Senate Transcript, April 18, 2011

SENATOR OGDEN: The Senate will come to order. The secretary will call the roll.

PATSY SPAW: Birdwell, Carona, Davis, Deuell, Duncan, Ellis, Eltife, Estes, Fraser, Gallegos, Harris, Hegar, Hinojosa, Huffman, Jackson, Lucio, Nelson, Nichols, Ogden, Patrick, Rodriguez, Seliger, Shapiro, Uresti, Van de Putte, Watson, Wentworth, West, Whitmire, Williams, Zaffirini.

SENATOR OGDEN: A quorum is present. All on the floor and in the gallery please rise for the invocation to be delivered by John Kim, St. Mary's Cathedral of Austin.

PASTOR: Let us pray. Almighty God who is the source of truth, wisdom and love. We gather seeking Your gifts to aid this assembly in that their walk for the people of Texas. Guide us by Your wisdom, support us by Your love, lead the people of our state to Your goodness and love so that they might always be in Your abundant blessings. May Your blessings come to each one of us here and to all the people of the state of Texas. Oh, glory be to You, loving God now and forever, Amen.

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you, Father. You may be seated in the gallery. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there objection? The Chair hears no objection, so ordered. Mr. Doorkeeper.

MR. DOORKEEPER: Mr. President, there is a messenger from the House.

SENATOR OGDEN: : Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action. The House has passed the following measures. HB33 by Branch relating to measure to increase --

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser to introduce the doctor of the day.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Mr. President. It is my honor to introduce the physician of the day Dr. Monte Horne from Hamilton. Dr. Horne is a graduate of Marble Falls High School, he has a BBA in finance and economics from Baylor University. He received his masters of health care administration University of houston and a MD from UTMB Galveston, completed his residency in family medicine from John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. Dr. Horne is a family physician for the Hamilton Health Care System in Hamilton, he also serves on the medical mission trips to Honduras, Nicaragua and Peru. He has been married for 17 years to Dr. Rosa Marie Horne and they have two children Marissa and Caleb and I believe Caleb is here with us today. Please join me in welcoming Dr. Horne and his family to the Texas Senate.

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you, Doctors. And thank you, Caleb, for being here. Senator Hinojosa. Chair lays out the following resolution. Secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 763, Recognizing April 18, 2011, as Texas A&M UniversityñCorpus Christi Day at the State Capitol by Hinojosa.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, would you give Senator Hinojosa your attention, please? Senator Hinojosa.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'm one of the lucky few senators who has two schools in their district, University of Texas Pan American and also Texas A&M Corpus Christi and today is Texas A&M Corpus Christi Day here at the Capitol, and I have to tell you, Mr. President and members, that you know that Texas -- Texas A&M Corpus Christi is in my district in Corpus Christi, and since the time the university has grown from original student body of 312 to more than 10,000 students strong. The current student body of the Texas A&M Corpus Christi is made up of students from 48 states and 67 foreign countries. I'm very proud to report that Texas A&M university Corpus Christi has the highest 4th, 5th and 6th year graduation rates among all Hispanic serving institutions in Texas. Texas A&M university Corpus Christi is also ranked 29th in the U.S. and 3rd in Texas the number of doctoral degrees awarded to Hispanic students. The university's uniquely located and is the only island university in the continental United States. It is home to a new mechanical engineering program, a successful nursing school, and a world renown marine biology department. To the diverse programs, A&M University Corpus Christi is addressing the key needs of south Texas and provided the best trained, highly skilled professionals to meet the demands and challenges of a complex world. A&M Corpus Christi students and alumni will be and continue to be leaders in their communities in Texas and throughout the world. I have to tell you that A&M Corpus Christi is located there by the island. Every time that I visit I wonder how they can concentrate on the studies because if you look out the windows, you'll see, of course, the Gulf of Mexico. I might also add that I think their basketball team beat University of Austin in a basketball game, so you can tell they also have a very strong impression in sports from basketball to baseball. And with me today I would like to recognize the leader and very much committed to higher education president Flavius Killebrew. We have with us some students from A&M. We have Samantha Hernandez Student Government Association, Samantha. We have Clara Light, graduate student from the college of business, we have Valerie Ferdin, student of the college of technology, and up on the south side of the gallery we have contingent of students from Corpus Christi of A&M. Could y'all please stand? All right. Members, please help me welcome my A&M students here to the Texas Capitol.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hinojosa moves adoption of the resolution. But before that Chair -- for what purpose do you rise, Senator Zaffirini?

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: To speak on the resolution.

SENATOR OGDEN: You're recognized to speak on the resolution.

SENATOR ZAFFIRINI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm delighted to sponsor this resolution and to welcome my friends from Texas A&M University Corpus Christi. I'm especially proud to recognize three students from Senate District 21 and ask them to please wave, since you're already standing. To waive as you're recognized. Student government president Samantha Hernandez, a liberal arts senior. She's on the floor with us from Portland in (inaudible) County. DeeAnn Elizondo, a nursing senior from Ingleside in San Patricio County; and Kelsey Lyssy, a nursing senior from Falls City in Karnes County. We thank you for being with us today. Welcome to the Texas Senate. And I support your resolution, Senator Hinojosa.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hinojosa now moves adoption of Senate Resolution. Is there objection to the adoption of the resolution? Chair hears none, so ordered. Senator Duncan. Chair lays out the following resolution. Secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 42 commending Ronnie G. Jung, executive director, of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas for his outstanding leadership and extending him best wishes on his retirement. By Duncan.

SENATOR OGDEN: Chair recognizes Senator Duncan on the resolution.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Today we are here to honor our good friend Ronnie Jung and his family for his work for the Teacher Retirement System of Texas. Ronnie came in a long history of service at TRS. He became executive director in May of 2004. Prior to being appointed executive director, he served as interim executive director beginning in September 2003. Deputy director from October 1st of 2003 and as chief financial officer from June 1996 through 2001. During his tenure at TRS, the pension fund grew from less than 50 billion to $98 billion, and TRS over saw successful implementation of a new statewide health care program for active public school employees. Ronnie has served over 1.3 million Texas public educators, members. He currently serves as president of the National Council on Teacher Retirement and is the board member for the National Institute for Retirement Security. Members, he's joined today on the floor with us with his wife -- by his wife Dianne Jung. And, you know, I think all of us have spent time with Ronnie in our offices trying to understand how to help our retired teachers. Ronnie, I can think of no person who has done more to help make sure we have a healthy retirement system for our teachers, a healthy insurance program for our active teachers as well as our retired teachers. It's been a privilege and honor to work with Ronnie over these years, and I'm very sad that Ronnie is retiring. He is a great resource for all of us and has been especially for me. In these last several legislative sessions with his guidance and leadership, we have one of the most healthy retirement systems for a public pension systems for teachers in the country and it's thanks to his candor and hard work and his courage to get the legislature to do the right thing. So -- and I'm getting advice from here on my left that you're not old enough to retire yet, Ronnie, so we need to change that retirement age. You think we can do that? We have a little bill pending that we might just have to change that retirement age for executive director. Please help me congratulate Ronnie and his wife for their many years of service to the state of Texas and to the teachers of the state of Texas. I move that we adopt Senate Concurrent Resolution 42.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator -- members, before we go shake his hand, Senator Van de Putte is recognized on the resolution.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Chairman Duncan. And I stand with you today to recognize a true Texas giant and public servant. As we have seen, the Teacher Retirement System grown by bounds, it would be a difficult feat for anybody else but for Ronnie. He has always had those teachers and the retirees in the system not only in his heart but in every decision that he recommends to us. For the many years that you have added vibrancy to this Texas Capitol for your honesty, for your integrity and mostly for the years that you probably ignored the needs of your family to be with us on numerous Saturdays and Sundays, 11, 12, even past midnight on many committee hearings. We thank you, and we thank your family, Ronnie. Members, you may not know that he is held in the highest of esteem by not only the retirement systems here in Texas but on the national level Ronnie is a giant. He is the epitome of a professional, of someone who can walk the Capitol and the halls and still maintain that passion for our retirees and our school teachers. Thank you. And it is with much love and respect that we join today in honoring you with the resolution.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Williams is recognized on the resolution.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I just wanted to add my congratulations. Ronnie became the director while I was a House member, served on pensions and investments over there and I have learned so much from you and I know that our teachers are very grateful for your leadership and we have one of the best funded retirement plans in the country and there's no doubt that's to your great leadership. I appreciate everything you've done for our state and I appreciate you sharing it with us, that was really nice of you to do that. So congratulations.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Lucio is recognized on the resolution.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Ronnie I, too, want to join my colleagues in letting you know we think you're one of the finest gentlemen that we've ever worked with. Extremely knowledgeable, one that has contributed so much not only to the teachers but to the people of this great state. And I for one have always felt very comfortable calling you, talking to you and asking you any questions that will bring me a very good answer, an informative answer. One that has helped me a lot. So I would be remiss if I didn't join my colleagues here this morning in wishing you well with your beautiful wife and knowing that you'll be close by when we need you. Thank you.

