THE SPEAKER: Have all registered? Quorum is present. House and gallery, please, rise for the invocation. The chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to introduce the pastor the day.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Reverend Chris Kirkendall one of the influential spiritual and government leaders in Hardin County is the pastor over here of the Baptist Church of the Faith Christian Center in Silsbee, Texas. He's also one of our new county commissioners. We have joining him today his wife Jeri. In his spare time he enjoys time with her, and his three beautiful children Justin, Rebecca, and Benjamin. Help me welcome Reverend Chris Kirkendall.

INVOCATION: Thank you. What a privilege and honor it is to open up today in prayer. Let's bow our heads, please. Dear heavenly Father we come to you today with great awe, respect, and honor. It is to you that we turn in leading the great State of Texas. We humble our ideas, thoughts and actions, and we pause and ask for divine wisdom and guidance. The eyes of Texas may be upon us, but your eyes are upon Texas. Psalm 3312 says blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. The people he has chosen as his own inheritance. We ask this morning being assured that your blessing is upon each elected official, their staff and family as they serve the citizens of Texas with joy. We come before you this morning, Lord, asking during this difficulty financial time for divine grace. We ask for innovative ideas, creative thinking and harmony among our Texas House of Representatives. Every piece of legislation that originates in this House, we ask to be tested and tried upon your precepts and good for all Texans. In areas that are moving slow we pray for your wisdom and strength and that legislation would move through the House of Representatives. In areas where professional relationships have been tested we pray for reconciliation. We pray for unity, joy, and teamwork during this critical hour. We also, Lord, pause to pray for the families of our great representatives as they are away to conduct business we ask for your protection over each family member. We pray for your provision for each family member and we also pray for your peace to be upon each family. Finally, Lord, we ask for the blessing of the Lord to be upon Texas. Proverbs 1022 declares that the blessing of the Lord makes rich (*inaudible) in the at most sorrow with it. We pray this morning, Lord, for the economy of Texas to prosper without sorrow. As we close today, Lord, we invoke the blessing of the Lord upon our great Texas representatives. May the Lord bless you and keep you, may the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious unto you. May the Lord lift up his counsel upon you and give you peace. In Jesus name, Amen. May God bless Texas.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Nash to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Please, join me in the pledge to our flag.

(pledge)

THE SPEAKER: Representative Nash moves the House suspend with reading of all bills until the end of today's business. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam doorkeeper.

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.

THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Thank you Mr. Speaker I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Messenger have you brought any House bills back with you yet.

MESSENGER: The Senate has passed the following measures.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto for a quick announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Members, one of our own members in this chamber was honored last night. So next time you go to Austin Land and Cattle you might want to make your reservation for the Rick Hardcastle Room.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond to lay out House Resolution 858.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 858.

THE SPEAKER: Members you heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 858 by Raymond. WHEREAS, Manuelita Guajardo Juarez, a beloved citizen of Laredo, is celebrating her 104th birthday in 2011; and WHEREAS, The former Manuelita Guajardo was born in Laredo on July 30, 1907, to Manuel and Rafaela Guajardo; after the death of her mother in 1918, she moved with her family, which included her two brothers and two sisters, to Devine, to be near their uncle, Guadalupe Guajardo, and his wife, Margarita; the couple took the children in when Manuel Juarez passed away in 1924; and WHEREAS, Manuelita Juarez met her future husband, Victorino Juarez, during a visit to her old neighborhood in Laredo one Fourth of July; the two kept up a courtship through the mail and their romance blossomed, culminating in Mr. Juarez's letter proposing marriage; and WHEREAS, The couple wed on May 14, 1930, at St. Joseph Catholic Church in Devine; afterward, they settled in Laredo, where they raised three daughters, Maria Minerva Juarez Ramirez, Rosa Alicia Juarez Sciaraffa, and Amelia Juarez Magallanes; over the years, Mrs. Juarez has also been blessed with 15 grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren, and 8 great-great-grandchildren; and WHEREAS, A skilled seamstress, Mrs. Juarez made all of her children's clothes by hand, and she enjoyed sewing custom-made outfits for her grandchildren; she also loved cooking for relatives and friends, and she keeps a bountiful garden, where plants flourish under her care and a towering grapefruit tree produces abundant fruit every year; and WHEREAS, Manuelita Guajardo Juarez is a source of tremendous inspiration, and in sharing the experience gained through more than a century of life well lived, she bestows a precious gift of wisdom that benefits all who are fortunate enough to know her; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Manuelita Guajardo Juarez on her 104th birthday and extend to her sincere best wishes for continued happiness; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Manuelita Guajardo Juarez as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, Mrs. Manuelita Juarez is one of the jewels of Laredo and really one of the jewels in the State of Texas. She'll be celebrating her 104th birthday on July 30th. She could not be here with us today but she is watching in Laredo, watching us on the Internet. She's a citizen of Laredo, lived there for almost 81 years. She has through all those years provided a lot of -- been a great source of wisdom and love and affection, not only for her family but for so many people in Laredo for so many years. She married her husband Victorino Juarez and they moved to Laredo in 1930, together they raised three daughters. She and her late husband have 15 grandchildren, 21 great-grandchildren and eight great great-grandchildren. Some of Mrs. Juarez' relatives are here with us today. Maria Juarez Ramirez, her daughter, and another daughter Amelia Juarez Magallanes. Also we have with us great granddaughter Caitlin *Negro, great grandson Richard Martinez, II, great granddaughter Isabelle Rose Martinez. Members, I hope you will welcome the family of this extraordinary Texan, extraordinary lady to our chamber and if know that we will be wishing her a happy 104th birthday. Thank you, members.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. The chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez for a resolution.

REP. GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 1066.

THE SPEAKER: Members you heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Resolution 1066. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1066 by Gutierrez. WHEREAS, For 35 years, educator Alice Trevino Ramirez has been giving young Texans a great start in life at the Discovery School of San Antonio; and WHEREAS, Alice Trevino Ramirez began her career at the Discovery School in 1976; guided by her belief that every child is a blessing, she has dedicated herself to inspiring a love of learning in all the students who have spent time in her classroom over the years; whether she is helping them with crafts, reading them a story, or teaching them a song, Ms. Ramirez does so with a joy and an enthusiasm that make learning fun; and WHEREAS, The Discovery School of San Antonio has offered preschool education for children in the metropolitan area since 1974; governed by a volunteer parent board of directors, this private, nonprofit, multidenominational preschool has an enrollment of more than 175 children ages two through seven; it is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children, which assesses factors such as excellence in curriculum, interactions among staff, children, and parents, physical environment, staffing, and health and safety; and WHEREAS, Education is an endeavor in which all Texans have a stake, and individuals such as Alice Trevino Ramirez who devote themselves to the nurturing and development of our young people are helping to ensure that the future of the Lone Star State rests in capable hands; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby recognize April 13, 2011, as Alice Trevino Ramirez Day and commend Ms. Ramirez on her 35th anniversary at the Discovery School of San Antonio; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for Ms. Ramirez as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.

REP. GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, if I can get your indulgence just for a movement. As many of you know -- Mrs. Ramirez I'm wondering during if you could stand up, Ms. Ramirez is on the east side of the capital. There she is. As many of you know, I have relatively older parents. I just turned 40 last year and as many of you know my little girls are 3 1/2 and 1-1/2. So a lot of us learn about education on this floor as we kind of mature in the House. But I'm learning now as a parent and learning firsthand and so my wife and I have made some decisions and we're fortunate enough to find a wonderful school like the Discovery School for our oldest daughter. And we're wonderful to find teachers like Mrs. Alice Ramirez. And so the week, we honored a very special friend of ours Ms. Senfronia Thompson and we honored a tremendous commitment to a community which is a community of Texas. And we honored and so to that end, I want to honor Mrs. Ramirez for her continued commitment of over 35 years to the children of the Discovery School. Because that kind commitment is a commitment not just to our community, but a commitment to those children that she loves so much. And it certainly in that effort that she gives every day. That she does it really quite effortlessly. She is -- as a matter of fact she has raised one of our fine young lobbyist in this Capitol building in Jerry Valdez. I understand that she was a neighbor to Jerry. And so to that end, members, I would ask that you help me honoring today a very special woman, a very special woman that's full of love for the children of the Discovery School, Alice Ramirez, and giving her a round of applause. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, members. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Craddick for a resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE CRADDICK: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules for take up and consider House Concurrent Resolution 134 declaring Lamesa, Texas the legendary home of the chicken fried steak.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HCR 134 by Craddick. Declaring Lamesa the legendary home of the chicken fried steak.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Speaker of the House, Representative Craddick.

REPRESENTATIVE CRADDICK: Members, I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution 1076 which honors the Kashmere Alumni Association.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1066 by Dutton. Recognizing the 2011 inductees to the Kashmere Alumni Association's Alumni Hall of Fame.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: I move adoption of the resolution.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. No, chair recognizes Representative Miller from Comal.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Chairman, I move to suspend all rules take up and consider HR 1086.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1086 by Miller of Comal. WHEREAS, The Order of the Eastern Star in Boerne is celebrating the 100th anniversary of its charter on October 11, 2011; and WHEREAS, The largest fraternal organization in the world to which both men and women belong, the Order of the Eastern Star is composed of Masonic-affiliated individuals who are dedicated to charity, truth, and loving-kindness; and WHEREAS, The organization traces its origins to Dr. Rob Morris, the poet laureate of Masonry, who based the Degrees of the Eastern Star--Fidelity, Constancy, Loyalty, Faith, and Love--on women of the Bible; today, the Order continues to practice these tenets through its work with such youth groups as the International Order of the Rainbow for Girls, Job's Daughters International, and DeMolay for Boys, as well as through its support of religious training and scholarships for higher education; and WHEREAS, For a century, the Boerne chapter has upheld the noble ideals established by the Order of the Eastern Star, and its members today are carrying forward the proud legacy of this esteemed association; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby honor the Order of the Eastern Star in Boerne on the 100th anniversary of its founding and extend to all those associated with the group sincere best wishes for the future; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the organization as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Miller from Comal.

REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. We do have an honor today to have with us some folks from Boerne, Texas and as you heard, this October will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of their charter as an order of the Eastern Star and I'm just so happy to have them here with us today. The work that they carry on, as you've heard, through the Rainbow Girls, the Jobs' Daughters and the Demolay Boys is so important. And this resolution aims to honor the order of the Eastern Star in Boerne on its 100th anniversary and extend to all those associated with this group a sincere best wishes for the future. And I have the pleasure of having three beautiful young ladies with us this evening -- and this morning, Nell Brenner, Jean Carnes, Robin Lord, Kristy Kessler, and Natalie Kessler. And Ms. Carnes, you met her husband last week, who is the most worshipful grandmaster of the Texas lodge and they are folks from out in Pipe Creek who came over to visit with us today to their Capitol. Let's give them a round of applause on their 100th anniversary. And with that, I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Is Mr. Gonzalez of Williamson on the floor? Is Mr. Aycock on the floor? Mr. Aycock is on the floor. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HCR 64.

THE SPEAKER: Members you heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair calls out the following resolution. Ask the clerk to read resolution.

THE CLERK: HCR 64 by Aycock. Recognizing April 13, 2011, as Leadership Highland Lakes Day at the State Capitol.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Up here in the gallery we have Leadership Highland Lakes with us today. They're a group from the lakes and hills country, beautiful scenic country, springs, bluebonnets. I tell people we have pink rocks, blue flowers, clean water and good folks. If I can get Highland Lakes leadership folks to stand up and let us welcome you to your Capitol. Please stand up there. I think they're up there. There you are. Over on my side. They told me you were over there. Hi. Thank you y'all for coming today. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 942 in observance of National County Government Month.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Ask the clerk to read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 942 by Coleman. WHEREAS, The Texas House of Representatives is pleased to join with the Texas Association of Counties in recognizing April 13, 2011, as County Government Day at the State Capitol; and WHEREAS, The month of April 2011 is being observed by the National Association of Counties as National County Government Month to raise public awareness and understanding about the roles and responsibilities of county governments; and WHEREAS, The oldest form of local government in the United States, county government addresses many critical issues, including building and maintaining roads, recreational facilities, and county airports, constructing and operating jails, operating the judicial system, maintaining public records, collecting property taxes, issuing vehicle registration and transfers, and registering voters; counties also provide law enforcement, conduct elections, and provide health and social services to many poor county residents; and WHEREAS, There are 254 counties in Texas, and the dedicated individuals who serve our counties as elected or appointed officials not only work diligently to meet the needs of citizens without placing an undue burden on taxpayers but also commit themselves to finding solutions to problems that will benefit all Texans; and WHEREAS, The Texas Association of Counties encourages citizens across the state to observe National County Government Month by learning more about this vital form of local government and the many ways in which it serves the public; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commend the county officials of this state for their countless contributions to Texas and welcome members of the Texas Association of Counties to the State Capitol; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the Texas Association of Counties as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, as you've heard, Texas has 254 counties and you all know that but that's a lot of different interests that have to be maintained in this state with our partners that are part of our state government constitutionally. And as you've heard, they build and maintain roads, they construct and operate jails, they conduct elections, they provide health and human services and social services to indigent residents. They do all the things where the rubber meets the road in our local areas. And each of our 254 counties have dedicated, elected, and appointed officials who work endlessly and tirelessly to provide our constituents with essential services. The Texas association of counties, TAC stands as a unified voice for Texas counties and officials and so serves as a liaison between counties and the state government. Helping us celebrate this occasion on the dais -- the occasion of the observance of National County Government Month, is the honorable Vernon Cook, president of TAC and Roberts County Judge, would you please raise your hand, Judge Cook. All right. The honorable Bruce Elfant the vice president of TAC in the Travis -- and Travis County Constable, and the honorable Donnie Allred, TAC board member, and Oldham County Judge. Would you-all please give them a hand on behalf of all of our county officials, county commissioners, county judges, and all of those that are partners in our local areas in county government and I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Chism. Representative Chism moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez from Williamson.

REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, I move that we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum. Representative Chisum moves to add all members' names is there objection, hearing none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales from Williamson.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move that we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1126 honoring Winston County.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. The following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1126 by Gonzales of Williamson. Recognizing April 13, 2011, as Williamson County Day at the State Capitol.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I welcome today in the east gallery our folks from Williamson County they are here celebrating Williamson County Day. I want to recognize a few folks that are here from the City of Round Rock, council member, Kris Whitfield, county commissioner, Lisa Birkman, commissioner, Ron Morrison. And from Taylor, councilman Christopher Gonzales, city manager, Jim Dunaway and economic development director Jason Ford and from the City of Hutto we have our city manager, Edward Broussard, David Mitchell, assistant city manager, Anne Cano, city councilwoman, Michael Smith, city council member, Debbie Holland, our mayor protem and councilman Melanie Rios.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.

REP. CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Members, we are honored to have so many individuals from Williamson County today. This is the second fastest growing county in the State of Texas and this contingent of elected officials just speaks to that. From Georgetown we have mayor George Garver; chamber president, Mike Martin, excuse me -- chamber chair, Mike Martin, chamber president, Mel Finland and councilman, Dan Meigs as well as state board of education member, Marsha Farney. From Cedar Park we have mayor, Bob Lemon; mayor protem, Mitch Fuller; councilman, Matt Powell; councilman, Tony Dale; councilman, Lowell Moore, city manager, Brenda Eivens; assistant city manager, Jose Madrigal; chamber president, Harold Dean and economic development director Phil Brewer. We welcome all the members from Williamson County. Hopefully, we didn't leave out any. Thank you for coming down to the Capitol today.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY GONZALES: Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Representative Schwartz moves add all members' names. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Like to welcome all the folks from Williamson County. Y'all stand up and be recognized. Welcome to your Texas House. Members, this is just a reminder all amendments due for the sunset bill are due at 12:49 and this is sunset bill on the Commission on the State Emergency Communications. Members, we have three sunset bills up this Friday. And the amendments for those three sunset bills will be due tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. So you'll need prepare those amendments ahead of time. The three agencies that we will hear Friday on Sunset are the continuation first Department of Information Resources, and the Transfer Comptroller to Public Accounts, Office of the Injured Employee Council and the Texas Public Finance Authority. Is Representative McClendon on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Workman. Chair recognizes Representative Workman for a resolution. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Resolution No. 116.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: The Resolution is 1318.

THE SPEAKER: Chair lays outs the following resolution. The clerk to read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 1318 by McClendon. WHEREAS, Hendrick Arnold, a noted early Texas scout and guide, earned a lasting place of honor for his significant service to the cause of Texas independence; and WHEREAS, Born to Daniel and Martha Ann Holly Arnold in Kentucky in 1806, Hendrick Arnold moved to Texas with his family in the mid-1820s; Daniel Arnold settled on the Brazos River, in Stephen F. Austin's first colony, and later located his headright on the site of present-day Navasota; and WHEREAS, In 1831, Hendrick Arnold married Maria Ignacia Saucedo, the stepdaughter of Erastus "Deaf" Smith, and settled in San Antonio; in October 1835, he was engaged in manufacturing lumber on the Medina River, near present-day Bandera, for sale in San Antonio; when he received word there that Stephen F. Austin and an army of Texas volunteers were marching on San Antonio to confront General Martin Perfecto de Cos, who had just arrived with a force of several hundred soldiers to reassert the authority of the Mexican government, he assembled his men and set out to join the Texas troops; and WHEREAS, During the ensuing siege of Bexar, the first significant campaign of the Texas Revolution, Hendrick Arnold and his father-in-law served as scouts and guides for the Texas army; on October 28, they took part in the Battle of Concepcion, in which the Texans successfully repelled an attack from Mexican forces sent out from San Antonio; a week later, on December 3, the Texans chose to postpone an attack on the Mexican troops in San Antonio because Mr. Arnold was away at the time, and several officers refused to advance without him; after his return, an attack on the town was set for December 5, and Hendrick Arnold guided one of the two divisions that entered Bexar and that ultimately compelled the Mexican forces there to surrender on December 9; in the official report following the battle, the commanding Texas officer singled out Mr. Arnold for particular praise; and WHEREAS, Anticipating a Mexican invasion in response to the defeat inflicted on General Cos, Hendrick Arnold moved his family to safety at his father's home on the Brazos and then returned to San Antonio; while General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna laid siege to the Texas troops in the Alamo, Mr. Arnold, who remained outside the fort, helped to sustain those within by supplying them with corn and beef; afterward, he served as a spy for General Sam Houston, a role he continued to perform through the Battle of San Jacinto; and WHEREAS, In March 1842, when Rafael Vasquez and some 700 Mexican troops occupied San Antonio for several days, Mr. Arnold served as a scout for an opposing force of Texas Rangers led by John C. Hays; and WHEREAS, Following the revolution, Mr. Arnold received land in Bandera County in compensation for his military service, but he seems not to have ever settled there; by 1843, he and his family were living in a Mexican settlement at Castroville, where he made cypress shingles for sale in San Antonio; his business interests in San Antonio apparently also included at one time a wool-washing mill, which he built near Mission San Juan in about 1836; in addition, he negotiated to buy half an interest in another mill near the same mission before his death from cholera on November 9, 1849; and WHEREAS, Mr. Arnold had three children, Mary Ann, Margaret, and Napolean, with his first wife, who died in 1839; he remarried and also had several children with his second wife, Martina Fuentes; in 1893, his daughter Mary Ann Adams and her daughter, Sarah D. Adams, were among the first to join the Daughters of the Republic of Texas; and WHEREAS, Hendrick Arnold was laid to rest in the Arnold Cemetery, located on the Straus-Medina Ranch in Bexar County; in 1936, in conjunction with the Texas Centennial, a grave marker noting his service in the Siege of Bexar was erected in his honor; and WHEREAS, Held in high esteem by the men with whom he served, Hendrick Arnold is indeed deserving of recognition in 2011, the 175th anniversary of Texas independence, for the vital role he played in that watershed event; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of Hendrick Arnold for his notable service in behalf of Texas liberty and for his contributions to the development of the republic and the Lone Star State.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you members. This is a relatively important resolution and if you know what's going on in San Antonio right now we are having Fiesta San Antonio and it's directly related to the Alamo. The resolution honors the life of Mr. Hendrick Arnold for his contributions to the struggle for Texas independence and to the establishment of the Republic of Texas. Mr. Arnold was born in Kentucky in often 1806 and moved with his family during the 1820's and became settlers among Stephen F. Austin's first colony. In 1835, he was married, moved to San Antonio and had been working in the manufacturing of lumber. In October of that year, Mr. Arnold received notice that an army of Texas volunteers was marching to confront several hundred Mexican soldiers. He immediately assembled troops of his own to join the effort. He served as a scout and a guide during the first significant campaign of the Texas Revolution called the Seige of Bexar. He also provided food and supplies for the troops waiting for Santa Ana before the Battle of the Alamo. Afterwards, he served as a spy for General Sam Houston, a role he continued to perform on throughout the battle of San Jacinto. Following the revolution, Mr. Arnold received a land grant in Bandera County for his military service. But seems to have settled with his family in a community called Castroville in Medina County. He owned several businesses outside of San Antonio and generated a large family. His daughter, Mary Ann Adams and her daughter, Sarah D. Adams, were among the first to join the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. Mr. Arnold died of cholera on November 1849 at the age of 43. And was laid to rest in the Arnold cemetery which is located on the Straus-Medina ranch in Bexar County. It is our honor and privilege to pay tribute to the life of Hendrick Arnold and to his remarkable service in the struggle for Texas liberty. We have with us on the dais descendants of Mr. Arnold. They are Mr. Robert Arnold, who is the great great great nephew of Mr. Arnold and we also have -- we also have Ms. Joan Arnold who is married to the great great nephew of Mr. Arnold. I think we have someone else who has joined us on the -- on the podium who is also a descendant and relative of Mr. Arnold. So members, please, help me welcome and help my delegation welcome to the state Capitol the descendents of Mr. Hendrick Arnold. And his family for their notable contributions. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REP. PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules take up and consider House Resolution 843 commending Chris Barron for his distinguished service as a firefighter.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair calls up the following resolution. Ask the clerk to read the resolution.

