the committee put together, which really is a big deal around here, the bill analysis that was put together by the committee talks about -- it talks about a medical emergency. I don't -- I don't see where there's a definition of medical emergency but I'll spot you that if you say it's there. But the second to the last paragraph, it mentions the exemption to the sonogram and it says an exception is created when there's an abortion pursuant to a medical emergency. But you've acknowledged -- I don't necessarily know this, but you've acknowledged we have several different meanings of medical emergency. I couldn't find any in the Health and Safety Code. You say there's one in the Family Code. You say there's one in the Occupation Code. Your bill analysis doesn't say which definitions we're going to use.

REP. MILLER: Well, actually, it says -- my definition said the bill -- the bill defines abortion provider, medical emergency and sonogram.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, I guess we --

REP. MILLER: It states very plainly that the bill defines it.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, it says the bill creates an exception is what it says.

REP. MILLER: It's referring to the committee substitute House Bill 15. The very bottom paragraph on page two.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And this is the second to the last --

REP. MILLER: No. This is the very bottom paragraph on page two.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: It says the bill defines abortion provider, medical emergency and sonogram. That one?

REP. MILLER: Yes. Defines abortion provider, medical emergency and sonogram.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. And in the proceeding paragraph, it talks about the exception. Would you agree with me?

REP. MILLER: It talks about the bill -- the bill requires a physician who provides an abortion in a medical emergency, to include in the patients's medical record a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Can you tell me that one more time?

REP. MILLER: Oh, yeah. The bill requires a physician who provides an abortion in a medical emergency to include the patient's medical record, a statement signed by the physician certifying the nature of the medical emergency.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Right, but we don't -- it doesn't define the medical emergency. It just says you have to state one, right?

REP. MILLER: Well, it says the bill defines it. It's what the bill analysis says.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: But in that particular section does it --

REP. MILLER: No. It's in the bottom section, the last paragraph where it says the bill defines medical emergency.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Okay. But it doesn't define it there, correct?

REP. MILLER: No. Not there. But it talks about it in the next paragraph.

THE CHAIR: Representative King raises a point or order. The gentleman's time has expired. The order is well taken and sustained.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to raise of point of order under rule 4, section 32 C and rule 4 section 32F.

THE CHAIR: Bring your point of order down front. The House will stand at ease for ten minutes. (Whereupon, a ten minute recess was taken.)

THE CHAIR: The House will come to order. Members, the Chair has reached a ruling. The Clerk will read the ruling.

THE CLERK: Representative Martinez Fischer raises a of point order against further consideration of the bill under rule 4, section 32C of the Texas House Rules and under various due process provisions of the Texas and United States Constitution. Representative Martinez Fischer contends that the bill analysis accompanying the bill is materially or substantially mis-leading and that it fails to capture the affect or at conflict between the number of references to the phase, "medical emergency" contained in the statutory provisions. Representative Martinez Fischer also argues that the conflict between the definition of the phrase, "medical emergency" may raise issues conflicting with or violating due process provisions of the Texas or U.S. Constitution. The Chair thanks both parties for their thoughtful arguments. The Chair has reviewed the bill analysis and the bill. The Chair believes the analysis is not materially or substantially misleading. The bill analysis properly notes that the bill defines a medical emergency, and properly notes that an exception to the sonogram requirement for a physician performing an abortion in a medical emergency. As to Representative Martinez Fisher's second point, due process violations, through many sessions speakers have followed the plan of refusing to rule on constitutional points not related to legislative procedure. The points directly then passing them to the House for determination and the affect on the vote involved. I will continue the plan. Accordingly, the Chair respectfully overrules the point of order.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?

REP. MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REP. MARTINEZ FISCHER: I also raise the point of order under Rule 32 Section F, it was up on the board. I didn't hear it read by the Clerk. I don't know IF the parliamentarian had an opportunity to review the rule based on that. If he did, I'll take him at his word, even though it's not in his ruling. I just heard Rule 32C.

THE CHAIR: And the Chair's ruling, Mr. Martinez Fischer, the ruling states that the bill analysis is not either materially or substantially misleading. That's the standard for subsection F. We'll revise our ruling to reflect that.

REP. MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to have the actual section for clarity, so that members will know for precedent what section we're referring to when we say that. Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully request that we have your ruling reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. The Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REP. DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you. I've appreciated the delay. It gave me an opportunity to talk to some of you all and I appreciate your comments in regards to the previous amendments that I have. This amendment is not a whole lot different, except it only relates to the health care of the child once the mother changes her mind as a result of the sonogram. And going through all of the other information that's contained in the bill I initially had an amendment that said we would -- since you voted down the argument about 18 year olds, I had one amendment that said 17 year olds. And I decided that well, if you didn't like 18 year olds you probably weren't going to like 17 year olds. And so then I had an amendment that said 16 year olds. And I decided that if you didn't like 18 year olds and you didn't like 17 year olds you weren't going to like 16 year olds. And so then I had another amendment that said 15 year olds and I figured that if you didn't like 18 year olds, and didn't like 17 year olds and didn't like 16 year olds, you weren't going to like 15 year old. And so I decided against having a amendment for 14 year olds because I decided that if you didn't like 18 year olds and you weren't going to like 17 year olds, you weren't going to like 16 year olds, you weren't going to like 15 year olds, you weren't going to like 14 year olds. And so I had an amendment for 13 year olds and then 12 year olds and then 11 and then 10 and then 9 and then 8, but I changed it. What this amendment addresses is the life of the child from birth to 6 years old, and just simply says that we will provide health care for that child. That's all it does. I believe that if we are going to inject the State of Texas into a decision that a mother makes, and by following the edicts in House Bill 15, she elects to have that child I think the responsibility of the State of Texas begins when that child is born, it doesn't end when that child is born. And what this amendment does is simply says that -- And I know you didn't like 18 year olds, and I suspect that some of you probably did like it but I'm not sure you're yet voting with your head or your heart, but voting with your head. And I respect that. But there isn't -- there is an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. And I would ask for the amendment to the amendment at this time.

THE CHAIR: Following the amendment the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Raymond.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REP. RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. Members, this amendment to the amendment simply strikes an -- on line four, where it says, "Health Care for Unborn Child", and substitutes Texas Pro Life Health Program. I move adoption and ask for record vote.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Mr. Raymond has requested a record vote. This is on the amendment to the amendment. Record vote has been requested. Is there anyone who wishes to speak on, for, or against the amendment? Members, there's been some confusion about this amendment. Chair asks Mr. Raymond to explain. Chair recognizes Mr. Raymond.

REP. RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Again, this is a simple amendment but I do want a record vote. It strikes on page one, line four the words, "Health Care for Unborn Child", and substitutes the words "Texas Pro Life Health Program."

THE CHAIR: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REP. DAN BRANCH: So you're trying to insert some language into Mr. Dutton's amendment?

REP. RAYMOND: That's what an amendment to an amendment means.

REP. DAN BRANCH: You're putting language in that just creates a name, a title?

REP. RAYMOND: No it has a name already and I changed it to this.

REP. DAN BRANCH: And tell me, can you again say the name?

REP. RAYMOND: Sure. What it says right now is that the amendment says currently, "Health Care for Unborn Child". I strike that and insert "Texas Pro Life Health Program."

REP. DAN BRANCH: Okay. So you're attempting to put some language in that that has a certain connotation in order to create a vote against it?

REP. RAYMOND: No. I think that language accurately describes what the amendment is doing.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Do you spell pro-life, is that one word or two words?

REP. RAYMOND: It's two words in my world.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Is it capitalized or not capitalized?

REP. RAYMOND: Well, actually they capitalize the whole thing. See the beginning of the section?

REP. DAN BRANCH: Sir, are you trying to put some language in that causes people to be appearing to vote against something, because you've named it Pro Life?

REP. RAYMOND: No.

REP. DAN BRANCH: Okay. Thanks.

THE CHAIR: Mr. (inaudible), for what purpose?

REP. RAYMOND: I don't expect anyone to vote against it. I expect this to pass a hundred and (inaudible) --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for Mr. Dutton when he gets back.

REP. RAYMOND: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Raymond sends up an amendment to the Dutton amendment. Question occurs on the amendment to the amendment. It's a record vote a record. Record vote's been requested. Record vote's been granted. This is an amendment to an amendment. The Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Dutton voting aye. Mr. Miller voting no. Mr. Phillips voting no. Mr. Mark is voting aye. Have all members voted? Being 45 ayes and 101 nays. One present not voting. The amendment to the amendment fails to adopt. Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REP. DUTTON: Mr. Speaker --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?

REP. BERMAN: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton, do you yield?

REP. DUTTON: I yield.

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yields.

REP. BERMAN: Mr. Dutton, in your amendment, aren't we already doing that for any child that is born live, if the mother does not go through with the abortion and the child is born live isn't that child either on Medicaid or CHIP, eligible for Medicaid or CHIP anyway? So isn't the state already taking care of that child?

REP. DUTTON: Well, that's -- I wish that were the case for the --

REP. BERMAN: Why isn't it?

REP. DUTTON: Well, because, as you well know, we don't fully fund CHIP and we certainly don't provide all of the support for Medicaid. One of the things that I'm just trying to do, generally, is I think it's incumbent upon us if we are going to interfere inject the State of Texas into this decision, with the whole idea of going to change the woman's mind, because you've got to remember, as I said before, she's already at the abortion clinic; and now, what we're doing with House Bill 15 is an attempt to change her mind. And I'm hoping we're successful. But I don't want us to get off the train at that point. I want us to stay on the train, particularly regarding health care, until that child gets to be six years old. And if, in fact, what you say is true, it's not; but I wish it were true, but if it were true then this amendment would essentially have no effect at all.

REP. BERMAN: I really appreciate what you're trying to do, Mr. Dutton. But if a child is eligible for Medicaid they'll go on Medicaid. If a child is not eligible for Medicaid because of too much money made by his mother or his family then he can get into the CHIP program as well.

REP. DUTTON: But this -- But this amendment now, this bill, you got to understand, is not relegated only to the mothers who have abortions who are on CHIP or Medicaid.

REP. BERMAN: I understand.

REP. DUTTON: This covers the wide gamut of everybody who happens to be on Medicaid. And so to the extent that the mother shows up and we change her mind about the abortion, she chooses to have the child but she has health care already, but well then obviously this wouldn't affect that. This really would only affect those small percentage of the cases where the mother elects to have an abortion initially, changes her mind because of what we've decided to do and then has the child, but can't provide health care for that child. That's the only situation that this amendment seeks to address and I think that's the only place where that particular person would either benefit by virtue of passage of this amendment.

REP. BERMAN: Well, I appreciate what you're trying to do. But what would prevent any woman from going into an abortion clinic and then changing her mind and then having a child? Of course, she had it in her mind before that she's going to go on state health care, and that's just a way for anybody to go on state health care, automatically? Automatically. Once they find out how to do it they're going to do it. But I appreciate you --

REP. DUTTON: Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. That'd be like offering free airline tickets for people to go to prison. I don't think most people would go to prison to get the free airline ticket. I just -- I just can't conceive of a situation where a mother would choose to go an abortion clinic, and all the things that you have to do to just get there, and then change her mind about the abortion, simply because we're going to do health care. I just don't think so. Members, let me ask you to take a look at the amendment. What this amendment simply does, it says, as I said before, it says more about us than it does than it does about the mother or this child. It speaks volumes about us when we say to ourselves that we don't care about the health care of this child, we just simply want the child born. Now, I, you know, I hate to use analogies in the Bible, because I know there might be some people here who don't believe in the Bible. But I happen to believe in the Bible, though. But, you know, most of us respond the same way the inn people responded at the birth of the Christ. You know, today you're trying to say let's -- let's put them out in the barn, let's put them somewhere, somewhere else. I don't want to have to think about what are need to do with this child after this child is born. And so, let me ask you to forget about the partisan stuff, let me ask you to forget about the personal part of this and let me ask you to think about a mother in a situation where she shows up at the abortion clinic, she doesn't really want to do it, she really doesn't want to have the abortion. She's uncomfortable about having the abortion. If she could, she'd choose another avenue. But the state steps in and says okay, we'll help you choose another avenue and we're going help you, because we're going to require you to have the sonogram, we're going require you -- give you an opportunity to look at it. We're also going to provide you all this information about what happens with a child. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could say to that mother, "Look, if you really have this baby, the state will provide health care at least until the mother is -- I mean until the child is six years old." It just apologize my mind how we, in this House, and I assume nobody in this House has ever been faced with that decision. I know most of the men have never be faced with it and you won't ever have to be faced with it. I hope that even the women in this House, if they've never had to be faced with it, would have elected to do the same thing that I would suggest for my church values. But I don't want to sit here and impose that on somebody and say look, just as I do at my church, if we have a ministry that ministers to young women about having an abortion, that's not where the church's obligation stops. We have to provide other information. We have to provide other assistance and other health to that child. And so today, members, I'm asking you to step up to the plate and provide the health care to the child of the mother who decides to have the child. And all I'm asking is that we provide that health care until the child is six years old.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to table the Dutton Amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton to close.

REP. DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm not going to belabor the point. Mr. Miller has moved to table the amendment. But, if you vote with Mr. Miller you are you're not just voting to table the amendment, what you are voting to do is to say to the mother that while we want you to have this child, we don't want to have anything to do with it after it's born. I think that's an advocation of our responsibility as legislators on the one hand. But, on the other hand, I'll leave it to your moral convictions to let you decide on how to vote for this. And so if your moral conscience tells you that we are to abandon this child then vote with Mr. Miller. But if you decide today that I want to make sure that my moral commitment doesn't begin and end when I have changed this mother's mind, it begins when the child is born. And so I would ask you again to vote no on the Motion to Table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Dutton sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller Moves to Table. Question occurs on the Motion to Table. This is a record vote. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Mr. Dutton voting nay. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 103 ayes, 40 nays and one present not voting. The Motion to Table prevails. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.

REP. MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment will require a physician to inform the woman of the right created by this amendment to allow women to require the vasectomy of the father through a court order. This -- This is allowed only -- Wait, let me get through this. This is only allowed after the woman views the sonogram and chooses to continue the pregnancy. And if the pregnancy occurs outside of marriage and the man has previously fathered two or more children outside of marriage with two or more women -- Members, this is a very -- thank you. This is a very straightforward amendment. Both parties in unplanned pregnancies should hold responsibility and this is a way to ensure that that occurs. If we are to decide the government should be making invasive policies then that standard needs to apply to both men and women. A doctor and the patient should have the right to make decisions about what procedures a person should have on their bodies, not the government. Unfortunately, if this legislature insists on cutting access to family planning, taking away healthcare from low income men and women and denying a student's basic education in health classes, then we will be forced to resort to more invasive and extensive means to prevent unplanned pregnancies.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, we've had a lot of input from our constituents about the budget this time and about the number of cuts that we're doing, so I'm going to have a draw the line at this point and say no more cuts and Move to Table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez to close.

REP. MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I vote -- I ask that you vote against the Motion to Table. This is a very, very simple -- simple amendment. It is on page 6, between line 16 and 17. The exclusion for the men is that they are married. If this is a widower ore and somebody gets divorced and remarried then they are not subject to this particular bill. If you don't want government coming between patients and doctors you should reject this amendment and HB15 in tandem. If you do believe the government should be making medical mandates then we ought to add this amendment and divide the responsibility evenly. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And, with that, I close.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REP. NAOMI GONZALES: At this time we are asking for division vote.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is on the Motion to Table. A division vote has been requested. I'm sorry members. Clear the board. A record vote has been requested. A record vote has been granted. It's on the Motion to Table. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Show Mr. Gonzales of El Paso voting no. Ms. Marquez voting no. Have all voted? Being 99 ayes, 37 nays. Four present not voting. Motion to Table prevails. Following amendment the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro. Chair recognizes Mr. Castro.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members; this amendment would simply have the abortion provider give information to the woman coming to seek the abortion about services available at the attorney general's office to establish paternity and to collect child support eventually when the child is born. I believe that it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment, Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is on amendment that is similar to the one that was just accepted, except instead of information about the attorney general services that are provided to establish paternity and child support, this is so that we provide an application for Medicaid services so that the woman, if she qualifies, if she's eligible, so that she can enrolled and she can have pre-natal care and she can get the assistance through her pregnancy. Please bear in mind, members, that, you know, we've heard a lot of discussions about the reasons that somebody terminates a pregnancy, of course, fear of costs and the fact that they can't afford a child is a big consideration. So rather than what we have in the law now, which is simply telling her that there are resources out there somewhere, we want to create a more direct link and make it easier for to her enroll in these services. And I'll yield to Representative Naishtat.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. CASTRO: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Doesn't the current informed consent provision in the bill already require doctors to provide a pregnant woman with information to medical assistance benefits? Isn't that already in there?