SENATOR OGDEN: : Senator Duncan moves adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution 42. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the resolution is adopted. Senator Eltife moves to put all members names on the resolution. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Secretary will read the resolution by Shapiro.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 760 recognizing Service Learning Adventures in North Texas by Shapiro.

SENATOR OGDEN: Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro on the resolution.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senator West, Senator Carona, Senator Harris, all the Dallas/Fort Worth delegation, you might be familiar with this resolution because it deals specifically with what we started calling SLANT 45. Prior to the Super Bowl and during the Super Bowl, this organization which was coined SLANT 45 is called Service Learning Adventures in North Texas. It was created in partnership with the North Texas Super Bowl 45, host committee and the nonprofit organization Big Thought. The SLANT 45 program was designed to inspire young people to create and implement service projects that would enhance and improve their local communities. This was an enormous success. The program turned out to be a smash hit. The national goal of the program was to have 20,000 young people to perform 45,000 hours of community service in the year leading up to the North Texas first ever Super Bowl. Ultimately, there were 44,000 young people that committed to 445,000 hours of service throughout the region, that is amazing. It's not only the powerful number of hours that they served and the tens of thousands of young people that contributed to this program, but it's also the service that was shared by 33 area school districts and 53 different cities across north Texas. This was an enormous success. These projects including teaching computer literacy to senior citizens, producing a school health fair, establishing an anti-bullying program. And a spectacular outgrowth of this service project is the SLANT 45 community heroes art exhibition that reflects the experiences of youth who participated. Members, you might remember that back in February, we actually had this art work on display down in the Capitol on the ground floor of the rotunda. Well, I'm happy to tell you that the display is back again and it will be here from the 18th to the 24th and you will once again get to see these amazing pieces of art that many of these young people put together. Today on the floor I'd like to recognize our guest Nancy Webb who's the vice president organizational advancement at Big Thought and Amanda Duquette who was a SLANT 45 project manager. They have both had big hands in the success of this program. Let's give them and all the students throughout the north Texas area a big round of applause for the great work that they did. Thank you. Mr. President, I move adoption of Senate Resolution 760 at this time.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection to the adoption of the resolution? Chair hears none, the resolution is adopted.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR OGDEN: Chair lays out the following resolution. The secretary will read the resolution by Patrick.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 770 recognizing the 2011 class of governor William P. Clemmons Jr. Scholars for their commitment to public service and public policy by Patrick.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President and members. About a year and a half ago or actually I say a year and a half ago, the session right before the last session, Representative Brian Hughes and I came together to put together this first conservative group of scholars, an internship program named after our former governor William P. Clemmons who was the first Republican elected to governor since reconstruction. And, of course, his family like many Texas families impacted by the Great Depression worked his way to be a leader in this state, brought conservative principles and business principles to the state and that's why we named this scholar program after our former governor. Last year was our first year of the scholar program, this is our second year. Again, this is the only conservative intern program ever in the state Capitol. So I thank Representative Hughes working with us on this. I want to acknowledge the members we have here on the floor from Senator Shapiro's district, and if you'll just step out as we call your name. Ashley Kim who works with Representative Paxton from Senator Lucio's district, Travis McCormick who's with Wayne Christian. John Ruff, you're from my district, good to have you here. John working with Lois Kolkhorst. From Senator Estes' district we have Tim Ross and Ashley Westenhover. And from Senator Eltife's district we have Desiree Smith. So we're proud to have you working in the Capitol, we look to you to be our future leaders and hopefully after session you will go home with the new knowledge of how your government works and ready to come in and prove it as you walk through your life. So, members, please help me welcome the Clemmons Scholars today and thank you for your dedication to making Texas better. I move adoption, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Patrick moves adoption of Senate Resolution 770. Is there objection to the adoption of the resolution? Chair hears none, the resolution is adopted. Members, we have a memorial resolution. Would you please take your seats? Chair lays out the following resolution. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 795. WHEREAS, The Senate of the State of Texas joins the citizens of Harlingen in mourning the loss of longtime civic leader H. William Card, Jr. who died July 18, 2010, at the age of 88; and WHEREAS, Bill Card was an exemplary citizen who was widely admired in the community for his many achievements; he came to Harlingen in 1968 to become commandant of the Marine Military Academy following a distinguished 28-year career in the United States Marine Corps, during which he saw combat at Iwo Jima and rose to the rank of colonel; and WHEREAS, Mr. Card entered the banking industry in 1975 and went on to become president of the First National Bank of Harlingen; and WHEREAS, Mr. Card served as mayor of Harlingen from 1987 to 1998; blessed with the ability to bring together diverse points of view for the common good, he was able to convince the leaders of neighboring cities to work cooperatively for mutual goals; he was one of the longest-serving mayors in the city's history, and he never stopped working to make Harlingen a better city; and WHEREAS, A man of courage, strength, and compassion, Bill Card gave generously to others, and his wisdom, his positive attitude, and his dedication to his community will not be forgotten by those who knew him; he was beloved by his family and friends, and he will long be remembered with affection and appreciation by all those who were privileged to share in his life; Now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Senate of the State of Texas, 82nd Legislature hereby extend sincere condolences to the bereaved family and friends of H. William Card, Jr.; and, be it further RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution be prepared for his family as an expression of deepest sympathy from the Texas Senate, and that when the Senate adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Bill Card. By Lucio.

SENATOR OGDEN: : Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on the resolution.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, today we remember a great American, an outstanding Texan, an icon, a symbol of greatness, H. William Card, Jr. was a Marine, Senator Uresti, Senator Hinojosa, he was a mayor and he was my mentor. He served his country, his community and his family with honor and distinction. So much so that the citizens and leaders of Harlingen, Texas have asked the legislature to designate one of the city's main thoroughfares, one of their main roads as Colonel Bill Card Boulevard. Bill Card first moved to Harlingen in the late 1960s working as a commandant in the Marine Military Academy. He had previously served in the marines for nearly 30 years rising to the rank of colonel. His military career included surviving Pearl Harbor and fighting at Iwo Jima. He became mayor of Harlingen in 1987, a position he held for over a decade. Members, he never stopped working for his community. He never stopped bringing people together. He never stopped making a huge difference in south Texas and our state, our country. He was a family man with many friends, generous and thoughtful, a natural leader who led by example. The colonel and I worked on many projects together over the years. He was one of my main committee members when we studied the Regional Academic Health Center in the early 1990s. And one of the greatest pieces of work he did was to put together a system of helping indigents, Senator West, indigents down in the valley, health care was a passion of his. He chaired many committees, and all those committees led to a better quality of life for the citizens he loved. I consider it a special blessing for me to have had him part of my life, both politically and especially as a personal friend. The colonel was affectionately known as Mayor or Colonel by those who knew him in the public, but at home he was simply known as Papa, Papa. He is proceeded in death by his daughter Cheryl Card Grey and sadly left behind his devoted wife of 63 years Garrison Good Card. His children, Bill the III and Patty and Jerry as well as numerous grand and great grandchildren. Bill Card's legacy will live on in his great works, works that came from his deep seeded commitment to duty, honor and service to country. He will be sorely missed by all who knew him, I'm one of those. Joining us here, members, in the Senate chamber are two of Bill's children. Bill Card the III, and his lovely wife Darla and Patty Card Smith along with her husband David. At this time, I would ask that the rest of the Card family seated in the north gallery to rise and be recognized. Mr. President, members, I'd like to move adoption on Senate Resolution 795 in memory of a rock, a man who had no borders, a man who got it done, the late Colonel William Card, Jr.

SENATOR OGDEN: Would all those in favor of the resolution please rise? The resolution is adopted. Members, if there are no objections, I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's session. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the reading and referral is postponed. That concludes the morning call. Senator Estes is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Senate Bill 1568.