THE CLERK: HR 843 by Workman. Commending Chris C. Barron for his service as chief of the Manchaca Fire/Rescue Department and executive director of the State Firemen's and Fire Marshals' Association of Texas.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REP. PAUL WORKMAN: Members, it's my honor to recognize chief Chris Barron who is a constituent of mine, a 20 year member of the Manchaca Volunteer Fire Department and now chief of that department and the executive director of the State Fireman and Fire Marshals Association. I am pleased to have him and his family and friends here with us today and if you would, please, help me welcome chief Chris Barron. Chief, please stand. Thank you very much. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. Motion is adopted. Members, we're going on the calendar. Chair lays out on third reading SB 312. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 312 by Seliger. Relating to the exemption of certain electric cooperatives from certain regulations.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Members, this is Representative Kuempel's bill from yesterday and I move final passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 312? If not, the question occurs on final passage of SB 312. It is a record vote, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, 0 nays, SB 312 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading SB 333. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: Clerk SB 333 Fraser. Relating to election procedures and qualifications of members of boards of directors for water supply or sewer service corporations.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King. Chair recognize representative Aycock. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Members, this is Representative King's bill from yesterday regarding water board members. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishes to speak on or against or for SB 333? If not the question occurs on final passage of SB333. This is a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 333 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Members, I move to take -- I move to suspend all necessary rules take up and consider HCR 65.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk will read resolution.

THE CLERK: HCR 65 by Aycock. Recognizing April 13, 2011, as Leadership Killeen Day at the State Capitol.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aycock.

REPRESENTATIVE AYCOCK: Members, it's not often that you have to pass two bills to get to recognize your members that come from your district. Leadership Killeen is up here in the gallery along with leadership Highland Lakes and it is my pleasure to have two leadership groups here today. So they made me pass two bills, I guess, to make up for it. Anyway, if y'all would stand up and let us give you a hand, Leadership Killeen. Where are you? There you are down there. Okay. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none, resolution is adopted. Chair lays out Senate Bill 716. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 716 by Harris. Relating to the periodic review of the child support guidelines.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.

REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Members, this is the bill to give the attorney general direct responsibility for child support guidelines and report to the respective committees. Move approval.

THE SPEAKER: Members, anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 716? Hearing none. The question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 716. Members this is record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all voted? Being 139 ayes, 7 nays, Senate Bill 716 is finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading members, Senate Bill 18. Clerk will read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 18 by Estes. Relating to the use of eminent domain authority.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes -- chair recognizes Representative Allen for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I rise today to recognize a group of outstanding young people who have traveled to the state Capitol to share with -- share with us their inspiring stories of how public education changed their lives as well as changed their community. So I'd like for those from the Kip Alumni to please stand. We have with us over almost 40 Kip alumnus in the gallery today in those bright green lime shirts. They're here today to represent students, families, teachers, and communities of the 29 Kip schools here in the state of Texas. Just know that Kip alumni members are graduates of fine universities and colleges throughout the United States. Include some of the great institutions right here in the State of Texas, such as Texas Tech, UT, University of Houston, Texas A&M and Stephen F. Austin University. And I understand they're here today own a very important mission. They're here to show you the strong support for public education. Join me in welcoming the dedicated young people to the House of Representatives, Kip school alums, congratulations.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to lay out SB 18 on second reading.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this is -- I don't know if much awaited but this is SB 18, the eminent domain bill, unanimously passed out of both the Senate and the House Committee on Land and Resource Management. The background of this bill comes from the taking clause of the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Also, Article 1, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution prohibits a person's property from being taken without consent for public use without adequate compensation. In June of '05 the Court's ruling of Kelo -- the Kelo ruling was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and held a public entity could condemn private property and use that property for development projects, excuse me, and that this taking qualifies as a public use. But during the second call session of the 79th legislature, SB 7 was passed to limit governmental and private communities ability to use the power of eminent domain to take private property. But even with the passage of SB 7, Texas law still has some loopholes in it and a number of court decisions have created injustices for Texans. SB 18 revises the standards for the use of eminent domain and creates some well needed protections for private property owners. Such as, limiting eminent domain taking for public use only, requires the government entities to make bona fide offers, requires fair compensation for loss of assets and expenses, and is government land speculation, in other words, taking some property and sitting on it for a while and then selling it for a profit and provides a number of other additional protections. With that, Mr. Speaker, I believe there's several amendments. I'd be happy to stand for any questions anyone might have.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: To ask a question.

THE SPEAKER: Gentlemen yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Thank you Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of general questions concerning -- it's page 3 of your bill. Thank you so much for your hard work and the work of the committee. I know this has gone on for a long time. On page 3, on line 2 it refers to a common carrier pipeline. Is that in reference to the pipeline itself or; in other words, is this to be construed very narrowly or is this in reference to a common carrier operation.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: It is not to be construed narrowly. It is common carrier pipeline. So it's -- it opens it up. It's not narrowing it down.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: It's broadening it and not narrowing it.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: And can you explain why the sections there in the resource code and the Texas Business Corporation Acts were deleted? Why they're not subject to those parts or is that --

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I think this is enough definition for it without having to go to those codes for this particular purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: This is --

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: The common carriers are still -- they're still regulated by those but it's not necessary to have it in this bill.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: Okay. So they are still regulated by this section of the code.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Yes. That's correct sir.

REPRESENTATIVE SIMPSON: I thank you very much.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the amendment on page 1 of the packet has been temporarily withdrawn. We're on page 3 of the amendment packet. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari. Members, Representative Geren has raised a point of order. Point of order is temporarily withdrawn -- the amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Representative Simpson moves that the comments between he and Representative Geren be entered in the journal. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. We're on page 20. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis. Representative Geren raises a point of order on the amendment. Point of order is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield. Members we're on page 35.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Members, good morning. If I can have your attention, this amendment is very, very important to this bill. This amendment would add the word "necessary" to make page 2, line 9, state "not necessary" for public use in Section 2206.001 of the Government Code, entitled Limitation of Eminent Domain for Private Parties for Economic Development Purposes. This one word will require entities acquiring property to prove that the land they are acquiring is absolutely essential to the public project for the planning they plan to build. Members, earlier today you received an E-mail from me with explanation of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. It could be in your box if y'all want to look and see. This amendment is for lack of a better word necessary. I'll briefly go over the points of the flyer, if you wish. First, there are many places in current law that use the word "necessary" in natural resource code eminent domain it says, a common carrier may enter on or condemn the land right-of-way easement and property of any persons or corporations necessary for the construction, maintenance or operation of common carrier pipeline. The local government code states in Section 251.001 when a governing body a municipality considers it necessary, the municipality may exercise the eminent domain for the public purpose required -- public or private property. In the Texas Constitution Section 52J which deals with the sale of real property acquired through eminent domain, it says, a government entity may sell real property acquired through eminent domain to the persons who own the real property interest immediately before the government entities acquire their properties interest at the price the entity paid at the time of questions to the property is unnecessary for public use. There are many -- has been many jurisdictional decisions that cite the use of necessary as a reason of holding the *questions of property by the entity. *First, the -- in a 2005 3rd Court of Appeals decision, Linican v the City of August it explains that the current requirement in law that acquisition must be, number one, for public use and necessary; number two, to achieve that public use. Senate Bill 18 actually uses the word "necessary" in other parts of the bill. Section 15, which speaks of the repurchase of real property for *condemnment, government entity it states a person for whom a real property interest is required by eminent domain for public use or the person's assess is assigned entitled to purchase property that becomes unnecessary for public use in which property on the 10th anniversary date. Anyway, members, a lot you have already signed onto this particular wording and the bill and I would appreciate a positive response from you.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Sheffield, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Most certainly, chairman.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Representative Sheffield, you've read the Whittington opinion, where this word is discussed and what the relevance of it is to this debate. Do you know that case?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Not offhand, no, sir.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Okay. Do you know that most attorneys agree that the word "necessary" is already in the law and that it is presumed that everything is necessary and for a public use. Were you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Well, you just used the word "presume" and I don't tell to presume that, chairman.

REP. OLIVEIRA: I'm sorry, you don't know what "presume" means.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: No, you used the word presume and I'm trying to define not presuming anything but putting the word "necessary" in between two words and that's for and use.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Do you have any idea what your amendment is going to cost cities and counties in this state?

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: It should not cost anything. I know you're worried about lawsuits and so forth, but I believe the rights of private property owners must be protected.

REP. OLIVEIRA: No, sir I'm not worried about lawsuits. I'm worried about mandating that we put in legislation that's going to cost cities and counties and governmental entities and school districts that are going to cost a lot of money.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Would you like to explain, chairman?

REP. OLIVEIRA: Let me do that. I think the issue before us becomes, as we have done other times this session, mostly everyone on this floor believes that we shouldn't be doing unfunded mandate's. And it seems to me what this amendment is going to do is going to cost cities and counties and school districts and the State of Texas, TXDOT, a lot of money as they go forward and they are trying to build roads and bridges and infrastructure that they need to accomplish what our society wants. Do you understand that your amendment may cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Chairman, I understand your concerns, however, I'm also one that's very much against putting down them kind of mandates to my counties and my cities and State of Texas. But I also feel like the rights of private property owners must be protected and this one word that clarifies that extra protection they must have.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Well, you know that when governor Perry vetoed the original bill, one his concerns was the costs and we're going to see this amendment and a series of other amendments that are going to cost a great deal of money to local taxpayers as they go forward and need to build bridges, roads, schools, and everything else in their counties.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: I believe the owners of private property would really take that chance and be willing to take that chance because goes down to that we must protect the rights of private property owners.

REP. OLIVEIRA: I'm sure that the single owner may think that way but you're putting the burden on the other 99 percent of the people that need that road and that bridge and that school and that highway. I want you to, please, understand that because this word has serious legal meaning and serious financial consequences.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: I believe, chairman, you're making a presumption there. You know I really do. Thank you. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to speak on the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Members, I'm going to leave this amendment to the will of the House. The problem that I see with it is this takes the resolution of the necessity away from the condemnor -- condemnor and puts it in the hands of the jury. It's -- I'm afraid that by inserting this one word, just like when a on *crees line; for instance, you have to -- the PUC requires the electric companies or the line companies to provide them more than one route.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Just as soon as and I finish with this part I'll be happy to yield, Sylvester. And in that three routes out there and PUC decides they're going to choose Route 1, then anybody who is condemned on Route 1 would then say hey, let's go to court because I don't know why mines necessary and these other two aren't. And so I just believe it puts some ambiguity there that will -- it will cause the cities and counties in the state to be in the courthouse a lot more than they need to be. And I will gladly yield, Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Will the gentlemen yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I'll be happy to yield, Mr. Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I want to follow-up on the last comment that you made, and maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it seemed as though the amendment will add to the litigation cost for counties and cities is that the way -- I mean --

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I believe that it will, Sylvester, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Because now it becomes a fact issue to be determined by the -- at the courthouse, so to speak, and it becomes a lawyer's dream.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: It does become an attorney's dream and, you know, this makes me kind of want to go to law school if this goes on.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Right. And so at the end -- at the end of the process, if the amendment goes on, I mean, the people who ultimately will benefit from this will be the lawyers -- I mean, I'm a lawyer but don't want to necessarily speak against my own interest.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: No, you're an esteemed attorney I think.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Yeah. But it becomes a lawyer's dream to force these issues into court where the cities and counties will end up ultimately having to pay the tab.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I believe that's correct because I believe then the courts will be deciding if it's necessary to build a highway or necessary to build a school or necessary to build a courthouse and I don't believe that that's the purpose of SB 18 as I filed it anyway.

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: That was the concern that I had that I put on the amendment when I saw it. So, thanks very much. I appreciate it.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you. Thank you, members, as I said I'm going to leave this to the will of the House.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira to speak against.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, I would appreciate your attention on this amendment. It seems very simple, but it has -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really would appreciate your attention on this. I know many of you signed on as a coauthor and were urged to do so but I need to show you -- what the problem is. Let's do an example of a condemnor, an entity that's going to do the condemnation. They would now have to prove necessity and it sounds reasonable, but, actually, this is going to create a good deal of costs in litigation. For instance, a transmission company, a transmission company that simply wants to go before the PUC and build the transmission lines that it may need, be it electric, be it a pipeline, or whatever. And what that's going to mean now; for example, when you go before the PUC, you are obligated to list alternative routes, for that pipe line or that transmission line, depending on if it's an electric or pipeline. So when you build these lines, you're now laying out three possible routes before the PUC and the PUC will pick the one that they think is best for the goal. What that means now is a landowner can litigate and say wait a minute you submitted three different lines and even though PUC said this was the best one and the most reasonable one and the most necessary one, I don't agree. So what you're doing in this amendment now by including the word "necessity," which is presumed in the law, it's presumed it has to be a necessary public use and public purpose. What you're doing now in this amendment is increasing the cost for cities, counties, school districts, and the State of Texas, pipelines, and everyone else to do business in this state. What you're going to do with this amendment is now force us into more litigation, and, frankly, as Representative Turner said, this is a lawyer's dream, this amendment. You'll now be litigating what is necessary. You'll now be taking it to the courthouse, and you'll now be costing taxpayers a great, great deal of money. Please understand that even though it seems like an innocuous amendment, it is -- it is an expensive amendment, it raises this fiscal note considerably to the State of Texas and it passes on unfunded mandates to folks locally because now cities, counties, school districts, pipelines, transmission lines, all of them, are going to be spending a lot more money for the sake of a landowner. Now, I am proud to be a coauthor of this bill. I am proud that it's got some good things it for landowners. This is also getting us very close, if not there to the veto point of governor Perry. Governor Perry has made it very clear that there's only certain things we can afford to do. He said that in his original veto proclamation. That bill at that time would cost us billions of dollars. This amendment, if added, and some of the other amendments, if added, will take us down that same path and we may not get any of the things that we want to do for landowners because of this amendment. Respectfully, I -- my good friend Representative Sheffield, he's got an amendment here that many of y'all seemed on to but I don't think you knew the. Consequences I share with you and I respectfully ask you to vote no on this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield to close.

REPRESENTATIVE SHEFFIELD: Chairman Oliveira, I know and your committee put a lot of hard work in this bill and I really applaud you for that. However, I do believe that, you know, the scare tactics just are not right. If we cannot do what we need to do to protect the private property rights of owners we're not doing our job here. And I believe while I disagree with the cause for nonstop court cases, I do believe it's important for the entity taking the property must show just cause to take or condemn a person's private property. And I -- I ask you and urge you to vote with me on this. I believe they're going to ask you to table. I'll vote you not to table. Excuse me, there's no motion.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Sheffield sends up an amendment. The question is on the adoption of the Sheffield amendment. A record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting no, show Representative Sheffield voting aye, show Representative Oliveira voting no. Show Representative Lucio voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Show Representative Frullo voting no. Have all voted? Being 44 ayes and 99 nays, the amendment fails to adopt. The amendment on Page 36 is withdrawn. Representative Simpson, Representative Oliveira, please, come down front. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Oliveira.

THE SPEAKER: It's on page 40. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is a very simple amendment. There's been some confusion in the bill about whether landowners and condemnors entities be they, a city, county, state, pipeline, transmission company, whatever, whether you could make a different agreement other than what the statute says. The statute before you -- the bill before you, says that in this particular section, that you can have a road built on your land over certain pipelines. What this amendment simply does is say, obviously, a landowner and the owner of that easement that where you're going to build that road can come to terms on something different than what's listed in the bill; for example, the bill says that you can have a road -- if you're the landowner and you want to build a road over your property, this bill will allow you -- I'm sorry, over your property and over a pipeline, this bill allows you to do that, but it tells you what kind of road and how big and the angles and everything else. This amendment simply says that a landowner and the owner of the easement can come to terms different, maybe more favorable to the landowner, as long as there's an agreement and I didn't want what was in the bill to become the floor and the ceiling of what kind of roads can be built over the property. If I'm a landowner and I want to build instead of the 40-foot road here I want to build a 50-foot wide road then I'll be able to do that and come to terms by contract, and I don't have to live with what the bills says, I can do more or less but I can do it by agreement. What happens in most legislation is we set standards or we set guidelines and they become a floor and a ceiling and I don't want that to happen. If the landowner wants to do more than that, they can do more than that as long as it's by contract and by agreement and the statute doesn't limit you.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Will the gentlemen yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Oliveira, do you yield?

REP. OLIVEIRA: I yield.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Mr. Oliveira would this give more flexibility to the landowner and to the owner of the easement into their negotiations and what actually can take place on the ground.

REP. OLIVEIRA: Yes, chairman Geren. The bill sets standards and that's okay on building a roadway. But this amendment says a landowner and the condemnor or the pipeline company can sit down and say, you know what I need my road a little bigger, a little wider. I may want to use different kinds of materials and it allows that freedom to contract and do more than what the bill would allow, if they want to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Oliveira you got a real good amendment?

REP. OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Oliveira sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. It's on page 37.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the amendments on pages 37, 38 and 39 are temporarily withdrawn. Mr. Burnam? Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Members, there's a -- Mr. Speaker, members, that's perfecting amendment I believe it's on page 41. Thank you. The perfecting amendment is drafted by alleged counsel. You know, we are really fortunate to have a vast natural gas resources at our disposal here in Texas. But with the Barnett shale and the other shales in addition to the opportunities, there's some problems. Their develop has led to the abuse of one of the most fundamental rights Texans have always enjoyed. The right of public property, and that's what this bill is about today. I'm trying to address a specific issue that's coming to you soon. In Tarrant County, in the heart of the Barnett shale region, the number of condemnation cases filed by private entities has skyrocketed in recent years. The number of condemnation cases filed by private entities in Tarrant County increased by a factor of 30 between 2003 and 2008. It went from five cases in 2003 to 147 cases in 2008. They are largely due to the phenomenon of the Barnett shale. Private for profit pipeline companies have the right of eminent domain in Texas, including subsidiary companies transporting for a single producer. I believe that such for profit entities gathering pipeline entities carrying gas exclusively for the parent drilling companies never should have had imminent domain powers in the first place. Condemning private property under these circumstances should be a negotiated transaction, just like any other market transaction. Members, here that? I'm advocating market transactions, between business entities and private individuals. In Pennsylvania, another major state with major shale opportunities -- in Pennsylvania, private gas corporations cannot condemn property to construct a gathering pipeline, only gas utilities acquiring easements for interstate transmission lines have eminent domain. Several states have suspended eminent domain powers until TACS forces could conduct studies and report the findings to their legislatures. We need to take a time-out and rethink the eminent law -- eminent domain law as it pertains too this concern. This amendment would place a moratorium on condemnations by private non-common carrier pipeline companies for two years while the comptroller conducts a study regarding three issues. Cost and benefits for landowners businesses in the state, the impacts on private property rights, and the recommendations to retain, eliminate, or revise eminent domain authorities for those entities in the circumstances. While we want producers so get their gas to the market, we must respect the mineral rights -- must respect the mineral rights must be balanced with respect for surface property rights. Currently Texas law respects the property rights of private -- private seeking, pipeline companies more than it respects the rights of homeowners. A public perversion of the purpose for eminent domain. We need to at least have this two-year moratorium and study it and assess the situation. I would appreciate your support of this amendment. Move its adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Members, as I said this earlier this amendment to the amendment simply is a legislative counsel draft.