REP. CASTRO: Yes and no. And not quite the way we do it here. The legislation is only required to inform the woman that medical assistance benefits may be available. The physician is not required to give specific information about state Medicaid programs or provide the woman with an application for expedited eligibility and enrollment.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: So all this says is that the doctor has to say that assistance may be available? That's all the doctor would have to do?

REP. CASTRO: That's all. We're just creating a more correct connection for her to enroll in the -- qualify for these benefits.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Do you have any idea how many births in Texas are paid for by Medicaid?

REP. CASTRO: One in two births in Texas are paid for by Medicaid.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: And so is it the intent of your amendment to automatically enroll all pregnant women in the Medicaid program?

REP. CASTRO: It's not. And I want to be very clear about this, this is only for the women that qualify for the Medicaid services. Obviously, there are folks who may decide to pursue an abortion who wouldn't qualify for Medicaid. So this amendment, this language, wouldn't apply to them.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: So what you're trying to do is make sure that the woman is fully informed of the options that may be available to her?

REP. CASTRO: That's right. We want to her have all the information she needs. And I think it's especially important because let's say a woman goes in now, and even when this legislation is passed, she sees the sonogram and she besides not to have the abortion; well, there's a chance that she could decide to come back later, if she reconsiders, and a part of that big reconsideration may be that she simply can't afford a child, or her fear that she can't afford a child. And what this bill does, it makes it easier if she qualifies, if she's low income, to enroll in the Medicaid program. Is this amendment not acceptable to the author?

REP. CASTRO: Right now it looks like it's not acceptable.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: It's a good amendment.

REP. CASTRO: Well, thank you. Thank you, Representative Naishtat. And I would ask that y'all please seriously consider this amendment. It's not creating anything new. There's already an expedited eligibility enrollment form for women. All we're doing is making sure that we're putting our money where our mouth is. In other words we're not just saying, "Hey, there's these services available out there and go find them if you can." We're saying, "Look, here's the application. You can get enrolled and you can start taking care of your child properly." So I would move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro to close.

REP. CASTRO: I know that --

THE CHAIR: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?

REP. NAISHTAT: I was hoping to ask Representative Miller a question.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Thank you. Representative Miller, I want to make sure you understand that what we're talking about with this amendment is guaranteeing that a woman who has decided not to have an abortion would be given an application, simply an application, for expedited eligibility and enrollment in the Medicaid program and other information regarding the state Medicaid programs. That's all it's saying?

REP. MILLER: Correct. Okay. Do you have a question?

REP. NAISHTAT: That was the question. Do you understand that?

REP. MILLER: Yes, I understand that. Much of this information is already provided in the previous law of the informed consent law. SO I would consider it redundant.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: You would consider it redundant to give an application for application of expedited eligibility for a woman who chooses not to have a an abortion? That's all it's asking you for.

REP. MILLER: Correct. We're already providing that information and a lot more under the consent law we passed a few sessions back. That's the first thing they are to provide those mothers when they come into the facility.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: All it says is that the physician may provide information, that's all it says in the bill.

REP. MILLER: They can -- They may do it now, if they so wish. But, under the informed consent law, that information, plush even much more is provided. So it's -- it's duplicating that service by passing this amendment. I believe it's unnecessary and probably would cause some fiscal implications to the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Thank you.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.

REP. CASTRO: I have to disagree with Mr. Miller, and I explained the difference a little while ago. It's not conflicted, it's not redundant, because right now it is not required to give an application. It's not required to give the specific information that we're asking for. Members, bear in mind that this is once a woman has decided not to have the abortion. In other words, that's once the goal of this legislation, to increase the number of births, is accomplished. What I am asking for at that point, now that she's made that decision, that the state be good enough give her an application, if she's a poor woman, to be able to receive services to help her with her child. Services that she has to qualify for anyway, services that already exists. We're not creating a new pot of money for anybody. All we're doing is giving her an application. We can't give her an application? There's something wrong with giving this woman an application now? That's all I'm asking for. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. This is on a Motion to the Table. Vote aye, vote nay on the Motion to Table. Shows -- This is a record Vote. Show Mr. Castro voting no. Mr. Miller voting aye. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes, 47 nays, one present not voting. The Motion to Table prevails. Following amendment Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendments by Farrar.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes.

REP. FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, it seems though through our questions that we are determining that the intent of this bill is not to further information, but to coerce a woman into not having an abortion. It seems that the legislature has decided that, regardless of all circumstances, no matter what, a woman should not have an abortion. Since women choose -- since women chose to receive an abortion, some women have felt that -- actually, it's quite frequent, I hear, women choose to have abortions, a lot of them are already mothers; because of economic reasons they can't afford the pregnancy, they can't afford to support another child financially. And, if that's the case, I think we need to help these women. In this current budget we've actually cut pre-natal funding. So what I'm asking is that the state would may pay for her prenatal care if she decides not to go through be the abortion. And if the state truly values life then it should put money where its mouth is. The legislature wants these pregnancies to continue, so the legislature should ensure that this birth is paid for.

THE CHAIR: Representative Vo, for what purpose?

REP. VO: Does the lady yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I yield.

REP. VO: Representative Farrar, you gather a (inaudible) in saying the majority of the women who have an abortion, attempt to have an abortion because most of them are financially challenged and they will me facing a financial burden after the birth of the child, correct?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.

REP. VO: So it's clearly that the intent of the amendment is to convince a woman to carry her pregnancy to term?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, let me stop you. It's not to convince her, but it might put the a factor into her thinking --

REP. VO: The idea is to help her with the financial burden?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right.

REP. VO: So, if that is the case, do you think that it is important to ensure healthy pregnancy and a live, healthy birth?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, prenatal care, we all know it's a small amount of money that you spend up front, because if you don't spend it you end up with low birth weight babies and you might miss some birth defects, you might miss other things that might, you know, be corrected earlier on in the pregnancy. So this is something that makes sure that the woman would have a healthy pregnancy.

REP. VO: So a pre-natal care is a cost saver to a state, right?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: A huge cost savings. Because, if the child was born with a disability because something was not caught along the way the child couldn't qualify for Medicaid, and it could be an enormous cost to the state. When if you spend a little bit of money up front we could actually avert some of those instances, terrible consequences.

REP. VO: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Coleman, for what purpose?

REP. COLEMAN: I'd like to ask the gentle woman a question.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, do you yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.

REP. COLEMAN: Representative Farrar, this amendment that you bring is about prenatal care, correct?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.

REP. COLEMAN: And the purpose of prenatal care is to make sure that we don't have premature babies and low birth babies, isn't that correct?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Among many things, yeah.

REP. COLEMAN: Among many things? Maybe disabled or other intellectual disabilities, or developmental disabilities that come from low birth weight?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.

REP. COLEMAN: Did you know the that the State of Texas has the most low birth weight babies born of any other state in the United States of America?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I knew we were toward the bottom in that number but I didn't realize we were the very bottom.

REP. COLEMAN: We're the worst. And you know how that raises costs, right? Because every hospital that comes by says how proud they are of their neonatal intensive care unit, isn't that correct?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct.

REP. COLEMAN: But isn't it true that the most extensive cost is for caring for a neonatal baby in an intensive care unit?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Oh, it's a huge cost.

REP. COLEMAN: Huge cost? So if you have a low income woman who is 185 percent of poverty or below, who is going to have a birth under Medicaid, then that child would be Medicaid eligible. And because you have a low birth weight baby we're talking about a potential for a hundred thousand or more costs by having a baby being in a neonatal intensive care unit.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Exactly. And imagine how you could use those resources if they didn't have to go to that. Imagine how much more prenatal care you could provide, how much more. And we are hearing from our constituents about schools about to close, about disabled people being afraid to lose their home health services. We are making so many cuts in this budget that we are actually going to cut the lives of people very short, much shorter than they will -- we would have anticipated. So yes, I think there are much better ways to spend our resources.

REP. COLEMAN: And, I tell you, it's important that you bring this amendment. Because today's world, having the highest number of low birth weight babies that may or may not live, regardless of whether can the woman chooses to have a termination, a voluntary, elective termination; but we can prevent these costs if we give women the appropriate prenatal care. And, back in 2003, you might remember that one of the cuts that was in House Bill 2292 cut all prenatal care to children -- to women in the State of Texas. I think it's important that you bring because, as has been said before, if we're going to make decisions about how people determine who the children that they do and don't want to have, we ought to be responsible enough to have that child be healthy. Thanks for bringing this amendment.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Exactly. And you bring up great point. A lot of -- A lot of what we hear from is women who have faced a terrible decision because of economic factors. And if we can alleviate just the minor ones we actually might achieve the results that I think everybody in this body would like see, which is a reduction in the number of abortions.

REP. LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?

REP. LARRY TAYLOR: Will the gentle lady yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.

REP. TAYLOR: Representative Farrar, last week I had the opportunity to spend half an hour with a doctor in my district who performs abortions on a regular basis. One of her objections to this House bill is that it directs her very specifically. How is she' supposed to practice medicine? Do you mean concur with that objection about House bill 15?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do. And, in fact, I've got an amendment that addresses that.

REP. TAYLOR: Okay. Well, doesn't your amendment make that objection yet worse, because it does more to tell a doctor how they should practice medicine with their patients?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: No. We're not telling the doctor to provide the prenatal care, we're telling the state to do so.

REP. TAYLOR: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Uh-huh.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, because of the huge fiscal note that this would create I'm going to move to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REP. COLEMAN: Yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, do you yield?

REP. MILLER: Yes.

REP. COLEMAN: Mr. Miller, in terms of the cost of the government, do you believe that children being born with birth defects and low birth weight and disabled is something that is not appropriate to spend money on in this state?

REP. MILLER: I believe every -- every life is precious.

REP. COLEMAN: Well, if the life is precious, why isn't making sure that the life is a precious and long and good one appropriate under the bill that you have; since you have brought forward a bill about life. At least that's what you -- that's right, right? A bill about life and making sure that women don't have abortions?

REP. MILLER: This amendment is not defined in such narrow circumstance. It is expenses incurred for the care of all women and the care for all unborn children and post delivery recover. So it's very, very wide sweeping (inaudible) (inaudible).

REP. COLEMAN: But, Mr. Miller -- (inaudible) (inaudible). Don't you believe that children are priceless, or do you only believe they are priceless when nobody else has the responsibility for them?

REP. MILLER: I don't believe it's the government's job to do all for everyone. There is some personal responsibility (inaudible).

REP. COLEMAN: Why are you using the government to interfere in the lives of women in their decisions then, if you don't believe it's the government's job to provide for those things? You seem to think this is the government's job. So, why don't you think it's the government's job to do those other things, Mr. Miller?

REP. MILLER: This bill about informed consent, making sure the mother to be goes to the abortion provider, to be provided all the information available to her. Well (inaudible).

REP. COLEMAN: It appears to me that this bill has costs as well.

REP. MILLER: Actually, there is no fiscal note on this bill. That --

REP. COLEMAN: Then, Mr. Miller, you've subbed an unfunded mandate on somebody else to pay for something that the state is not paying for in terms of the sonogram.

REP. MILLER: I would beg to disagree. It doesn't do that either, Mr. Coleman.

REP. COLEMAN: Well, tell me why it doesn't then.

REP. MILLER: All right. The standard medical care practice before any abortion is performed requires a sonogram to be performed. My bill does not create any more sonogram procedures than are being performed now.

REP. COLEMAN: Then why do you have to require it under the law, sir, if it's already standard procedure?

REP. MILLER: What the bill does is require that information be made available to the woman.

REP. COLEMAN: So do you believe that doctors don't make information available to their patients, they just do procedures and then walk away and throw the stuff in the trash?

REP. MILLER: Exactly. Thank you for bringing that up. That's the exact testimony that we received in committee. Wait a minute. We asked to view these sonograms and were denied, even though they paid for it out of their own pocket. That is the purpose of the bill.

REP. COLEMAN: Well, I'm sorry, I think that must be one circumstance, because I don't believe that any doctor would keep their patient from viewing something that they paid for. So you must have had the only person that happened to come into the committee.

REP. MILLER: There was multiple testimony on that. And, actually, there was testimony that they never were able to even talk to the doctor about the procedure.

REP. COLEMAN: So they weren't even able to talk to the doctor about abortion and that's the reason they -- because of they couldn't talk about the sonogram or didn't have the information that they went on and had the abortion?

REP. MILLER: That's what the testimony was. Many of them related to the committee that they were rushed through the procedure, they never met their doctor. They never met their doctor when they talked about the procedure or the implications or the possible side effects of it.

REP. COLEMAN: So in terms of informed consent, they knew they were going get an abortion, they knew they were going to have a sonogram. The sonogram would have stopped them from having abortion and so this bill is designed to do that, right?

REP. MILLER: This bill is designed to make sure that the woman is fully informed about the medical procedure that she is about to have.

REP. COLEMAN: And I asked you the question and you said that yes, that's the reason they went on and had the abortion. So it appears to me that you've admitted that this bill is --

REP. MILLER: The testimony in committee was that once the women saw a sonogram of a fetus the same age that they aborted, many of those in the testimony regretted having the operation done and testified under oath that if they had seen -- been able to see their sonogram that they would have made a different decision.

REP. COLEMAN: I certainly do understand. That's why I support the amendment that Ms. Farrar has, because I think that all life counts, including the life of someone who wants to be born in a way that they live a good life. Mr. Speaker, I'd like the conversation that Mr. Miller and I had reduced into writing and put into the record, please.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Mr. Miller, do you yield?

REP. MILLER: I yield.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Miller, Chairman Miller, you have said many times tonight that this bill doesn't require any additional sonograms to be performed because the sonograms are already performed as a standard operating procedure when an abortion is going to be conducted; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: That's correct.

REP. LUCIO: However, you also stated that for liability purpose a physician would not take -- would have a perform his own sonogram before conducting an abortion, even if there was a sonogram performed five or six days ahead of time; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: No, that's not exactly. Close. Let me clarify, please. What I said is if they received a free sonogram at a different clinic, that that doctor would not want to use that sonogram because of liability reasons. The sonogram would need to be performed at the clinic where the operation was being performed.

SENATOR LUCIO: So when you say they have to have a sonogram regardless, now, under this bill, based on the statement you just said, they're going to have to have two sonograms?

REP. MILLER: No.

REP. LUCIO: How do you figure? Because if they go and get a sonogram for the information purposes at a place other than where they're going to get the abortion conducted, that's one sonogram. And then for liability purpose and several other people, including one of our own colleagues, who is a doctor, tells me; is when they get an abortion, the day of -- right before it's going to be performed, they get another sonogram? Essentially, they're getting two sonograms.

REP. MILLER: Well, I'm sorry if there's confusion but that's not exactly right. As a matter of fact, it's incorrect. So when the lady comes into the clinic she is given a list of other providers that provide free sonograms. That's as far as it goes. She can go if she wants, she can not go. She is simply provided that list.

REP. LUCIO: Okay.

REP. MILLER: And then the procedure, if she still choses to have it, the sonogram still has to be performed, and it's started medical procedure now at that clinic. So there's not really two sonograms, this is just --

REP. LUCIO: No. There's two. And let me explain why. Because, based on your bill, there's a time element involved. 72 hours and 24 hours, those are the magic numbers. So she has to have informational sonogram, if you want to call it that, 24 hours before the can get it conducted. Then, based on standard operating procedures, to perform a sonogram at the time she is going to have an abortion, another sonogram is going to take place. Based on your testimony or your comments today standard operating procedure, immediately before an abortion going to take place is a sonogram has to take place to determine the internal functioning or the internal position of the placenta or whatever. So, essentially, this is saying, based on your information that you shared with us, this is going to require two abortions -- two sonograms.

REP. MILLER: Well, actually that is incorrect. One sonogram in a 24-hour period prior, or 72 hour period prior to the operation is sufficient. Two are not required.

REP. LUCIO: So you're saying that you do not believe that it is a standard national practice of care, acceptable practice of care that immediately before, on the day of, during the time that this operation is going to take place or procedure is going take place, that if they were conducting a sonogram 24 hours they won't do one immediately that day?

REP. MILLER: That's correct. One is sufficient.

THE CHAIR: Representative Taylor raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, I can't really add much to what has already been said, accept for if we really mean it, if we want to talk about trying to see fewer abortions to occur this is the one way to do it, to take out the economic factor; part of the economic factor that many women face. One of the their biggest concerns is how will they pay for the pregnancy and then beyond that, we've already voted down, how to raise the child. But, nonetheless, especially given that, in this budget we have cut prenatal funding. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Representative Farrar sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. The question is on the Motion to Table. It is a record vote. Vote aye. Vote nay. Motion to Table. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Ms. Farrar voting no. Mr. Soloman's voting aye. Have all voted? There being 103 ayes, 43 nays. One present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hernandez Luna.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Martinez Fischer, what purpose?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: State your inquiry.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: You know, earlier the Chair made a point of order on the point I raised regarding whether or not a bill analysis was properly detailed, pursuant to the rule ** section 32C. And I had an opportunity to review the Chair's ruling. I just had a couple of questions. Do you need to get a copy of the ruling, Mr. Speaker?