SENATOR ESTES: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, this bill was brought by the Texas Business Law Foundation, and it is meant to correct a minor issue in the business organization's code. Under one possible reading of the code subsections A and B seemed -- of section 21.552 seemed to be inconsistent. Subsection B can be read to authorize a shareholder to bring a derivative suit after a merger that (inaudible) interest in the corporation. This reading is inconsistent with subsection A, and the interpretation of the Texas courts have reached and the law of other states. So this bill simply deletes subsection B since it does not appear to serve any other purpose. And with that explanation I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1568.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Estes moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1568. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1568. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1568 relating to shareholder standing after a merger.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Estes is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR ESTES: I move passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1568.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, you heard the motion, is there objection? Hearing none, the bill is passed to engrossment. Senator Estes is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR ESTES: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional three day rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1568. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1568 relating to shareholder standing after a merger.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Estes is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR ESTES: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage of Senate Bill 1568.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is passed.

SENATOR ESTES: Thank you, Mr. President and members.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on committee substitute to Senate Bill 1618.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider at this time the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618. As we know, the legislature often statutorily requires that state agencies produce reports on various issues. Generally once a report is mandated, its relevance is never reviewed to determine the necessity of continuing the requirement. As a result there are thousands of agency reports required by state law, many of which are no longer useful or a waste of time and resources. It seems like in every legislative session we mandate enough reports to decimate another old growth forest, and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618 should address that. In an attempt to clean up the requirements, this bill sunsets all reporting requirements under a state agency at the same time that the agency is under review so that the Sunset Advisory Commission can mandate to the legislature whether or not to continue required a report. Additionally requires that all agency reports be submitted to the legislature electronically in an effort to prevent wasted resource. What we do now is once we have a report and we need to recall it, we get it on the computer. If anybody wants to print a report, every office, every agency has plenty of printers and we can do that. In order to promote efficiency, it also requires reports(inaudible) school districts to the TEA to be submitted electronically as well as most of them are today. I move suspension.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1618 relating to reporting requirements of state agencies and school districts.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Hearing none, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618 is passed to engrossment. Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR SELIGER: Mr. President, I move to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be heard on three several days.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: Being 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1618 relating to reporting requirements of state agencies and school districts.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger moves final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1618. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is finally passed. Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President and members.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Williams. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business in order that we could take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266. Members, this bill deals with the mechanics lien process. If a mechanics lien is placed on a vehicle, it can extinguish all prior liens and ownership of the vehicle can be transferred. Prior to September 1 of 2009 if a person were to agree to charges for work at a mechanic shop and then they weren't able to pay for that work, the mechanic could take ownership of the vehicle by sending notice of their lien to the owner. The issue here is that mechanics have begun backdating their work and sending out notices on -- and using this to take title adversely against some of the lien holders. This bill clarifies that for in order for a mechanic to file a lien on the vehicle, both the mechanic and the local tax office must send written notice to the owner and all other lien holders regardless of the date the work was performed or completed. Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business in order that we could take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266 relating to notice required in connection with possessory liens on motor vehicles.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Williams is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Hearing none, the bill is passed to engrossment. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: So moved.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 30 ayes, and one nay, the constitutional three day rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 266 relating to notice required in connection with possessory liens on motor vehicles.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Williams, you're recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move final passage.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: Being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is finally passed.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Patrick is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Senate Bill 843.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I rise to suspend the regular order of business and lay out Senate Bill 843. Currently it's a violation of the law for a person to refuse to identify themselves. However, under the Texas fail to identify statutes, it is not a crime for a person who is lawfully detained to identify. It is an offense to falsely identify. So we're closing this loophole in the law. Senator Hinojosa's going to have an amendment that I've joint authored with him that is acceptable to the author to clarify "legally detained." I move to suspend the regular order of business.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Patrick moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 843. Is there objection? Clearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 843. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 843 relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.

SENATOR OGDEN: The following amendment, the secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Hinojosa and Lucio.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hinojosa, you're recognized to explain your amendment.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. On this issue of failure to identify, there was concern that a police officer can come to just anybody and ask them to identify themselves and if they didn't do so, they commit a crime and be under arrest. What my amendment does it clarifies that the person -- it says "or place the person under restraint pursuant to a lawful detention" so that the stop has to be lawfully detained before the failure to identify part of the law kicks in. And I think it really clarifies the issue, there's no ambiguity and the officer already has a right to detain or arrest that person.

SENATOR PATRICK: It's acceptable to the author. And thank you both, Senator Lucio and Hinojosa, for clarifying this and making sure the intent of the bill is as intended.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hinojosa moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Chair hairs none, amendment's adopted. Senator Patrick, you're recognized for a motion.

SENATOR PATRICK: I move to engrossment, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Hearing none, Senate Bill 843 is passed to engrossment. Senator Patrick is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR PATRICK: So moved.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional three day rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 843. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 843 relating to the prosecution of the offense of failure to identify.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Patrick, you're recognized for a motion.

SENATOR PATRICK: Move final passage, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: Being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is finally passed.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, members.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Senate Bill 1002.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time Senate Bill 1002. Members, this bill deals only with the city of San Antonio and our utility which is a municipal owned utility civic public service. San Antonio is home to a high number of our Warriors in transition. These are our military members who have suffered severe burns while in combat and because so they have a decreased ability to regulate their body's core temperatures. Because these burn victims have difficulty with their new skin and are not able to perspire regularly, they are forced to maintain an environment of a 62 to 68-degree temperature in their home, which during Texas summer months results in exorbitant utility bills. And although there are many programs available to assist these types of veterans with their utility bills and, in fact, people have offered to exempt them, they do not want to be exempted from paying utility bills. But what they would be very much helped by their and their families is to be included in the group of citizens as a small category to be able to get a discount. And currently the municipal code and the law that they operate does not allow them to be included. So this bill amends the government code to specify that a veteran who has significantly decreased abilities to regulate their body's core temperatures because of severe burns received in combat are able to get a discount on their utility bills. With that, members, I move suspension of the Senate's regular order of business.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1002. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1002 relating to designation of program costs for providing bill payment assistance to certain military veterans.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. I move passage of Senate Bill 1002 to engrossment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection? Chair hears none, the bill's passed to engrossment. Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional three day rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1002. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1002 relating to the designation of program costs for providing bill payment assistance to certain military veterans.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Move final passage of Senate Bill 1002.

SENATOR OGDEN: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR OGDEN: 31 ayes and no nays, Senate Bill 1002 is finally passed. Thank you.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, members.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hinojosa. Chair recognizes Senator Carona for an introduction.

