REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Have all registered? A quorum is present. The House and gallery please rise for the invocation. The Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to introduce our pastor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, thank you. Reverend Casey Tomey joins us today from the Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary. He serves as the Lewis H. and Catherine S. Bendin professor of pastoral ministry and leadership teaching, pastoral ministry, church administration, congregational leadership, stewardship and literacy. Reverend Tomey came to Texas in 2009 after serving as pastor of West Minister Presbyterian Church in Nashville, Tennessee for nearly 30 years.

PASTOR: Let us pray. Almighty God, You've given us this good land as a heritage. Make us always remember Your generosity and constantly do Your will. Bless our land with honesty, sound learning and an honorable way of life. Save us from violence and discord and confusion, from pride and arrogance, bless those here gathered who hold office in the government of this state that they may do their work in the spirit of wisdom, kindness and justice. Help them to use their authority to serve faithfully all the people of our state and promote the general welfare. I pray to You in the name of Jesus Christ, others to pray to You in other names, but we all pray in the confidence that You are a good and compassionate God who hears and responds in grace to all who call upon You. For You created all of us and we are all Your beloved children. Amen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Members, guests, please join me in the pledges to our flag.

(Pledges.)

REPRSENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Kuempel 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. Chair recognizes Representative Davis to introduce our doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I am honored to introduce Dr. Lindsey Bocksford who has her work cut out for her today. Dr. Bocksford graduated from Rice University and received her doctorate at Baylor College of Medicine in 2007. She also completed her residency at the Baylor College of Medicine Kelsey Seeboll Family Clinic of Medicine. She is currently working as a family medicine physician at the Kelsey Seeboll clinic and is also on track to receive her MDA from the University of Houston in May 2011. So we are very blessed to have such an educated and skilled physician with us this morning. So, Mr. Speaker and members, please join me in welcoming Dr. Lindsey Bocksford to the Texas House of Representatives.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Pitts. All right. Members, the Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 4. And the clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB4 by Pitts relating to making supplemental appropriations and giving direction and adjustment authority regarding appropriations.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a supplemental bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 4? Okay. If not, the question occurs on the adoption of House Bill 4. Clerk will ring the bell. This is a record vote, members. You have plenty time to vote. Chair recognizes Pitts voting aye and Representative Murphy voting aye. Have all members voted? All members voted? By a vote of 105 ayes, 41 nays, House Bill 4 is finally passed. Pete Gallegos is correct. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 275. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB275 by Pitts relating to making an appropriation of money from the economic stabilization fund for expenditures during the current state fiscal biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: The Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Members, this is the bill we talked about yesterday relating to the use of the Rainy Day Fund. And I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 275? If not, the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 275. This is a record vote, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 147 ayes, one nay, House Bill 275 is finally passed. The Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 71. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB71 by Martinez relating to the fee charged for the Texas airport directory.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you. Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday on the airplane directory. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 71? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of House Bill 71. Members, this is a record voted. Clerk will ring the bell. Has everyone voted? All members voted? There being 132 ayes, 13 nays, House Bill 71 is finally passed.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the Chair is going to lay out House Bill 1. But before I do that, very briefly just thank everyone for all the work that was accomplished yesterday and for particularly the way in which that work was accomplished. I think we were all proud at the end of the day about that and some of you today in what may be at least as long a day may be making some difficult votes but we need to move this bill and get this process moving, this bill over to the Senate so the process can continue. I'm proud of the work that Chairman Pitts has done and really all the members of the committee have worked really, really hard, not just the first 80 days of the session but for a year or more. So, again, I'm very proud of all the members, in particular Chairman Pitts in the committee and we will get through another long and successful day today. Thank you. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute House Bill 1. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB1 by Pitts, general appropriations bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Good morning. Mr. Speaker, members, today is the day we talk about House Bill 1, and this is the state budget biennium 12 and 13. I know you have heard a lot about what House Bill 1 does and what House Bill 1 does not do. I know many of you probably have questions and concerns about what this budget does and doesn't do. Before I get into any specifics about what this budget does, I would like to talk to you about what it doesn't do and I would like to talk to you about how we got there. This budget does not raise taxes. It does not rely on any spending, any new tax revenue to pay for programs and for services. This budget does not spend any federal stimulus money. With extensive debate last session about the pros and cons about accepting the federal stimulus money. Ultimately we decided Texans' dollars were best spent in Texas. We spent it with the understanding it was a one time only expense. This budget does not spend any of the running Rainy Day fund on any of the programs services in the next biennium. Yes, the action that we took yesterday freed up $4.3 billion, but this budget does not spend a single dollar of the economic stabilization fund on ongoing programs or services in 2012 or 2013. Finally this budget does not grow government. This budget reflects the economic realities facing our state, and it only spends available revenue. This bill combined with the votes we took yesterday on House Bill 4 and House Bill 275 fulfill our constitutional responsibilities to a balanced budget. If she had to, the comptroller could certify this budget today. Now, let's talk a moment on how we got there. In January 2010 it was clear that the full effect of the economic recession were hitting our great state and revenues were beginning to decline. At that point, the speaker, the lieutenant governor and the governor wisely directed agencies to begin identifying budget reductions. Last spring Speaker Straus joined the appropriations committee to take the first hard look at the effects of the economy on our state budget. It was clear to everyone at that point that the budget would be -- we would be debating this session on how to rely on less revenue. When I began work with the LBB staff last fall drafting the introduced bill the speaker and I agreed on four principles. The budget would live within available revenues, it would not rely on any new taxes, it would not assume spending from the economic stabilization fund and it would reflect limited government. The budget that was drafted by the appropriations committee not only makes spending cuts -- not only does the budget spend spending cuts spent in 2010, 2011, it also reflects the 10 percent reductions required in 2012 and much more. Our actions yesterday in passing House Bill 4 and House Bill 275 reflect our commitments to address the current shortfall and the steps we have taken allow us to apply an additional 4.3 billion to the next biennium. But I want to give you a clear understanding of where that $4.3 billion is being spent. We allocated money funds we identified as the most critical. By putting $2 billion into the foundation school program. $2 billion in Article II, the majority of it went into our Medicaid case load and $300 million into adults and juvenile corrections to ensure the public safety. Members, we applied this money to the most pressing and essential needs of our government. Now, let's talk about what this budget does. Everyone here today has heard from their constituents about what this budget does and doesn't do. Today is our opportunity to talk about those things and to potentially change them. But before we get to that point, let me talk about some of the significant changes that have been made. To -- the all funds reduction for 2010, 2011 is $22.9 billion or 12.3 percent reduction. The largest part of this is the elimination of slightly more than $12 billion in federal stimulus money that we appropriated last session. Yes, Texas receives more than $15 billion in stimulus money but, members, remember that was over a three year period. The amount appropriated in the '10, '11 budget was just over $12 billion. This number also reflects significant cuts in general revenue and Texas receiving less in federal matching funds. In terms of general revenue spending alone, this budget cuts $4.5 billion or a 5.4 percent from 2010 and 2011 levels. This cut is an addition to the more than $1.3 billion in general revenue that we cut in House Bill 4 yesterday. Members, this budget makes cuts in addition to the 5 percent and two and a half percent cuts. We order for this biennium. Members, let's take a amount to recognize the amount of work that the committee has done to get us to this point. Believe it or not, since committees were announced in February, we met 59 times in full committee and those subcommittees to address this budget shortfall. The members of this committee spent more than 215 hours listening to public testimony, exploring budget cuts and solutions and debating the questioning and -- and questioning how to best address these challenges. This process was not easy. But it was essential. And each member recognized that early on and truly committed themselves to this effort. I am humbled by the work each and every member of this committee has put in. For as long as I've been on appropriations committee, two parts of our budget have driven the vast majority of state spending. That is education and health and human services. It was true when I was first appointed and it is true today. Education remains our largest expenditure. We increased TCR spending on the school foundation program by $857 million. Yes, under current law this spending does not meet our pro-obligation, but this bill assumes a school finance will be addressed this session for a separate legislation. Members, in Article II, it is clear that there is not sufficient dollars to address the current estimate of case load growth. And yes, in addition, our nursing homes and hospitals are facing significant rate reductions along with every other Medicaid provider. These are issue that we did not ignore and we will not ignore and the Article II subcommittee worked to maximize every dollar they had to spend. And members, I will promise you today that before we bring back a conference committee report on House Bill 1 to you, we will continue to address the problems that House Bill 1 has for Texas grants, Medicaid, public education and nursing homes. Members, we are about to discuss hundreds of amendments. We are going to debate our priorities in each and every article of the budget. This is just the start of the debate, and it is definitely not the finish. This is the time and the place to debate the issues that reflect our priorities. With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to questions or we can begin the amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I would.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. And first Chairman Pitts, y'all have done a -- y'all went to work on this, the whole committee has, I just wanted to thank you for that and appreciate how open you've been in working with me on some of the concerns I had and I was trying to hope we see us do. In going through HB1, identified eight or nine items that are -- appear to be contingency riders that will be a tax increase or a fee increase. And best I can tell, I may have missed some others but it looks like this group totals up to about $63,703,000 of increased revenue by tax or fee. But best I can tell from the ones we found, all of those are contingent upon some other legislation that has to pass through this body, through the Senate, signed by the governor and all of that; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes. That is right. We had agencies and we had business groups that came to us. And, you know, the beef cattle industry brought an idea that they wanted to have more testing. So we have added a fee for more testing. Some of the Article VIII agencies came to us about that they needed a new computer or something like that and we have a letter signed by those groups saying that they wanted to buy certain things, that they would let us raise their fee. We also have a -- the attorney general's office came to us and said that they wanted to do a better job with their child support collections and so there's fees collected on that. It's all contingent on other bills passing. You are correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And so, the ones I found were like three for the attorney general, one for the comptroller, one for the facilities commission, there's one for health and human services, TBAC, TxDOT, and I'm sure I'm missing some others. But the point of this would be that if -- I know, you know, a lot of us have made a commitment to not increase state revenue this time, not to have any additional fees that are really a broad based tax, we just call to not have any tax. But if we vote for HB1 today, we will not be voting to authorize these taxes or fees. To clarify, so if we vote for HB1 today, if I vote for HB1 today, I'm not voting to authorize these tax or fees. We'll each have an opportunity to vote for or against these individual tax and fees in bills as they come up before this body, is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So we'll all have the opportunity to vote up or down, yes or no, on each one of these contingency riders that are a tax or fee at some later date?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There are contingencies, and there'll be a separate bill to take care of those fees.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I think those of us, which I know are many, including Mr. Pitts that are very worried about tax and taxing new fees, could I ask that our discussion we just had be reduced to writing and be entered into the journal?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Pitts, now, Representative King identified about $63 million in taxes and fees that are contingent upon legislation. Is it not also true that there's -- I believe this bill, contains more than $150 million of fees that have been implemented into one form or another.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There's over $100 million. So that's -- you know, everybody has compared to this biennium that we're working on in 12 and 13 to '03. But in '03 there was over a billion dollars worth of fees.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm not speaking pro or con, just for informational purposes, the fees that are within HB1 that can be automatically raised by the agencies that do not require any bill to be voted on by this body.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There's some, especially in probably Article VIII that will be fees, that their membership, the bodies that they serve, let's say, I'm just using as an example, the cosmetologists, cosmetologists want to raise their fees in order to be able to get something that they would like, maybe a new computer system to help their membership rolls work better. If the cosmetologists want to raise their fees, they're able to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: For example, specifically as it relates to the commission of agriculture, I believe (inaudible) came before the appropriations committee. There are many, many fees that will be impacting farmers and ranchers and others. Well, the fee today may be $100 but their fee will go up to more than $1,000.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The agricultural industry came to us together with Commissioner Staples and said that if we could start a program to test cattle, it would help them be able to market their product.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And they came to us, the industry agreed to that program and that fee is included in House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the only reason why I rise, and again I'm not speaking for or against them, but I think people should be fully aware that as they vote for HB1, within HB1 there are significant fees where the members who are not have to approve them in a separate piece of legislation. And while Representative King has identified about $63 million in fees contingent on some other bills passing, there are more than that, twice more than that that are embedded within HB1 that will not require contingent legislation. That's the only -- that's the only reason why I gave this information, so we're all very, very clear. So Representative King votes for HB1, Representative King will be voting for significant fees on farmers, on ranchers and on many other sectors -- I just wanted to point that out and some of those fees on farmers and ranchers will go from $100 to more than $1,000 in some cases. And I am from Irving, Texas but I just wanted to point that out for my brothers and sisters that will be heading back to rural Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Let me tell you as a Representative of rural Texans -- Texas that these groups --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's the purpose, coming from the poor man's caucus.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: These are fees that the agent -- either the agency or typically the groups -- and you talked about the agriculture, it was these groups, these cattle groups said it would make their product more marketable, especially on the foreign market if they could have these tests.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And have these inspections and --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons why they did that is to offset the significant reductions that are taking place in HB1 and because they did not want to be impacted by the reductions in HB1, they came and said, We will raise the fees on farmers and ranchers from anywhere from $100 to more than $1,000 and some cases there's more than that, because I have a list of them, and they are substantial fees. So we implicit them with HB1 and again, I'm not speaking pro or con, just for matters of information so that when people are voting for it, they're making an informed vote. When they vote for HB1 at the end of the day, and I suspect they will, I simply want them to take ownership, I just want them to take ownership of the fees, the substantial increase of fees. It may not be a direct tax, but for the farmers and ranchers that's going to be paying ten times what they're paying today for their -- I think they may beg to differ. Representative King, I just wanted to you to know that.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you for your help with this. I will -- I would emphasize as a cattle producer myself that if we can create markets for our cattle industry and hogs and chickens, that we should permit our farmers to pay this additional fee to get their market throughout the world.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I have a feeling, Chairman Pitts, we're going to see a lot of farmers and ranchers in the gallery here in a few minutes.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: They will be thanking us to get their products to market.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I guess that's up for debate, but I have a question that's different from that. I still hear from constituents back home about the cuts in 2003. They talk about what the impact was on health and human services and especially in that area, can you tell us -- you mentioned earlier that we're taking a $22.9 billion reduction or what amounts to 12.3 percent reduction. How does that compare to 2003?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Veronica, I can't remember, but our cuts this session are a whole lot more than the cuts we made in 2003.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: There's a whole lot more?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And in 2003 did we use Rainy Day funds?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We used it all.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: All the Rainy Day funds. And we're using not one drop of the 4.3 billion left this time; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We are not using any of the Rainy Day fund. We were able to free up $4.3 billion by using the Rainy Day fund in House Bill 275 to pay our current obligations, but the comptroller had reserved $4.3 billion in her revenue estimate to pay for our current obligations for this biennium, and because we paid that through cuts in House Bill 275, the Rainy Day fund, that freed up that 4.3 that the comptroller had reserved and we did spend that in House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And aren't we replenishing the Rainy Day fund at a better rate now than we might have been after 2003?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not advised to that.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: One last thing, Mr. Chairman. I know this has not been an easy task for you, and I want to thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Chairman Pitts, I also want to thank you for your hard work. You never hesitated to meet with a member who had a concern. You met with me in terms of the rack, and I appreciate all the work you've done. But I have had thousands of people ask me back home regarding this budget, rallies that I must attend tomorrow, so may have to leave and drive right after this floor debate today. But I wanted to just emphasize or make sure I get something on the record. There was very little we did to entertain generating any new revenue to address this shortfall; is that correct? This was a cost cutting exercise.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No. This is a bill that reflects the money that we have. Now, I'm going to -- I have looked at some of the bills that have been filed and they're in committee and there will be additional revenue if these bills pass.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: If they pass.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If the bills pass that are currently in committee and if they pass on the floor and we will be able to make this bill better. Representative Orr has the bill that will bring in $500 million. Representative Hamilton has the bill that will bring in over $300 billion. Now, if the members want to make this bill and take care of Medicaid and education and state -- and nursing homes and Texas grants. We could pass this bill and make this bill better. That would be up to the members.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And the reason I ask is that people understand, at least back home, they understand the economy, they understand the environment we're dealing with right now in terms of our state. But they want to know what are we doing to find new dollars. And I'll be on the floor and I'll be waiting to hear those bills and listening to members who are proposing to generate new revenue. But to this point this bill reflects, with the exception of what my good friend Chairman Turner pointed out, very little in terms of generating new revenue to meet that shortfall. So I could go home tomorrow, when I go home to the Brownsville teachers rally and they ask me what have we done to try to fill the gap in terms of generating new revenue, I could tell them at this point very little but there are bills coming to the floor that might make HB1 a better bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I don't think the charge to the appropriations committee is to generate new revenue. I think ways and means does that and other bills that have gone before licensing regulations and other committees, those committees are generating new revenue.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay. So right now to this point, with the exception of the bills that we may propose, it has been a cost cutting measure.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: As for the jurisdiction of the appropriations committee, that is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Will the gentleman yield for a couple more questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. To just kind of follow up to Speaker Turner's follow up to my question, in -- apparently there's a lot of authority given now to different agencies to increase fees to provide the services that that agency --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And is the way that structure that previously maybe for the ag commission on a particular line item, they had maybe a $200 cap for a fee and now that cap has been raised and so they have the authority to take it up to $1,000 limit or $500 limit; is that correct? Is that how it works?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If they collect more fees and we don't appropriate it, they can't spend it. So if we have to -- they come to us, we'll talk about the agriculture commission, comes to us and said, Our producers want a fee so they can comply with marketing of their products around the world and it's going to take this fee to pay for the -- what it's going to take to be able to market their products and that's what we did. We appropriated that, contingent on them raising fees and their group wanting to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And again I appreciate -- I know y'all have gone through tremendous work in trying to put this together and trying to find a way to make the budget balance .but take the cosmetologists, for example. If they had the right to -- if we now say their fee could go -- and I'm just pulling that out of the air. Let's say we were saying they could raise their fee from $100 to $500 for a license or whatever, do the -- does our bill automatically put that in place HB1, or does the agency -- are they then required to make some affirmative decision to raise that? In other words, if they -- if we vote this in, automatically do those fees just become raised or will the cosmetologists commission or be having hearings or rule makings to determine what the appropriate fee is or the public would have the opportunity to come and give input at --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: What we have done since I've been on appropriations is that we will have -- we will -- the agency will come to us -- and this is especially the Article VIII, we call them Larry riders or we call them different things during the course of appropriations and what that is a letter from their association, the Cosmetologists Association in Texas would write the appropriations a letter and say, If you give us this amount of money to be able to do certain things, we will raise our fee because our members want this done and we have that on file for every agency that we have said is -- that will let you spend this amount of money, contingent on you raising fees.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Could -- thank you. Now, what about for a large organization like this, Texas Railroad Commission that has been primarily, if not totally, state funded? Will it continue to be state funded?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It will continue to be state funded in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So there's nothing in this bill that will change the Railroad Commission from being state funded to being industry funded.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I'm going to let the subcommittee Chair -- could probably answer your question better than that.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Drew, if you -- let me yield to --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Ask your question again, Phil.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I was trying to understand the Railroad Commission because I understand small fees that may be increasing for a barber's license or something like that, but is there anything in here that dramatically changes the way we'll be funding the Railroad Commission?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. We had some discussion about whether or not to -- the industry was going to fund part of the revenue, but that's still a contingency, that has not happened in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: All right. So -- but I may be incorrect, but if I understand right, there are serious discussions going on within the Sunset process that may take the Railroad Commission from being financed with GR to being funded by the industry itself.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's exactly right. Those discussions are going on, but there's nothing in this bill that changes the way the Railroad Commission is being funded.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Is there a contingency rider in this bill --

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- that would authorize that in the event that this body supports that by way of legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Exactly. It's a contingency rider that says this industry decides to support them in a different fashion, then that contingency would come into existence and it would be funded in that manner.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Could I ask Mr. Pitts --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Could I ask Mr. Pitts -- Chairman Pitts maybe a couple other questions?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry to pull you away from Chairman Eiland. But I know you're absolutely just as concerned as I am about the possibility of -- or about the intent to try to avoid anything that takes any more money out of the private sector into the public sector.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Could I ask that as we go through the process today, even though it gets kind of helter-skelter, that we try to be as clear as possible for those of us that didn't sit in all the appropriations hearing, try to be as -- dumb it down as much as possible to make us understand that we may be making a decision that has some type of intended or unintended tax or fee.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I'll try to dumb it down so I can understand too.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, will the Chairman yield? Will the Chairman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Pitts, I just want to provide the members with some information, and just correct me if I'm wrong, as I go to my seat, for those who will vote on HB1 today, as for the passage of HB1 on the letter that -- the information that came from Commissioner Staples, in this strategy A1.2 dealing with regular antipesticide use, is it correct that it says prescribed burn, I'm just going to point out some of these fees, the prescribed burns, commercial license No. 2, currency will be $50. But if HB1 passes, it will have to go up to $1,504. I just want to point out just a few so people can talk ownership of what's about to happen. On the fee products license, the currency is 700, it will go up as a result of the passage of HB1 to 2,000. On the food products license, the currency is 1,000, it will go up to 2,000. On the fiber product license, it's currently 1,000, it will go up to 2,000. On the food product -- on the textile converter license, the currency is 1,000, it will go up to 2,000. And the list just goes on and on and on. So is it fair to say just the offset of reductions that for many people, especially in the farmers and rights and ranchers, those involving agriculture that the fees will be substantial? I mean, it is what it is.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's the fees that we talked about in the appropriations committee, that the subcommittee talked about in appropriations -- in those subcommittee hearings with the agricultural department to determine what the agricultural department needed to do and what the farmers and ranchers in this state needed to do to be able to market their products worldwide.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's fair. I do not disagree with that. I just simply wanted members to be fully aware as we make the significant reductions that the costs will shift in -- for those that are not just in my district, but for those in rural Texas or those in other parts of the Texas, for the farmers and ranchers. We are all a part of this and they just happen -- I just want them to be able to explain.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Turner, I just want to give you an example of what we have done in the past.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And we voted for a fee for cotton growers to be able to market their cotton.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And we tried to get rid to the boll weevil. Every producer of cotton has to pay a fee to -- for over a period of years to be able to get rid of the boll weevil. Texas has nearly eradicated the boll weevil with that program, and it has helped the farmers -- been a huge improvement to cotton producers and that was because of the fee that was collected and we were able to do that and the farmers were glad to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And I'm simply saying that there may be other people across the state who may be glad to impose some sort of fee on themselves to reduce the reduction, but we are not going to allow them to do that. Now, to the extent of the farmers and the ranchers and those in the agricultural department industry, want to go from $50 to $5,000, who am I to oppose that as long as we are fully aware that at the end of this day, when we are voting on HB1, we just have to take ownership of the fact that there will be substantial fee increases within this budget.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I haven't -- my door hasn't been broken down from taxpayers in Texas to raise taxes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm not advocating raising taxes now, let me be very clear. I am not in favor of raising the taxes. I just simply want us to take ownership of what we are about to do.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren raises the point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anderson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The gentleman's time has expired.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Will the gentleman extend the time, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The first motion for extension of time. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the work that y'all have done, the committee has done on HB1. My concern is as we're speaking about these fees particularly in agriculture and as we go from state revenue to a fee based system, what assurance do the producers out there have that these fees won't automatically continue to raise, similar to like we had in the tuition deregulation where the tuition continued to raise?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, this is a fee to do a particular function that the agricultural industry and the agricultural commissioner has come to the appropriations committee and said, If we do this test or if we do this, and just like they did in the boll weevil, if they can do this, we can get rid of the boll weevil. If we can do this, we can make cattle in Texas to be a worldwide industry, and I don't think that it's our place to deny the cattle producers of Texas the right to be able to market their products worldwide. It helps Texas, it helps Texans and it helps the farmers and ranchers of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Well, I agree with you on that position. But the uncertainty that the producers, particularly in agriculture, face on a daily basis, markets and weather and what have you, this seems like it might be another uncertainty. Is there another way that we can sunset this, that we can review this in two years or --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Well, every, every -- everything that's in this appropriations bill will -- we don't obligate anything for the next biennium. The appropriations committee would have to determine, with the advice and consultation of the ag commissioner and the Texas farmers and ranchers, if this was doing what it's supposed to do. And I think when we did boll weevil eradication, that it was a three year program and it worked. So we will have --

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Each biennium we would review the fee structure and see how that's impacted the industry?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Chairman Pitts, as we were going through the appropriations process and looking for more funds to appropriate or to find or to cut, I came -- I was looking at the university fund, UT, A&M, Tech and I found something called Auxiliary Enterprise Fund, and for over a two year period in those three universities, Auxiliary University funds composed about almost a billion dollars --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: But it doesn't show up in our bill pattern.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It is not in our bill pattern.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So this auxiliary fund that has over a billion in them show up in our bill pattern. And as I looked at it, that's saying like athletic income, parking revenue, things like that.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is what I understand. That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So we don't appropriate any of that money, we don't appropriate football coaches' salaries, basketball coaches' salaries, anything like that. Is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is my understanding. It's a line item, it's not in our budget.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And then I saw where UT recently entered into a $300 million contract with ESPN.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is in our budget.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And that's not in the budget.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's not.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And we don't get to appropriate those funds either, do we?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We do not.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: At this time?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: At this time.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Craig.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: For a question. Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I have a question with some parts to it. Thank you very much. Chairman Pitts, how much money are we allowed to spend today? What is the amount of money that we as a legislature or us as a House have available to spend, appropriate?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's 70 -- $70 billion, something like that.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: It's around 70 -- $7 billion of revenue. It's in that neighborhood.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We spent 80 -- and you know, I have another book but we spent around 82, $83 billion last time and I think I said that we're having probably about a $5 billion cut, so that's about 77 billion, we added about $4.3 billion to the number because of the use of the Rainy Day fund yesterday.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So, okay. If we're sitting here appropriating an amount -- and I'm concerned that we don't know what is a hard number that we can appropriate based on what's available from what the comptroller has said is available for us to spend. Do we know the actual amount?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I do. It's approximately $77 billion of general revenue.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And how much of all the other funds, dedicated funds and -- how much are we able to spend?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We spent a $184 last time of all funds, and this is $22 billion less. Nearly 23.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So while you're making me do the math, you can't just tell me how much it is? Is it 100 --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm making you work too, Yvonne.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I see. 162 billion, is that --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: In that neighborhood.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is that about right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Approximately.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I see. But, you know, the number -- you assured me yesterday that you knew the numbers. I just want to make sure that I don't overspend. So do we have any other funds available that have not been extended through this process? Any other dollars that are available to spend?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We have no -- we have spent what's in the treasury, what's been forecasted to be in the treasury for this next biennium. We have spent all of the money at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Are there any bills floating around that would create additional funds that this budget is dependent on in terms of funding?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There is bills that are currently in committee right now that -- to fund this bill we'll have to pass.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So basically we are appropriating money without having the money already determined that it will be available because we have not passed the legislation; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, no.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: If you look at the appropriations bill, it will say this expenditure is contingent on House Bill X, Y, Z passing.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And my question to you was earlier: How much money do we have available to appropriate based on legislation that has already passed, so based on a revenue asking that this is the funds available?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Approximately $77 billion.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But in that 77 billion, there must be legislation passed to provide all of that 77 billion; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There is a -- some bills that must pass, that is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And what part of the 77 billion does that represent?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I mean, is it half? 30 percent, 50 percent, 20 percent? I mean, I think the frustration I'm having, Mr. Chairman, is that --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yvonne, I think I started my remarks that the comptroller can certify this budget today.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But you just, in effect, told me it can't be certified today unless some legislation is passed. So that's my frustration is where do we find the truth in what our certified funds are today so that we are not over spending and we don't create a fiasco like we currently have? Because clearly her revenue estimate that was not reflected in the last two bienniums to be accurate enough so that we don't have a crisis. And so you're telling me that we got 77 billion available to spend contingent upon legislation but we don't know what part of that is contingent or what amount is contingent upon legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I will invite you to the appropriations committee probably next Thursday that we will begin the process of hearing bills that have been referred to our committee that we would invite you to the process.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I appreciate it, I am happy to be invited to it, but I'm spending money now that I don't have. Is that what you're telling me? I think that's the frust -- that is what's going on right now is that we're a sham as it relates to what our spending it and can be and what's available to us and we're going down the same pattern that we went down before. We think that -- it's my thought that when the certified -- the budget comes before us we know how much we can spend. And what you're telling me is we know how much we can spend today if something passes tomorrow and I just don't think we ought to head down that same approach because that's how we got into this stuff before.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We're completely different than our brothers and sisters across the hall. Our bill is 2 billion -- our introduced bill is $2 billion less than the Senate's introduced bill and they're contingent on receiving nearly $2 billion or over $2 billion of federal money. We do not have anything like that in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But I'm not talking about them, they always do things a little bit different. I want to talk about us.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay. Let's talk about us.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: What are we -- of the 77 billion, how much are we obligated -- how many bills must we pass to get to the 77 billion?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I'm not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: What percentage of the 77 billion is not funded? Because I don't think members are paying attention to the fact that we're fixing to do a budget and appropriate money that we haven't even passed the bills to collect the money. And I agree we need new revenue, we need additional revenue, everybody said no new taxes, no currency, but, in fact, we're doing it right here because we're doing a bill that's not funded. We got to pass with no money; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, what we're doing today is like every session. We have a very small amount of money that's contingent on a bill passing that we rely on this budget. A very small amount of money. And if we don't pass it, we don't spend it.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But we're spending it now.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We do not spend it. It's contingent on a bill passing.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But you just told me of the 77 billion -- it's not all there. We have to pass these contingency bills to get to the 77 and, in fact, if we are budgeting -- appropriating the 77 million, then it's not accurate. I mean, that doesn't make sense to me.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Work with us, and we'll make it make sense to you.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This is the problem of working with you guys, this is why we're paying bills on this biennium we thought we already paid based on the revenue estimate from last biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I disagree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: How can you disagree with that when we just had a bill yesterday that House Bill 275 was to pay the bills for August? There's no such thing as disagreeing with that because you passed the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I disagree with you as far as what you said about the revenue estimate. The revenue estimate, the comptroller could -- would never have been able --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren raises the point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Representative Geren needs something else to be doing.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Hilderbran because of illness on the motion of Representative Hopkins. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would the gentleman extend time for just one question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is the second extension of time. It requires unanimous consent. Is there objection? Chair hears none, gentleman's time is extended.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Chairman Pitts. I think it's just one question. Can you -- I understand the contingency rider and I am glad that we have the opportunity to individually vote up or down on those bills that would increase revenue. Is there -- can you tell me how much in the budget is the aggregate of the increase in fees that are not contingent upon other legislation?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I can't. And when I laid out the bill in February, I said how much that was and I think it's a little over a hundred million dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think it's a little over a hundred million dollars. That was in February and we -- when I laid out the bill, I said it was approximately a hundred million dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So if we vote for HB1 today, those that have contingent legislation, we're not voting for a tax increase or a fee increase.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But we would be voting for approximately a hundred million dollars in increased fees that would be through the different agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. And most of those will be what you might call users fees or industry fees or --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yeah, if -- it's what we -- I just we talked about the agriculture, it's the agriculture industries, the attorney general brought us -- for ideas, they brought us ideas to -- they needed to raise fees to do certain things and it was things like that.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Any of them -- what would be -- what you would classify as a flat across the board fee upon the general public. And I might use an example. If we increase driver's licenses $10. Are any of them of that nature or are they all specific due to a particular agency and industry?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Not that I'm aware of right now. And you'd have to go through with the other subcommittees. Scott told me maybe we should spend a dollar for auto theft or something like that.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Do the fees that are collected, do they go directly to an agency or do they go directly to GR?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Go to the agency. I mean, it goes to the GR but it goes for the agency to spend.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So, for example, the fees that's collected for courts on filing fees, even though it goes to GR, it's dedicated to that court fund?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I think there's a fee on child support collection, and it goes to the attorney general office to for their computer system or whatever they ask it to be.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Thank you. And thank you for extending the time.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Chairman Pitts, I'm very, very proud of working with you and the excellent job you have done with the appropriations bill and I really look up at you and I admire you for being just a great person. But I have a quick question in regards to HB1. What have been some of the criticisms that you have received in regards to HB1?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I think I said this in my opening remarks, we have got to look at our public school finance. And I think there's a bill that Scott has and Bob Eissler has, there's several bills that will be going through this process of how we can address our public schools. Under current law we are underfunding our public schools and that is a hole that we will be fixing at some point during this session or any special session and there's ways that we'll be able to address those things. But at the current time, this is the money that we have that we're budgeting. We have a Medicaid case load that we've got to address. It's an entitlement program that's required by the federal government. We are not funding the estimated case load growth and this is something that during the process, we will be looking at. There's a big issue as far as what cuts providers, medical providers. We are cutting our nursing homes, we heard it yesterday and you will hear it again today and I have met this week with nursing home providers. I have met last week with hospital providers. We are working on that issue and we will come with ideas on how we can correct that issue. But today those ideas are not firmed up in law and so this is what we have today with the money that we spend. Texas grants is another issue, that nearly every institution of higher education brought to us that we are not funding any new Texas grants or Texas equalization grants. The schools like Charleston, SMU, TCU, University of Texas, Texas Tech, A&M University, the universities in the valley, Phil Ross having brought us these issues about Texas grants. These are the four areas of this budget that the appropriations committee will continue working on to improve, but we cannot spend money that we don't have. And until money is generated by this legislature, this House Bill 1 reflects the money that we have.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you for your leadership.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Armando. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, before we embark on this really difficult day, it seems to have -- in order to have the information that we need to be casting these very difficult votes, it would be appropriate for us to have an update from the Chairman of the ways and means committee. I understand there are a number of bills pending in ways and means that would enhance the revenue flow simply by tightening up the corrections procedure. Could we have a report from him before we start voting on these amendments?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Burnam. Excuse Representative Hilderbran, on the motion of Representative Hopkins. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, Mr. Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Isn't it the tradition that in the absence of the Chairman of the committee the vice Chair takes that person's place. Would the vice Chair of the ways and means committee be available to report on his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He happens to be right here. Chair recognizes Mr. Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Be happy to yield. I'm sorry, what was the question?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The question is this. What is the status of the numerous bills in the ways and means that have had hearings that would enhance the revenue flow without increasing taxes?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: There -- you know, we've only had about I think four meetings thus far. I'm not -- and I can't report to you on all the bills filed because the Chairman is the one that obviously has that information. Of the ones that we have heard there have been bills presented dealing with tax issues on tobacco products that are pending before the committee at this time, some which would raise revenue, but that is a tax increase to some people. We had a hearing this past week on the nexus issue dealing with who should be collecting our sales tax, I happen to be carrying one of those bills myself. So as far as I can recall, those are the ones that come right off the tip of my tongue but --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: What is the status of the self-tax bill that just closes the gap and enhances the collections of my two bills and Representative Davis' bill? I know my two bills were heard a number of weeks ago and Representative Davis' bills have not been heard at all and seems like we're putting ourself at a great disadvantage to having to be voting on this appropriations bill not really having a clear idea on what our opportunities are.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, and there's other opportunities -- I'm aware of other bills that have been filed that will come before either the ways and means committee or in some cases the appropriations committee that will have additional forces of revenue. I cannot answer the question about -- because the Chairman is the one that does the scheduling on pending items, so I'm not advised to the bills he has already -- that the committee has already heard be coming up for vote.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, since the vice Chair is not able to answer the question is there any way we can get an answer from the Chairman before we have to vote on this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, you can try to contact the Chairman if you'd like.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that wonderful opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry -- Mr. Speaker, who has the floor?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: No one has the floor at the moment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: When the gentleman comes back to the floor that's running this budget bill, could I ask him a question, please?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Yes, ma'am, Ms. Davis. We're about to lay out amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: He still has some more time that Mr. Geren didn't cut me off on, so I wanted to kind of go with that time first.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Extension of time of Mr. King was for one question, and we exceeded that.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The second extension of time for Mr. King was for one question, and we did that.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry, that was not -- that was not the way he asked for the extension of time. He asked for an extension of time, he didn't say for only me to ask questions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He said extension -- he asked for extension of time for one question.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: For him. This is going to be one for me.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts will be at the mic in just a moment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts will be back at the mic in just a moment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, during the course of this debate there are a number of amendments including contingency riders will be moved from their respective articles to Article 11. Prior to effect of this motion is that the amendments will be redrawn, rescanned and placed along with other amendments in Article 11 to be considered at the appropriate time. I'll treat a motion by a member in move Article 11 as treating it in a manner so described. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is just a simple perfecting amendment. It only includes technical corrections made at the request of the LBB staff. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Following amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members this amendment clearly identifies what I think you will see the intention of the subcommittee and the full committee on how we fund service centers and it takes care of those service centers that work with small school districts. And I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: May I ask more than one question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Pitts, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I yield on service centers, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, now I have to talk on certain topics? My goodness. Okay. What is it you're doing there? I'll start with that, I can do that. I didn't understand what your amendment did.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: You know, I represent a rural Texas from (inaudible) County, and you represent Dallas County. Many rural school districts, very small rural school districts use service centers as a type of business manager of their school districts because they don't have the funding to be able to do that or the expertise that they can hire and this amendment takes -- reflects the cut that was made by the subcommittee and by the committee on the service center to make sure that we don't cut the service centers that take care of rural Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So this is --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We still cut everybody.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But this is what we call poor, right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Not poor.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Because this is not only going to talk about taking money from certain services; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, it's going to take money from every service center. Just that there's a formula --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I thought you said --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: -- on how you fund service centers and we wanted to make it clear to everybody that the formula was going to be addressed in the cut and it wasn't clear in the way the bill was passed, the way the bill passed.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I thought your explanation said this was to provide support for service centers in rural areas. Did you say, you didn't say that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: There is a provisions on how service centers are funded and there's a -- and this just clearly identifies that the small service centers that have already received for funds will not be cut in a disproportionate share in the way they're funded.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So your amendment is basically saying to perfect the formula process for rural service centers to get money, is that all you're doing now is or is it doing a little bit more than that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No, that's all I am doing. Is to make sure that it's clear to make sure that these small service centers that serve rural Texas are not cut in proportions to their funding. I mean it's -- it's the way we fund the service centers today, Yvonne, and --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm just trying to figure out why it's a separate amendment, because what we've doing over the years --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Because it wasn't clear the way --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Why are we doing something outside of the budget?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: The subcommittee cut funding to service centers so they could give funding to someplace else and this just clears up rather than just take an X amount to take care of -- for service centers to cut service centers because it's done in proportions under this current law.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is there a cost to this amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: No.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: There's no cost to this amendment? Mr. Chairman, you're doing an amendment that it has no cost that you could already do?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: We'll -- let me pull it down and Scott and Jimmy Don will look at it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We're on page seven of the packet. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, members. Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to my amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a very simple amendment. This amendment would move $3.5 million allocated to the Commission on the Arts to the Department of Aging and Disability Services, Community Based Alternative, which is the right thing to do in this hard-pressed economic time. I move passage. Excuse me, is the amendment to the amendment acceptable to the author?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair -- we're on the Simpson amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak on the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, what you have in front of you is an amendment that as amended takes the GR out of the Commission of the Arts. It leaves the GR dedicated. It essentially also removes the ability to receive a 2 million federal match on this commission. The original amendment, before it was amended, would have completely stripped. And while I totally agree with the purpose of trying to put additional money in health and human services and DADS, that is a priority, that is something that this legislature that as while we go through the budget process, you know, Article II and Article III are where everyone is concentrating on looking for additional funds but to take what essentially amounts to a $3 million general revenue item and lose the $2 million federal leverage, I have to oppose. For that reason I will move to table this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Senator Lucio.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: If I could just ask Chairman Otto a few questions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So essentially with this amendment would do is eliminate the Commission on the Arts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, as amended it does not eliminate it, it leaves the GR dedicated but it removes all the GR.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So from previous funding we've gone from 10 million to roughly 2 million on the base bill and this would remove --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Would further reduce -- you're correct. In the introduced bill it was reduced down to about $2 million. This would further reduce it.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: And I agree with you. I agree with everything that DADS does and how important that agency is and the mission of that agency and we have had all opportunities to fund them at the levels necessary to provide the quality of life for the people they serve and we may have other opportunities and other amendments and other bills that may come up in this session. But the Texas Commission on the Arts -- and I've received phone calls and e-mails as early as this morning. What they do is provide a service to a lot of underprivileged children to have exposure to the arts which enhances their ability to learn, and I don't think that given all the other cuts we're doing right now to also take away their ability -- to have exposure to the arts is what we should be doing at this time. I thank you for opposing this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. White, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Yes, will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does Mr. Otto yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Is the Commission of the Arts -- you know, we're told that we're in a very dire emergency situation with our budget. Is there anything in the Commission of the Arts that can wait two years?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: There's probably a lot in every agency that can wait for two years. The question is if you're going to strip it, then what you need to do is bring legislation to do away with that. Not just merely take the general revenue out of it when you got 12 SPE's that will -- I'm not sure what the -- you know -- this is an appropriations bill. I have not seen legislation that will basically do away with the commission. But, you know, I'm -- we're going to lose the federal match and basically take all of the GR out of this agency.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Understand.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does Mr. Otto yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Otto, is it your position that you can't fund something without pulling the statutes?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No, you can fund something without making it a statute, that's right.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You can fund anything you want.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: If you have any agency, whether it's Commission on the Arts or the Department of Human Services or the Department of Public Safety or -- you can fund anything you want.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Right. It would be nice if there were instructions as to how to wind down --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, that might happen in a subsafety bill, for example, but in the appropriations bill, all we're talking about is money and you can zero fund in the appropriations bill any agency that you choose to do your fund.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Otto, do you remember that two days ago I had the Texas Association of Symphony Orchestras here up in the balcony behind us and the Commission of the Arts has given money grants to almost every school in my district and they have so little money right now that I can't possibly vote for this amendment and I won't. Do you know that they give money to schools?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I am aware that they give grants to schools, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And they give grants to symphony orchestras across the state?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I am aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Margo, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does Mr. Otto yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: Chairman Otto, as a participant on the appropriations committee and in the subcommittee we analyze every aspect of every agency and every cut that could be made.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, we did.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: And it was our collective determination that the Texas Commission on the Arts, while reduced in funding, was a viable agency supporting this state, its educational process and helped in the recruitment of industry to Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct. And we reduced them from 10 million to 2 million.