THE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The chair hearing none. The amendment is adopted. We're now on the Burnam amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Geren to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I would gladly yield.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Looking at the proposed amendment, it appears to me that if you slow down the sale of gas through transmission lines that you're actually going to be speeding up or accelerating the need for nuclear energy in the State of Texas; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I think you're absolutely right that that's what this would do. Is the I want nuclear energy amendment.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Thank you, thank you representative.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Members, this amendment would shutdown the oil and gas production basically in the Barnett shale. It would bring pipeline construction to halt in such areas as the Eagle Ford where a single producer may have large acreage under lease so their gathering the land needed to connect the package of wells, would necessarily be built in order to move that gas. And so I very respectfully move to table this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam to close.

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Clearly neither the author of the bill nor the questioner from the back understand that what this really is about is raising the price of natural gas. If we can help protect the private property owners, I'm talking about the homeowners that you represent not the corporations too many of you serve. I'm talking about protecting the rights of the surface owners. The homeowners in Collin County, the homeowners in Denton county, Wise county, Parker county, Johnson County, all of these homeowners have been subjected to too much abuse by eminent domain, by a private sector interest. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Burnam sends up an amendment. Mr. Geren moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Geren voting aye, representative Burnam voting no, representative Branch voting aye. Have all members voted? 114 ayes, 32 nays, motion prevails. Members, we're on page 42. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Members, the amendment on page 42 is withdrawn. That brings us to Page 43, members. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment does very simple it just gives the property owners a little added protection, especially in those situations where you have no non-lawyers involved and it just gives them a chance to once they've had a deal -- let's say you got a landman show up and the landman is talking to grandmother and grandmother gets -- goes ahead and signs and she calls her nephew or calls her grandson says hey, grandson I just signed this agreement for this easement and he says, you did what? Then just gives a little cooling off period. The right to rescind the agreement and it's very -- on the third day. We have a lot of consumer contracts like that just gives three days for them to say, I've had three days to contemplate this and now I know I've made the right decision it protects our landowners. Again, and I don't believe it's acceptable to the author. So I want to talk a little bit more about it unless y'all are all shaking your head. Again this allows three days -- three days for a landowner who has had people come in and say, we want you to give us this easement, here's the deal you get and all of a sudden they find out that everybody else got a deal that was a whole lot different than theirs and they did that out of ignorance. This just allows that opportunity for them to have protection. So this is a protect your -- and again, I think it's aunt Nancy or grandmother Bea, we're going to take care of them. I would move adoption. Yes, Mr. Orr?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Orr is there -- Mr. Orr, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Will the member yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: I will.

THE SPEAKER: The member yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: So, Larry, really what you're trying to do you have these the land guys that show up and just they get somebody to sign off without conferring with anybody else and there's been a lot of abuse out there, you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: There's been a lot of questionable at times practices as relates to these situations and they come in oh, you know, your neighbor down the street signed the off and your neighbor signed off and maybe they really didn't. And so you put some people who are not sophisticated as these folks coming in making these deals and these are forever easements, their not easements -- this isn't like buying a car, you know, there's some -- we have some consumer a lot of consumer transactions where you can go back and rescind. These are forever deals and this just provides a three-day look after they sign it and again, you know --

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Especially for older folks that are out in the country.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: It's our citizens. When they come through and do these things it's not just the rural areas, it's also in the cities and if you could ask those around the Fort Worth area have had these type of situations. Again, it's just a consumer protection, when -- when they're coming in and they're taking your land and, again, these situations we're talking about could be pipelines, could be any -- could be the city. This just gives a three-day and so it doesn't -- three days doesn't slow anything down.

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Absolutely, these landman are they licenses have anything to go by, their job is just to get it signed and get it to market; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: That's right. Their job is to get signed and their going to come in and put whatever pressure they can to get it signed. And there's no reason why three days delay is going to cause any deal not to happen. And, again, we're talking about corporations, at times, that are making huge profits off of the natural gas coming through and they've been planning for years to do this. And to give them three days for the landowner, our citizens --

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: I've seen a lot of cases where they offer them a lot more money but a lot less percentage or more -- and it's really confusing and they just need the time, you know, and three days is really nothing, is it?

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Right. And often times it may be just confirmation. You know, okay, yeah, that's what everybody has done, but it just provides protections, especially to -- like I said, to those that are not as sophisticated. Because that's really who we're dealing with is landowners that may have never had a transaction like this before.

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Right. And we're talking about condemnation here. I mean, we're talking about taking somebody's property and we don't have a three-day right of rescission, that doesn't make much sense.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Their going to take their property away, whether it's an easement, to put a pipeline across, and that pipeline is there forever, because, you know -- did you know that in a lot of these agreements, you could have extra things put in there to provide the landowner more protection. Such as going back putting vegetation a certain way. I mean, there's a lot of protections can be built in and most knowledgeable of people are going to require that those things be in these easements.

REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Very good, I think you have a great amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Thank you, Representative Orr. I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren to speak against the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this would do is essentially let someone back out of a real estate contract. The people that come and call on I don't remember which aunt or which grandmother, Mr. Phillips used but whoever calls on them, professional people now and they have to present the offer.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Yes, ma'am, I'd be happy to.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Thank you, chairman Geren. I think what Representative Phillips amendment is doing is just having some level of protection for folks. Are you aware that in many communities people will go out and try to acquire land from folks without having provided them with adequate understanding of what they're signing. While this is not to undue the contract, this could very well be a provision to protect it so that folks know what their doing, is that possible?

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Ma'am, I guess it could be when the -- any of the people that are -- that have the authority to condemn land on their first contact have to present the landowners bill of rights for the people that they possibly -- they possibly could be taking land from. If they -- if they negotiate a real estate contract so they don't have to go through the condemnation proceedings, it's not going to happen in five minutes. It's going to be over a period of days to start with.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: But in the instance of when someone is given a Bill of Rights and they don't fully comprehend all of their rights and couldn't it be possible that what we're talking about is just the three-day window to protect the interest of the person that could very easily be taken advantage of. I mean, that's what this amendment is trying to do is to make sure that the protection or the knowledge that the individual has knowledge of what they're signing.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: I understand what this amendment is trying to do. I just happen to disagree with allowing someone to back out of a real estate contract if they've signed and that's essentially what this allows.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Okay. So, would you be open to an amendment to an amendment to the amendment that says, after they signed they have three days window execute the contract because I mean I think --

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: If once the contract is executed, I believe it's executed. The contract --

REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS: Three days from the time that they actually do -- that they make an agreement, if a person is senior citizen or is not familiar with the procedures going on, would you allow them to have a three-day window to review purposes prior to.

REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Ma'am, they can all the time to review it on the front end and I think that time is available to them and I don't know that three days would make any difference. Members, I would respectfully move to table this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Phillips to close.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Okay. Members, we are talking about a contract for land, a real estate transaction and that's when their coming to your home and they're talking to whoever it is, your grandmother and they're saying, ma'am, this would be really good and, you know, we can have condemnation. You know we can take you to court and you don't get your attorney's fees. So you need to go ahead and it will be just better for you if you sign this agreement and she signs that agreement. She calls you up and says oh, grandson or granddaughter or nephew, niece I just signed this. I really wasn't sure if I would and all of a sudden, you go, you did what? And you find out that what they've done is completely not appropriate. This allows three days is all it does. So if the City or the state or some pipeline company, some corporation comes and says hey, we've got an agreement, and, you know, if it's been negotiated and a lawyer has been involved and it's been -- it's those that are sophisticated doing these, that three days not matter. They're not going to walk away or change their minds. You've already had your negotiation. What this is really going to protect are those is that have not had that kind of benefit. And so, I would respectfully ask that you vote, no on the motion to table and allow the landowners to have some protections and rights so that at the end of the day, when government takes land from them, we know that we're not running over them, we're not stomping over them, we're going to give them the protection that they need. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Phillips sends up an amendment. Mr. -- Mr. Geren moves to table. The question on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Geren voting aye, show Representative Hunter voting aye. All right members, there being 79 ayes, 64 nays, motion to table prevails. Members, we're going to page 37. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. If you would -- if you're following along we're going to be talking about page 3 of the bill. This amendment on page 37 of your packet simply strikes the whole Section 2206.002 dealing with limitations on easements. The reason why I think this is important is because if you look at the beginning of the bill, the first thing that is changed in this bill on page 1 on line 6, the words "limitations on use of" are stricken. And inserted after that are limitations on the purpose and use of property acquired through eminent domain. This bill, which I'm grateful for the reform that it proposes concerning the authority of eminent domain also restricts landowners. This section beginning on page 3 actually in my judgment, has a number of confusing portions to it and primarily is really to restrict the landowner, not the pipeline, not the entity with the eminent domain powers, and I'm not sure why this section is even in this bill. There are good things in this bill, but I believe this section hurts the landowner and causes some confusion with respect to the rights of landowners and further limits them. Is this acceptable to the author? I move passage of this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to speak in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Although this amendment is well thought out, it actually brings into play the larger gas lines which are regulated federally and by the state as to the type of construction that can occur above them. If they -- if -- in putting a pipeline down, the pipeline company knows that there's going to be heavy road traffic then they bury them deeper and they reinforce the area between the pipe and the highway. This would not be the case with this and the reason that this is -- the language in the bill is for the gathering lines is because they're not -- they're not as large, they're not high pressure, they -- and they're not subject to, you know, blowing up. You start -- if you dig in very similar to what happened in Johnson County not too long ago when they were digging to put a power line in and punctured a high pressure gas well and it -- you know, it burned a man up and injured several others. And so I believe that this language needs to stay the way it is and you can use and continue to use the words expiration and production because that only refers to the gathering lines.

THE SPEAKER: Representative?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I would gladly yield.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Chairman Geren, we looked at this in committee and studied this whole issue of the size of the roads and all of these things and Representative Simpson has some good ideas, but aren't we also dealing with a series of federal regulations that supersede our law and tell us what kind of roadways, what kinds of things we can do on these properties?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Your correct, Chairman Oliveira, not only federal but there are state statutes that are even more restrictive than the federal as to what can take place above a transport line.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: And I know the amendment and the other ones that he has are very well intentioned and are beneficial. The problem is though that if you agree with me, that not only is it a federal law and federal regulations but you're also looking at safety issues. If you start building the wrong kind of road, laying down a road of concrete; for example, on a pipeline or things like that, aren't you putting that landowner and perhaps surrounding than landowners at risk as well.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: You're putting everyone at risk, especially during this time of year as you know we're having extensive wild fires in west Texas and southwest Texas. You puncture one of these lines and you're going to have -- it's going to be a lot worse than what we've got going on and those federal and state regulations are there to protect the landowner, the neighbors, and to protect the pipeline. You know, there are different construction methods used, depending upon what's going to be above it and if it's left to the discretion of the landowner then I think we can run into some problems and that's why your amendment was such a good amendment because it allows the landowner and the pipeline owner to negotiate the type of -- what could go across the top without endangering the safety of the pipeline.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Well, thank you and I agree with your -- I assume your move to table the amendment.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes. And with that members I would move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this section actually limits landowners and there's some very confusing things and I'd like to go into the details now, just briefly. And really have to do with the amendments that I'll propose if this amendment is not adopted, in the next few pages. But if you look on page 3, line 24 and 25, this -- it says this section applies to oil and gas -- a pipeline used for oil and gas exploration or production activities. To my knowledge, right now, you don't have eminent domain authority for exploration or production activities. And I believe this language might give credence to that at some point if it's litigated. And then in paragraph on page 4, lines five 5 and following, speaking in reference to a street or road. It actually restricts the landowner and how he can cross the pipeline. So it's limiting the landowner. It's not limiting the pipeline and there's some tracks of land, if they're very narrow and the pipeline is almost paralleling the land but traversing you cannot cross it at 90 degrees. I'll have an amendment in a minute that will deal with that, but this shows that this language here is limiting to the landowner. Also on line 9, in that situation where a pipeline is at a very long angle crossing a narrow piece of land, you might need more than 40 feet to cross it. In that case where we cultivate and harvest pine timber you might not be able to build a temporary road to cross the pipeline. If it was only limited to 40 feet. So I think this -- there are good things in here that perhaps some would propose, but I think it should be done positively and I think this actually limits the landowner and I urge you to vote no on the motion to table. I close.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Simpson voting no. Have all voted? Show representative Isaac voting aye. Have all voted? Being 130 ayes and 18 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 38.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're on page 38 of the amendment packet. This amendment would strike the language on the bottom of page 3 of the bill on line 24 that says be used for and we would insert the word "transport" so the language would read, beginning on line 22, "this section applies only to an easement acquired by an entity for the purpose of a pipeline to transport oil and gas", period. What this would do is make very clear that the power of eminent domain does not apply to exploration and production activities, but only to the movement or transportation of gas or oil. I move passage or adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I won't take you through the arguments that I just took you through but it's the same arguments as the last amendment and I would urge you to vote with me on a motion to table. I move to table, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you for your attention, I urge you to vote against the motion to table. I close.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment, Representative Geren moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Simpson voting no, show Representative Raymond voting aye, show Representative Johnson voting aye. Have all voted? Being 126 ayes, 18 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: It's on page 39. Chair recognize Representative Simpson.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Members, I have an amendment to my amendment on -- and page 39 of the packet. The amendment to the amendment strikes the words "at or near 90" on line 7 of page 4 of the bill. In the situation I just described on a narrow piece of land was taken, if you have the pipeline almost parallel with the land, and the lengthwise way you might not be able to cross it at 90 degrees and this would allow the landowner to cross the pipeline at an angle of more than 30 degrees. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption of this amendment of the amendment. Mr. Speaker, I lay out my amendment to the amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Simpson.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: The amendment to the amendment is one I just explained, it just changes the requirement for the landowner to cross the pipeline at an angle of not at or near 90, it gives them the flexibility to cross the pipeline at more than 30 degrees. So it includes being able to cross it at 90, but it would allow the landowner, if it was needed on this particular property, to cross it at 30 degrees or more. The amendment is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Simpson sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted, on the Simpson amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're on page 39 of the amendment package and now, this page now is amended to include the language of more than 30 degrees instead of the requirement of having to cross the pipeline at 90 degrees. Also, this amendment strikes on page 4 the requirement that the width of the crossing of the pipeline would have to be at 40 degrees. Many situations, at least for timber 40 feet, would be sufficient, but where the angle -- where you'd have to cross the pipeline on a narrow piece of property, it would -- may require the width of the road be -- exceed 40 feet. Certainly you could limited it and work it out a deal with the pipeline company to keep it at 40, but right now, this statute, if we pass it, would require that it be limited to 40 feet. And this amendment would strike that requirement or limitation of the landowner.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, the motion is the same arguments that I've already given you hold up. But also, when you take the 40-foot limit, all of a sudden, you're putting some trucks on these roads that are heavier than the pipe lines that are constructed underneath them can stand and so I think your taking a real big chance on causing another terrible, terrible, fire and injury or death and so with that, I respectfully move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson to close.

REP. DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This -- this amendment, with respect to the width of the pipeline, doesn't have anything to do with the depth of the concrete or the depth of the gravel. It has to do with the width. Certainly you'd want plenty of depth and the pipelines are required to bury their pipelines at least 3 feet and many instances now more than 4 feet. And certainly we would want to take precautions and this bill requires that you not interfere with the maintenance or operation of the pipeline. But this portion of the bill limits the landowner. This is -- this is not eminent domain reform, this is landowner, timberland owner constriction and limitation. And I urge you to vote no on the motion to table. I close.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Simpson voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 130 ayes and 18 nays the motion to table prevails. We're on Page 44. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members I have an amendment to the amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Isaac.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The amendment to the amendment just further clarifies the intent of the amendment, to ensure that any appraisers involved in any condemnation are independent and not employed by the entity. I am the author of the amendment to the amendment so I think it's acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the Isaac amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Again, this amendment just further clarifies that the person conducting the appraisal is independent from any of the parties involved or not employed by any of those parties that involved in the condemnation.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 45 is withdrawn. On Page 46. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I want to talk a little bit about this amendment. And I want to say first, this is a bill that was in the committee I serve on and it's a very good bill and it's definite improvement from where we are today and I appreciate the hard work of the author of this bill, the sponsor of Senate Bill 18 and my desk mate. We've had some conversations. I'm going to go ahead and offer this amendment with great respect to my desk mate in that, I think, it further clarifies some of the protections that I had questioned in committee. So, let me just tell you what it does. It adds a fourth trigger to the buy-back amendment that would grant property owners the right to purchase the property if the initial use for what the property was taken is not used for that. For example, if you condemn it for a highway, you say, you have to use it for a highway. If the condemner doesn't use for it that highway then you get to buy it back. There is no ten year, there is no ten year limit on that particular trigger. It also does a couple of other things. It sets a hard deadline of 180 days for when the condemner have to notify the property owners, this is a clarification in the bill. Right now the bill says when the condemner decide that one of these triggers has come into effect, then they have 180 days. This just says when one of those triggers are hit, they have 180 days to notify the property owners. And then finally, it also allows the property owner to repurchase the property at the price the owner received for the property, or the current market value, whichever is less. Again, I think that Senate Bill 18 is an improvement. I have a personal story on this and I'll share it quickly. My family has some land that the City of Brenham wanted. We agreed on a purchase price which was what it was for on the tax rolls, we actually even gave $10,000 to the city but we put a deed in there that said, this land which was the land that my father grew up on, had to forever be used for a park. Since then we've had two new city councils. There's been an attempt to not use it for a park. We always bring that deed back to them and say, we get to repurchase the property if you don't use it for a park and they go, oh, yeah, that's right. And then it continues to be used as a park. I offer this amendment just as a clarification. Again, I think the three triggers are good. There's a ten-year limit on it, I think that if you -- you know, have your land taken for you for a lake it should be used for a lake and not for something else later on. Again, members, I respectfully do this it's not often I go against my desk mate and I'm not going against him I'm just trying to improve it. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I was hoping that likewise she would pull this one down and she didn't. The example that she's giving about the park is they did restrict that and it still is a park and if they try to change it, she has the option of bringing that up and they can either sell it back to her or it stays a park. That was -- you know, that was done not through eminent domain they gave the property to the city the city is continuing to use it as a park. Although, some of the language in this is -- might be pretty good. I think that the part where we're taking out the time -- or limiting the time on the -- on line 28 and 29, on or after the tenth day -- the anniversary date the real property is acquired by -- and substitute we're changing the timeline on this and we've got a very specific timeline of ten years and they have to do two of seven things or they have to sell it back. There's also a limit in the bill on how long people --

REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REP. LON BURNAM: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Sure.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, I will.

REP. LON BURNAM: Chairman Geren, you said in your own words there's a pretty good language in her amendment why don't you accept that pretty good language.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Because it's one big amendment and it's not all good, Lon.

REP. LON BURNAM: So, would you accept an amendment to the amendment like I had an amendment to my amendment.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, I mean your amendment to the amendment to build more nuclear plants? There's also in the language whether the initial use --

REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, that was not an amendment for more nuclear plants. That was an amendment to raise the price of natural gas. Let's be real clear on that.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Excuse me Mr. Burnam, I apologize. I'll yield to Mr. Oliveira.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I would.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Chairman Geren, we -- the Senate and our committee and yourself, we spent a lot of time constructing this so that we'd really give landowners the ability to repurchase and it's been carefully constructed so that all the stakeholders involved, all the ones that were at least reasonable, understood that this is the language we needed to work with and Chairman Kolkhorst, even though there are some elements of the amendment that are good, it really would fracture the coalition that we put together to make this good -- this section of the bill which is beneficial to landowners and giving them the right to get their property back. In fact, they get their property back at the amount they paid for it without inflation, without adjustments, without all of that. They get a good daily here if they want to repurchase.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I believe that's correct and that's one of the reasons I'm opposed to this because it throws in fair market value as opposed to the value that was received for the property originally and that's a set value. There's no argument about it. You don't have to go out and hirer appraisers again, do anything else like that, all we have to do --

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: A good example is, if I'm the landowner and my property was condemned and I got $100 for it, if it is -- if you change with this language, you may be end up having to pay more to get your property back.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, it actually says whichever is less but you would still have to go through an appraisal process to determine fair market value. You've had the $100 for ten years and at the end of ten years you give them the $100 back you get the land or you can decide not to do it and then they can -- the city or county or pipeline company will keep the property, but they have to offer it back to sale and I would move to table this amendment.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you.