SENATOR CARONA: Thank you, Senator Ogden. Just a brief introduction, members, I'm very proud today to have a special guest, as we all do from time to time, my oldest son Joey is here on the floor today. Joey, stand and raise your hands. He is one of the primary reasons that I am able to be down here. So, thank you. Good to see you, son.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Carona.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, you're recognized for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up Senate Bill 1420.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1420 is the Texas, TxDOT sunset bill. Members, if y'all recall last session TxDOT went through the sunset review process before the commission and we debated the bill fully in the Senate floor. Unfortunately, it got caught up at the end of the session and did not pass. But what we did this session we again -- TxDOT went under a sunset review that was very limited in purpose and the special purpose was to see what recommendations were made last session to appropriate at this time and we have certain recommendations in the legislation before you and what it does is that the commission determine the majority of the previous recommendations remain appropriate and TxDOT needs statutory authority to implement them. So this bill contains recommendations. On the commission structure this bill contains the five members of the Texas transportation commission, members continue to be appointed by the governor in subsequent terms. Members must reflect the geographic regions and population groups of the state and one member must reside in a rural area. As to internal controls it requires the TxDOT strengthen internal controls and public involvement efforts to help ensure transparency, accountability, and to maintain public trust and confidence. It requires TxDOT employees to adhere to a code of ethics and establish a hotline for reporting fraud, waste and abuse and ethics violations. It also strengthens liven prohibitions but allows TxDOT to communicate with the federal government about appropriations and the various programs. It also requires TxDOT to develop a public involvement policy and to have a better system to track complaints and keep the complaints for two years after they're resolved. It also requires TxDOT to develop a comprehensive and easily transparent reporting system for transportation projects in the state. This system planning and selecting special projects with benchmarks, time lines and priorities so the general public can see what project's a priority, how they're funded and where the time line is. It also authorizes TxDOT to use design bill for nontoll highway projects, removes provisions to current statute of TxDOT time and place of construction and maintenance in newspapers. And the last part of it is (inaudible) for outdoor advertisement. And unless there's any questions, Mr. President and members, I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1420.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Nichols, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR NICHOLS: Thank you. To ask the author a question.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, will you yield?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Hinojosa, I know we've spent a lot of hours in sunset hearing testimony and things like that during the process. I know you have put a lot of time and energy in this, we worked real hard together to make sure we got a great bill. One of the concerns I've had, and I've expressed this concern to you, is that I know that the sunset recommendation and the commission as a body supported giving TxDOT the ability to do design build in their authority. Currently, the only authority that they have in that relates to CDAs, and so as I understood the bill -- and really I just kind of got into this part on Friday, as written it allows TxDOT to write their own rules related to how they want to do design build and utilize I guess the tools that are currently in the CBA bill. Is that correct?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct. It provides TxDOT more flexibility to be able to deal with the design build projects which are huge in comparison to smaller projects.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. And I think everybody's for efficiency and productivity and things of that nature and -- but in the CDA process, I personally have seen some problems in recent years past where there wasn't as much openness, as much sunshine on the process as could be and I don't know what they're going to come up with in their rules. And I have to tell you it makes me a little nervous and I've discussed this with you, it's not something I've blindsided you with.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Two things, I think the bill really created a lot of transparency in TxDOT itself so they have to receive input from the general public, they have to publish all the rules, they have to have hearings to that. One of the things that I know somebody else brought up that issue, and we're going to try to tighten up the rules somewhat, instead of just adopting the local government code for projects. But it is a concern of some senators and we're going to try to take that issue up in conference.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. And in talking with you and in talking with a few others because of my concern, I had actually drafted an amendment that I showed you this morning, showed several others and I was prepared to put that on as an amendment, but I've decided to pull it back down. But I wanted to make sure, my concern in coming up with TxDOT coming up with a process for design build or any process is that we have openness to make sure there's lots of sunshine on the process, to make sure that qualified entities have the ability to compete. And so as we move along, as I understand it there's an amendment for doing maintenance design build, your intention is to put that amendment on as well?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Yes, sir, it is Senator.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. And as long as you put that amendment on, that will give us the opportunity as we move forward in the process, maybe in conference committee to see if maybe we can't come up with some type of outline that everybody will feel more comfortable with. I just want to make sure I have your intent that we're going to work in that direction.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Yeah. And I understand your concerns, Senator Nichols, and my objections to your proposed amendments initially was that it would require TxDOT to do the procurement process under section 281 under the local government code which is very restrictive. And in terms of trying to provide for larger projects it creates problems in huge projects that are being financed or at least the forbidden is taking place and the requirements that are placed on TxDOT.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. But the intent of that was not to have a hostile type of process but to have a process that currently everybody can see and I know in Senator West's committee a couple of sessions ago in IGR, the government code, we were working with a lot of parties, developed a process that gave everyone an opportunity to compete, made sure they were qualified, made sure the state had received the best value and stuff like that. Now, I've always been kind of amazed that people say it's too restrictive, it's really quite open as long as you follow that process, but I've agreed to pull that back down with the understanding that we will have an opportunity to continue to improve this process as we move towards conference committee.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct, Senator Nichols, I'll amend the bill itself I wrote maintenance and that will allow us to keep this issue open in conference.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that, thank you.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Senator Nichols.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Williams, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: To ask Senator Hinojosa a couple of questions.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator, will you yield?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield, Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I just wanted to follow up on Senator Nichols' comments with you, and I think you've got a great bill hear and I appreciate all the hard work that's gone on to get us to this point, and I think it's important that we get this bill out of here and get it over to the House. And I especially appreciate your willingness to work with us on this issue. There's really three issues. It's on page lines 44 through 46 I think that we're talking about. The design build issue. And one of the issues would be best value versus best price and you have best price in your bill, and I think Senator Nichols' amendment would have changed it to a best value proposition, so there necessarily been competitive price bidding on these projects. There is the issue about the amendment that you're going to offer later to bring maintenance to design build and whether that's appropriate or not. And then the third thing and final thing I think the thing that is most troubling to me is this rule making process. I don't have a solution for you at this time and I don't want to hold an important bill like this up, so I'm going to ask everybody to support what you're trying to do here and just recognize that we may have a conference item. We may or may not have a conference item that we need to deal with here, but I would like to tighten that language up a little bit about the rule making process because this is a pretty broad authority especially when you include maintenance that you're giving the agency. And we've spent a lot of time on this floor debating the whole issue of comprehensive development agreements and other alternative forms project delivery like that and I just want to make sure that we don't make the same mistakes that we made before on that. So I appreciate your willingness to continue to work with us on that.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I will, Senator Williams. And as you well know, TxDOT already has a quite bit of experience and a good bit of history in the way they do the rule making process for comprehensive development agreements for toll roads. So we'll have an opportunity to review that and necessarily tighten those areas to bring that --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: -- confidence into the process.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR CARONA: All right. Senator Hinojosa now moves that we suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up Senate Bill 1420. Is there any objection? There being no objection. So ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1420. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1420 relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Department of Transportation.

SENATOR CARONA: The following amendment. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Hinojosa.

SENATOR CARONA: Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to explain his amendment.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This is the amendment we were discussing where we allow TxDOT on design build projects, on design highway build projects design to which they may include the maintenance of the highway. This is just to make sure that they have the discretion and cost in case they have a contract that's cost effective and also get the contractor to take care of the maintenance who built the road. If there's no questions, I move adoption.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, are there any questions? Senator Hinojosa then moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1 --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Excuse me, Mr. President. I had a question, I'm sorry.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Williams, Senator Hinojosa will you yield to Senator Williams' question?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Hinojosa, I just wanted to verify on your amendment section C, does this have the effect of changing all of the design build contracts from a best price to a best value? What are we doing with this?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: It's the same language we have in the present bill. The only change we're making is on section 2230117A which says "may include the maintenance of the highway." Other than that there's no other change or intent of change to the bill.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. I'm looking for my copy of your bill, here. Hang on a second.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Yeah, I don't think there's a change, intent to change anything, Senator Williams, it's still best price.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, I believe that's your intention, but I'm not sure that what we're accomplishing -- if we could see, if you would give me just a second. I would like to compare this to the language that's in the bill.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa now moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there any objection? There being none, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Ogden.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ogden to explain his amendment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, one of the most frustrating things about building highways is the environmental review process and the delays that result because of the bureaucratic requirements that are involved. This amendment is an effort to streamline without changing any of the requirements of the environmental review process. It's previously been adopted on this Senate floor in another bill that was carried by Senator Nichols and by Senator Watson, the TxDOT sunset bill. And it allows -- it requires TxDOT to set standards for environmental review processes that increase efficiency, minimize delays and encourage collaboration and allows government and local entities to participate in the environmental review process with a view toward getting a decision in a reasonable period of time.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator West, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WEST: Well, other than it being a lengthy amendment, I'm trying to make certain that I know what it's doing. So can you kind of let us know what changes. It's an eight page amendment, and frankly I haven't had a chance to look at it. I was sitting here trying to look at it. So what does it change, Senator Ogden?

SENATOR OGDEN: The amendment is an effort to increase efficiency in the environmental review process by requiring TxDOT to adopt standards for environmental review that increase efficiency, minimize delays and encourages collaboration.

SENATOR WEST: How's that different from what they currently do?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, there is no rule. The current rule is that you may take as long as ut under the environmental review process and where this idea's coming from is local governmental entities who are participating with TxDOT in the construction of a road or a highway but they cannot get the environmental review process documents completed. And by not getting the documents completed, the project never gets started. So I don't think this is controversial, we've already considered on the floor once, Senator Watson carried it and added it to a bill that Senator Nichols was carrying. And I think this is a concerted effort to basically improve the way we do environmental reviews in Texas and allow governmental entities an opportunity to participate with the goal of receiving an environmental clearance sooner rather than later so that we can go ahead and build the road.

SENATOR WEST: I notice on page 2D that you have a 60 day time period for a party requesting dispute resolution. Is that the time frame that an action would have to be taken under the standards that would be put in place by the department?

SENATOR OGDEN: I'm sorry, sir?

SENATOR WEST: On page 2 of the amendment --

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir, I see the amendment. I just didn't hear your question.

SENATOR WEST: I'm asking that you have a day time period, is this 60 days that they have to act or what does that mean? You said 60 days -- let's see, "not later than the 60th day after a party requests dispute resolution." Dispute resolution as to the standards that are being reviewed or what?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, it says "disputes under this subchapter," so anything in this subchapter that would result in a dispute. I think this is an effort to resolve those disputes rather than to allow a dispute to effectively kill the project.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. So are decisions going to have to be made in 60 days or what?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes. On the dispute, yes. Not necessarily on the environmental review but on whatever the dispute is about how the environmental review is being done. That's not a 60 day deadline to decide whether the environmental review process is completed and satisfactory, there's different time lines in the back for that.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Again, I haven't had a chance to look at, but it's something we've already voted on here before?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir. And this thing's been pretty well vetted in the sense that the frustration out there is that the bureaucracy for whatever reason can effectively kill the process by delay of the environmental documentation that is necessary to conduct the review, and this is simply an effort to make sure that the bureaucracy is responsive to the needs of the people. And if local government entities want to help push -- get the review process done, they're allowed to participate under this amendment.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. President.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hegar, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR HEGAR: To ask the author a question.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ogden, do you yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes.