REPRESENTATIVE DEE MARGO: That's correct. Given that I see no point in zero funding an agency that contributes and has matching funding. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Otto, you know that I've worked on stadium legislation in this body for 14 --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I was not aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah, and it was great legislation. We all enjoy sports, but you'd be surprised, I think you might not be, but that the generator of tourism in Houston and in this state happens to be the museums, like the Museum of Fine Arts, the Mill Collection in Houston, the (inaudible) in Dallas, you know, the Kimbell, the opera symphonies. I mean, people come to our state to partake in that. Then hotel occupancy, you get hotel occupancy tax. All of those things they are true economic generators; isn't that true?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Laubenberg, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Will the speaker yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Will you yield, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Representative Otto, we are -- in this budget we are having to make some really tough decisions, aren't we?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, we are.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And one of the things we heard about yesterday was the shortage of funds going to those who have the most needs for it, nursing homes, the disabled. And would this amendment provide some more funding, assist more funding to those areas that we have a real need for?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It would.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Would it completely shut down the arts?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: In my opinion, it would.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: How is that?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Because the only thing that would be left in the account would be GR dedicated funds.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But there would be funds in that account.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: There would be funds in the GR dedicated account, that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And in another time, when times are better and the economy's picked up, we could always increase that down the road. Correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes, we could.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Don't you think that when we're making tough decisions we have to firmly evaluate what is the role of government?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: This is a vote that every member is going to have to make based on, you know, their own individual interest in their district. That's what we're sent up here for. It's -- a question in my mind is, is the amount of the savings worth what you're going to do to this agency.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I appreciate that. Every little bit helps. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Will you yield, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Otto -- and I may be repeating, but I'm trying to understand what we're doing in this amendment is taking money from the Commission of the Arts, $2 million; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I think it's three and a half million.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Three and a half million. And this is going to go to something that will help nursing homes, disabled people, our senior citizens; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Not nursing homes.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not nursing homes?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Just help disabled senior citizens, who is --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Community based alternative.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Alternatives. So that is assisting those in need in those communities with health problems? I'm trying to understand where the money is going.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: We have currently 580 million dedicated to that purpose right now.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Okay. While I'm trying to think, we're going to be making bad decisions all day here and what I'm trying to find out --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't -- let me disagree with that. We're going to be making tough decisions here all day, I will agree with that.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Right. And what I understand we've already cut 37 percent from these programs or nursing homes and these other things, and I'm being told we can't find the amount --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And we cut 80 percent Commission from the Arts.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Okay. But, of course, this quite frankly what the decision -- I would like to ask you we're considering here on almost every decision we'll be making here all day is for a two-year period that we do without a little less in one place, like the Commission of the Arts which do honorable and good things, compared to taking care of the health needs and emergency needs of our senior citizens.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: If we were talking about more than three and a half million dollars, I would be agreeing with you but --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's going to stack up before the day's out, it's --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, it's three -- you can't go back to the Commission on the Arts any more after this one.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No. But if we keep funding dollars from this pocket to that pocket, other emergency or more emergency needs than arts that's, I think, the debate you'll hear today.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But you are aware that if you take Articles II, III, and V, the general revenue in those articles is 90 percent of all the money we spend in this state. So there's not that much left over to cure all the problems that exist in those articles as we speak today.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: You're saying they can't be fixed, am I hearing that the plan -- as, you as a member of the appropriations committee, I understood when we were passing the ability to different commissions and bureaucrats to increase their charges on our taxpayers to recover what you're saying what we cannot recover in House Bill 1?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: No, I'm just saying you can't move enough money between articles, if that was your purpose is to the solve the funding problem that is everybody acknowledges exists in Articles II and III especially, there's not enough money left in all the other articles to take care of that.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I understand that, but I think we're going to be challenged today as this is which is a preferable place to put the money, senior citizens or the arts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I am not questioning the preference --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Will you yield, Mr. Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Otto, let me make sure I get this straight. The proposal would be to take $2 million away from the Commission on the Arts.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Three and a half million.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Okay. I'm sorry, three and half million from the arts, which is all the general revenue --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It's all the GR.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: All the GR, the general revenue for that entity; and then it would move it to DADS, which is the acronym for what?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Martinez raises a point of the order that the gentleman's time has expired, and the point of order is well taken.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the time be extended without objection.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you heard the motion.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to raise a point of order for consideration of this amendment that it violates rule 432C something.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Bring your point of order forward, please. Mr. Simpson. The point of order is temporarily withdrawn, the amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page eight is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Martinez. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The amendment on page 18. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Miles. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This is the amendment by Mr. Miles on page 19. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Reynolds. Members, this is the amendment on page 20. The following amendment. The amendment will be read by the clerk.

CLERK: Amendment by Reynolds.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today is April Fools Day, but I will submit to you that HB1 is no laughing matter. This is not a joke. As I was driving to the Capitol today, I was reminded of some words that Dr. Martin Luther King said many years ago. He stated that the ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands at times of comfort and convenience but where he stands at moments of challenge and controversy. Members, I think we can all agree that during these tough economic times and severe budget cuts, we are truly facing some of the most challenging times that we have faced since the Great Depression. Our legacy could be decided upon how we respond to this budget crisis. We have spent a considerable amount of time debating misplace "emergency items." We've dealt with the sonogram bill, we've dealt with the voter ID and many have turned our attention to redistricting and the next election cycle. Members, the 2010 elections are over. We were elected to make tough decisions, to set priorities, to do what's in the best interest of all Texans. All Texas families. We are here to govern. We're not hear to cater to the tea party or the coffee party. Yes, that's right, there's extremes on both sides of the aisle. My amendment deals with public education. I think we can all agree that public education is not a Democrat issue or Republican issue, it's not a black, white, Hispanic or Asian issue. Public education is a fundamental issue. Our Texas constitution requires us to adequately fund public education for all children. Each of us on opening day rose our right hand and took an oath to uphold that sacred constitution. Now, members, this is a very important amendment for our kids and our teachers. This is about our priority, educating our children should be our top priority. Since they are estimating -- and this is not our numbers but this is the legislative budget board. Members, many of you have seen this, between 80 to 100,000 layoffs of public school employees. We need to find every penny to save our children, our teachers and our public schools. This amendment will sweep the unexpended balances appropriated for the governor, for the preservation board, AG, the legislature and controller to the foundation school board program. This money would go directly to our schools. It will go into the classroom, it will pay our teachers, librarians, counselors and our nurses. Texas currently ranks 44th out of 50 states in education spending per pupil. That's right. 44 out of 50. Are we striving to become No. 50? With the drastic cuts to HB1, it might just get us there. If we want to be the most conservative state in funding for our schools, then let's cut this funding. I do not want Texas to known for being last in education spending. We cannot fail our children, we cannot balance this budget on the backs of our children. Recent polls show that more than 80 percent of Texas oppose these drastic cuts to education. If you support our teachers, if you support the schools in your district, then you need to support this amendment. Members, it is time to do the right thing and invest in the children's future. It is time to invest in the future of this great state. I move that you will pass this amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Otto to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that we saw as of yesterday. What it attempts to do is to take the unexpended balances at the end of this fiscal year but essentially what it does for the office of the governor, the state preservation board and the office of the attorney general, it basically cuts off their ability to incumber money as of March 1st, 31 days ago. So, essentially what you're doing is gutting this agency for the remainder of this fiscal year but there is no dollar amount to be assessed.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, he will.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Otto, if this bill passes, when will it be signed?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised as to when it will be signed.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right. And it's not effective until it's signed. And so until it's signed, those agencies will keep spending money. So there's no -- it doesn't stop them from spending money on March 1st because it doesn't become a problem until it's effective and it doesn't become effective until 30 days after the session is over. Then why is March 1st in here? March 1st is in there because apparently that was the date given by the drafting attorney.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But it says here they may not incumber or they would be in violation the minute that it is signed.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The minute it is signed it becomes effective. So if it is not signed means they can keep spending until that law becomes effective.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: So you're saying that they can keep spending until it's signed but from the time it's signed, let's say, that it's signed in --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: From the time that it's signed forward, they cannot incumber money.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Can't spend anymore, right. So that means if the bill is signed in June, then that means for that remainder of June, July and August, they cannot spend money.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does that mean from June and July --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: It says here for the fiscal year ending August 31. It takes the review authority.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It takes, as you know --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But UB authority is determined as of the end of the fiscal year.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And that's where we are.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Not when it's signed. That's my concern is you're -- if the date it becomes effective under what you have said, then they would not be allowed to incumber any funds going forward from that date.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: From that date. And it moves those funds for some other purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I agree.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Because those agencies, they have other opportunities, they have other funds of their own. Right?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But what you're essentially doing is taking away authority from that agency to make a decision after the day this bill goes into effect. For that reason I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Question for Mr. Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, if you're going to have questions you need to get lined up at the mic. We don't want to delay this thing. When they've left the podium, they've left. You understand?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Representative Otto, at the end of each biennium, I incur a little money out of my House account for the next biennium. When this amendment addresses the encumbrance of funds, I'm assuming that it's only referring to the ability to roll money forward into the next biennium, not to extend funds in the current biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's not what it says.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Why do you say that? Encumber is different than expend.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct. And it says that it may not incumber the respective and unexpended balances on or after March 1st. So if I'm going to take Representative Gallego's argument that it doesn't go into effect until the day it's signed. Okay? I'm not an attorney, that's the truth, then you still are prohibiting them from incumbering money to pay their utilities, to pay their operating expenses, those are encumbrances. Those are --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: But those are expenditures. Encumbrance here is going into the next biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Encumbrances are any bill, once a bill is presented, it becomes an encumbrance on your budget. Once you pay the bill you get rid of that encumbrance and it's an expenditure. You are prohibiting these agencies from having any -- basically any budget from the time this becomes effective.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I'm going to try to get clarification. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Reynolds to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Members, President Douglas said it the best. The power can see nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. On behalf of my constituents and the millions and Texans across this state, I demand that we make education a priority. Now, you can vote to table this amendment if you choose to, but what are you telling these Texas families about your support for public education? I say you vote no to table. Let's have enough of their vote. Let's stop hiding. Let's not make this a partisan issue. Let's make --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: -- public education a priority.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Reynolds, would you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Reynolds, in bringing this amendment, you have heard of the technical discussion but you're taking this discussion to another level in my opinion. Is it not correct what you're bringing before this body and as we've had over the last couple of days and as Mr. Otto mentioned -- I forgot if it's Otto or Orr, what you're doing is make education a priority. Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That is absolutely correct.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And you have earned yours, by Mr. Christian, he said we are going to make a lot of bad decisions. Is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That's right. I heard those words come out of his mouth.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And what you're trying to say today, let's not make a bad decision, let's make a good decision.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Let's do what's in the best interest of all Texans. Public education is, I think, an issue that we can all agree that, regardless of our party, that we have to invest in our future. Our future, the state depends on it. If we want to compete in a global economy for jobs, then we have to have an educated work force. We can't do that without public education. Sure, there are many members including myself that can put their kids in private schools but what about the least and the last and the lost? It's our responsibility to make public education a priority and that's what this bill -- that's what this amendment seeks to do.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And lastly, as a distinct manner, I would say by voting with you on this amendment, what we're saying is we're making education a priority and making a good decision today.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely. That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Giddings, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Will you yield, Mr. Reynolds?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Representative Reynolds, is Texas' position where you would like it to be educationally? You talked about the rankings educationally of the states and you said Texas was where out of?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: We are 44 out of 50 and I think if we pass HB1, we'll become No. 50. Maybe that's where we're striving to become. The last. That's not the great state I know in Texas. We want to be number one, the Lone Star State. But this is totally unacceptable.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: We're not talking about just today, are we?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: No, we're not.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: We're talking about the prosperity of our state for the future. Would you agree?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely. Yes, that's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And we're not just talking about competing with California and Florida educationally, are we?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: No, we're not.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: We're living in more of a global society today?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: That's absolutely correct.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And our students are to be compared -- prepared to compete with students in other countries.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And this bill, with how it's written -- with House Bill 1 as it is written, are we going to be better or worse off?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. It is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Members, in closing, I do not want you to hide behind a motion to table. Vote no on the motion to table and vote this bill up.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Otto puts up -- Mr. Reynolds puts up an amendment, Mr. Otto moves to table. A record vote is requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Members, show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Mr. Branch voting aye, Mr. Reynolds voting no. Have all members voted? Being 97 ayes, 49 nays, two present, not voting, the motion to table passes. Members, we're going back to the Simpson amendment. Mr. Simpson. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members I'd like to add an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, this is pretty much what I just presented. Nothing has really changed at all. This is a very simple amendment. It's the right thing today. We're taking about $3.5 million from the Commission of the Arts and we're moving it to DADS, Department of Aging and Disability Services, community based alternative. I have nothing against the promotion of the arts but I think Austin is doing very well on its own, it's the music capital of the world and this is the right thing to do and that we put the weak among us, those who are dependent first and I ask that you would support this. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment to the amendment. Chair hears none, so adopted. We're now on the Simpson amendment. Mr. Simpson, explain your amendment now. That last one was the amendment to the amendment. Explain it again.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These are tough economic times and over the last 50 years or so, a lot of people have become dependent upon our government and I'd like for you to support this amendment moving funds from the Commission of the Arts to DADS. I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none -- excuse me, there is objection. Is anyone wishing to speak for or against the amendment? A record vote has been requested. Excuse me. Ms. Howard wishes to speak against the amendment. Chair recognizes Ms. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm a little nervous about this. I'm not very comfortable with what we're doing right now so I feel like I should just go ahead and say something. I'm a mom, I feel like I am being put in the position of making Sophie's choice and I feel like I'll be doing that all day here. I am very uncomfortable with what we're doing here. The fact is that these are false choices we're being asked to make. We have had a process that has not allowed us to look at what the real issues are here. The big picture of our budget. What we're really going to be doing here to make sure that we have the basic services that we need in Texas to make sure that Texas continues to move forward. I know we're all heartsick about the choices we're having to make here, and the fact is we know we've got to find a way to invest in public education and higher education and health and human services. That is the only way our state is going to continue to thrive. So I am going to be voting against this, and I'm going to be voting against a lot of these amendments because they are false choices. Robbing Peter to pay Paul and I'm not going to do that and I am going to be voting against House Bill 1 because we have no options here to find the resources that we need to sustain our state. So I am speaking in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Pitts, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: She will.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Thank you, Donna. And thank you for bringing this up. You know, Donna, do you realize that the appropriations committee met over 200 hours on this bill?

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And do you know that the recommendation that the appropriations has come up with as far as the arts commission, we cut their funding from $12 million to $2 million?

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, I know.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And we cut their funding so we could get federal dollars. Our taxpayer dollars to go to Washington, and we kept those dollars in there so we could get that federal fund.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I understand that, and I think that's appropriate.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And if we cut this agency any more, it will lose those dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I understand that.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: And we cut them up as much as we can. Thank you, Donna.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Chairman Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to speak for the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker and members, here's the issue for me and Ms. Howard calls it a false choice and truly there's some difficult choices in this bill but I believe in consistency. Yesterday if you asked Mr. Pitts or Mr. Hochberg or any of the members who do public Ed, one of the things that they will tell you about this bill is that we cut grants for prekindergarten programs, we cut preK. Mr. Berman from the back mic says this money funds symphonies, that is true. This money funds art programs, that is true. But we didn't fund preK. We didn't fund preK. Truly, can we afford in this budget to make decisions like this? Where we choose to save one program at the expense of something that is completely totally thoroughly critical. I understand the issue of arts funding. I represent a district that receives a lot of grants from the Commission of the Arts. I understand the importance of that. My argument here is let's be consistent. If we're not going to fund grants for preK and we're not going to take care of the youngest kids, then let's at least do what Mr. Simpson does and help the elderly. Let's do some things that make sense. Can you imagine that advertisement, that mail piece that says he voted against the preK program but oh, he helped the symphony. He voted against the elderly but oh, wait they saved the symphony. I understand. I understand the desire, but let's do this.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas to speak against the amendment. Mr. Simpson to speak for the amendment or -- Mr. Simpson to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the right thing --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Will you yield, Mr. Simpson?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Representative Simpson. I understand your amendment does not bother any of the dedicated funds; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's correct. That's been the case both times I've been up here.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Initially we thought it was to take all the of the funds, including those that are dedicated to this agency, but it does not do that, right?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It does not use anything but the general revenue nondedicated funds.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So to the extent -- your amendment, what does it do to the arts commission?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It leaves some operating funds in there. I think it comes from license plates and other things, but it zeros out the general revenue.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Mr. Simpson, I noticed that this is going to move the money to DADS; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: That's correct, community based program --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's a program that many of us really support. So I want to ask you on yesterday when we were trying to move money to DADS, did you support any amendment on yesterday that would allow us to put money, more money into the DADS program? Did you support any of those amendments to provide additional support for this program?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I can't remember all my votes, I did vote once or twice, I believe with you, but I will be voting to move money not only to this but to DADS today.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I

(inaudible) the stand yesterday, we had the issue with DADS, I'm trying to understand what is the difference today with regards to using the Rainy Day fund to add additional money to the DADS program versus destroying another agency to add money to DADS? The money yesterday wouldn't have destroyed an agency that provides valuable -- that's valuable to the state of Texas and now, you're willing to destroy an agency. But yesterday there was money set aside that's not doing anything and you didn't support any of those amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I think the economic stabilization fund shouldn't be used for ongoing expenses except an emergency and this is --

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But you just said the reason of these downturns -- the economic downturn was why we needed to move money into this department over to DADS. So if in fact in these tough economic times that's an emergency. Wouldn't you say?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: These are tough times and this is making the right priority with the next biennium and prioritizing -- making the right priorities.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So as we try to move money into preK and the other kinds of issues, are you going to support those amendments? Or is it only the amendments that will destroy other agencies that you apparently don't support?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I don't believe I'm destroying this agency, just taking the general funds -- there's revenue funds left in the agency and I will be supporting other movements of funds to DADS as well as to community colleges, God willing, later today.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So at the end of today, we need to -- so this amendment to DADS is not your only amendment providing more revenue to people supporting folks out in the community; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: My comment is since you didn't support any of them yesterday, you will be supporting --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members, the objection to the amendment has been withdrawn. The amendment is acceptable to the author, the amendment is adopted. The objection was withdrawn, Ms. Thompson. I apologize, it's my understanding that you did. Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, one little pass, did we -- I was trying to object so we could have a vote on that amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. King, you didn't object the first time. The only objection I have was from Ms. Davis and Ms. Davis withdrew hers.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Right. But the gavel went down, respectfully, so quick I didn't have a chance to yell "object." That was my intention.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That was your intention?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: All right. Chair recognizes -- if -- we're backing up then. Mr. King objects. The Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas to speak against the amendment. Thank you, Mr. King.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I rise to object to the amendment as presented. Yesterday we heard a lot about trying to move money into DADS and into a variety of strategies. There is not one strategy in DADS that I will stand here before you and not support, they're all very, very good programs. It's a very, very large agency as those who have been involved in the budget making process will tell you. And this particular strategy community based service assistance is a great strategy. And, in fact, it does great things to help bring good quality services to those that are in need, those that are disabled and keep them out of the institutionalized settings. I strongly support that. In fact, we support it to the extent of well over $500 million in this budget. Now, that is a haircut to what we had last year. It's a haircut off of last -- off the last biennium. But in that amount of money we served 22,000 people there. We're going to put $3 million into DADS, that is a drop in the bucket. And what we're going to do as a consequence of that is destroy an organization that does have value to the state of Texas. It's not without value. We can sit here and prioritize whether it's more important to put three and a half million dollars into this very, very worthy strategy, we need to put that in there. And so what we need to do, folks, is that we need to -- we need to not support this amendment. We are going to find -- we are going to find additional money to put in community based services out there. I'm absolutely certain that we're going to find that. However, this is not the place and time to take down an entire organization of the arts, which has value out there, and then try to come back and rebuild it in two years. You're not going to be able to do that. You're not going to be able to snap your fingers and make that come back to life. We will find three and a half million dollars. If that is the purpose to have three and a half million dollars -- we'll do that.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Truitt, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Zerwas?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He does Ms. Truitt.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Dr. Zerwas, do you believe this amendment is really about prioritizing budget items or is it setting up a record vote that will be used against members in primary?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, my assessment on this, Representative Truitt, is that, you know, I think all of us in this chamber would recognize that services that help the disabled and the elderly are very, very appropriate.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And I would be very, very adamant about looking for those opportunities as we go down the road. But there have been months and weeks and endless hours putting into looking into this budget to get us where we are today. Such that we can at least maintain some activity in the arts so that we can continue to have that when times get better and we can continue to move forward.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Based upon the extended discussions, I will withdraw that objection. But could I make a parliamentary inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: With regard to fees that are in this bill, is a fee that does not require legislation, does that establish general law within HB1? In other words -- and this came out of a discussion with leg counsel a little bit ago as they were trying to draft an amendment for me. And the question that arose from leg counsel was: Is it, in fact, possible that a fee that directs the establishment and creation of a fee through HB1 as a GAA, general appropriations act, that that is actually the creation of general law?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. King, it would be impossible to answer that question -- in that the specific fee that you're discussing. If you have one of those, bring it forward. We'll be more than happy to look at it.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'll do that, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Craddick has requested a record vote. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. Members, vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting no. Mr. Simpson voting aye. Show Mr. Castro present. Ms. Farrar present. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 67 ayes, 61 nays, 17 present and not voting, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment by Naishtat. This is on page 21 of your packet members. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this amendment would restore cuts to the Department of Aging and Disabilities that are proposed in House Bill 1. Members, these funds are used for nursing home payments, to care for individuals in facilities where they have access to the services without which they cannot live. This amendment uses unexpended balances, funds that were not spent during the current biennium to offset the deep cuts to nursing homes. Our seniors cannot live in fear of losing their homes. Taking care of the frail and elderly must be a priority for the state of Texas. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, this is similar to the amendment that we just voted on a little while back and quite a few times yesterday. It goes back to the same discussion we've already had about the unexpended balances in the current biennium. So for the same reasons that I have discussed before, I move to table because I don't want to prohibit the encumbrance of the money from the time this bill would become effective.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this is about frail and elderly Texans. The base budget would cut 37.1 percent to nursing home funding. It would cut 28.78 percent in 2013. So we're talking about cuts of 37 percent in the next fiscal year and cuts of almost 29 percent in fiscal year 2013. Funding is drawn for this amendment to pay for the needs related to our seniors and frail. The funding has gone from the unexpended balances this biennium from the emergency technology fund, the office of the attorney general, the legislature, the governor's mansion restoration, the court of criminal appeals.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Naishtat, in bringing this amendment forward, I believe you're following a discussion we just previously had. In that discussion, what was presented was we are trying the weak -- we're helping the weak among us that deserve our help; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And one of the biggest debates, the biggest cut, the biggest numbers -- I mean, these are very, very big -- I mean, humongous is nursing home and senior citizens. Is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That's absolutely right.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Now, the reason you bring it up, we're here having a discussion and the folks that are going to be affected by these cuts have come to the Capitol, outside, because they can't be on the floor. So if we're not there outside, if we're not there at the nursing homes, we're not seeing what this amendment talks about. Is that right? We're not seeing it because we can't see it. But it's there; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: It is absolutely there.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And you heard the debate, we're making decisions and depending on how you vote, you make a bad decision or a good decision. And if you look at the previous vote, the closeness, I think some of these members -- the members are trying to see where the debate is going to -- and are you trying to direct the debate in that direction?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: I'm trying to make sure that members know that they have an opportunity to seriously address one of the most pressing problems in this state, and that is how we take care of our frail and elderly Texans who live in nursing homes. This would restore cuts to the Department of Aging and Disabilities.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: One last question, Mr. Naishtat. So with your vote, in voting with you on this amendment, you're helping the folks in the nursing homes, you're helping those who are senior citizens and you're helping the frail; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That's correct. We'll be helping seniors in nursing homes, seniors and people with disabilities who live in the community, we are restoring cuts to the Department of Aging and Disability.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Elliott, I appreciate it. Let me understand with your amendment because Mr. Otto got on there some kind of a mumbled response. I didn't quite get why he was against it particularly, but from what I can tell, all you're asking this body to do is prioritize and try to throw some money at the Department of Aging and Disability Services with unexpended balances from those groups which is the state preservation board, AG's office, the legislature, and comptroller. Whatever those unexpended balances may be. It's the unexpended balances that say we're trying to throw those kinds of money to at least towards these people, this agency to help the neediest of our aging folks back home; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That is absolutely right. We're talking about unexpended balances, which is --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. If that's the case, then it seems to me that you're asking this body to prioritize with some unexpended possible balances that may be left over to the frail, the weak, the aging and an agency that actually helps them; is that right? Is that all you're asking us to do is prioritize from these agencies for them to kick in some money to help these other agencies?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: That's right. And isn't it about time that we set these types of priorities that need to be empowered and able to continue to meaningfully address the needs of our frail and elderly?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Probably every member in this body -- would you not agree, that probably every member in this body who represents their district and probably have people who are in use of and need this agency?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this amendment affects your constituents, probably some of your family members. This affects the constituents in every district because we all have frail and elderly constituents. We have constituents with disabilities, we have Texans who live in community care settings, who reside in nursing homes, who depend on services from DADS to live.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: This agency is what those people rely on. Correct?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: This is the Department of Aging and Disability Services. This is the most important agency in the lives of --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: For those people?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. This is on the motion to table. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Otto voting aye, show Mr. Naishtat voting no, show Mr. Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Show Mr. Orr voting no. Have all voted? Being 91 ayes and 54 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego. The amendment's temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 23 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 24. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman on the floor of the House. Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Members, I make this a motion to be moved to Article 11 to be considered at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so adopted. Amendment on page 26. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Phillips on the floor of the House. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Members, I would move to move this amendment to Article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members this is the amendment on page 24. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will take $2 million out of the unexpended balances in the attorney general's office and take them over to the Veterans Commission. If any of you have been keeping up, the Veterans Commission, there are a lot of headlines. The state Veterans Commission has been facing a budget cut even though they're helping an increasing number of vets who get disability benefits. Cutting 22 of its 100 claims counselors, even though it has a vital role in helping the state's 1.8 million veterans. I have a significant number, as I'm sure many of you do, a significant number of veterans from World War II to Korea to Vietnam. And what this amendment will do is help make sure that each of those vets get the benefits that they're entitled to.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The board indicates this is on page 24. This amendment, I believe, is incorrect. It should say page 22.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Madden. It's the amendment on page 22.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Madden. So whether you're looking at the statesman or the state's telegraph or the chronicle, or any of the others, Texas is home to 1.8 million veterans. Do you realize that's the second highest number of veterans in the nation and claims counselors from the Veterans Commission are incredibly important to make sure veterans don't get denied the benefits they're entitled to? So this amendment, even if you have some as recent as Afghanistan and Iraq, we need to make sure they're getting taken care of and that's what we need to do.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I am happy to yield, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Chairman Gallego, our veterans are, and particularly our injured veterans, are the most particular folks that we do need to take care of in this budget; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And these veterans have fought on our behalf, probably some of your family members -- I know I have many family members that fought and died defending this country. And won't this amendment be vital to many of the veterans that need the services?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Walle, I will tell you that I -- there's an Air Force base in the district that I represent and I have nothing but respect for the veterans. Their sacrifices, their selflessness, what they have given and, in fact, not only theirs but their families. And every little bit of help that we can give them when they have given so much to us, every little bit of help I think is totally, thoroughly and completely worthwhile.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And I don't have a military base in my district but I do have a lot of World War II veterans, I do have Korean War veterans and I do have -- from every war that we fought I have veterans in my district that these services really are needed for them and this amendment would do just that, to help those folks not only in your district, my district, but all over Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Walle, I will tell you that there are thousands of veterans every year who leave the military with back and neck problems or traumatic brain injuries or post traumatic stress disorder, blast injuries from the war. Their injuries run the gamut and really, they're entitled to certain benefits and everything that the state of Texas can do to make sure that we treat our veterans properly and correctly, every single one of those veterans deserves our appreciation and our thanks. And frankly they deserve our vote on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And as a former congressional employee, I worked in the congress office, two members, did a lot of military case work on behalf of those veterans and I was very proud to get some of the needed services that -- or assist those veterans that needed the help and I think your amendment does tremendous work --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I will tell you that it helps all the way around because the Veterans Commission estimates its counselors will help win $2.3 billion, $2.3 billion for veterans this year and that estimates -- that translates into about $63 million in sales tax revenue for Texas, so I think all in all from one side to the other this is a great amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Munoz, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Will the gentleman yield? Chairman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE SERGIO MUNOZ: Chairman Gallego, and just to make sure we understand, this is just to put in more funding to this commission so they can continue to help our veterans and provide an accounting and assistance and assuming on different types of forms, different types of claims and benefits and really just continue to help these people so they can provide the services they need to apply for those benefits and also to contribute to the state?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely, Mr. Munoz. It's a very cumbersome process for a veteran to apply for those benefits. Sometimes those things are 30 plus pages of instructions, and so what we do is essentially we sit down with a veteran and walk them through the process to make sure that they get every last fund that they're entitled to get in health. And, again, we're bracing for an influx of veterans, we're raising for -- and as a result of the current situation in Afghanistan and Iraq, more and more people are leaving the service now. As they leave the service, they're leaving with injuries. It's not the peace plan military that we knew for so many years. We have veterans who need help. Who are coming back injured with different things. As I indicated, post traumatic stress disorder and any number of things. This amendment would help all of those veterans.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I support this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I now yield to a veteran actually, Mr. Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Well, thank you, Representative Gallego. And I am a veteran of Vietnam and I want you to sort of tell the members, the faces that you see on television that are in Iraq and Afghanistan of the wounded or in action when they're in a fire fight, what age do they look like? What age do you think they are? They're in their 40s?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No, there are so many young kids. There are young kids in serving in our military today as I meet some in Laughlin Air Force base, for example, so many of them are, the faces -- and as I get older, the faces look younger and younger every year.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And that's the picture I wanted to paint for the members here. We have a veterans caucus established last session to support our veterans in combat, former veterans that have been in combat. When you get an individual, a young person that goes in the military, a large percentage of them are trained how to use a weapon, they're not trained to use a computer, they're not trained to use special communications. Some of them are, but if you have a squad of infantry, it's probably made up of ten. You probably have one NCO and the rest of them are all E1s or E2s and they've been trained for one purpose and that is to kill you. That's all they know. They've been -- it's been embedded in their mind that when they go into combat, all they see is a target and they've been trained to use a weapon --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Chairman, I request that the gentleman's time be extended.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman requests an extension of time. Is there objection? Time is extended.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you. As I was mentioning, so when they come back, they have minimal skills. They know how to kill and they know how to fire a weapon of some sort, be it a tank or an artillery piece, a sniper weapon, but they don't have the skills they need in order to get into the work force. And if we don't provide that assistance and that guidance for this, Mr. Gallego, Representative Gallego, then they'll be on our rolls in the health and human services area and we'll be paying for them in another way. So the small amount that you're asking for will assist us in keeping them out of other services that we'll have to pay for. Do you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And so I urge the membership of this body, because we always fly the flag and we say the pledge of allegiance, we pledge to help veterans. Well, now's the time to step up to the plate and say we are behind our veterans and it's not all talk. So let's walk the talk now. Thank you, Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Representative Farias. And, Representative Farias, last week I attended a visiting ceremony for a very young man who's commissioned as an officer in the United States Marine Corp from the district and his family and many other parents across the district that I have met, it was a ceremony at UT, the family was from Del Rio, but I will tell you that his family and so many other families that I met, they don't sleep at night. They don't sleep at night because they're worried about their son or daughter who's in Afghanistan or in Iraq or in harm's way. And it seems to me that we owe not only the individual service member but their family, whether they be married with kids or single, whether they be young or old, that we owe them. That we owe them this amendment. We owe them the help that they need to get every bit of benefits. We all know that the federal government has fallen short many times in its responsibilities. These veterans commissioner, these counselors at the Veterans Commission, they work with you, they help you get through the rough day, they help you get through the bureaucracy and they make sure that you get the help that you need. 1.8 million veterans, the second largest number of veterans in the country are here in Texas and I think -- I think that they deserve better from us and this amendment helps restore that funding.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I will leave you with one more statistic. During the -- right now there's an estimate of 300,000 that suffer from PSD and from Iraq and Afghanistan and these wars, there's an estimate it will be around 500,000 more returning military warriors that will suffer from this mental illness. Just -- I don't know if you knew that but 500,000 is a lot.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: That's a lot.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: That's a lot in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: That's a lot of -- thank you, Mr. Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. With this amendment what it does is have the office of the attorney general report on ongoing legal action, and it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Coleman sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 8. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members this is an amendment -- I have an amendment to the amendment, but let me just talk about the amendment as filed so that you know where I'm going with this. And I want to tell you why I filed an amendment to the amendment. This amendment essentially says that we're going to take all of our technology upgrades at various agencies across the board in a very lazy like fashion, this amendment would take about $550 million and put that into our school foundation program. I think we all recognize that the level of cuts to our education system have been pretty extreme. We're not funding textbooks, we're not funding school districts. We said we have to work within existing means. I think that agencies, just like businesses, just like everybody can make technology sacrifices for the better good of children in public schools, the foundation school programs. And so I don't want to do this but this is the only revenue we have to work with and so with that, I talked to people on the floor about it, if they had any concerns about this amendment and two issues came up. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to lay out my amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment to the amendment will satisfy a couple of concerns that I received from the body about this amendment. What we're going to do is we'll restore all the technology upgrades to the office of attorney general for child support enforcement as well as all the money that will go to the -- to our public libraries funds that were established by the Library and Archives Commission under the notion that we need the attorney general's office in child support enforcement mechanism is very important. They do have a big request, about 70 something billion over the biennium, and as well as what role public libraries play with the data they share. And so I restored those funds. But for the rest of it, it still captures any department, any agency, department's technology upgrades. And I just ask you to think about your office for a minute. We're all using last session laptops in our office somewhere, we have gotten some new computers but we also know our old computers work just as good. So we're asking people to just defray those. If we're going to defray textbooks, if we're going to make situations to not fund very big strategies from the department, then let's take a very micro targeted look at an area that I think that if we miss out on this next range of technology upgrades, there's not going to be a lot of loss to our state. And if we're in better times in 2013, we can certainly come back and fund that and we always find ways to make appropriations to the LBB when we're not in session anyway. So it's not going to be completely lost. But it's definitely going to make a valued statement for us in terms of what's more important for our constituents, new computers or new servers or necessary needed instructional material and financing for our public school system. So the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the amendment to the amendment is accepted. We're now on the Martinez Fischer amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, while I'll appreciate what Representative Martinez Fischer is trying to do, the problem is this is not just technology of laptops that's involved in the strategies. For example, in the comptroller's office this floor amendment eliminates the agency's capital budget rider of $10 million and ongoing audit strategies, so a reduction of this magnitude would require the elimination of approximately 194 or 36 percent of the agency's auditors. Each auditor generates an average of 3.3 million per year. So the elimination of 194 auditors would eliminate the audit production by approximately $641 million. So if it were just as simple as saying we're only removing laptop renewals, I probably could accept that, but because it goes further than that -- and I do appreciate the fact that he recognized the importance of the money that was put back in the libraries and in the attorney general's support for the child care, the laptops they have there. I will have to move to table this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I want to thank Chairman Otto for working with me. I think that he understands my logic, and he's actually supportive in some capacity. So what I'd like to do is I'm going to temporarily withdraw this amendment, and I am going to work with him to identify some other strategic areas that we should reserve and see if we can make some necessary technology referrals so we can take this money and put it back in the public school program. I'm hoping we can come back to you with an amendment once I've had a chance to speak with John and other members of the LBB. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I temporarily withdraw the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Guillen. The amendment on page 27 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 28 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 29 is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Ms. Farrar on the floor of the House. Amendment on page 30 is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Villarreal. The amendment on page 31 is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Burnam? Amendment on page 33 is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Gallego? Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is a transparency amendment. I think taxpayers demand to know more and more where their tax dollars are being spent and how much. This amendment will just require the controller of public accounts to prepare and distribute a monthly report comparing the controller's estimates from the 2012 to 2013 BRE, biannual revenue estimate, to the actual figures as the funds are collected. In other words, we don't want to know at the very end that we're short. We want monthly updates, asking to compare the numbers monthly so that we will be able to understand our fiscal situation on a month to month basis. This really allows us to track our economic performances as we y go into the next fiscal year and to increase transparency in the budget process. It's really important to check our progress against our estimates. If you ever have a business plan, those of you who own and operate your own businesses, you always want to know how you're coming in in relation to your proposed budget, in relation to what your plan was. Are you meeting the objectives in your business plan? How close are you to the milestones that you have set for yourself? All of those things, all of those information, that's how we run a business. And the truth is that state government actually, the argument has been made, should be run more like a business. You run a business with actual information, you don't get information on the last day, you don't get information when you show up. You get information regularly throughout the process, and this amendment simply asks the controller to do that for us, to prepare and distribute a monthly report comparing the estimate to the actual figures as those funds are collected.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, the comptroller already does this, so it's acceptable to the author. I don't know how many of you get your monthly fiscal notes, newsletter from her but it shows every revenue by the state by source. So it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Amendment on page eight. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez Fischer. Amendment temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 35 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 36, following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 37 is temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Torres? The amendment on page 39. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment does is shift dollars from the Facilities Commission to the HIV/STD prevention programs in Article II. As you know, we are short $19 million for case load growth under our HIV program and those are life saving medications that keep people alive. And the cases that are expected to come in in the next incoming biennium, it will be 2,000 people that will be turned away from the program, and I know you all know this, but people stay alive because they have the medication and that allows them to live a long life just like if we cured cancer. And now that we have done that, those folks need the medications, those patients need the medications to remain healthy. Just like somebody with diabetes may need insulin to be able to continue to move forward. If we do not fund the program, the local taxpayers will pick up the sick HIV patients who are then hospitalized because they don't have the medications to keep their virus down in their bodies, then they end up in the hospital and cost us even more money than it would cost if we had the medication. The state pays $6500 in medication, it would cost 10,000 for the County, not including the cost of the hospital stay if someone develops full blown AIDS. So the HIV medication program provides over 50 kinds of medication for the treatment of HIV and other opportunistic infections for low income Texans. And there's a due cost up of 16,000 up to 24,000 a year for one individual. And again, we can't leave people without life saving medications who could never afford the costs of those medications and because the budget is $19 million short of funding those medications, then we'll have people whose lives will be affected and they won't be able to live the rest of their lives without those medications.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Will Chairman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chairman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Chairman Coleman, would you consider this a life and death amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, it is a life or death amendment because we know that if someone with the HIV virus develops full blown AIDS, they're not going to be with us very long.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And being in a large urban county, we do have a hospital district and we have some safety nets but this would really -- in your view, would this the really tax our local hospital district at an exorbitant amount?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, it would because the cost of hospitalization for opportunistic infection, it could be an infection of the brain, it could be pneumonia, it could be a combination of an infection of the brain and pneumonia. And generally people stay in the hospital longer and get sicker and that costs a lot of money. Plus as a county we're to provide the medications, it would literally have a negative impact on all counties if they had to do that. It's actually an unfunded mandate.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Could you explain to us mainly on the spread of the HIV infection that could potentially happen if we don't continue to fund these types of programs?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well -- and this is something that people don't know. HIV is a virus that's in your blood. It's an immune deficiency virus. With medication you can actually get to the point where the HIV virus is not detectable any more in that person's body. Now, they're not healed, but that level of virus that can be transmitted to someone else is actually dropped to the point where there's less likely to be -- for someone else to get the HIV virus from a partner and that's what's happening now. It's not a cure, but people are really doing better on them. And this is important. When people are doing better, if they're sick, they go work. And when people go and work, they pay taxes and do productive things. And so this is the reason why this is important. Also, unfortunately today, the growing cases of HIV and AIDS are in women and particularly women of color and that is something that, you know, is very important to deal with because most people don't think of women as the person who has contracted the HIV virus because they don't understand that the same people who are involved in activities are involved in activities with different partners. That's why we need prevention money so that people understand exactly how HIV is transmitted and protect people from getting it. And our young people quite frankly don't understand that this is not -- that -- you know, they don't want this disease.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And the cost of these medications without these cost savings, they wouldn't be able to sustain themselves and be able to work, as you say, without these much needed resources because the cost of these medications are so high.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's right. If somebody is paying $24,000 a year for medications to stay alive, if they didn't have the program, they couldn't afford the medication and they would die.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Be happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Chairman Coleman. It sounds like your amendment is to make sure that we preempt serious condition -- health problems; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So our goal is to save money for the state and our local governments by intervening and providing necessary medication.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so if we accept your amendment we would be, in fact, saving this state millions of dollars in the long-term?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct because these programs also get matched from federal funds. From the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. You have a good amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Members, in 2003, one of the first things that was announced to be cut under a less worse situation, if there is such a word, was the HIV and AIDS funding for medication. At the same time, as much to his credit, President Bush had just done a program to put a hundred million dollars into Africa for AIDS medication since the virus was just rampid. I mean, it was really bad, it is still bad. But if we can go and fund the needs in other countries --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Otto in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I listened to the discussion, while it's a worthy put that Representative Coleman is trying to do, my concern is this. We cut the facilities commission in this budget 44 percent from the current budget. We ought -- and by this amendment we're taking approximately one third of their GR. This facility commission is primarily responsible for paying the utilities and doing the custodial services of our buildings. We will not be able to pay the utilities in this budget for state offices if we move this much money out of the facilities. For that reason, I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to close.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, early this week, the Senate fully funded this item with money that probably doesn't exist because they calculated that we would have a 70/30 match rate on our Medicaid program through the next biennium or at least a year that biennium. We have to make sure that there's real money in this particular strategy to make sure that people who need the drug for their illness, for HIV and AIDS, just like if it was someone who had cancer er and they needed their cancer drug that they don't die, and we would treat people with cancer exactly the same way if they could not afford their medications because those are special medications. So, members, I would ask you to please vote no on the motion to table and let this ride into the appropriations bill to send the signal that we believe that life is important and that the medications to keep people alive are important. So I ask you to vote on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment. Representative Otto motions to table. Vote is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye. Show Representative Coleman voting no. Show Representative Aycock voting aye. Have all voted? Show Mr. Martinez voting no. Being 98 ayes and 47 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, this amendment is in your supplemental packet. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment in HB1 as introduced, the federal surplus property program was being moved from the facilities commission over to the comptroller. This amendment effectively undoes that and leaves it remaining in the facility commission. It's acceptable to the author. It's in the supplemental package. Page 1.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, Mr. Otto sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. We're back in the main packet on page 40. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Good morning, members. I have an amendment to amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, basically what the amendment does, it moves the -- taking the money from the DIS, Department of Information Services versus Facility Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Sheffield amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, what my amendment does it provides the Texas Veterans Commission with $500,000 each year biennium. These moneys will go to the claims and counseling representatives who directly help the disabled veterans for their paperwork required to receive disability benefits through the Department of Veteran Affairs. This appropriation would allow the Veterans Commission to retain ten to 12 representatives who are officed in close proximity to the VA hospitals. Before the veterans meet with the VA, they must first go to claims accounts and representatives to help make their paperwork a little bit more in order. Without these representatives, the Veterans Commission anticipates 27,542 claims will be impacted and this represents a loss of money that veterans' monetary and benefits estimated at $425 million statewide. That is a very conservative estimate and lost sales tax revenue would be about $14.7 million. Simply put, by increasing the Veterans Commission program by 500,000 each year biennium, the state of Texas should be able to see returns about $14.7 million in sales tax.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheffield, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: To the Dean of the House, most certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Sheffield, as I understand your amendment, maybe I misunderstand it, but you're taking a million dollars out of the facilities commission out of their custodian budget; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: No, sir. I think having the amendment to the amendment, the money is coming from the DIS.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: So it's not coming from the custodian? I was just wondering if you were going to pick up all the trash.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: That's why I changed that. I didn't want to pick the trash up.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: With that being said, I would like to move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 43 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 41. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members, I ask that that would be moved to Article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the motion is adopted. Amendment on page 45. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment. The amendments on page 45 and 46 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 48 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 49 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 51. Following amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to temporarily withdraw it. I think there's some technical corrections on it.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 51 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 52 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 53 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 54 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 55. Following amendment. Clerk, read the amendment. Mr. Workman. The amendment on page 55 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 56 is withdrawn. Amendments on page 57 and 58 are withdrawn. The amendments on page 57 and 58 are temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Speaker, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: While we're deciding on what amendments are pulled down. Could I ask Mr. Otto a general question about Article I since we didn't do all the explanations?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Otto. On page 31 of Article I -- and thank you for this, while we're deciding which ones are coming and going there.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Page 31 of HB1?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Yes, sir. Article I, page 31.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: It has to do with the Poison Control Centers. And I've had some questions for you during the process and I want to thank you for working with me. On the number seven rider talks about the American Association of Poison Control Center Accreditation. We want our Poison Control Centers to be accredited, obviously that's why this is in there. It says amounts appropriated above for strategy B11 grant, Poison Control Centers, etc. then right below that -- I'm getting to a question, right below that, contingency for consolidation of Texas Regional Poison Control Centers. Currently it's your knowledge that we have six throughout the state; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't recall off the top of my head, but that number sounds about right.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Okay. Well, this rider talks about consolidating and where consolidating sounds most of the time like you're saving money and it talks about consolidating into on and right above it in rider seven it says we need to be accredited. My understanding, unless something has changed, this accreditation can't occur in a state like Texas who only has one center. Was any of that information brought to your committee?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I do not believe it was.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: May understanding --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I do not recall having a conversation about that there was a specific number that had to be in existence in order to get accreditation.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Yes. My understanding is that to be accredited they recommend no less than one center for every 10 million persons. Being 25 million in Texas plus, that would be three and this rider here says reduced to one. I have a little bit of a concern that where in one rider you're wanting us to be accredited and the rider below it you're saying consolidate to one and let the commission, meaning the SESECT, the 911 commission come up with a plan by October of this year, that's pretty aggressive.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'd be happy to check in to and try to find out while we're in the process today, to check into the fact of what you're saying. If that's true, then we need to address this. And, of course, it can be done at conference or -- but certainly there was no intent to put a rider in the bill that would cause us to then not be certified.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: And I just want to get some of this on the record. It's also my understanding that the legislative budget board came up with this as a recommendation. Yet, the six centers that we have in Texas, all have host institutions meaning that the hospital or medical center is offering free space, sometimes parking, sometimes janitorial. And that if we consolidate to one, even though the word sounds correct, this could mean the state of Texas going and buying a facility and having state employees. Because is it also your understanding, as in mine, that these are not state employees at this point, that they work for these host institutions and they receive a grant? So if we consolidate, we are going to be buying state buildings, increasing state employees. And I also heard a report from the commission that this so-called consolidation actually cost the state $2.5 million and does not have any savings. Did any of that information come to the committee?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: None of that information was brought forward to our subcommittee as we went through this article.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you. I just wanted to make sure that was on the record so that when you're talking about this in conference committee, maybe we can have some further discussions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Representative Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Member, this is not a budget, this is requesting permission to enter a bill relating to the Uniform Collaborative Family Law Act so that it would go to Mr. Jackson's committee and we could do it. It came from the Commission of Uniform Laws, which we're a part of as a state, and I'm just asking permission to introduce the bill at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a motion that requires a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 141 ayes, zero nays, motion prevails. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. On page 59.