THE CHAIR: Go ahead and ask your question.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Well, I just want to make sure that I read the Chair and his ruling says that I made an argument regarding whether or not the word medical emergency was properly detailed in exception to the sonogram rule, because it wasn't defined specifically, given the various nuances of medical emergency throughout our codes. I believe that that was substantially, materially misleading. The Chair disagreed with that. But the Chair's now says that the -- that the bill analysis properly notes that the bill defines a quote, "medical emergency" and properly notes that an exception to the sonogram requirement for a physician performing an abortion in a medical emergency. And so I'm asking for the Chair's interpretation, is that the -- one of the bases for denying or overruling the point order was because the Chair found that those items were properly noted in the bill analysis; is that correct?

THE CHAIR: The Chair found that the bill analysis complied with rule 4, section 32C.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. And I understand that. But I think that the term of art that was used by the Chair was that the bill analysis properly note and that the -- and that the bill analysis properly note that the bill defines a medical emergency and the bill analysis properly note that an exception to the sonogram requirement for physicians performing an abortion in an medical emergency. So I want to know what the Chair means when the Chair says by properly noting those terms, as they are material to the point of order they raise. I'm assuming that word, "proper" had a meaning, because the Chair would not have inserted that word if it didn't.

THE CHAIR: The Chair was referring to the two sections of the bill analysis. On page two of the bill analysis it relates to the medical emergency.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: So that I'm clear, Mr. Speaker, that the --

THE CHAIR: Hold on one sec.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.

THE CHAIR: And the Chair was noting that those supervisions -- that those two supervisions and the bill properly comply with rule 4 section 32 -- 32C and F.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: And in part of your answer you said that the proper also relates to the proper because it was contained in the bill analysis, did I hear that correct?

THE CHAIR: Yes, Mr. Martinez Fischer, both of those items were contained in the bill analysis.

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: For what purpose?

REP. FISCHER MARTINEZ: I'd like to raise a point of order for the consideration of this bill for violating rule 4, Section 32C.

THE CHAIR: Bring your point down front. Point of order is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Hernandez Luna.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Members. This is a very simple amendment. It simply state that after a woman has an abortion that she is provided with as much information as possible regarding family planning as a way to reduce the number of abortions and the number of unplanned pregnancies; that women have as much information and resources available so they can control their lives and be able to plan for future pregnancies. And I'm not sure it isn't acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm going move to table. What this does is it actually enhances the activities of Planned Parenthood. Move to table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Hernandez Luna to close.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I'm not sure of the explanation of how it enhances the services of Planned Parenthood, but I'm simply asking that after an abortion is performed, that a woman is provided with information regarding family planning. This means being able to plan future pregnancies, knowing the natural rhythmic system of the woman's anatomy to become pregnant.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Would the gentle lady yield?

THE CHAIR: Will you yield?

REP. HERNANDEZ: I do.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Ms. Hernandez, really, what you are trying to do is -- Correct me if I'm wrong, what you are trying to do is ensure that we don't see more unintended pregnancies, is that what you're trying to accomplish with this amendment, and therefore reducing the number of abortions?

REP. HERNANDEZ: That is correct.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I think it's a good amendment.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you. Members, I ask that you vote no on the Motion to Table.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hernandez Luna sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Show Ms. Hernandez Luna voting no. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Going 104 ayes, 38 nays. One present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

THE CHAIR: Excuse Representative on important business on the motion of Representative Schwertner. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REP. ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I know it's late and I fear that we've all developed patterns of voting already. But I wanted to share with you this amendment, because this sort of hit close to home for me. We were parents a little bit later in life and for a long time had difficulty with the reproductive health of my wife. Thankfully, we have two beautiful daughters now. But we had a high risk pregnancy with our first daughter and for a while it was touch and go and quite difficult. What this amendment does is for parents who want to have a baby but whose pregnancy is complicated and there's an irreversible condition that is defined in the health and safety voted and the viability of the child is compromised, they can have -- they can forgo the vaginal probe ultrasound. It's that simple. Currently, in the bill, there's only one exception, for medical emergencies. But what the bill does not pick up is the situation of quality of drawn aids and her husband when they discover in her second trimester that the fetus had a genetic disorder known as try (drop) 13, which caused the fetus to have fluid filled, nonfunctional brain and a malformed heart; with the case of Jill Derasely, who was nearly thirty weeks pregnant when doctors discovered that her fetus only had fragments of the skull and no brain. I know from the personal experience when my wife and I were dealing with the high risk pregnancy, that information -- we were not lacking information. We were up late nights, we were scared, there were feelings of guilt for having waited so long to have children: There were feelings of insecurity on behalf of my wife and inadequacy. We spent hours and hours on the internet, we talked to multiple doctors. And I think it's just wrong for this body in the situation such as these to require yet another ultrasound 24 hour waiting period where a woman has to sit there and listen to the heartbeat and watch the image. Because at this point there have been multiple tests, there have been multiple pokes and multiple proddings. There have been needles. And i don't feel comfortable about going back to my district and saying to women in the district and men in the district that the Texas Legislature is going make you relive what is already a difficult time. I think it's wrong for us to get in the middle of this type of difficulty for a family, to get between them, their doctor, and their God.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

REP. LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. ANCHIA: I yield.

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Anchia, thank you for bringing this amendment. We've spoken at length about this specific situation. And I'd like to just walk through how someone would be in the specific situation that this amendment addresses.

REP. ANCHIA: Okay.

REP. LUCIO: Seven weeks go by, normal time when most women think that they're late with their menstrual cycle, they determine that they might be pregnant. They take a pregnancy test. Seven, eight weeks go by, they go to their doctor, they go to their first checkup.

REP. ANCHIA: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOT NAISHTAT: Doctor confirms they're pregnant. They decided. They say, okay, come back in a couple of weeks, we'll do your first ultrasound. You get to see the baby. That's ultrasound number one. Sonogram number one.

REP. ANCHIA: That's right.

REP. LUCIO: Okay. At that point, most doctors now say given your age, given all that can go wrong in a pregnancy, you should go get your genetic tests. So then they refer you to a genetic testing center and you go and they do a family background check and they do family health analysis and they do an ultrasound tests for measurements; isn't that correct?

REP. ANCHIA: That's right.

REP. LUCIO: That's ultrasound number two. Then you wait and you get the results two, three weeks later from the genetic testing. And what that is a very (inaudible) probability result. You have a 1 in 12, 1 in 20 chance of having a child with a major genetic defect; is that correct?

REP. ANCHIA: That's right.

REP. LUCIO: And it's no guarantee. Then they say if you want a guarantee, because that probability doesn't get you to the threshold that your amendment creates, you have to do an ultrasound. And if the ultrasound, this is after one, going to your initial doctor's visit, then going to the genetic test, then going back for the genetic test's result, 'then they say in order to know for sure you need to get an ultrasound. Then they schedule you for an amniocentesis.

REP. ANCHIA: That's where they put a needle about this big --

REP. LUCIO: This big, in your belly.

REP. ANCHIA: In the woman's belly. And they have to do a sonogram before that to make sure that the baby is not in a position where it's going to be harmed by the large needle.

REP. LUCIO: Right. And so while they are performing the amniocentesis, a very long needle through the pregnant woman's belly into the womb to withdraw amniotic fluid for testing, they are simultaneously doing an ultrasound or sonogram in order to determine the position of the baby so that they don't hurt the baby.

REP. ANCHIA: That's right:

REP. LUCIO: So sonogram number three. In order to get those results from the amniocentesis, the standards that your amendment requires, which is medical certainty that there are irreversible medical genetic, abnormalities, they have to have not one, not two, but three sonograms. Plus, a minimum of six to eight weeks of time to think about those sonograms, to think about the consequences of what could be the results of those tests, and the consequences of whatever decision they have to make; is that correct?

REP. ANCHIA: That's right.

SENATOR LUCIO: And I know that the author of the bill would disagree with me, and under this bill because of the time element required you would have to get a fourth and a fifth sonogram. A fourth, because it has to be 24 hours before where you do a sonogram and get this information, and then immediately before the procedure is performed; because most doctors won't perform an a termination, in this case, because it's not an abortion, it's a termination because we have an irreversible, nonviable genetic defect; that's five sonograms. Mr. Chairman and members, I think you said it well. These are not parents who want to have an abortion. These parents want to have a healthy child but they don't -- the child has an irreversible condition that's defined in the Health and Safety Code. Basically means that the child is not going live and it's not viable, which also means the child is not going live. And, if that's the case, I think it's wrong to have to force that family to have yet another sonogram, to hear a heartbeat that may or may not be there, and to relive a very difficult time that they have been living for months. So, members, this is not a medical emergency that's covered by the existing exception in the bill, this is an additional exception. It's very narrow. It's limited to irreversible conditions and lack of viability, meaning the baby's probably dead. And I can't go back to my district and tell women, tell families, that we're going make you go through an additional procedure ore relive a difficult time, because I'll repeat it again; it's between a spouse, their wife, their doctor and their God. Move passage.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, that is a sensitive subject. I'm going move table at this time.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

REP. LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, just to ask a question.

REP. MILLER: Sure. I'll yield.

REP. LUCIO: Okay. Again, I'd like to refer to the language that I assumed you were going point to they were going to say that they could refuse. Do you believe that with the existing language, that you've repeatedly said that they can refuse the information, they would be -- if they refuse they would not necessarily have to have this sonogram; is that correct?

REP. MILLER: Well, actually, this is high risk case. It's going to be -- It's not going to be done by an abortion provider, it's going to be assigned by an OBGYN, a high risk provider. It's going to be done in a hospital. And there will be -- actually, there will be several sonograms, not just one required by my bill. So it won't require any additional sonograms prior to. And, in many cases, during the surgery there will be sonograms going on. The doctor will require this 24 hours before. They will certainly want to do another sonogram they will see what's happening there, if there's any blood or discharge or any change or movement. That is part of the medical procedure. So I'm going to want everyone to understand that it does not require an additional sonogram. There's going to be multiple sonograms done in a case like this. And I realize this is very sensitive and I can appreciate what Representative Anchia is trying to do, because it is a very sensitive subject. However, there is a carve out, and I think that's what you're fixing to refer to in the bill, in section 171,055, it does specifically say that the woman may not -- may choose not to receive that information or view the sonogram. So I believe we're covered.

REP. LUCIO: If I can, that nowhere from lines 11 through 16 does it say that they do not have to at least have the sonogram performed. All it says is that because the pregnant chooses not to receive the information, so as the bill is drafted, in this scenario. after seven to ten weeks, or six to eight weeks, three sonograms 24 hours before the -- this is a termination, I will not refer to this as an abortion.

REP. MILLER: That's -- That's a good term.

REP. LUCIO: This is, based on your bill -- that family would still have to have a sonogram 24 hours before the procedure.

REP. MILLER: Which is going occur anyway.

REP. LUCIO: I understand that. But it's going occur -- exactly. So 24 hours before and then again during. And they're going to have to view some type of affidavit that's going to say somewhere in there, and refer to some language that refers to heartbeat and child and fetus, and reliving the fact that they who very much wanted this child and are going through this procedure, unnecessarily informing them because, mind you, they've had a minimum, minimum of eight weeks to think about this, and three sonograms to understand exactly the consequences of their actions; based on this bill, in this scenario, this high threshold of medical certainty that you have to prove that there's a genetic irreversible defect where the baby will not be viable outside the womb, you are still going to require a 24 hour grace period sonogram and then one during the procedure itself.

REP. MILLER: Which the woman can refuse.

REP. LUCIO: Can refuse the information, not the sonogram.

REP. MILLER: She can refuse to view the sonogram. She can refuse --

REP. LUCIO: Well, the sonogram will still be taking place. She will still have to go through the motions of showing up 24 hours (inaudible).

REP. MILLER: Prior to the operation. Prior to the operation.

REP. LUCIO: Please hear me out, because this is very serious and close to my heart. She is going to have to go 24 hours before the termination to do a grace period sonogram, lay down on the table, look at her pregnant belly; yet again, have jelly put on that belly, yet again; and see, two feet away from her, a monitor that shows her child that, in most cases, will not have a chance of surviving outside the womb. Then the next day, have to think about that for another 24 hours. Then the next day, go back and during the procedure see that yet again.

REP. MILLER: No, she does not have to see it. That is standard medical care. That is going happen in a termination case that you've described, whether this bill passes or not. That's going happen. She's going to have multiple sonograms in this particular medical case. But, I remind you that she does not have view the sonogram.

REP. LUCIO: Sir, I understand that. Based on your -- She is still going to have to go through the emotions of getting the sonogram, which is looking at your belly 24 hours unnecessarily for no medical, reason laying down on an examining table --

REP. MILLER: I'm going to --

REP. LUCIO: -- and getting a sonogram performed. Then doing it the next day during this procedure. How can you not see in this case that there's an unnecessary sonogram on a woman, on a family who is devastated because of this.

REP. MILLER: Well, it's like this --

REP. LUCIO: And her consolation is they are going to turn the monitor -- they're not going to see it? They still have to go through the procedure though, right? Based on this bill, they still have to get that sonogram whether they look that the monitor or not.

REP. MILLER: Are you ready for my answer?

REP. LUCIO: I am.

REP. MILLER: Okay. I'm going to disagree with your assessment there when you said that it is an unnecessary medical procedure. It is a very necessary medical procedure prior to the termination in this particular instance. That medical procedure you call a sonogram will be done by that doctor, whether this bill passes or not, up until right before and sometimes even during the procedure. So we're not subjecting her to any more sonograms. I think where we differ is that this bill has had a carve out, and you don't think so, where she does not have to view that sonogram.

REP. LUCIO: I would be hard pressed to find, given the facts that we've laid out before you, where it is medically necessary 24 hours before to receive strictly informational sonogram and not have it done simultaneously, during procedure of termination, the process of going through the sonogram, regardless of if you look at the screen; and laying there and, once again, being in a gown, looking down at your pregnant belly as that sonogram is being conducted on your belly is extremely emotional for a woman who knows that there is nothing in that -- that is going to come out positive. Please, think about exactly this scenario. We -- The standard to determine irreversible genetic defects and viability is extremely high in the medical profession. We're talking about an amniocentesis, which is 99.9 percent accurate. We're not talking about a fly by night, you know, someone who's just making a decision. We're talking about normally a man and woman who are married, who have been devastated by the news that that pregnancy that they wanted desperately is no longer viable. That's what we're talking about. This is what we're talking about, thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Anchia to close.

REP. ANCHIA: I want to thank Representative Lucio for this really good questions. Sometimes these things hit close to home and I feel like they are quite serious and they're quite difficult to talk about. Ladies and gentlemen, there's only one set of exceptions in this bill and they relate to medical emergency. The situations we've described are not medical emergencies and would fall outside the exceptions to this bill, forcing politicians in Austin, forcing parents who are going through the situation is neither compassionate nor conservative nor right. So I'd ask you to stay with me and vote against this motion to table. Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Anchia sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Vote aye. Vote nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Mr. Anchia voting no. Have all voted? There being 98 ayes, 49 nays and one present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Following amendment, the Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REP. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment does is alter the penalty against a physician under this bill. And one of the challenges with the penalty that's in the bill, nowhere else under the law of the State of Texas, does the physician lose their license for not performing a procedure, except when they have violated the law. And then, under that process, there is due process for that physician. What would happen under this bill is that the individual if for any reason didn't provide the information mandated or the procedure mandated under this bill they would automatically have their license revoked. And that is extreme in terms of how we govern and license and adjudicate physicians in Texas. And that is the reason I bring this amendment, because this is very extreme for the Medical Board to do a death penalty violation based on something that was did no harm to the patient in any way, or a criminal activity or moral turpitude.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro.

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

THE CHAIR: Gentleman yield?

REP. COLEMAN: I will yield.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman, do you know of any other area where the legislature directly reevokes the professional license, without any kind of due process or would allow -- without allowing the licensed person, the licensed professional to go through, for example, the Texas Medical Board and whatever their procedure is.

REP. COLEMAN: No, there is no other circumstance like the one that is contemplated in this bill in terms of making sure that a doctor does the correct services or sanctioning any professional in terms of their livelihood and their ability to practice their profession.

REP. CASTRO: And would you agree that the legislature has not been -- a government has not been so intrusive, because we don't pretend to know all of the professional standards by which a doctor or a lawyer or any other licensed person should have their license revoked? In other words, we allow professional organizations like the State Bar, the Medical Board to do that?