REP. PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative King, for what purpose?

REP. PHIL KING: Just one quick question.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, sir, I yield.

REP. PHIL KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to clarify my understanding of Lon Burnam's amendment was that it was in support of building new nuclear power plants. Was that yours as well.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I was mistaken but that's what I originally thought but he's actually trying to raise the price of natural gas which I don't have a problem with raising the price of natural gas but I think some of my constituents might.

REP. PHIL KING: I just want to make sure we did understand that Lon Burnam was supporting nuclear power plants. Thank you.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst to close.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Members, just a couple of points of clarification. Chairman Geren is correct on that when your land is not used for the purpose that it was taken, that I take away that ten-year trigger. There are three triggers, just adding a fourth one which is truth and condemnation I call it. And the important part of that was when I referred to the land that my family sold to the City of Brenham, we were willful sellers, therefore, we got to write the deed. The City of Brenham did not condemn our lands. It was a -- it was a friendly negotiation. Having said that, I want to clarify one thing and I know when you're doing big bills, one of the references that he talked about was request for information regarding condemned property. Right now, you cannot, as a property owner, request any information until on or after the tenth anniversary of the date that real property was acquired by an entity through eminent domain. Part of this amendment just strikes that language and says a property owner or the owner's heirs may request the condemning entity to make is a determination and provide a statement and other relevant information regarding their land. So I think that we've tied -- I think this is a great start, but I think that we've tied the property owners so down to this ten-year trigger and Chairman Geren is correct, that, you know, if certain things haven't happened before that tenth anniversary, then you get the chance to purchase your land back. But I have to say that a city council, all they have to do is to pass a resolution saying that they're doing one of the other six triggers which could be hiring an architect. So, while I think we're moving the ball, I'd like to strengthen it slightly. Members, it's up to you and I am very respectful to the sensitivity of this bill and how hard Chairman Geren has worked on putting this bill together.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker, may the chair lady yield, please?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, I yield.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Chairman Kolkhorst, the way I understand your amendment, which I think is a very good one by the way, is that basically it's going to give that landowner a little extra layer of protection. Unlike yourself that in your property you were able to put a deed restriction in, once a property is condemned, you cannot go back and put that deed restriction in, right?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's correct.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: And so a little bit worry as well is as we go through different management counsels or commissioners or whatever it's possibility some people can forget about what that property is going to be used for and you're not compensated very fairly if you're able to get that back at some date in point, right?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's correct.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: I think you have a great amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So, members one other thing for District 13 which is, Allens Creek Reservoir in 1974 was purchased by Houston Lighting & Power. Today it's still not a lake. Is was meant to be a part of a nuclear power plant. Today it's not a lake, it's not anything and now it's kind of owned by the Brazos River Authority and Reliant. Things change. I was ten years old when that property was condemned, I'm a little older now. I just think that we need to have the truth in what we do. So, I respectfully offer this and I know that my good friend Chairman Geren has to oppose it and I respect that too. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. This is on a motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Showing Representative Villarreal voting no, show Representative Lon Burnam voting aye. This is on the motion to table. Have all voted? Being 60 ayes, 81 nays, motion to table fails. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The amendments on page 48, 49 and 50 are withdrawn. On page 51. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members. This amendment just says that property owners were going to insert including the property owners financial damages described by Section 21041. Also it adds language that says if the condemnation makes rural location of a homestead a farm, the damage -- damages are so set with replacement value of the property in a comparable neighborhood. What happens so many times people lose their property through condemnation and they are offered market value, but they don't restore the -- leave the homeowner the same way he was when they found him and took his property. This language just attempts to leave the homeowner in the same situation in which the condemning entity found him and not create additional debt for them but rather provide them the necessary replacement value of their property, and making sure that damages -- that any other damages necessary for the homeowner, that they have experienced through this condemnation, they will be made whole. And I think it ought to be acceptable to the author in that we are attempting to provide protection for property rights of owners. Do you like this amendment? Members, I'd ask you to help me protect our homeowners and our Texans with regards to the financial damages and the costs for replacement because they oftentimes -- we come in -- the entities come in and we leave our property owners at a disadvantage and so I would move adoption of this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This, although Ms. Davis, I believe, in your heart you think this is a good amendment it's really not a workable amendment. At the special commissioners' hearing stage as it necessarily assumes that these costs have been calculated which means the replacement property must have been identified and a cost of reimbursement determined in detail. Relocation benefits are usually paid on a reimbursement basis and the owner works through the move and may vary significantly from what either party budgeted or expected. On page 15 of the bill, the -- it says that the state or a political subdivision of the state shall, as a cost of acquiring real property, pay moving expenses, rental supplements and make relocation payments, provide financial assistance to acquire replacement housing and compensate for expenses incidental to the transfer of the property if an individual or family personal property --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: -- is displaced --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren, do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: -- acquisition. Yes, ma'am, I would yield.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As it relates to relocation, many times, would you agree that they provide -- the relocation does not include what it costs to actually get the homeowner relocated and situated them in the similar situation on which you found them. Would you say that when they have relocation -- in your language does it protect the homeowner such that they are left the same way that you found them in a paid for home, you talked about moving and transferring, but does it allow them to have replacement in a home.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, ma'am, it does not allow them replacement.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, is it true that under your bill, that a person could actually be living in a paid for home, have paid for it, owned it outright, and you can come in and condemn him and give them less money to go and get in a similar situation where they would be in a paid for home without additional cost to them; is that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Under this bill it would pay for their -- you can't -- relocation costs will -- shall be assumed by the municipality.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I didn't say just the relocation. The relocation as it relates to this bill isn't the relocation cost that you're talking about.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: It doesn't require them to purchase -- the city or the state to purchase a new home that's exactly like the home that they moved out of.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But the relocation that we're talking about in this bill only means the actual movement isn't; is that correct? It's not the actual getting them into a home where they would be kept whole.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: It does not require to put them in a home specifically like the one they moved out of it. Does require to help them get into a home.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So you --

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That they buy a new one.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, your bill would actually leave people worse off than when you found them because the condemning entity could take their property and at the same time, relocate them, help them move to another property that creates them an expense that they didn't have otherwise; is that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, ma'am, I don't believe it is and it also provides for financial assistance if they need it in the move.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But does the financial assistance require them to -- in this bill, does financial assistance require the condemning entity to take an individual and leave them whole. We are not in fact leaving the citizens home whole from this bill; is that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: It is a possibility that they will not be whole.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, my language seeks to try to make them whole. Is it true based on most -- many of the neighborhoods that are being taken, the value of the home that they be paid based on market value would not allow them to go and purchase a similar home and pay for it outright or have the same situation that they were before you -- before you condemned their property; isn't that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: They will not have the situation, ma'am, because they wouldn't be in the same home. I do believe that if they're given fair market value that they can probably move into another home of that same value. It just won't be in the same spot.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But you could in fact create a situation where the person would have a house note to pay a house note whereas right now they might not have a house note; isn't that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: If they choose to borrow money yes, ma'am, that is correct.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: No, no, no. Based on what you provide them in terms of relocation money.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Ma'am they get paid for the house that they're moving out of.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But they don't get paid enough to relocate into a house they get paid what you deem the market value or what's deemed the market value; is that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: And that is correct, ma'am. Market value there will be another house of the same market value I'm certain.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Well, Mr. Geren are you aware that in many instances folks who have been relocated out of these homes end up having to go into a situation where they now are in debt when you condemn their property they were not in debt.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, ma'am.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Under this bill this is what you'd be doing.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I can understand that because sometimes people when they move, they will upgrade.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: They didn't want to move, you moved them.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, ma'am. I understand that. Well, I didn't move them.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But under this bill, the condemnation moves them. This is not by choice. They were completely content where they were until the condemnation --

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I agree with that.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: -- moved them out; isn't that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I agree with that. Yes, ma'am.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And to the extent that we are eroding their -- their home, and homestead, don't you think it's fair for us to at least provide them a way to be left whole and relocate and provide them replacement value.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, ma'am. I believe the fair market value is what we should pay and that's what the law says today.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But the fair market value is set up based on what we say, but we didn't tell them that we were going to come take their property. They didn't ask us to come take their property.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, ma'am. That's correct.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's something we're choosing to do is to go and take someone's property and then we tell them that we're not going to give you enough to get another home like that. We're going to give what you we think it's worth based on the market value, knowing full well they can't go get another home.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I disagree with you on knowing full well they cannot get another home, ma'am.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Do you believe that this is bill going to create some debt for folks who currently might not have debt if their home is paid for.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I think that it could if they choose to borrow the money.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, if they based on that assumption that you think it could create debt then in fact we're not leaving them whole; is that correct?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Ma'am, if they choose to borrow the money it will create debt, that is correct.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But if you don't give them enough to buy the house -- replace their house.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Ma'am, I don't know if it will give them enough to buy a house or not, that will be up to them to spend the money that they have to buy a new house.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But, Mr. Chairman, would you admit they bought a house, they had it whole. They didn't need you. You came in --

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, ma'am. I've admitted that several times already.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, my point is you're assuming that they wanted to go get in debt but what we're doing something by a government act to put them in debt; isn't that true?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: No, ma'am I disagree with you again. They only go in debt if they choose to go in debt.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: If you put somebody out of their home and they can't buy a replacement home, what happens to that individual or that family.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I believe that if they receive fair market value there will be other properties that they can buy with that amount of money.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Ritter raises a point of order the gentleman's time expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I respectfully move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to close.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will the gentle lady yield?

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, do you yield?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yes.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, could we get the attention of the floor? Madam, Madam Representative, we have had this issue come out in urban affairs in last session, did we not?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: When we heard about this issue this session in urban affairs. Are you aware of that?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, sir I'm aware.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: This is not a partisan issue is it.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: This is not a partisan issue. This is very much a property rights issue.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: This is absolutely -- I had this same conversation with Representative Callegari the other day where he concurred with my decision, my opinion on this issue. Essentially when we have an entity that takes over a community or a blighted area, if you will, we can't -- you would agree with me that that value would increase, correct?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Whatever the value of that new project is.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And so, while I would like to be able to have someone be compensated for that new fair market value, that probably isn't fair, is it?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's right, I agree.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And you're not suggesting that someone be compensated in the way that I think that they should be compensated.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's right. Let me just say this, Representative Gutierrez, my thought is a homeowner has purchased a home. They're living content in their home. A governmental entity comes up and says we want your home for economic development and we're taking it. And so this amendment just says that if we're going to take it, we ought to at least replace it and put them -- leave them whole so that they, in fact, don't have the opportunity or don't go create debt to compensate a cover for a taking that was not something of their choice.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And so, while my idea of compensation might be too high. The idea of giving somebody fair market value does not make them whole and so the -- the problem that we have is making that family whole and that's a term that Representative Callegari used the other day. He said, Roland, we need to make these people whole.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's what we're trying to do with this amendment is create a deal where we replace what we've taken from them and leave them whole. We're not trying to ask anybody to do more than leave the citizen whole if we've determined that we want to take their property. That's what we're talking about.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative I understand the nature of the concept. I think it's a good amendment and it's my hope that as Representative Callegari and I had suggested the other day in a private conversation that members of this body understand that this is about property rights and this is about municipalities not going out and simply paying somebody fair market value when indeed that is really not fair.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And that won't be because people are going to be damaged. An amendment is trying to eliminate the damages by providing them adequate compensation to not only relocate out of the property, but to replace their property so that they are in fact protected. Again, I think that we recognize that there is a need and tool for some of these things we're doing, but we must balancing it on -- with the interest of the citizen and right now, this is not leave the citizen whole in fact the very taxpayers that these taxpayers are paying taxes to, these entities are coming -- these are the same entities, this is their government taking their property. So this goes -- our goal here to say leave the property owner whole. Don't take their property then give -- leave them in a disadvantage because they can't relocate, they can't replace, but, in fact, they now have new created debt and sometimes these are senior citizens who are on fixed income who in most cases have already paid for their homes. In many instances they've already paid for their property. Then you're going to create them some debt. That's just disingenuous of our government and our entities to do this to the citizens, the very people who we purport to represent.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you colleague, I think you have a very good amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Turner, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the lady yield.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yes.

THE SPEAKER: She yields.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Representative Davis, let me give you an example. If there is some -- let's say some homeowner, who has owned their home for 30 years, and then all of a sudden, some governmental entity comes and takes their home after 30 years and if the selling price or market value of the home may be $40,000.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But it may cost them $90,000 to get something same or similar, what does this amendment do.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: This amendment is intended to provide them the difference to replace what it would cost to replace and leave them the same way we found them. If they were living in a paid for home, why are we going to erode their financial stability by saying we're going to take your home and give you less money, though it might be market value, due to inflation you can't buy that kind of house now at that price.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me give you an example. For example, I think that in Representative Dutton's area, there were a number of individuals, senior citizens, that had been living in their subdivision for about 40 years and then I think the Harris County Flood Control District was coming in and wanted to take their property but they only wanted to pay them just market value but for all of those homeowners, it was going to cost them substantially -- well, it was going to cost them about $90,000 to go and go purchase another home, same or similar.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And they didn't have a home -- they didn't have a mortgage anymore, they had paid for their home but they were being forced to move, though they did not want to move. Will this amendment provide them with some satisfaction if they are forced to move after they have been homeowners for 40 years and their home is paid for.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's what this amendment attempts to do so is to leave them whole. Because they're not moving because they wanted to. They're moving because they're being forced to move.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I think the amendment is --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, that's what this amendment does, it seeks to keep them whole. With that, members, I'd move adoption of this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: All right. Representative Davis sends out the amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. The question is on the motion to table. Votes aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Davis voting nay. Have all voted? Have all vote? There being 95 ayes, 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. Members, we're on page 52. Amendment by Woolley. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Woolley.

THE SPEAKER: Chair calls on Representative Woolly to explain her amendment.

REP. BEVERLY WOOLLEY: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment -- instead of basing attorney fees on an offer made at the courthouse steps, this amendment bases an award on attorney's fees on the final written offer made by to the landowner. My goal is for people to avoid the courthouse and this amendment will encourage strong final written offers that will be accepted by the landowner and to keep everyone out of court. I move passage and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: Members the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none the amendment is adopted. Members this is -- that's the last amendment we're going to do on SB 18 before lunch. Do you have any announcements bring them down front. Chair recognizes Representative Doc Anderson.

REP. CHARLES DOC ANDERSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. It's an honor for us today we have recognizing 106th anniversary of the Daughters of the Republic of Texas and they're with us today. They're tremendous Texas patriots and keepers of the flame. This is 106th anniversary of the women of Texas independence as you know, and the birth of the Republic of Texas. And we have these ladies -- ladies would you, please, stand. And, members, would you help us welcome these members of the Daughters of Republic of Texas. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Following announcements the. Clerk will read the announcements.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Business and Industry will meet at lunch or first recess today April 13th, 2011, at desk 47 on the House floor. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 322 and pending business. The Committee on the Agricultural and Livestock will meet during lunch or first recess today April 13th, 2011, at desk 25 on the house floor. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety will meet upon first recess, lunch on April 13th, 2011, on the House chamber desk 119. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Public Health will meet during lunch or first recess on April 13th, 2011, at desk 90 on the House floor. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Economic and Small Business Development will meet during lunch or first recess on April 13th, 2011 on the house chamber at desk 14. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel for announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Members, as you may have heard the Committee on Business and Industry is meeting at desk 47 for a formal meeting to vote on some pending legislation so, please, be here. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Smith of Tarrant for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE SMITH: Mr. Speaker, members, I've been asked by Don Garner to remind you that the Capitol Commission Bible Study is meeting upon adjournment at the Austin Club with lunch provided. There's an another opportunity for members at 7:30 in the morning tomorrow in the members lounge in the extension with breakfast provided. And then finally on Friday at 8:00 o'clock in the morning in the members lounge extension there's a Bible study that's open to the entire Capitol community with breakfast provided. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE GUILLEN: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Culture, Recreation, and Tourism to consider SCR 5 on the previously posted agenda on final recess today, April 13th, 2011 at E1.026.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Tourism will meet on final recess on April 13th, 2011, at E1.026. This will be a public hearing to consider SCR 5 and the previously posted agenda.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I want to invite members of the Mexican-American caucus for a round table discussion on payday lending today in the offices during lunch recess. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Members I'd like to remind you that the Committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety will meet at desk 119 upon recess. Members the house is going to recess for lunch, our first recess, till 1:15 we'll reconvene. 1:15 recess, members. Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle for announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We do have AG committee meeting at my desk as soon as the gavel drops and we're going to look at some pending business.

THE SPEAKER: Members the house is recessed until 1:15. House come to order.

THE SPEAKER: The amendments from pages 53 to 57 have been withdrawn. We're on page 58. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative King.

REP. PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This simply says in the Texas and U.S. Constitution, the term with regard to eminent domain taking is public use. We've got places in our statutes where it uses the term public purpose. That confuses courts and people and everybody else so this just goes through in several locations and strikes "public purpose" and conforms the statutes to the Texas and U.S. Constitution to say "public use" I believe it's acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, this is a good amendment. I hope you will vote with Representative King and myself.

THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on the adoption of the King amendment. A record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Murphy voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 147 ayes and 0 nays, the amendment is adopted. We're on Page 61. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we're on page, I believe, 61 of the packet. And I have an amendment to my amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Simpson.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We're on Page 61 of the packet. And I have an amendment to this eminent domain reform bill that has a lot of good in it but I'm afraid that also has some -- introduction of some confusing language and this amendment would clarify -- and what oil and gas companies that have the power of eminent domain can use that authority for. This amendment, if you look on page 61, line 16, would add the words "there" and only to transport commodities to the Natural Resource Code. This would limit pipeline companies with the power of eminent domain to only exercising that power to construct, maintain, or operate a common carrier pipeline for transporting their commodities. They would not be able to use eminent domain authority for other things that are -- that they are beginning to use it for, such as salt water disposal wells, such as processing plants, or compressor stations that are not connected to a pipeline. There's been mission creep on eminent domain authority. This amendment would limit them to using the power of eminent domain to get from A to B without a hold-out and that is the purpose, otherwise, they should have to deal with the free market and negotiate if they want to put a plant somewhere or if they want to put a disposal well somewhere. They ought to have to go to the landowner and negotiate with them and not use the power of eminent domain when it's not required. This would limit their authority to only condemning for constructing, maintaining, and operating a common carrier pipeline to transport their commodities, whether oil or gas, or whatever those commodities are. I make a motion that this -- we adopt this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to speak in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment could affect the way that the oil and gas business, the chemical business, the way they do business today. It's unfortunately there is equipment required above ground in order to move chemicals, natural gas through pipelines, this amendment would limit the ability of them to do that. And so, therefore, I would move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Simpson sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Simpson amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Simpson.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Okay. I'm sorry I did things a little bit out of order there, but we're on the amendment as amended as I was really talking about just a minute ago. Right now, pipeline companies do need the authority to go from A to B with their products without a hold-out and that's why we gave them that authority but they're using that authority or they're seeking to and if we don't limit them they will, for other instances when they should have to do like any other company and negotiate freely on the market for a processing plant, for a production facilities, for salt water disposal well, and I'd ask that you support this amendment and make this a truly eminent domain reform bill and not an expansion of their authority bill. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, for the reason I just told you I won't make you listen to them again. I just move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson is to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: I urge you to vote against this motion to table and to limit the authority of pipeline companies to only transporting their commodities and not using that authority for other purposes. Please vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Simpson sends up an amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show representative Simpson voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 122 ayes -- 123 ayes, 22 nays, the motion to table prevails.

REP. KEN PAXTON: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Paxton -- Mr. Geren, do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I'll be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

REP. KEN PAXTON: I have a few questions for legislative intent. In Section D of Senate Bill No. 18, the bill provides that property owners entitled to compensation if he can proof that there is a material impairment of direct access on or off his property caused by a condemning authority that adds adversely affects the market value of the property. Does this provision intend to change the current law so that person no longer has to prove that the access to his property has been materially and substantially impaired or changed entitled compensation.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct.