CLERK: Amendment by Marquez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Marquez.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment requires the 554,564 in each biennium from economic and moving that money from economic development and tourism fund to be used for the purpose of the Wyler Aerial Tramway at Franklin Mountain State Park. This amendment will help keep open an important part of our passive Wyler Aerial Tramway. It directs just a fraction of the economic and development tourism fund to fund the Wyler Tramway. This will continue to promote both economic development and tourism in El Paso. If you've ever been to the top of the Franklin mountains, you're missing a truly amazing sight. You can see three states and two nations at the top of the Wyler Tramway observation deck. It's been scaling the peak since 1916 and is a important part of our tourism in El Paso. The budget of Texas Parks and Wildlife and the Tramway is slated to be closed, but I see the office of economic development and tourism as a great place to take the reigns. This is a tourism spot in El Paso, and the city and county and citizens of El Paso want to see it stay open. Passing this amendment will be a tremendous help for El Paso, and I hope y'all can support this. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hamilton, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Will the young lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: I will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Young lady, will you please tell us why your mountains are better than any of our mountains? And are they manmade or are they real mountains?

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Chairman Hamilton. These are mountains that are located in west Texas. The real west Texas. Not Lubbock, El Paso. And they are not manmade. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, essentially what we have here is a state park that's wanting to basically jump in front of the line. I know as a former subcommittee Chair of Article VI and Texas Parks and Wildlife, there are grants available and everybody should be treated equally in the state when they're applying for grants, so basically for that reason I'm going to have to move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Ms. Marquez to close.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Members, we're just talking money from this fund to do exactly what it's for and that's to promote tourism in Texas. Particularly El Paso. And so I would ask that you vote no on the motion to table. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Marquez sends up an amendment. Representative Otto motions to table. This is on the motion to the table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Otto voting aye, show Representative Marquez voting no. Show Representative Walle voting no. Representative Branch voting aye. Have all voted? Being 98 ayes and 46 nays, motion to table prevails. The amendment, page 60 to 62 have been withdrawn. Amendment 63. Clerk, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 64 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 65. Clerk, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're about to go on amendments by Ms. Farrar, Mr. King, Mr. Guinn. Please be here when your amendment comes up. Chair recognize Representative Farias. Amendment is on Page 65.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members, please excuse me. The legislature needs to show that helping military families and protecting education opportunities are a priority, and this amendment just does just that. Military families sacrifice so much to keep all of our families safe. The least we can do is to show them how much we appreciate their effort by not zeroing out the program. I hope you will vote against the motion to table and help us protect our most important state priorities.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.)

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Will the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I yield.

LADY SPEAKER: Representative Farias, are you aware of what exactly they're doing?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: No, I have not, no.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: And your amendment, would it help the veterans?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Your amendment will help veterans?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, it will. It helps the veterans' children. When they're away at war, their children are allowed to attend a state university while they're active in a combat zone, which would be either Iraq or Afghanistan at this point in time. While they're gone, they're children, if they can satisfy the criterias that outlined, they will be allowed to go to state university with tuition and fees paid by this program and it's been zeroed out, so all the children that are being left behind with their mothers or their fathers will now not be allowed or be helped with some assistance from the estate.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: So we see probably actually some results from the amendment that you're proposing?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Of course. These children that are -- that were provided that assistance the past biennium, that we just went through, have used that program are now going to be told, Well, next semester, your mother or your father are going to have to pay for it because your mother or father are away dodging bullets.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Sure. And I think in the end in a few years we'll see them actually get out in the workforce and contribute to our economy, which is what our goal is, is to make sure that our revenues are increased for the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Well, we keep saying that want to provide an education for our children so they can go into the workforce and make a decent living and stay off the roles of health and human services.

REPRESENTATIVE MARISA MARQUEZ: Thank you -- thank you, Representative Farias.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: For a question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Representative Farias, I think you have a excellent amendment. My question has to do with as I was reading it, I noticed that you (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Whatever you decide you are basically potentially cutting off other amendments before us utilizing the same funds.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I understand. But again you acknowledge that it would only be a temporary thing.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: And it would only be helping veterans.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Not only be helping veterans, it would only be helping the foundation school program, it would only be helping community primary care centers for two years.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Right. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: So, members, I would tell you I'll leave this to the will of the House. Thank you. I hope I have y'all's support, members.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. Vote aye, vote nay, members. Mr. Farias vote aye. Show Mr. Farias voting aye. Mr. Walle voting aye. Mr. Otto voting aye. Mr. Bonham voted aye. Mr. Pitts voting aye. All -- all members voted? All members voted? 143 ayes, eight nays, two present not voting.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, the amendment on 63 is withdrawn. On Page 64 and 65 is withdrawn. 67 is withdrawn. The amendment on 68 is temporarily withdrawn. We're on Page 69. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Ken met Parker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. King to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE KING: Withdraw the amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The amendment on Page 69 is withdrawn. Members -- okay. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. 69.

CLERK: Amendment by Kenneth Parker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. King to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Withdraw the amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The amendment on page 69 is withdrawn. The amendment on Page 70 is temporarily withdrawn. Page 71 is withdrawn. Page 72 is withdrawn. Page 73 is withdrawn. 74 is withdrawn. I like this.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I wanted to make a quick announcement. My fellow Marines, Representative Ken Sheets, effective today, April 1st, is no longer a captain in the United States Marine Corps, he's been promoted to the rank of major. Congratulations, Major Sheets.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And it's not April's Fools, right? Mr. Farias. Amendment here that speeds things along. We're going back to Page 70, the amendment by Mr. Guillen. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. No other continuing state agency has taken a larger budget reduction than the Texas Historical Commission. This amendment would be to rider 19 that is already in the bill pattern, which supplements the Texas Historical Commission's budget. The amendment would add 2.3 million to the base budget of the Texas Historical Commission from the Texas Preservation Trust Fund, which a bill that was filed by Representative Otto, Chairman Otto, will do and this rider would be a contingent -- the rider that's already in the bill pattern is a contingency rider based on that bill, based on the passage of that bill. My amendment amends his contingency rider. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Otto, it is acceptable to the author. Mr. Guillen sends up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Page 79 and Page 80 have been withdrawn. Members we are leaving Article I, obviously going to Article II.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER:

(Inaudible) to address medication case loads. It simply transfers.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Zedler, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE ZEDLER: Yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Dr. Zedler, your amendment is removing funds from the -- from monies that are intended for the community home health service.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes. From non entitlement areas, like typically one time use programs and they would either be in the inhome family and support.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And yours is the amendment to the amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Right. And what it does is it moves the money to the health and human services, the children and medically needed.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. So it's one -- it's one -- I'll tell you what, I'm going to wait until your amendment to the amendment goes on, assuming that it goes on, and then I'll ask questions on the amendment at the end. I'll hold for now.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm going to wait until we get to the amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Zedler sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gonzalez of El Paso.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: All right. That amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We are back on Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: What this does is it moves the money to Medicaid caseload children and medically needed is this --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Now, are we on the -- I'm assuming we're on the amendment now.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: As amended.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: As amended, yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the reason I raise the concerns to Mr. Zedler, now, I think you're pulling money from a line item that's intended to assist people in staying at home in community based programs to keep them from going to nursing homes. And you're moving money to the nursing homes where there is a -- where there is a big need. And the reason why I'm raising the question is that the strategy from which you are pulling assist people who want to stay at home and families who want to keep their loved ones at home and it provides assistance to them and is cheaper by taking money from that strategy, the ultimate affect -- are you aware that the ultimate effect of your amendment is that you're going to be sending more people to nursing homes, costing more and where there's a significant shortages?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Well, these are one time programs.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: And that's what it's funding currently and we're simply shifting it to something that is an entitlement, right.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is a strategy that is intended to assist people who have the means of wanting -- well, they don't necessarily have all the resources to keep people at home, but it assists them in keeping people out of the nursing homes to the extent they can afford it. It provides them some needed assistance, by pulling money from that strategy. I simply want you to be aware that you may be achieving the opposite effect of what you're trying to do. It's your intention trying to assist the nursing homes, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I join with you in that effort. In order to do that, that requires one $1.2 billion, okay. So we're going to assist people in the nursing homes. At the same time, we want to also keep people, to the extent they don't want to go to the nursing home, they can stay at home or a community center, provide them assistance in order to do that. It is much cheaper, economically better.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I understand. And I think what it boils down to is that we're simply reducing that to put more money into the nursing home area.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And the next effect of your amendment is by doing that, you're going to be sending more people to the -- to the nursing home, assuming they're still open by the time we finish, you're going to be sending more people there. Now, I understand that if HB1 passes, most of the nursing homes are going to be closed, so I got you on that. But then if the nursing homes close, you want to be able to keep them at home and provide some assistance. Are you aware that the money that you're pulling from is the money that people are using in order to avoid having to go to nursing homes to the extent they can stay at home?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I understand.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is a bad deal. I would ask you to reconsider and maybe pull it down temporarily to fully assess it.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I will do that, and let's talk about it.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let's do that. I will join you in the conversation.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn.

(audio troubles.)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- and that we actually vote that down within the bill. We do have savings that are embedded in the bill that will bring us, you know, some expectations that we have. But in terms of backing us into this much of savings and so forth, I think it sets us up for failure in that regard. So, Mr. Speaker, I would move that we table the -- table this particular amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Hobson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Certainly.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He does.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Dr.

(inaudible), thank you for your work on this and we really appreciate it. But are you aware that in my -- in my recollection in history that some of these things, when they can save us $10 million a year, it's bait and switch. For the first year they indeed do save us $10 million, then after that they don't. And that is why I'm doing this, I want to make sure that if we're here to save money, that we really do. And in all my dealings with the privatization of the hospitals, that they have not made money over -- they haven't saved the state money on the long haul and that's why I want the four years in there.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And I think that's -- I think that I understand, certainly I understand the rationale. And in the spirit of what you say, I certainly agree with that. I think that's something we should expect. I just would prefer not to set ourselves up. So from my understanding, you're not opposed to us going down the privatization road, but you're concerned about the sustainable effort in that regard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Could you explain to the membership what at this time it is not a good idea not to be looking at privatizing state hospitals?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Why it would not be a good idea?

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: I think it is a good idea to look at privatizing the hospitals, and I stand in support of that and that is within the bill right now. We have a proposal that two of our state hospitals actually be privatized to see if we can realize some savings in that regard. And we've had some fairly extensive discussions with the agency in this regard, explored what other states have done, and there are some lessons to be learned from other states and some things we perhaps wouldn't want to do. But I think that leaning on the private sector to realize some of the efficiency that they're used to doing in the private sector is one that I think could perhaps realize better care, in fact, for less -- less of a price.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would move to table this particular amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Hopson to close.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you very, very much. This is a very, very important amendment for me for the State of Texas. We've been given the bait and switch so many times when they say, Okay, let's privatize this and we can save us money. What's happened on this one that the state's $10 million a year, but when I look at the private mental hospitals in the State of Texas, they do services for about $600 per day per patient, the State of Texas is doing it for about 400 -- $400 per day and significant savings already. What this bill does is make sure if we do indeed privatize the mental hospital that we make sure the people that we privatize it to have the experience and the ability to do a hospital like the one we're going to privatize, and they give us significant savings, $10 million a year which they claim, up to a four-year period every year. And with that I close.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Hardcastle.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman used for a question or two?

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you. Mr. Hopson, have we not seen evidence at all of our national association meetings of states that not -- just states that have gotten into trouble by privatizing and it ends up costing more than they were spending on their own and they made the transition and it didn't work out?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: That's my understanding.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And have we not seen the evidence that the State of Texas collects money in one pot for dispo payments and other reimbursements from federal government and yet, we take out money out of GR to operate the hospitals and never get to see those comparisons of what money we're bringing in that we would lose if we go to privatization?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: We've seen that again and again.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Hopson. I think you have a great amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: I have a question to ask.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yes, ma'am.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you. Mr. Hopson, Representative, we have been talking about the closure of state mental facilities for years and years, ever since you and I have been here; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: And our discussions -- and you served on appropriations as well in the past. And on the discussions that we have had about closing state hospitals and being able to find all kind of efficiencies within the closures of state hospitals, have you found during your tenure here that there had been (inaudible) in order to save money in closing a state mental hospital?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: The reason why I submitted the rider is they -- the assumption is that it can save $10 million per year per hospital. And if, indeed, it can do that, I don't want us to be to tricked into privatizing and they say there's money the first year and then they come back and in different years and say, Oh, I'm sorry we can't do it for that, we need some more money.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: And, you know, we have people who come to us and give us all kinds of plans, how we can save money and we can increase our budget and we can have all these efficiencies. But every time we deal, if you remember, with the state hospitals, there never is a way when the final analysis that you can save money through privatization. Is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KOLCHORST: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Do you yield, Mr. Hopson?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Just for a clarification, I know this echoes in here, what you're saying is make sure we have real savings if we're going to privatize it.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Your amendment doesn't keep us from privatizing it, it just makes us realize real savings?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Does not keep anybody from privatizing at all. It just assures that we have real savings and that they don't do anything that would take from our disproportionate share of payments that we receive from the federal government.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Representative Hopson, in 2003, there was a movement to privatize what we call state schools back then, and I had a very similar amendment that (inaudible) and I put on, actually on third reading that we received 102 votes, and were able to save that. And it was very similar to yours, just we have to have some savings, some real savings?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Very similar and they have to show the savings.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir. I'm very supportive of your amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Will the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Representative, if I'm looking at it correctly, you're putting an accountability factor in there for these private funding efforts?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: There's an accountability in there, so if we privatize a hospital, they have to show us $10 million worth of savings a year for four years.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Is it not currently the fact that we're short of dollars in the State of Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: I think that's what it's about.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Is not medical care a huge part of the problem we're facing that's increasing the care, cost?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: It costs more every year.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: And this would be an efficient method by which to test outside dollars to assist in this program?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah, we're not doing anything about outside dollars coming in to do it. What we're trying to do is to make sure that, indeed, if we do that, they have -- they have to show us a savings a year.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Raise a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Point of order is well taken. And sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE CHISM: Move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Hopson puts up an amendment. Representative Gonzales moves the table. Question's on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Mr. Hobbs votes no. Mr. Castro votes no, Ms. (inaudible) aye. Mr. (inaudible) aye, Mr. Pitts aye. Mr. Hunter no. All members -- Show Mr. Castro voting no. All members voted? All members voted? There will be 121 nays, 21 ayes. Motion to table fails.

(audio trouble.)

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And you're taking money from that program?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: We're moving it over to the HAL alternatives to abortion side -- it's a strategy D33, I believe it is.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And if I'm -- what is the purpose of (inaudible)?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: It's to provide assistance for families on a temporary basis, is my understanding.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And, evidently, if you're taking money from that program, we have a great reduction of people who need those services, right?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, I think we would have to first understand that a lot of low income families, a lot of the abortions that go on, for example, or a lot of women that wind up with what one might consider problem pregnancies.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Webber, I can't hear you. Mr. Speaker -- Mr. Speaker?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: May I ask the Chair kindly to get order?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, if you have conversations, please take them outside the rail. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you very much. Representative Weber.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Now, you was telling me about -- you were explaining to me about the families that needed temporary assistance.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, ma'am. As I stated to Representative Zedler earlier, this program provides a lot of services and there's a lot of low income families that will actually use these services as well, so we might --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Smith raised the point of order the gentleman's time is expired. The point is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: May I kindly ask that the gentleman's time be extended ed.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. There's a request. Any objection? There is objection. There is objection, Ms. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'd like a vote on it, Mr. Speaker. Even if I lose, I like to get a vote on it because this is a very important amendment when we're taking money from TANF.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, this is a first extension --

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Go ahead, Mr. Speaker, I apologize.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, this is the first extension. Is there objections? Chair hears none.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Mr. Weber?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would you continue to answer the question I was asking when we were interrupted?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I think the question, you have a concern and I applaud you for that, for some of the more needy families. And I think what we're saying here is we're going to move some funds into an area that's just as needy so those same families will receive a lot of benefit from this.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Is this money specifically designated for specific purposes and goals?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm still having trouble hearing you.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Yes, sir, I am too?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'm sorry. Members, please. Thank you. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Weber, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I will yield.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: You're going to be moving, Mr. Weber, about $8 million from one area to another?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And my understanding is that you're taking money from a pot of funds that HHSC currently uses to reduce the rate of unplanned pregnancies for a number of different strategies, and you're taking that money away from that purpose and you're picking one organization or type of organization and one strategy to counsel women who are pregnant already. Isn't that counterproductive? And wouldn't we want our commissioner to make the decision on how best to deploy our limited dollars in order to reduce unplanned pregnancies?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Representative, you raise a number of questions. I'll try to take them in order, if I can. I am moving money. That is a better spent -- the commissioner is better to make

(inaudible). I think that's part of what this body does and will do when we vote on this amendment and, indeed, when we vote on the budget, we'll make those decisions. Some things you may not be aware of. There's been research done and I'm going to cite a couple of articles in the Journal on Prospective Sexual Reproductive Health. The article was entitled "Contraceptive Use Among U.S. Women Having Abortions in 2000 and 2001," and it actually shows that the highest abortion rate is among women actively using contraception and those among the poor and so --

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So you think contraception doesn't work?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I'm sorry?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: You think contraception doesn't work?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Not for those that get pregnant.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Have you ever used contraceptives yourself?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, you know, I don't think I know you well enough to go down this road.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Well, I mean, you're trying to -- you're trying to make a judgment on how to prevent -- how to move dollars that are intended to prevent unplanned pregnancies and you're moving it into a strategy that has absolutely nothing to do with prevention. It's about counseling women who are already pregnant. So isn't it counterproductive? Aren't we trying our best to reduce apportions and we know that the best way to do that is to reduce unplanned pregnancies?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: The study I was fixing to cite you shows that those women who use contraception -- actually in this study in the Prospective Sexual Reproductive Health Journal shows that contraceptive use does not eliminate priceless pregnancies, but actually among those studies they have the higher rate.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And so that study comes out of where?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: It's out of the journal called Prospective Sexual Reproductive Health, and it was published in 2002.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Is it a peer reviewed medical journal? Is that like an AMA journal?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: I would guess it is.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I would suspect it's not. My concern is that -- and I just want to make sure this body knows what it's doing. You're moving money -- you're both taking away the discretion of the commissioner to deploy dollars aimed at reducing unplanned pregnancies and you're moving that money to a strategy that has nothing to do with reducing unplanned pregnancies but rather counseling women after they're pregnant?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, consider this --

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Doesn't that have a fiscal note?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: It does not. Consider this: You have a lot of women that may have more than one unplanned pregnancy, and so if they get counseling and if they get help, if they get education, then perhaps we reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies per family, per woman.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: But these are pregnancy crisis centers, so these are centers that -- whose clients are pregnant women. Are they not?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, these -- the actual entire industry is a lot more than just crisis pregnancy centers. There are other groups that also will use this funding to benefit the poor and those that need the help and the counseling and the assistance.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Villareal.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Parliamentary inquiry?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What is your inquiry?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Has this amendment been scored with a cost figure?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, it has.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And what is that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: According to the legislative budget board, this amendment does not violate the calendar rule and complies with the other rules of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And parliamentary inquiry?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, if we have documentation from our own LBD that shows that programs that prevent unplanned pregnancies save the state money, we just heard from Representative (inaudible) describing one such program saving the state $60 million, and removal money out of that strategy to another strategy, which we know, again, from our own legislative resources that does not save us money, can we not challenge the fiscal note on this?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Villareal, you and Representative Weber are strongly advised to discuss this measure with the LBD, but the LBD right now has forwarded within the rules and regulations we have set up.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Is the LBD still in the back conference room?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, they are. You're welcome to visit with them.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And so I don't want to lose an opportunity to make the judgment, but I think it would be worth having this critical information in this -- in the context of trying to balance our budget whether this amendment has a fiscal note or not. Can we pause?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, right now Mr. Weber has the floor.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Mr. Sp eaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose, Ms. Gonzalez?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Would the gentleman yield for a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Yes, I will.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am, he yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you. Representative, I'm just trying to understand what the purpose of your amendment, moving them from one place to another, can you just elaborate a little bit about what you're trying to do and why?

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Maybe if I give you a background, Representative Alvarado, that will help a little bit.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I don't think we have time for all that, but if you could just explain what your amendment is trying to achieve.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Well, that's the background I was going to give you on what -- what brought this to my attention and what I'm trying to achieve. This amendment increases funds to the ATA, Alternatives to Abortion, you would recognize it by, program by redirecting less than 12 percent of TANF to Title 20 funds from Family Planning Services. And the figures are this, $37,397,704 -- thank you, Jessica, I appreciate is that, but I've already eaten.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Hughes raised the point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point is well taken and sustained. Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Perry.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: On the amendment (inaudible) for fiscal year biennium

(inaudible) intervention services. It's acceptable to the author.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Perry has introduced an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Representative, what does your amendment do?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Moves a million dollars (inaudible) each fiscal year to early childhood intervention.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: To early childhood intervention?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: And what exactly will they be doing in that program?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Early childhood intervention is where from birth to 36 months, (inaudible) And typically families that may have been using the family services learn how to parent better.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Who were using family services to do what? I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Have been using family services to begin with, it's where I kind of work with local school districts to go out and speak to families with disabilities and developmental issues such as (inaudible) autism, those kind of issues, where they work with those family members to kind of get those kids helped.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: And so it will move a million during the biennium for that purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Out of Mr. Weber's amendment. He's giving me a million dollars out of his movement.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALEZ: Okay. Thank you, Representative Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you.

(audio troubles.)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Again, I just wanted to speak on this particular subject. We were talking about funding coming from of the same source out of family planning, B(1)(3), you will remember that very well by the time this day is over, I'm quite certain. The autism program was, in fact, zeroed occurred. Again, after much thought regarding where we could make appropriate cuts, it is unfortunate that we were looking at having to cut the autism program. It is a very worthy service, but I will tell you it is a very expensive service, also, on a per person basis, this is a -- this is something that -- that does cost the state a fair amount of money, I can tell you, I personally have witnessed the effectiveness of it and what it does for these children that find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances and the parents that find themselves in this unfortunate circumstances. So the autism program is a very worthy program, I'm happy to see it receive some funding. But, again, I want the members to be aware that in the family planning service, and I think you have heard it, we have looked at these numbers very closely and, in fact, there are some very cost effective services that are, you know, provided for women that otherwise would not have that opportunity to have those services provided to them. And so members, once again, as you will hear and throughout all the discussion that plays out of these moving funding from this particular strategy to another, I'm going to let it be the will of the House.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Dukes to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I will like today to speak against the Christian amendment, which is moving money from the women's health care programs into a strategy for autism, certainly we sympathize with autism, having served on the subcommittee appropriations, Title 20 program were able to receive services. 19,327 under the title T and 40,623 under Title 5 and 120,215 under the Title 19 program, all were receiving women's services. And as a result, we saw that we had a tremendous, tremendous cost savings to the state in diverting from Medicaid related births.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ms. Dukes, will you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, I will.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thanks, Representative Dukes. I think you're making a point that Representative (inaudible) alluded to a minute ago that this program does much more than just contraception, but let's talk about the savings that the LBB has specifically identified from the contraceptive services. A lot of programs are brought to us, aren't they, that say if you invest X, we will save you Y. But really, when we take those claims, do we have a documented study by LBB that says you actually got your money back, your tax dollars invested in this program in the form of savings from Medicaid pregnancies? Do you know what percentage of births in this state today are Medicaid funded births?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: A very high percentage.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Over 50 percent. And do you know what the cost per birth is? It's around $10,000 to the taxpayers each time. Do you know why the women's held program is so aggressively leveraged by the federal government, why the federal government matches what we do in the women's health program?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Because it's been one of the most successful programs to exist. And as a result, our program, our waiver program, was written into the base bill of -- by the LBB, with its cost savings, so moving the money from the strategy --

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Costs the bill, doesn't it?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Costs the bill. It's not just technical costs but it is an actual cost. Because we're now pushing these women over into another program that is not as cost effective and it was not a part of the dynamic model for the development of this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: That's right. I'll bet you if this had to go through LBB for a thorough fiscal note, this would make the bill more extensive because they said that we saved $21 million in the last biennium, we netted $21 million from the money we invested in this program by averting those Medicaid pregnancies. And that's just the state appropriations that we said. Those Medicaid pregnancies are mostly federally funded, which is why the federal government gives us $9 for every dollar we spend promoting participation in this program, because when we avert those Medicaid pregnancies, we save state general revenue and we save federal funds as well; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is true. And what we did find from the women's health program was in 2007 alone we had a $16.2 million savings having had that program in place. In 2008 we had a $21 million savings from having the program in place and offsetting

(inaudible). Just alone written with the program in place, the cost of the infant births and pregnancy was $2.7 billion to the State of Texas. Imagine what it will be now that cost savings programs --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative

(inaudible) raised a point of order on the time. The time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Oliveira to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker and members, I have patiently listened all day and not got involved in the debate yesterday nor today, but I am compelled to address this august body and to highlight for a moment what our debate is now. We're debating about autistic children and their needs and those families to do the very best they can to raise that child. And on the other side of that, we're debating about the poorest of the poor. When we've got $6 billion in the bank, $6 billion in the bank, I don't understand how long we're going to continue this charade. And that's why I'm only speaking on this amendment. But it is a charade. Our Texans out there, our fellow Texans, the poor, the middle class, the sick, the elderly, the disabled, our school children, they all need us to stand up today. And I was going to wait to speak at the end of the bill, which may be at 4:00 or 5:00 tomorrow morning, but I can't -- I can't anymore. I've been here 26 years and dealt with severe budget crises. I've been here a long time and watched a long of things happen. And today, I think is defining moment for a lot of us in this room. Today we're going to have to decide at some point if we're going to continue this charade, at the end of the day, I know I have to vote against this bill. Some of you are going to think -- some of you really going to think well, this is just part of the process, I can vote no today and get away with it. Friends, perhaps some of you in your district can. I know I cannot. I can't face my citizens. I can't face these autistic children and the poorest of the poor and the women that need our help. I can't do that. So I ask you today, speaking on this amendment, as we go forward, and as we play our political games here on both parties that we start getting realistic about this and start honoring what our fellow Texans want and need. And what they want and need, respectfully, is for us to be as responsible as we can, not just for the taxpayers' dollars but with the basic human needs. You can talk about family values all day long, you can talk about unfunded mandates all day long, this is the biggest unfunded mandate bill we're going to see this session. You can talk about all those things, but you still got to recognize what we're doing here today. And I am implore you-all, as we go through these amendments and as you're thinking about it, think about facing your folks back home. I know some of you would like to cut even more. It's your prerogative, your philosophy, your belief. I will respect that. But I can't stand idle any more and just sit and watch when we're now talking about the poorest of the poor and the most needy and autistic children. Our Texans need us. Our Texans need us.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Anyone here present to speak on, for or against the amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Chairman, may I move Representative Oliveira

(inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Any objection? You've heard the motion. Any objection? Chair hears none. Mr. Christian, Mr. Christian to close.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I share with Mr. Oliveira's emotions. We don't choose between good and bad, we're choosing between necessary and necessary. But I bring to you a part that's been totally zeroed out. I have a nephew rare to anybody in this room that doesn't have an autistic family member at this time. Wish I had the answer to it, wish I knew what was best for my nephew. It's sad to see him stay a youngster for years and years and the parents are now divorced, destroyed the family, the story goes on, but that's something I believe we in the bad, the bad decisions we've got to make today, when we have nothing to nothing to work with, I think we don't need to add autistic families to this day. So I move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Christian sends up the amendment. The question is on the adoption of the amendment. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Mr. (inaudible) is voting aye. Dr. Shelton voting aye. Mr. (inaudible) voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 106 ayes, 34 nays, the amendment is adopted.

(audio trouble.)

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- heard the motion. Any objection? Hearing none. Question occurs on the adoption of the Bowman amendment. Question is on the adoption of the Bowman amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Mr. Bowman voting aye; Mr. (inaudible) present not voting. Mr. Pitts, aye. Ms.