REP. COLEMAN: That's correct. It appears as if that the way this bill is crafted is to provide a got ya to a professional, walk and in and say -- and anybody could walk in and say that they have not complied with the procedures and immediately they would be subject to having their license revoked. Revoked, without due process. And we've made the Medical Board a very important place, because that's where our constituents and others go to make sure that people are practicing medicine in the way that's best for the people of the State of Texas; that's their redress. But to have a situation where it is automatic that there is irreversible revocation of a license when no one has committed a crime or done a procedure improperly, in other words, didn't practice medicine correctly, or in that circumstance has not done any thing that -- that requires such a harsh punishment, and it appears to me that this is bordering on the lines of intimidation of medical professionals in this circumstance.

REP. CASTRO: And would you agree that we are opening up a Pandora's box here and going down a slippery slope in terms of license revocation and the legislature directly intruding in the professional standards of different groups?

REP. COLEMAN: No doubt about it. It doesn't matter if we're talking about nurses, if we're talking about lawyers, if we're talking about accountants, if we're talking about any professional where there's an automatic sanction based on something that wasn't criminal, was not malpractice and was not appropriate to what has occurred in that particular procedure or in that in that practice.

REP. VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Representative Villarreal, for what purpose?

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

THE CHAIR: Do you yield?

REP. COLEMAN: I'd be happy to yield.

REP. VILLARREAL: Mr. Coleman, Chairman Coleman, isn't it also true we also need doctors in Texas? We need more doctors than we currently have?

REP. COLEMAN: That's correct. We need more doctors and more health professionals and, yes that's absolutely true.

REP. VILLARREAL: Doesn't Texas have a shortage of doctors that puts it at the bottom of the ladder in terms of looking at other states and where we rank with the health care availability and access to primary care doctors?

REP. COLEMAN: Yes, I hear that argument all the time, that we need to do all we can to bring in primary care doctors which would include obstetricians, gynecologists, internists and others that most people don't view, but are primary care providers.

REP. VILLARREAL: I really appreciate your amendment, because you -- you cause me to reflect on how -- it seems this legislative session we're just piling on the doctors, from everything from House bill 1, the cuts to Medicaid rates, now this capital punishment, you know, clause penalty on their -- on their profession. Could this turn out to be the worst legislative session ever for our medical profession?

REP. COLEMAN: In a lot of ways, yeah. And this is interesting, if you think about the patients, there's not automatic revocation of a license if someone botches a C-section, that they do something in a breached delivery that harms the child, the wrong limb is removed, the wrong kidney is removed. But, in this case, a person would be sanctioned with loss of their license, a health provider, for not showing someone the sonogram, or anybody could accuse them of not following the law and they could have their license suspended for that moment and then immediately revoked. There is no due process in this law and it has nothing to do with proper medical practice, this has nothing to do with whether a physician is providing the proper medical procedure and proper medical treatment to their patient. This has nothing to do with that.

REP. VILLARREAL: Are we setting a precedent to govern the practice of medicine?

REP. COLEMAN: I think we are setting a precedent of extreme intrusion for the wrong reason. If we're going to intrude on our health professionals, let's intrude on them when they do something harmful to their patients. Let's do -- Let's make sure that the patient is made safe by the Medical Board. They have more to do for -- to discipline health providers based on real things, instead of based on turning the Medical Board into the sonogram police.

REP. VILLARREAL: Thank you. Chairman.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Castro -- Mr. Coleman, do you yield?

REP. COLEMAN: Yes, I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CASTRO: Mr. Coleman, I just -- I -- I really just have one question. You don't agree that this revocation -- this automatic revocation that we're doing, in fact, be way more than doctors get -- or a punishment, a much harsher punishment than doctors get for committing even more serious offenses?

REP. COLEMAN: No doubt about it.

REP. CASTRO: In fact, I wanted to see if you're aware of this case, a case where doctors license was simply suspended, and I'll read you the quick paragraph. It says, on February 18th, 2011, the disciplinary panel of the Board temporarily suspended without notice, the medical license this doctor after determining that Dr. Walker's continuation in the practice of medicine constitutes a continuing threat to the public welfare. The panel found that the doctor inappropriately prescribed inappropriate controlled substances to seven patients, including one who died from overdose on January 1st, 2011. The doctor prescribed something to a patient that died and they temporarily suspended that person's license.

REP. COLEMAN: Yep.

REP. CASTRO: And we're automatically revoking a license here?

REP. COLEMAN: This punishment that's laid out in this bill does not fit the circumstance that it's supposed to sanction. And that's the reason why I bring this amendment, because this is inappropriate in comparison to how we sanction physicians based on harm that is done to an actual patient.

REP. CASTRO: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Legler raises the point of order, that the time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I understand what Representative Coleman is trying to do, but his amendment goes way beyond and actually allows -- actually it guts the bill, it makes the permissive to assess a penalty, and there were no doctors to testify against the bill or its provision in the committee, so I am going to -- and there is due process. There is due process. So I'm going to move to table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to close.

REP. COLEMAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I'm not going to prolong this but we are here to make good public policy, folks. And because there's a run on a bill that says that we're not going to accept any amendments doesn't make the amendment bad public policy. So what I would say to you is that we move forward with this, I would ask that you vote to put this amendment on the bill. But if this amendment isn't put on the bill, I would ask you to call the physicians that are your constituents and ask them if they think this is an appropriate sanction for them, or any physician when -- when a procedure like this occurs, and whether this is what the Medical Board is for or not. I ask you to vote no on the Motion to Table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller moves to table. This vote is on the Motion to Table. It's a record vote. Vote aye. Vote nay. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Mr. Coleman voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 99 ayes, 47 nays. One is not voting. Motion to table Prevails. Excuse Representative Chisum because of important business in the district on the motion of Representative Hancock. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Farrar.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, the bill, as it stands, mandates that a doctor perform a medical procedure even if he or she doesn't deem that it's not in the womans' best interest. Doctor should not be choosing between complying with law or doing what they believe is best for their patient. Thereby they could all lose their license and their ability to earn a living. This puts a doctor between a rock and a hard place in trying to comply with the law but also doing what's best for his or her patient. Doctors have all the necessary medical training to determine how to treat their patients. This amendment says that the legislature cannot trump what a doctor deems is best for his or her patient and allows him or her the authority to make the appropriate decisions on a case by case basis. Government should not make personal medical decisions for doctors and patients. This amendment prevents government from taking over health care decisions.

THE CHAIR: Representative Hernandez Luna, for what purpose?

REP. HERNANDEZ: Would the lady yield for a question.

THE CHAIR: Lady yield?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Ms. Farrar, do you think it seems now we're trying to tell the doctors just how to do their jobs?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: It absolutely does. You've heard in the discussions back and forth, the precedent that this can possibly set, the fact that we're treating doctors, as Mr. Coleman's amendment just explained, we're treating doctors to violate this part of the law differently than if they do many -- much more horrendous things to their patients.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Do you think that we as legislature are much more qualified than the Texas Medical Board to make these decisions?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: A few of us in this room are medically trained, but most of us are not. So no, I don't think we need to be in the business of doing so. We really should be allowing doctors to do their jobs.

REP. HERNANDEZ: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment by Representative Farrar actually allows the doctors to ignore the entire bill. So I'm regretfully going to have to move to table this one, also.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, I just don't believe this legislature should insert itself in the relationship between the doctor and a patient. That relationship is a sacred one. A patient needs to be able to tell their doctor anything because that information is important to their treatment to their lives, to their future health. And so this, I believe, is -- this coercive -- the coercive effort of this bill inserts the politicians where doctors should be. And I don't mean to jeopardize that relationship. And that's why I'm asking you to vote against the Motion to Table, to preserve that doctor -- the sacredness of that doctor/patient relationship.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. The question is on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Show Mr. Murphy voting aye. Show Ms. Farrar voting no. Have all voted? Being 102 ayes, 42 nays. One present not voting. The Motion to Table prevails. Following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Miller. Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment is a perfecting amendment to the severability clause, acceptable to author, and I move passage. Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against the amendment? Mr. Miller sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author, is there any objection? Ms. Farrar, for what person?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MILLER: I'll be glad to yield.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Is this your severability amendment?

REP. MILLER: Yes, it is.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Okay. I have some questions about that. Why do you -- Why are you asking for a severability amendment? Do you think there might be some constitutional issues with this bill?

REP. MILLER: Twenty-one other states have had some form of legal challenge. And what this -- what this does, especially with the freshman members that aren't familiar with, if there is any portion of this bill that has a legal challenge in court, and it's determined that it is overruled by the court, what this does is it only affects that portion of the bill and the remainder of the bill will stay intact.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So you're basically telling federal courts what to do? So you don't think they're going to analyze it anyway?

REP. MILLER: No, I don't think it's telling the courts what to do. It's telling whatever they rule on it, it bill is not effected by their ruling.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So you do have some concerns about whether that might be some -- the courts might find that there might be some undue burdens here?

REP. MILLER: Actually, I really don't have any concerns. But it's kind of like putting on your belt and suspenders, too. I want to cover all aspects.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right. It seems to me that the clause will do a whole lot, because the federal courts are going to do what they are going to do, they supercede us. I'm just concerned about do you think that maybe making the two trips for a woman to receive an abortion, do you think that might be burdensome, or the fact that she can't really opt out of having the procedure, or that she has to hear things and can't really get away, or that the fact that the sonogram is -- makes her abortion procedure more expensive, or that the amendment -- there was an amendment to be offered that bars her own doctor from complying with this legislation? So, I mean, do you think any of those items might make this more burdensome and therefore not hold constitutional muster?

REP. MILLER: Actually we went -- spent a lot of time going over just what you just described. Of all the lawsuits that were brought in the other cases, across the other states that have sonograms bills, none of those lawsuits, particularly lawsuits that were sustained or upheld, are in this bill. I believe that we have a one hundred percent clean bill.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, then why do you need a severability clause?

REP. MILLER: Just in case. Like I said before, I want to cover all angles.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, I just want -- it just alerted me to the fact that you might have some doubts about it.

REP. MILLER: This might shock you, but have made mistakes. I try to cover myself.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Hold on, I got to hold myself up here.

REP. MILLER: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE CHAIR: Representative Miller sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable the to the author. Any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: Members, this amendment is pretty straightforward. The crux of the bill is on page four and it sets out the purpose of the act. It really encaptures what we have been debating today. It says this: The purpose of the acts are to protect the physical and the psychological health and well being of pregnant women. To provide pregnant women access to the information that would allow a pregnant woman to consider the impact of an abortion would have on the pregnant woman's fetus and protect the integrity of the ethical standards of the medical profession. Not unusual for us to put background and purpose findings in a bill because, as we know, when bills are reviewed from time to time we'd like to think that courts would consider our legislative intent as expressed here at the microphone, even when it's placed in the journal. But, many times they don't. So this amendment makes sure that our intent is made clear in the text of the bill itself. That's the purpose of the bill. It's acceptable to the office and, of course, yield to my friend.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hughes, do you yield?

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: I yield.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: You have a couple of amendments. Is this your severability amendment?

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: Severability is at the end of this amendment. It builds on this. Chairman Miller was just talking about that. There is a severability clause in this, as well as going through background and purpose for the bill itself.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: It looks like a legal treatise. Have you -- I mean what's the purpose or the what's the difference of how the two amendments work together, since the they're both probably going to go on the bill?

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: This amendment, as far as the legal, it talks about court law on access to abortion and what the Supreme Court has said states can and should do. It goes over reach of the cases and road maps what we're doing in this bill is what's allowed by the Supreme Court. That's really what this is about. And as far as the severability clause, as Chairman Miller mentioned before, we believe this is a constitutionally sound bill but you never know what a court going to do. So, should a court strike down one portion of the bill it wouldn't hurt the rest of the bill. That's basically what we're doing here, we're trying to do.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, I just wondered why you're doing this because it seems maybe you thing you're on shaky ground because perhaps women's rights, constitutional rights might be violated. Why would you have to go to such extreme explanations? I've just never seen anything like this in legislation. Why would you be quoting verse and chapter of cases? And, quite frankly, I mean, it doesn't seem that the statute itself holds up any of the quotes that are mentioned.

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: Well, it's not terribly uncommon for us to have background findings in a statute. It's in the education code, alcoholic beverage code, all over the health and safety code. There's actually a few bills filed on this session that do this. It puts findings and background and purpose. Because, as you know, when bills are challenged in court, sometimes the courts don't listen to what you and I have said about this, but they look at what is in the bill itself.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So you're building a dissent, basically?

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: We want to make sure our intent is clear. If any judge has any questions about it they won't be able to second guess. Or, worst yet, I know you and I would both be unhappy if the judge were to substitute their own judgment for ours as to what our intent was. So that's what we're doing.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, let me ask you to uphold the constitutionality, and this body doesn't always have constitutional measures. It is not unheard of in our history to have to have done that. So I just find it curious that we would be -- that you'd be having to shore up your defenses on something like this, because -- And the other thing is, I think it does only go to intent, perhaps, because the federal courts are going to do whatever the federal courts are going to do.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Well, the judges are going to do what the judges want to do. We just want to make sure we give them all the information they need to honor the intent of the legislature as expressed here according to the Constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Are you concerned that there might be undue burdens placed on women by this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: No, I'm not. In fact, if you look at some of the language here quoted, for example Planned Parenthood vs Casey opinion, it says most women considering an abortion would deem the impact on the fetus relevant if not dispositive to her decision.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: I don't doubt, you've gone a great job of cutting and pasting verbiage from different opinions.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Well, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Well, I'd do the same thing. But it does -- you know, it does just point to one thing and it doesn't look at the whole picture of what the case was about. So you've done a great job of putting together language that basically suits the purpose of this bill. But I do -- I do have concerns about undue burdens on women, and the ones that I laid out to Mr. Miller just a moment ago.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: And I understand that. And that's expressing our debate. And whatever final bill is passed, we just want to make sure that it reflects what we've talked about here. So I do appreciate your position.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Let me ask you this: I want to ask Mr. Miller this as well. We were talking earlier about psychological effects of women, and this is where I think this bill might run into some trouble. Women will have to see here images that will affect them one way or the other. And my concern is that the concern of the bill only seems to be that of the woman who would carry through her pregnancy, but the concern is not on the woman who has already made her decision and still has to undergo this procedure and go through the hearing and, very -- well, a very painful process for her. So it seems to be that the bill makes a distinction between the two types of women. It has concerns for the woman who will carry through her child -- her pregnancy, but not so much the woman who has decided to have an abortion.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I don't doubt, and I think we learned from testimony in the committee, that there are women who begin this process by having made up their minds, and after viewing all the information, make a different choice. Of course, the woman has a right. We want to make sure it's an informed choice.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speak er, will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Will the gentlemen yield for questions, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Hughes, I was just curious, as a member of the committee, why didn't you add those background and purpose facts back at the committee level?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I'm not member of the committee.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: You're not a member of the committee?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: No, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: And so how is it that you are in a position to state what the background and purpose is if you weren't a member of the committee?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Well, this, of course, is a proposed amendment. This body will decide whether I'm in a position to do that. If we adopt this amendment then we'll know the answer to that. I think, based on the debate we've heard, this is very consistent with the bill's intent.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, I respect your opinion, but I think I heard you lay out earlier that this is like a background and purpose. And so, if I heard wrong, then I apologize. But if you said that, I don't know how you can effectively say that if you weren't part of the committee process and part of the committee deliberations. And so I don't want to send a false impression that that amendment represents the mood of the committee and those would have been the proposed findings and the background and purpose of the committee unless, of course, that's what the committee wanted to do. And since it didn't come out of the committee like that I have to assume that it was neither thought of or, you know, more importantly, even something they wanted to be part of the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: If this amendment becomes part of the bill it will be an expression of this entire body's, with background and purpose for this act. It will become part of the statute and we, as the House, the members of the committee and all rest of us will be suppressing our will. And that's how the system works. You know that.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Right. And so, but we as a body accepting that, we're not going to supplant our judgment as that of the committee, we can't do that, I can't do that, you can't do that; can you?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: What's the question?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: The question is when you say we, if we may adopt this as a body as a statement of our belief as what the background and purpose is, but you're not suggesting that we could supplant our judgment for the committee's judgment. We're not doing this at the request of the committee we're doing this in lieu of the committee, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: It would be no different from you asking the author of the bill questions of legislative intent, and those being reduced to writing and placed in the journal. That's the author's impression based on your questions. That intent can be placed in the journal. Of course, looked in that, we wan to make it stronger by putting it in the statute itself.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Okay and --

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I know, that you, like I, have been frustrated when courts have ignored legislative intent.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, I --

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Just to avoid that from happening.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, I sort of subscribe to the separation of powers. And I recognize that we have the ability to act right now, but they have the ultimate decision when they interpret our acts. But I don't see in your amendment any where, where it even dictates or suggests that these -- this is the intention of the legislature. I mean, I'm looking at it, it says the legislature is making these findings and I didn't realize that we made findings in statute.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: As a matter of fact, you can look at Section 23.902 of the Education Code where the legislative finds it is essential for the well being and growth of students who are deaf or hard-of-hearing that the legislative find for the well being and health or hard-of-hearing that educational programs recognize the nature of deafness and of hard-of-hearing conditions and insure that all students that are deaf or hard-of-hearing have appropriate, ongoing and fully acceptable educational opportunities. We could go to the to the Health and Safety Code, chapter 32, chapter 85, 257, 361 and on and on. We could go to the Alcoholic Beverage Code. We are two -- there are three pages in Section 6.03 of background that is intent.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Legler raises the point of order. Gentlemen, time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speak er, may the gentlemen extend his time for just one more question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer moves to extend the gentlemen's time. Is there objection?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Just one question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For one question. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Would you just help me understand that if these are proposed findings, can you explain to me how we found, on page four, line 18, how this bill protects the physical and psychological health and well being of a pregnant woman?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: I would say that's based on the testimony that was heard in committee, as you described, and based on comments made by the author and other members from this podium and the back mike about how women testified before the committee that they wanted all the information before making this decision.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Okay. And that, that will speak to their physical and psychological health and well being?