REP. KEN PAXTON: As it is used in the bill, does "material" mean a change in the use in or access that is more than slight or negligible or imperfectible which the marketplace would perceive adversely affects the property market value.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's right also.

REP. KEN PAXTON: And finally is material impairment of access as the term used in the bill a fact determination to be made by the special commissioners or if their decision is appealed by the jury.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct also.

REP. KEN PAXTON: Mr. Speaker, I just ask that these comments be reduced to writing and recorded in the journal.

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

REP. KEN PAXTON: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: The amendments on pages 63 and 64 have been withdrawn. On page 65 the following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Burnam on the floor of the House? The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. On page 66. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Hilderbran.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Members, I appreciate the job that Chairman Geren is doing on this job. He has important job of carrying this bill and I appreciate the work that he and his committee and his staff have done with this job. Our job is to make it the best bill it can be. And the best bill I think from our perspective is to make it a strong for property owners and property rights and to make sure that your property owners, our landowners, have a fair shake and have full consideration of their property values in the course of an eminent domain process to make sure that their interests are fully considered and they're on an even, fair line with the government or whatever government entity or agent of the government is trying to condemn and take their land or run a line or take an easement over their land. So, I propose this amendment which is intended to take -- to address the issue that comes up all the time when it comes to transmission lines. When transmission lines cross through a property in my part of the country across through a large ranch or small ranch, it could be a small property and when it crosses through the land instead of going along the property boundaries it does more than just cause that landowner to lose the land that's actually taken to construct the transmission line but it negatively impacts the lands on either side of that line. So if you have a ranch and a line goes throughout middle of your ranch and you get paid $25,000 for the amount of land that was taken from you to construct that line, but the property you own then has a 250,000, $500,000 maybe negative impact on the value, you're not being compensated for that. So all this amendment is intended to do is in the -- in the case that the process advances to the point that we're going to have a true eminent domain taking -- that in that process, not before, when it's being negotiated between the two parties, but once it reaches there, that that consideration of the rest of the property and the negative impact that that taking will have on the rest of the property, that they are not compensated for because the specific taking is only that line. But it damages the property that that line crosses, that that should be considered and that's all this amendment does.

REP. PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative King, for what purpose?

REP. PHIL KING: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I will be happy to yield.

THE SPEAKER: Gentlemen yields.

REP. PHIL KING: Chairman, does it apply to just transmission lines or would it be pipelines also.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If we need -- I'm pretty sure it's transmission lines. When we talked to legislative counsel about when we talk about it. So we're -- as you know both of us have had *increase line.

REP. PHIL KING: Right.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And so that's what motivated me on this. I'm not talking about your distribution lines and your usual things where people are benefiting from the power being delivered. But this is more these major lines coming through and they basically devalue the property owners property and he's not compensated for that and he should be -- there should be a consideration worked into whatever that ultimate compensation is, don't you agree?

REP. PHIL KING: So -- so the intent is that if you've got a large 345 KV lattice line going through your property, as I happen to have, that -- that when you're negotiating for the fair market value of that taking, that ultimately, a question submitted to the jury could also be how did those transmission lines anesthetically on terms of development or something affect other areas of the property.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Exactly. What happens most of the time is a deal is worked out and they get paid so much an acre, whatever the appraised property value is, they get compensated for that, but it's only that 150-foot wide stretch for the length that it goes through that property, but the result of having that transmission line go through is that --

REP. WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: -- loose about 200,000 of value or more.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah, I yield.

THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yields.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM:

REP. WARREN CHISUM: Harvey, what you're talking about now is requiring a utility company to actually go in and pay because of change in the esthetic value of the property, not real -- not really the productive value of the property, but just the esthetic value because that's -- that's all this is. If you do this you just drive up the cost of every transmission line in the State of Texas and for just because you claim esthetic value --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let me answer you in a couple of ways. First of all, in my part of the country where it's considered quite scenic. Most of the property value is based on the fact that people want to buy it because it's scenic and they want to be in the hill country, the Edwards plateau. Because of that I love every part of Texas and I know that every part of Texas is beautiful and I happen to be in your part of the country, I think your country is beautiful too. But it may be more of an issue in areas where the property values are tied to recreation and tied to scenery and along with production values. But as you know, all real property includes many, many -- there's many reasons it has value, some is productive, some is just truly market value. And, of course, market value is driven by all those things and not just productive value. And so, what we're doing here as a result of -- we're not -- here's the other part. We're not saying, Mr. Chisum, that the utility company would have to pay that necessarily, what we're saying is that has to be a consideration and -- and if you own property and this happens to you, you know that you have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of the value of your property and you have not been compensated for that and we should reject that and we should make this -- we should --

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: The only difference is they put a road through there or pipeline through there you're going to carry just for electric lines which consumers have to pay to that and because it's fully refundable, fully refundable under the --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If you want to talk about res lines, I got tell you that from my point of view most people's point of view that don't benefit by those lines, is that -- that since we're getting none of the power from the those lines, there's no benefit to the area that it's crossing through that we don't think ends up increasing consumer's cost, that's okay, because we are the ones that are paying for it by loss of property values. And we're going to have a record vote on this because we want to take sure everybody knows that they're protecting their landowners. If this ever happens to you which it's happening all over the state, you'll want that protection at least you want that consideration. That's all we're asking for. It is not mandated they pay more, it basically says that if you -- if that party does not negotiate an agreeable price with the landowner, that landowner just like he can now, has the recourse of taking it up the process in the proceedings of an eminent domain case. And in that case, this is going to be a consideration added but it won't be the only consideration it's an added consideration and that's it.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Bohac, for what purpose?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yes, sir.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Harvey, what you're saying -- what I hear you saying and I see an example of this at my grandfather's ranch where they've come in and put the power lines after he had bought the property already but it does cut up the land and makes it less marketable --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolutely.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: -- when you go to sell it. Is that a clear.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolutely. If you're looking at market value which is what most land sales by, I will tell you I'm from a rural area. I know Mr. Chisum, Mr. Hardcastle are and they know they can't disagree with this, that their land doesn't sell just on productive value. They may have a larger part of their market price composed of production valuing than I do, but all land in Texas is based on market value and there may be production and other variables contributing to that but at the end of the day it's market value, location, location, and all kinds of other issues.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: That's the value it takes into consideration the esthetic -- the protected green space.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: That's what people pay for. They want to have a view. If you take a view away, it lowers the value of that property for having future development on it. And, of course, if the property benefited from that, there would be some work into the -- into the calculation. But when it just takes what that, it is lower the property value and I have case after case where a rancher would lose 250 to $500,000 in value for resell purposes and got compensated $10,000.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Here's a real example of what you just mentioned. We were out surveying the property on the four wheelers, we were saying, where could we build a ranch house at and we had to take into consideration the power lines and it really limits where you could even put even a trailer or a ranch house. So, these power lines have real affects on the real value of this -- of this real property.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolutely. Thank you for your help on that and members --

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: -- little more time I would yield to him.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hardcastle, what purpose?

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I'll be happy to yield to my friend, Mr. Hardcastle.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: And Mr. Hilderbran can these power lines not work in the opposite effect as far as increasing property value.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: If you have a situation where you're benefiting as a landowner or you have win turbines on part of your property and the transmission line -- if you're benefiting, you're not going to -- your not going to negotiate from that point of view but if you're not benefiting because all you're doing is losing property value and it's costing you, then you're going to negotiate stronger from point of view that you lost some money. But it does work both ways and in many cases this won't be taken advantage of.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Well, I'm going to back up and ask my first question last, how many miles of cross line do you have in your district?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: In mine, about 150.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: I have 795 miles of cross line in my district.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: How much is your property.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: And most of my country is, not all, I will admit but most of my country is looking forward to those cross lines because we can't continue to build wind farms until we build them.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I understand that.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: And so the property values go up immediately.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And I appreciate that point. Let me tell you something I've been helpful in past years for Mr. Swinford and you and others, but now that this issue has arisen I think you're going to see less support for that unless we get consideration on this end.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Sheffield, for what purpose?

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Will the gentlemen yield, please?

THE SPEAKER: Will you yield.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I'll be glad to.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Chairman Hilderbran.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yes, sir.

REP. RALPH SHEFFIELD: Could you tell me, does this fit anyway into maybe being necessary or unnecessary use of eminent domain?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No, to me it's very appropriate because just as we had many debates earlier about gas lines, pipelines, things like that.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor brings a point of order. Gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, I rise in opposition to my good friend's amendment and I'd like to tell you why. Power lines as they are now in our state are regulated, are governed by the Public Utilities Commission. What happens now for a utility company is they have to go before PUC and they have to look and submit alternative routes. And what they do when they submit these alternative routes for their power lines, a lot of this analysis that Chairman Hilderbran is asking for is already done. Power lines are completely different than pipelines and completely different from other eminent domain situations. The route selection is done by the Public Utilities Commission and hearings -- public hearings are held and all of this is looked at already. With this amendment may do is pass on the costs that in fact any utility now that incurs a cost gets to pass it on to the consumer. So this amendment, as I believe is going to increase the cost of power transmission, increase the costs in our grid and thereby it's going to be passed on to the consumer because the utility always recovers its costs. So with that -- with that, I would encourage you to vote no unless there's a motion to table. I also think this will invite litigation on what is potential depreciation. Chairman Hardcastle appropriately recognized that land values often go with these power lines --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Kleinschmidt, for what purpose?

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Oliveira, do you yield?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chairman Oliveira, in looking at this amendment I have some concerns. One, is it requires additional pleading practices that are listed in the property code that would be taken into the district court, correct?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, and, in fact, it's interesting reading because it's telling you how to plead your lawsuit already. Your condemnation lawsuit and it's telling you -- and it's denying the utility's right to condemn the property, but they can come back and do it again and then they're going to have to go back the PUC again and then we're going to have this endless cycle of costs, costs, costs and ultimately being passed and to all of our Texas consumers.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: And another concern I have, it requires a pleading of any other potential impact which seems to create some ambiguous burden upon attorneys of condemnors to have a crystal ball that would show them all the potentials for impact on the property that they would have to plead.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Representative Kleinschmidt, your exactly right. And, in fact, again, respectfully it's one more issue to be litigated and it's going to be one more cost factor and it's going to be one more thing that we don't need to put in law. And I can tell you with certainty anytime the utility has to spend money it recaptures it. And it recaptures it from all the Texas consumers that use electricity.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: And another concern I have is ordinarily what would occur if a pleading were not proper the court may abate the action and postpone it until the pleading were corrected. Whereas, this particular amendment it says the Court shall deny the utility's right to condemn. Which is not merely an abatement it's a cessation of the condemnation proceedings.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Yes, in fact it would stop the entire proceeding maybe in a situation where we have power grid problems. I, again, I know the amendment from my friend is well intentioned but this isn't the solution and it -- the solution cannot be to condemn or to have the whole case thrown out and then have to go through all of that again, perhaps again with PUC, reapply and then again through the courthouse. Again, it's a cost factor, members, and I urge you to oppose the amendment.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Bohac, for what purpose?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Oliveira, do you yield?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: I yield.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Oliveira, just a quick question for you. You were talking about some costs that would be shifted to the -- to the consumer, what costs would be shifted to the consumer?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Every time that we do a power line in Texas, we go through the PUC process, and at the PUC process, there are the public hearings, they also do the analysis on the properties and on the different routes. A utility doesn't just submit one route. And PUC can say we choose this route over that route and make a different decision than what the utility even wants. Here what you're saying is, if they've been through that process, the PUC has reviewed it, public hearings were heard, landowners got to make their complaints, hopefully, they're complaints are addressed there. Then you're going to throw out the case because you didn't properly pre-potential depreciation. All those attorneys fees, all those costs, may be revisited again and all of those costs, I assure you, get past onto the consumer.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: What about the costs to the landowner, those would be therefore shifted to another place as well because if their land would be harmed by these power lines going in, either anesthetically or productivity or however, their land would be harmed in terms of its value that market value may not reflect, correct?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: It is a possibility there could be a loss. But I do tend to agree with Chairman Hardcastle when he said that most property values go up when there's a transmission line, electric transmission line. So I'm not sure that landowners are losing money on this but, I guess, that would be something that a court would look at and the condemnor would have to deal with as well as the homeowner.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Well, I would just maintain with all due respect that that cost would be borne by the landowner. And so either way, someone is going to pay and I just don't think that the landowner whose land is being taken should have to pay that cost.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: I agree with you in the concept of I don't like eminent domain and that's why we're having this bill and that's why there's so many improvements in this bill on current law that really do protect landowners. I'm just telling you here you're inviting more litigation and a lot of the concerns that landowners -- this is the one area that they do have a chance to go before the PUC. They do have a chance to make complaints. They do have a chance to get their concerns addressed. If there is a better way or a less intrusive way to do that power line, PUC will work with landowners in that regard.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the job you've done on this bill. And thanks Chairman Geren for the job y'all have done on this bill, as well.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, members and Madam Speaker.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Madam Speaker?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I'm going to oppose that I'll be.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I'll be happy to yield in just a second, please.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: For further consideration.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman will yield in just a minute.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: She's calling us to order, I think, ma'am.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'd like to raise a point of order in further consideration of SB 18.

THE SPEAKER: Please bring your point of order down front. The House will stand at ease for two minutes.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: To probably 8 it wouldn't surprise me if it ends up being $10 billion which your constituents are going to have to pay. Two things about Harvey's amendment. The first one is it does away with the condemnation proceeding. If we need to talk damages, then let's talk damages, let's don't do away with the condemnation proceeding and also, it is very ambiguous it says potential depreciation without defining it and potential depreciation without a definition could wonder off anywhere. Members, this is -- this is an amendment that is -- this will cause your constituents electric bills to go up because the cost of the cross lines are going on your constituents electric bill if you're in the ERCOT system. If you're not, then you're not -- you don't have to worry with this. But if you're in the ERCOT system the cost of these lines is going on your constituent's electric bills and this is going to do nothing but drive it up.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Phillips, for what purpose?

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman -- is Representative Hilderbran going to get to talk again.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He'll get to talk again after Mr. Hardcastle makes a motion.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, and I only have two points. And one is in as many cases of any kind of condemnation, there are as many good stories as there are bad stories. And the point that Chairman Geren made and Chairman Oliveira made I want for make that again because every time we add an expense to this process, the rate payers pay the expense. And Mr. Speaker with that I move to table.

THE SPEAKER: Please excuse Representative Pickett because of important district business on motion of Representative Solomons. Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran to close on his amendment.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Representative Hilderbran, do you yield for a question?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yeah. Make a statement take it back in a minute but go ahead.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Well.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Harvey, we just heard that cross lines are going to cost payers regardless and, therefore, you're increasing the cost of cross lines. I mean --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: But go ahead.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Well, that's what their saying. Well, I hope they realize and especially my good friend Representative Hardcastle, they're building a cross line from Krum, Texas over to Anna. It's pretty much a straight line. Well, do you know what our wonderful PUC has done, and we're all going to have to pay the extra costs instead of going a straight line, their going to go up in his county around a lake over into my county to get down to the other county. So, instead of affecting two counties, their going to affect four counties. That's going to increase the cost to design. The preferred route that was submitted was from one county to the other. So you know I think it falls hollow when we say they're going to increase costs. Those increased costs are happening by the way we set up this whole cross line business and --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: You're absolutely right.

REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: And the way that cross lines are impacting our communities, you know, I think that each of those landowners -- each of these landowners need to be compensated for their loss.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Absolutely.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: And -- and again, let's be clear, it's not going to be the power companies that are paying this, it's the taxpayers that are paying this.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Let me tell you why it may not drive up costs. Certainly not as much as they would claim. The fact is that if we have consideration for the full value of a property, then not only will the PUC do a better job of routing, but other -- but the other parties that are building and that own these routes will make a point of following property lines because if you follow property lines you don't have the issue I'm talking about. But when you cross in front of a house, or cross through someone's property whether it be large property or small property, it devalues that property and all they're compensating for now is a 150-foot wide strip for however long it is through their property. When in realty the whole property is impacted. If you have consideration for that their going to run along the boundaries and it's going to remove that issue. Also this issue does not mandate that they get paid anything. It just adds it to the consideration list of things that have to be considered. Now, I'm going to close with running through the rest of my points and if -- and I may or may not close that point. But let me tell you, members, the cost issue of both me and Representative Phillips, addressed, that I pointed out what the result of this bill -- this amendment will be. It will be better routing and, therefore, not cause folks to be harmed from their property values being devastated but also the rest us not having to pay for it because the routes will be better. They will follow boundary lines and they'll do a much better job than they do now. Now there's no financial incentive to do the right job to do the right thing and we as a legislature --

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hardcastle.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No, I don't yield. I'm in the middle of a statement here I want to make. The result of this is that -- is that we'll have a better boundaries and, therefore, those boundaries will be (*inaudible) received. Those parties will have to do a better job, therefore, us not having to have costs because they did a bad job like we have now. But, most of all, the PUC gets to make a statement now and sometimes they do a good job and sometimes they do a poor job and all in between, but what the question is for us here in the Texas House of Representatives is, are we going to property owners full value or not. And we should make a statement of where we are on this issue and I say vote for property rights, vote for fairness, and vote no on a motion to table.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Madam Speaker, would the gentleman yield a half a second instead of walking off and let me correct a couple of his statements.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman has yielded the floor, Mr. Hardcastle. Members, Mr. Hilderbran sends up an amendment, Mr. Hardcastle moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Please, show representative Geren voting aye, representative Bohac voting no, representative Hardcastle voting aye, representative Hilderbran voting no, representative Burnam voting no. Have all members voted. Have all members voted? There being 88 ayes, 58 nays the motion -- and two present not voting the motion to table prevails. We're on page 67. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.

THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Dutton on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. One of the things that I like this bill and this is an attempt to make this bill better, at least for people who sometimes happen to have nice homes but sometimes the area may not be so nice where the home is located. And what happens, members, and this is a real life example, is that when they decide to take a house, typically what happens is they will do the payment to that owner for that house based on what they believe to be the fair market value. Now, the fair market value at that point relates to the houses in that particular neighborhood. If that happens to be a neighborhood where somebody decided to build them a nice house because they like the area, but the other houses aren't quite so nice, what happens is the amount of the money that they propose to pay that property owner is less than what they can buy a house for someplace else. And so, what this amendment does is tries to level the playing field so that if they buy -- if they take a residential property, not a business, but a residential property, someone's home, someone's place where they have invested all of their time, their talent, their money and in the case I was referencing it was a retired school teacher. She had been retired for almost 22 years and yet when the freeway came through they took her house and that lady decided that she couldn't move because she couldn't afford to buy another house. She told me one day she said, Mr. Dutton, you know, I think I'd rather die than move. And sure enough that's what happened. That was the end result of what happened to her. She died because she was so stressed over the fact that she couldn't buy a house with the money they were offering her. And so, members I just think it's fair, if they want to take your house that's okay. If a thief came in and took your house, we'd require them to replace your house. And just because it's the government doesn't make them any less a thief and so I just suggest that they ought to pay a person based on the replacement cost of that house and that's what this amendment does and I don't know if it's acceptable or not but I hope it is.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: As much as I would like to accept Mr. Dutton's amendment I'm not able to. Members, this amendment is at very best it's vague and at worse it will allow a double recovery. It could be read that the owner gets the value of his current property and money -- and money to buy a new one which is inconsistent with the constitution and typically when residential properties condemn the land and improvements are purchased and there's no additional compensation but relocation costs can be separately reimbursed and SB 18 makes that mandatory. It takes the may -- it may makes it a "shall." And so, I believe although Harold has got his heart maybe in this, the amendment is just not a good amendment and will negatively affect this bill.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Oliveira, for what purpose?