(inaudible). Mr. Workman voting aye. All members voted. All members voted. There being (inaudible) ayes, six nays, 44 present not voting, motion carries. Amendment clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Murphy.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Murphy.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment moves $146,546 to EMS and trauma care, which is strategy B31 from family planning which is strategy B(1)(3). After this amendment family planning will still receive $166 million in this budget. This budget, members, cuts family planning 5 percent but cuts EMS and trauma care funding 20 percent from the last biennium. EMS to trauma care funding benefits all parts of Texas and all Texans. Move adoption.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible) to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry I was at my desk. I wanted to ask the gentleman a question.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Murphy yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Murphy. I just have a question. Don't we have and unspent balance in the trauma fund?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I think that's a part of the appropriation process, and we're trying to fix that here.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: But you're not -- I mean, isn't this trauma (inaudible) where we collect money for a stated purpose, in this case to fund ER rooms and trauma centers throughout the state, as you so eloquently put, we tell Texans give us this money, this is the purpose, and then we use it for something else. And we (inaudible) or we don't use it at all, we build up a fund?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: It's my hope, Mike, that money would be moved into trauma care and this funding would do just that, help people across the state with their health care issues.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So just to make sure I understand what we're doing, with your amendment, effectively, when we pass a budget that continues to collect the worst tax ever, which is a tax that we tell Texans that we're going to use the money for one thing and spend it on another, we continue to do that. And now with your amendment, we take funds from a program that prevents abortion by preventing unplanned pregnancies and move it into ER rooms, how do we understand how that makes sense?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: That's a good question, Mike. I appreciate you asking it. What we're trying to do here is to move money into the trauma fund. The money doesn't come just from, I think you refer to the red light cameras, Mike, with the tax.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: No, in 2003, when we had a revenue shortfall of around $10 billion, Representative (inaudible), I believe at that time, brought a bill to this chamber that enhanced the traffic fines for individuals who are speeding recklessly and have the habit of doing it more than once, and so we heightened the penalty on them, we collected the funding. And the rationale at that time was for these folks who are very dangerous on our highways, they often cause accidents, are in accidents themselves and show up in our ER rooms for care. And so we're going to increase a penalty on them, it will be like a heightened fee and it will go to support our ER rooms. Well, we did that with that rationale, and at the same time, we cut public funding to ER rooms to make up -- you know, to make up the difference. Later to learn that we did not end up fully allocating out the trauma funds to our trauma centers. And so today, we have a very large billion of unused trauma funds. So you're not doing anything about that, what you're doing is you're creating a program that prevents abortion by preventing unplanned pregnancies and -- and funding trauma centers?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: What I'm trying to do, Mike, is to correct the imbalance between the two function of you've got one budget that was that cut 5 percent, one budget that was cut 20 percent, trying to move money over to a fund I think benefits more Texans, certainly has less controversy associated with it, and I think by doing that, this is not a tax bill, those funds are coming in and we're hoping to appropriate them.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Representative Murphy, I want you know I think you're one of the brightest members, and I really enjoy working with you and you and I sit next to each other in ways and means, and I consider you a great partner on that committee. And so take no offense, but I think this is an example of a short sighted proposal because the reason why we probably protected that program to prevent unplanned pregnancies is because it saves us money, it's actually a cost saver and we know that because the LBB tells us.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Mike, let me say, I don't disagree that the program that we're withdrawing money from has merit. I want to be real clear about that. That is a good program and has value, but I think --

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Do you recognize that it saves money?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Let me tell you why trauma care, I think, saves us more money. And that is to say when you have a traumatic injury and you treat it sooner, you're actually savings lives, you're minimizing the cost to the state, significant cost savings in trauma care as well. So it's not a question of a really bad program versus a really good program, you've got two good programs. One which took a really big haircut and one which did not, until now has $166 million after that amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So if your intent is really to save us money, would you be willing to go down to the LBB and find out from them which one saves us more money?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Mike, I'd be very interested in doing that.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: All right. Let's -- Mr. Speaker, if we could put on hold this amendment while Representative Murphy and I go down to the LBB?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I'm sensing it's an improper sentiment right now, but I am interested, Mike, and we can sure do that. I don't know that they're prepared to tell us today. I think they're just trying to tally things up, but I think that's a worthwhile endeavor.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: The LBB is right in the back room so all you have to do is make about three or four steps and go right back there.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Ruth. I don't think they're really ready for that. I think they require a little more thought than the adding machine is doing right now.

MR. SPEAKER: Dr. Zerwas to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Once again, you know, the subcommittee did their best to try to determine whether the allocations that were made in Article II were fair and were balanced. Certainly there's has been the opportunity to give it greater scrutiny. We realize the best of the trauma fund. I share some of the frustration around the trauma fund in that we generate this revenue for the purpose of distributing it out and it doesn't get distributed out. So absolutely I struggle with that. There are other opportunities for us to do more in trauma care. Members, there's opportunities for us to do more in everything that we have out here today, and we're really getting deep in the weeds on it today. And that's what it's for, that's what this process is for to look at things that we can do with the amount of revenue that we've been allocated. And so I simply speak on it to give you some background as to what the subcommittee worked on and how ultimately the appropriations committee came to the conclusions to present you with the recommendations in Article II.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Chairman Zerwas, I think Chairman Pitts said this morning we spent 59 days discussing the budget and going through these amendments and going through the cuts and you and I along with others had subcommittee hearings where we heard passions plea from parents of children that are disabled, disabled people, all kind of people about these cuts, right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Would you tell the -- and I don't know how many -- I know that we had several hundred people sign up against the cuts and against what it was going to do to the programs and to their children or to the loved ones, right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Would you just -- I was going to ask you this earlier, but would you tell the body how many human beings signed up or testified in favor of a single cut in health and human services, how many human beings actually came to our committee, swore under oath they supported a particular cut in Article II, health and human services?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I'm not aware of any individual that testified before the subcommittee on Article II, in favor of the cuts.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Or even signed a witness affirmation?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: That would be correct, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So all these people that advocate cuts to one of these programs, the fact is not a sick human being came and testified under oath and showed their face in favor of any of these cuts; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: That would be correct. I think the subcommittee and probably members outside the subcommittee saw the face of what these services are and I think it gave us all a real sense of how valuable the services are that the State of Texas poise for individuals that have fallen upon hard times or had disabilities or have become elderly and even to some extent orphaned out there. And so Texas should be proud of the services that they provided to individuals, absolutely they should. You know, at a time where we haven't been able to do as much as we have in the past, but certainly all of us should be proud of what the State of Texas does and steps up and does on behalf of those individuals that are -- that are less fortunate. And so, Mr. Speaker, I would simply speak on this amendment and I would move that this be voted on up or down like we have the others.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Excuse Representative Hunter, Branch, because of committee business by a motion of Representative Raymond. Please excuse Madden, Solomons, Aycock because of redistricting meeting by motion of Ms. Riddle. Please excuse Mr. Gerren because of redistricting on motion of Representative Patrick. Motions, any objections? Chair hears none. Chair recognize Representative Dukes to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to make sure that you hear in this body, know truthfully what these funds are used for. Many of you -- many -- not many of you, but many, think that you're casting the vote because you were funding a program that you think is providing abortion or when actuality, this program, this strategy with all the monies that have been moved from it, actually funds so many other very important things. Over 190,799 clients have been served by these funds. They are providers, not only of family planning, but they're private physicians, they're FQACs that are located in your district, they're advanced practice nurses and they're ambulatory surgery centers. And (inaudible) that are throughout the state, (inaudible) College of Medicine, King Clinic will be (inaudible). It serves 8,096 clients, the Coalition of Health Services will be defunded serving 2,137 clients. The Collings Family Planning Clinic will be defunded. The Community Action of Hays, Caldwell and Blanco County will be defunded. Quail Community Hospital, defunded. (Inaudible) -- if somebody can help me out with that, but it's going to be defunded. Family Health Care and Family Planning of the Coastal Bends, defunded. Hill Country Community Action Association, Hill Country Memorial Hospital, Laredo Family Planning Services, Midway Family Planning, Wilson Family Planning, People's Community Clinic, South Wayne's Community Action Association, South Texas Family Planning and Health Corporation, South Texas Family Planning and Cancer Screening, Texas Panhandle, Family Planning and Health Centers, Andrews County Health Department, Baylor County Hospital District, Bear County Public Health District, Bexar County Hospital Direct, Cameron County Department of Health, Cherokee County Health Department. City of Abilene, City of El Paso, City of Houston Health and Human Services, City of Laredo Health Department, Corpus Christi, (inaudible) County Public Health District, Dallas County Hospital at Parkland, Fisher County, Grayson County, Harris County, Hildalgo County Health Department, Jasper and Newton County Public Health. Each of these votes have been to defund those programs as well as

(inaudible) County, South Plains Health District, Sweetwater Nowlin County Health Department. Texarkana, Buoy County Family Health Center, Texas Tech University, University of Texas at Galveston, Titus County Health District, University Medical Center of El Paso, Asian American Health Coalition of Greater Houston, Atacosa Health Center, Brass Valley Community Action Agency, Brownsville Community Health Center, the Central Texas Community Health Center, Central (inaudible) Familia Health Center. The Community Health Centers in Lubbock, South Central Texas, Northeast Texas, the Community Health Development Incorporated, East Texas Community Health Centers, Fort Bend --

(Inaudible).

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: -- ready, I'd like to ask her a question.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Are you ready?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Lone Star Project, Midland, Project Vida, all will be defunded. And, yes, Mr. Speaker, I will yield because I think that everyone knows now they have defunded every single family, women's health program throughout the state, which are in all of your districts, not just about abortion services, about ensuring your women in your district are now not going to be able to protect breast cancer or cervical cancer or STDs. That's you what you did by these series of votes.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Mr. Sp eaker, does the young lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: You know, when the women's health services waiver was passed and money was put in to make sure that women got the screenings as well as the use of these dollars for basic preventive health and information to families so that they could maintaining themselves, that was a really big victory, wasn't it?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, it was.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And on the women's health services waiver, which had been passed and vetoed before, language was put in that people really didn't care for; wasn't that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is true. As a matter of fact, we ensured that none of the monies could be used for abortion.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct. And the people said getting the screenings to the women who come in to make sure they don't get breast cancer and cervical cancer, ovarian cancer, any other type of treatment that they need since these are serious deals, right?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Wellness care at the front end instead of the acute care at the back end.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, I don't -- you know, this isn't seen a Hopson's choice. This is, you know, a Solomon's choice. And you know, Solomons laid it out really well. You know, if you want to lose your baby, (inaudible). But on this, I think the arguments from the back were very clear, this amendment doesn't even deserve my vote one way or another, so I just want you to know that I'm going to vote present and not voting because this particular situation is one that doesn't deserve my vote either way.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: You're correct. It doesn't deserve any of our votes. That's why not only is it a bad one, none of them should have occurred, but no longer should we subject ourselves and our constituencies to think that we think otherwise on the importance of their concerns. Therefore, we should all be PMVs.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And I'll tell you, Representative, I remember in 2001 when we were trying to fund nursing homes and make sure children got health insurance in the Medicaid program, it was still very clearly you can only do one or the other but you can't do both.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is true.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: And put grandmas against babies and that is not right. Representative Turner, Representative Giddings, people laid this out, they are right. This is not a choice, and this choice does not deserve a vote either for or against. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: That is true.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Thank you, Chairman, members. I'll be really quick. Basically this vote is a vote that supports the worst kind of taxes, taxes that lie about their purpose, they pay for nothing. This amendment allows us to continue protecting the designated trauma facility and EMS funds that currently sit in an account untouched to the tune of $331 million. So Mr. Murphy -- and I agree with him on this, our trauma centers need to be funded, our EMS centers need to be funded, he's moving 71 -- $72,000 from a really critical program to our trauma centers when we have $331 million being held back from our EMS trauma centers in a state account so that it looks like we have enough money to balance our budget.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I actually won't be able to take any questions because I have to run and go to a committee vote on redistricting. But I just wanted to give you this last point. It's not just the designated trauma facility and EMS funds where we're playing this sort of shell game, we actually have $4 billion, $4 billion of fees from hunting license fees to scholarship funds that are meant to go to specific scholarship causes, this trauma center fund, the fugitive apprehension fund, the 911 service fee, the Texas Department of Insurance operating fee, solid waste disposal fees, clean air fees, system benefit fund fees, emission reduction plan fees, on and on an don a total of $4 billion locked up in an account not being released to their intended purposes. That's wrong. This amendment, I think, just perpetuates this scandal. And I ask you to vote against it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Murphy to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNHAM: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNHAM: Thank you, Representative Murphy. Mr. Murphy, over the course of the discussion about this amendment, have you had the opportunity to learn what a scandal it is that because of account purposes we are not moving the trauma funds that are available for their intended purposes?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: There's a lot of money out there, Lon, and I intend to work on that. I think that's a real issue for Texas. We need the money spent on trauma care.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNHAM: So why you bother to rob $71,000 from a totally unfunded program to a program that has immense resources that the state is inappropriately withholding from the public?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Because what we can do today in this budget, through these amendments, is get to those funds, Lon. And it's not a lot of money, I absolutely agree with that, but given the other activities, the other amendments going on, we think that might be the extent to which funds would be available. And so we want to try to do everything we can.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNHAM: Granted, we've already transferred a lot of money from this account inappropriately, but in this instance, I would be embarrassed, if I were you, to be suggesting that we should move that $71,000 to a fund that is not even being appropriately appropriated and once again, we've had the opportunity, because of your amendment, to highlight the hypocrisy of the entire budgetary process in the State of Texas. I appreciate your amendment on that basis, but I'm going to join with my other colleagues voting on these absurd amendments.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: You're welcome to do so, Lon. Every dollar we spend here is a choice. And just to say it's in a good fund and moving to a different fund is a decision made to put it in the fund it started with. And so we have to acknowledge. And, as we heard from Sylvester, take choice of the choices.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: For what purpose, Ms. Howard?

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

MR. SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Absolutely, Donna, go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Jim. I don't want to belabor the point, but it does seem pretty clear right now with the questions I'm hearing about again, is that --

(inaudible) more funds into the trauma account which was definitely underfunded, we know that we have, do we not, a fund that was set aside to bring money to support the trauma fund?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I just

(inaudible) information, absolutely, yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And my understanding is that by the end of 2013 that funding is projected to have $450 million in it. Did you know that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I did not. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And that we're only appropriating about 57 and a half million a year, did you know that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I did not, Donna.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So again, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but I need to understand, I think I hear you say, because this is what we have to deal with so that's how we're doing it?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: It's before us today, and I think this is a good movement of the funds and that's why I suggest that we move -- from a program that's, you know, had a 5 percent cut to one that's had a 20 percent cut within these funds. Notwithstanding maybe other funds available outside of this. I think there was a discussion earlier today about funds outside of the appropriation process.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, I would like to ask if you're going to be willing to help make sure that we address the need for funds here by looking at appropriately using the trauma funds that currently exist to actually fund trauma care?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Donna, I'm glad you asked that. The answer is absolutely. You know, I believe in the trauma care fund. We worked on that four years ago on the red light cameras. We felt we some progress there, didn't make all the progress we'd like to make. So I do believe in that. I used to serve on a hospital board where we meet quarterly and look at our financial statements. And they'd tell us we lost 25 percent of our funding to, you know, uncollectible programs, or uncollectible services rendered. And so these kind of trauma care issues are across the state. And so it helps all of our facilities, but I still would like to have a opportunity to do that with you.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, I'm going to have to vote against this because it's similar to everything else we've been doing today, which is to take from one to pay for something else. Why did you choose this particular fund to take it from?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: And, Donna, that's something, you know, Scott came up -- Scott Harper asked me, why did you choose this fund, was it just random, you just couldn't find another place? I said, no, I actually think the funds which we're drawing the money is far less desirable than the one we're redirecting the money to.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: In what way?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I think it has less controversy and more -- less controversy and broader application across Texas. So that's my judgment Donna, and it may not be yours.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a couple of very quick questions and a solution to the problem?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Does the yes yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I think I better.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If I found you about another $9 million, would you leave this $70,000 alone?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: As my dad used to say, it depends.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Here are the details. I've got a bill that hasn't gotten a hearing yet that takes the other half of the red light camera money, which is about 9 million, takes it to trauma centers. Now, we only need 70,000, according to you, so we'll give the rest to DADS or we've got some money to play with. I think I know how we all feel about red light cameras. You can support me on that bill moving it forward. There's $9 million there that --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: I say more is (inaudible) and I'd be happy to work with you on that.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Jim, when you're talking about 9 million over $70,000, I think that there's a real solution. We heard yesterday from Dr. Zerwas that we would have a plan over the next 60 days and we'd find money and we'd find other bills to find us money. This is a good solution, Jim.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: It sounds like a great solution. I'm sure all the members here would like to know more about your bill and how it works and --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Harper-Browns raised a point of order, times -- member's time is up.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Roland. Mr. Speaker, members, I appreciate your time on this and would ask to be moved for adoption.

MR. SPEAKER: Please excuse Representative Alonzo, Representative (inaudible) for redistricting committee on a motion by Representative Walle. Please executive Representative Veazey, Representative Pickett, Representative Harless because of redistricting committee on the motion of Representative Harris. And excuse Representative Kessler because of redistricting on the motion of Representative Pitts. Members, you've heard the motion. Are there any objection? So ordered. The question occurs on the adoption the Murphy amendment. Members, vote aye or vote no, it's a record vote. Mr. Murphy as aye. Mr. Villareal as no, Mr. (inaudible) as present not voting. Show Mr. Dutton, no. Show Ms. (inaudible) an aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 91 ayes, 20 nays, the motion prevails.

(audio trouble.)

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: We're adding it up as we speak. Give me just a moment. We'll see. (Inaudible). Correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Okay. Representatives Davis, here's what we got is after Representative (inaudible) we end up at about $52 million out of the account.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So we're down below 40 at this point?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And then if Representative Laubenberg's is considered and passed, that's an additional $9 million, resulting in $61 million total that would be moved out. So I'm rounding the numbers obviously, but, you know, out of the $99 million, 61 million would be moved to other strategies.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And so Dr. Zerwas, I'm just wondering from the appropriation standpoint, the appropriation committee has said to us time and time again you-all work very carefully and respectfully admitting to me a need for this state. Tell me, if as a committee member, you think we leave enough money in that strategy to do the business that you are, even with the cuts, admitting you've already cut, do we leave enough money in that strategy to do what we need to do on behalf the Texans for this state? I mean, as a member of the committee, you have to be concerned as we move stuff around. So I'm just wondering, have we left enough money there for it to do what you-all as a committee determine we need it to do based on hearing all the evidence and all of the agencies coming before us?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: It will -- it will serve much --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gerren raises the point of order. Time expired. Point is well taken.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Gerren didn't know they were looking for information so that took five minutes of my time. They were waiting for information.

THE SPEAKER: Five minutes.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Strama to speak against.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Members, I know that a lot of us feel that this is just one of many issues where we're being forced to choose within a zero sum ball game, and it's one of those choices that forces us, figuratively speaking, to choose which child we prefer. But, in fact, Representative Turner, with all due respect to your earlier point on an earlier amendment about that, I think this case is different. All of these amendments that take money away from family planning services are actually different than the other amendments we're dealing with, that just compete two very good programs against each other for funding. And the difference is, this is an expenditure that achieves a net savings to the state within the same biennium, by LBB's own analysis. I truly believe that if these amendments had come before the committee and had to go through the vetting process for their costs to the bill, LBB would have come back and said these amendments cost the bill. And let me share with you some numbers that explain why. First of all, we get a very aggressive federal match for these expenditures. Secondly, when we avert unintended pregnancies, and most of these would be Medicaid pregnancies, we save the state a significant amount of money on those pregnancies. Thirdly, those are children that, as they work through life, are significant cost drivers in the state budget. I had a town hall meeting last night and was asked after laying out a lot of the challenges that we've dealt with here over the past two days, why our revenues aren't growing fast enough to keep up with the things that are driving our expenditures. The obvious and easy answer for most of us is that we've made some tax choices over the past few years that have caused our revenues and our expenditures to get out of balance. But there's another huge driver that we don't talk about as much and that is the extraordinary explosion in the growth of our childhood population. They don't pay taxes. But Texas is wildly out of whack with the rest of the country in an growth of this population, age zero to five. I heard these numbers in a presentation at a conference I attended recently and they literally floored me. In the State of Texas, in the last decade, our zero to five population grew by 388,212 children. Age zero to five. That doesn't mean we have 388,212 children between the answer of zero to five, that means the number of children between the ages zero to five grew by 388,212 during the last decade. By comparison, in the state of New York, the growth in the zero to five population was negative 34,000. In Illinois, it was positive 17,000. Ours was positive 388,000. In California, a state that is nearly -- well, it is a third bigger than us, in California, the growth in the zero to five population was 205,000. We're a third smaller than California, but the growth in our zero to five population was nearly double theirs during the last decade. You want to know why this budget is so hard to balance. Part of it is our tax policy. Part of it is we have explosive growth in the most expensive segments of our society. It is not just going to cost us money in Medicaid pregnancies, it's going to cost us money for the next 20 years. All of the places that all of these amendments would like to move the money to are worthy expenditures. I'm for all of them. I voted against the calendar rule that brought this bill to the floor without having access to other sources of revenues to pay for those amendments. I believe, as do the authors of those amendments, we should fund those programs. But we should not funds them by taking what money from the only thing we can do to keep the explosive growth in the state budget from compounding and snowballing over the next decade. That is the choice before you today. That's why you should vote no on these amendments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Miller to close.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Miller sends up an amendment. Is there objection to adoption of the amendment? A record vote has been requested. The question is on the adoption of the amendment. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Show Susan King voting aye. The Chair voting aye. There being 104 ayes, 37 nays, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment simply shifts funding that's been set aside for the abortion industry, moves to it Department of Aging and Disability Services, increase funding for the strategy Department of Deaf, Blind and Mobile Disabilities. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Zerwas. Mr. Zerwas to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Members, once again, we're (inaudible) worth cause, blind, deaf, multiple disabilities. These are individuals who have a great dependency on the state, they introduced the bill, does decrease that amount. This amount being proposed is not to increase it or fully restore it by any means, but certainly there will be more of these unfortunate individuals served by this. And once again, it's a part of the budget that the subcommittee looked over very closely and we certainly yield for the will the body on this in terms of any kind of changes that need to be made. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I leave it to the will of the House on this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Zedler to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. This is a vote on the amendment. Members, vote aye or vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. This is a vote on the amendment. Shows Mr. Branch voting aye, please. Have all members voted? Be 101 ayes, 38 nays, 6 present note voting. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The amendment is on page 114, members. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. We have a perfecting amendment we'd like to present at this time.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment, there's an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Menendez.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment to the amendment does is just change the source of funds. And the source of funds at this time will be from the other operating expenses of DADS, which is currently a $59 million for the biennium and we're taking $657,000, and so the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this does is funds for the biennium program that was completely zeroed out, which is a community resource (inaudible) for children with severe emotional disturbances and keeps them out juvenile justice system (inaudible) federal grants, and it is acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The amendment on Page 115 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 118 is withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This amendment is on Page 119, members.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, what this does is ask that any information going to health and human services be provided or made public.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the amendment -- yes, ma'am. It's on Page 119, I believe.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Thompson, for what purpose.?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Will Mr. Zedler yield, please.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I yield.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Zedler will yield.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Will you tell me what you're asking for. I'm not familiar with this.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Basically what it does is it information that's already provided to the health and human services and to the legislative budget board and the governor and says it also be available to the public.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: What information?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: The information, the data that they collect.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I didn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: The data that they collect.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: What data?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: The health and human service data that they collect.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: In what areas?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Monthly financial reports.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: In what capacities?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: In what capacities?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Yeah. Are they collecting financial reports on how many people sweep the floor?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: No, I think basically the information that is going to go to those agencies, all it's saying is it needs to be made public.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: What is incorporated in the financial reports is what I'm trying to find out.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Get order in the House?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Beg your pardon?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Get some order in the House, if you can't hear me. Request an order.

THE SPEAKER: We need order in the House, please, members. Ms. Thompson is having trouble. Mr. Zedler, would you speak up a little bit.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Actually Mr. Zedler is having trouble being able to here Ms. Thompson.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Zedler's having trouble hearing Ms. Thompson.

THE SPEAKER: Don't worry, you'll be able to hear her here in a little bit. You don't want that.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I don't want to stimulate. Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Would you tell me what kind of financial information would be included in those reports?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Just any financial information that they're receiving.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Give me some examples.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Pardon?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Give me some examples.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay. Right here, notification of proposal state plan amendments and waivers for material.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Going too fast. You're going too fast. I know you got all the details. Will you just slow it down?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Okay. Are you ready?

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I am.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Notification of proposed state plan amendments and waivers for the material and child health care block grants.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. What are those?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: The special supplemental food program for women, infants and children program and the substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants and any other federal grant requiring estate plans, estate plan amendments and waiver submissions shall also be provided to the self Senate health and human services, House human services, public health -- House public health committees. Report of petition submitted to the federal government requiring the grants and programs noted above and under Section A(1).

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: What is -- okay. Then, so you want to know how many waivers that we're getting or have applied for?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Yes, ma'am. I just believe in transparency.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Are you sure you believe in that?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'm going to come down there.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Move passage, Mr. Speaker, members.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, this next amendment is on Page 120. Chair lays out the following amendment. The clerk will lead the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Hughes.

REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I have a perfecting amendment I'd like to offer.

THE SPEAKER: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Representative Davis raises a point of order pursuant to the rules. Temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is the amendment on Page 122.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King and Parker.

THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Mr. King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, may I lay out the perfecting amendment?

THE SPEAKER: The following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King and Parker.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. King.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, there was some early concern of where this money was going. I met yesterday with Baylor College of Medicine, met with the concerned parties and we are simply inserting a sentence here that says none of the funds allocated to Baylor College of Medicine under this rider shall be used for abortion or abortion related services. It was acceptable to Baylor and everybody else involved and I would move adoption and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment -- Mr. King moves to reconsider the vote on the last amendment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King and Parker.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, I need to -- Mr. Speaker, members, I thought I had fixed the problem that everybody was concerned ed about in the amendment, and there's a drafting error. And so what I'm going to try to do is do a motion to reconsider, get the bill -- the amendment back up before the House for Ms. Davis and other. I then will withdraw -- will postpone the amendment to a time certain and go try to get an amendment drafted that does do what I had originally said it did and see if that's acceptable to everybody.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. King moves that the amendment -- Mr. King moves that the amendment -- that the vote on the amendment to the amendment be reconsidered. Is there objection to that motion? The Chair hears none. Ms. McClendon, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: I have a question of Representative King.

THE SPEAKER: Would you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: I'm trying get an understanding of exactly what your amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Originally there were concerns brought to me that because Baylor College of Medicine had created a program called the Kenneth J. Ryan residency training program and abortion and family planning, that the million dollars that is currently given to the programs was being used for abortion services. We filed amendment in response to that concern that was brought to us. Yesterday, I met with the folks that run the program from Baylor Medical, and I was assured to my satisfaction that that is not the case. And we agreed, then, that they would -- that we would simply basically throw out the old amendment and simply insert language that -- that read that none of the funds, which is just this one million dollars, allocated under this rider would be used for abortion or abortion related services. I spoke with the lady that runs the program and she assured me that none of the funds were currently going to abortion, but because of the definition, to satisfy all the parties we agreed that that sentence could be inserted. That's what I was trying to do, but the amendment to the amendment did not do that.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Okay. Mr. King, you're saying somebody came to you from somewhere and told you that the funds at Baylor were being used for abortion and they had no kind of evidence or proof to show you?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, it wasn't that simple. They came to me with a concern stating there's a million dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: You say somebody, was it an organization?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It was an organization.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And they came to me with a concern and they said that we -- that we're concerned because Baylor has started this program, you can look on line and find it, and we're concerned that this million dollars that we started giving to them, I think, two years ago could be going to fund those abortions. And so I filed an amendment and then as I should have to investigate, we asked Baylor to come in, we met with them, we got some calls, we met with them, we had a very good meeting and we agreed to pull that wording and simply not stop them from getting that funding, not try to take the funding away, but put in a sentence clarifying what they told us, that the funds were not being used for abortion or abortion related services, and that's what I was attempting to do, not take away their money because I'm confident that they're their telling me the truth.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: And so you are saying to me to -- to -- to honor this here that you are satisfied now that they are not using those funds?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Today.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Today.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Now I don't know what will happen two years from now --

THE SPEAKER: Ms. McClendon, Mr. King, there is no amendment to be discussed at this point in time. We have just withdrawn the votes on it, so there's nothing on the table to discuss at this point. His next motion will be to temporarily withdraw. And if you would like to object to that, you can, and then we'll start all over. But right now, he would like to temporarily withdraw and that's the motion the Chair is going to consider and will be up to the House to vote.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: When it comes back, I'll come back.

THE SPEAKER: Thank you ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And then I would temporarily withdraw and I'll certainly meet with Ms. Davis and with everyone before I bring it back up. And if I could withdraw it till say a time certain, maybe 6:00 o'clock.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn to a time certain, 6:00 p.m.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last couple of days, since the filing of these amendments, the parliamentarian's office, along with the various Democratic and Republican members have gone through each of these amendments to determine which are subject to points of order. Is that not correct?

THE SPEAKER: I believe that is correct, Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And the parliamentarian has a list that has been signed by both a Republican member and a Democratic member which would raise automatically the points of order on the amendments?

THE SPEAKER: Not automatically, Mr. Gallego. Someone has to do that. The parliamentary cannot raise a point of order.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: By virtue of a standing signature, which you now have, which would raise the point of order on each, is it necessary to come to the back microphone on each of those amendments or now that you have the standing -- you have a signature --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, you'll either have to go to the back mic or the front to raise a point of order. As I said, the parliamentarian cannot raise the point of order.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So even though you have a letter raising points of order on each amendment essentially --

THE SPEAKER: Someone will have to raise that point of order, Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. That's what I want to know. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Thank you. The amendment on Page 123 is withdrawn. The amendment on Page 124 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment by Chisum. Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you. This -- this amendment just prioritizes the spending in B(1)(3) and it's spelled out there, the three different entities in the spending. And that's what this amendment does, just prioritize the spending of that B(1)(3) money. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Chisum?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHISUM: I yield, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Representative Chisum, what are the priorities that you've spelled out?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: My first private is public clinics where probably most of the money goes because they're pretty vast on doing a lot of women health care issues, they're priority one. The next priority would be nonpublic community health care clinics. So they're, I guess, for higher clinics.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: So you're saying --

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But they're non-public.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Only the public ones?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And then the third would be non-public family planning units that did just family planning, so that's the three priorities.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: And how much money you think is left in that area?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe there's about $61 million left.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: I think they've taken it down, 60 for the -- you think they're about 30, they are lower than that based on what they been spending up there?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, they should be 61, but my good doctor friend here says about 40. So I'm sure there's 20 more out there somewhere. We just -- we just run the tally on it and he says there's about 40 left.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Twenty for each for each year. Is that what you're thinking, Doctor?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I believe it's for each year of the biennium, yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Will you yield, Mr. Chisum?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I will.

THE SPEAKER: He would.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Mr. Chisum, I was just asking you what the intent of this amendment is. Is your intent to increase medical services from a limited family planning to a comprehensive primary and preventive health care?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Yeah, absolutely. These comprehensive care clinics, a lot more of them then there are just family planning clinics in the state. And this wound fund them their 212 FUHCs, 128 public clinics, and then there's -- there's a large amount of physicians that would get some of this money and there's 287 of those across the clinics -- clinics across the state with many physicians in those clinics, WHPs is what they call them.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: So are you basically trying to make sure that when a woman accesses health care, that she has comprehensive health care that can get a mammogram and all that --

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Absolutely. Even to a cholesterol test, that's some of them do that, so it's just a -- those clinics that are better prepared to do more of the work.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Chisum.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Chairman and Speaker, we had the number wrong. It was 56. Amendment No. 56 should have been No. 54. So just to correct that.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. The amendment is now on the table. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, the next amendment is on page 126.

THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon. The amendment's temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're now on page 128. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The community health mental health care is the responsibility that state and local governments share. Local boards are appointed by county governments who oversee the delivery of services to the mentally ill through their work with local mental health authorities designated by the state. At a time when funding is terrible limited, we must move as many non administrative and clinical burdens as possible as relying on local government who exercise their authority to assure their appropriate design and the delivery of services. The state's roll is to establish outcome

(inaudible) that will clarify expectations and then allow local governments through their appointed boards to find the most appropriate means to achieve the intended outcomes (inaudible) of their communities and that is the purpose of this amendment. It's intent of this amendment -- amendment to ensure to the fullest that appointed board for local mental health authorities remain accountable to County commissioners, courts or other supporting agencies and that the department address through appointed boards any significant performance concerns regarding local mental health authorities and the (inaudible) effectiveness of the local control.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will my gentle friend yield for a little clarification?

THE CHAIR: Will the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And my only question -- I think I you heard you answer it but you know how it's rumbling here all day today, but basically this would not change the accountability to the regional (inaudible) or group or whoever they account to as far as day beds, 72 hour beds and all those things that we have in local mental health?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: You're absolutely correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you. I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Is anyone speaking against the amendment? Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The subcommittee actually took up this proposed amendment in their deliberations. We had some concern that it would distance the state from some of the oversight that is in here and delegate that to the more local authorities, and for that reason we were uncomfortable with this -- this amendment. And therefore I would respectfully move to table.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. McClendon to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Our concern has been local control, and as we talk about making sure that the people at home have responsibility and authority for what happens with the constituents at home, what we are trying to do is to make sure local boards are accountable to the commission's court and to those people who have authority over appointing that and that's basically what it does and that's all it does. It's nothing sinister about it. And I ask that you vote against the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Ms. McClendon -- Ms. McClendon sends up an amendment, Dr. Zerwas moves to table. A record vote is requested. A record vote is granted. The vote is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 92 ayes, 50 nays, two present not voting. The motion to table passes. The amendment on page 130 has been withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this amendment is on page 131.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would simply allow us to utilize some funds for the prevention of smoking and tobacco use that would be related to the permanent fund for health and tobacco education and enforcement.

THE CHAIR: Anyone to speak against the amendment? The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 132.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Ms. Davis of Dallas. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 132, members. Excuse me, it's on page 133.

CLERK: Following amendment by John Davis of Harris.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment directs the department state of health service to use up the 8 million of appropriate funds to continue for existing outpatient competency restoration projects. And there's an amendment to my amendment.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by John Davis of Harris.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment to the amendment reduces the amount that we're asking from 16 million to 8 million. So it reduces the amount, and it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Davis to talk on the amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I close. Yeah, we're just transferring -- move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is amended. Is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 134 is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 135. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I have an amendment to the amendment.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Phillips.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment by amendment is conforming and adds some language of the attorney general. The amendment is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. A point of order has been raised. Bring your point of order forward. The amendment and the point of order that be temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 137 has been withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This amendment is on page 138, members.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, the amendment is on page 139.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment to the amendment, and I have a perfecting amendment, and it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Walle.

THE CHAIR: The Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment eliminates the funding -- eliminates the funding for HSC enterprise data prize warehouse -- HSC data prize warehouse. So funding is then moved to the community attended services under the Department of Aging and Disability Services. This community -- these community attendants allow elderly and disabled individuals to live independent lives, attendants provide services like escorts and medical appointments, house work and bathing and feeding. Many Texans who utilize these services would otherwise have to be institutionalized at a great cost to their families and to the state. The $4 million this amendment provides would allow community services to be provided to an additional 5,000 Texans. The data warehouses that cut is essentially a luxury in these times of tough budget decisions. The warehouse data speaks to the aggregate health care data to create more efficiency in HSSC programs. However, we have an opportunity with this amendment to achieve significant cost savings when we can keep Texans out of state sponsored institutions. We do not only save thousands of dollars per patient per year but we also improve the quality of life for aging and disabled citizens and their families. And I move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle lays out an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Move adoption.

THE CHAIR: Is there anyone to speak against the amendment as amended? Chair recognizes Mr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. The community attended services certainly very important service. They do some good things for people that are in need out there. We have in excess or very nearly $6 million in that particular area. The $4 million would essentially eliminate the enterprise warehouse which does continue to be an important function. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I would respectfully move to table this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to close.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, these are much needed services that many of our seniors need, particularly what attended services. I have a grandmother actually that recently had a kidney transplant. There are times when we can't tend to her needs because many of us work and we have to sometimes share the time that we have with our grandmother and attend to her responsibilities. And sometimes I think it's going to come to a point where she's going need attended services (inaudible). She's going need those services when we're not around, when many of us have to work to be able to feed the family, put a roof over her head and my grandparents. So it's important that these services -- we can take some money out of some areas that probably aren't a priority and put them into a program that we really need. Let alone for my grandmother in the future but for all grandmothers and folks across the state that really need these services. With that, I move adoption -- or oppose the motion to table.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Walle sends up an amendment. Dr. Zerwas moves to table. All those in favor -- a record vote's been motioned. Record vote's been granted. Clerk will ring the bell. That's on the motion to table. Show Mrs. (inaudible) voting nay. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 97 ayes, 48 nays, two present not voting, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

THE CHAIR: Members, this amendment is on page 132. The Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment to just allow us to collect data as it relates to how procedures in hospitals and it's not -- it doesn't cost anything, it's just capturing some data so that we can do better planning. And I think it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Dr. -- Ms. Davis lays out the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 141.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, with this amendment you have the opportunities to support your rural and suburban medical transportation providers. These are your urban and small urban districts and your local nonprofit and your local mom and pop medical transportation small businesses. The rider in Article II that I'm amending attempts to bring you a new middleman into the medical transportation system. This, quite frankly, could wipe out your local transit districts, your local nonprofits and your small businesses that are providing services right now to many frail, disabled and elderly folks across the state and within your community. This is especially alarming to our rural and suburban communities. As a result, the rural caucus has recognized this, and Representative Chisum will speak next about his support for this amendment and the rural caucus' support. The original intent of the rider that was previously placed in the appropriations bill was to increase the federal match that we're receiving from a 50/50 match to a 60/40 match. Well, to a medical -- through a Medicaid waiver that Texas received through the feds through the hard work of our staff, stakeholders, myself and other members of this body over the interim, we're now receiving that 60/40 match. Members, the rider that I'm amending doesn't get us any additional federal dollars, it doesn't save the state any money that then we could credit the bill. All it does is middlemen into the medical transportation system in Texas to the detriment on rural and small transit districts, all nonprofit small businesses, so many communities across this state. This amendment (inaudible) --

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Would you yield, Mr. Guillen?

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Yes, I will.

THE CHAIR: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Guillen, is this not (inaudible) with the federal grant that actually got the waiver approved again today.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: That's right. Under -- we just got approved for the medical waiver that gives us a 60/40 match that this amendment that I'm amending was intended to do, so we've already got what that was intending to do so we don't need to cover (inaudible) this anymore.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Right. And I think you have a great amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you. I move passage.

THE CHAIR: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Members, the amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The next amendment, members, is on page 142. Amendment page 142 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This amendment is on page 143, members.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is just a very simple amendment which would allow group billing for up to three children at one time in foster care or a home setting who would receive private duty nursing. And I would move approve, Mr. Speaker.

THE CHAIR: Dr. Zerwas lays out an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This amendment is on age 144. Mr. Coleman, are you on the floor?

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, what this amendment does is allows -- it's optional -- for the Houston Health and Human Services Commission to seek Medicaid waivers on mental health and HIV. The mental health one is to help us fill the gap where there are cuts in the bill, and I believe what we can do is actually use less general revenue and county transfers to make up for -- and move people into Medicaid that are presently in our state only programs and that will save us general revenue. I'm sorry, this is all May. It says the health and human services commission may seek a Medicaid waiver or waivers from the Centers of Medicare, Medicaid services and the Medicaid waivers should incorporate the following principles. And, again, it's leverage, local funds to draw down federal funds to move populations that are in the -- the indigent care line of mental health and get a federal match for the dollars that we are spending in pure GR (inaudible) which means we actually need less general revenue to serve the population. And hopefully what that means is if we don't have enough money to make up for the loss of the cuts, that we can actually serve the same amount of people and that's the -- this is what the hope is. And I've been working with the Health and Human Services Commission to see if we can -- and also the counties to see (inaudible). Okay. Thank you, members. Send up this amendment, is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 154.

CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I move to -- move this amendment so Article 11.