SENATOR HEGAR: Okay. I had heard you earlier, Senator, mention that dealing with the environmental process and I see that as part of this bill and that it was part of a different bill that we had passed out on the Senate floor already and headed over to the House. And several other members of the legislature had worked on this bill as well. So my question, No. 1, is do you not think that this bill is going to make it through the legislative process, so this is a backup mechanism?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, yeah, and the other reason I put it on there is because it's appropriate to the TxDOT sunset legislation to address the methodology under which the environmental review process is done at TxDOT. I mean, it's something that needs to be in this bill regardless of what we've already done and also there's the issue of you want to make sure it passes.

SENATOR HEGAR: Okay. Well, if you want to make sure it passes, that helps understand. Second of all, this may be good public policy we pass this out. But the question is whether it belongs on this piece of legislation. But then second of all, I'd have to ask the question just because I do not recall this piece of legislation off top, is this that piece of legislation in entirety or is this a subsection of it? Just help me remember, if you don't mind.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I don't know. I know Senator Watson had a bill that did this and whether this is his entire bill or not, I don't know.

SENATOR HEGAR: Okay. It just helps me understand, maybe Senator Watson is going to chime in.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ellis, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR ELLIS: To question the author.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ogden, do you yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR ELLIS: Senator, I may be inclined to wait until Senator Watson can comment on it, but this is a sunset bill, correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: The TxDOT sunset bill, yes.

SENATOR ELLIS: And did this bill in current form that it's in this amendment pass the Senate unanimously or do you remember?

SENATOR OGDEN: This was an amendment -- this amendment was amended to a bill that Senator Nichols is carrying, and as I remember there was no opposition.

SENATOR ELLIS: I'm just -- you know, normally some of my colleagues who have served on the sunset process stand up and raise concerns when we do amend these sunset bills. So to the extent that it does anything major, then it's something that usually my distinguished colleague from Flower Mound stands up and gives me a lecture on. So I just wanted members to know that if we are going to amend this to the sunset bill, it's probably good precedent, and I'm probably going to have an amendment for the rest of the sunset bills coming along. But we ought to be aware of that if we're going to do that because on this bill. Because this is a major bill obviously, and I just -- I don't remember this one. So I may come back up after -- was Senator Watson the person that added it to Senator Nichols' bill?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes. And, you know, if Senator Watson and I are for it, who could be against it.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, that really scares me. You know, when that happens, I don't always feel the love, I may find out later. Can you just briefly give overview, is there anything in here that the EPA would raise some concerns about?

SENATOR OGDEN: I don't think so, no.

SENATOR ELLIS: So I can trust you?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, I might give you a vote on this one because you might have some other bills that I might have concerns about later on that I might not be able to give you a vote on.

SENATOR OGDEN: I mean, this is an honest effort to make government work better and anybody that's ever talked to somebody who is trying to get through the environmental review process will say surely we can do a better job than what we're doing now, just because the bureaucratic roadblocks are frequently used to kill worthy projects or delay them indefinitely. And this is an effort to make the government work better.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, you do know that the lack of money we may have in the short term, there may be other reasons a lot of them may be delayed.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, this addresses that too, this bill doesn't apply to projects that aren't funded.

SENATOR ELLIS: Okay. All right, Senator, thank you.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Watson, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WATSON: I was willing to answer a question about the history of the amendment that's now serving as this proposed amendment.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ogden, did you need Senator Watson --

SENATOR OGDEN: What is the history of this amendment?

SENATOR WATSON: I'd be happy to share that with you, Mr. Chairman. I filed a bill Senate Bill 1323 which was a bill directed, a standalone bill dealing with environmental processes including how local governments can interact with TxDOT. It was a negotiate -- a big part of that was a negotiated process between county commissioners and TxDOT in an effort to come up with an expedited better system. It was decided that one of the better ways to do this would be to make my standalone bill an amendment to Senator Nichols' bill, Senate Bill 548. My memory is that there were two separate hearings in committee related to my amendment, what we can call Senate Bill 1323 as it applied to Senate Bill 548 in part because there were some ongoing negotiations. When Senator Nichols brought up Senate Bill 548, which I believe did pass unanimously, he accepted my amendment that is this amendment Senator Ogden is offering to the TxDOT sunset bill. That's a quick history.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hegar, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR HEGAR: Just to make sure I clarify, Senator Watson. So in other words, this amendment is your bill which you amended on to another bill here on the Senate floor? So this is actually a subpiece of the bill we passed in its entire -- this Senate Bill piece is your bill entirely?

SENATOR WATSON: Yes, it's in the entirety and we had considered passing 1323 as a standalone but Senator Nichols, Senator Davis and I had been working on his bill and we decided the better way to do it through committee was to add 1323 to 548.

SENATOR HEGAR: And maybe this is more appropriate to ask Senator Ogden, but I'll ask you, so is it more prudent if we're going to try to put amendments on sunset bills that are definite pieces of legislation, would it be more prudent to put your bill on all of their bills if we're going to start adding bills to the sunset bills?

SENATOR WATSON: Well, I don't know the answer to that, I think it's going to have to be individual members to determine. I was just trying to give the history because there was some question about what this amendment was and whether the Senate had previously seen this and made a determination.

SENATOR HEGAR: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR CARONA: Smart Ellis, did you wish to be recognized?

SENATOR ELLIS: Yeah, I'd like to ask Senator Ogden --

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Ogden, do you yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR ELLIS: Senator, did this amendment come up when the bill came through committee? And the reason I'm raising it as I think I voted for the bill according to my staff but I am concerned about having the sunset process which we go through and then we do the committee process here and if we make that exception this go around, are we as a body going to be able to make it throughout the process? And quite frankly I just -- I don't remember. I know in the rules the burden would be on the person offering the amendment to prove that it came up during the committee process, it came out of government org and I don't obviously recall. Did it come up to you?

SENATOR OGDEN: My staff says yes.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, did you wish to be recognized?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Yes. And actually, Senator Ellis, I was just informed by my staff that it was offered by Senator Lucio and withdrawn at the committee level.

SENATOR ELLIS: Okay, thank you. So a point of order won't be any good then.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, members, I know there's an issue about process here but I think we're losing the point that this is an effort to improve what everybody says is a cumbersome and sometimes broken process. This will, in my opinion, help Texas and local governments build roads in Texas and so I think we dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts with respect to the process. But at the end of the day it's not about process, it's about what I believe is a better way to run TxDOT. So I'd urge you to look at this amendment as an improvement over the current statutory direction that TxDOT has.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, I think that's a good pont, Senator Ogden, on the process issue because as we go through a process this session obviously we over the last couple of cycles have changed a lot of our traditions and this just may be another one to amend a major -- probably the major sunset bill through process this session major bill. But you're so convincing, I won't raise the point of order because who knows, I may decide I want to change some of the traditions at some point myself. So thank you very much, and I look forward to voting for this.

SENATOR OGDEN: Always glad to help.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, you're recognized on the Floor Amendment No. 2.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Actually this has been a problem in terms of the process that we take to clear projects under our environmental scrutiny, and if this amendment is good, it's supported by the NPOs and also supported by the RMAs and local communities, so it's acceptable to the author.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, this amendment is acceptable to the author. Senator Ogden sends up Floor Amendment No. 2. Is there any objection? There is objection. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR CARONA: There being 22 ayes and six nays, the amendment is adopted. Senator Hinojosa. The Chair recognizes you at this time for a motion.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President and members, I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection to passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1420? There being none, the bill is passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out -- Senator Hinojosa -- I'm sorry -- is recognized at this time to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President and members, I move to suspend the three day rule.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you heard the motion. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR CARONA: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1420. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1420 relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Department of Transportation.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, you're recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President and members, I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1420 as amended.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you have heard the motion. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR CARONA: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill a finally passed.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hegar, 1132. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider a Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Allens Creek reservoir is a proposed reservoir on Allens Creek tributary in the Brazos River located near the city of Wallace in Austin County in Senate District 18. It is a joint project between the city of Houston and the Brazos River Authority with the city of Houston having a 70 percent interest in the BRA, Brazos owned 30 percent. The current deadline for commencement of the project is September 1 of 2018 and Senate Bill 1320 extends the deadline for commencement of construction on the project to September 1, 2025, as an agreement between the two parties that are in this project to move the project out. And I would move suspension of the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Hegar. Members you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar, is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objections, and the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132 relating to the water rights permits issued to the Texas Water Development Board.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion.