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Geren do you yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: I would yield.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Chairman Geren, Section 21.041 which is referenced here deals with evidence. And that -- are you aware that that section of the code, the property code, it just allows certain evidence in and it doesn't give what a measure of damage is. That's in another section. Were you aware of that?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, I am.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: In other words, there is nothing now stopping a judge in a condemnation proceeding to allow or disallow this kind of evidence. It can come in right now if the judge wants to consider it.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct. And I believe that -- in fact I know a certified appraiser -- all appraisers in Texas have to be certified by the state take into account replacement value when they do their appraisal.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: So, this evidence can come into a hearing now if the judge allows it. And the reality of Section 21.041 in these proceedings they're called in rem proceeding which means they only deal with the value of the real estate. Not all of the other possible injuries that might come up or other damages that might come up.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's what I understand, sir.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: And; for example, one of the good things in your bill is that we are adopting standards that are going to be similar to the federal standards in giving financial assistance.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Financial assistance, excuse me, financial assistance plus relocation -- moving costs.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: And that can be a considerable amount of money and that's in law -- that is not allowed today but it is allowed under this bill.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That's correct. It changes "may" to "shall" in this bill.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: For example, under the federal system -- federal relocation it allows the financial assistance between the amount that Mr. Dutton maybe talking about here and we are going towards that goal in our bill, are we not?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: That is correct.

REP. RENE OLIVEIRA: Well, I thank you and I appreciate Chairman Dutton's effort here but it really doesn't do anything because this evidence is already being considered.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members, I respectfully move to table the Dutton amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you. I've never heard a better argument for this amendment than the exchange you just heard between Mr. Oliveira and Mr. Geren. If you read the amendment, this section of the code is -- Mr. Oliveira is exactly right. What it says is this is where you go to determine what evidence is allowed at the hearing. The only reason you get to a hearing is because you have decided I will not accept what they're offering me. All this amendment does, though, it says one of the considerations on the basis of a claim of injury by the residents, by the person who owns the house, one of the elements is going to include the cost to the property owner to replace the residential property being condemned. That's really all it does. And so, that's really all it does because it makes -- it makes the whole argument about what to consider, what the judge could consider, it at least now says one of the things it will do is this. When Chairman Oliveira says the judge can consider it now, that's absolutely true. And if that's absolutely true as he says, then what's the harm in adding this amendment then? Then we ought to add this amendment because now what we said to the judge is we, the Legislature, demand that you consider it. You don't have an option to consider it. We say to the judge and to the court that look, we want to you consider the replacement cost of this person's house, during their claim for injury. And so, that's what the amendment does, Mr. Speaker and members, and I would ask you to vote no on the motion to table to not only -- if it's true that we can already do this, and I believe that it is, then we ought to make sure that it gets done. Because I don't know any other way than to tell the court or tell the commissioners that look, we want you to consider the replacement costs of somebody's house. We don't want you to just throw this person.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'd like to raise another point of order against further consideration of SB 18 in that it violates Rule 32C.

THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes for an introduction.

REP. BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. During this time I want to join my colleagues Representative Burnam, Representative Simpson and recognize a public servant and Chairman Dutton as well, please join us. Justice Brian Hoyle, justice on the Court of Appeals the Tyler Court of Appeals in Longview over in the east gallery. Judge, will you stand up so we can recognize you from Longview and welcome you to the Capitol. Thanks for coming, Judge.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the point of order is respectively overruled. Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, could you tell me the basis of the point of order being overruled.

THE SPEAKER: I'm going to ask the reading clerk to read it.

THE CLERK: Representative Davis of Dallas raises a point of order under Rule 4, Section 34B10, in that the committee reports to include a correct list of the names of persons whose admitted sworn statements and their position on the bill. Ms. Davis has alleged that the sworn statement of witness A which indicates the witness A was against the bill in which was accurately reflected on the committee report is in fact incorrect. Ms. Davis contends that during the course of the meeting that witness A made statements that have caused the chair of the committee to -- to attend the witness after making form. The point of order is respectfully overruled pursuant to Rule 4, Section 20. Witness A made a sworn written statement of his position. The position of the witness affirmation are correctly noted in the committee report. The chair continues following the prior precedence of the House in consistently declining to use electronic recording as a basis of a point of order. Referring instead to the printed records of the House. Accordingly the point of order is respectfully overruled.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Why do we take the minutes? Why do we tape committee hearings? What's the purpose of us taping and recording the testimony at a committee?

THE SPEAKER: We take the recordings mainly for archival purposes.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so -- parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Not all meetings are taped.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?

THE SPEAKER: And not all meetings are taped.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry. For those that are taped, is it the intent -- is it your intent or your thought that the taping would have no value in terms of recordings of what took place at a committee hearing.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, it's the chair's intent to follow the precedent.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: Of previous residing officers has declined to use electronic recordings as a basis for point of order.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: When we were doing voter ID the issue came up relative to the minutes being taped reflected something different than was on a witness affirmation form and at that time, I was instructed that we would roll back including that point of order to allow you to correct it. Is this different or inconsistent in terms of the issue that has been raised.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, you'll have to check the record for that point of order was resolved with respect to your issue here.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it was resolved by us pulling it all back and starting all over because we didn't want to set precedent.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, we did not review the tape with the point of order that was raised previously.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: No, I understand that, but it's not so much.

THE SPEAKER: Nor do we rule on the point of order.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Parliamentary inquiry.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Today and forward, what -- to what extent are members able to rely on the tape being essential part of the rules and keeping of the minutes of a committee? To what extent and what value will they provide to the members?

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, chairs have consistently deferred to printed records and not video recordings.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, today -- parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: What is the cost for us to record every committee meeting that's being recorded, in terms of expense to this state.

THE SPEAKER: The chair is not advised. We will have to look into that for you.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Would you say it's a substantial expense.

THE SPEAKER: The chair does not know the cost of recording the meetings.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Is this an appropriate time to ask us to get the cost of what it is that we expended in terms of state funds for a function that we now no longer respect.

THE SPEAKER: We'll certainly look into that for you.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Could I get that in a timely manner. I've been waiting on something since the beginning of the session and I haven't been able to get that response. So, could I get that in a more timely manner so that members can determine whether or not they want us to spend money on something that is no longer going to be utilized as a means to protect the integrity of what happens in a meeting.

THE SPEAKER: Yes, ma'am. We'll try to get that to you maybe by the end of the day.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move that the dialogue between you and I regarding the parliamentary questions regarding the use of the tapes be printed and put in a record.

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

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: One more question, Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: There has been a precedent on us ruling against -- I mean ruling to use the tape in previous sessions, are we now not respecting that precedence? During Speaker Craddick's term there was a ruling that we, in fact, did respect the tapings and now is this something we're changing.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, previous point of order was raised over whether there was an actual witness or not.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I can't hear you.

THE SPEAKER: The previous point of order that you're referring to was raised over whether there was a particular witness or not.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: No, no. My previous moment of order -- that was not what I raised. That was not -- the point of order that we just -- that had nothing to do with the -- whether a witness.

THE SPEAKER: I believe it was over whether there was a witness who testified at all.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: On the precedent I'm not talking about that is what you're speaking to or are you speaking to my point of order. Members, while Mr. Speaker is getting a response, let me just say to you all this is really important because all of us are relying on the checks and balance system. Until the extent that our tapings and recordings are not going to be acceptable ways to determine what takes place in a committee hearing, we're -- we're treading new waters now.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Davis, the fact case in that previous moment of order was different than this one and chair -- there's no precedent of chairs using video other than that one case. And that was a different fact case than you're raising.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That case maybe different but wasn't it in fact the ruling was relied on based on what the recording said. The facts were different, but the use of the recording was the basis for the point sustained in a point of order. And my question is, are we ignoring that precedent that was set in the past as relates to the utilization of the recording as a witness of what actually takes place at a hearing.

THE SPEAKER: That precedent was not applicable in this case. Thank you, Ms. Davis. We're on the Dutton amendment. On Page 67. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, I know most of you probably forgotten what the amendment does. Charlie says he hadn't, but let me just leave you with this: If -- if and let me let you sort of in on a secret here, think about it this way. If your house is being taken by your government wouldn't you rather have included in the evidence the replacement cost of that house. If you don't want that to happen and you wouldn't want that to happen in your case, then you'll vote with Mr. Geren. If you do want it included, however, you'll vote no on the motion to table because while this amendment does it says, we're going to include as evidence the replacement costs of your home as the basis for injury to that homeowner. And with that, Mr. Speaker, members, I would ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Dutton sends up amendment. Representative Geren than moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye, show Representative Dutton voting no, show Representative Simpson voting no. Show Representative Oliveira voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 88 ayes, 56 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I have an amendment to the amendment I'd like to lay that out and explain the whole bill.

THE SPEAKER: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Johnson.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Johnson.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, we can all agree that the right to own property is a fundamental right that deserve the utmost protection. Hard working property owners who are not native speakers of English, however, are often subject to attempts to seize their property through eminent domain and the documentation that they're provided can often be difficult for them to understand. So, in order to better protect these individuals' rights when it comes to their property, the amendment that I have here as amended would require an entity that seeks to take their property through eminent domain to provide all the necessary documents under the property code to them in a language that a ballot is available to be printed in, in their county upon their request. I believe this amendment as amended is acceptable to the author.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Johnson sends up an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ERIC JOHNSON: On the amendment to the amendment I move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're back on the Johnson amendment as amended. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Representative Davis of Dallas are you on the floor? House? Chair announces signing of the following in the presence of the House.

THE CLERK: SB 115, SB 569.

THE SPEAKER: The amendment on page 20 has been withdrawn. Mr. Phillips. Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is a very simple amendment and since simplicity seems to be ruling the day and thinking seems to be something that has gone out with, I guess, with long skirts. What this does is this says this resolution to congress will not be sent until we have solved our own $10 billion structural shortfall or a deficit. The office of controller has stated that the State of Texas is operating under a $10 billion structural shortfall. A direct cause of an unbalanced, an irresponsible tax swap measure that was passed in 2006. When the tax swap passed we knew it would create a structural shortfall. The controller told us it would but those in charge of the process didn't listen. No matter how well our economy does in the next two years, we will come back to a legislature in 2013 with another $10 billion short fall unless we do something about it. HCR 18 does nothing about our $10 billion structural shortfall, instead it attempts to distract us from our responsibility as Texas law makers to make sure that our Texas budget is a sound and stable budget. Balanced budgets are good but how you balance a budget is important. Something we don't talk about enough. In Texas we have balanced our budget on the backs of our children, our seniors and our families in House Bill 1 which we passed last week. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. This amendment simply ensures that we don't throw stones until we have our own fiscal House in order and put an end to our state's $10 billion structural shortfall. Members, you know, it's really interesting, I was talking to some people up here, and just when you -- why do we elect people to Congress? Do they make laws, do they -- elect -- do we elect like we're elected here to make decisions about what direction they want to go.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I will be happy to yield.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Coleman, I caught the tail end of what you were saying, that basically we should have our own house in order before we ask for others to do the same, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: That's right. I mean bad public policy is bad public policy. If we passed in this legislature a tax structure on a school finance bill that leaves us with, this session, a $10 billion permanent shortfall, then in the next session another 10 billion plus shortfall, no matter how well the economy does, because when it was passed, the shortfall was built into the system through enrollment growth. So as long as we continue to have more kids going to school we'll be short more and more money each biennium.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: And, Mr. Coleman, you're aware too that really what we're doing with HB 1, we've only dealt with the first wave of the shock wave, correct? Because after that, you've got your local governments, you've got your county government, your school districts, your hospital districts, your cities that then have to raise their tax rates or cut services and so on. And the other thing, are you aware also, Mr. Coleman, that besides government dollars, the burdens onto churches, onto private hospitals through their charity dollars and so on, they are also increased, so when you cut, when we supposedly cut -- we haven't cut anything we've actually passed the costs along and usually at a more -- at a higher rate because at that point someone *blew the current ammonia and it just exacerbates. Are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I am aware of that and I agree. And you know, it's interesting both Solomons and I have a House Joint Resolutions about unfunded mandates to the counties and the cities, but you know what? I carried two sessions -- we can't get that passed through this legislature. Now, we're either going to do our work correctly and we're going to live up to what it is that we say are our principals or we're going to be hypocrites. It only counts if it's somewhere else I've seen that before, and that's why this amendment says, get our House in order first, let's make sure we're not creating problems for the people who are in government like school districts, cities and counties, and let's make sure that we live up to the principals that we lay out so piously to send to the federal government.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Well, that just sounds like responsible fiscal management. I support your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: Well, thank you very much. You know, members, I grew up in a place where it's not what you say it's what you do. We can say this all day long, but if we don't do the same things here, then it's just talk. And I heard the author say that you know, this was not about partisanship but it is about -- it is about responsibility. And I think that we ought to be responsible first before we start talking about somebody else and their responsibility. Budgeting is not simple folks. We all know that. Anybody serving on the Appropriations Committee knows that it is not a simple thing to do. But when we send something that sounds simple what that means is, it means that the things that you and I care about may not ever to be done. Let's take the war that was declared in -- wasn't declared but the war that Bush did and people voted for that. But that wasn't even put on the books. So should we say that a balanced budget means a war that's not put on the books. When we had two sets of books working in the federal government. I think that this simplistic and that's why I bring this simplistic amendment that says, take care of our business at home before we go telling somebody else what they ought to do and ask you to vote in favor of the amendment. Move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes representative Creighton in opposition.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to move to table this amendment. Again, members, this isn't about a structural deficits in Texas and it's not about the definition of war. Any comparison to our fiscal policies in Texas and running $14 trillion worth of debt at the national level, are just -- anyway, I'm going to move to table and appreciate your support.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman to close.

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET COLEMAN: I move to table. You know one of the things that I'm learning here is that there are a lot of people who want to be in Congress. And I suggest they run for it because this is the Texas House of Representatives we deal with Texas issues and if they want to be bothered with the Texas -- with the Federal deficit and the budget. Go run for Congress and do that up there. Why don't we solve the problems we have here in Texas and one of them is that structural shortfall that only grows higher and higher each year. And I think it's more appropriate to be in Congress than to be here thinking you are. So I'd ask you to vote no on the motion to table. And continue to focus on our fiscal situation that we control as opposed to someone else's. This is a good lesson for us because we should have a balanced budget amendment that says here we won't use bonds, we won't do certain things and we don't run deficits that shortchange our school children. So I'd ask you to vote no on the motion to table. One last thing. Sorry, I had one more thing. See I hadn't been up here much so I'm going to use my time a little bit more. Somebody said, why are you so quiet? I said I been waiting for this stuff. Now I ain't going to be quiet. There is a committee created to do this stuff called the state -- State Sovereignty Committee. I don't see a Civil Rights Committee, I don't see Immigrants Rights Committee but I see a State Sovereignty Committee. Now, they're going to be a lot of bills and a lot of HCR's that come forward out of this select committee and we're going to have some probably serious discussions about that. And I just believe that we should have serious discussion about things that are important to our country and to our state and don't -- and not trivialize them in the sense that they may not have any force of law but they do make a difference. And with that, again, I'd ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman sends up an amendment. Representative Creighton moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Representative Creighton voting aye, show Representative Coleman voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 99 ayes and 46 nos, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.

REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members, because Representative Creighton has had concerns about these amendments not being vetted, I'm going to take your time to read this one so it can be thoroughly vetted and you can have the opportunity to review it. This is substituting the preamble proposed be added to line 1. Whereas the State of Texas has actively chosen to underfund its schools by $7.8 billion and. Whereas the Texas House of Representatives just passed House Bill 1, which should be enacted will force the loss of hundreds of thousands of public and private sector jobs and Whereas our currently proposed budget is short by $6 billion that will be needed to pay for Medicaid, a program that the state is legally obligated to provide. And with HB 1 they also reduce the number of students receiving Texas grants scholarships from 86,000 in 2011 to 27,000 in 2013 and Whereas HB 1 may eliminate $233 million in pre-kindergarten funding and other early childhood readiness program and. Whereas in a race to the bottom our proposed budget reduces Medicaid rates to nursing homes by 10 percent even though Texas already ranks 49th nationally in Medicaid rates for nursing homes and Whereas Texas is not a state of hypocrites and, thus, must acknowledge our own fiscal crisis resulting from the self inflicted wound of our structural deficit and Whereas both Texas and the United States Federal government must heed the warning of the prophet Daniel, who said, that God hath numbered my kingdom and that thous art weighed in the balances and art found wanting, and Whereas both Texas and the Federal government quality, Federal government quality of fiscal sins, one that spends more than it takes in and the other that does not spend enough to educate its children, protect our air and water and keep our promise to our elders, et cetera, et cetera. I move its adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton on --

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Will Representative Burnam yield for a question?

REP. LON BURNAM: Yes, I will.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Burnam, I hold here a copy of the old testament. And the scripture that you quote from Daniel is really -- is really quite telling me first off that you're quoting the scripture.

REP. LON BURNAM: I like Daniel, always have.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: And so, I ask you today, what's your understanding of what Daniel said, in Chapter 5, Verse 24.

REP. LON BURNAM: Daniel was basically saying you should get your own ship in order before you tell somebody else how to do their business.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative I think that your right on. I think that the holy scripture tells us that we should not cast stones until we fix all our own problems. We should not vote today until we fix and resolve all your own problems. So thank you and I appreciate --

REP. LON BURNAM: Giving the House the opportunity to get right with God and a lot of us need to be working on that.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative Burnam, I want to thank you for finding the light and seeing the light of the lord.

REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, for the opportunity to have this exchange.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: You are blessed.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Creighton in opposition.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm disappointed that we have an amendment that equates to political satire and the Bible was used to back it up. I don't think that's really why we're here. I think we're here to make a constructive statement that Texas does balance its budget and that we have a very, very concerning economic instability in Washington recognized by both parties and that we need to speak to it. I would move to table this amendment and I appreciate your staying with me.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield? Will Representative Creighton yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Creighton, do you yield?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Yes, Representative.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: What would be the problem from quoting the holy scripture in preamble of your amendment.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: I might, I might consider voting for it.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: What was your intent in the quote?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Well, I think clearly what the scripture tells us is that before we cast a stone we should look at our own house and we should look at what we are doing and so, therefore, if we are asking -- if you're asking us to consider what you want us to do, what is the problem of quoting the holy scripture in the preamble of your amendment. Representative Gutierrez, that would be relevant if we were casting stones. What we are saying here in sending a message to Washington is that we are encouraging them to implement a balanced budget amendment.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: As we do.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: And send to the States to ratify.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: As we do.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: So that we can somehow get a handle on the debt that -- just in the debt service itself we are not able to sustain by 2052, at the current projected levels of spending, we. Are only going to have money for entitlements, Social Security, and debt service we will not have money for defense, if we stay on this track. So representative -- there is no one casting stones. This is encouraging sound fiscal policy and it's not saying that Texas operates in a vacuum or doesn't have difficulties balancing its budget. I'm just saying that we do and if we can for the ninth largest economy in the world here in Texas, the largest economy in the world can do it too. There's no stones being cast there.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: But it's a little disingenuous to cast that stone, my brother, when the fact is that we rely on much of that Federal spending, number one. Number two, our budget is not quite balanced, is it not?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: At least not yet.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I understand that is our goal and our intent in every session. We have a, quote, unquote, balanced budget but yet it comes at the hands of those poor and those meek that are going to be hurt.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: To imply that we're plus or minus a percentage within balancing our budget. To imply that that equates to 40 cents out of every dollar at the Federal level goes to debt service. To imply that there's a nexus there, representative Gutierrez is I don't even know what to say to that. It's disingenuous to make that implication.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: My colleague, sister Davis brings up a very good point. She suggested to me just now, I don't remember you. But I didn't read the paper when President Bush was in the White House. I didn't remember any State Sovereignty Commission. I don't remember Brandon Creighton filing any legislation against -- you know, there unbalanced budget and spending trillions and trillions into debt I didn't see you do that then, why now?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Representative Gutierrez, the Texas has been speaking to bad fiscal policies and mismanagement in Washington for years.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: You didn't file it then did you.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: You're talking about reading the paper. Let me read you something from the paper from yesterday.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: You didn't file it against George Bush, did you?

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: I wasn't here when President Bush was in office.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: You were here in 2000, you were here in 2006.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: In 2007.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Right. And you didn't file it then. There was no HJR then.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Representative Gutierrez, last session because of my interest in the 10th amendment and state and federal relations I filed HCR 50 speaking to these very issues in a broad sense and it seems like it picked up some steam as far as with the Texas electorate because Republicans and Democrats both implemented it into their platform through the cycle. So I think we have a message here that has nothing to do with running for congress or casting stones, we are -- we are encouraging --

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Representative Creighton.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: -- policies in Washington.

REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: I'm going to withdraw now because I think it's time that we got down to the business of doing the business of Texas and not wasting the time -- wasting our time on this type legislation.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Thank you, Representative Gutierrez. And if we don't have fiscal policies in place that keep these pressures off of our budget the things that you consider to be the most important will suffer.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to close.