THE CHAIR: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the motion is adopted. Members, we're now on page 146. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hopson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Hopson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, (inaudible) this, members, to bring the funds to cut plans pharmacies and the Medicaid vendor program to be more in line with cuts made by the other Medicaid providers. We were told in order to make these necessary cuts in the Medicaid program we need to make an across the board cut to all Medicaid providers of 10 percent. Or with the new proposed dollar cut in pharmacy dispensing expenses fees, which added to the 10 percent that went in effect last month, that represents about a 16 percent cut. This amendment will reduce

(inaudible) fee cut from a dollar down to 50 cents, that'll bring the cuts to the pharmacy more in line with what other Medicaid providers will need. And the (inaudible) as opposed to state increase the use of generic drugs in the Medicaid program. HHSC reports that currently the State of Texas Medicaid program uses cheaper generic drugs about 65 percent of the time, when a generic is available. That means that Texas Medicaid ranks 44th of 50 states in the use of generic drugs. This amendments directs the vendor program -- drug program to increase the percentage up to 6 percent. HHSC documents show that each 1 percent in generic drug utilization can save the state $3.4 million. $3.4 million. And this is after the loss of the federal match, after the loss of rebates. 6 percent increase will produce $20.4 million (inaudible) --

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: -- almost twice what my amendment would need.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

THE CHAIR: Mr. Hopson, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Of course.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Hopson. I have a couple of questions for you, maybe more than a couple. Is this on Medicaid only? My question is does this impact any of our current contracts for drugs that are managed through ERS or TRS?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: According to my knowledge this is for Medicaid only.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Medicaid only. Okay. And -- so, the pharmacies get like a dispensing fee.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yes, pharmacies get a cost of medication plus the dispensing fee.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Okay. Do you know what the national average for that dispensing fees in other states?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: The national average is different. The national average is around $5, but there are two components to that fee that pharmacists get. One of them is cost of medication, and the other was the dispensing fee. Florida uses a completely different dispensing fee than we do, and we buy our drugs much cheaper than Florida does, so our dispensing fee is around 7 and a half, Florida's is cheaper.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: (inaudib le) so you're close to $5 and here it's a little over $7.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah, but they also pay a little more money for their medications.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Uh-huh. And so, in Medicaid here -- are you aware that Medicaid receives rebates from manufacturers that help to lower the prescription costs (inaudible) --

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah, I am. In fact, with the medical rebates (inaudible) the drugs are -- in many cases are considerably more cheaper even with the federal match -- even with the rebate.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: And so what your amendment does is require the use of more generic drugs.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Yeah, to use 6 percent more.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: But given the -- given the rebates that we get in many cases, aren't brand named drugs actually less expensive than generic drugs that are --

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: There are some examples of they are, but those are few and far between. And even with the federal match and even with the loss of a kickbacks or rebates or whatever we choose to call them. They're still cheaper.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Well, and I'm all for saving money, but sometimes generic drugs aren't exactly same as the brand name. And I'm concerned -- are you aware that I'm concerned about implementing arbitrary policies so that randomly set a generic substitution rate and the possibility of unintended consequences of threatening patient health when a generic just doesn't work for them?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Well, all it has to do is with a physician, whether it's Medicaid or any private insurance or cash even, all the physician has to do is write dispense as written and under current law they have to dispense the brand name.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: But under your -- if your amendment passes, it would change it to require the use of more generic drugs.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Well, they could still write dispense as written, they would still have to be done.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: And what would happen if it didn't -- you said it raises it by 6 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Well, we increase the generic dispensing by 6 percent. With that 6 percent increase, that still puts us only in the top 25, so half the states use more generic than we do even with the 6 percent rise. What we have now, is we're 44.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Well, I think what we have probably -- and correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't you heard me talk in committee about saving money and certainly using generic when at all possible, but I have also expressed concern -- have you not heard me that when a patient needs a drug that is not -- when the generic doesn't work they -- we need to use what works?

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Well, I can assure you, Madam Chairman, when you're in committee, I listen to everything that you say.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Instead of going through a bunch of questions, I'm just going to a raise point of order against the amendment on page 146 of the HB1 prefiled amendment package in that the amendment violates Rule

(inaudible) for the House rules, it would change general law through the appropriations bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Garnet Coleman temporarily withdraws his point of order. Representative Chuck Hopson temporarily withdraws his amendment. We're on page 147. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Wayne Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN : Members, Representative White and I come together. Ten of our counties have this wonderful human service program that's saving our rural counties dollars, and each of our rural affected counties are contributing part of the cost to the Burt Center in --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN : -- that provides care --

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order on (inaudible) rule section four.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Mr. Walle temporarily withdraws his point of order. Mr. Christian temporarily withdraws his amendment. The amendment on page 148. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia on the floor of the House? The amendment's temporarily withdrawn.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Garnet Coleman. The amendment's temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative John Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment simply better defines the circumstances around UPL, the upper payment limits that the hospitals receive. Currently there is an effort to try to seek a waiver that would allow hospital days to be included and if these bed days turn into managed care days. We wanted to bring a little bit more clarity to that such that we all understand if it did not happen, if the UPL program was going to be compromised, in fact, this would not go forward, the expansion of the managed Medicaid would not go forward and -- and so, oh -- ordinary care. Okay. Members, I'm going to back up a little bit. Chairman Pitts and I were -- we were trying to do a quick one here and I jumped ahead on this particular amendment that I was looking at. This amendment simply talked about the available earnings and the regional trauma accounts that are in the excess of the biennial revenue as amended. And it says basically that in fiscal year 2012, 13, the amount appropriated under GA11, which is where the trauma fund is, and it will go to the health and human services commission for the state's year ending 2001 to be used for reimbursement of uncompensated trauma care and that is what, in fact, the trauma account is intended to be used for. I apologize for the confusion. And, Mr. Speaker, I would move to accept this amendment.

THE CHAIR: Representative John Zerwas sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Alvarado.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Carol Alvarado.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is a directive to the agency to give priority to contractors and service providers delivering substantive health care services with evidence of (inaudible) in the most efficient and effective manner.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Truitt, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Would the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Representative Alvarado, do I understand correctly that your amendment is not intended to direct any state agency to expand behavioral health managed care?

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Correct. This amendment is not intended to direct any state agency to expand managed care for delivery of behavioral health services.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you for that clarification.

REPRESENTATIVE CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you. And it is acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Ms. Alvarado sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

THE CHAIR: Members, this is on page 152. Chair recognizes Representative John Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a rerun of the ULP health story that I just gave you. Basically it says that if EMS fails to grant us the waiver that we are looking for in terms of our expansion in Star, Star Plus that in terms of providing for the UPL, in fact, this would allow us to not pursue the expansion as outlined in this one. Again, this is just an effort to protect the UPL program because it's very, very important to many of the hospitals that all of us have in the district. And Mr. Speaker, I would move adoption.

THE CHAIR: The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to be amended by John Davis of Harris.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. What this amendment is -- this is a rider -- rider that is a important rider that requires HHSC to report to the LBB certain information that is used in the development of premium rate for the Medicaid managed care organization. And it's acceptable to the author.

THE CHAIR: Mr. Davis sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're back on the Zerwas amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative John Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Okay. Members, this is the same UPL waiver that I talked to you about earlier and it's now amounted with the Representative Davis' amendment. And I would move approval.

THE CHAIR: Representative John Zerwas sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Crownover.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover. It's on page 153.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: This amendment addresses the over $30 million that will be saved in Medicaid which will then be at the commissioner's discretion to use in innovative and cost saving programs within the Medicaid program. Members, I move that we move this to Article 11 until the happy day that it becomes Texas law. Thank you.

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

THE CLERK: Amendment by Brown.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Brown.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We do have an perfecting amendment by Hopson that's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hobson.

THE CHAIR: Chair recognizes Representative Chuck Hopson.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment perfecting the amendment for Representative Brown, and it's acceptable by the author and I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: I will wait until Mr. Brown comes back.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Hopson sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Brown on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Yesterday I pulled this amendment down on House Bill 4 and I thought, well, you know, I'll just go with the flow and not even helping what happens. And yesterday there was a small army of 70 people representing big pharma and pharmacy benefit managers that came into this Capitol and visited members all over the place because they didn't want to lose the opportunity for them to do more of the state's business: Well, let tell you what's happened with big pharma and primary benefit managers and pharmacy benefit managers in 2000. Since 2000 our attorney general has sued big pharma for overcharges in Medicaid in the amount of $407 million. Now, if I was still in the carpet and I wanted to sell you a car, and I gave you bad service and I didn't take care of business, you wouldn't want to do business with me anymore. Why do we want to do business with big pharma if they don't -- if they cheat us and screw us out of taxpayer dollars. My amendment raises -- raises the amount of generic drugs for Medicaid recipients by 10 percent --

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hardcastle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Brown, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir. I do.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Man, that analogy just broke me up, but this is going to save us money on the option available for pharmacy and delivery of medicine.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir. It will. And it will save us anywhere from 45 million to 200 million because we will not put the Medicaid vendor drug and the CHP drug program into the HMO's and the pharmacy benefit managers. We'll continue to leave it where it is and help human services.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And it will continue to allow my local small town pharmacies to be the provider, if they are the provider of distance or provider of mileage.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Absolutely it will. And I hate to go up against Dr. Zerwas. I mean, we are good friends and, God love him, he does an outstanding job of what heads --

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Brown?

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: My last question is you're not selling cars. Sell your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: I'm not. I'm not. But, members, this is important. We've gone after PBM's in the past year after year after year after year and we've seen what they've done to the state. Three years ago I had seven F.B.I. agents come into my office and sit down with me, and they wanted to know what was going on with PBM's in our state, because it was part of the federal program. They sat and interviewed me for six hours. Now, if they were doing what's right and taking care of business, would all those F.B.I. agents have ever come into my office and sat down with me and interview me for all that period of time? So, anyway, stick with me on this, if you will, members.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I raise the point of order on the amendment on page 154 of the HB 1 prefiled amendment passage in that the amendment violates section (inaudible) of the House rules that it would change general law through an appropriations bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Garnet Coleman is temporarily withdrawing his point of order, and Representative Brown is temporarily withdrawing his amendment. Members, we're on page 158. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: This provides a reporting format for Medicaid transparency, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Frullo amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Frullo.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN FRULLO: The Medicaid (inaudible) transparency (inaudible) and it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're on page 141. The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the medical term for expiration (inaudible) amendment that I talked to y'all earlier about. It's acceptable to the author. I'm going to move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members this is the amendment on page 142. It accomplishes the same thing as the amendment on page 141 does. However, Representative Jose Menendez is going to come up and do an amendment to the amendment that will wipe out what I'm doing on page 142, and we'll do something else that he's wanting to do. So his amendment will be acceptable to the author.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Jose Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a very simple amendment. All we're saying is we want you to develop (inaudible) a more appropriate CAB program waiver rights

(inaudible). Ratio of the actual cost and

(inaudible) doing more when what we have and it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Guillen amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Ryan Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're moving to Article 3. Chair recognizes Representative John Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to take a point of privilege here and be very brief because I know you've seen enough of me here today. But Chairman Pitts was very good to me in terms of bringing people to my subcommittee that helped us get through what we see is a momental affair. And I recognize Representative Dawnna Dukes, Representative Eiland, Representative Chisum, Representative Phil King and Representative Schwertner for their tireless efforts on all of our behalfs. If you'd join me in recognizing them, please.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry to do this. The redistricting committee, however, in the confusion of adopting the SBOE map, we need to go back and correct that situation. So this will probably not take more than five minutes once we got there. So I request permission for the committee on redistricting meet while the House is in session at 7:30 p.m. today April 1st, 2011, the same place we did before. 3N.3 This is the old Supreme Court Room to consider pending business.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a comment. Dr. Zerwas really worked with an intense, passionate and unusual group in Article II and thank him for his patience and work with us as well. Thank you, Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard Mr. Solomon's motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following a announcement, the clerk read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The committee on redistricting will meet at 7:00 p.m. today April 1st, 2011, at 3N.3 in the old Supreme Court room. This will be a formal meeting and other pending business.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's on page 177.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker, members, what this amendment simply does is it takes $464,000 from the Windham school and -- and it moves it to Brazos Port College 88,000; Middling College, 62,000; and South Texas college: 314,000. What this is it is restores the funding for the four-year deal programs that these colleges have been offering very successfully. My understanding of it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment just takes $150,000 each year out of the Windham school and puts it into the Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf.

REPRSENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does anybody down there want to talk about what they're doing? Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Landtroop, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Are we just going take all the money out of Windham? You know, I've got a Windham school district in about three different cities.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: All I'm doing is taking $300,000 over the biennium out of it, I'm not sure what the rest of the amendments are.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: But does that take all their money away? We have an obligation to have a school district in Windham. I don't know where this -- this is in violation of the agreement. You know, where Windham's at?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: This amendment actually takes .006 of one percent of their budget. They have over 80 million -- $83 million left. This is 300,000.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And you're taking and --

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: And giving it to the Southwest Collegiate Institute for the Deaf.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Where is that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: That's in Big Spring.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. You don't represent Big Spring, do you? I think it's closer to 500,000 you're taking.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: That's 150,000 a year. I'm doing an amendment to the amendment. Yes. The original amendment was 250. There was an amendment to the amendment to lower that to 150 a year.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You know where it's at?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: I have an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: The amendment to the amendment, the original amendment had 250,000 a year for a total of (inaudible). The amendment lowers that to 2,000 per year for at total of 3,000 (inaudible) on the biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Landtroop, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Yeah.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I've noticed you've got 46 FDEs in your district. Couldn't we just take it out of your district.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Well, I'll leave that up to the Windham schools. Figure out how they're going to do that. I move adoption on the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Landtroop sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Back on the Landtroop amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: There is objection. Members, waiting on the amendment. Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Parliamentary inquiry. On the previous amendment what without proper procedure to ask for a motion to reconsider. Would (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS:

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: You could just make that motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: At what time is that motion in order?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Would you mind coming down and visiting with the Chairman. Representative Landtroop temporarily withdraws his amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Miller for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I would move to reconsider the amendment on the Bonnen amendment, and I vote on the prevailing side.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. We're back on the Bonnen amendment. This is on page 177. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What my amendment is, what I explained earlier that was acceptable. You may recall Governor Perry made the attempt that he wanted a $10,000 or less four-year degree and then we discovered that we have three colleges community colleges in the State of Texas who are already providing that opportunity. One of them is Midland College, one of them is Brazos Port College in my district, and one of them is South Texas College. They are the community colleges that are offering four-year bachelor degrees. And what that amendment does is it takes around $446,000 from the Windham schools, the prison schools that have $84 million, and it allows these three colleges to continue their four-year degree.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I'm going to have to ask the gentleman a few questions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be glad to answer a question.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: How much money does that leave at Windham school district strategy if you take --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It should leave them $83.5 million.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: With some change to their advantage.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: How much was the strategy reduced in the Brazos Port?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: It was taken to zero.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: For the entire college?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Question. As a matter of fact as you read --

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Midland College also.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: (Inaudi ble) college is four-year degree plan was taken to zero but not the college itself.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Why did you pick on the Windham school district to make this switch?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Because I felt that it was more appropriate to take more than

(inaudible) million dollars to fund students who are trying to do better themselves and their families from the prison system of education. That is why.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Well, the problem, and the reason I asked to reconsider having served on committee, I'm very familiar with that school district. The Windham school system by educating our incarcerated and giving them an education, whether it be GED or a high school diploma, we've shown that it keeps them from coming back in, and it's an overall cost savings to us. So I'm not sure that this is going to save any money. Probably in the long run it's going to cost the taxpayers.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Miller, I don't know where I have ever suggested that saved money. What I am saying is that they believe students in local communities who are trying to improve their lives and their families' lives should have the opportunity to do so. And Representative Miller, with all due respect, half a million dollars out of their $84 million, I do not believe will cripple their effort to continue their program. But zero dollars for these three colleges ends, ends, their program.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I have a few questions for Representative Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Bonnen, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be happy to answer some questions.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Bonnen, you'd agree that these are all hard choices we are making when we have to take money from one source and give it to another and (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I could not agree more, and I want to make sure the members understand. We're talking about taking $446,000 to add it from a zero, to take zero to something and we're doing that by removing it from 84 million, so Sid Miller, with all respect, is concerned about taking someone from 84 million to 83 and a half and allowing four community colleges to offer a four-year degree or not. That's the choice. They can offer it or not.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, and I don't know if you're aware of this, but I know Southwest Texas College is included on here, that's in --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: -- my area. Southwest Texas College is educating about I think it's over 23,000 students now.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That's correct. And one thing I don't know if you're aware of, but since 2005 when these degree programs were offered we have awarded 477 baccalaureate degrees and just about every last one of them would tell you without this program and in this local community, this local opportunity, they would not have achieved that baccalaureate degree.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And while these are tough choices, you'd agree we want to make sure those who are already seeking an education and are going to be out in the workforce and contributing to our economy are going to be able to do so.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you for bringing the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Morrison, for what for the purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Would the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I would be proud to yield to the gentle lady who was the higher Chair when we passed these wonderful programs.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Mr. Bonnen, when these programs were passed, was the reason that we did this because we were trying to go into community colleges and have a baccalaureate degree to help students have a good education for a good quality price?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely. We not only wanted to have a good quality price but students at these three institutions if these degree plans do not exist. They don't have the opportunity of this education. These are students who would not have the opportunity for an upper level degree without these programs.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Because, Mr. Bonn, then is it true that they're located in areas that need to have access to higher education?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: And Mr. Bonnen, was this not a pilot program for these schools for that very reason?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That's exactly why we did that.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: And, Mr. Bonnen, I think that we need to put funds into these schools.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct , and I thank you for that. And I want to make sure the members understand. The choice here is they either have zero, and the program goes away or they receive $446,000 leaving Windham with $83.5 million.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Mr. Bonnen, are these not programs that are already in existence and have students?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: They do have students, and we would be pulling the carpet out from under them.

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you, Mr. Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Members, you need to listen up here a minute, this is pretty important. There are you of amendments that will basically wipe out Windham school. If that's a policy decision this body wants to make, then you have the capability through these amendments to make that decision. My personal opinion is I've got some problems making that decision in this format. Here in a few minutes I'm going to accept this amendment, and this is the only one of the Windham amendments I intend accept. The rest of them I'm going to leave on the decision on the floor. This is an important issue. One of these amendments will completely defund Windham schools. So that's --

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villareal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Can you help me understand this better, because my understanding of how we fund community colleges is that we fund them based on a semester credit hour served.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And so whether a two-year program or a four-year program, if you have students who are taking semester credit hours, aren't you receiving money?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: You received money. There is a little difference in these community colleges because they have the four-year bachelors program, they are not quite the same. They are close, but they are not quite the same.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Well, help me understand that. If you're in your sophomore year, if you're in your junior year or senior year at one of these colleges, you're still getting to report back to the state how many semester credit hours were delivered and you get reimbursed for all of them whether you are in your fourth year or your first year.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's right, and they fund behind. They fund two years behind.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And maybe I should ask the author of this amendment because I -- in our subcommittee we attempted to treat all the community colleges the same, inter formula funding. Their formula funding is based on semester credit hours. Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I think my line of questioning may be more appropriate for the author of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, I'll yield to Mike, to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Villareal to your question, which is a legitimate and fair question, the situation is that you're correct on how the community colleges have been treated, but these three colleges on their upper level program are treated like a four-year institution until they were given zero. It was not part of the community college funding.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So, the hours that are being accomplished by students in these colleges, are not, in fact, being accounted for in the community college formula?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to be very clear. The hours of their junior, senior program are not being counted in the community college formula.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Okay. So, the hour -- that helps me a lot --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: There's no double dipping.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: The junior -- so you're either in the four-year formula.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Which are general (inaudible) academic institutions or you're in the community colleges' formula.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: And you're telling me that these -- how many four?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Three.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Three colleges are not -- for their junior and senior year are not in either.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, they're actually in the four-year formula, but they were zeroed, and they were not provided the funds.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: They were zeroed out there.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Okay. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Well, Mr. Aycock yielded, I think he had the microphone.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be honored to yield the microphone back to Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Aycock, the statements that you made earlier about defunding Windham, obviously I have an amendment coming up that probably is the major part of what will be the discussion on Windham schools. Let me -- let me ask you, does that amendment provide for many of the educational things at PDCJ that Windham currently does in its process such as GEDS, s such as vocational training, such as cognitive thinking skills, such as the basic ideas or basic literature instruction? Would that be included in a subsequent amendment that's coming forward that might alleviate some of the fears that some have?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: My understanding is that you have an amendment coming forward shortly which will move the education functions of Windham schools within Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: So it would not stop many of the programs that the members seem to have some fears about?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: No. But let me be also explain that that discussion of moving that has minimal discussion during Article III debate, so I'm not going to be an expert.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I recognize that. You recognize that this article and the Windham that they're discussing has about 115 million, not the 84 that Mr. Bonnen was talking about, that actually has a current $115 million.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. McClendon, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman, yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I will yield. Are you talking about me or the author? I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Aycock, we're talking about moving the Windham school to somewhere else. Where -- what is the proposal for moving the Windham school?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Ms. McClendon, I'm not advised of all that was involved in moving that Windham school. I'm simply sure that the members are aware that this --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend the gentleman's time. We're talking about the Windham school, which is the school where the incarcerated people that we have in the business systems go to school. And if we don't take this serious, we're going to have a big public safety problem in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. McClendon asked for the gentleman's time to be extended. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. Time is extended.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes, ma'am.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you. Mr. Aycock, do you serve on the title -- the Article III on the appropriations committee subcommittee?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I do, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Did you all have this type of discussion on the subcommittee level?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Very minimal of Windham school moving. There was some but very little.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: I think -- I cannot hear.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There was very little discussion on the matter of changes at Windham.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Could you please tell me what discussion you had about the Windham schools and the future of the Windham schools in your subcommittee and the -- and the appropriation level that your subcommittee shows to put into that system.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The discussion resulted in the funding that you see in HB1. For Windham school within Article III.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: I'm not -- I think I'm not hearing what you're saying. I got -- I have kind of head cold.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The discussions resulted in the funds that you see represented in Article III of HB1 -- Article III of HB1. The numbers that are in there now is the results of the committee work, and it did not at that time presume movements into a different article.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: So you're saying that in your discussions about the future of Windham schools, this, as far as changing the composition of the schools, none was that was talked about and none of it was talked about how changing the way this school is operated and affecting the other districts around the state in the other counties around the state. That wasn't discussed in your subcommittee?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: The discussions that have arisen around the Windham school name centered around amendments that were before today.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Mr. Speaker, I'm so sorry. I cannot hear from the discussions of the members behind me.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Can we have some order, please.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you. Mr. Aycock, please continue.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. I said the discussions in Article III resulted in what you see in HB1 and they did not contemplate in our product of the committee the movement of the Windham school.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: So --

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There are amendments before you today that would result basically in major changes to the Windham funding, and the reason I spoke on the subject was to advise members that this is a significant change if several of these amendments should take place today.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Is it -- Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. McClendon, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Parliamentary inquiry. Is it --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you. What we're -- talking to -- I'm talking to one of the committee members -- the subcommittee, is it possible for me to talk to the Chairman of the -- of the subcommittees so I can ascertain as to what a -- the Windham school was handled?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg. Chair recognizes Mr. Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you so much. Please tell me to what extent the Windham school was handled as a result -- as it concerned the movement of the change or the taking it --

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: How much was it -- or how -- I'm starting to sound like you. It's been a long day. But, Ms. McClendon, you want to know what we did to Windham school in Article III?

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. If I remember correctly, the original bill as laid out took about 8 percent out of Windham school, just like it did across the board on a lot of things. We as a committee deferred to the judgment of the committee that handles corrections, which is Mr. Otto's subcommittee, Mr. Otto at one point told me that he felt comfortable with a 10 percent total cut of Windham, and so the action that the subcommittee took was to go from 8 point whatever to a flat ten and then we moved that -- we retained that money in Article III. So, the final product was that Windham was cut 10 percent from the base that it came into the biennium with.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: So at the time did you have any kind of indication that there was going to be a major change in the operation of the school when you -- when you recommended your appropriation for the school?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: The 10 percent cut did not take any major change -- did not contemplate any major change. I was aware that Mr. Madden was working on something different, but that never came to us during the subcommittee process.

REPRESENTATIVE RUTH JONES McCLENDON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to pause on this amendment because if members are going to take money out of Windham now for their community colleges -- I know Mr. Castro is having an amendment drafted to have some additional revenue for Alamo Community College. I know I've asked for an amendment that would have an additional revenue for Southwest Texas State Junior College. So, if we're going to start taking money out of the Windham for individual colleges and individual schools, then I'd ask if we can withdraw the amendment so that all of us can have the opportunity to have our own amendments drafted so that we can all partake in the largess of the --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Thank you, Mr. Gallego. We'll let you come down and visit with Mr. Bonnen in a moment. Representative Geren raises a point of order. Gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. We're back on the Bonnen amendment. Members, we're back on the Bonnen amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, members. I apologize for some of the confusion that's occurred here. I will try and be very short in my (inaudible). This is very significant. We're not creating special funding above and beyond what our community colleges are getting. The choice and simplistic in my view. We can take $464,000 and allow South Texas College, Midland College and Brazos Port College to no longer be at zero, unless their applied technology programs baccalaureate programs continue to exist. We will leave the Windham school at $83.5 million. So the choice is to allow these three successful baccalaureate programs to exist or not to exist. I would greatly appreciate your support on this amendment that is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: If the gentleman would yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I'd be honored to yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, if we go with this amendment -- if we go with this amendment, why shouldn't we go with the next one on Windham and the next one on Windham and the next one on Windham?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, my understanding is that there is only one that would be withdrawing funds from Windham and that amendment is down to 150,000 or 300,000 per biennium. So I would say that the will of the body needs to decide that.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And then Representative Madden has an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, with all respect to Representative Madden and his work, I'll let him present his amendment for himself, it is very dramatically different from what I am trying to accomplish here. Representative Madden wants to have a debate and a discussion about the success and the effectiveness and the priority of the Windham school. And with respect, I think that's a terribly different scenario than the scenario I've laid out with the House.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And with all due respect and with a good purpose that you have outlined for these selected schools, don't you think that all community colleges have a compelling story?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to be very clear, and you raise a point, I beg the members to please understand. They do. These colleges are not being treated more special than any other. They have had since '05 these four-year degrees and we're simply trying to ensure that they do not go away because they were zeroed in the four-year funding.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. But all local community colleges, if you can recall on yesterday, I put forth an amendment that would restore funding to all local community colleges and people said no. So the only point that I would -- my question would be, irrespective of how valid the funding may be for these particular programs, if we're going to single out a few, irrespective of how solid the purpose, what do we say to the others?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: What I say to them is very simple. These programs are at zero. They will not exist. What you were doing yesterday, I respect you for, you were creating an opportunity for more dollars to these three colleges than everyone else across the board as a community colleges. This is about allowing these three colleges to keep a four-year degree program that they have had since '05 alive, it is not a question about them getting more, it is a question about them being alive or them being dead and the programs going away.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But the programs are at zero but the community colleges still live, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, the colleges live but this specific four-year degree would go away.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that, but the colleges still exist, right?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: They didn't in the beginning of the year, but they do now.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's the point that I'm making. At the beginning of the session there were four community colleges, there was a question about whether or not they would exist. They now exist in the appropriation process.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The programs that we are talking about at the colleges may not be funded because of the reductions that have taken place.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: That's not why they're not funded.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay . I guess I'm -- I'm just having a hard time -- I'm having a hard time trying to single out as it relates to local community colleges why we should single out these few in this amendment as opposed to dealing with community colleges from a wholistic point of view.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: And the reason is these are not -- that I'm discussing here, you could almost argue, has nothing to do with community colleges. Because these are funded as four-year institutions. So, the question I would really say is why when we keep all our four year institutions funded at some level did we choose o kill these three --

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER:

(Inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: I want to be clear about that, from about putting everybody else on par and being equally funded. Why did these three four-year degree programs not be treated like any other degree program in the State of Texas and why were they left for dead with a big fat zero.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I hear you on that and I know that correctional system and inmates are not popular, I understand that. But let me just say there are a hundred and -- I have worked on criminal justice for a long time. There are 154,000 inmates in your criminal justice system. Many of them come into the system with a lack of education. 70,000 of them are paroled on an annual basis. If we do not at a minimum work to educate them to some degree, Representative Bonnen, the criminal justice system internally becomes less safe and the general public becomes less safe.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Turner, I completely agree with you. I have one of the higher numbers employees at the Windham school district in my district. And with all due respect, and I don't think you are intending to do this, and I don't want make any of the members confused, the Windham school will continue whether this amendment is successful or not. We are talking about $464,000 out of 84 million. So, the Windham school will continue. The question is are we going to be fair to these four-year programs that were treated as a zero which are pilots. So, the Windham school I do support and I will be working with Representative Kolkhorst. Members, I really need your vote, South Texas members need your vote. We appreciate your support.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the question is on the adoption of the Bonnen amendment. It's a record vote. The clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Pits voting aye. Show Mr. Aycock voting aye. Show Mr. Madden voting aye. Show Mr. Johnson voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There 106 ayes, 40 nays. Move the adoption. Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker, before we go forward on any of these Windham amendments --

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment by Mr. Bonnen. There's an amendment by Mr. Landtroop that's up next. Mr. Solomons as an amendment on page 160 and Mr. Madden has an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Since we have a group of amendments coming up on this issue of Windham, could I -- would it be where we could ask the Chairman of the subcommittee a question? Mr. Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Hochberg, when y'all were considering this in your committee, and I know that there's a series of amendments coming up now to either -- well, most of to it take money away from the Windham school district was -- and I know that there's some conversation on the floor that there was some insufficiencies found in Windham, but this has taken a lot of us by complete surprise that this is even an issue. There's many of us that have the school districts, in our institution prisons, what have you in our district. Was Windham ever asked to come up and defend themselves or talk about what the complaints or concerns were when all this came to light?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Keffer, not by our subcommittee. Let me tell you how I have treated Windham whenever I've had them before me in a subcommittee in education is that I have deferred or worked with the subcommittee that has article -- that has TCJ, since it really does function as a part of the corrections system, not as a part of TEA or the schools or any of the agencies. So I have, with the subcommittee's support, deferred to the recommendation that came from Chairman Otto and I cannot tell you whether there were discussions within Chairman's Otto committee. Now, Mr. Madden has came to me since our discussions I believe and said he was working on various proposals with Windham and that he would bring something forward at this time. But with respect to my good friend and classmate, Mr. Madden, I haven't seen it other than what you've seen in the amendment's packet.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Which is hard -- I mean, this is a large change. This is

(inaudible). Again, if we're going to be doing this, we certainly have to have all of the facts. And without anybody from Windham being around or testimony or whatever the case may be, I just don't know how in good faith if we can go forward with these amendments costing money from an institution who I have certainly visited in my prisons safety that are doing the job that we have to do for our inmates and our clients and it's something that disturbs me greatly that we are dismantling a whole system here on the floor and really don't have any of the facts.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And you understand, and just to make sure since I'm standing here while you're saying that, that the subcommittee did not make any representation to that effect. We never heard the issue, we never took long testimony on the issue. We did what I have traditionally done which was to look to Mr. Otto and Mr. Turner and to others who worked on the articles that has CCJ for their recommendation. Mr. Otto's recommendation was that along with everything else in TCDJ. They could be reduced by other amount that other TDCJ (inaudible) reduced, that's what we did, it generated a small amount of revenue that we used in other places in Article III and that's as far as it went in our subcommittee, Mr. Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Well, I thank you and for the explanation and in talking to Mr. Otto on the floor he's surprised the pathway that this is taking on (inaudible). So again I'm shocked really that we are -- we are doing this as policy in this bill and really have no legislation, hasn't been a bill, hasn't had testimony, and here we are just about decimating a -- a -- a program that we've had here in this state a long time.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I take note that you're shocked and appalled.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Well, thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're on the Landtroop amendment. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Landtroop. Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Before the line gets too long in the back, I would like to say I've got an amendment to the amendment and Mr. Madden has an amendment to withdraw or remove which is going to be acceptable to the author, both of them, by the way, to withdraw the Windham school district on line 16 so we're not going to be dealing with Windham but the amendment itself is -- makes a reduction in what I think is a bloated piece of bureaucracy and that is the PEA. In order to put the fund to better and more efficient use in the (inaudible) formula of funding and at the end of the day, I did not expect -- and with the amendment that I'm going to have to amend this, I'm going to remove the dedicated revenues and this only will go to nondedicated revenues in the Title 1 administrative cost, that that will be taken off the table. This goes really to the bureaucracy to the PEA and its administration. So if you'll let me -- if you'll give me a chance to do the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Madden has an amendment we'll do and I'll be happy to discuss anything you want to discuss.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment, clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the amendment to the amendment which provides that I'm not affecting nondedicated general revenue for the strategy and that those reduction -- the reduction I'm asking for in this amendment does not affect Title 1 and the administration thereof and it basically cleans up the entire amendment as the federal fund, so I'm not affecting the federal funds, I'm not affecting the administration of those funds but everything else

(inaudible), this amendment is acceptable to the author and I believe Mr. Madden has an amendment dealing with Windham, so I move adoption dealing with this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment -- the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment deals with

(inaudible) helped after Windham school district out of Mr. Solomons' bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course, I yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I understand, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have a discussion on your amendment. But your clarification that we're doing put all of your -- of the funding back with your amendment to the amendment back into Windham. All right. Which is currently in Article III (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The amendment that I have strikes Mr. Solomons' language that would have delete any of the Windham money so it puts back into -- into the current bill pattern. We're going to leave it like it is in the bill pattern.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And can you (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN:

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So you and I can battle on your next amendment which strikes 35 million from Windham (inaudible), correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Right, that's my amendment coming later. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Looking forward to the discussion.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN:

(inaudible) thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Hearing none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're back on the Solomons original amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Members, this is a lot of money going back to the normal funding, and in my opinion TEA should help us do that. And I would ask your consideration for the amendment and I move passage of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I just -- I just want to make sure that you have an opportunity to fully explain your amendment, Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, my amendment as on there (inaudible) the amendment itself was to remove all basically discretionary money for TEA. In doing so, I needed to fix that to actually get to what I was doing because the original amendment affected the original amendment actually affected -- Gees, hi -- the original amendment actually affected -- I didn't really mean that because I can't really do that so, the amendment to the amendment that I had for myself, it was acceptable obviously to me, was fixing that issue and so it -- what I have done is -- there was -- as you well know, there was the federal money and the federal -- and the administration of that federal money, so I'm trying to fix that so it stays off to the side, so it reduces -- it reduced the amount that I could actually put back in the schools but that's okay. And also the amendment also reduced the commissioner's salary, as you well know, but at the end of the day that's what I'm trying to get to. I think they become a beast to bureaucracy, we need to move in the direction of trying to put more money in the schools. And this is a considerable amount of money. Even with the Windham amendment taken -- the Windham portion taken out of that bill, it's well over 210 million, $220 million moving back into the school districts for jobs for teachers, for the programs, for education. So that's all I'm trying to do is move more money into education. I'm using the TEA to do it, and and I think they become somewhat bloated, and we need to make an effort to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: And does it still have a salary provision in there?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir. It sure does.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: You want to talk about that.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Not particularly, unless you do.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Just thought I'd give you that opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, you know, (inaudible) to thank the commissioner on trying to contribute as well.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: For the members, for the members in particular, let me just say I'm not sure what the argument will be against the amendment. I don't know that any of us to go home and we go hip hip hooray for the TEA. So at the end of the day it seems to me that our goal on the budget is try to move all available funds in the schools in the form of the funding and do what we can and this is one (inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, I just had a couple of questions for Mr. Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does Mr. Solomons yield?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yes, sir. I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Mr. Solomons, does this -- does this amendment have anything to do with any of your educational agenda?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: No, this has to do with the budget.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And cutting the commissioner's salary to --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I think you ought to contribute like anyone else, in fact, since the Texas School for the Blind is contributing, since the Texas School for the Deaf is contributing, I think Mr. Scott and the commissioner can contribute as well.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, cutting like what -- what is that 8/18ths, 45 percent of his salary or more?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, you know, we've cut back in a lot of places and there's a lot of hardships going on. We've been discussing it --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Doesn't your amendment say administration 100,000 per biennium?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Yeah. Yes, it does.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yeah, do you know how much TEA has already cut?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I understand they cut a lot. I understand that we have asked them to cut a lot, and in fact, they would say they are somewhat relieved about not having some of the responsibilities and some funds.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And there's a lot of current talk about our testing system already being handicapped by a lack of TEA personnel to be able to run our testing system.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, let me tell you what I really think you ought to do. I think you ought to -- you need to start over with the TEA, I mean, from scratch. And if this amendment helps facilitate that discussion, then we need to pass it.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I don't think know now's the time or the place to be --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, this is one way to do it.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: -- the entire agency is (inaudible) that basically has rule making authority is a lot of education bills that we passed gives them rule making. We may not always agree with what they do just putting House Bill 3 together is a thick manual just for them to apply it to our schools, which is supposed to start this fall.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, let me just say this: We've had a lot of discussion today. We had a lot of discussion yesterday about -- as we affected budget try to come up with how we appropriate money. We've had a lot of discussion about other bills and other things are going to happen and we all have to go through that process and see how it plays together and, you know, that's what happens around here. But at the end of the day, this has to do with the budget. This is an amendment to the budget, has to do with money, and I think it's important that we send a message to the TEA that unless you're absolutely required to be there, we don't need you as a bureaucracy interfering. So I think if they have to do the federal money, they have the administrator -- they have to administer it, then I think we ought to actually have that discussion about what they ought to do with the rest of the money. And, in my opinion, we ought to give it back to the school kids and teachers of this state.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Well, I don't think I can fully agree with that, Mr. Solomons, and that we have a lot -- we have a lot that we're putting on them that we already have. Yet, we don't fully agree with everything they do, but we're not here all the time and they're the ones that have to put this in place. We rely on a lot on what they do for us in the funding formulas go through and the interpretation of the law, the handling of our accountability system. It's all there. And if Texas is going continue to thrive in a good accountability system, we need TEA intact, and they probably already cut half of what we would feel comfortable with. They've had a lot of layoffs.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Well, if I was fortunate enough for this body to approve this amendment, we have how many days left of this session?

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: About 50.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: Okay, and this bill and this process that we're trying to keep moving is going to go to the conference committee, right? And at the end of-day, we can figure out a way to make all these things work, then maybe they can do it with appropriation -- without they're being an appropriated budget. So I appreciate your comments, Mr. Eissler. I feel very strongly that we ought to do this. So I'm going to move passage of this amendment --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I know that and I think --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: And I know your concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Folks, I realize the frustration that sweeping the state with education right now. I fully understand that. And I understand the frustration with bureaucracies and agencies and things like that. But most of this money is needed for the assessment of the progress of the children of Texas. It's needed for the folks who work with the state board on their assessment of educational material. It's the folks that administer the recovery programs. You can't gut this agency completely and continue schools as we know them in Texas. I respectfully ask you to table this amendment. Move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eissler for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: I just want to emphasize a couple of points or add to that if Mr. Aycock would so yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Yes, sir. Mr. Aycock, what else does the TEA do for us in terms of federal funds?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They administer all the federal funds programs. They supervise how they're used in the schools, they apply traditional federal programs when necessary --

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: And how about the bills that we pass such as the technology allotment.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They administer the technology allotment, distribute the material acceptable for use.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: What impact would it have on our public education to decimate TEA?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think TEA, if it went away or was gutted to the level that this amendment would gut it would make it very difficult to educate the children of Texas for the foreseeable future. I think the transition would be devastating.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you. Thank you, sir. THE CHamendmentIR: Chair recognizes -- Mr. Solomons to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT SOLOMONS: I would -- thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I just want to close. I think this is an important amendment and it's a statement that needs to be made in this House. I close.