SENATOR HEGAR: I move passage to engrossment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar. Is there objection from any member? There's no objection from any member, and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132 passes to engrossment. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR HEGAR: I move that we suspend the constitutional rule that bills be heard on three separate days.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members you have heard the motion by Senator Hegar. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132 relating to the water rights permits issued by the texas Water Development Board for the Allens Creek reservoir.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion.

SENATOR HEGAR: Move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1132 is finally passed. Congratulations. Senator Williams, are you ready on 1065? Chair recognizes Senator Williams. The Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business in order to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065. Members, this bill deals with critical incident stress management and crisis response services. These are terms that are used to describe the process and the individuals that provide counseling services to people who in the course of their duties respond to critical incidents. These teams are often called to the scene of an incident to begin counseling and stress management services to the emergency service providers. These incidents are typically heavily investigated and often result in legal and court cases and emergency responders are debriefed and questioned on multiple occasions about their answers and often their answers are used in testimony for court cases. The purpose of this legislation is to make the emergency service responders' communication privileged against disclosure of certain communications applicable to the critical incident stress management team members and to provide them with immunity against civil liability arising from the actions during the debriefing sessions. Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business in order that we can take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator West, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WEST: Question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Williams yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR WEST: Senator Williams, we are now -- this particular bill basically says that individuals -- the communications between these individuals is privileged and not subject to disclosure even in a court of law.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR WEST: And why are we doing this?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, we're doing this in order that the members of the first responders have a place that they can go and feel like they can have the debriefing and speaking in confidence about the incident and about their feelings and response to that and what they saw and how it affected them. This is a very difficult thing, these people operate under very stressful situations and this is just giving them the opportunity to be able to have a conversation with counseling services, if you will, that is privileged.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Are there not already on the books various privileges that individuals have? And is this not expanding that privilege?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I don't believe this exists for these people now.

SENATOR WEST: So you're saying that when you have first responders they would be able to sit in a room, have a conversation about what's going on and anything that's said in that particular realm would be covered by a privilege of nondisclosure?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: What this says is that notwithstanding chapter 551 of the government code or any other law, a critical incident stress management meeting is closed to the general public and may be closed to anyone who was not directly involved in the incident or the crisis. The meeting may be open to the public or certain individuals if the emergency service provider or their legal representative agrees that it may be or that the emergency services provider is deceased. Anything communicated to or recorded by an emergency response team member while they receive services is confidential and a court or administrative law proceeding can allow the disclosure if it finds that it benefits a more important than -- the benefits of doing so are more important than protecting the privacy of an individual, so it's not an unqualified grant of privacy.

SENATOR WEST: Stress management, help me with what that is.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, Senator, these, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, critical incidents, stress management and critical response services --

SENATOR WEST: Can you give me an example?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, yes, sir. What they are is these are the teams that assist the first responders when they are to help them deal with the stress that's related to some of the horrific events that they often have to be involved in. A very bad automobile accident or a fire where many people are killed. So it is something that is a well identified and well defined service.

SENATOR WEST: So as an example if we have, heaven forbid, a shooting at a public facility and those first responders had to go there, if they're sitting down talking to mental health individuals in order to kind of deal with what they perceive, is that what is covered here?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, what this covers, specifically I think that may already be covered by some limited privilege --

SENATOR WEST: Yeah, I would think it would be.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: -- licensed health professionals but critical incident stress management teams are different and they felt like they needed to -- that the -- we felt like we needed to make sure they were included in that definition. So -- and the judge would still have the opportunity to decide if the information needed to be disclosed for some greater public purpose but it's also to allow these people to have an opportunity to discuss very personal and private reactions that they may have had, think that this brought up to them in a setting where they can feel like it's safe and they're not going to be reading about it in the newspaper.

SENATOR WEST: So the facts or the observations made by one of the first responders, would this be covered by a privilege realm and would not be subject to disclosure if a police officer is on a scene and one of these situations, a firefighter or another first responder, would the -- what they observed now be subject to a privilege and nondisclosure or what?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, if you'll look on page 1, line 50 of the bill, prior to that what you have are definitions. And I think what we're doing here, Senator West, is that we're allowing these meetings between the first responders and the critical incident stress management service or crisis response services for those meetings to be held, they can be closed to the general public and they can be closed to an individual who wasn't directly involved in the critical incident or crisis. So the idea so to let these people have their opportunity to discuss this matter away from the public eye.

SENATOR WEST: Right.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: And the subsection doesn't apply if the service provider or the legal representative expressly agrees that the meeting may be open to the general public or if the emergency service provider is deceased. That's -- you see that on page 1 line 50.

SENATOR WEST: Line 50?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Again on -- yes, sir, beginning on line 50.

SENATOR WEST: So, okay. So we're saying that it can be closed to the general public and may be closed to an individual who was not directly involved in the critical incident of crisis, I understand that. I'm looking at the confidentiality which is otherwise --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, if you turn on the next page, page 2 line 2, it deals with may be more on point with what your question is and what we're saying is that a communication by one of these providers may be kept confidential unless a court in a civil or criminal cause or decision making entity in administrative proceeding allows the disclosure or a record of the disclosure because they find that there's a benefit to the public of the communication.

SENATOR WEST: And why are we -- why are we trying to put this under code of secrecy at this point? What's the public policy behind this, in terms of the confidentiality part?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: The public policy is that these folks deal with very serious situations, and they may need an opportunity to have a discussion about that with other people who were involved in the same incident with a team that's designed to help them cope with whatever issues came up as a result of that. And so this gives them the opportunity to have that meeting outside of the public eye and have a discussion about it so that they specifically with this critical incident management team in the whole --

SENATOR WEST: I can understand from the public policy standpoint just like we have executive sessions with public or city councils having an executive session, but even with city counsels, as an example, anything said in there can, in fact, be discovered through a civil process. And what I'm seeing here is that we're now giving a privilege to those communications between members of the stress management --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I think it's a qualified privilege. If you look on page 2 line 13 it says that a court or other decision, even an administrative proceeding, can allow the disclosure. So it would still be discoverable if it was necessary.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Let's go to that right there. So a court has to determine that it's more important than protecting the privacy of the individual. What does that mean?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I think it's exactly what it says.

SENATOR WEST: So what standard is the court using to make that determination? If not objective, it's very subjective at this point to determine when disclosure would be allowed by a court.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: What would you suggest the problem with that is?

SENATOR WEST: Well, it's subjective, and it's really not a standard. You just said more important than protecting the privacy of the individual. It just seems as though what we're doing is creating a privilege now. I could see if you're talking about in an instance where they need to talk outside of the public view in order to coordinate what they need to do as it relates to the particular incident. But now, we're saying those discussions are privileged and an individual can't have access to those discussions in case of liability purposes unless a court determines that it's more important than protecting the individual privacy of the individual responder. Is that pretty much the --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I don't read the bill that way, Senator West. I think what we're doing is we're saying in a very specific instance if they're attending one of these meetings that involves a special meeting for this incident that is specifically to help them handle the stress that's involved with this incident and deal with it from an emotional and personal level.

SENATOR WEST: For that individual.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: For that individual.

SENATOR WEST: Okay.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: And it might be in a group setting in you have a whole team of firefighters there, I don't want to say that it would just be one person in the room, but to allow them to discuss that with that the critical incident stress management team and that they would know that it didn't -- it wasn't subject to open meetings, it would still be, I believe under this, discoverable if there was a liability issue. That was our intention that this information, if it was decided that it needed to be disclosed, it could be and I think that --

SENATOR WEST: Okay. I see on page 1. What I didn't see is the critical incident stress. That's the critical definition. It means acute cumulative psychological stress that is common in emergency service (inaudible) -- that a service experienced in providing me that had blah blah blah blah. Okay. Thank you very much, sir.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Appreciate your questions. Mr. President, I move to suspend the regular order of business in order that we can take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Williams. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, and the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065 relating to critical incident stress management and crisis response services.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. I move passage to engrossment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members you have heard the motion by Senator Williams. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065 passes to engrossment. Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: So moved.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065 relating to critical incident and stress management and crisis response services.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Williams for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Williams. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 31 ayes and no nays, a Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1065 is finally passed. Congratulations.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Harris, are you ready on 1617, sir? Chair recognizes Senator Harris for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1617.

SENATOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1617 at this time which relates to certification of a child defendant. Mr. President, move suspension.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Harris. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Harris, is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1617. Secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1617 relating to the discretionary transfer from a juvenile court to a court of criminal -- criminal court of certain alleged offenses.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Harris for a motion.

SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. President, I move suspension -- move passage of Senate Bill 1617 to engrossment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Harris. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Harris, is there objection from any member? Chair hears s no objection from any member and Senate Bill 1617 passes to engrossment. Chair recognizes Senator Harris for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR HARRIS: Mr. President, I move to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Harris. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Harris. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 29 ayes and two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1617. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1617 relating to discretionary transfer from a juvenile court to a criminal court of certain alleged offenses arising out of a single criminal transaction.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Harris for a motion.

SENATOR HARRIS: Thank you. I move final passage.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Harris. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Harris. The secretary will call the roll.

REPRESENTATIVE DAVID DEWHURST: There being 30 ayes and one nay, Senate Bill 1617 is finally passed.

SENATOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Congratulations, Senator Harris. Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for an announcement.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'd like to introduce a very special young lady who is assisting us here on the Senate floor today. Christina Garcia is a 7th grader at Murchison Middle School here in Austin. She is 13 years old and is a very active young lady participating in volleyball and cheerleading. I would like to add that Christina has some strong ties with the Texas Capitol. Her father is very well known in these hallways. Joe Garcia who was my former chief of staff and now a part of the Texas Lobby Group is Christina's dad, proud dad. Also joining Christina as a Senate page is her friend Carla Pepper. Members, help me welcome these young Texans here to the Senate floor, helping us out today.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Huffman, are you ready on 152? The Chair recognizes Senator Huffman for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 152.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 152. Many of you may recall I had this bill on the floor last week. I pulled it down so there could be additional discussion on the bill and I have worked -- I worked on the bill myself to try to craft a way to change it a bit and also worked some with Senator Duncan and others on the floor. Just as a refresher, Senate Bill 152 is designed to provide greater resources to prosecutors and victims of sexual assault under current law evidence of prior acts are only admissible in sexual assault cases where the victim is under 17 and was also the victim in the prior offense. Senate Bill 152 would bring Texas closer in line with the federal rules of evidence allowing evidence of other similar cases to be admitted in sexual cases of adults and children. Similar rules have been passed in several other states and has been upheld in appellate courts throughout the United States. In a trial involving an adult victim Senate Bill 152 would limit omission of evidence to a previous commission of an attempt or conspiracy to commit sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault in trials involving child victims. A prior commission or attempt or conspiracy to commit would include continuous sexual abuse of a child, indecency with a child, sexual assault with a child, aggravated sexual assault of a child, online solicitation of a minor, sexual performance by a child or possession or promotion of child pornography. As I discussed last week there are several safeguards in the law already in these types of cases. However, it is my intention to introduce a Floor Amendment. The Floor Amendment will make two more clarifications in the process. First, importantly it will change the language from "shall" to "may" so even after the judge conducts a hearing outside of the presence of the jury under rule 403 where they weigh the probative value versus the prejudicial impact, it would still give the judge authority again discretion "may" rather than "shall" with making the final determination. Secondly, my amendment codifies current practice by adding specifically in the bill that the judge must conduct a hearing outside of the presence of the jury, and very important language it states the trial judge is limiting evidence to a similar offense that the judge believes would support a finding of truth beyond a reasonable doubt. So it requires the judge to make that finding as well. Senator Duncan will have an amendment that will address the notice requirement, although the bill had notice requirement, it was more a general language in terms of reasonableness and Senator Duncan's amendment will require not later than the 30th day prior to trial that the evidence be made available to the defendant. Senator Van de Putte's going to have an amendment that will add another offense for the -- it's the continuous human trafficking of a minor which will be added to the list of offenses for the child victim. And with that, I'll move to suspend the regular order of business, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Huffman. Senator West, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR WEST: Question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Huffman yield?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WEST: So this is the new and improved Senate Bill 152?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. What's new and improved about it again?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: The amendment that I will offer will remove the "shall" language and change it to "may," and it also codifies the requirement that a jury (sic) is to be held outside of the presence of the jury. As you well know, that's standard procedure in rule 403 but this -- just in case there's any question, because when I looked though -- I know and you know what the procedure are. When I looked carefully at the rules, I --

SENATOR WEST: You're codifying the procedure that's already in existence?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Pardon?

SENATOR WEST: We're codifying -- let's make certain --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It's interesting --

SENATOR WEST: Senator, let's make certain that everyone understands that that's the procedure now that you've got to have a hearing outside of the presence of the jury.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, you know, what's interesting, Senator, I was looking at rule 104 carefully. And actually the only time it's actually required by statute is when you're questioning the admissibility of a confession, otherwise it's when in the interest of justice would require, which we know as many situations. But now, we're making sure in this situation that there would be a hearing outside the presence of the jury.

SENATOR WEST: Have you ever allowed an extraneous offense in when you were a judge without having a hearing outside the --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I never did, no, sir.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. So what else does the amendment do?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It also, as I said, changes "shall" to "may" and requires the judge to only admit the evidence upon the judge finding -- or his or her belief that evidence had been submitted that would support a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And that was actually language that I introduced offered after reading a recent court of the criminal appeals case that again required judges to find that.

SENATOR WEST: That's the same standard for extraneous offenses, right?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It should be whether or not it's being followed, I hope it's being followed, it is the law. But this way it's codified specifically so there's no question about it not being a condition precedent to the possible admissibility of the evidence.

SENATOR WEST: So this amendment goes on, the bill is passed out of the Senate. Are you going to keep it on through conference?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It is my intention to keep it on, yes, sir.

SENATOR WEST: So you're going to keep it on?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I think it makes the bill better, yes.

SENATOR WEST: So it has to be a finding beyond a reasonable doubt before a similar offense can be admitted during the guilt or innocence phase?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, I guess we could sort of kind of mince words here, and I certainly -- what it requires is that the judge to believe that there has been evidence submitted that would support a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't know if that means since the judge make an independent finding of that in his or her own mind, but, as you know and I know that proof beyond a reasonable doubt means different things to different people. It is a certain quantity of evidence and it's a huge amount of evidence --

SENATOR WEST: How does the judge manifest that they believe that evidence has been introduced that shows that the extraneous offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, yes.

SENATOR WEST: How does the judge do that under your bill?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well --

SENATOR WEST: Is there some other finding that the judge has to make?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: No. I think the judge is instructed that he or she has to make that finding before they admit the evidence. That's why I put it in the statute.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. So for purposes of intent, if a judge allows introduction, it should be presumed that the judge has found -- made the finding under your amendment; is that correct?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, I --

SENATOR WEST: For appellate purposes.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: For appellate purposes if the judge allows it, then you would assume that the judge has found a sufficiency of the evidence under that standard if he or she allows it, yes.