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: That's certainly a part of it. And it's about informed consent, women having all the facts before they make this big, big decision.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speak er.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'd like to have the exchange of Representative Hughes and myself reduced to writing and put in the journal as an expression of legislative intent as to what committee witnesses testified to as to their physical and psychological health and well being of a pregnant woman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Hughes sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative king.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is one of those amendments I know everybody will just unanimously support. All it does is it require that there be an annual audit by the state health services to Ensure compliance with this bill, should it pass. And it is acceptable to the author. Move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative King, an annual audit of the facilities?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: As you know, the code already requires the department to go in and audit pursuant to Chapter 171, which is the -- to make sure that the abortion facilities are in compliance with their permitting restrictions. They already do that. This adds the requirement that when they do those audits they also do audit for compliance, records keeping and such with this bill, should it pass. Now, to clarify, the current statute for Chapter 171 says may. However, the rules, Section 139.31B1 of the Texas Administration Code, the department has adopted an annual audit. So they already do that. This does change the may to shall. But that's something they already do and it simply says that while they're auditing for the abortion facility for the other requirements, they will also audit to make sure that they are in compliance with the requirements of this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Can I ask a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Who is conducting the audits?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: State Health Services.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the cost associated with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, we're -- My intention, you may have met with her as well, Aby Johnson who ran an abortion clinic for Planned Parenthood in Brian, I met with her a couple of weeks ago and she stressed to me how important it was for those audits to come to those clinics to make sure that there is complete compliance. And I could give you a lot of examples that she gave me. In fact, it was very disturbing the efforts that were made to circumvent those audits. But she convinced me it was important and I just want to make sure while they're auditing already that they also audit in compliance with this statute.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the costs associated with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The cost? The cost. There will not be a cost because they already go into audit, now. We would just say they also check these records while they are there.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But under the existence, quote, it says that they "may", that doesn't necessarily imply that they will.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And that's correct. Except that, as I mentioned, the Texas Administrative Health Code has already made the "may" a "shall". In other words they, the Department, in its rule making authority, has already set up for annual audits.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: How many audits are you anticipating under your amendment?

MR. KING: One per year.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: How many audits will that be on an annual basis?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: How ever many licensed abortion facilities there are in the State of Texas. I think somebody told me there's seventy-three. But that may be off.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Seventy- three facilities?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Seventy-three abortion facilities that are licensed as abortion facilities. Don't hold me to that number please, Mr. Speaker. But, however many audits are conducted today, the same number of audits will be conducted if this amendment is adopted. It is just that they will expand the scope of the audit to include the double check of the recordkeeping compliance that's required under this statute.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And the cause is a shall instead of a may. There is a cost associated with this amendment. The only reason I'm asking, the bill analysis says there's no cost associated with HB15, and if we're going to adding amendments that are going to be adding costs, then I think this bill needs to go back in order for a fiscal analysis to be placed on this bill. Because, to me, it is unfair to the members of this body to adopt any amendment to the bill that's going to add cost to this bill contrary to the fiscal note attached. So is it your representation that your amendment does not at all cost this bill?

MR. KING: It is my opinion that it does not add any cost to the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And if by chance, overnight, for example, if the comptroller should place a cost on your amendment, will you agree to withdraw your amendment from HB15?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I would have to think about that. I just don't anticipate that happening.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I think until you think about it, you need to withdraw HB15 amendment. You can't have it both ways.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: In my opinion, and based on the research that we've had and the discussions we've had in pursuing this amendment, it will have no cost impact.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I'm with you on that. The only thing that I'm saying is that once we send your amendment to the comptroller and -- or whomever, and if there's a cost attached to the amendment, will you agree to withdraw your amendment from HB15?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I would consider, if that were the case, which I don't think it will be. If that were the case I would consider changing it from shall to may, only because they're going to do it already, because it's already required under the rules of the agency. It is, in effect, already a shall.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The only concern I'm having with any amendments that add any potential cost is that eventually we're going to be making some very critical decisions as it relates to the Appropriations Bill. And in HB15 we are providing a sonogram to mothers. But in a few weeks we may be denying Pampers to these mothers of the very same children. And so the concern that I have is with cost. Let me ask -- Let me go to another issue. Does your amendment at all violate any of the HIPAA rules?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry, I can't --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The rules that require the privacy of these records, privacy of a patient's records, does your amendment violate any of the privacy rules?

MR. KING: Not to my knowledge.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Because I think we're getting -- I think once you start getting into audits, and because HB15 requires that these records be maintained for seven years, and these are very personal records. And now, we're having these outside people coming in and conducting these audits and looking at people's records, I think we're getting very, very close to violating people's privacy rights. And HB15 may be very well intended but I think at some point government is becoming highly intrusive into the personal lives and the personal medical records of the individuals involved.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If -- I would be happy to work with you in working with the agency to ensure that their internal regulations protect HIPAA at all levels in their audits. And I would be happy to work with you towards that, with the agency.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, I'm just concerned, Phil, and I know you're sensitive to it that the eyes of big government are now all over the place with HB15. So not only are we imposing the sonograms on women, but now we are having outside auditors from state governmental agencies looking at the medical records of people, of women and others in the state of Texas. I know that has to be a concern.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And I feel I have the highest level of confidence that they have been doing audits up to this point on those abortion facilities looking to see if, for example, a parental consent was signed or parental notice provisions were made. And I have heard no complaints or no concerns that the audits were violating HIPAA or any other privacy concerns. And so I'm just going to trust that the agency will continue to act with great restraint in that regard.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I don't know why we should trust the agency on HB15 when we question the -- and we don't trust the agency on so many other issues. To me there's a disconnect. But in HB15 government is all -- all included in the lives of women and families. And this is another intrusion by government into the lives of families in the State of Texas. But I -- but please take a look and see whether or not there's a cause. Point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Legler raises the point of order, the gentlemen's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The point of inquiry is taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Turner, state your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is there a rule in the Texas House on a fiscal note of any bill or amendment that comes to the floor of the House?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There are rules on fiscal notes on bills that are attached that come to the House.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And what is the affect on any amendment, any bill that comes to the floor of the House with a fiscal note? Or that has a fiscal note or may impose a fiscal cost?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is no rule that requires an amendment presented to the first time on the House floor.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Say it again, I'm sorry. Say it again, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: There is no rule regarding an amendment being presented on the House floor for the first time to contain a fiscal note.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So, point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: So we are free to bring amendments to the floor that may carry fiscal notes or may have fiscal implications on the State of Texas?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If that's the case, that's fine. I just want to make sure I know what the rules are.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: In some cases -- in some cases for instance, the calendar rules for the appropriations, there are requirements that amendments be financially balanced. There are special requirements for bills that spend money within set deadlines, especially before the General Appropriations Act. There is no requirement in our rules, absent the calendar rule or some other special rule adopted by the House, that an amendment filed on the floor contain a fiscal note.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then I think, Mr. Speaker, it is very important that -- Well. Fair well. I'm going to -- I think I understood that saying there is no prohibition against any amendment coming to the floor, other the Appropriations Bill, carrying a fiscal implication.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Turner, the parliamentarian will be more than happy to visit with you regarding this if you'd like to come down here.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Fair enough. I'm fine. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Are you able to answer questions coming to you from the back mike if the parliamentarian doesn't move his lips? Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Parliamen tarian inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: The gentlemen described his intent to not create a fiscal note on this bill. Is it -- Are we not able to amend his amendment with the provision that says this clause does not go into effect if it creates a negative fiscal note, if it costs the bill?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members are always free to submit amendments. Bring your amendment down front.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Otto, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Parliamentary inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: If any bill passes this body and it has a fiscal note, but is not appropriated for in the general budget, would that item then still be in effect or if is it not appropriated it would have no effect?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Otto, that question made our heads hurt, okay? Could you bring your point of order down here, please? The following amendments, the Clerk will read the amendments.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Anchia.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, I have an amendment that -- it frequently goes on in the Senate. It is affectionately termed in Senate the Ogden Amendment. It says if there's an appropriation that is created by any part of this bill, and no appropriation is made by this body, then the act does not take effect. It's as simple as that. Senator Ogden puts it on every bill, it's senate chair finance. And I think it would be prudent for us to do it here because of these tight budget times and the difficult budget will that we have looming ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Madden, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Will the gentlemen yield for one question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Is it the tradition of the House that we always follow the acts of what the Senate does?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: No, we typically don't. But I think it's especially prudent in this case, Mr. Chairman, we have facing very difficult budget times and if we get in the habit over here in the House of being fiscally undisciplined and loading up bills with amendments that aren't paid for, I think that's bad policy and bad practice.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Well, I promised only one question, but I'm going to ask two. Does your amendment say that with the act is not --

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: -- not put into place?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Are you basically trying to kill the bill?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: No. We're just asking that you don't load the bill up with unfunded amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: If the amendment isn't funded then the bill -- then there's -- the bill doesn't take effect.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speak er, will the gentlemen yield for a question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Villarreal?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: To ask him a question.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: No. No I'm kidding, yes. I yield.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The gentlemen yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So what you're attempting to do is cure the problem that this amendment creates, potentially. And that is it expands the scope of an existing audit and instead of allowing it to be voluntary, it's mandatory?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Look, Representative King came up here and said he doesn't have a fiscal note. There's no fiscal note on the bill based on some quote, unquote "research" that he's done, this doesn't add anything, any cost to the bill. But we don't know that. So, in an abundance of caution, and in order to be -- in order to be disciplined on this House floor, as a matter of fact if this thing loads up, if this amendment loads up the bill with costs and it's not propagated by Chairman Pitts and the Appropriations Committee then it should be the practice of this House that the bill not take affect. Representative Anchia, thank you for bringing this fix. I think it makes sense that this bill came to the House floor without a fiscal note, this ensures that this amendment, nor any other amendment, expand the cost of government.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you. Move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative King to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, the way this amendment is written, it applies to the entire bill. And the impact will be if this amendment to the amendment is added, that in effect, that all the work we've done here today will be removed, because the bill will not ever be -- ever to go into effect unless we somehow determine what the cost of this be to the state and there be a specific appropriation made for it. I think the effort has been with committee House Bill 15 that this not have a significant cost on the state. But, basically, this amendment to this amendment would not only impact this amendment, but it would say that unless we make appropriations of unspecified amount that House Bill 15 will not go into effect.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speak er.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: For questions, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative King, the amendment simply says that if there's a cost associated with the amendment, that the amendment doesn't go. That's all it says.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, sir, it doesn't. It says this act does not make an appropriation. The act being the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And it says if amendmented by this act only takes effect if this appropriation for the implementation of that provision is provided in a General Appropriations Act of the 82nd Legislature.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I asked the author his intent and he said his intent was to apply to the entire bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Correct. And the fiscal note that's attached to the bill says there is no fiscal note. And if there is no fiscal note then there's no need for an appropriation.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But we do not know what the final bill is going to look like.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, wait a minute, you can't have it both ways.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Oh, yes, you can.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Oh, no you can't.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, you can.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Not if you're going to be physically conservative and transparent you can't. You can't have it both ways if there's no --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If an amendment is added on that has any fiscal cost to it at any point in this process, including in a conference committee or whatever, it would have the effect of killing the entire bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the author of the amendment and the author of the bill is representing to the Texas House and the People of the State of Texas that there is no cost associated, then there is no problem with this amendment.

MR. KING: But there is none right now, but that doesn't mean there won't be none on third reading or in conference committee or in whatever the Senate does to it, if the Senate ever takes it up. If we add something later, it's going to have the impact or have the risk of killing all this fine work that we've done today.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Represen tative King, time and time again people come to the floor and we say we are fiscally conservative and we are transparent. The fiscal note attached to the bill and what you have represented in your amendment says there is no cost associated to it. If what you represent is true, there is no need for an appropriation. There's no need for an appropriation.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Again, we don't know what the final bill is going to look like. There are other amendments pending. There is third and fourth reading amendments, there's conference committee changes, there's things that's going to happen in the House before the conference committee. And, ultimately, if any costs -- And, plus, Mr. Speaker, you know as well as I do that every bill, even if it's just the printing costs that go by what we are required to do has some argument that there's fiscal implications.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And Representative King, you know what we call that? We call that creeping. We call that creeping. And people have spoken against creeping costs. Okay? People have said they don't want government to engage in cost that keeps going up and up and up. Now, if the rule of the day is that if it's something that you like it's okay to place a cost on it, I got that. I'm okay. I'm okay with that. I'm okay. But let's not argue that we're going to be fiscally conservative and transparent when we are not willing to accept amendments that say that if there is a cost associated with it and no appropriation made, it should not go anywhere. That's the only thing that I'm saying. That's the only thing I'm saying. And, again, if you're representing that the amendment has no cost the amendment is a good one. If it's a possibility that the amendment has cost, I will agree with you, if I were the author I would not accept the amendment, either.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'll move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I understand.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Anchia for close.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: I love Representative King having to argue against fiscal responsibility. The bottom line is the Representative can pull his amendment down if he's concerned that it creates a cost to the bill, and then this amendment to the amendment is not necessary. The other thing that's interesting about this is that the Senate has this very amendment put on by Senator Watson and Senator August. If this bill has a cost, it needs to be funded in the Appropriations Bill. If it is not funded in the Appropriations Bill, the act does not take effect. So there are two simple remedies here. Representative King can pull down his amendment, right? Which is changing a may to a shall and clearly putting costs on this bill, even though he says there's no cost to it. Doesn't sound like he's confident with that. Or, you can put this amendment on and just fund it in the Appropriations Bill.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker --

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And that's all you need to do. There are two easy fixes to this. But the practice that we're engaging in --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Chairman Villarreal. Just give me a second. The bottom line is, this is bad practice during a very difficult budget year of not being sure if we're adding costs to a bill, whether it's this bill or any bill. And I suspect we should be having this discussion on every bill. If it's not appropriated for the Appropriations Bill, it doesn't pass. Simple as that. So I know that my conservative colleagues who are fiscally responsible understand the impact of that and don't want to look like hypocrites on this House floor, and will be supporting or will be voting against the motion to table. Thank you, members.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: To ask the gentlemen a question.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you. I just want to clarify something. I actually thought I heard you two debate that this would bring down the whole bill. And we already know the bill does not have a fiscal note. And the first line in your amendment states the obvious, right? This act does not make an appropriation. And then the rest of your amendment actually -- or the rest of your amendment to the amendment only focuses on section 245.0066 of the Health and Safety Code, which is still Representative King's amendment. And so it says Representative King's amendment, as amendmented by this act, takes effect only if a specific appropriation for the implementation of that provision is provided. And so you really aren't bringing down the whole bill as represented by Representative King, you're only focused on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: The principle here is that we should be disciplined about loading up bills with possible costs and fiscal notes. And if it is either a section, or the entire bill, the principle should remain the same, okay? If you're not sure, as Mr. King is not sure in this case, he thinks it won't add a cost to the bill, which is fine. And if it doesn't, there's no need. But if it does had a cost to the bill we need to have an appropriation for it. Bottom line, that's the principle. And I hope we are principled in our votes. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Anchia sends up an amendment to the amendment. The question is on the adoption of the amendment to the amendment. All those in favor vote aye. Mr. King moves to table. Question is on the Motion to Table. All those in favor vote aye. All opposed no on the Motion to Table. The Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Anchia voting no. Mr. King voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 100 ayes and 45 nays, the Motion to Table prevails. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Castro.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members, I know that Representative King's amendment has us doing inspections and I can respect that. And so my amendment, what it would do is ensure that the facility has taken appropriate measures to insure that persons visiting the facility receive appropriate protection to access the facility. Now, I know that the legislation that we focused on today emphasizes what goes on inside the clinic, but I know that all of you are also concerned not only that we have safety inside the facility, but also we're concerned about what happens outside the facility. We want to make sure that these folks, that these mothers with their children in their bellies are safe when they go into the clinics. We know that people have been threatened, people have been harassed, that there have been instances of violence at abortion facilities. And I know that we all want to make sure that nobody is harmed. And since we're going to be doing inspections, we can also make sure that these providers are taking the necessary steps to ensure that everybody is safe as they access the facility. So, with that, I would ask you -- I would ask the author to accept this amendment and I would move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, although I share with Representative Castro the concern over the safety of anyone at a clinic, and -- I was a policeman for 15 years, so those issues are certainly on my mind, too. But I think what this is going to do is the clinics are not required under this bill, or anywhere else in law that I'm aware of, to provide security. And --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker .

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Just one second. Let he finish my statement.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I am concerned that this will establish a financial requirement for the clinics to provide security. And, if that occurs, someone's going to end up making an argument that that adds to the cost of the services provided at the abortion center. And that's going to be -- run the risk of it being considered an undue burden and we'll have its impact of placing the bill, the new legislation at risk. And now, I'll yield at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representa tive King, a few things, first did you vote for the women's right to know legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, I did.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Didn't that impose a sonogram requirements on the clinics? Was that not a cost that was imposed on the clinics?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It was, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: How is this different?

MR. KING: Well, I think this bill has been about the sonogram issue and about --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: So you're not concerned that if a woman is carrying a child in her stomach is threatened or beat up or assaulted outside of the clinic that you want to make sure everything is okay once she gets inside?

REPRESENATATIVE KING: Well, I think that I might support you on an separate piece of legislation where we had time to work through the fiscal cost to provide security at clinics. But anyone --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I got a chance --

REPRESENATATIVE KING: However, this bill today has nothing to do with providing law enforcement officers or security guards or things of that nature at an abortion clinic.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But that's not what the amendment says. The amendment simply says that the facilities is to be inspected to make sure that they're safe in terms of access to the facility.

REPRESENATATIVE KING: That's my point, there's no requirement in the law to--

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It doesn't.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- say. Therefore, how can you have an inspection with no statute that you're enforcing?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: So you have no concern that these places are safe?

REPRESENATATIVE KING: I have absolute concern that these places are safe. In fact, that's why -- Well, I won't go to that but the -- the -- there is -- This requires an audit to ensure compliance with the recordkeeping requirements and other requirements of this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But Representative --

REPRESENATATIVE KING: You're adding an inspection to determine that the facilities have safe fencing and lighting outside at night and that type of thing, which is totally out of the scope and intent of anything to do with this legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's not correct. Why in the world would you be more concerned about recordkeeping than the safety of an unborn child of a mother walking into an abortion facility? Why in the world would you be concerned with a file more than a mother and an unborn child?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: You know, you know, I'm absolutely concerned with those issues. But they're not a part of this legislation. And, in fact, if you want to put together some legislation to require security and other things, I would probably work on that with you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But if they're not part of this legislation, that's what the amendment to the amendment is for. I believe we got a Germane Ruling from the parliamentarian who said that this amendment to the amendment was fine.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, I don't know if he said it was fine, he said --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, we can call it, if it is.

REPRESENATATIVE KING: Well, I haven't called a point of order on it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: What's that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I said I have not called a point of order on it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, if you believe it's not germane, we can ask the parliamentarian.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, I think it's. Good, I don't think it's an appropriate amendment or a good idea for this legislation and that's why I'm going to oppose it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I'll speak -- I guess my questions are done but I'll speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would -- Yeah, I'll answer your question. I'll just ask right here.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker , members, look, the fact is we are already going to do an audit, we're already going to do an inspection. Mr. King won on his amendment that said that the inspection was not going to cost anything, that there was no fiscal note to it. What I am simply asking is for us to be consistent. If we want to make sure that this clinic is keeping proper records, that they're doing everything they're supposed to do under this chapter, then we also make sure that the women are safe. We also make sure that the unborn child is safe. Not only when the woman goes in for the sonogram but also when she takes the ten or fifteen steps from her car to the front door to go into the clinic. If we table this amendment we're essentially saying that we don't care what happens outside that door. You don't care if she gets harassed, you don't care if she gets assaulted, you don't care if there's security there. You just don't care. Is that the kind of message we want to send to the people of Texas? I would ask for your support in this amendment, I think both because it's good public policy, but also because we are consistent in our policy, we care about what happens outside and inside that clinic. I move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Castro sends up an amendment. Representative King moves to table. Question is on the Motion to Table, members. Vote aye or vote no on the Motion to Table. This is a record vote. The Clerk will ring the bell. Chair shows Representative King voting aye. Representative Castro voting no. Show Representative Veasey voting no. Has everyone voted? There being 97 ayes, 47 nays, the amendment failed. The Motion to Table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, thank you for listening to our discussion on it and I would move to adopt. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative King sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Sheets.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Sheets.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I offer this amendment. I believe it's acceptable to the author. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the language for medical emergency and to address some of the concerns members had earlier. I move for adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Sheets --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Keffer?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I hear a voice. Can anybody help me hear? I hear a voice.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Keffer, you hear lots of voices. Representative Sheets sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, this amendment is very simple. It says that the State Department of Health must -- I'm sorry, the Department may not include a health care provider facility for a clinic that provides false, misleading or deceptive health information that a woman receives from a -- from an abortion provider. I move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Miller to speak against.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I respectfully move to table.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Not exactly sure why Mr. Miller of Stevenville is moving to table this amendment, because all it says is that the State Health Department, when they go to these facilities, that these women are referred to, that these facilities cannot provide false or misleading or deceptive health information. Why would you want to send a woman somewhere where people or doctors or someone is going to tell them information that's absolutely false, that's a lie and is not true? We have to make sure the State Department only works with providers that will uphold the truth. That's all this amendment is. And I would love for Mr. Miller to maybe answer why this is not a good amendment but, to me, it's very simple.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentlemen yield?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield? Yes, absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: We've heard time and time again that this bill is about informed consent.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Yet we're hearing now from the bill's author that it's not necessarily all of -- We, you're just basically fortifying what he has said earlier, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: And making sure that they don't misuse information that's past truths or anything like that?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely, I think this amendment compliments this bill very well.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: It's consistent with what you said throughout the day.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: This is about informing women, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely. And I think that it would be unfortunate if the body were to vote yes on tabling this amendment when the author of the bill has given absolutely no reason as to why these providers should not provide the truth. I think that he needs to come up here and explain why this is a bad amendment or why it's okay for these providers to not tell the truth.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Right, so you're wanting --

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members need to pay very close attention to this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: If you're wanting women to receive all the information, then you would vote for your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Veasey sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. The question's on the Motion to Table. Members, vote aye, vote no on the Motion to Table. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Veasey voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 98 ayes, 47 nays. The Motion to the Table prevails. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENATATIVE VEASEY: I think it's unfortunate that the body voted to table the amendment without fully knowing what it was about, just because the author -- I ask everyone to. But, anyway, this amendment says that a health care provider, a facility or a clinic that is on the list that the State Health Department provides, must clearly inform the clinic -- must clearly inform the client that the health care provider or clinic does not perform abortions or perform abortion related services. And must also disclose verbally and in writing, before providing the pregnancy test or counseling, exactly what the health care provider or facility is qualified to disclose and not. I move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. Miller to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I'm going to move to table this motion. What this does is put many new burdens and restrictions on these nonprofits who are already running on a shoestring. So that would unnecessarily burden them so I move to table.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Once again, we want to make sure that women that go to these facilities that they may be referred to, that the truth is being told and that they understand exactly what these nonprofits and what -- exactly what services they provide. Right now in some circumstances not all, but in some circumstances, people are being told absolutely false and misleading health information in regards to things about heart disease and cancer. And that is absolutely inappropriate. And we want to make sure that any bill that is passed out of this body, that the people that are on this list, that the State Health Department is approving, that no one is dishonest. So if you're for honest nonprofits then you want to vote with me on this. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Veasey sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. The question's on the Motion to Table. Vote aye, vote no, members. The Motion is to Table. The Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Miller voting aye, Mr. Veasey voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 98 ayes, 43 nays, the Motion to Table prevails. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, this amendment requires the physician who is to perform the abortion to verbally inform the woman in a face-to-face private and confidential setting, of the information being required. It is acceptable to the author. I move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Callegari sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment, the Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker members, I have in my hands the last amendment for the night. And I think before I lay it out I would, I think that we should congratulate both Mr. Miller and this body for the way that they have conducted the debate today on such a matter so close to everyone's hearts. So thank you, Mr. Miller and -- Members, many in this -- and this is basically a floor substitute, it has many amendments that have already been voted down today, so I'm pretty confident about the result. But, bottom line, this changes the definition of medical emergency that was discussed earlier and takes it to mean a condition where there is -- the clinical judgment, in the physician's good faith clinical judgment, complicates the medical condition and creates a serious risk of substantial impairment of a major bodily function. We talked about that earlier today. It moves it from a 24 to a 72 hour waiting period to a 2 hour waiting period and it provides specifically that the woman can refuse to listen, see, hear, etc. I do not believe that Mr. Miller's very clearly defines that the woman can refuse. And so this bill, which is the Senate version, sets that out in very clear detail. And so, with that, I would move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, what we have before you in this amendment actually it's not an amendment it's a full statute, it's an entire new bill. It mirrors the image that came over from the Senate, which is a much weaker version which we have here. It rolls the 24, 72 hour period back to 2 hours. It does not require -- Under this substitute, it allows the physicians to sedate and give anesthesia to the woman while he's describing the sonogram. I won't go through the whole details, but, for that reason, it really weakens our bill. It's not the bill that the House has worked so hard, so many hours yesterday and today to put together. So, respectfully, I'm going to move to table the Eiland amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to close.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I move, I move to close and vote no on the Motion to the Table.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment. Representative Miller moves to table. Questions on the Motion to Table? Vote aye, vote nay, members. It is a record vote. Motion to Table. Mr. Miller -- show Mr. Miller voting aye, Mr. Eiland voting nay. Show Representative Farrar voting aye on the Motion to Table. Has everyone voted? All voted? There being 113 ayes and 32 nays, the Motion to Table prevails.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Martinez Fischer. The Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to re -- the motion to reconsider the vote on Amendment 26.

REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, I move to reconsider amendment vote Number 26. That was the Brian Hughes amendment that had the legislative findings that we were debating. We didn't get an opportunity to have a record vote on it and I don't think it will change the outcome, but we'd like to get a record vote on that. So I make a motion to reconsider Amendment 26, the Hughes Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, is there any objection to the motion by Representative Martinez Fischer to reconsider the vote on Amendment 26? There is objection. Representative Hughes will speak in favor of the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is, of course, the issue that we debated. There was no record vote. Representative Martinez Fischer's motion is purposely just for a record vote. So I don't oppose his reconsider. We'll bring it up, I'll move adoption and then we'll take a record vote. So I'm not opposed to his motion. I don't plan to debate it or discuss it. We're just taking a vote on it. And I'm going to vote aye.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The objection has been withdrawn. Members, is there any objection to Representative Martinez Fischer's motion? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out amendment 26 by Representative Hughes. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Members, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, does anyone wish to speak for or against Amendment 26? Members, a question occurs on adoption of Amendment 26. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Miller voting aye. Show Mr. Martinez Fischer voting no. Have all voted? There being 101 ayes, 41 nays. One present not voting. The amendment prevails. There are no further amendments. Does anyone wish to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Miller to close.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I appreciate your demeanor here on this very important bill. I know we've worked many long hours. This won't be the last day like this but I do appreciate your cooperation with that. I move passage of Committee Substitute to House Bill 15.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question occurs on -- passage to engrossment, House Bill 15. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 103 ayes, 42 nays, one present not voting. House Bill 15 pass to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, the Subcommittee on Appropriations will meet this evening, on adjournment, prior to reading and referral in the appropriations committee room.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I move to suspend all necessary rules to -- the five day posting rule to hear House Bill 1196 and House Bill 1228 in Business and Industry on Monday at 2:00 p.m., or upon final adjournment, March 7th in room E2016.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend the following rule, the five day posting rule, to allow the Committee on Appropriations to consider House budget recommendations for Article 2 at 8:00 a.m. Monday, March the 7th, 2011, at E1030.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Callegari for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I just want to remind the members of the reformed government committee that we'll be meeting in E1014 right away. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, the county affairs committee will not meet this evening and postpone our agenda for this evening till next Thursday, but that means a very long next Thursday. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Spe aker, members, I just wanted to remind the members of the select committee on second sovereignty. We're meeting right after, on adjournment, in room E2010.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I request the Grant Committee's permission to meet, pursuant to rule four, section nine of the House rules. I request for all house committees and subcommittees to be granted permission to meet today while the House is in session during the reading and referral of bills, pursuant to their committee posting. For purposes of this motion, those House committees and subcommittees were scheduled to meet upon adjournment today to be considered to be scheduled to meet upon the reading and referrals of bills today. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The Chair recognizes Representative Taylor for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, the Republican Caucus, we will be having a meeting Monday at 11:00 a.m., Reagan, room 140 with the Governor. Republican Caucus, Monday, 11:00 a.m., Reagan Building, room 140. And you'll be getting an e-mail about that tomorrow. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider SCR No. 23.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out SCR23.

CLERK: SCR23 by Whitmire, granting the legislature permission to adjourn for more than three days during the period beginning on Wednesday, March 2nd, 2011, and ending on March 7th 2011.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This just lets the Senate go home. I think they've already gone. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: I'll move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 700, which honors Michelle Whittenberg on her birthday.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR700. Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR700 by Dutton, congratulating Michelle Whittenberg on her 40th birthday.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you. What? Yeah, we're recognizing Michelle Whittenberg on about third or fourth 40th birthday. I'll move passage. And I also move that all members' names be added to the resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, do you have any announcements? Mr. Dutton's desk is clear. The Clerk will read the following announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Appropriations will meet at 8:00 a.m. on March 7th, 2011, at E1.030. This will be a public hearing to consider House budget recommendations for Article Two. The Committee on Business and Industry will meet at 2:00 p.m., or upon final adjournment or recess on Monday, March 7th, 2011, in E2.016. This will be a public hearing to consider HB1196 and HB1228 in addition to posted items.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: There are no other announcements. Representative Legler moves that the House stand adjourned until 1:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7th, pending the reading and referral of bills and resolutions. House stands adjourned. The following bills on first reading and referral:

CLERK: HB 124 (By Legler), Relating to payment for health care services and participation in a health care system. To Select State Sovereignty. HB 144 (By Laubenberg), Relating to payment for health care services and participation in a health care system. To Select State Sovereignty. HB 203 (By Hughes), Relating to payment for health care services and participation in a health care system. To Select State Sovereignty. HB 254 (By Hilderbran), Relating to establishing the Texas Derby. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 256 (By Hilderbran), Relating to state-issued certificates of franchise authority to provide cable service and video service. To State Affairs. HB 257 (By Hilderbran), Relating to the periods for presumed abandonment of certain unclaimed personal property. To Business and Industry. HB 258 (By Gonzalez), Relating to the amount of the state traffic fine. To Ways and Means. HB 394 (By V. Gonzales), Relating to the authority of certain counties to provide health care services. To Border and Intergovernmental Affairs. HB 419 (By Villarreal), Relating to the automatic enrollment of certain women in the demonstration project for womens’ health care services. To Human Services. HB 1008 (By Lewis), Relating to the State of Texas entering into the Interstate Medicaid Reform Compact. To Select State Sovereignty. HB 1021 (By Guillen), Relating to considering ownership interests of disabled persons in determining whether a business is a historically underutilized business for purposes of state contracting. To State Affairs. HB 1037 (By Otto), Relating to the creation of an alternative fuel program to be funded by the Texas emissions reduction plan fund. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1126 (By Burnam), Relating to the control of emissions from crude oil and condensate storage tanks in certain areas of this state. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1138 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the expansion of the Womens’ Health Program demonstration project and implementation of related outreach activities. To Public Health. HB 1147 (By W. Smith), Relating to notice by a governmental entity regarding certain geospatial data products. To Technology. HB 1152 (By Guillen), Relating to payments by the comptroller of public accounts to employees, vendors, annuitants, and other recipients of state-issued payments through the electronic funds transfer system or by electronic pay card. To Ways and Means. HB 1153 (By Paxton), Relating to public access to financial and tax rate information of political subdivisions. To Ways and Means. HB 1478 (By Woolley), Relating to the extension of the womens’ health program demonstration project. To Public Health. HB 1554 (By Thompson), Relating to immunity for reporting insurance fraud. To Insurance. HB 1555 (By Thompson), Relating to the first day of instruction in certain school districts that provide additional days of instruction financed with local funds. To Public Education. HB 1556 (By Burnam), Relating to a prohibition on the issuance of a drilling permit for an oil or gas well that is proposed to be located within a specified distance of a public school. To Energy Resources. HB 1557 (By Reynolds), Relating to the vaccination against bacterial meningitis of first-time students at public and private or independent institutions of higher education. To Higher Education. HB 1558 (By Reynolds), Relating to applications for permits issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality for certain new or expanded facilities in certain low-income and minority communities. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1559 (By S. Davis), Relating to a prohibition on the destruction of certain court documents. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1560 (By Scott), Relating to the authority of counties to nominate projects in the extraterritorial jurisdictions of certain municipalities for designation as enterprise projects. To Economic and Small Business Development. HB 1561 (By Orr), Relating to the authority of a municipality to implement a photographic traffic signal enforcement system and impose civil penalties. To Urban Affairs. HB 1562 (By Guillen), Relating to authorizing state agencies to establish a four-day workweek. To State Affairs. HB 1563 (By Flynn), Relating to the period of time between certain local option elections to legalize or prohibit the sale of alcoholic beverages. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1564 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of the Harris County Hospital District to appoint, contract for, or employ physicians. To County Affairs. HB 1565 (By Coleman), Relating to the employment of physicians by hospital districts. To County Affairs. HB 1566 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of counties to appoint contract for, or employ physicians, dentists, or other health care providers for county jails. To County Affairs. HB 1567 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of certain counties to appoint, contract for, or employ physicians, dentists, or other health care providers for county jails. To County Affairs. HB 1568 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of certain local governmental entities in certain populous counties to appoint, contract for, or employ physicians. To County Affairs. HB 1569 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of a dental hygienist to provide services in certain facilities and schools. To Public Health. HB 1570 (By Murphy), Relating to training for deputy voter registrars. To Elections. HB 1571 (By S. Miller), Relating to the operation and movement of motorcycles during periods of traffic congestion. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1572 (By Lozano), Relating to the applicability of certain restrictions on the location and operation of concrete crushing facilities. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1573 (By Gallego), Relating to certain pretrial and post-trial procedures in a criminal case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1574 (By Garza), Relating to including certain veterans service organizations as small businesses for the purpose of state contracting. To State Affairs. HB 1575 (By Garza), Relating to personal property that is exempt from garnishment, attachment, execution, or other seizure. To Business and Industry. HB 1576 (By Garza), Relating to the monitoring of compliance with low-income and moderate-income housing ad valorem tax exemptions. To Ways and Means. HB 1577 (By Anchia), Relating to the sunset review of regional tollway authorities. To Transportation. HB 1578 (By Brown), Relating to energy aggregation by state agencies. To State Affairs. HB 1579 (By Brown), Relating to information resources technologies of state agencies. To State Affairs. HB 1580 (By Brown), Relating to the training and certification of state agency employees or contractors performing service work on pressure vessels. To State Affairs. HB 1581 (By Brown), Relating to the regulation of dental assistants. To Public Health. HB 1582 (By Farias), Relating to authorization for the operation in certain counties of an educator preparation program with an internship program component. To Public Education. HB 1583 (By Farias), Relating to safety equipment requirements for certain cyclists; providing a penalty. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1584 (By Farias), Relating to an electronic means for voters to determine the status of ballots submitted by mail. To Elections. HB 1585 (By Farias), Relating to certain eligibility requirements of the Teach for Texas Loan Repayment Assistance Program. To Higher Education. HB 1586 (By Hunter), Relating to the boundaries of the Ingleside Cove Wildlife Sanctuary. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HB 1587 (By Eissler), Relating to the evaluation of public school teachers. To Public Education. HB 1588 (By Eissler), Relating to the establishment, operation, and funding of open-enrollment charter schools. To Public Education. HB 1589 (By Eissler), Relating to the study of productivity and cost-effectiveness in public education. To Public Education. HB 1590 (By Turner), Relating to a suspension of the imposition of certain fees under certain conditions. To Appropriations. HB 1591 (By Turner), Relating to reporting regarding state fees by the comptroller and in the general appropriations bill. To Appropriations. HB 1592 (By Legler), Relating to the members of the State Securities Board. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1593 (By Isaac), Relating to the inclusion of a candidates’ e-mail address on an official application for a place on the ballot. To Elections. HB 1594 (By Isaac), Relating to disposition of fines imposed by certain municipalities for traffic violations. To Transportation. HB 1596 (By Isaac), Relating to documentation acceptable as proof of identification for voting. To Select Voter Identification and Voter Fraud. HB 1597 (By Menendez), Relating to a temporary increase in the rate of the state sales and use tax and dedicating the amount of the temporary increase to the foundation school fund. To Ways and Means. HB 1599 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the sale of prison-made products to nonprofit organizations. To Corrections. HB 1600 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the eligibility of land for appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes as qualified open-space land. To Ways and Means. HB 1601 (By Price), Relating to consecutive sentences for certain offenses involving injury to a child, an elderly individual, or a disabled individual and arising out of the same criminal episode. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1602 (By Zedler), Relating to reporting requirements regarding the provision of an abortion or treatment for complications resulting from the provision of an abortion; creating criminal offenses; providing penalties. To State Affairs. HB 1603 (By Zedler), Relating to the number of charters the State Board of Education may grant for open-enrollment charter schools. To Public Education. HB 1604 (By Guillen), Relating to the regulation of subdivisions in counties, including certain border and economically distressed counties. To County Affairs. HB 1605 (By Guillen), Relating to the use of telemonitoring in the medical assistance program. To Public Health. HB 1606 (By Guillen), Relating to the designation of a qualified transportation benefit as a supplemental optional benefits program for state employees by the Employees Retirement System of Texas. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1607 (By Guillen), Relating to the lease of certain state parking facilities to other persons. To State Affairs. HB 1608 (By Strama), Relating to participation in and contributions to the state employee charitable campaign by retired state employees. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1609 (By L. Gonzales), Relating to the repeal of the driver responsibility program. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1610 (By L. Gonzales), Relating to employment termination procedures applicable to a teacher who is convicted of a felony. To Public Education. HB 1611 (By L. Gonzales), Relating to notice of contract renewal or nonrenewal provided by a school district to teachers employed under a term contract. To Public Education. HB 1612 (By Crownover), Relating to the regulation of the practice of dental hygiene. To Public Health. HB 1613 (By Gooden), Relating to regulation of traffic in a conservation and reclamation district by a commissioners court. To Transportation. HB 1614 (By Gooden), Relating to fees for process server certification. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1615 (By Brown), Relating to the administering of medications to children in certain facilities; providing criminal penalties. To Human Services. HB 1616 (By Geren), Relating to the reporting of political contributions and expenditures. To Elections. HB 1617 (By Deshotel), Relating to uniform law on secured transactions. To Business and Industry. HB 1618 (By Callegari), Relating to the criteria for review by the Sunset Advisory Commission of an agency that licenses an occupation. To Government Efficiency and Reform. HB 1620 (By Menendez), Relating to the deadline for providing notice to public school teachers regarding renewal or nonrenewal of term contracts. To Public Education. HB 1621 (By Truitt), Relating to the licensing and regulation of diagnostic imaging facilities and fluoroscopy-guided pain management procedure centers; Providing penalties. To Public Health. HB 1623 (By Villarreal), Relating to certain information regarding paternity required to be provided to certain pregnant women and mothers of newborns. To Public Health. HB 1624 (By Castro), Relating to health education curriculum and instruction in public schools. To Public Education. HB 1625 (By Brown), Relating to the renewal of electrical sign apprentice licenses. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1626 (By Flynn), Relating to the use of alternate electronic reporting databases for over-the-counter sales of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and norpseudoephedrine. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1627 (By Flynn), Relating to the eligibility requirements of election judges. To Elections. HB 1628 (By Larson), Relating to the crediting of appropriated funds from the collection of taxes imposed on the sale of sporting goods. To Ways and Means. HB 1629 (By Anchia), Relating to energy efficiency goals and public information regarding energy efficiency programs. To Energy Resources. HB 1630 (By Thompson), Relating to funding the TEXAS grant program at public institutions of higher education. To Higher Education. HB 1631 (By Thompson), Relating to expedited credentialing for certain podiatrists providing services under a managed care plan. To Insurance. HB 1632 (By L. Gonzales), Relating to the dates by which public school teachers must provide notification of resignation from employment. To Public Education. HB 1633 (By Bonnen), Relating to a persons’ ability to read and write in English as a qualification for service as a petit juror. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1634 (By Bonnen), Relating to the applicability of certain unfunded mandates on political subdivisions. To Government Efficiency and Reform. HB 1635 (By Paxton), Relating to exceptions to the prohibition of certain fees for a future transfer of residential real property. To Business and Industry. HB 1636 (By Paxton), Relating to certain financial requirements of regional tollway authorities. To Transportation. HB 1637 (By Hamilton), Relating to the professions regulated by the Texas Real Estate Commission. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1638 (By Aliseda), Relating to the disqualification of a district or county attorney who is the subject of a criminal investigation. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1639 (By Dutton), Relating to the recovery of attorneys’ fees in foreclosure actions by property owners ’associations. To Business and Industry. HB 1640 (By Dutton), Relating to the prosecution of and punishment for the offense of official oppression. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1641 (By Dutton), Relating to the creation of a commission to study capital punishment in Texas and to a moratorium on executions. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1642 (By Zerwas), Relating to the sexual assault program fund and to the fee imposed on certain sexually oriented businesses. To Ways and Means. HB 1643 (By Zerwas), Relating to development agreements governing land in a municipalities extraterritorial jurisdiction. To Land and Resource Management. HB 1644 (By Zerwas), Relating to health benefit plan coverage for certain tests for the early detection of cardiovascular disease in certain children. To Insurance. HB 1645 (By Zerwas), Relating to efficiencies and cost-savings in the health and human services and other related regulatory agencies, including the state medical assistance and child health plan programs. To Appropriations. HB 1646 (By Gallego), Relating to representation of certain applicants for writs of habeas corpus in cases involving the death penalty. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1647 (By Gallego), Relating to discovery in a criminal case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1648 (By W. Smith), Relating to the purchase of plastic bulk merchandise containers by certain businesses; providing a civil penalty. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1649 (By Marquez), Relating to the enforcement of building code standards for new residential construction in the unincorporated area of a county; Providing a fee. To County Affairs. HB 1650 (By Hopson), Relating to a preference in governmental purchasing for building materials offered by resident bidders. To Government Efficiency and Reform. HB 1651 (By Alonzo), Relating to the North Oak Cliff Municipal Management District. To Urban Affairs. HB 1652 (By Alonzo), Relating to collective bargaining by firefighters and police officers. To Urban Affairs. HB 1653 (By Alonzo), Relating to the inclusion of optometrists, therapeutic optometrists, and ophthalmologists in the health care provider networks of Medicaid managed care organizations. To Public Health. HB 1654 (By Castro), Relating to the creation of a commission to study drowsy driving. To Transportation. HB 1655 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the preference given by state agencies to goods offered by bidders in this state or manufactured, produced, or grown in this state or in the United States. To State Affairs. HB 1656 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the purchase of iron, steel, and manufactured goods made in the United States for state construction projects. To State Affairs. HB 1657 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the reporting of health care associated infections. To Public Health. HB 1658 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the refund of a cash bond to a defendant in a criminal case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1659 (By Y. Davis), Relating to conditions of employment for an employee of certain sheriffs’ departments. To County Affairs. HB 1660 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the provision of video programming service to consumers. To Business and Industry. HB 1661 (By Y. Davis), Relating to the provision of Internet service to consumers. To Technology. HB 1662 (By S. King), Relating to the use of money from the permanent fund for health-related programs to provide grants to nursing education programs. To Higher Education. HB 1663 (By S. King), Relating to the regulation of the practice of nursing. To Public Health. HB 1664 (By S. King), Relating to the authority of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to require metering of certain water uses in connection with a water conservation plan submitted by certain applicants for or holders of a water right. To Natural Resources. HB 1665 (By S. King), Relating to the notification requirements regarding certain land use regulations in an area near military facilities. To Land and Resource Management. HB 1666 (By Castro), Relating to the prosecution of the offense of online harassment. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1667 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the authority of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles to contract with certain entities to provide a department service. To Transportation. HB 1668 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to authority for school districts to provide public notice by posting the notice on the districts’ Internet website. To Public Education. HB 1669 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the establishment of an electric motor vehicle mileage fee pilot program by the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. To Transportation. HB 1670 (By Coleman), Relating to the applicability of the death penalty to a capital offense committed by a person with mental retardation. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1671 (By Marquez), Relating to allowing a governmental body to redact certain personal information under the public information law without the necessity of requesting a decision from the attorney general and the calculation of certain deadlines under the public information law. To State Affairs. HB 1672 (By Jackson), Relating to the education of public school students with dyslexia, the education and training of educators who teach students with dyslexia, and the assessment of students with dyslexia attending an institution of higher education. To Public Education. HB 1673 (By Jackson), Relating to testing accommodations for a person with dyslexia taking a licensing examination administered by a state agency. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1674 (By Jackson), Relating to procedures for establishment modification, and enforcement of child support obligations. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1675 (By Naishtat), Relating to the fee for a personal identification certificate for a homeless individual. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1676 (By Hochberg), Relating to certain penalties on personal property tax delinquencies. To Ways and Means. HB 1677 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the administration and funding of retirement systems for firefighters in certain municipalities. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1678 (By Burkett), Relating to the appointment of a county election administrator. To Elections. HB 1679 (By Burkett), Relating to aid provided to certain voters; providing criminal penalties. To Elections. HB 1680 (By Geren), Relating to self-directed and semi-independent status of the Texas Real Estate Commission; making an appropriation. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1681 (By Harless), Relating to the composition of the Finance Commission of Texas. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1682 (By Weber), Relating to prohibiting school districts from requiring or coercing school district employees to make charitable contributions. To Public Education. HB 1683 (By Fletcher), Relating to specialized license plates and parking placards for vehicles of persons with disabilities. To Transportation. HB 1684 (By Fletcher), Relating to the regulation of fireworks in areas annexed by a municipality for limited purposes. To Urban Affairs. HB 1685 (By Fletcher), Relating to a credit against the ad valorem taxes imposed by certain taxing units on commercial or industrial real property based on the cost of constructing a building on the property. To Ways and Means. HB 1686 (By Fletcher), Relating to the discharge of a suretys’ liability on a bail bond in a criminal case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1688 (By Raymond), Relating to the right of a municipality to require that a certificated telecommunications utility bear the expense of relocating a utility facility. To State Affairs. HB 1690 (By Flynn), Relating to the use of municipal hotel occupancy tax revenue to enhance and upgrade sports facilities in certain municipalities. To Ways and Means. HB 1691 (By Flynn), Relating to the licensing and regulation of motor vehicle towing, booting, and storage. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1692 (By Flynn), Relating to the dismissal of complaints against property tax professionals. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1693 (By Cain), Relating to the jurisdiction of, civil fees assessed by and administration of the county court at law of Lamar County. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1694 (By Coleman), Relating to the purchasing and contracting authority of counties. To County Affairs. HB 1695 (By Zedler), Relating to the deadline for providing notice to public school teachers regarding renewal or nonrenewal of term contracts and termination of probationary contracts. To Public Education. HB 1696 (By Zedler), Relating to the authority of the attorney general to investigate election-related offenses. To Elections. HB 1697 (By P. King), Relating to the eligibility of certain overseas voters to receive a full ballot. To Elections. HB 1698 (By W. Smith), Relating to representation of certain state agencies by the office of the attorney general in certain law suits. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1699 (By Menendez), Relating to a supplemental payment for retirees of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and the unfunded actuarial liabilities allowed under that system. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1701 (By Legler), Relating to an exemption from the physical demonstration of proficiency portion of the proficiency examination to obtain or renew a concealed handgun license for certain persons. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1702 (By Martinez Fischer), Relating to reporting donations received by a school district and public school campus. To Public Education. HB 1703 (By Martinez Fischer), Relating to the schedule for administration of state-administered assessment instruments in public schools. To Public Education. HB 1704 (By Martinez Fischer), Relating to a pilot project to assess public school students by alternative methods. To Public Education. HB 1705 (By Martinez Fischer), Relating to providing a parent of a public school student with notice of student performance in the parents’ native language. To Public Education. HB 1706 (By Gutierrez), Relating to the punishment for the offense of criminal mischief. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1707 (By Gutierrez), Relating to the punishment for the offense of theft. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1708 (By Gutierrez), Relating to the regulation of funeral directing and embalming. To Public Health. HB 1709 (By Dukes), Relating to the creation of the individual development account program to provide savings incentives and opportunities for certain foster children to pursue home ownership, postsecondary education, and business development. To Human Services. HB 1710 (By Dukes), Relating to the creation of the Rio de Vida Planning and Improvement District No. 1; providing authority to levy an assessment impose a tax, and issue bonds. To Urban Affairs. HB 1711 (By J. Davis), Relating to disaster remediation contracts; providing penalties. To Economic and Small Business Development. HB 1712 (By Christian), Relating to the creation of a public integrity unit in the office of the attorney general to prosecute offenses against public administration, including ethics offenses, and offenses involving insurance fraud. To State Affairs. HB 1713 (By Christian), Relating to payment of expenses for certain elections. To Elections. HB 1714 (By Laubenberg), Relating to the Rockwall County Juvenile Board. To Corrections. HB 1715 (By Laubenberg), Relating to the rights of victims of property crimes. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1716 (By Garza), Relating to regulations on certain complementary and alternative health care services. To Public Health. HB 1717 (By Garza), Relating to the selection of the board of directors of an appraisal district. To Ways and Means. HB 1718 (By Garza), Relating to consolidation of emergency services districts in certain counties. To County Affairs. HB 1719 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the regulation of health care interpreters. To Public Health. HB 1721 (By Lucio), Relating to protective orders for certain victims of stalking or sexual assault. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1722 (By Lucio), Relating to the prosecution and punishment of offenses related to the failure to stop or report certain crimes committed against a child. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1723 (By Lucio), Relating to the penalties prescribed for a single violation or repeated violations of certain court orders or conditions of bond in a family violence case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1724 (By Hamilton), Relating to economically driven mobility projects. To Transportation. HB 1725 (By Hernandez Luna), Relating to the maximum number of registered voters contained in a county election precinct. To Elections. HB 1726 (By Hernandez Luna), Relating to the creation of DNA records for the DNA database system and to an offense involving the release of a DNA sample to an unauthorized recipient. To Corrections. HB 1727 (By Brown), Relating to the sale and leaseback of certain state property. To State Affairs. HB 1729 (By Keffer), Relating to the sale of surplus leased land by a governmental entity to a private party. To State Affairs. HB 1730 (By Ritter), Relating to the vested ownership interest in groundwater beneath the surface and the right to produce that groundwater. To Natural Resources. HB 1731 (By Ritter), Relating to the management of groundwater resources in this state and the rights of landowners in groundwater. To Natural Resources. HB 1732 (By Ritter), Relating to the applicability of the constitutional limit on state debt payable from the general revenues of the state to bonds issued by the Texas Water Development Board. To Natural Resources. HB 1733 (By Ritter), Relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity. To Ways and Means. HB 1734 (By Ritter), Relating to the authority of the Texas Water Development Board to provide financial assistance for certain projects if the applicant has failed to complete a request for information relevant to the project. To Natural Resources. HB 1735 (By Bohac), Relating to the requirement of orange frames on certain speed limit signs erected by a municipality. To Transportation. HB 1736 (By Bohac), Relating to the penalty for illegally passing stationary authorized emergency vehicles. To Transportation. HB 1737 (By Bohac), Relating to the installation of a speed feedback sign by a property owners’ association. To Transportation. HB 1739 (By Walle), Relating to required workers’ compensation insurance coverage for building and construction contractors. To State Affairs. HB 1740 (By Walle), Relating to providing information to parents regarding changes in state law affecting public school students. To Public Education. HB 1741 (By Walle), Relating to a parental involvement pilot program in certain school districts. To Public Education. HB 1742 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the authority of a regional transportation authority to create a local government corporation. To Transportation. HB 1743 (By Martinez Fischer), Relating to the information provided by a peace officer before requesting a specimen to determine intoxication. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1744 (By Allen), Relating to health benefit plan coverage for certain children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. To Insurance. HB 1745 (By Coleman), Relating to the authority of certain municipalities to impose term limits on the members of their governing bodies. To Urban Affairs. HB 1747 (By Veasey), Relating to retaliation as an unlawful employment practice. To Economic and Small Business Development. HB 1748 (By Kuempel), Relating to the refund of a cash bond to a defendant in a criminal case. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1749 (By Kuempel), Relating to county roads mistakenly established and maintained by an adjoining county. To Transportation. HB 1750 (By Darby), Relating to the authority of the Texas Department of Transportation to lease and contract for the operation of rolling stock during certain emergencies. To Transportation. HB 1751 (By Hartnett), Relating to payment by a water control and improvement district for certain damages caused by the districts’ operation of a sanitary sewer system. To Natural Resources. HB 1753 (By Gallego), Relating to the threshold amount at which public utilities are required to report a transaction. To State Affairs. HB 1754 (By Gallego), Relating to the reorganization of powers and duties among entities in this state that provide representation to indigent defendants in criminal cases and to the reorganization of funding sources for indigent defense. To Criminal Jurisprudence. HB 1755 (By Callegari), Relating to the authority of a groundwater conservation district to adopt different rules for the management of groundwater resources located in different areas of the district. To Natural Resources. HB 1756 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the creation of the Pilot Knob Municipal Utility District No. 2; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. To Natural Resources. HB 1757 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the creation of the Pilot Knob Municipal Utility District No. 1; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. To Natural Resources. HB 1758 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the creation of the Pilot Knob Municipal Utility District No. 3; providing authority to impose a tax and issue bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. To Natural Resources. HB 1759 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the creation of the Pilot Knob Municipal Utility District No. 4; providing authority to impose a tax and issue Bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. To Natural Resources. HB 1760 (By Rodriguez), Relating to the creation of the Pilot Knob Municipal Utility District No. 5; providing authority to impose a tax and issue Bonds; granting a limited power of eminent domain. To Natural Resources. HB 1761 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to instructions included on balloting materials for a ballot to be voted by mail. To Elections. HB 1762 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to regulation of high occupancy vehicle lanes operated, managed, or maintained by a regional transportation authority; providing penalties. To Transportation. HB 1763 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the timely transfer of certain inmates from county jails to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. To Corrections. HB 1764 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to the periods for presumed abandonment of certain unclaimed personal property. To Business and Industry. HB 1765 (By S. Miller), Relating to an emergency public service messaging network. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1766 (By Crownover), Relating to the creation of a voluntary consumer-directed health plan for certain individuals eligible to participate in the insurance coverage provided under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act and their qualified dependents. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1767 (By Munoz), Relating to the enforcement of county subdivision regulations prohibiting more than one residential dwelling on each subdivision lot. To County Affairs. HB 1768 (By Munoz), Relating to the regulation of roadside vendors and solicitors in certain counties. To County Affairs. HB 1769 (By Munoz), Relating to the enforcement of building code standards for new residential construction in the unincorporated area of a county; providing a fee. To County Affairs. HB 1770 (By Madden), Relating to the payment of temporary housing costs for certain inmates released or eligible for release on parole or to mandatory supervision. To Corrections. HB 1771 (By Madden), Relating to the establishment of the Specialty Courts Advisory Council. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1772 (By L. Taylor), Relating to the regulation of certain exclusive provider benefit plans. To Insurance. HB 1773 (By L. Taylor), Relating to the eligibility of certain overseas voters to receive a full ballot. To Elections. HB 1774 (By L. Taylor), Relating to the continuation and functions of the office of injured employee counsel under the workers’ compensation program. To State Affairs. HB 1775 (By Allen), Relating to a study on waste reduction and a statewide waste reduction plan. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1776 (By Lozano), Relating to contracts between dentists and health maintenance organizations or insurers. To Insurance. HB 1777 (By Lozano), Relating to requiring dental support for a child subject to a child support order. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1778 (By C. Howard), Relating to the transfer of the assets of and the dissolution of the Fort Bend County Water Control and Improvement District No.i1. To Natural Resources. HB 1779 (By Naishtat), Relating to an exemption from private security regulation for social workers engaged in the practice of social work. To Human Services. HB 1780 (By Price), Relating to exemptions from jury service. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1781 (By Price), Relating to obsolete or redundant reporting requirements applicable to state agencies. To Government Efficiency and Reform. HB 1782 (By Farias), Relating to a report on efforts made by the Department of Family and Protective Services to place children in adoptive homes. To Human Services. HB 1783 (By Farias), Relating to creating a portal on the comptrollers’ internet website related to obesity and wellness. To Public Health. HB 1784 (By Farias), Relating to requiring an interagency memorandum of understanding regarding the Public Assistance Reporting Information System and the use of data from that system. To Human Services. HB 1785 (By Farias), Relating to requiring the comptroller to assess ways to expand the provision of information about the federal earned income tax credit. To Ways and Means. HB 1786 (By Farias), Relating to the availability of certain information concerning dropout prevention on a districts’ Internet website. To Public Education. HB 1787 (By Farias), Relating to establishing a restorative justice pilot program for juvenile offenders in certain counties. To Corrections. HB 1788 (By Farias), Relating to capturing reptiles and amphibians by nonlethal means; providing a penalty. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HB 1789 (By Farias), Relating to the payment of state funds directly to an entity that conducts a primary election under contract in certain counties. To Elections. HB 1790 (By Guillen), Relating to a limitation on the sales and use tax imposed on a boat. To Ways and Means. HB 1793 (By Gutierrez), Relating to the practice of cosmetology. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1794 (By Gutierrez), Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of motor vehicles leased for noncommercial use by persons 65 years of age or older. To Ways and Means. HB 1795 (By Aliseda), Relating to permits issued for moving certain oil well servicing or drilling machinery. To Transportation. HB 1796 (By Paxton), Relating to the transfer of an ad valorem tax lien; providing for the imposition of an administrative penalty. To Ways and Means. HB 1797 (By Naishtat), Relating to the licensing and practice of social work. To Human Services. HB 1798 (By Reynolds), Relating to districts in certain municipalities. To Natural Resources. HB 1799 (By Bonnen), Relating to the exemption of certain real estate professionals from registration as property tax consultants. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1800 (By Bonnen), Relating to the detection and reporting of unauthorized immigration, the collection and dissemination of information concerning unauthorized immigration, and the enforcement of certain laws governing immigration. To State Affairs. HB 1801 (By Menendez), Relating to notice of utility rate increases. To State Affairs. HB 1802 (By Kleinschmidt), Relating to the registration and regulation of equine dental technicians, advertising by veterinarians and equine dental technicians, and the confidentiality of investigation files maintained by the State Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners; providing penalties. To Agriculture and Livestock. HB 1803 (By Hancock), Relating to property and casualty certificates of insurance and approval of property and casualty certificate of insurance forms by the Texas Department of Insurance; providing penalties. To Insurance. HB 1804 (By Hancock), Relating to certificates of insurance required for certain plumbing contractors. To Licensing and Administrative Procedures. HB 1805 (By Huberty), Relating to a public school students’ eligibility for a public education grant to attend another public school. To Public Education. HB 1806 (By Flynn), Relating to fishing tournament fraud; providing penalties. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HB 1808 (By Cook), Relating to the continuation and functions of the State soil and Water Conservation Board. To Agriculture and Livestock. HB 1810 (By Burnam), Relating to the repeal of the driver responsibility program and to the replacement of the revenue derived from the driver responsibility program through an increase in the tax on cigarettes. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. HB 1811 (By Burnam), Relating to the establishment of a program for the collection, transportation, recycling, and disposal of mercury-containing lights. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1812 (By Phillips), Relating to the type of newspaper required for publication of notice in certain counties. To Government Efficiency and Reform. HB 1814 (By Lucio), Relating to the provision of water and certain equipment by water supply or sewer service corporations for use in fire suppression and the liability of those corporations. To Natural Resources. HB 1815 (By Hilderbran), Relating to competition in the electric utility market of certain municipalities. To State Affairs. HB 1816 (By C. Howard), Relating to the vaccination against bacterial meningitis of first-time students at public and private or independent institutions of higher education. To Public Health. HB 1817 (By Gonzalez), Relating to protective orders. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1820 (By R. Anderson), Relating to the number of hours certain employees must work to be eligible to participate in the Texas Municipal Retirement System. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. HB 1821 (By R. Anderson), Relating to the delivery of subdivision information by a property owners’ association to purchasers. To Business and Industry. HB 1824 (By Price), Relating to the management of groundwater production by groundwater conservation districts. To Natural Resources. HB 1825 (By Price), Relating to permit application and amendment hearings conducted by groundwater conservation districts and the State Office of Administrative Hearings. To Natural Resources. HB 1826 (By McClendon), Relating to the use of unapproved or disapproved insurance or health maintenance organization forms. To Insurance. HB 1827 (By McClendon), Relating to the ability of a nonexempt employee to participate in certain academic, extracurricular, and developmental activities of the employees’ child. To Business and Industry. HB 1828 (By V. Gonzales), Relating to procedures for the dissolution of the Hidalgo County Water Improvement District No. 3. To Border and Intergovernmental Affairs. HB 1829 (By Naishtat), Relating to the transfer to a mental hospital of a person admitted to a facility for emergency detention. To Public Health. HB 1830 (By Naishtat), Relating to the method of delivery of certain notices sent by statutory probate court associate judges. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1831 (By Hartnett), Relating to public school child care. To Public Education. HB 1832 (By Ritter), Relating to the law governing the Lower Neches Valley Authority; providing authority to issue bonds. To Natural Resources. HB 1833 (By Shelton), Relating to notice requirements for certain hearings and meetings of the board of trustees of a school district. To Public Education. HB 1834 (By Shelton), Relating to elimination of certain requirements for increasing community awareness of prekindergarten programs offered by or in partnership with school districts. To Public Education. HB 1835 (By Hartnett), Relating to trusts. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1836 (By Hughes), Relating to the sale of fireworks on and before Texas Independence Day. To County Affairs. HB 1837 (By Hartnett), Relating to guardianships and alternatives to guardianship for persons who have physical disabilities or who are incapacitated. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. HB 1838 (By Eiland), Relating to the repeal of franchise tax rates. To Ways and Means. HB 1839 (By Phillips), Relating to excluding a provider of recreational classes that do not lead to an educational credential from regulation as a career school or college. To Higher Education. HB 1840 (By Phillips), Relating to the creation of the grain producer indemnity fund. To Agriculture and Livestock. HB 1841 (By Hartnett), Relating to the taxability of Internet hosting. To Ways and Means. HB 1842 (By Coleman), Relating to prior approval of residential property insurance rates of certain insurers. To Insurance. HB 1843 (By Guillen), Relating to the discontinuation of management and efficiency reviews by the Parks and Wildlife Department. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HB 1844 (By Guillen), Relating to storage of local government records by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission. To Culture, Recreation, and Tourism. HB 1845 (By Castro), Relating to counseling in response to alcoholic beverage violations by students at public and private institutions of higher education. To Higher Education. HB 1846 (By Guillen), Relating to state interventions and sanctions under the public school accountability system. To Public Education. HB 1847 (By Farrar), Relating to an additional fee for the disposal of construction or demolition waste. To Environmental Regulation. HB 1848 (By Farrar), Relating to the use of environmentally sensitive cleaning products in primary and secondary schools. To Public Education. HB 1849 (By Farrar), Relating to a franchise tax deduction for the cost of certain sustainable commercial buildings. To Ways and Means. HCR 23 (By Raymond), Memorializing Congress to propose and submit to the states for ratification an amendment to the United States Constitution to provide for a federal balanced budget. To Select State Sovereignty. HCR 25 (By T. Smith), Urging Congress to remove confidentiality mandates for minors from family planning services programs operating under Title X of the Public Health Service Act and Medicaid. To Public Health. HJR 103 (By Fletcher), Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for a credit against the ad valorem taxes imposed by certain taxing units on commercial or industrial real property based on the cost of constructing a building on the property. To Ways and Means. HJR 106 (By Christian), Proposing a constitutional amendment giving the attorney general exclusive authority to prosecute offenses against public administration, including ethics offenses, and offenses involving insurance fraud. To State Affairs. HJR 107 (By Ritter), Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-space land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity. To Ways and Means. HR 675 (By Jackson), Honoring Sergeant Jack Walker for his valiant service in the United States Army during World War II. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 677 (By Marquez), Congratulating Robert and Carol Callis of El Paso on their 60th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 678 (By Marquez), Congratulating El Paso native John Skelton on his outstanding football accomplishments. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 679 (By Morrison), Recognizing March 8, 2011, as Victoria Day at the State Capitol. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 681 (By Landtroop), Honoring Johnny Mac and Jeanne Brown of Wellman for the establishment of the Remember Alex Brown Foundation. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 682 (By Shelton), Commemorating the 100th birthday of the leader of The Dawoodi Bohra community, His Holiness Dr. Syedna Mohammed Burhanuddin. To Rules and Resolutions. Pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4 of the House Rules, the chair corrects the referral of the following bills and resolutions: HB 1203 (By Harper-Brown), Relating to idling the diesel engine of a school bus while the bus is parked at a public school or in a school crossing zone. To Transportation. HB 1431 (By Strama), Relating to the selection of candidates for the State Board of Education through a unitary primary election. To Elections.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:00 p.m. (Adjourned.)