THE CHAIR: Representative Solomons sends up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. The vote is on the motion to table. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Eissler voting aye. Mr. Pitts voting aye. Mr. Dutton voting no. Mr. Hochberg voting aye. Ms. McClendon voting no. Mr. Miles voting no. Have all members voted? All members voted. Being 91 ayes, 45 nays, two present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker, are there 91 districts now?

THE CHAIR: That's a question that the Chair is not prepared to answer at this time. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden. THE CHamendmentIR: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members. Keep everybody off the back mike. Let me say that out of respect for the membership, I will eventually pull this amendment down but I think you all need to know why I'm doing it and why -- what's started all this. First of all, the Senate finance committee met about two weeks ago and nobody should be surprised that they should have seen in the Austin American statement in the headlines that said there about how can we -- how can we as the leaders of the State of Texas provide funding money for educating prisoners before we educate the children of Texas. That's what got me started in looking at what we were doing in the Windham school system. First of all, what is Windham? It is a school system, it's funded at $65 million dollars, it has been per year, it is in the budget now at a $115 million for the biennium. Windham does not offer high school diplomas, it provides GEDs, it provides vocational certificates and there was 5,200 of them this last year and provides industrial certificates at about 5100. It provides literacy courses. English as a second language courses and cognitive behavior courses which do not require certified teachers. Out of the 77,000 inmates that I have in the prisons about 20 percent receive GEDs or vocational certificates. The average pay for the teachers that we have in Windham, and they are teachers, is 25 to 30 percent higher than the average pay that we give a teacher in the State of Texas. Their average pay is about 41,000. These teachers are going getting about 25 to 30 percent more. They say they have a 12 month schedule, but I'll tell you guys, they take holidays and spring breaks and, you know what, our inmates don't. Third, they have principals. Sixty-seven principals with 112

(inaudible). They make between 63 and $67,000 a year. I am advised that they contribute very little in the process. And Windham says they ensure inmates attend class. Well, I guarantee you that inmates are there and they will attend if they're in the facilities. We have 125 employees and administrative functions. They have 55 librarians. They have 1212 total employees and --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Madden, would you excuse me for one moment, please. Please excuse Representatives Branch, Hunter, Solomons, Harless, Alonzo, Villarreal, Eissler, Veasey, Pickett, Alvarado, and Phillips for a redistricting meeting on the motion of Representative White. Is there any objection -- and Keffer. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. I'm sorry, Mr. Madden. Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That's okay, Mr. Speaker, because I'm just about done. But that's what we're looking at in the TDCJ, in the amendment, that I had would have (inaudible), that we need to keep doing the things we need to do for the prisoners. (inaudible) They would have continued to do GEDs, they would have continued to do vocational training classes. They would have continued to do the cognitive thinking skills, which are the major things that we need to do in the criminal justice system to change people's thoughts and change people's minds. That's the kind of process that we would have continued (inaudible) that I look forward, because this will be part of the ongoing process and I want to make sure that no one is surprised that --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Give me another second.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: He does not yield at this time. He does not yield at this time, Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you. But what this is about is giving TDCJ the functions that need to be done within our prison systems that they can continue to do, that they tell me they are able to do and the amount of money they can do it for is $30 million less that we have in this budget right now. $30 million that I was going to, with this amendment, return to public education to allow that to be used for the children of Texas. I look forward to this debate as we go forward, so that no one can say they're going to be (inaudible) when they see this again. Because it will be back, I guarantee you it will be back in this process. And it's something that I totally believe we need to do to keep our monies for our children in the right place. And at same time things we need to do in the criminal justice system to change the people that we have in that system. And with that I certainly yield to Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He yields, Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Madden. I certainly appreciate the numbers that you have espoused up there and just a couple of questions from the back mic. Have y'all had a hearing on this particular issue and --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Or the board --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They had one in the Senate finance committee. We have not had one, no, not during this session.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I know we're certainly not the Senate. Let me ask you just a few more questions --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I would agree with you there. We are certainly probably above them in all aspects, and I know I have 149 other votes to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I don't want to take a whole lot of time, but as you promised that this will be back, I want the members to understand a few things. No. 1 is the budget cuts as it currently is in committees substitute House Bill 1 was Windham cut from --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: The budget was a cut -- it was at 130 million I believe in the last biennium, it is at 115 at this one, I believe the cut was about 10 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Now, it was actually 12 percent. Okay. So do you know what that 12 percent cut -- and I just want the members to realize that if anyone says that they are not going to be cut, that they are going to be cut, that they're going to lose 86 teachers, 6 principals, and 61 unit staff and administrative staff and I know that you were talking about different things about GEDs. Do you know how many GEDs California obtains every year with their population of 160,000 while we have about a 150,000?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I believe they do less than we do. I think you have the numbers there. I've seen it, Ms. Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And the only reason I have to do this is they're only questions from the back mic, Mr. Madden.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I understand. I'll accept your answer from the back mic.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We do 5534 GEDs on an average every year and California only does 1700.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And you realize that the intent I had with the amendment was obviously to continue the GED program.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I do know that. What's the average IQ of those that we're dealing within average education in?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And you realize also that most of them are about six grades behind the grade that average person at that time level --

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That level is 6.3 and an IQ of about 86. Here's my point as we go through this process, I beg you not to just take a white paper from someone and say that this is what we're going to do and we (inaudible) 30 million less and while looking at their statistics, and I've had my staff pulling these for days now, is that every -- we serve over 77,000 inmates. We serve over 25,000 a day and annually that's about (inaudible) compared to other school distribution. You know that that's completely different.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You would agree with me that our students are of a different age than most of --

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: They are (inaudible) of 25 and under and that is why and. I just want to clarify that one of the things you said from the front mic is that they get paid more. They get paid more to teach two days compared to a regular school district that teaches 187 so.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I have those people at the institutions and they could be taught even more days than that.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And I'm sure that Windham would be more than happy to meet with y'all and discuss that. I just I know that you are Chairman of Corrections, and I think this is your -- how many times have you been Chairman of corrections, twice?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: This is my third session.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: This is your third session. As you move through this, and I don't know if you've ever had an exhausted hearing on Windham. Have you ever attended one of their class and watched them?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Yes, I have.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So have I. And I was very impressed with what I saw. And as you move through this process, you know, I would ask that it properly go through a process vetted in a committee with ownership because that is -- I think you saw the membership here being very uncomfortable.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You would agree with me, Ms. Kolkhorst, that we have total ownership over House Bill 1?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Say that again.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: We, this body, have total ownership over this process as House Bill 1. You would agree with me on that?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: You have total ownership?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: We have total ownership of House Bill 1, and it's all our joint responsibility to do the things that are in House Bill 1.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I keep hearing the 59 days, and I think the committee has done an exhausted job. I'm not sure that you and I have been in 59 days --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Are you saying that the amendment that you're going to bring has gone through committee and has had an exhausted job done on it?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I have heard that no one has brought -- not Chairman Otto, not Chairman Hochberg, I don't think that this is --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Let me ask you. On this, one of the things, members, that's been pointed out, and I think it's a discrepancy that we've had all along here is while this money is in Article III the responsibility and most another people that are attending this are in Article V. And all along in my 18 years here I will say that there has always been a discrepancy in the process between what we should be doing in the education side and what we have over in the criminal justice side in the Article III side and Article V side.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Chairman, do you know that --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I think you're inadequately, Ms. Kolkhorst, pointing that out.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST:

(Inaudible). Where is it in statute?

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'm sorry, you'll have to repeat that one. representative los: Is Windham in statute? Do you know where it's located in the --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It is and I didn't bring that with me to the exact --

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chapter 19 of the education code.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Right, it is.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And so it is in the education code and it has been since 1969, I believe --

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I think you and I have had discussions, have we not, in the past that have dealt with, while we don't always know and it's always a confusing thing to people who are there, and I know that Mr. Otto was saying and people were saying he should have looked at it, but it was not in his article and I understand that totally that he did not have that in his article, it was in parol three.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I have chaired Article III and had the pleasure of doing that for this body and I have worked on Article III and Windham and I just simply think that as we make a major policy move like this, I would appreciate, you know, (inaudible) at least -- at least the Chairman of the Board of Criminal Justice to weigh in on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Point of order the gentleman -- Representative Miller raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired, and the point of order is well taken and is sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you, members.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Madden withdraws the amendment. The following amendment the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 168.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego. Chair recognizes Mr. Walle for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, members. I want to introduce, first of all, my little boy who is seven months old and also my wife Debby by Walle and my sister Adriana. They are back in the back gallery.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego -- oh, Mr. Walle -- Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, members. If you-all would pay attention in particular to this amendment because I want to talk to you about some of the current issues that are going on in education. I don't know how many of you have had headlines in your local newspapers about cuts to education, how many teachers we're going to be losing. But there have been those headlines and newspapers across the State, whether you're talking about El Paso or El Paso ISD is cutting 116 jobs, whether you're talking about Hutto with expected state cuts sponsoring cuts, whether you're talking about all sorts of school districts across the State, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth. Every one of these districts is loosing significant numbers of teachers. And here's the other problem. The other problem is that those of us are getting painted as the bad guys and here's why you look at Associated Press article that says a quote from Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst who says spending on public education can be maintained and even increased in the next two year budget cycle. The quote is that "We can still fund education, the foundation school program at the same appropriate level that we're funding right this second. Actually higher." And yet, this House is being asked to cut and cut and cut something that all of us believe in which is higher. The House has to cut higher but the Senate on the other hand apparently gets to maintain those cuts. Well, here's what that this amendment seeks to do. This amendment does a little of butt loading. What it does is it allows school districts to keep those teachers on their payrolls right now. We don't have to go from 22 to one or 35 or 40 to one. All those teachers from across the State get to keep their jobs. The foundation school program funds our schools back home, it's the basis for funding, it's how we fund our public school system. Without this amendment the budget underfunds our schools by $7.8 billion. And if I remember correctly, a lot of us promised that we would spare our schools from these cuts. So, the total number for 2012/2013 doesn't change. We're not adding funds, but by doing this we can get through approximately May of 2013 with the funding that is in the bill and at that point you'll be in session. Keep in mind in January to have 2013 and in January of 2013 we can pass a supplemental bill just like we did yesterday that will provide the funds necessary to finish out that year. So let's front load this budget. Let's make sure school districts have the money they need now. The shortfall that they will have next year we can put in a supplemental bill in January of 2013. And in the meantime we appropriate the funds needed to keep your schools funded and had keep our teachers working and keep our kids learning. We're simply front loading one year because we completely intend on funding education because nobody wants to go home and tell a classroom full of kids that you didn't care about them enough to fully fund their classrooms. We're going meet our financial statutory obligations under the education code to pay our bills. When we come back in 2013 contracts will still be made, because we are making the assumptions that we'll fund the foundation school program at our statutory requirement in 2013. We did this yesterday, members, and we've done this in every session that I can think of. The other thing is we continue to hear from the comptroller and governor that we are in recovery, that our economy is getting better and that our revenue is increasing. Well, through this amendment, we're committed to spend that revenue to keep our schools open. This also brings up that we still have an opportunity to pass a bill that truly funds public education. So here we are with a multibillion shortfall for our schools, we have an opportunity to fix it today. You front load that cost, you end up in session in January of 2013 and you fund the remainder in a supplemental appropriations bill. I hope -- I hope that each of you can raise your hand and vote yes with me on this amendment. Houston ISD, Grand Prairie ISD, Hutto ISD, El Paso ISD, have all known ed school closures. Lubbock ISDs, Leander ISDs and others. Every day, in fact, we read the newspapers and we watch more and more about schools laying off their teaches and it doesn't have to be this way, members. If we vote for this amendment we can tell our schools today they can stop laying off teachers, they can stop worrying about how many classrooms they're going to have and frankly we can learn -- all of us can learn a lesson about finance and helping those school districts stay open and stay current and paying their bills and making our commitment. I urge you to vote yes on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Aycock, to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is what we call front loading. It takes money from the second year and puts it in the first year. We can't operate that way. Move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Would you yield, Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Aycock, is it not true that all this amendment would do is front load some so that we would get through the next year and schools wouldn't have to close and we could come back in a supplemental appropriations bill just like we did yesterday and fund the remainder of that money?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think you're making a big presumptions to presume that we will have the money to do that --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Haven't we heard time and time again that the economy is getting better and the revenue estimates are getting better?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I certainly hope it continues.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And haven't we heard time and time again that education is private, and so you're saying that maybe it won't be a private part in 2013.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Education comprises over half the budget.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Are you telling me that we cannot fund the rest of that in 2013?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Say it again, please.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Are you telling me that we cannot fund the remainder of that in 2013?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I do not want to bet the future of schools in 2013 by front loading the money into 2012.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All this does is it gets us through the next two school years -- it gets us through the next session of legislature. Is that not a (inaudible) goal without cuts?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Gets us through the next session of legislature or the next special session.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: No. It would get us through the next session. We wouldn't have to do this, we wouldn't have to come back until January of 2013. That's not a special session, that's a regular session.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think that's a big gamble if we'd get that far.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: The numbers, the data indicates that the rate of spending, we would be able to make it not only through the next year, but we would be able to make it nine months of the next year. And so again you could do it in a supplemental bill, could you not?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm not willing to presume that we would be able to have the money to supplement --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Aycock, your name was on that supplemental bill yesterday, was it not?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It was.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so how much money did we spend yesterday on supplemental bills?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: On 275.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: How much money did we spend?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: On HB275 you're referring to?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: On four.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: On four. We actually made cuts in four.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Okay. And then how does that balance out -- have you made additional appropriations if you didn't just make cuts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: That's true. I don't have that number memorized.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: All right. So you made at least a commitment of 600 million to the foundation of school program in four.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so what prohibits you from making the same kind of commitment in a supplemental bill in 2013?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Because I think that's a big gamble on whether we'll have that money.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You don't think we'll have $600 million to spare for 2013?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Not willing to make that gamble.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you're willing to gamble the lives of those teachers in those classrooms, those first year teachers who are losing their jobs right now.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm reluctant to (inaudible) these people who are --

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Are you going to take the position, Mr. Aycock, as Governor Perry did that we are not laying off the teachers, the school districts are laying off the teachers? Is that your position?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: No.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So you understand if we make this decision we are responsible and this legislature is laying off those teachers.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: When we make cuts to public education, I find it as painful as you do.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: That wasn't my question, Mr. Aycock. Are you willing to admit that when we make these cuts to public education we are forcing those school districts to fire and lay off their employees?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: There are school districts in the state because of the funding shortages that will almost certainly dismiss teachers.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: They'll have to. Is that not right?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I believe they will.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And so if that can be averted, if we can provide the summon then come back in register session of January 2013, you're not willing to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: If your amendment front loads the money into the first year, making trouble for the second.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Does it front load all of money or does it get us through?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: No, just a big chunk of it.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO:

(Inaudible) covers us through the first year, it covers us the first nine months of the second year. It only leaves three months left dead and those three months again would be covered in a regular session. You would have June, July, and August and our regular session would be January through June, is that not right.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Representative Hancock raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Pete Gallego to close.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I want all of y'all to listen up. I want all of y'all to listen up because here's s our opportunity to save every first year teacher who is losing their job. Here's our opportunity to make sure that every classroom doesn't go from 22 to one or 35 or 40 to one. Here's our opportunity to make a big difference. If you front load a part of the 2013 money, it gets you through the next year and frankly it gets you through everything but the last three months of the next year, so June July and August.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Not -- not -- just give me just a few.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Not at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: June July and August of that last year would not be covered. The legislature meets in January. We would have January through June. Members, this is just about every year every session that I have been here we have passed a supplemental appropriations bill. In fact, supplemental is a soft mechanism because in the old days it was called an emergency appropriations bill. Well, I can tell you that there's no bigger emergency than public education. And let's call it an emergency bill again, and let's commit that funding crisis for our schools is an emergency and let's go ahead and do this. Let's make an investment for our kids so that our classrooms don't take it on the front end, so that our classrooms don't rend up becoming day cares, so that education means something. Our children have a chance. What's wrong with that? And Ms. Howard, I'm happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He yields, Ms. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pete, I think this is a detailed, extremely creative suggestion that actually allows us to deal with the serious issue before us right now, the crisis of funding gives us some time to dig out how we're going to address our future and actually do something about it. And one of the things I was going to ask you is that Aycock said when he was talking about taking a risk. Did you hear him say that you were taking a risk?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I did hear him say that.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: What I guess I was wondering, don't you think that perhaps the current budget we're considering is taking a risk.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: It's a huge risk --

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: With our children.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: With the future of our kids, that's the risk it plays with, the future of our kids.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So we only meet every other year, right.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And we're considering this monumental budget and now monumental shortfalls.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And what's even worse, Ms. Howard, is that we're doing this in the House and next door in the Senate across the hall over there they are reducing this to saying that they are going to maintain and even increase the funding for public ed. They said it. And here's a quote from an article March 25th of 2011 that wasn't even -- that's last week. Last week the lieutenant governor is saying we're going to fully fund it and 150 of us in the House are taking a fall for cutting public education when the three guys are going to get the credit for restoring it. Why are we doing this when we have the money and we have the opportunity to fully fund public education right now.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Pete, have you noted that we've been spending this whole day between making false choices between very good programs because we don't have sufficient funds to cover what we know Texas needs?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And, Ms. Howard, what I'm saying is that we can do this if we do this creatively.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: We know legislature meets every two years, we know that every two years we pass a supplemental bill, it's routine business practice. And so we know that the money that we're short dead of the next biennium. We can do exactly what we did yesterday, which is provide that additional revenue to meet that shortfall.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Keep the teachers in the school.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Absolutely. How many teachers are getting fired in all of these districts? There's an estimate of as many of 100,000 teachers in classrooms across the State that are going to lose their job. I get phone calls every day from superintendents from the district that I represent about why are we not prioritizing education. Let's make education a priority, and what this amendment does is it allows us to do exactly that. Exactly that. What harm is there is doing a supplemental bill the way we have done a supplemental bill every two years.

REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I just want to commend you on this because I think it's a creative innovative approach that allows us to protect our schools, protect our teachers, it's almost a business of figuring out how we're going to address this in the future. And I thank you for bringing it for the record.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Ms. Howard, I think this is a clear vote, a very clear vote either for or against public schools in Texas. That's what this amendment is.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Farias, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Would gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Gallego, would you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield. representative charle geren: He'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Representative Pete Gallego, you mentioned, and we all know that there may be 100,000 teachers throughout the State that will be gone here in the near future, what do you believe the teachers who are laid off or fired are going to do in two years now and we try to rework the budget? What are they going to do for two years?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, they're not coming back to the classroom.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And after we've treated them that way, why would they be back? They've gone on about their lives, they found a better paying job, perhaps. Teachers are already underpaid, classrooms are already under funded in many places.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Do you believe that this cut is a permanent cut to our teachers and is not something that we're going to restore, these positions in the next two years.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, if we're going to restore them in the next two years, Mr. Farias, we might as well restore them today. I would call this amendment to save our schools amendment because that's exactly what this amendment does, it saves our schools and it allows us to come back in a regular session in 2013 and fill in the gaps.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: And what happens to the teachers that are terminated that can't find employment, where are they going to get some money to live on?

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: You know, that's a very good question, Mr. Farias, and if you look at the modeling that was done by the legislative funding board about how many jobs affected by the economy is going to lose as a result of this bill, as a result of House Bill 1, it was very, very, very bad news for the economy. I want to

(inaudible) not only some good news for the economy but some good news for our teachers and our kids that --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. (in audible) raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Gallego puts up an amendment, Mr. Aycock moves to table. The vote is on the notion table. A record vote is requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Eissler voting aye. Mr. Aycock voting aye. And Mr. Pitts voting aye. Mr. Strama voting no. Representative Miles, Representative Walle voting no, please. Have all members voted? Representative

(inaudible) voting no. Being 89 ayes, 48 nays and two present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Amendment on page 169 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 171 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 174 is withdrawn. The next amendment is on page 175, members. The following amendment, clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Perry.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you, Mr. Perry. Is Mr. Zedler on the floor of the House? The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment on page 176 is withdrawn. We've previously done the amendment on page 177. We've previously done the amendment on page 178. As well as 179, 180. Excuse Representative Bohac for legislative business on the motion of Representative Pitts. The next amendment is on page 183, members. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Flynn.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment is withdrawn. The amendment on 184 is withdrawn. Mr. Gallego, Mr. Taylor, Ms. Farrar. The following amendment the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. You know some agencies in this budget are on water and bread, other agencies are on steroids. TEA is the one on steroids and what this amendment does is says we're going to take away some of the steroids. I have an amendment to the amendment, Mr. Speaker. In fact I think I have two of them.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: There's an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment that changes it, I have been trying to make sure that we don't affect the foundation school programs with this amendment. And so rather than 8 billion, it should have read 57 million. And so it leaves the agency able to function and it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, members, what this amendment simply does is it says that we will not take the 57 million out of foundation schools programs and it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment to the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment -- as amended. Mr. -- excuse me -- Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Would the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Dutton?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you. Before I decide whether or not to oppose your amendment, I have some explanation I need from you.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: All right.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Could you go over very much in detail what this amendment has the net effect of doing.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yes. It takes $57 million out of the Texas Education Agency and leaves it just available in the budget for all these members to do whatever they would like with it.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And is there a specification in your amendment as to where the commissioner can take that money in

(inaudible).

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: No, there's not.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So if he chose to take it from something that's fairly devastating --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, I shouldn't say that. There is one exception, one amendment I put on says you can't take it from the foundation school program but everything else is --

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: So he can take it out of say allotments for instructional materials.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: well, I assume the commissioner, whom I don't know very well, but I assume that his appointment indicates that he has some reasonability to make distinguishments between good and bad.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: A few moments ago you were willing to gut his agency, but if that's not the case -- but at any rate, I'll assume that so what if he took it from communities and schools, would you be happy with what little money they have being taken away?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Personally for me I wouldn't like that because I think communities and schools is a great program, but they have some programs that aren't so great. And I think they have some administrators that aren't so great. My problem with them, Mr. Aycock, is this: And I would challenge any legislator in this building who is listening to me now to stand up and tell me something that TEA has done something in their district that benefited students in their district.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: All right. I would be honored to have that discussion on the side.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: No, tell me publicly then.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: They come into my district pretty regularly and make sure special ed students -- that the special ed folks are in compliance with the requirements for taking care of special ed students. That's a real high deal in my district.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: They don't need but one person to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Well, that's -- at any rate.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Pardon?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I think it requires more than that, but at any rate I'm through with my questions. I think I know what I'm going to do.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: All right, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will my friend Mr. Dutton yield.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: I will yield to my colleague on public ed.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: who has been there almost as long as I have.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Not quite. You keep trying to get seniority, but you keep coming back to that committee.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: I know it. Nobody else will take the job.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: I know, it's a tough job. I understand what you're trying to do, I've helped you to try to get this in form. What bothers me about what you still have --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And I thank you for you that.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Sure. What bothers me about what you still have is that there's a number of things in the bill that we specifically told TEA to do and those aren't carved out by your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: No.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: One in particular and something in particular we have talked about quite a bit this evening, under your amendment, the commissioner could reduce funds to Windham. I think we spoke pretty strongly that that wasn't something that the body wanted to do. We do have communities and schools in there. We have adult basic education in there.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: In that undedicated generated revenue there are a number of programs that aren't nearly as many as there were in this current biennium of funds that go for specific purposes that your amendment doesn't exclude him from taking. You could get all the way to the end, you could exclude the same administrative staff at TEA, if that's what you're going after and he could have complied with your amendment. I don't think that's what you're trying to get at.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: No, you're right, Scott, and let me tell you this. What you've highlighted is a problem with TEA. I believe if we can't trust the commissioner to do what he needs to do to make sure that the priorities are met at TEA in regards to what this legislature thinks, then we have the wrong commissioner. And I mean, I can't do anything about that. The only thing I can do is say, look, when TEA embarks on an effort in every one of our districts, it seems to

(inaudible) that's designed to make sure that children get educated, wouldn't come into my district close the school that has been going on only for four weeks after the school start date, and they close the school and say, well, where are the kids going to go and they say we don't know.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: To me that doesn't make sense, and I think we've got the wrong agency or the wrong people, more than agencies.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Well, in that case, do you trust that person to decide whether or not to follow the priorities the House has set out in this bill and it seems too me the answer would be no.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And you are absolutely right. And that's why I started with $8 billion because I thought that would gut the agency. I thought that would leave them with one guy and one phone to be the whole TEA in Texas because I felt that that was all we needed if that's the way they're going to respond to students. I have been in public education for twenty years, Scott.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And do you know that they haven't even come to me one time with one thing that they thought was going to improve public education? I will also tell you this, and you know this, last session we isolated $245 million in the budget for them so that they could put together a teem to go out and diagnose low performing schools and then prescribe some remedy for those low performing schools. Guess how much money, guess what they did with that?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: They removed that in their 5 percent reduction plan.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yeah, they did. They didn't do anything. They did absolutely nothing. And what I didn't understand is that how can an agency that recognizes that one of the major efforts you and I and other people on public ed have been making is trying to improve the kids at the bottom trying to raise them up. What we have done in the past is that we have raised the ceiling for public education so that now kids have to achieve more but the kids at the bottom have --

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Crownover raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: The amendment is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock to speaking against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You've heard the discussion. I think you're well informed on the matter. I think if we permit this amendment to go on, it would give discretion that we don't want to have that much discretion where that money would come from. Move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton to close.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker and members, if TEA -- if you can identify something that TEA has done in your district that made a difference and you can attribute it solely to TEA, then you vote to table the amendment. If you can't think of one thing that they have done in your district, you ought to vote with me and no on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: I yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: You know, earlier we were having a discussion what to do with the head of TEA and I think, members, we're not really paying attention. And let me tell you why I think the sponsor of the amendment was Chairman Burt Solomon. Not only is he Chairman, he's Chairman of redistrict.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: To who I have voted with him.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Now, the reason I am bringing it up, the reason I'm bringing it up is because we just had a redistricting hearing and as everybody was coming in, he was showing them their future district in Alaska. That being said, I think what he was trying to do was make a point. As you're bringing up with this amendment, I know that some of the members that might consider voting against your amendment would be because how can we truly be in the bigger sphere of things. But what we're trying to do, I think, with this amendment is bringing attention to concern; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And one of the concerns that you have is making sure that TEA addresses the concern of our children.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Absolutely. That's been the problem, Mr. Alonzo. I think TEA is out of touch. I think TEA is absolutely out of touch, and I can tell you that there are members in this chamber who probably know that as well as you and I do but today they'd probably vote just the opposite. And today what I'm asking them to do is to stand up today and say, wait a minute, I'm not going accept that any longer, I'm going to do what I can for the people in my district. Do you know what I believe? That if TEA went away tomorrow that nobody would notice. I mean, absolutely nobody would notice. If you put a big fat zero in for them and figured out some other way to get federal money to the schedules and to the districts that we all represent, nobody would even notice that it happened.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And the point that you're bringing up is because there's three ways that TEA can be involved. To be for something, against something and to nothing. And part of what you're trying to say here is there's a lot of nothing going on by TEA; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And they're spending a lot of money doing nothing. Now, let me ask you -- let me make another point real quick because I know another member wants to ask questions. Do you know that last week, and I mentioned it earlier, last week we were having a redistricting hearing and the chairwoman of the state board of education -- and had to deal with state board districts came to testify and I told her that I had concern about drawing districts so that certain perspectives could be heard at the State board of education level, especially in light of what we mentioned yesterday, (inaudible) Chavez, they were trying to get rid of (inaudible) Chavez as a person and other persons. And I asked her Mr. Dutton what is the percentage of the kids throughout the State of Texas that are Hispanic, and she answered 50 percent and it's 53. So she did real well. And then I asked her, Mr. Dutton, what was the percentage of African American kids in the State of Texas. And you know what her response was?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: No, I don't. I have no idea.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: She says, I don't know.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, again, I think the problem, Mr. Alonzo, begins and ends with TEA. I have not found that agency to be responsive to children in this state at all and what I'm saying to members today is you have an opportunity -- I know some of you like smaller governments and I'd like to start with TEA, making them a whole lot smaller.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, I want to thank you, Mr. Dutton, for making sure we bring attention to TEA because we want to make sure that the moral responsibility that we have here in this House of Representatives is to ensure our children, our parents, that they're being listened to as we talk about these cuts and one of the things we need to make sure is that they're addressing their concern and that's why the people are outside expressing their concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And I couldn't agree more with you, Mr. Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Harris, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yes, I yield to Mr. Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The gentleman yields.

REPRSENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Representative Dutton. Do you know that I generally vote with you about once in the session?

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: Well, I was hoping you were getting better, Charlie.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Well, this is it. I think you have a good amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: If this is my one time I'll take it because this is the one time we can all stand up for children in this state and say to TEA we will not accept it any longer.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: And we don't have to accept it. I mean, if TEA went away tomorrow, it wouldn't change one thing in any school district in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Representative Dutton, I know you've been on public education committee a long time --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: And I've been fighting TEA a long time.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I've only been here 17 years.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: Right. But we've been trying to get their attention all that time and they have never ever given us their attention and they're not going to unless we do what you're trying to do right here. And this will get their attention, Charlie. I tell you if you vote with me and vote with my colleagues, we'll get TEA's attention today so that TEA can be a kind of agency that you and I both can be proud of and say to the students in Texas, well, guess what, TEA has your education at its highest.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: You have my vote.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Representative Craddick raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken --

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. SUTTON JR.: And I would ask you to vote no on the motion to table --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Dutton sends up an amendment, Mr. Aycock moves to table. The vote is on the motion to table. The record vote had been requested. Record vote granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Mr. Guitierrez voting no. Mr. Dutton voting no. Mr. Branch voting aye. Mr. Zedler voting aye. Have all voted? Being 86 ayes, 52 nays, two present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Members, we're going to page 187. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RAYMENT GUILLEN: I do have an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Back up, members. Members, we have a point order called on this amendment by Mr. Taylor. Members, the amendment on page 189 is withdrawn. Members we're going to 191. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 192 is withdrawn and 193. Members, we're going to page 194. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Reynolds.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Reynolds. Members, if you have amendments coming up, please be aware of that and be ready for them. Go ahead, Mr. Reynolds.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you cannot cut 7.8 billion from the education budget without severe negative impacts upon Texas' future. HB1 would cut $800 per pupil spending at a time when Texas already spends $1,359 below the national average per student instruction. My amendment would appropriate to the permanent school foundation any excess amount collected by the comptroller for the year ending August 31st, 2012 --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Craddick, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: For a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: State your inquiry, Mr. Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, what is the comptroller's biennial estimate this year, revenue estimate?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Craddick, I don't remember at this point.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Okay. Can you tell me what committee substitute for House Bill 1 appropriation and general revenue is?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: About 77 billion, Mr. Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, I raise point of order against further consideration of this amendment on the grounds that it further appropriates revenues exceeding comptroller biennial revenue --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Bring your point of order forward, Mr. Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: All three of them?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Absolutely. Members, we are now on page 195. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And members with this amendment, I hope to bring an opportunity for all of us to set a clear priority. This is about setting education and the quality of our education provided for our kids as clearly No. 1. It does not consist -- the bill simply says if we're going to use Rainy Day funds, then they must first go to fill in the hole in public education. It's very simple. Why do I bring this? Because I think the most foolish thing that we do in House Bill 1, the most short sided decision choice that has been made in House Bill 1 is to shortchange your children's education and I will be happy to answer questions in a second. Let me -- let me explain why I think this is worst decision ever made this legislative session yet. It hits our economy twice. It lands two punches. The first is short-term, the second happens later when our kids are older. Let's start with the first. The legislative budget board has estimated the economic impact of this bill to cost our economy 335,000 jobs in 2013. It produces a rise in unemployment by over 2.3 percent. In this time of a recovery that is so fragile, the passage of this bill threatens to double dip in our economy. The second hit comes when our children are older, when we would hope that they would become the next generations of doctors and engineers and entrepreneurs and creative minds that we hope for them to become. It undercuts their aspirations by failing to invest in their education today. And so, members, I believe we can right this wrong by simply saying if we're going to use the Rainy Day Fund, the first place it needs to go is in our children's schools. I ask for your consideration and support. And, Speaker, I am happy to take questions from my good friend Jimmy Don Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Yes, would the gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Villarreal, if your bill -- if your amendment succeeds, at that point, is it fair to say that House Bill 1 would require 100 votes to pass instead of 76 votes to pass?

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: No contingency amendment, it does not draw down funds from the Rainy Day. It says contingent appropriations from economic stabilization funds, so similar in House Bill 1 there are contingency riders that say such and such bill passes, then we can count on fee revenue to pay for a certain service, it doesn't require that bill to pass -- in order for House Bill 1 to pass, so it does not require a hundred votes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: For what purpose, Mr. Aycock?

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Parliamentary inquiry, please.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Might I ask that if this amendment succeeds, does it set up a situation in which House Bill 1 would require 100 votes to pass?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: If this amendment spends any money in future funds from the Rainy Day fund, yes, it would require two-thirds vote.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: In a future biennium. Members, the amendment on page 195 is withdrawn. Is Mr. Burnam on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 196 is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're going to page 198. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Castro -- Mr. Castro temporarily withdraws the amendment. Members, we're on page 199. Mr. Castro. This amendment on page 199 is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 192.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I'm sorry, members, the amendment was temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 192. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Members, I want to show y'all a poster. Here is a picture of our future. And what it talks about is the work for pre-K, our future working for pre-K. What this amendment seeks to do is to preserve that funding for our kindergarten programs that are cut in the bill and provides any money in excess of the GR receipts. For the year ending August 31st --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Craddick calls a point of order against further consideration. Bring your point forward.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: I'll withdraw the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The amendment is withdrawn.-- temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Page 196.

CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is contingent on House Bill 2013 and it simply provides if the money is generated through this bill that passes, it will be appropriated to the foundation school program. I move to Article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection to it? Motion is adopted. Members, we're on page 200. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment asks the Texas Education Agency to analyze the disciplinary and graduation data they are currently collecting. TEA currently collects data on suspensions and expulsions. Thousands of students receive disciplinary referrals each year in our schools. This amendment asks the TEA to connect the dots on who is being disciplinary referrals and academic achievement. We know that student behavior is a red flag that a child is at risk of dropping out of high school. Understanding the relationship between referrals and graduation rates would help our schools adjust our practices to keep kids on a path of graduation. Again, this amendment asks TEA to analyze data they are currently collecting. With that I move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Members, let me -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, let me have your attention just a moment. There are a number of these amendments that are going to request reports and studies and things like that we are at a time when we are trying to cut the expense of government and certainly these reports cut or cost the government. If we really want to cut, I think we should consider strongly limiting the number of reports that the legislature requests. I'm going to routinely move to table all of these, realizing that the House may find value in some of these reports. If you do, I understand, but I'm going to routinely move to table all the report requests that and the following amendments including this one. Move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.

REPRESENTEATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is information that TEA is currently, currently collecting and all we're trying to do is for them to connect the dots and give us some information as far as the relationship between referrals discipline referrals and graduation rates. And I move to vote against the motion to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Walle sends up an amendment, Mr. Aycock moves to table. The record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. The vote is on the motion to table, members. Show Representative Dawnna Dukes voting no. Showing Mr. Howard voting aye. Show Ms. Howard voting no. Showing Ms. Woolley voting no. Have all members voted? Being 97 ayes. and 47 nays, two present not voting, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're going to page 203, the Coleman amendment. The amendment has been withdrawn. Is Mr. Coleman on the floor of the House? Mr. Coleman's is temporarily withdrawn. Page 205. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Is Mr. Rodriguez on the floor of the House? Is Mr. Rodriguez on the floor of the House? Mr. Rodriguez is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Otto/Eiland. Amendment on page 206.

CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, Mr. Taylor and I bring this amendment to you today. Last session y'all were gracious in your appropriations to our district of community after Hurricane Ike. And coming into this session we ask for one thing, to keep the money appropriated to it last time and to give the same cuts everybody else got. Nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately that didn't happen in the House Bill. There's three state hospitals in Texas, UTMBMD Anderson, the one at UT Tyler, UT Tyler. And MD Anderson got a 10 percent cut because of some technical problems we believe or misinterpretations in the House. UTMB got a 25 percent cut foundation school to its operation where in the Senate it got a 10 percent cut, even though it's supposed to be the same. But the problem is that is a $51 million difference between 10 and 25 percent. So Mr. Taylor and I bring this amendment to you today to try to equalize the same thing, to equalization the cut. We do that by in the House Bill, we began an assumption that there would be teacher payroll increase, net increase of 3 percent. I think it's obvious that this bill there isn't going to be any net teacher payroll increase. In the appropriations bill in committee we reduced that assumption from 3 percent to 2 percent and put that $50 million in other programs. This bill would take it and reduce that assumption from 2 percent to 1 percent, which it would still have a higher assumption than the Senate, which is zero. That might cause people to have issues on voting with this since we don't know exactly what the payroll exemption is going to be. So we are going to move this Article 11. However, I wanted to bring it to your attention so that hopefully in the Comps committee we can go with the Senate version and get our cuts equal to everybody else. So, Mr. Speaker, members, we would move to put this to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, there is a motion to move to Article 11. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered. Ms. Truitt? Members, page 203. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, with this amendment, what it does it is provides data that reports on incident of harassment in public schools and the data is to be included in TEA's comprehensive report. And what this does is that data is on discrimination or harassment of school district employees or students enrolled in the district on the basis of their actual proceeds, that be, color, gender, gender identity, expression, sexual orientation, disability, religion or natural origin and that's what this amendment does.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Would the speaker yield for a question.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield, Mr. Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He'll yield.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Coleman. Is the amendment acceptable to the author? Are they going to accept this amendment.?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I don't know, I didn't ask.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This is a really good amendment in that we hear -- I know you in your office probably get the kind of calls that I get with regard to these kind of issues and so the documentation of this will be very important for all the school districts. So I was just trying to make sure that I communicated to members that we get these kind of calls and this -- to the extent we do, this would really help us understand what goes on in the various school districts.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct. All it does is -- is collect data based on the incidents that occur in the school districts around the State and nothing more than that. And it's good information to have.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you for your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you very much. Thank you, members. I hope it's acceptable.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it's another one on reports that you might or might not find useful in their office. To be consistent we ask that people limit their reports. I'm going to follow that policy just as well and recommend table.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will Mr. Aycock yield for a question.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Aycock, you just kind of talked about this. The amendment that Chairman Coleman brought forth, what is your objection to that amendment?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm going to object routinely on all the reports on the grounds that we need the money that's being spent on reports for better use. That being the education for children.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So that amendment, what does that amendment cost us?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: To tell you the truth I haven't looked.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So you're sitting there saying you're objecting on the amendment because of the cost, and you don't even know what the cost is.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'll be glad to look it up one moment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That would be helpful.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It actually doesn't list the cost in the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So what we're asking is that through the funds that they already have available, document like you would documentation, documenting if there was a school having problems with bullying or any other kinds of issues, we would be able to capture to what extent our school districts are having these problems. And you mean to tell me you object to knowing what is going on in our school districts? How can we better allocate resources if we don't know to what extent things are happening in the school district?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: We heard quite a bit of discussion this evening saying that we spent too much time on agencies and things like that, and I think this reduces that workload.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry. I'm not able to hear -- understand what you're saying. I'm sorry.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: We spent quite a bit of time this evening in talking about trying to reduce the intervention of agencies into the education of children, I think this is one more report that they have to generate and we routinely plan -- or I routinely plan this evening to oppose all such reports as a cost to the education of children.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But you just sat there and you didn't know what the cost was. There might not be a cost to this.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: If there is a cost, even one sheet of paper, it probably violates the calendar rule and I'll be happy to raise a point of order if you prefer.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Is it worth us knowing so that we can better plan and allocate resources based on what our needs are than you remaining ignorant and not knowing what we need money allocated for?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I have a very difficult time believing that LBB would not score this as some sort of a cost by the agency.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, I think it would be at least a courtesy to find out before you object to something on the basis you have no meaningful information regard -- I mean, a motion of just rejecting it because you say it might cost money. Don't you think it's important for us to have information so that we can make intelligent decisions relative to the expenditures that we're placing across the state?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: If you prefer, if Mr. Coleman's is willingly to withdraw the amendment temporarily and have LBB score a cost of producing the report.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, let me ask you something else. Do you believe that it is important that it is important to have information to make good decisions?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I believe it's important to make good decisions, and I believe we are inundated with information and my office is stacked high with reports.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: How many case or involvements have you gotten calls from school districts regarding these kinds of issues?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: About which kind of issues specifically?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry -- the kind that he's reporting that his report is going provide.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: About gender identity issue, I have not received one single question.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So that would generate a report for you then; is that right?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: It says that they would generate reports.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: To determine whether or not -- to tell you what's going on. If nothing's going on, it wouldn't require a report; is that right?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm having difficulty hearing you. Please, repeat.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I said if there's no activity or there's not a problem to report, there probably would not be a report generated; is that true?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Oh, I think they still have to produce a report, whether or not it's to my office or not.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, it's the members, we want you to be informed, because all of us live in different environments. And to the extent you're appropriating different money as it relates to public education, it would probably be helpful for you to know what's going on in the various school districts. At the very least you ought to know what the standing terms of what the cost is before you just summarily dismiss this.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I'm more than willing to held the LBB cost of report if you chose to move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Coleman to close.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: All right. Let me -- you know, life's pretty interesting, folks. We take reports on the incidents of crimes that occur on our campuses, I'm sure we do that. I'm sure that we have reports on incidents of any action that occurs with a teacher on our campus, because if I remember right, we had the bills that specifically that wanted to protect teachers from violent acts. We don't know what violent acts have occurred. If we don't know about them and we don't measure them, and all this amendment does is it says a measure those acts that have occurred and those are only acts that have been reported to teachers and the administration. That's all this does. And I'm sure there's already some report that those acts can go into that already is coming forward. That's what this does.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Madden, for what purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for one question.

REPRESENTEATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I'd be happy.

REPRESENTEATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Garnet, does your amendment just restrict them to activities that were done in the schools? It looks to me it's a much broader amendment that requires them to report on those activities s not just at the school but any place if it happened to a student or to a district employee. Am I reading that wrong?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: It doesn't say that it -- everywhere. The intent is that it's on campus.

REPRESENTEATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It doesn't say either, and it doesn't say on campus.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Right. But the intent is it being on campus.

REPRESENTEATIVE JERRY MADDEN: But your intent doesn't necessarily say --

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Not broader than the campuses itself.

REPRESENTEATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: So what this is any activity that happens on the campus that is reported to the administration, the principal and the is information probably reported anyway through the seat of the vice principal or security that's on the campus, but we don't have it by certain classifications and that's the reason for this amendment. I'm sure the reason why the legislative budget board didn't score this or didn't cost it is because I'm sure it's a minimal cost to what's being done now. And that's why I offer this amendment. And I think people know that there being a lot of incidents where there's actually been death, because we as a state haven't intervened in these areas. And that's the reason why I bring this amendment, to see what is the problem and see whether or not we can solve the problem. So with that I ask you to vote on the motion to table this amendment. And by the way, folks, this House has passed this amendment previously, passed this amendment previously on this floor because people said look we really do need to know what is going on in terms of the safety of our children in our schools across the State so I ask you to vote know against the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Now, tell us what the amendment to the amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: The amendment to the amendment changes funding. It goes 3 million per year to the Texas equalization grant, 9 million per year to the Texas grant program.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you yield, sir?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: He's trying to make up his mind.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I was thinking about that.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Is the amendment to the amendment, now, filed?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Yes, it is.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Mr. Isaac, I'm confused, what is the difference between the amendment and the amendment to the amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I respectfully submit the amendment to the amendment which is in the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: What does the amendment do, Mr. Isaac?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Well, at the end of the day, it's going to change the funding structure so that we can get the money to the Texas grant program and the Texas equalization grant program so that we can serve minority students, students that are economically challenged and get more people into our Texas university system.

REPRESENTATIVE KENNETH SHEETS: Sir, can you please explain to me and the people out there, out in the streets why we should take 24 million from the work force commission and reallocate it to the TEG program and Texas grants.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I'd be happy to tell you because currently 80 percent of the money that is going to the skills development fund within the Texas work force commission is being used to retrain existing employees and although that sounds great but it does sound like a government subsidizing business to me, I think businesses need to bear the burden of training their employees while we should try to fund the Texas grant and the Texas equalization grant system as much as possible so that we can get more deserving qualified students in school --

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Representative Anderson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Quick question. Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: I do have a serious question. Respectfully, Representative Isaac, as a member of the small economic development committee, we dealt a lot with the Texas work force commission over the last couple of weeks. Are you aware of the benefits of the skills of the skill development program?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Yes, I am. Seems to be doing a really good job for about 20 percent of the people. 5700 people that they have trained but the 21,000 I say are current employees and getting retraining at the benefit of our tax dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Okay, and one last question. Were you aware that the -- at the end of the day those training programs keep people from being out on the street.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Yes. I believe those the 5100 people, again only 20 percent and we're just making a small cut to their budget. Not equal to the --

REPRESENTATIVE RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Number of people they're training are actually searching for jobs.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Chisum for what purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: He yields.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Isaac, did I see in here that you were taking another 24 million out of which fund was that?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: The skill and development fund.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You don't want that fund done?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I do.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And you think it's all right to just not do that anymore or just not do as much as we were doing the last ten years when we grew faster than any other state in the union? Is that what you're --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: I think we're here today asking a lot of groups that we fund in the state to do a lot more with a lot less and in my opinion, this program has been about 20 percent effective in actually helping people be trained for new jobs not training people for existing jobs.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Not training people for existing jobs?

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Yeah in companies that I've worked for in the past, they actually paid to have me trained. We didn't take advantage of any grants to get additional training so I think we need to hire people or train people for new jobs not train them for existing jobs. I think that should be up to the corporation. I don't think we should subsidize businesses.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, would you agree with advances in technology that sometimes the existing work force is going to be needed to be retrained.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: Absolutely. I do agree and that's what's great about the Texas grant program is that you can use those funds to go to a technical college, vocational school, a 2 year school, a four year school --

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Murphy raises a point of order the gentleman's time has expired. The point is well taken and sustained. Representative Isaac sends up an amendment to his amendment. It is acceptable to the author. To the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Any objection? Chair hears none, now, we're on the Isaac amended amendment. Mr. Aycock, in opposition.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I know we're running late so I'll be brief. I think these skills development courses are really important to keeping people employed, the work force development centers need the money to keep the jobs in place. I move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Isaac to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES ISAAC: We've heard the term with all due respect quite a bit today and I do have a great deal of respect for the appropriations committee and the 15 months that they have been spending working on the cuts that we're having to make but the cuts to the Texas grant program and the Texas equalization grant are just too much and this is one small way where we can help under privileged families, families that are economically challenged, that are hardened by the economic burdens that we are facing in today's society and help their kid. These college kids, these kids that are able to go to college, they have qualified to go on whether it's a vocational program, or 2 year program or a four year school like the Texas state university system that sits in my district and part of it sits in Representative Gonzales' district, we need kids going to these schools so we can improve ow economy here in this state, attract better jobs, they can get the training that they need. Again they can use this for very similar to the skills development fund that they can actually get out there and do it on their own and improve their own lives. With that I close. I would

(inaudible) and a lot of college students and people that are sitting in high school right now in senior years wondering what they're going to do next year. I would appreciate you voting no on the motion to table the amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Isaac sends up an amendment. Mr. Aycock moves to table. Vote I, vote no, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Mr. Isaac no, Mr. Chisum yes, Dr. Schwertner yes, Mr. Murphy yes, Mr. Aycock yes, Mr. Miles no, Mr. Pitts yes. All voted? Mr. Villarreal no. All voted? All voted? There being 103 ayes, 35 nays, motion to table prevails.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. We just heard a passionate description for Texas grants. I just want to follow up now and echo that sentiment and tell you that Mr. Simpson is absolutely right. Texas grant is a program that pays dividends. This is a program that we created sometime ago. We told our high school students that if you (inaudible) courses, if you study hard, if you graduate from high school and per Sugarland College, we will be there for you to help afford college because we wanted to send the statement that if you are a hard worker, if you prepared yourself, then we did not want a four year degree outside of your reach simply because you could not afford it. Simply because your family may be wasn't positioned to pay tuition. And we did that knowing that we were changing how we pay for higher Ed. Let me make sure you understand this piece because it's often lost. In Texas in the 1970s, we paid for 75 percent of the cost to higher education. Over time, we cut back our coverage of costs. Today, we only cover, on average, 35 percent of the bill. We have tried to mitigate the rising costs through financial aid, targeted financial aid to students who need help, who have made the grade and are ready to succeed in college. Texas grants is just that. Now, let me tell you what this amendment does. It does not cost the bill. It does not take from one important priority like the skills development program that's intended to help adults who are at dead end jobs come back to school to retool and get a better job to provide for their families, it doesn't take from is something like that in order to give to another worthy program like Texas programs, no it doesn't. What it does is it simply allows us to express a priority by saying if we use Rainy Day funds, then we should raise the amount we once allocated for Texas grants up to its prior level. My friends, you and I know that the rhetoric around House Bill 1 has changed. In the very beginning of this legislative session we heard language that was lying in the sand language. We're only going to pass a bill that with cuts alone. Now, we are hearing this is the start of a conversation. We're going to see how the Senate sends it back to us. Well, let me tell you --

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: -- at some point if Rainy Day funds are used, what this amendment says --

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock for what purpose?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: -- Texas grants.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal do you yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Representative Mike Villareal let me make sure I understand here. I'll be brief. As I understand the amendment that you have before us does not create the situation that we had in your previous one where it would create the hundred votes. I believe we're okay on that; is that correct?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: That is correct.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: But your amendment does obligate and correct the spending of Rainy Day money should it be appropriated; is that correct?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: That is correct.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Th ank you.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So if we use Rainy Day money then we have to allocate $248 million, that's the amount that was cut in Texas grants to restoring that cut. So members, if you want to set a priority, tell your constituents that you support making college affordable to young men and women who have lived up to their side of the bargain and taken the college preparatory college and prepared themselves throughout high school, got admitted to a college but yet have tuition out of reach. If you want to tell your constituents that you're -- value these kids and you want to be there for them then here is the vote that will not cost this bill but will allow you to express this priority. I ask you to vote yes for this amendment. Looks like it's acceptable to the author because there's nobody else stating. Mr. Speaker, move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: This is a wonderful, worthy idea and I think everybody in this chamber wants to restore the funds but it is not time for us to start directing the use of the Rainy Day funds.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker will the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Yes.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Crownover yields.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Myra, why is it not time to begin setting priorities?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Well, we have set priorities, we've spent hours and hours in the appropriations process and we all know that this is, this is something that we will look forward to restoring when we can but I think at this pont in the process everyone would like to have their say on what happens to the Rainy Day fund, the rest of the Rainy Day fund and I think this would be premature to do this now.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So you're telling me that when you say process you mean this legislative session?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Yes.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: So you're telling me that it's not time to restore this cut during this legislative session but the conference committee may choose to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: I could not commit to that.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Ms. Crownover, this amendment is simply a contingency amendment and it sets a priority for making college affordable. Why not allow this body to say this is important? If the moneys become available, why shouldn't we set a priority for making college affordable?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Because today we are finishing up this step of the appropriations process and I think the next step will be to send our bill and to work with the Senate and to see what the priorities are of both bodies and then see what happens.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Ms. Crownover, I just have a really hard time explaining this to my constituents. That this time right now isn't the time to set priorities. Shouldn't we take advantage at every decision point to be able to say where we stand on making college affordable?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Well, I think we have done the best we can at this point with what we have and I don't think there is agreement on spending the Rainy Day fund so I don't think we should prioritize that at this point.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: We've -- we've -- I've heard you say we've done the best that we can with what we have. Don't we also have the Rainy Day fund right now available to us, a billion dollars if the body so chooses to tap that, do we not have access to it and if we choose to make that step, why is it a bad idea to take this opportunity to say making college affordable is a priority?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Well, because I think there are many people in this chamber that are very strongly opposed to use any more of the Rainy Day fund than we have used because we have sat in appropriations and heard the comptroller's comments on what we have ahead of us and we know that we have an economic stabilization fund that is I think was appropriately used on the money that we spent yesterday but I think there is a very compelling statement to say that we need, just like any family or any church or any business, allocate the use of their savings and so this is not a time to start prioritizing this savings when there's not agreement for us to use it.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I just think, Ms. Crownover, isn't this an easy vote? I mean, it seems like it's a hard vote to vote for or against using the Rainy Day fund but this is sort of a freebie. I mean, you can choose not to use the Rainy Day fund but still say if we were going to, we should prioritize making college affordable. No, it's not a freebie.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: There are 150 members in this House right now that if we were going to start allocating where we were going to jump next, they would want to stand right behind you and list their preferences. So that's why I think it's inappropriate at this time. Move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal to close.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Members, I want to make clear, you may be of the opinion that we shouldn't use the Rainy Day fund but I think this vote that you're about to cast allows you to also give the opinion that if we were to yous the Rainy Day and we should make it a priority to make college affordable. But on the question of the Rainy Day fund, you may or maybe not be aware that today's the official estimate net, the House Bill 275 allocation money from the Rainy Day fund, we have about $6 billion and experts estimate that we could have another 2 billion in the Rainy Day fund. We have a healthy Rainy Day fund, one that is at a historic level and deserves to be put on the table as an option to mitigate the harmful devastating cuts to education and many other important priorities. The amendments I'm bringing to you at this moment allows you to say if we use the Rainy Day fund, we should prioritize making college affordable by undoing the cuts to Texas grants. I respectfully ask for your vote against the motion to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal sends up an amendment. Representative Crownover moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Ms. Crownover voting aye, show Mr. Villarreal voting no. Have all voted? Mr. Berman voting aye, show Mr. Flynn voting aye. Have all voted? Being 100 ayes, 46 nays, motion to table prevails. Mr. Gallego following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this allocated funds appropriated would continue legislative funds -- legislative law clinic at the university of Texas. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 224 is withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Dr. Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment which simply moves $50,000 within the Prairie View A&M strategy to allow them to move forward with the program they call Access. The Access program has been an award winning program that has prepared students to go to college. It's been focused on high school seniors and freshman, it's been extraordinarily successful, as a focus on retaining people and actually getting them through college. With that, I think it's acceptable to the author and I move adoption.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Farias.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Joe Farias.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members, earlier in the day and yesterday, I spoke about our university of San Antonio A&M which is a brand new standalone university in the southern part of the Bexar County. The university has been growing by leaps and bounds and now with the budget shortfall, they have been, have lost some money and so it is the intent of this amendment to restore some of that money for our university so they can keep operating. So it's not a great deal of amount of money but yet it is enough to sustain them for the next biennium and so what we're asking for is from the economic stabilization fund of $3,894,271 to offset the reduction rate of the special item funding for Texas A&M San Antonio. $4 million is not a lot when you talk about billions, $4 million is not a lot and our university would be able to sustain and continue to grow, if we don't receive this money then we're going to flat line for a couple of years and not be able to provide things for our children and our higher education program in San Antonio. So I haven't heard from the --

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE MYRA CROWNOVER: Many of us have universities in our areas and we would love to earmark this money for our universities but this is spending the Rainy Day fund as we just talked about so I move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Joe Farias to close.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members, we got to make an attempt to support the educational systems that are in our district. This is very near and dear to us on the south side because of the programs that exist so I wish that y'all could help me out on this and pass it.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Joe Farias sends up an amendment. Representative Crownover moves to table. It's on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Crownover voting aye, show Representative Joe Farias voting no, show Representative Berman voting aye. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes and 43 nays, the motion to table prevails. The amendment on page 227 has been withdrawn. Members, the amendment on page 228. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby. Mr. Darby on the floor of the House. The amendment is withdrawn. I'm sorry, members. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 228. Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, we move to move this to Article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I know he's trying to move it to Article 11 but I have a parliamentary inquiry with regards to this amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This amendment talks about $75 million that was above the revenue estimate. If I'm not -- if I don't forget, I think, is it 75 million already part of the budget?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This is contingent on Representative Otto's tax bill passing and why this needs to go to Article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But I want to be clear because I was told that this 75 million has already been distributed and is it part of the certification of the appropriations bill? Does that make that representation to me when I was -- when we were debating the voter ID bill the $75 million has been appropriated through the appropriations process.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I don't recall that conversation. Was that between you and Representative Otto?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Mine was part of that 75 million. And it's contingent upon the passage of the tax bill.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But so my question is, is this 75 million appropriated in this budget and used for certification for this budget because that was represented to me by someone.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It's my understanding that the 75 million is not in the current BRE.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay, but if in the -- but you all used it -- it's in the budget; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. This is a point of order to this. I would like to raise a point of order that this amendment is above the budget revenue estimate. So, there are -- this amendment is not something we can consider.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego for what purpose?

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: In terms of germaneness, as I understand, Mr. Darby's amendment, you would take $75 million from a proposed tax amnesty bill and apply essentially half a million of that to a special item in the budget pattern for Angelo State University; is that correct?

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, Mr. Gallego.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So if we wanted amendments that would add, that would take part of that $75 million because if you will recall a lot of special items were cut for each university across the board so would it be germane to add other amendments for other universities and other special items to this? Because if so I have an amendment being drafted that would take care of so Ross university and I have -- and I'm sure that other members would also like to provide their special item funding for their special items that were cut.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair would like to recognize Representative Otto to explain that to you. Chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Representative Gallego, let me explain something. There is no bill. During my subcommittee's work, I approached the comptroller and requested if she would consider a tax amnesty program in the next biennium. No legislation is necessary. She can do that. I then -- she's done it in 2007. She -- I then determined that she would give me credit of 75 million additional revenue that was in the BRE and my subcommittee basically utilized almost all of that money to plug holes that we had. The reason that the state law library is back in existence in this budget is because we used sort of some of that. The reason that the amnesty program is back in TDCJ is because we used part of that.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So how much of that is left.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I've got the document here that I'd have to refer to but both of the --

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, you're -- here's my issue.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: What's left cannot be appropriated in this budget. This needs to go into Article 11. There is some amount of money that is left over from the 75 million. It's not very much but I can determine and the comptroller is going to give us credit for what was there but most of it has been during the subcommittee process with riders that were placed in the bill that was voted out of the committee and is now part of the bill that is before us tonight.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: And I appreciate that, Mr. Otto, but before that goes into Article 11, again, every university, their special items were cut by how much?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: How much university special items were cut? Every university special items were cut.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's correct.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: So if everybody's special items were cut, rather than doing one special item at a time, even if we're going to Article 11, is there an opportunity to amend the rider to amend the -- Mr. Darby's amendment such that at least in Article 11 all of the other universities are covered and their special items are covered as well.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: My understanding is there were 2 med schools and a nursing school that received our funds that took more than a 25 percent cut and this was to restore. One of them got done in subcommittee, the other 2 did not. My understanding and Mr. Darby's amendment is for the nursing school that is in -- this was an attempt to get them back to a 25 percent cut. 75 percent cut -- I'm sorry. Leave them with 25 percent. So anybody I would think could file an amendment but there is very limited fundings that are left out of the tax amnesty rider that my committee used in getting adopted into the Committee Substitute for House Bill 1 and most of those funds were used in Article I, four and the biggest part of it in Article V.

REPRESENTEATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Well, I do think, again, I do think everybody's special items are important.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't disagree and this is going to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis races a point of order against further consideration. Pursuant to rule 8.4. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Schwertner, Dr. Schwertner. The amendment on page 230 is withdrawn. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: On page 231. Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTEATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I am moving this amendment to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The amendment on page 232 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 233 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 234. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTEATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker and members with respect to the amendment on 234, I would move that that go to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, motion is adopted. The amendment on page 235. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Aycock.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment to correct the defect in the original amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Aycock.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you, members. The amendment to the amendment corrects to bring in line with the colleges that were reopened. Originally, you recall there were some communities colleges that were not closed. We had to go back and adjust some figures and get them right. I'm assured by the LBB that the figures that you see before you on the corrected amendment are the correct figures and the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Back on the Aycock amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I move passage of the amendment and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. We're on page 236. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is acceptable to the author so I'll just be brief. We talked about the auxiliary enterprise funds and how we don't appropriate them. All this does is make sure there's a statement included on those funds that they are not appropriated and not backed by the states.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?

REPRESENTEATIVE JAMES JEFFER: Raise a point of order on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring it on down.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Point of order was withdrawn. Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move adoption.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, amendment --

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I know it's late but I'll try and be brief. Will the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Will you yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Explain to us about what would be included in auxiliary funds.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Say it again.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Explain to us what would be included in the auxiliary funds.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: The auxiliary funds are funds that the university, the state does not appropriate and those funds that include intercollegiate athletics, parking, food services, contracts and things of that nature that they keep separate and apart. We don't appropriate them, they keep them locally and so what this would say and clarify is that these are, the state is not involved in those contracts. The state does not back them. Mr. Pitts and I talked this morning about for example the UT and ESPN contracts and that's an example of what this would apply to in the future.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay so as long as there are no moneys being lost on the auxiliary funds there's no prohibition on those auxiliary funds being used by colleges then.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Right. We have no -- we have absolutely no say so over auxiliary funds.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Absolutely none.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Aycock for what purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: I would request that the gentleman's exchange of words be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? So ordered. Mr. Eiland sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Now, we're on the Eiland amendment. Question occurs on the adoption of the Eiland amendment. Record vote has been requested, record vote is granted. Clerk ring the bell. This is on the Eiland amendment. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Mr. Aycock voting aye, show Mr. Lucio voting aye, have all voted? This is on the amendment. Okay. Take your time. This is on the Eiland amendment. Show Mr. Gooden voting aye. Have all voted? Being 99 ayes and 36 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 237 following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Wayne Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you members, this amendment will be the funds of our university that if they spend money to create a center for gender and sexual centers that they move at least 50 percent or match the dollars in a traditional family value center. Does not require just that if they're going to pay for one they need to balance it to the other. Move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Castro for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Christian, I know there was a lot of discussion here and I couldn't hear very well the description of your amendment. What exactly does it do, now?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, currently university of Texas, Texas A&M, some other schools have a gender and sexuality center, brick and mortar that they are using for alternative sexual practices to encourage them by allowing them by teaching them by giving course of study by giving literature, questionnaires and I'm not treading on their rights to do that, to teach alternative sexual behavior but my amendment says that it would just allow that if they're going to do it they have to spend equal dollars teaching also at that university, allowing, not teaching. Allowing in the same state and the same opportunity for traditional family values.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But Representative why are we getting in the middle of what our universities are teaching or what our universities are funding and in terms of you know making sure that they're going a certain way.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Just like if they were instructing students on how to make terrorism, bombs or murder or whatever, there's all kinds of issue that we do not desire that they study. So we can regulate what they do and do not teach in our universities. And all of our public institutions. This is not telling them they can't. So, I'm saying they can go ahead and teach whatever they want to, do what they want to, not restrict anything. No restrictions whatsoever. Just as if they're going to do that they have to match the center, the dollars, the medical recorder and the cost of taxpayer dollars with traditional values.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Sp eaker -- well, actually, I have one more question. What is a pan sexual?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: You would be able to go to the University of Texas and A&M, attend their sexual and header -- gender and sexuality center, they would teach you. And let me tell you -- I agree with you. I am uncomfortable asking the question. I will gladly do so but I just want to remind you that the answer to the question because it is humorous to you, it's humorous to me that that's what we're allowing with our tax dollars to be done. There's nothing I can read on this and I have a lot I can read of what I came up with, what our public tax dollars that I would want to apologize to all the ladies in the auditorium before I said such but that is what we are paying to be provided with our tax dollars at our universities. All I'm saying, let them go ahead and do this, I'm not limiting this, but also give to traditional family values the same dollars or the same time if they're doing that. Move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Wayne Christian sends up an amendment. Record vote has been requested. Clerk will ring the bell. This is on the amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Show Mr. Flynn voting aye. Show Mr. Aycock voting aye, show Mr. Pitts voting aye. Have all voted? Mr. Lucio voting aye. Have all voted? Being 110 ayes and 24 nays, the amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is on page 238. Chair recognizes Representative Wayne Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment says that we teach at our universities a lot of different life -- a lot of different cultures from different places around the world which is great and wonderful, we have a multicultural society, which is great, we deserve it but what we're trying to get, we're losing the teachings of our western civilization. All this says is that 10 percent of the courses that they teach should reflect western civilization, western civilization literature, history, etc. Only 10 percent. And I move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian sends up an amendment. Amendment record vote's been requested.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question? Are we on 238 now?

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's correct, yes. Page 238.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call a point of order on this amendment in that it creates general law.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. Point of order is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Wayne Christian. Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Will the Representative yield for a question.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Your last amendment you just dictated our public colleges and universities are supposed to allocate their money on traditional values and alternative sexual values or lifestyles. Now, this amendment deals with subject matter having to do with culture and now you dictate to colleges and universities how they're supposed to allocate money when it comes to teaching about certain cultures.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Well, of course --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: , is that correct.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No. I don't have authority to do such. I wouldn't be presumptive enough but because we in this body do have that ability I'm asking the House would it be also their desire so we as an institution, as a legislature do have that ability and yes I think we should. That's what I'm suggesting.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. You're the author of the amendment correct?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Of course. I'm suggesting to the House and you, that's my suggestions but I'm not asking that I do it. I am asking will the House like to be able to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: But what I'm asking you is can you describe, you say -- I'm going to pick it up on line nine. Those courses provide instruction in western civilization as designated in the institutions course data log, etc. Can you tell me what the courses are in that data log?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not exactly.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Wait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You are the author of this amendment, you are asking the university to dictate a certain amount of resources to western civilisation and as the author of this amendment you can't answer a basic question about western civilization, then maybe you need to learn it before you have the university teach it.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I think you asked me did I know the list of courses that were listed in the university manual. Which university manual? I have not memorized the manual context and the text and the table of index and the table of contents in the manual in one independent Texas --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Wayne, can you name me one class that you know off the top of your head that you are asking students to have to take. That you're asking that's affected by your amendment? One class.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It is not my business to assess what they are teaching. My amendment says --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Wayne --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- that 10 percent should be additional on western civilization. Based on western civilization. Whether it be history -- I'm not telling them what to do --

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Wayne. Let me --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- courses of the world wide history of African of European, ancient grease, etc., then western civilization should be a part of each university table of contents.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: You couldn't answer one question about western civilization although you were making law about it. My suggestions is that if you're going to offer an amendment about subject matter that you at least know what you're talking about.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That would be good.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I certainly will.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren has raised the point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker I close.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker, will you extend the gentleman's time?

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miles has a chance to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: So you're not going to extend the time? I just got a point of clarification with Mr. Christian. I'm just trying to figure out what his amendment is doing. Just one question. Two questions.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Mike Villareal to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Members, I just want to point out. Whether row -- I like western civilization studies. I think it's wonderful. Here's the challenge though. Mr. Christian's amendment actually designates 10 percent of all of the budget dedicated to delivering courses to be spent on this one subject area and it really is sort of a subject area within the larger college of liberal arts and so you're specifying 10 percent, which is actually a big allocation of a university's curriculum for this one item. Now, it's one thing to say you should make sure to set aside an appropriate space for western civilization studies. It really is something else for this body to get into the details of determining the makeup of a university's curriculum. It's important to remember colleagues, that the state legislature actually only pays for about 35 percent on average of a university's budget. And so, while we think that we pay the whole bill for higher Ed, we only cover 35 percent. To get into writing the details of how much --

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lucio for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal do you yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Have you been presented any information that defines western civilization prior to this bill, prior to this amendment?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: No.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Are there any studies that show that the ability of our students to succeed after college would be enhanced by having 10 percent of their academic dollars spent on western civilization?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: No. In fact there's been more of a move to emphasizing and encouraging students to go into the similar field science, technology, engineering. In fact we're paying our universities more if they graduate students in the stem field, so this amendment actually undoes sort of unwinds a lot of the incentive funding for universities to graduate students in the stem field and sends more money to the liberal arts colleges.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So instead of the areas that we're lacking behind science, math, we actually have some ambiguous western civilization emphasis that we're trying to do with this amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Sure. And I believe under this general umbrella of western civilization you can find the study of sociology, of philosophy of anthropology. These are subject areas that you know the state has actually made a policy of paying our universities more to send students away from and to the stem field.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: So are we guaranteed the Mexican American studies, African American studies, American Indian studies, Asian American studies and all the other minority groups who have been part of shaping our country are going to be included in the definition of western civilization studies?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I'd rather us not get into the practice of having set aside, require teachings and -- messing with the curriculum --

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO: Okay. I think other members want to ask you questions.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a quick question.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I do.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Strama.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Quick question.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, could we please have order? I think it's very difficult for the gentleman at the mic to hear and we could keep debating the process if we have respect for those at the mic. Mr. Strama, would you like the gentleman to yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Exactly. Thank you.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Representative Mike Villareal, isn't one of the key features of western civilization the success of our higher education institution.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: And isn't one of the central tenants of those higher education institutions despite the fact that it has sometime been politically unpopular that we have protected them from political impulses and preserved them as a place where academic freedom reigns.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: That is accurate --

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Feature of western civilization isn't it? Somehow we all should study it but maybe we shouldn't mandate it.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Well, as you recall the author himself couldn't say it any particular courses that fell under the umbrella of western civilization so he might not be aware of that fact. Members, this really unwinds a lot of what we've tried to accomplish over the last decade in higher Ed pushing our students into the direction of stem field --

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Taylor makes a motion -- raise the point of the order the gentleman's time expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a motion to table this amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the Christian amendment? Chair -- the motion to table. Chair seeing no one, Chair recognizes Representative Christian to close on his amendment or to speak against the motion to table. Representative Christian to speak against the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move that we do not -- I move to table the motion to -- okay I suggest you folks vote against the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Anchia for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Will the gentleman yield for a question, Representative, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Just a couple of questions --

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Representative Anchia -- members. Several members are saying they're unable to hear between the mics. Can we please take our conversations outside the realm and allow the members to visit? Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Christian, in your view since western civilization isn't defined in your intent clause, does that include geometry by way of example?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: No.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Does it include algebra?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It doesn't include --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Any of the sciences?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: If history was created and what was during that time and that portion is part of some history courses and where it came from those courses or those sciences where the discovery was made is found then it can establish that and it would be part of it. Understand, what I want is the intelligent people of our universities to direct this to decide this. I'm not here presuming.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Does it teach African American studies?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: If they were part of -- if African American studies were part of the involvements I'm sure they were in all things.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Hold on. Hold on. You should know, right?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: There's very good evidence that I am not totally aware of every issue that we need our --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Does it include Mexican American studies?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That was not my decision.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: But is it your intent? You're expressing your intent. I'm trying to get at your intent because we as a legislature need to understand what you're thinking here. You're expressing intent. You're asking us to express your intent, I'm asking you to clarify. Does it include African American studies?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: If that was involved in the development of western culture and I'm sure at some point it was. That could be brought into that teaching but it should be --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Does it include native American studies?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Native American studies should be taught at our universities. I would like them to, as African American studies.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So you're clear on that?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: As should --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Are they included within your definition of western civilization since it is not defined in this clause? In this intent? I mean, it's your intent, it's your --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's my intent.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Right. So tell me your intent.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My intent is that our universities take the studies that came, the history that came --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So you're not answering specifically then I should take from that that your intent that it not include African American study, Mexican American studies, or native American studies. Is that right? Just tell us what your intent is.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It's the study of the great literature of the western civilization and that is not being taught at all of our schools and the leaders that were involved in that.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I mean, what's funny is, so is it exclusively literature and not history? Is it history literature? I mean you don't define it --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Of course literature is involved. Literature was written during a historical perspective. Literature written stood part of this history. Literature written a century, 2 centuries ago is part of that history.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Would the I have a dream speech be included in study of western civilization?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I'm sure the development of free speech. I remember the study of the development of the --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Would the abolitionist movement be included?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The what?

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Abolitionist movement. The history of the abolitionist movement, women suffrage, are any of those things in your definition of western civilization.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I do not. I would think -- whatever -- the main thing I'm for a ancient history, for the history of our western civilization, literature developed from that. It is absent from many of our entities of higher learning. If you're going --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you for giving us absolutely no more guidance on what your intent is. I'll take your evasiveness on this as meaning you don't want to include any of those things and that you have a very subjective intent and I believe it will be very confusing and frankly it will be very political, very political and potentially insulting to the diverse membership of this body that you're actually bringing this amendment because you failed to be specific, you continuously are evasive and frankly you don't want to give the legislature, you don't want to tell your colleagues in the legislature what you're thinking how is the university of Texas going to interpret this or any other Texas university other than a political statement and I submit a Representative Strama that that our universities should be free and free from this type of manipulation and political --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I appreciate that --

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: On the House floor.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I stand here as an example of the fact that I believe that we as the people should move towards the time that we can live with each other and talk about your history, my history, anybody's history. The development of democracy from western civilization something we all share and envy in this room. Where it came from was partially from the development in western history. That is being removed of where it came from. Most of our children when they're tested today think that freedom started at the time of the civil rights movement in America. It didn't. It started back in western Europe as we moved from there to this country for freedom. It's the development of --

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Miles.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- time and goodness what we are for.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Miles.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Question to my good friend Wayne.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Do you yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Certainly.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields Representative Miles.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Can you just kind of give me a description of what your intent was when you put in western civilization. What did you mean by that?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: The development is where -- the part that western civilization. We should teach where the Mexican country, Spaniards came to Mexico, had to develop from that. We should have to understand all the back to how that came and many made Texas what it is. Amendment multicultural society. We studied from where it came from, the Canadians, the French coming down made America a multicultural society but we leave out so many times because of some bad feelings that have occurred for years, genuine feelings

(inaudible), we have left out what made democracy the thing that came to America. Where'd it come from? It came from western culture. Western civilization that brought some of those ideas. The workers, the freedom, some of the industries we enjoy --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Wayne.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- came from western Europe --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Wayne.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- to become part of this country.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: I'm a Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- to be.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: I'm a Christian.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: -- the liberties we enjoy. Where'd it come from?

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: What? The history that you --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not all of them.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would it include the history of the Jim Crow south?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: What.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would it include the history of the Jim Crow south?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It should if that was part of the history. The thing is, take me for example. If that's part of the western civilization that had --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would it include the dragging of James Bird that happened in your district.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: That's right. Happened in my district.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Would that include the history of James Bird, the dragging of James Bird that happened in your district?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not a western civilization.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: So none of the history of African American or Asian American, none of that would be included in this, right?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would that be included in African history? Would white European history be included in --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: You really don't want to go there with me, man. You really don't --

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would Spanish Mexican history be included in that? If it is, it should but that's where we should study and get the truth. Not the made up, not the separated but if you're going to teach this one and that one orb whatever. It how --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Wayne, why don't we do Texas a great favor. Why don't we respect the state of Texas and let's pull this down.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I respect the state of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Let's pull this down, Wayne Christian. Let's respect the state of Texas and the diversity in this great state and let's pull this down, brother.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I respect your opinion, I respect that and I truthfully tell you that I hope that you will understand that it is not from any type of bias, mistrust --

REPRESENTATIVE BORRIS MILES: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It is from a heart that wants everything to be on the table.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: For what purpose Representative Miles? REPRESENTamendmentTIVE BORRIS MILES: I'm going to ask that you take all of my words and all of Mr. Anchia's words and all of Mr. Christian's words and make sure they're logged in the journal, please.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Crownover raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: State your inquiry Mr. Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Yes. Would it be possible to get my questions and Representative Christian's indecipherable intent reduced to writing and placed in the journal so that the University of Texas could be completely -- as to what his intent is?

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: We have done that Mr. Anchia. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members the question is on the Christian amendment. There was a motion to table. Question is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote no. Have all voted? Show Representative Craig Eiland voting aye. Have all voted? There being 108 ayes, 27 nays, the motion to table. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit, let's go home. I move it to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Any objection? Chair hearing none, so ordered. Members the amendment on page 240 is withdrawn. Van Taylor of north Texas. Members if you're not ready when your amendment is called, your amendment will be withdrawn. Mr. Taylor of north Texas, Collins. Chair lays out amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Following amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collins.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor of Collins to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, we have an important decision to make tonight. We have a decision with this amendment to decide whether or not we're going to restore Texas grants. For the last 12 years ago, republicans and democrats came together to form the Texas grant program. This is an opportunity for us to make sure that the Texas kids have the opportunity to get a college education. Now, we -- Right now, we're funding 100 -- we're funding tonight. This body will spend about $10 billion on higher education in the state of Texas, the question we have to ask ourselves is if we you have 1 percent from the formula and put that 1 percent directly to the kids to pay for their tuition, isn't that a better way for us to spend our dollars? Unfortunately right now because we canceled Texas grants, a lot of kids don't know whether or not they're going to have the money to pay for tuition next year. E-mails are going out, I think Representative Castro read one yesterday from kids that are wanting to go to UT telling us that we don't know if there will be Texas grants or what kind of funding there will be for them to go to college, to better themselves, to get a better life. I think an important message to hear for us in this chamber is the kids --

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Taylor. It's the amendment to the amendment, Chair lays out the amendment to the amendment to be read by the clerk.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Taylor of Collins.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor of Collins to explain the amendment to the amendment.

MR. TAYLOR: All right, members, I'm pulling 241 and I'm working on 244. I withdraw this amendment and if I could request we skip to 244 and just stay on topic.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Taylor of Collins withdraws the amendment. Representative Geanie Morrison on page 222. The amendment is withdrawn. Mr. Christian, page 243. Mr. Christian going once. Amendment on page 243, Representative Christian. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Christian.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Christian to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This was the human services organization in Lufkin, Texas that we have many of the ten counties in our area that pay to them to help support and they support those that are on drugs or those that are on alcohol that are picked up in these small little jails and they just lock them in the jails. What they do is they drive them to Lufkin and puts them in a human service center there.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, we really do need you to be prepared and ready for your amendment. There's a book that has them by number. You need to be paying attention and ready to come explain your amendment. Representative Christian you may continue.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: This is simply a report on the student loan debt. My apologies, House. My fault, Mr. Speaker. And this just says institutions receiving any funds just simply submit to the governor and the legislative board report of the student loans. Just so that we can advise and learn what the student loans are doing. No cost, it's already on the record just a report to us each year and I move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Aycock.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker, thank you and in keeping with our policy for then. We're going to move to table this report request. Move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Christian to speak against the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: I would move not to table, please.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Dutton for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if there's something wrong with the acoustics in the building, but back here we couldn't understand either Mr. Christian or the other gentleman, we didn't understand, we could hear them but we couldn't understand a word they said. I know it's late and I probably have had more cups of coffee than I should have but Mr. King and I both had the same problem. We couldn't understand a word that either one of them said.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Mr. Dutton raises a fair point. It is difficult to hear conversations between the front and the back mic. Please work with us. Take your conversations outside the realm. Mr. Christian would you please explain your amendment?