REP. LON BURNAM: Members, I want you to take the opportunity to just seriously look at the proposed changes in the preamble of this HCR. We all know that HCR is a relatively meaningless one that came out of environmental regs doing essentially the same thing as this one does but --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REP. LON BURNAM: I think it's appropriate to put the appropriate, honest, straightforward, we're Texas and we know what our problems are and we'll own them on the preamble to this HCR before we send it off to (*inaudible)again. And I'll gladly take any questions as long as they're on the motion to table.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: May I ask the gentleman a question?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, do you yield?

REP. LON BURNAM: I yield.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Representative Burnam, I was going to ask you a question relative to your amendment in this HCR. Do you recall any other HCR's being done with regard to directing the federal government to do a balanced budget.

REP. LON BURNAM: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you, Ms. Davis. Could you repeat your question and could I ask for a little quite?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: As relates to this HCR in the direction that we're trying to provide to the Federal government.

REP. LON BURNAM: Well, yes, from a historical standpoint in the legislature most of the HCR's that were directed to Congress in the '60s were in support of Jim Crow and this is kinds of, you know, reminiscent of that.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Let me ask you something. As it relates to the budgetary process and the direction we're providing, did you see the same proponents provided in that direction to the proponents of our budget writers here?

REP. LON BURNAM: You mean did the national Congress write Texas put its house in order.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: No, did you see the author of this HCR working toward the same kind of concerns with regard to the budget directives that we're sending to Congress were they involved in those directives here with regard to our budget.

REP. LON BURNAM: I am not advised.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And the question is, whether or not we're in a position to direct or suggest direction that we're not giving ourselves that's my -- that's my point.

REP. LON BURNAM: Well, yes. If you're suggesting that it's a little hypocritical to direct one legislative body to do one thing our not being willing to do the same. Yeah, it's a little hypocritical.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, that was my question is, whether or not we, as a legislature, and the members of this body have provided that same kind of direction for our colleagues here?

REP. LON BURNAM: Maybe we should have but I don't know if we have time to do that this session.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, to the extent that right now we're trying to determine whether or not our budget is accurately -- is balanced, or has been balanced.

REP. LON BURNAM: I'm not sure that we can balance our budget with the structural deficit that we created some years back. With the margins tax.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And that structural deficit right now exists in our --

REP. LON BURNAM: Yes, and I want to encourage everybody to go to the Appropriations Committee meeting tomorrow at 7:00 o'clock where we'll be discussing whether or not we're ever going to get serious about addressing those problems.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so right now, we're cutting all kinds of programs and not dealing with our own structural deficit to make sure we have adequate funding to -- yet we're going to take time to direct Congress; is that right?

REP. LON BURNAM: Yes.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so tell me how do we encourage the floor to take serious the effort they are trying to send to Congress to take it serious here on the House Floor.

REP. LON BURNAM: I wish we all would be more serious about recognizing how fundamentally flawed our tax structure is and how inadequate it is to meet basic needs. We don't seem to have the leadership that is willing to step up to the plate and talk about.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Burnam do you think people are taking this seriously.

REP. LON BURNAM: This HCR? No, I don't think they are.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: They take the debate seriously that's relative to the budget.

REP. LON BURNAM: Do you think they're taking serious our jobs as Texas Legislators? No.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Do you think right now the discussion about the Federal budget is having the same serious discussion about our budget makes sense?

REP. LON BURNAM: Well, it is kind of interesting that we've had more conversation about how the Federal budget should be operated than we've done serious conversation on this floor about how to address our structural budget and what to do about the crisis was created by this legislature and signed into law by the governor five years ago.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I guess I'm just trying to understand why do you think -- what is driving motivator to have someone talk about another legislative body's issues versus our own?

REP. LON BURNAM: Well, in the context of our biblical discussion earlier this afternoon I've always been admonished to not to question ones motivations. So I'm not going to presume to question the motivation behind these various HCR's that are trying to tell the Federal government how to do their job. I ask the people to oppose the motion to table.

REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Representative Walle?

REP. ARMANDO WALLE: I request that the exchange between Representative Burnam and Representative Davis and the exchange between Burnam and Guitierrez be reduced to writing and recorded in the journal.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Burman sends up an amendment. Representative Creighton moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Burnam voting no, show Representative voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 104 ayes, 40 nays, two present not voting, the motion to table prevails. Members, we have two amendments that are being drafted and. Members, Representative Solomons has an announcement that you might want to listen to.

REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. You might want to listen up to this House members. In particular we've come to a point we can release Texas House map. It will be available on red viewer on the Texas legislative website within the hour. And that way you can all look and see what happened and I know everyone will have their own opinions. As they say in the theater, everyone is a critic. But at the end of the day it will be available within the hour. I wanted to let you know that. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio for an announcement.

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. First off I want to thank everyone who participated in the member football game yesterday. I'm going to be kind of like a little league baseball coach and say score doesn't matter, it doesn't matter who won or lost, it was fun. There were a few injuries. The most serious being Representative Pickett who tore his Achilles tendon. So, I was hoping to get through one session -- one session football game without a major injury. Regardless everybody participated, everybody had a good time. It was lots of fun and I hope we can continue to do this. Today I distributed a little gift basket from the Capitol Women's Club. It has a little t-shirt, fruit and other things --

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Anderson, for what purpose.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: I have a question for Mr. Lucio.

THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: I yield.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Is it a true statement that the elder statesmen of the House could not win their game without the assistance of two great freshman players?

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: For the record, if you want to get technical they weren't freshman they were sworn in during the interim and therefore belong with the senior class regarding the football team.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Are you claiming them now as senior members?

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: Absolutely.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Are the three of you guys going to sing a trio for us.

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: We could if you like.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: The three amigos.

REP. EDDIE LUCIO: If it will help me get my bills passed I will do whatever you like. Absolutely.

REP. RODNEY ANDERSON: Thank you. Mr. Lucio one last question, please, sir. Which pin is Mr. Kuempel wearing? I believe he's wearing the freshman pin.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Dutton? Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up Resolution 1342 and Resolution 1343.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolutions.

THE CLERK: HR 1342 by Dutton. Honoring the 2011 recipients of the Reginald Keith Guillory Scholarship. HR 1343 by Dutton. Congratulating the 2011 student honorees of the Reginald Keith Guillory Scholarship Academic Achievement Awards Luncheon.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Dutton.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: I move adoption of the resolutions.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. Resolutions are adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Marinez Fischer.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Trey Martinez Fischer.

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. I, like you, have been listening to this debate did not intend to offer an amendment and I apologize for the ten minutes we've been at ease while my amendment was drafted but I was listening with great interest to my Chairman, Brandon Creighton, lay out his HCR and I think he's done a good job in an attempt to be fair but I also believe that fair is fair. He is -- I'm asking him to look at this amendment, I'm asking him to take it and at a minimum I think that we ought to be adult enough in this chamber to just leave this to the will of the House because just ten minutes ago somebody Washington was paying attention to Representative Creighton and the President of the United States just unveiled a framework for cutting the budget deficit by 4 trillion over 12 years. That is nearly a third of our deficit in a plan that was laid out today and presented to the Congress. And at a minimum -- at a minimum, like the administration or not, you cannot criticize the initiative, the vision, somebody wanting to do something about it right now, not waiting for an HCR to land in the halls of Congress and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And so all I did was add language. It's up on your *faze and all we say is that with the unavailing of the framework for cutting the Federal deficit, that we applaud and congratulate President Obama for his proactive and visionary framework, his bold initiative, and his bipartisan spirit and urges the Congress to follow in the same spirit. Now, if we can't take that amendment then I don't know how sincere we are about fixing the problem. We might care more about just attacking the problem and talking about the problem and continuing to talk about the problem. I see nothing wrong with this. And with due respect to Chairman Creighton it was not vetted in the committee, but neither was the prior amendment that was accepted and neither was Chairman Creighton's amendment to the amendment that he rolled out when he first took the floor. And so I don't think that's a relevant excuse. I think that we need to deal with the benefits and the burden. We need to criticize and give credit. And today, we saw some bold and decisive leadership. And I think the devil is in the details but at least we're doing something about it -- excuse me, at least the administration is doing something about it and we need to acknowledge that in this resolution if we are going to send this to Washington because otherwise, it looks like we have no idea what's going on in the halls of Congress. That we are removed from the reality that people are taking this seriously. And that's not just the administration, but both Houses of Congress are being very serious about it. In fact, the President wants 16 lawmakers to work in a bipartisan spirit to come up with a way to craft this budget deficit reduction plan for $4 trillion over 12 years. I hope the amendment is acceptable to the author, move adoption.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, over the last five months, I've had several requests to make reference to President Bush and President Obama in this HCR and I've declined to do so to make sure that it is not seen in any way as partisan. That's important to me. In my opening remarks, I made reference to 30 years of economic policies and deficit spending in Washington rather than pointing to any administration. I'd like to keep it that way. I move to table. But I want to thank my vice chairman, Trey Martinez Fischer as always for coming to me with this and working with me ahead of time and working with me in such a genuine way on the select committee which I know many of you, as well as myself, see to be addressing some very important issues, not just to this body but to Texas. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to close.

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just like I asked you to say it. Thank you. Listen I agree with Brandon Creighton 100 percent but here's the deal he's -- we are talking about this in the wrong text context. It's not that we're being partisan, that's not the problem. The problem is we're too partisan. What needs to happen is that we need to be bipartisan. And if you look at the amendment, it says that the President should work in a bipartisan manner and so should the Congress. Now the fact that it mentions the president's name is just really a fact. I mean that's -- it's more of a matter of protocol, it's a matter of respect for the office. Chairman Creighton and I've had some talks about presidential politics and he reminds me all the time that it's his President too and I recognize that. And so there's nothing partisan about giving credit to the President whose come up with the plan because otherwise, the whereas clause would be rather hollow and it would say we want to thank that one, we want to thank that somebody for coming up with a plan. It doesn't even make grammatical sense. And so, I hope that you really understand what Representative Creighton's argument is has nothing to do with naming a President or being partisan. It's about acknowledging that somebody today in real time said let's cut the budget deficit by a third over 12 years, that's $4 trillion. That's a lot of money. And let's work in a bipartisan fashion from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue to the United States Capitol, that's all I'm asking for. I think at a minimum, at a minimum, you ought to spot us that. At a minimum.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Madam Speaker.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.

THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Fischer, the first part of your amendment, it basically goes along with the goals of this resolution that basically -- what it does is cements what's in today's news which just came out shortly over the wire about this $4 trillion reduction in 12 years that commitment, correct?

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: That's correct.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: And this resolution is directed to the current president and the current Congress, correct?

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: That's a good question because Representative Creighton, in his amendment to the amendment that wasn't vetted by the Committee on state Sovereignty. He says very clearly, we've tried to do this in the past and Washington has been unresponsive. Washington has ignored our request from the State of Texas to balance the budget. And so, now you see that there is somebody being responsive and now we're going to hesitate to acknowledge that, we're not congratulating him, we're not endorsing the President. We're just saying hey, he must be paying attention to deliberations on the floor of the Texas House because before we could pass this HCR, he released a plan just today not even 30 minutes ago and so I think so it's disingenuous, it's disingenuous.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: So you're just dealing with facts of today -- of this current -- because if there's opposition to it, then to me it just seems -- correct me if I'm wrong but it seems to me that if we're take making a political statement otherwise would you agree with that.

REP. TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: That's true. And I think if you are truly for sending a message to Congress and the White House that we need to balance our budget and you're serious about it then you don't table this amendment because you're not encouraging them, you're not showing them any inspiration. We're not giving them any support. We're not even giving them an atta boy. At a minimum we ought to be giving the White House and the Congress an atta boy for doing a job that no one has done over the last 30 years. And all we do is talk and talk and talk. And the rhetoric is partisan and more partisan and even more partisan. And when it can't be partisan anymore it gets even more partisan. Somebody is doing something about it, it takes two to tango in Washington no one party can fix this and all we're saying, good start, finish the job. Do it with both sides of the aisle present, engaged, and looking out for the interest of the American people and Texas will stand behind that. And that's all this does. So let's send -- let's send a message that we're really knowledgeable of what's going on. We recognize that efforts are under way and we're not going to table this language simply because we mention a President by his name. I think it's inappropriate, definitely shows a lack of courtesy and I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Creighton moves to table. The question occurs on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Martinez Fischer voting no, representative Creighton voting aye, Representative Menendez voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 101 ayes, 46 nays, two present not voting, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes representative Alonzo.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Ms. Speaker, members. Members, I know that we have all been listening very closely to debate. I know I have. And let me tell you how I recognize I have. In the conversations that have been had, one of the things that I noticed and I ask Ms. Davis to bring up is that, you know, we're talking about what's going on in Washington. In this debate. We're talking about what's going on in Washington, we're talking about what's going on in Washington. And I think the people of Texas want to know why aren't we talking about Texas. And, you know, that I in the last several weeks we visit a lot and yet we continue to be visited on the budget. Because everybody is asking, how are we going to take care of the budget? How are we going to fun the kids in school?

REP. LON BURNAM: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Can I talk for a few minutes? Do you mind? Thank you Mr. Burnam. They're asking how -- in fact, I've got your list right here Mr. Burnam. How are going to take care of 7.8 billion for the schools? How are we going to take care of 100,000 potential teachers that might be loosing their jobs? How are we going to take care 335,000 other that's part of the workers that may be loosing their jobs? How are we going to take care of the $6 billion that needs to be used for Medicaid. How are going to take care of the 86,000 total grants that we should have for the Texas grant scholarship? How are we going to take care of the $233 million in pre-kindergarten funding? How are we going to take care of the nursing homes that are losing their money and we have a potential of having the elders and senior citizen being moved out of nursing home? How are we going to take care of the structural deficit? Members, what I say in this amendment is, that we in Texas in the 86th legislature must first adequately deal with the structural deficit in this state budget before we tell Washington what to do.

REP. LON BURNAM: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: I'd like to ask him a question about the amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. LON BURNAM: Representative Alonzo, when you're talking about all those people out there, wondering why we're not dealing with our budget crisis as opposed to the national budget crisis, were you aware that there are a couple hundred librarians out on the south step wondering why we are completely dismantling the 21st century computer networking system the state library system has in place.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I was not aware.

REP. LON BURNAM: Well, they're out there and they're asking why aren't we adequately funding libraries.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, that being said members, not only did I mention the students, not only did I mention the teachers, not only do I mention the elderly, not only do I mention those that are not getting Texas grant scholarships, not only did I mention the nursing homes, I also will mention the librarians and libraries. Members I ask you -- I ask you to support this amendment because we're saying we're going to take care of Texas first before we deal with Washington. I ask that you vote yes on this amendment.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is similar to Representative Coleman's amendment that we voted on earlier and I move to table. Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Ms. Speaker, members. I won't belabor the point. But the point is we must deal with our issues first. Last week we dealt with some county issues that I worked on and I'm happy to have worked with all of you in making sure we let the counties know and today we county day here at the Capitol and making sure we get the funds. And every single member was actively involved in making sure we do not take away funds from the counties. But I also said that they not only must not take away, we must make sure to find the funds because the funds are there and they can be found to make sure that we cover our budget. And with this amendment, members -- with this amendment I'm saying we take care of our budget first before we deal with anybody else's budget. Please vote no on the motion to table.

THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. Representative Creighton moves to table. The question occurs on the motion for table. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Creighton voting aye, show Representative Alonzo voting nay. Members you have plenty of time to vote from your desk. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 99 ayes, 48 nays, 2 present not voting, the motion to table prevails. This is all the amendments, members. Anyone wishing to speak on for or against, Representative -- Representative Farrar to speak against. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond for the resolution.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. I'll try to be brief. I know we've been here a long time, members, as a Democrat, I certainly understand the frustration that many Democrats feel about the way things have gone so far this session because we feel very strongly about the priorities for the State of Texas and how we budget and what we spend and what we invest in and what we don't. On -- and so I understand the frustration and part of it's being played out here. But on the issue of a balanced budget amendment to the United States constitution, this is something I have felt strongly about since 1995 when I first introduced a resolution like this and I've introduced one ever since. Back then, President Clinton pushed it very strongly. Many Democrats in the U.S. House supported it. It passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House. Many Democrats in the U.S. Senate supported it and the senator that I used to work for, Paul Simon, actually authored it and carried the constitutional amendment for balanced budget -- for a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It failed by one vote. By one vote in the U.S. Senate. I will tell you that the problems that we have had in terms of the debt that we have and the annual deficit spending it is democrats and Republicans. Ironically the last person to vote against that resolution, that day when it failed in the United States Senate was a Republican Senator named Mark Hatfield. So the problems are both democrats and republicans. Had he voted for it we wouldn't be having this debate today we would be arguing, of course, about other things. But for my democratic friends I hope you understand that my feeling on this are very simple. We cannot continue to build this -- to allow members of Congress, both democrats and republicans and presidents, both democrats and republicans, to continue to let the debt grow as it has and annual deficit spending grow as it has. I commend President Obama for today announcing that he wants to move us towards reducing the debt, the national debt. I commend democrats and republicans who support that. This is not to me about democrats or republicans. It is about trying too move the country in the right direction. What we know by now, members, is that if we don't have this in the constitution, they will not balance the budget. They're not likely to. Because they can print money and they will. They've done it, democrats and republicans alike. I introduce this resolution when we had a democratic President, Clinton. I introduced this resolution when we had a republican President, Bush. I introduced this resolution when we had another democratic President, Obama. So again, I recognize and understand frustrations that people feel but let me also make a distinction. When those of you who want to focus on the issue of about the 10th Amendment. Last session, when we it was brought up on the 10th Amendment, for whoever can remember, I was one of those who got on the microphone and argued with my good friend Mr. Creighton, because I argued then that we never complained about the 10th Amendment when Bush was president, all of a sudden we had Barrack Obama and we were talking about the 10th amendment and I voted against it. I was one of 37 that voted against it. So to my democratic friends that is a separate issue. This is a separate issue. Putting our fiscal house at a national level in order is extremely important to the future of this country. We cannot continue down this road, my friends, we will -- future generations will suffer for it. If we balanced our budget is Congress, the United States Congress, if we had a balanced budget amendment, members up there would have to make choices, raise taxes or cut spending. And the first year that they did a bunch of them would lose their seats, either for cutting spending or raising taxes. A bunch of them would lose their seats, but the country would be better. Two years after that, a bunch would vote to cut taxes or raise spending -- cut sending, raise taxes and a bunch of them would lose their seats but eventually the country would be better off. And we would have a stronger economy. We would have more jobs created. We would be able to take care of the things we need to invest in the future of America and by extension of my view of the future of the world. So, I -- I understand as I said, those who might think they want to vote against this. I don't think there's a single person in here who should vote against this. I don't. I hope everybody here will vote for it and send a message to Congress that they have to move in the right direction, that is balancing our budget. Obviously President Obama agrees with that as he announced today. So thank you and I want to thank my friend, Mr. Creighton, we joint authored this. As I said I've done this for a long time, but we got 101 republicans and I thought it out to be Republican taking the lead and a democrat who would support it.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Strama, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: For a question.