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: My apologies, my fault. This is a -- this is telling our institutions of higher learning to report the status of student loans that they are making, just the status. They have it on all the records. We don't have it to use in our considerations here when we look at the finance and we need to help students more, where are student loans going, are providing. Just the records that are on each clog College so that we'll have them for the committees that consider such in session. Just ask them to do this. It requires them to do such. That's the purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Just like we've opposed all other reports, all evening, we will recommend that we refuse the request for this report. Move to table.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Christian offers up an amendment. Representative Aycock moves to table. Members, vote from your desk. Clerk please ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 131 ayes, 11 nays, three present not voting, motion to table prevails. Members we're on page 244. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Collins.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members there's an amendment to the amendment. Clerk please read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Taylor of Collins.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor of Collins to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the amendment that I spoke of well, I thought I was speaking of earlier. It is important that we have more college graduates in Texas. When we look at the future demographics of our state and we look at the fact that our education level continues to drop, right now in America about 27 percent of American's have a four year college degree. Only about 24 percent of Texans have a four year college degree. So it's extremely important that we educate more Texans. Particularly when you look at the income numbers per capita income numbers of Texans decline over the next 30 years because we're not having move kids graduate from college. So it's very, very important that we have more kids graduating from college. I think the single most important thing that we could do here, tonight, is to vote to restore Texas grants. Texas grants make sure that children that are trying to better themselves and is trying to get an education and trying to attend a public university have that opportunity. Tonight, we're going to spend about $10 billion on public -- higher public education in the state of Texas. $10 billion on our public universities. So the question we have to ask ourselves, are we going to take one merse of that and keep it in the formula funding or are we going to take that 1 percent and give it directly to Texas children that need money for their tuition?

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: First I want to start with a comment and say thank you so much for caring about fully funding Texas grants and recognizing the merit it has in our state. I also want to thank you for speaking so clearly into the microphone.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: You're welcome.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Are you aware, however, that by removing money from our formula funding for universities, the consequence is likely that tuition will have to raise?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well --

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I think it's important to remember the total revenue story for the higher education in Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Again we're giving about $10 billion to higher education in Texas, in this budget. Furthermore, they get tuition money which is the money that we give to them but students give to them and they also get federal grants. So there's -- this is a very small piece of the overall revenue pictured for the higher education in Texas.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Are you aware that the cuts already to universities amounts to about 21 percent, 20 percent? Higher Ed?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Clearly there are some very stern cuts in higher education but the question is how are we going to allocate the money that we do have? The 10 billion that we are spending on higher ed, are we going to put it through the formula and let it trickle down and hopefully get to kids that need an education? Or are we going to go directly to the children themselves and pay for their tuition. In paying for their tuition at least I know that I can hold that university accountable that they're educating a child. That they're bettering the future of our state. That they're increasing the per capita for your college degree number for Texas.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: See here's the dynamic that already is going to play itself out and then you exacerbate it. Right now because we fund our universities through our formulas, we expect, if, the universities derive the loss revenue and make up for it through higher tuition, we expect tuition to rise by about 13 percent. Now, I don't think they will pass all of the costs onto our students but let's say they pass just a quarter of the cost. Well, that's a 3 percent rise in tuition rates across the board and here's something that row may not be aware of but when tuition rates rise, 20 percent of the increase automatically has to be set aside for financial aid and so I guess what I'm saying is that the lost revenue has to be made up in higher tuition and the rise in tuition has to be increased even higher because there are these sort of automatic bill -- set asides for financial aid and so in the end I guess you know I hope you appreciate that if we don't cover their costs in formulas and we move that to Texas grants which is certainly a very worthy cause, these students that receive a Texas grant are going to have to face a higher tuition rate and so it sort of -- a bad choice.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, here's the beauty of what this amendment does. It doesn't tang money out of the higher education it just changes how the funding gets to higher education. Again to (inaudible) top with the formula and hope it works its way down it doesn't get siphoned off to some project or program or special idea or research or do we give it directly to the child? Directly to the individual who's trying to get a degree, who's trying to better themselves, who's trying to get an education. The money still goes to higher education. The amount of money we're going to spend on higher education in the state of Texas is going to be the same with this amendment. The question is does it go directly to the child or does it go to the top and work its way down and we hope, we think unaccountably it will actually get the educating children.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: Mr. Taylor, there were other amendments that actually didn't allow us, didn't force us into this soft choice of picking either funding our universities orb funding our student's financial aid that offered us a third. Those amendments suggested we should pull down from the rainy day fund to make college affordable or to adequately fund our universities. How did you vote on those?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: My votes yesterday aren't what we're debating. What we're debating right now is how are we going to fund public education in Texas? Are we going to put it in the top, pull it down, hope that it gets to the kids, are we going to write to the children who are trying to get educated, trying to better themselves, who are trying to move up.

REPRESENTEATIVE MIKE VILLAREAL: I take it you didn't vote yes to the Rainy Day fund to make college affordable and that's okay. One thing I want to clarify is that we actually don't give Texas grants to the students directly, we send it to the universities based on their share of needy students and then they distribute it based on their own financial aid program and so it isn't like a voucher where a student walks with it to whatever university over choice. It actually goes to the university to help finance their cost.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, look, as you know this program was born 12 years ago, republicans.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Phillips raises the point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak against the amendment? Representative Aycock is recognized in opposition to the amendment. Oh I'm sorry Representative Branch. That was my mistake. Representative Branch is recognized in opposition of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, and thank you Representative Taylor. I know you worked real hard on this and I know you care deeply about higher education in your work in the interim. So -- but I think that the, while your intentions are good I would urge the members to consider that the funding does go to the institutions through the Texas Tech grants program. We're working hard to try and improve and do better. We have put 50 million more in. This takes money away from our schools, this is going to cause tuition to raise and so we're just going to recycle Texas dollars and so I would urge members -- are we moving to table? I would move to table members and we'll hopefully do better even when we move along in the process. But I don't think so this is the approach you want to take.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Vote. Members, we have a little housekeeping to do I'm told. Members Mr. Taylor sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable got author. The question is now on the Taylor amendment. Mr. Taylor is recognized to close. Mr. Branch is moved to table. Mr. Taylor will now close.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Members, years ago this chamber created the Texas grants s program. There are a lots of members here today who are coauthors of that bill. Fred Brown, Bonnen, Lon

(inaudible) Hardcastle, Hunter, Phil King, Tracy King, McClendon, Morrison, Naishtat, Pickett, Thompson and Turner. All of those members republicans and democrats, liberals and conservatives joined together to create this program. I hope that we can join.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, will the Representative yield for a question?

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Does the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Of course I will.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields for a question.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Representative Taylor, you mentioned earlier or we had been talking about this. Of course Texas grants is very critical to all of us. In fact you were able to show me how the university in my area, University of Pan american, we asked if we had the highest number of students that are on Texas grants. But I was checking with the university and my understanding is special items are very important and of course general revenue funding is as well. Now, does your bill cut it to five percent of the special items and 25 million or did you go back to the original version where we were at 25 percent and the 128 million.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It would cut 5 percent of the formula funding.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Which equals 128 million of the 2.3 billion for formula funding which is again 1 percent. 1 percent of the $10 billion that we're giving to higher education or paying for higher education in this bill.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: On the special items what was it?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: It does not touch the special items Representative.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: It would not touch that at all?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No it does not touch the special items. It only goes to five percent of the formula funding. That's where the universities would see the change in their -- that's the line item they would see a change in.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: And the 5 percent equated you said to 128 million?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: That's correct which is 1 percent of the 10 billion we're giving higher education tonight.

REPRESENTEATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: All right, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members this is not a republican, democrat issue. As you can tell by the names I read, the people that coauthored this bill, 12 years ago and I hope that those same members will stand up for Texas children. Stand up for our future and restore the Texas grants program so we can improve your state and move forward. Mr. Speaker, members, I move adoption.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Representative Taylor of Collins sends up an amendment. Representative Branch sends up the motion to table. Question occurs on the motion to table on the Taylor amendment. Clerk please ring the bell for us. Show Representative Farrar voting no. Have all voted? There being 99 ayes, 35 nays, three present not voting. Motion to table prevails. Members we're on page 245. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Berman.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair -- Representative Berman has an amendment to the amendment. Will the clerk please read the amendment? Mr. Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker I would like to raise a point of the order on the --

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Please bring your point of order down front.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, sir.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members, the point of order is withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you members. Following amendment on page 246. The clerk will read the amendment. Representative Flynn.

CLERK: Amendment by Flynn.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: There's an amendment to the amendment members.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Mr. Speaker, I have a perfecting amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Flynn.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Flynn to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN FLYNN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment is all about supporting teachers in a difficult budget year. The bill was crafted after a long conversations with superintendents and teachers across the state. I believe this is the first step to reduce the extraordinary cost of educational bureaucracy under this amendment, each child will still be tested in the classroom over their regular studies as normal. That the state mandated testing will be for a period of 2 years --

REPRESENTEATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Walle for what purpose.

REPRESENTEATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Point of order under rule eight section 2.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Bring your point down front. The point of order is withdrawn. The amendment is withdrawn. Thank you members. Members we're on page 242. Representative Geanie Morrison. Thank you Ms. Morrison. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Morrison.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Ms. Morrison to explain her amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. What this is, this is a study of online degree plans and what it is doing is asking that the coordinating board look at public institutions of higher ed and let them bike their four most popular degree plans online and then they would determine what the cost would be and have a report to what the cost derived and basically what it is doing is help analyze outcasts and what the student cost of online delivery so that there -- they can look at a more effective and efficient way to deliver these on line plans and then the coordinating board will report back to the institutions of their findings.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock in opposition.

REPRESENTEATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Oh my goodness. I am going to be consistent members. If you're going to play fair with the goose, you got to play fair with the gander. Although I kind of actually liked her idea. I'm going to move to table just to be consistent.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. Morrison to close.

REPRESENTEATIVE GEANIE MORRISON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I hope that you will agree with me to do this study because I think it will help to be a cost savings once we determine with online degree plans are the easiest for the students and that the institutions still likely the best studies and cost and it will be more efficient and effective. I move passage.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Geanie Morrison offers up an amendment. Representative Aycock makes a motion to table. Clerk will please ring the bell. Show Mr. Aycock voting no, show Ms. Morrison voting no. Members it is a motion to table. The Morrison amendment. Representative Aycock is voting no. Show Representative Creighton voting no. Have all members voted? Show Representative Eissler voting aye, Representative Farrar voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Craig Eiland voting aye. Have all voted members? There being 80 ayes, 60 nays, 2 not present, the motion to table prevails. Well, Jimmy you got whooped. Members we're on the Morrison amendment, the amendment is mow acceptable to the author. Is there any objections? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Members we have 2 items of reconsideration in Article III and as soon as we finished those 2 items Article III will be done. Chair recognizes Representative Turner for a motion. Members, please pay attention.

REPRESENTEATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to consider the motion by which my amendment was passed and the amendment was sent to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members we're now on the Turner of Harris amendment. The clerk will lay out the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The Chair recognizes s Representative Turner of Harris to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members I ask for this amendment to come back. Representative Schwertner had an amendment that did not make it to Article 11 and so in the spirit in the way we work in district 139 I have brought my train back to pick up a passenger and its intent to go back to Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: One moment members. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment by Schwertner.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Schwertner.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner to explain the amendment to the Turner amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Members this is an amendment to the amendment. This amendment appropriates money to fund the Texas A&M health science center in Round Rock. It's going to allow us to get this to Article 11 with the utilization of Turner's amendment. I move adoption.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Schwertner sends up an amendment to the Turner amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Mr. Turner to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTEATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: In the spirit of by partisanship I accept the amendment and ask for your adoption. To Article 11.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you've heard the motion. Move the amendment to Article 11. Is there any objection? We hear absolutely none, so ordered. Mr. Callegari, Mr. Eiland please come to the front. Chair recognizes Representative Callegari for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members I move to reconsider the vote in which amendment 141 was passed.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The amendment is back before the House. Will the clerk please lay out the Eiland amendment?

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: No, no just an amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Craig Eiland to explain his amendment. Members please pay attention.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Members, everybody take a deep breath for a moment. After the last amendment went on, our Texas Tech legislatures and alumnus lights went up, their phones went off the hook, people asking about this amendment. So let's talk about it for a moment to make sure everybody understands what we're doing. But the background is this. I filed a motion -- permission to sue on behalf of former Texas Tech football coach Mike Leech against Texas Tech for breach of contract. We don't need to get into that here. Hopefully we will on some other day. As I was reviewing the contracts as the lawyer in that case I read the Texas Tech football and basketball coaches; contracts, I read the UT basketball and football coaches' contracts, I read the A&M football and basketball coaches' contracts and I read the U of H football coaches' contract. Only the U of H football coaches' contract mentions anything about sovereign immunity or no state appropriated funds being used. And so I said my spot was in the transparency and openness, we need to put that in our contracts. So let me make sure you understand what auxiliary enterprise funds are. Auxiliary enterprise funds are -- got to get my glasses. This is some footnote nine of the higher education coordinating board uses and sources of funds. Auxiliary enterprise funds include athletics, housing and food, student services, parking and transportation. Auxiliary enterprises are required to be self-supporting and therefore must operate on the funds they generate. So auxiliary enterprises funds are those where the universities make money. That's why they call those auxiliary enterprises. That's fine. Those funds stay locally and you may not have listened this morning but Chairman Pitts and I talked auxiliary funds over a 2 year period, just on our three the most pop laws universities, tech, A&M and UT, there's almost a billion dollars in those auxiliary inter-Rio Texas. Okay? A billion dollars. We do not appropriate those funds, we do not house those funds hear in the treasury and they do not even show up in the bill pattern of the universities. Okay? And so what I wanted to do in these contracts in openness and transparency, first of all let me read you 2 items in the bill we're talking about House Bill 1. In special provisions higher education, we have 2 statements and one is

(inaudible) or general funds appropriated by any institution or agency named in this article may be expended on auxiliary enterprises unless specifically authorized by this tax. So what that means, you cannot spend any state appropriated fund s on athletic, parking, student services, food services. Okay? And then it also says no educational or general funds appropriated mob used for the operation of intercollegiate athletics. So it's pretty clear in the appropriations bill about auxiliary enterprise fund and state appropriations. They are not involved with each other and so what my amendment simply does in the future, not affecting the Texas Tech versus Coach Leech issue which is at the Texas Supreme Court. Motion granted. We do not affect the case currently pending. Simply says they let's deal with this in the future like U of H did and their football coaches contract and let's put in contracts -- and I put the language that I used here back when we went, when we revamped workers comp, we recreated something called the workers comp and they didn't -- and we issued bonds and the full faith and credit saved Texas behind those bonds and we put some language in the stot that said that and that's where I got this language. Adopted it from that and this is what it says. Any auxiliary enterprise contract shall include the following statement in boldface typed. The faith credit and taxing authority in the state of Texas are not pledged, given or lent to satisfy in the obligation of this contract. Which is an absolutely un-disputably true statement. The second thing it says no state appropriated funds may be spent to satisfy an obligation of this contract which is an absolutely true undisputable statement and so from my research on this, Coach Leech and Texas Tech case I felt we should put this money in there. One second. Because if you contract with the university, you don't know what fund the money's coming from. You don't know what fund it involved and whether or not the state of Texas is behind it or it's just local university. That's all this does.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yield for a question.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Craig, are you removing sovereign immunity from all universities by doing this?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So if they had sovereign immunity --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: They had sovereign immunity, they still have sovereign immunity.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So this doesn't change that?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This does not change that one way or another.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. So --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Now, Mr. Workman has a bill that would change sovereign immunity on contracts but this disclosure statement does not waive sovereign immunity.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Let me ask you this then. On line nine, would you agree that that statement right there an auxiliary fund contract shall include and include the following probably changes general law.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Say it again.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: That that line makes general law?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No and we have 2 -- three over provisions in the appropriations bill where we instruct or must be included in contracts so if you call a point of order on this and there is a point of order sustained then, there's three other places where that point of order would apply and none of us wanted that today at this hour.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I understand. All right. So it doesn't, as long as they state in there that this is not backed by the state of Texas, you think that satisfies what we're doing?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes. And even if they don't state it because of the law currently from the Texas Supreme Court except for one court of appeals in Houston, the law is the state, these (inaudible) not waived by contract or conduct sovereign immunity. So this --

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: We're not waving sovereign immunity, we're just informing them that state of Texas is not --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Don't look to us. This is not state appropriated funds. We got nothing to do with it. They don't reside in the treasury. Don't look at us. Look locally.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: All right, and this hasn't got anything to do with Mr. Leech's claim against Texas Tech?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This huff no impact on the Coach Leech and Texas Tech case. This came out of the my research into that case trying to prevent future cases.

REPRESENTEATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Charles Perry for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: One question.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Will the gentleman yield for one question?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes I do.

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: One question.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Do you see this potentially helping out a set of 2 sovereignty pools of money, if you will, where enterprise and auxiliary maybe accessible by virtue of the fact that you got it proved up that we don't have state funds attached?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Let me make sure. The appropriations bill already says what I'm saying. The law already says what I'm saying. All's I'm doing is saying disclose this to the vendors and the people that contract with auxiliary enterprises.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: So this says people with UT, A&M, or tech had a coach that had a dispute and you could show those funds are already separated as they are, would you see that sovereign immunity would not apply to those funds?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. If this statement is in a coach's contract after September 1st of 2011. Is that the question?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: That would be true.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I can't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Yes that would be true. After September 1st --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yeah, I mean.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Those funds would be subject to lawsuit by virtue of non--

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Castro raises a point of the order the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I don't think it has any necessary impact.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the Eiland amendment? Please come down front. Is there anyone? Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Mr. Speaker, like Representative Craig Eiland I went to Baylor not Texas Tech and I'm NO here to speak in favor or against this amendment. For this reason, it is -- while it is true I think that this does not necessarily invade on the Leech lawsuit. Here's the problem with this. One of the rational allegations for sovereign immunity is that the treasury of the state of Texas or the sovereign is at stake and legislatures are always should be deciding what happens to that money and it shouldn't be taken without the consent of the sovereign. One way that this could possibly be used, for that billion dollars in the future, is to say that these auxillary Texas enterprises should not be treated as a (inaudible) state budget because it's not appropriated money and that the law specifically says, as it will say here that no educational general fundings can be expended on it and that it's in all the contracts and there are there is a pretty good argument that could be made that -- not that Texas Tech in general should be sued but as to or any other institution that we have could be sued but that as to those funds and that auxiliary enterprise that sovereign immunity shouldn't lie. Now, I can't say that that's absolutely what's going to happen but I can say that this is the kind of thing, if we're going to do this, there ought to be a bill on this. There should be testimony on this. There should be law professors and people with more time and -- than we have right here on this budget to decide this matter. There's no need for this to be in the budget. Is there anyone here who thinks there's some compelling reason that this language needs to be in House Bill 1 in this budget? I would not think so.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Would the judge yield? I guess I have a question the way you read the amendment just make sure that we're not going to use tax pay dollars on some outrageous coach's salary and it's going to make sure about that. I don't see anything in it about sovereign immunity. The university of Texas or whatever a still going to be a university. If it's the state or facility sovereign, I don't see that and you may see it clearly and maybe you got an argument but I know there are those of us that don't want tax pay dollars to go pay for I don't know hundreds of thousands million dollar contracts for folks whenever we're having to cut tuition I mean cut services to these college students and I guess that's the question a lot of us I think you said why would we vote for this because the way I read it doesn't have anything to do with sovereign immunity just says we're not going to spend money on enterprise fund, general revenue on interim price. I may be wrong but that's why a lot of us voted for the amendment earlier. It had nothing to do with the Leach bill or anything else. We wanted to make sure we're not going to spend public money on those. That's why I voted for that earlier and I just need you to help me out here because you said why would anybody and we did earlier because of the clear reading in the contract, we're not going to spend a bunch of money on things that have nothing to do directly with the students college education.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: What I'm saying Chairman is that this language could have ramifications and consequences that we hear now, don't know because it could have -- it could have consequences and that's the reason why this should be in a bill where it should be studied. Auxiliary enterprises, well, what are auxiliary enterprises? It's not just sports I mean it could be -- I presume dorm rooms and housing, it could be --

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Parking garages.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: It could be a number of things and it should be the object -- it should be studied to be what does that mean and what ramifications does that (inaudible). it's not something that we should be doing in this budget tonight.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So you're -- (inaudible) it's a policy matter that we ought to look at.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: So your fear by saying those services will not have public funds, therefore they lose their protection for sovereign immunity?

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'm saying it could be argued that they did and it shuled -- this language should being vetted in a hearing to decide what consequences would come out of this language rather than put it in a budget bill. This is policy. We need to look at this policy and see if it's wise policy is my opinion. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: You're welcome. Chair -- Representative Lewis did you make the motion to table or you want an open down vote.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I'll make a motion to table at this time. Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Outstanding. Representative Craig Eiland in opposition to table to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay, once again, members. This is already in the appropriations bill. Okay? It's in special provision for higher education. All we're doing is being transparent with the people we contracted with that says don't look to the state. This is not state appropriated funds. We don't want to be open and transparent. That's okay. But that's why I offered it and so I would say vote no on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTEATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland will you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes I will.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman will yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You may not want to do this how but it took away your amendment to the amendment. Your amendment to the amendment changes that amendment completely and I can -- it's very different than the amendment I voted yes for.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No. We're on the amendment as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Does your amendment now include language that it has to say that portion?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: So, vote "no" on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment. Representative Lewis makes a motion to table. Clerk will please ring the bell. Showing Representative Eiland voting "no." Showing Representative Lewis voting "aye." Showing Representative Lucio voting "no." Representative Walle voting "no." Have all members voted? All members voted? There being 82 aye's, 60 nays, 3 present not voting. Motion to table is prevailed. Members page 196 the -- 98. I apologize members. Page 198. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. speaker, members, this amendment typically requirings T. A. to conduct calculations of the duties of public schools and counselors and the hours they spend doing their jobs. There's an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: There's an amendment to the amendment. Will the clerk, please read the amendment to the amendment?

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Branch to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you Mr.Speaker, members. Members this just expands the language to make sure we include part-time and full-time as well as teachers that are acting as counselors so we can get a full count of the counseling that's going on in the state. Upon the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author? Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is accepted. The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author of House Bill 1. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is accepted Mr. Zedler -- thank you, Mr. Zedler. Members this is on page 138 -- page 139. This is for Zedler. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I have a clarifying amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker this is acceptable to me. And what this does is it directs the funds where the original amendment did not.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Zedler sends up an amendment to his amendment. Obviously it's acceptable. So, is there any objection? Chair hears none. So, the amendment to the amendment is adopted. Members, it is on page 138.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: What this does is it takes funds from the cost reimbursement services to the children in medically needy services as is acceptable to author. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Zedler sends up an amendment as acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none -- objection members -- members vote "aye" and vote no" on the amendment. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Pitts voting "aye." Have all voted? Show Representative Gallego voting "no." Show Representative Laubenberg voting "aye." Have all voted? There being 99 aye's, 45 no's, and 2 present not voting. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page six. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Pitts.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker members, this is the amendment I had earlier this morning that about the service centers; and Mr. Hochberg has an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Pitts offers up the amendment acceptable to author? Is there any objection? I'm sorry -- I'm sorry members, this is an amendment to the amendment by Hochberg. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment clarifies the the funding flow on the centers agreeable to Ms. Davis.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members -- Representative Hochberg, I think the members are having a hard time hearing you. Members, please, take your conversations outside and listen up. Hochberg.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Members this amendment clarifies the funding flow that Mr. Pitts was attempting to to achieve it is -- Ms. Davis had raised a question about it. This clarifies that to Ms. Davis' satisfaction. It is acceptable to Mr. Pitts, and I move adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Hochberg offers up the amendment to the amendment is acceptable by the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So, ordered. Mr. Pitts offers up the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members -- members there were a number of amendments withdrawn from section one or temporarily postponed from section one, two, and three of the bill. It is the intention of the Chair to dispatch those amendments in the coming moments. Mr. Guitierrez, the following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members if you had any amendments in article one, two, or three and they were either postponed or temporarily withdrawn, please, come down front; so, that we can work with you to bring your amendment before the body or withdraw them. If that is your desire. Members, let me back up a moment. We withdraw the Guitierrez amendment for a moment here. Amendment by Guitierrez. Clerk will read the Guitierrez amendment -- lays out the Guitierrez amendment.

CLERK : Amendment by Guitierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Guitierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a contingent library funding rider that is going into article 11; acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members there's an amendment to the amendment by Representative Anchia. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Guitierrez.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Guitierrez to explain the amendment to his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank You, Mr. speaker and members. Again, this is a contingency library funding writer that we're moving into article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Guitierrez is moving up an amendment to the amendment that is acceptable to author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So, ordered. The amendment to the amendment as amended is acceptable to to author. So, that we in article 11. Is there any objection to the acceptance of the amendment to the amendment by amended in article 11? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment -- this amendment is on page 46, members. Page 46, the following amendment clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to explain his amendment on page 46.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: This amendment to my amendment is acceptable to the author. I move that it be adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Simpson to explain his amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a very simple bill. This moves $10 million from the Governor's trustee account of film and music marketing. Leaves $22 million in that account, and it also takes $2.9 million on each year from the economic development and tourism; and with those two sources, $10 million and biennium from film and music marketing and almost $67 million from the economic development and tourism. It moves $13 million to community colleges, and $3 million to libraries. The libraries that Representative Anchia was seeking to fund earlier today.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Hartnett.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: David --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: He yields representative Hartnett. Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Could you say, again, what this is doing to the film support part of the governor's office?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I couldn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: What's this doing to the film support.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It leaves $22 million in that account. It moves $10 million which ultimately will go community colleges. We're doing real well here in Austin, the music capital of the world. Without those funds, the greatest workforce to provide for economic incentives for our community colleges. I would even say our libraries.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay. So it's a big cut to the State's support film in Texas?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: It leaves $22 million in there, and the community colleges if you include their benefits that have been cut. They have been cut about 67 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: So, you're taking 10 million out of the support for films?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm taking 10 out of 32 million.

REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mrs. Dukes for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Would the gentleman yield far question?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: He yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Are you familiar with how the film program works in it's method of finance?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm somewhat familiar with it, yes, ma'am. I've read Susan Combs' report about it.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Are you familiar with how the film program works, in its method of finance? We all know that the program has been an effective program that has created jobs and has brought back greater than $600 million to the State of Texas in revenue, but are you familiar with how the method of finance works on the film program in the appropriations bill?

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm familiar with it to some degree, but not a whole lot. Susan Combs says that the Texas economic growth -- only a small part of that is attributed to incentives. We're only taking 10 of the $32 million.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Are you familiar with how? You're not answering my question. Are you familiar with how it is financed? The method of finances is structured in the appropriations bill on the film incentive programs.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I'm aware that these funds are coming from general revenue. We're not seeking to take anything from the dedicated funds.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker I raise a point of order in consideration of this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Bring your point of order down. Thank you, very much. The point of order is withdrawn, and the amendment is withdrawn temporarily. Thank you, members. We are now on page 33 of your book. The clerk will lay out amendment by Burnam on page 33.

CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam on his amendment. AMENDMENT 166

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker members, this is simply from the comptrollers conductive study, the Texas general conductive of high cost. I believe it is acceptable to the author. I'm sorry -- instructs the comptroller to conduct study of the taxes exemption or certain high cost gas; so, we can find out what we're really missing out on. I believe this is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Burnam offers up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, we're on page 89 -- 81, members. We are on page 81. The clerk will read the amendment. Representative Alonzo.

CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I ask that be sent to article 11.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you've heard the motion to send the amendment to article 11. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is moved and accepted in article 11. Representative Turner of harris. Clerk, please, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: There's an amendment to the amendment. Members, Mr. Turner meant to adopt that. Clerk will read the amendment to the amendment, page 51. Now, the amendment to the amendment on page 51.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Turner to explain the amendment to his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The amendment to the amendment is a technical correction. It said that the money would be every year, should be biannual; and, so it's a technical correction to my amendment. I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment as amended is adopted. Representative Guitierrez -- the amendment is withdrawn members. Representative Villarreal? Members, we're on page 31 -- 31. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal to explain his amendment on page 31.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I have an amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Villarreal.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Villarreal to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you. Members, I believe this is acceptable to the author. This simply changes -- makes some changes enhancement to the tax exemption, the tax incidents study.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Villarreal officer up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Representative Villarreal offers up an amendment that has been amended. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is accepted. Representative Laubenberg. Representative Laubenberg? Members, page 111 by Laubenberg. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment -- the clerk will --

CLERK: Amendment by Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg. Page 111.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Spea ker, I would like to amend my amendment and --

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to explain her amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. I am moving family planning service money from -- I'm moving money from the family planning service funds to the Star Youth Program.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Ms. Laubenb erg offers up an amendment to her amendment. It is acceptable, obviously, to her. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Davis of Dallas.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas to explain her amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment just simply moves all the money over to Article II to go aid, distribute throughout planning services money. I think it's acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: The amendment by Ms. Davis is acceptable by the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is amended. Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg on the amended amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Members all this is acceptable to the author of the bill; and I move passage. What we're doing is moving funds from family planning to the Service at Risk Youth Star Program. This provides services to youth under the age of 18 who are run aways and truant, age 9 and younger who may have been involved in delinquent offenses, and 10- to 16-year-olds who may have committed misdemeanors or state jail felony offenses. These are children who are living with family conflict or are in danger of abiding by the law. These children truly need help. Star Services includes family crisis intervention counseling, short-term emergency residential care, and individual family counseling. Star Services are available in all 254 Texas counties. This program is for kids and their families who needs, and there is a proven successful almost 90 percent rate; and I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members Representative Laubenberg offers up an amendment and is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted -- there has been a request for a record vote. Clerk will, please ring the bell on the Laubenberg Amendment. Show Representative Creighton voting, aye. Showing Representative Schwertner voting, aye. Showing Representative Branch voting, aye. Mr. Creighton voting, aye. Mr. John Lewis voting, aye. Have all members voted? There being 113 aye's and 29 nays and two present not voting. The amendment is adopted. Representative Burnam? Chair recognizes Representative Otto for an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, I move to reconsider the amendment that was adopted, that was on -- let me give you the page number -- on page 33.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members we're back on the amendment, the Burnam Amendment on page 33. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, I would welcome the opportunity to just have accepted this, but since not, I'm going to lay out the issue. This is really important, and I think we need to be thinking about what we've been doing all day long. So I will go back to what I was talking about yesterday and this is priorities and what are we doing about State Government. If we pass this bill, House Bill 1, as it developed, we're going to be cutting $8 billion from our public schools. We're going to be laying off teachers increasing class sizes, and closing schools. We are jeopardizing the State of Texas because we're not willing to look at the other side of the equation. Now what's the other side of the equation? The other side of equation is we have a permanent $10 billion structural deficit, and that never really has addressed fully our needs in education. The entire post-World War II period, we have been in the bottom the five, seven in educational spending. What this study proposes to do -- and all it is, is a study telling the comptroller's office the study of high gas exemption. Just look at it. Figure out what it means for 20 years to have had this tax break for special interest industry; and what it means to this state, while the national gas production taxes 7.5 percent. Thanks to this massive corporate subsidy, we only collect 2 percent of the gas produced in the state. That's according to LBB. According to the comptroller, this exemption will cost to state $2.3 billion in the next biennium. This is enough to close one quarter of the funding gap in the Foundation School Program; and you have already approved an amendment in Article 11 saying if we adopt the bill that I have filed to close this gap, this money will go to fill that hole in the Foundation School Programs. Because of this exemption we gave away $114 million in tax revenues to one individual producer. The exemption was originally created to encourage new production methods and technology to get shale gas into production. Well friends, I live in the Barnett shale; and it is in production. In fact, now, that 50 percent of the gas produced in Texas is from the shale formation. It is clear that the incentive works and is no longer needed or appropriate. We are extremely fortunate because this shale represents most of the rainy day fund. We owe them a big thanks. However, it's now obvious to me and others that this exemption has outlived its youthfulness and appropriateness; and it should be reduced to repeal. At the very least, we need to take a hard look at this massive corporate subsidy to a $108 billion industry in Texas before we layoff 100,000 school employees and close schools around the State. This amendment simply requires the comptrollers to conduct a study. That's all this amendment does. And report back to the legislature if it finds the nature of the study. It asks the comptroller to find out the pluses and minuses of changing this existing legislation and to see what type of opportunities we are missing. I move it approval.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker ?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: For what purpose, Mr. Anchia?

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I gladly yield to my desk mate.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Representa tive Burnam, you're only asking us to approve a study for you; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: This is a study done within the context of the comptroller's office. There's no additional cost whatsoever, and there are literally billions of dollars at stake for the school children of Texas. This is simply a study that some people don't want to find out the facts. It's been in evidence over and over and over again. I ask --

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: A study for an exemption that's been abused and a study for exemption that where that has been expanded to drilling. That's not really high cost drilling. Isn't that correct, Representative?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: So, when in fact, there's this insentive to incentive, advise people to high cost drilling such as drilling for shale and other parts of the state, this exemption has been spread to other cheaper forms of drilling. People are allowed to benefit from cheaper forms of drilling.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well Representative, the point is it was established 20 years ago; and it has accomplished what it set out to do which is encourage the development of industry. We now have that industry fully developed, and we are not fully taxing them at the rate they should be taxed as I've said earlier. Whether or not we've changed that, we can decide later; but right now, I'm just asking people to be open minded enough. Maybe we should study it.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker ? Mr. Speaker, can we get some order in the room? I can't really hear very well.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members can you give us some order; and they're also running out of time. So, give them some order, so they can finish up their conversations in the limited time they have left.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is $2 billion per biennium. It is simply a study so that we can figure out if we're giving away too many tax exemptions to people that don't deserve it. Representative, I think you have a really good bill -- really good amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Move it to adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Burnam offers up an amendment. Representative Otto will speak in opposition to the Burnam Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, the study, while it deals with the high cost gas exemption, does not go into -- basically it instructs the comptroller to look at the revenue for a 6-year-period. However, it does not cover the items dealing with any jobs that would be lost. Also, we have been hesitant to additional work as a result of reducing budgets on study. For that reason I move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Burnam to close.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Reynolds for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: I wanted to ask the previous speaker a question, if he would yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Well, he -- okay. Go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: So, would you agree with me that we have a structural deficit with our funding?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Would I disagree with you that we have a structural deficit with regards to what funding?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, we right now, we're in a situation where we don't have enough money the fund public education, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: We don't have enough money to fund public education at the level we have in the last biennium.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Would you agree with me that Texas ranks 44 out of 50 states in funding per student?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not advised about the fact about where we stand on that.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive, it is necessary that you speak on the amendment before the members at the moment.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, you don't want to look at all the available options for increasing our revenue. Is that what you're saying today?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I don't know what this -- what this study did -- are you pre-opposing this study that we are talking about raising additional revenue?

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, my understanding that he's trying to get the comptroller to take a look at a corporate tax loophole; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, I mind what you may call a loophole. Some people would call an incentive.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, I guess, we can disagree with the terminology; but you would agree with Bill Hammond assessment that we have to fund adequately -- fund public education to increase and make sure that Texas becomes a sustainable place for business; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I'm not sure what this has to do with this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE RON REYNOLDS: Well, sir right now, we're looking at making some serious drastic cuts.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Davis of harris has raised a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Members, with all due respect, this is really a very simple amendment; and April fool's day ended 30 minutes ago. High Cost Exemption Study -- there are three-points to this study. It doesn't preclude looking at anything it says it will include. Three things an estimate of the potential lost of revenue in a six-year period, including the current fiscal biennium, and an assessment of the intended purpose of a provision and whether the provision is achieving that objective and a recommendation for retaining eliminating this provision. Please, tell me you're not so close minded that you don't even want the comptroller's office to explore the opportunity to assess this 20-year-old exemption. I ask you vote with me, and vote "no" on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Representat ive Burnam offers up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Burnam voting no. And representative Otto and Representative Pitts voting, aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 99 aye's and 46 nay's, two present not voting. The motion to table prevails. Members, Representative Pitts moves to reconsider the vote by which the Laubenberg Amendment was passed. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're back on the Laubenberg Amendment members -- clerk please lay out the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members the entire amendment is before us. Representative Laubenberg moves to reconsider the vote by which the amendment -- the Davis Amendment to her amendment was passed. Is there any objection? The chair hears absolutely none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia -- Mrs. Davis on her amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Members, let me just for clarify. The amendment was drafted from the information we got from the LBD was not correct. To put my amendment on the amendment would cost the bill, and that's not what we are trying to do. So, I am withdrawing the Davis Amendment to the Laubenberg Amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Members you've heard the motion by Representative Davis by withdrawing her amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is withdrawn. Question now occurs on the Laubenberg Amendment, which is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to Laubenberg Amendment? Chair hears none. The Laubenberg amendment is adopted. Thank you members. Members, please, you may want to listen up and pay attention to this. We're going to do some housekeeping. That I think you're all going to be interested in having a record of, and this will be a record. These are the amendments in Article I, II and III that are still pending due to a question of points of order. Representative Craddick raised a point of order on amendments on page 189, 192, 1993, 197, 213 214, 300, 302, 407. Points of order were also raised against representative Fred Brown's amendment. Point of order, also, raised against Representative Hobson's amendment on page 146. Point of order, also, raised against amendment 72 by Representative Phillips on page 135. Point of order, also, against the Hughes' amendment on page 120. Representative Craddick, also moves us to add page 194 under his point of order. These points of order on all these pages are pending and will be rolled on when we return to finish our business. Also, we have members -- this is also another important housekeeping. Amendments that have been withdrawn. 256, 257, 258, two 59, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 272 273, 276, 290, 291, 293, 295, 296, 297, 299, 303, 304 307, 310, 311, 312, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 323, 324 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 334, 336, 339 340, 341, 342, 345, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 353, 355 356, 357, 358, 361, 362, 363, 364. Also withdrawn 370, 371, 375, 378, 380 384, 386, 388, 389, 393, and 399. Is there any objection to the amendments that have been withdrawn? Chair hears none. Members, the only other amendment that is still currently pending on Article I, II or III is the Simpson Amendment. That amendment will be disposed of on Sunday when we return. Members, we have one other amendment that we will deal with on Sunday. The Christian Amendment on page 147 will also be dealt with on Sunday. Thirdly, we will have the amendment on page 195 by Representative Villarreal. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker , I suspend the following rules. All necessary rules the five-day posting rule to follow the Committee of Licensing and Administrative Procedures to consider HB1822 on 8:00 a.m. Monday 4/4/11 on E2030.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: I suspend all the following rule -- all the necessary rules for the five-day posting rule to allow the Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures to consider HB1822 at 8:00 a.m. on Monday -- to consider HB1822 -- 1936 at 8:00 a.m. on Monday 4/4/11 at E2030. Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none.so ordered. The following announcement the, clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, April 4th, 2011 at E2.030. This will be a public hearing to consider HB1822, HB1936, and previously scheduled agenda.

JOE STRAUS: Members, are think any other announcements? Being no further announcements Representative Lozano moves that the house stand adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, April the 3rd. The house stands adjourned. End