THE SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Richard, I appreciate everything you just said. I agree with a lot of it. I think everything you just said I agree with a lot of it. I have a question. When you worked for Senator Simon, did that proposed balanced budget amendment to the Constitution have any accommodation for the type of economic experience this country had over the past three years when it -- when Congress determined that it was necessary to stimulate the economy out of a recession with --

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: What Senator Simon's amendment proposed was that you have an escape hatch. You had to have an escape hatch for time of war, primarily. So, that's always been --

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: But no an economic crisis like the one we experienced over the last few years. The reason I ask is because Representative Farrar who is standing behind me, my guess is to speak in opposition, authored that amendment that had an escape hatch. And that also discussed our commitment to some of the core areas that the Federal government does support and that we would want to see supported even as we work toward a balanced budget which I think is achievable when the economy comes back and without sacrificing those things that were in Representative Farrar's amendment. But I'm not sure we have to amend the constitution and put ourselves in a strait jacket the next time we have an economic crisis like the one we experienced two years ago. So while I agree with a lot of what you said and agree philosophically with all of it, I just am not sure it is quite fair to say there's no reason to vote against this when it does create a constitutional situation where you couldn't do what the Federal government did two years ago.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: With all due respect I think a $14 trillion debt shows us that we do need this. It's not going to happen otherwise, Mark, it just isn't. If we ever pass a balanced budget amendment to the United States Constitution will members of Congress and the President have to make tough choices, no question. They'll have to make tough choices but they don't have to run for office if they don't want to, if they don't want to make those tough choices and this country in the long term will be better off. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar in opposition.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members. I rise to speak against this JR because I don't think it's an appropriate time to do so and I don't think the form in which we are doing so is a great idea. Not -- for several reasons. Let me talk about those. First of all, even if you don't care about the disabled you have no heart at all and you don't care about children or seniors, and so you don't care about the programs that my amendment would have protected -- would have protected these people in. So think, though, about the local taxpayers, think about that. The costs to the local taxpayers when these funds are no longer available, when local taxpayers have to bear the burden all by themselves. That's a concern. Another is that as Mr. Strama was mentioning earlier, if we had not had the economic stimulus package that we had and all the bills had come due suddenly, the effects to our economy what that would have done would have been so much more devastating. Our recession would have been full pledged depression. We would have had a very difficult time. Imagine if all those folks had lost their homes, lost their jobs, lost their cars, lost their way to get to work and so on. Another thing is it's very difficult to tell another legislative body to do something when these legislative body won't do it. I pointed out that we have in debt in this state $210 billion for various things that we needed. Universities, roads, public schools and so on. And remember, our entire budget for this next two-year cycle is $156 billion. So it's very -- it's hypocritical, I would say, to ask someone else to do something that we won't do and at the same time downstream we keep sending unfunded mandates and we refuse to do anything about that. So I would just say that in its present form I don't think that this is the way to go. I think that it jeopardizes the future of our economic recovery, if it's not clear that we can have spending to do those sorts of things to save the interest of our state. And so I would ask you to against this -- this JR because I don't think it's in our best interest.

REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the lady yield?

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?

REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you. I'd like to ask a question.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I yield.

THE SPEAKER: The lady yields.

REP. LON BURNAM: Chairwoman Farrar, you'll understand if some of us decide that this is a whole lot like our budget debate earlier. It's kind of a Sophie's choice that we shouldn't be asked to make, so, if we decide to white line this you won't mind will you?

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I just don't think we should be voting for this JR at this time in this form.

REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Creighton to close.

REP. BRANDON CREIGHTON: Mr. Speaker, members, $14 trillion worth of debt is unsustainable. I think most of you here see the nexus between failed economic policies over a period of decades in Washington and the pressure that it put on our ability to balance the budget here in Texas and prioritize the policies we all care so much about, whatever those priorities may be. I appreciate your time and consideration. I would ask for bipartisan support as this is a bipartisan effort in Washington now. It was in '83, it was in '95 and it is today on this House floor. With that, I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Members, question occurs on the adoption of HCR 18. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? Show Representative Burnam present not voting. Have all voted? Being 115 ayes, 17 nays, 16 present not voting, HCR 18 is adopted. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 992. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 992 by Castro. Relating to excess undergraduate credit hours at public institutions of higher education.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Castro.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to postpone further consideration of House Bill 992 until a time certain April 15th at 9:00 a.m.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam doorkeeper?

DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Senate at the door of the House.

THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.

THE MESSENGER: Thank you Mr. Speaker I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the senate has taken the following action.

THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out second read on House Bill 1020. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1020 by Miller. Relating to minimum liability insurance coverage amounts for persons convicted of offenses related to the operation of a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Miller on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, thank you for allowing me to bring up House Bill 1020. Texas remains in the upper third percentile of all alcohol related driving fatalities. We have estimated 1300 alcohol related driving fatalities. *Current -- drivers convicted of driving under the influence to carry SR20 to the insurance which provides evidence of financial responsibility and DPS keeps these forms on file. This is a minimum requirement that we require of drivers, even though a person may have several drunk driving citations, we still require only the minimum. House Bill 1020 would require once you receive a DWI, that you increase those amounts by 30,000 for each conviction. I think we have a couple of amendments.

THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.

THE CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Comal.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Miller of Comal.

REP. DOUG MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment, I was speaking with Miller of Erath, and we thought that it would be better since the issue is today as we stand is that is 30,000 per person, 60,000 per accident on the bodily injury and 30,000 for the property damage that it would be better if instead of 25,000 in the -- for each conviction, that we make it in line with the other policy. Also, this amendment would -- the -- would have an expiration on the 10th anniversary of the conviction. So they would have to carry this for ten years after their last conviction and then it would expire.

THE SPEAKER: Mr. Miller of Comal sends up an amendment. Mr. Miller of Erath accepts the amendment. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Miller.

REP. DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1020? Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1020. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. Ayes have it, House Bill 1020 is passed to engrossment. Chairs lays out on second reading House Bill 1824. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1824 by Price. Relating to the management of groundwater production by groundwater conservation districts.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Price.

REP. WALTER PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 737 is over and eligible.

THE SPEAKER: Members, the Senate companion to House Bill 1824 is over and eligible accordingly chair lays out Senate Bill 737. The clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: SB 737 by Hegar. Relating to the management of groundwater production by groundwater conservation districts.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Price.

REP. WALTER PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Senate Bill 737 is identical to House Bill 1824. It amends Chapter 36 of the Texas Water Code. Does primarily three main things. The first is that it amends the term managed debatable groundwater to mottled debatable groundwater that accurately reflects the definition of what it defines and does; secondly, it also describes and changes Section 36.1132 and; finally, it allows the factors for consideration in developing model debatable groundwater and the permit process that goes forward for consideration and also directs and solicits data from GCDs back to the Texas Water Development Board. I move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 737. Question occurs on passage to engrossment Senate Bill 737. All those in favor say aye, all those owe posed nay. Ayes have it Senate Bill 737 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1825. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 1825 by Price. Relating to permit application and amendment hearings conducted by groundwater conservation districts and the State Office of Administrative Hearings.

THE SPEAKER: Representative Price moves to lay House Bill 1824 on the table subject to policy. Chair hears none? So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Price.

REP. WALTER PRICE: Mr. Speaker, I move to postpone further consideration of House Bill 1825 to a time certain, next Wednesday, April 20th at 9:00 a.m.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1953. The clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: House Bill 1953 by Kuempel. Relating to notice by sign of an alcoholic beverage permit or license application.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kuempel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN KUEMPEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill is result of a change in the processing of applications of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. We currently have a 60 day notice requirement in the law which is required before an application for an on premise consumption permit can be made. This has always been interpreted as 60 days before the Austin headquarters would accept the application for final issuance of permit. This allows an applicant to turn the paperwork into the district office while the 60 day notice period was running. The TABC has improved their licensing process so now the application hits the district and headquarters at the same time. Because of this some applicants are forced to wait the full 60 days before they can even submit their paperwork to the TABC district office for review. If there's an error in the application or if it's incomplete can result in a substantial delay for the applicant, even for those applicants who are known to the TABC and understand the process, there is a delay, week or ten days. HB 1953 requires 60 day notice period to run prior to the permit being issued rather than before the *application. Move passage.

THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against House Bill 1953. Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1953. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay. Ayes have it House Bill 1953 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out second reading of House Bill HB 2294. Clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2294 by Hunter. Relating to declaratory judgments.

THE SPEAKER: Chair represents Representative Hunter.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members I move to postpone further consideration of HB 2294 until a time certain, April 21st at 9:00 a.m.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2433. The clerk read the bill.

THE CLERK: HB 2433 by Callegari. Relating to the ballot language for junior college district annexation elections.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.

REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone consideration of House Bill 2433 until time certain of Wednesday, April 20th at 10:00 a.m.

THE SPEAKER: Members, your heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Otto for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I would like to take this time to introduce -- I have four librarians from my district in the audience. If you would, Melissa Johnson, Anna May Reece, *Sandra Voytek and *Caroline Wasdack, would you, please, rise. Thank you and welcome to the Texas Capitol.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker members, I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Appropriations to hear invited testimony on the high cost natural gas rate reduction at 7:00 a.m. April 14th, 2001{sic} E1030.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I request permission for the Committee on Public Health to while the house is in session during the reading and referral of bills on April the 13th, 2011 place E2.012 to consider the previously posted agenda.

THE SPEAKER: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Phillips, Mr. Solomons. Chair recognizes Representative Geren.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, Representative Lucio was kind enough to leave a gift sack at each of your desks. If you want it would you please take it with you today. We do not have enough Sergeants to deliver these and not get them confused. So if you want your gift sack, please, take it with you. If you don't take it with you it will be left at your desk.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for a motion.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. I move to suspend all necessary rules including the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Transportation to consider HB 3771, HB 3298, HB 2872 and HB 629 upon final recess today April 13th, 2011 in E2028.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Members, I just want to make clear the transportation committee we're going to go back as soon as we get through here, it's -- we're going to go back and begin transportation as soon as we get through here. We're going to reconvene.

THE SPEAKER: Following announcements. Clerk read the announcements.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Appropriations will meet at 7:00 a.m. on April 14th, 2011. At E1.030 this will be a public hearing to hear embedded testimony on the high cost of natural gas tax rate reduction and to consider pending business. The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will meet at 8:00 a.m. on April 14th, 2011, at E2.036. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Transportation will meet upon final recess on April 13th, 2011 at E2.028. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 3771, HB 3298, HB 2872, HB 629 and previously posted agenda.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Members of the Hill Country Caucus we have our second meeting tomorrow in E1022 at 9:00 a.m. Again, members of the Hill Country Caucus tomorrow morning 9:00 a.m. E1022. Thank you.

THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal for a motion.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Redistricting to meet while the House is in session at noon on April 15th, 2011, in room E1.030 to consider House Bill 150.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal for a motion.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to suspend the following rules, the five day posting rule and all necessary rules to allow the Committee on Redistricting to consider House Bill 150, noon, April 15th, 2011, in room E1.030.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal for a motion.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, I make a motion to suspend the following rules. The five day posting rule, all necessary rules to allow the Committee on Redistricting to consider House Bill 150 at 2:00 p.m. on April 17th, 2011, in room E1.030.

THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcements. The clerk will read the announcements.

THE CLERK: The Committee on Redistricting will meet at 2:00 p.m. on April 17th, 2011 at E1.030. This will be a public hearing to consider House Bill 150. The Committee on Redistricting will meet at noon on April 15th, 2011, at E1.030. This will be a public hearing to consider House Bill 150.

THE SPEAKER: Members the amendments for the sunset bills on Friday are due at 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. HAROLD DUTTON: Mr. Speaker and members. This is for the members of the House Committee on Urban Affairs. Our meeting will start promptly in E2016 at 5:30.

THE SPEAKER: Are there any further announcements? If not Representative Coleman moves that the House stand recessed until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow pending the reading and referral of bills and resolutions. Following bills and first reading and committee.

THE CLERK: HB 3847 by Lavendar. Relating to the Riverbend Water Resources District. HB3848 by Gooden. Relating to compensation for services and reimbursement for expenses of a member of the board of directors of the Lake View Management and Development District. HB 3849 by Taylor. Relating to the powers and duties of the Galveston County Municipal Utility District No. 6. HB 3850 by Smithee. Relating to the application of the professional prosecutors law to the county attorney of Oldham County and the district attorney for the 287th Judicial District. HB3851 by Chisum. Relating to the application of the professional prosecutors law to the district attorney for the 287th Judicial District. HCR 103 by Aliseda. In memory of U.S. Marine Corps Sergeant Jose Luis Saenz III of Pleasanton. HCR 104 by Frullo. Congratulating Dr. Kitty Harris Wilkes on her selection as a 2011 YWCA of Lubbock Woman of Excellence. HCR 105 by Frullo. Congratulating Beth Lawson on her selection as a 2011 YWCA of Lubbock Woman of Excellence. HCR 106 by Frullo. Congratulating Aimee Doane on being named a 2011 Lubbock YWCA Woman of Excellence. HCR 107 by Frullo. Congratulating Dr. Kamlesh Varma on her selection as a 2011 YWCA of Lubbock Woman of Excellence. HCR 108 by Frullo. Congratulating Dr. Kelly Overley on her selection as a 2011 Woman of Excellence by the YWCA of Lubbock. HCR 109 by Workman. Recognizing the Junior Marine Corps of Bedichek Middle School in Austin. HCR 111 by Frullo. Congratulating Yvonne Racz Key on her selection as a 2011 YWCA of Lubbock Woman of Excellence. HCR112 by Frullo. Congratulating Sarah Jo Lambert on her selection as a 2011 YWCA of Lubbock Woman of Excellence. HCR 113 by Frullo. Congratulating Kay Cross on her receipt of the Jane O.Burns Award from the YWCA of Lubbock. HCR 115 by Smith. Honoring the Battleship Texas Foundation for its work to preserve the historic battleship. HCR 116 by John Davis of Harris. In memory of the Reverend Clinton Roderick Dobson of Arlington. HCR 119 by John Davis. Congratulating James Alford Davis on being named the 2011 Citizen of the Year by the Menard County Chamber of Commerce. HCR 120 by Kuempel. In memory of Thomas Peter Whalen of Schertz. HCR by Crownover. Designating Denton as the Independent Music Capital of Texas. HCR 122 by Chisum. Designating Lipscomb County as the official Turkey Buzzard Capital of Texas. HCR 124 by Torres. Designating September 15 to October 15 as Latino Texan Month for a 10-year period beginning in 2011. HCR 126 by Thompson. In memory of the Honorable Edmund Kuempel of Seguin. HCR 127 by Naishat. Designating the year 2012 as the Lady Bird Johnson Centennial Year. HCR 129 by Patrick. Notifying the U.S. Department of Education that certain career schools or colleges are legally authorized by the state of Texas to operate educational programs beyond secondary education. HCR 130 by Button. Designating the city of Richardson as the official International Business Capital of North Texas. HCR 131 by Davis. In memory of Howard Victor Reed of Austin. HCR 132 by Davis. Honoring the Texas State Association of Parliamentarians on the occasion of their annual convention. HCR 133 by Bonnen. Designating the red drum as the official State Saltwater Fish of Texas. HR 1035 by Bonnen. In memory of Dr. Leo Windecker of Cedar Park. HR 1243 by Raymond. Commending Harry Cabluck on his 50-year career as a photojournalist. HR 1244 by Branch. Congratulating Charles W. Matthews on his receipt of the 2011 Fellows Award from the Dallas Bar Foundation. HR 1245 by Johnson. Commending Louis Henry for serving as a Democratic Party precinct chair in Dallas County. HR 1246 Flynn. Congratulating Thomas and Ruth Taylor of Quinlan on their 60th wedding anniversary. HR 1247 by Flynn. Congratulating Felix and Dorothy Frazier of Greenville on their 70th wedding anniversary. HR 1248 by Flynn. Congratulating Bill and Kay Cleveland of Campbell on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 1249 Jackson. Commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Farmers Branch Historical Park. HR 1250 Harper Brown. Recognizing the Heritage Senior Center Permanent Art Collection in Irving. HR 1252 by Hunter. In memory of U.S. Marine Corps Lance Corporal Jose Luis Maldonado of Mathis. HR 1253 by Pitts. Congratulating Susan Mann of Hillsboro on earning the Distinguished Service Award from the Texas Library Association. HR 1254 by Rodriguez. Recognizing March 31, 2011, as Dove Springs Community Family Health Day at Consuelo Mendez Middle School in Austin. HR 1255 by Bonnen. In memory of George Sam Saphos of Baytown. HR 1259 by Sheets. Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the creation of White Rock Lake in Dallas. HR 1261 by King. Congratulating the Texas A&M University women's basketball team on winning the 2011 NCAA Division I national championship. HR 1262 by Gallego. Commemorating the 100th anniversary of the founding of The Bank and Trust. HR 1263 by Gallego. Congratulating Rogelio Hernandez Musquiz of Del Rio on his retirement from the Val Verde County Commissioners Court in 2010. HR 1264 by Gallego. In memory of Benjamin N. Matta of Pecos. HR 1265 Gallego. Honoring Second Lieutenant Jacob A. Fernandez for his service with the United States Marine Corps. HR 1267 by Alonzo. Paying tribute to the life of Selena Quintanilla Perez on April 16, 2011, the 40th anniversary of her birth. HR 1268 by Hunter. Commemorating the exhibition of The Wall That Heals in honor of Vietnam War veterans in Corpus Christi from April 12-14, 2011. HR 1269 by Hunter. Welcoming the 2011 Feria de las Flores contestants to the State Capitol. HR 1270 by Parker. Honoring all those who took part in the second annual Swing Time fund-raiser at Argyle United Methodist Church benefiting the fight against Duchenne muscular dystrophy. HR 1271 by Darby. Commending Golda Marie Foster of Tom Green County for her achievements in the area of historical preservation. HR 1272 by Laubenberg. Congratulating Jim Threadgill on his retirement from the Parker City Council in May 2011. HR 1273 by McClendon. Commemorating the 69th anniversary of Harper's Chapel Baptist Church in San Antonio. HR 1274 by Perry. In memory of Jake Shea Jenkins of Lubbock. HR 1275 by Anderson. In memory of Brian Keith Brown of Waco. HR 1276 by Anderson. Congratulating members of the Greenbuilders Club at University Middle School in Waco on placing second in the School of the Future Design Competition regional jury event in Houston. HR 1277 by Anderson. Congratulating Ashley Durham of Whitney on being named to the honor roll at Oklahoma State University. HR 1278 by Anderson. In memory of Daryl Lee Farmer of Waco. HR 1279 by Anderson. Honoring the students of Castleman Creek Elementary in Hewitt for raising more than $10,500 for the American Heart Association with their Jump Rope for Heart event. HR 1280 by Anderson. In memory of Anna D. Velin of Axtell. HR 1281 by Anderson. In memory of Andrew "Chito" Garcia of Waco. HR 1282 by Anderson. Congratulating Bill and Mary Felkner of Robinson on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 1283 by Anderson. In memory of Randall Turnmire of China Spring. HR 1284 by Anderson. In memory of James Douglas Ivy of Waco. HR 1285 by Anderson. In memory of Barrett Neill Minor of Lorena. HR 1286 by Anderson. In memory of Betty Marie Norsworthy of Waco. HR 1287 by Anderson. In memory of William J. Bartosh of West. HR 1288 by Anderson. Congratulating Kaleb Nehring and Keeli Nehring on winning Division Reserve Champion Junior Bull at the 2011 Fort Worth Stock Show and Rodeo. HR 1289 by Anderson. Congratulating Christina Swanson of the Waco Convention and Visitors Bureau on passing the Certified Meeting Professional exam. HR 1290 by Anderson. Congratulating the baseball team of Midway High School in Waco on winning the 2011 Frisco Tournament of Champions. HR 1291 by Anderson. In memory of Owen Defoor of Crawford. HR 1292 by Anderson. In memory of Calistro Ramos of Waco. HCR 1293. HR 1294 by Anderson. In memory of Madge C. Bratton of Hewitt. HR 1295 by Anderson. Congratulating Kendall Newman of Robinson High School for performing with the 2011 All-State Concert Band. HR 1296 by Anderson. In memory of Elizabeth Jones Genovese of Woodway. HR 1297 by Anderson. In memory of George Clyde Coppage, Jr., of Hewitt. HR 1298 by Anderson. Congratulating Private Landus Hutyra of West on completing U.S. Army military police training. HR 1299 by Anderson. Congratulating Rachel Nicoletti of Lorena on her induction into the National Society of High School Scholars. HR 1300 by Anderson. In memory of James Carlton Timmons. HR 1301 by Anderson. In memory of Bobby Chastain of Woodway. HR 1302 by Anderson. In memory of Lucy E. Guerra of Waco. HR 1303 by Anderson. In memory of Judy Marie Hitt of Waco. HR 1304 by Anderson. In memory of John Herrington of Moody. HR 1305 by Anderson. In memory of Kenneth Schroeder of Elm Mott. HR 1306 by Anderson. In memory of Katherine Young Arrington of Waco. HR 1307 by Anderson. Congratulating Jon and Ila Jean Carothers of Crawford on their 50th wedding anniversary. HR 1308 by Anderson. Congratulating the West High School Trojan Band on winning its third consecutive Sweepstakes Award. Pursuant to Rule 1, Section 4 referral of bills and resolutions. HB 2254 by Anderson. Relating to scope and validity of correction instruments in the conveyance of real property. HB 2954 by Cain. Relating to eliminating longevity pay for state employees and judicial officers and authorizing merit pay for certain state employees.

THE SPEAKER: House is finally recessed till 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.