SENATOR WEST: So your amendment is the trial judge should only admit evidence of a similar offense subject to the introduction of enough evidence to support -- to support a finding that the similar offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes. And I took that language exactly from the court of criminal appeals language. Yes, Senator West.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Senator Huffman.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Senator West.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hinojosa, did you wish to speak? Okay. The Chair recognizes Senator Huffman for a motion.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I would move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 152.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Huffman, is there objection from any member? The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 24 ayes and seven nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 152. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 152 relating to the admissibility of evidence of other similar offenses in the prosecution of certain sexual offenses.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 1 by Senator Huffman. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Huffman.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Huffman on Floor Amendment 1.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. President. As I stated in my opening remarks, Floor Amendment No. one changes the language from "shall" to "may" and also codifies the requirements for a hearing outside the presence of the jury and instructions to the trial judge as to how they are to assess the evidence in the case. And I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask the author of the amendment a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Huffman yield?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Senator Huffman, I guess the way I read your amendment on section two, the trial judge shall admit evidence of a similar offense subject to the introduction of enough evidence to support a finding that the similar offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Are we going to have a mini trial below the big trial?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes. A hearing outside the presence of the jury. Yes, sir.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: So would the defendant be able to bring witnesses?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I would see no reason why he would not be able to, and he or she should be able to cross examine all witnesses, receive all discovery that would be otherwise available for the regular case in chief, so all the rules that would apply in a case in chief should certainly apply in the hearing outside the presence of the jury.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I guess the impression I get from your amendment in section two, if you have a case in chief, and then you have mini trials, if there are two or three different allegations where you have to bring your witnesses, you have to cross examine, all of these, whatever physical evidence is available; is that correct?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, yes. The way that I routinely seen it done is when you get to that part where the state intends to introduce the other similar offenses in this case, the judge would excuse the jury and at that point would conduct the hearing outside of the presence of the jury. And after he or she heard the evidence would then make a finding under 403 and under this rule would require them to determine whether there was evidence to support a finding of beyond a reasonable doubt. And then, of course, the same requirements of the limiting instruction to the jury and so forth, all of that would apply as well.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: So I guess after the judge listens to all the evidence, the judge would say, this is not credible, therefore I will not allow it to come into evidence before the jury.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay. And if he does, then you have limited instruction about the evidence itself.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Now, in this hearing, the normal rules of evidence would apply.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: In terms of hearsay.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: In terms of being able to cross examine the witness, the accuser?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And there will be no limitation in terms of time. For example, sometimes some judges will say, well, you only have 30 minutes to do this type of hearing and 30 machines will not be enough especially -- coming up and I would assume that the prosecution has informed the defense --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes. My bill, as initially filed, had a notice required, Senator Duncan has tightened that up a little bit with his language by putting the 30 day notice which, you know, is actually a little bit longer than anywhere else in the law where there's notice required. It has a lot to talk about reasonable time and so forth, and so there'd be a 30 day notice requirement as well for the defendant to prepare a defense.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And if there's no 30 day notice, then it would be excluded?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, I would assume -- what usually happens in both cases, as you and I know, usually there's some kind of recess to allow the defendant ample time to prepare. But, of course, that would be the call of the judge or the parties, you know, the parties involved in a criminal case.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, I do want to verify we said it would be okay, but it would not be okay if the prosecutor didn't give proper notice and then ten days before the trial you got to scramble trying to get witnesses to defend.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: There's a reason we put the 30 days, and that's to make sure that it's fair to the defendant.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Huffman moves the passage to engrossment -- I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Senator Huffman moves the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection from any member? Is there objection from any member on Floor Amendment No. 1? The Chair hears no objection from any member on Floor Amendment No. 1 and Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 2 by Senator Duncan. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Duncan.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Duncan to explain Floor Amendment No. 2.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, members. This basically just moves and requires if you're going to introduce this type of evidence that you provide a 30 day notice or a notice not later than the 30th day of the defendant's trial. That way it gives the opportunity for the court to set a hearing and for the defendant to be able to cross examine those witnesses that come before him or that accuse him.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan on -- Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask Senator Duncan a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I yield.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Senator Duncan, it just occurred to me that we're going to have a mini trial of other charges that were brought or no bill. Does the -- it's a constitutional issue. That's a situation that the defendant have a right to a jury trial?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, I think it's an interesting question. If you look at the 5th Amendment of both the Texas or the United States Constitution and the similar bill of right and the Texas constitution, they provide that a person shall not be required to answer for a crime without having a -- without being indicted basically. I'm not sure where this is. There's a supreme court case out there in Huddleston that basically okays this type of evidence. It's kind of an interesting case, and so I'm not sure where this finally ends up. I think it's a pretty radical change in the law, but I think the way Senator Huffman has gauged this or changed this, allowing the right to cross examine I think in a mini trial and the court having this to actually find by beyond a reasonable doubt or by the similar standard that the defendant would have been convicted in the first place, I think puts the safeguards in. Plus you still have rule 403 which allows the court to exclude it based on its prejudicial value outweighing its probative value.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, my opinion, I think it's really unconstitutional for a simple reason that a defendant has a right to trial, and in this case we're having a mini trial under the chief of case -- case in chief and the judge making findings as pretty much to guilt or innocence.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, you know, that was my first thought too, Senator. When I read those cases it occurred to me that the 10th circuit I think has appealed two or three cases that have been brought under this new federal rule of evidence and they relied primarily on this Huddleston opinion that was rendered by Judge Rinequist and basically seemed to say as long as you have the safeguard of rule 404 in Texas rules of evidence that the probative value must outweigh the prejudicial value or effect. That's the safeguard that seems like the Supreme Court at least in the Huddleston case was comfortable with and I don't think there's a requirement that you have a jury on the evidence. I think what Senator Huffman has done here is addressed the fact that the court is going to have a very high degree of confidence that the evidence that's being brought before the defendant is reliable, and to me the appellate standard then is really high because beyond a reasonable doubt is a fairly strong standard and so I think she has -- I think Senator Huffman has met the concerns that I think we were raising on the floor.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: You know, what was interesting also that I read the congressional history of the statute and apparently they have several tiers of review and this change in the evidentiary rules did not go through that review process. They bypass the judiciary, which is the committee, and the judiciary voted unanimous against the change to the federal law.

SENATOR DUNCAN: This was edited -- the federal recall was changed by an amendment, a Floor Amendment on a bill following the William Kennedy Smith trial and there was general frustration among Congress and among the public that the court could not get in evidence of these so-called prior offenses which resulted in his acquittal, and this was added as a Floor Amendment. And they allowed -- the Congress had a provision that submitted this to the judicial commission that normally promulgates these rules and basically they said, we don't like it, I think unanimous, they rejected it unanimously. But then the Congress went ahead and implemented it anyway and so, you know -- but if you read Huddleston, you'll see that basically this concept is pretty much in sync with what the Supreme Court has already approved, at least if you follow that case and apply it to this case. I think Senator Huffman's amendment makes it stronger than the congressional federal rule and so that's why, you know, I think it can work in Texas.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I do agree, it does make it stronger than federal rules --

SENATOR DUNCAN: I have to say, my -- philosophically I've always thought that these rules were very good because they require that people be convicted on the charge that they're charged on and not because they're just bad people. And so I think that's a fear, but I do think that there is a very serious, a very high bar here set forth in Senator Huffman's amendment especially if the courts apply them the way we intend them to here on this court.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: With that, I guess the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt; is that correct? Senator Huffman?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you very much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator West, for what purpose?

SENATOR WEST: Question of the author of the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Yes.

SENATOR WEST: Senator Duncan, you have here that no later than the 30th day before the date of the defendant's trial. Now, does that also mean that once that notice is provided, some courts obviously have a scheduled order even in criminal cases in terms of discovery and so the notice for these particular offenses would have to be provided 30 days before trial and the defendant would be able to -- and I assume that what you're saying have to be able to be provided discovery sufficient to be able to meet the allegations of the offices. And let's make certain when we say offenses, a person doesn't have to be charged in these instances, but if someone says that they have committed a similar type of offense, then the citizen that's accused would have to be given an opportunity to be able to get discovery associated with that accusation; is that correct?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I would assume that the rules of criminal procedure and the discovery rules applicable there would apply. I do not -- I cannot tell you with any accuracy as to whether or not they would provide for discovery in this sort of a hearing. I would imagine that they would apply as they would apply on all pretrial matters. I don't know of any -- this is a new procedure.

SENATOR WEST: That's right, it's a new procedure.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So I don't know -- I would just assume out of justice there would be some.

SENATOR WEST: Maybe that's a question for Senator Huffman, and I'll ask it at the appropriate time.

SENATOR DUNCAN: She may be a better resource.

SENATOR WEST: Right, given that she's the author of the bill. Now, as it relates to this particular bill, if indeed -- well, that's not a question for you, it would be a question for Senator Huffman. Thank you very much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Huffman on Floor Amendment 2.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: The Floor Amendment is acceptable to the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan to close.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Duncan, it's acceptable to the author. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Floor Amendment No. 2 is adopted. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 3 by Senator Van de Putte. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 3 by Van de Putte.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to explain Floor Amendment 3.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, the amendment adds sex trafficking of a child which is a first degree felony to the current list of the sexual offenses in Senator Huffman's Senate Bill 152. The language in this bill is included in Senate Bill 24 that has already back passed both chambers and is awaiting the governor's signature. When Senator Huffman had first brought this bill, we had not passed Senate Bill 24 so it adds sex trafficking of a child in line with many other sexual offenses that occur against children. This amendment will ensure that sex trafficking of a child is included along those offenses.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask Senator --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Van de Putte yield?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I yield.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I guess the question, one of my concerns as we debate Senator Huffman's bill and we're expanding the scope of the legislation, we're completely distorting the rules of evidence. I would assume that if it deals with sexual assault, they would be covered under her bill but to expand the scope of her legislation which is supposedly very narrowly drawn, we just -- that's not -- I can't support that. I know the crimes -- other crimes can do the same thing and this just opens a whole door. If it's sexual assault and that's what you have in your bill, then just leave it as it is. Then I would imagine that a prosecutor could certainly prosecute and bring that type of crime under the umbrella of her bill without trying to cover all of human trafficking.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: And yes, Senator, Senate Bill 24 dealt with trafficking and it dealt with trafficking both in the adult population and the child population. Senate Bill 24 also differentiated between trafficking for labor and trafficking for sex. So what we put in the amendment only adds in line 45 and 46 of Senator's bill when it is all of those offenses to children. So we have narrowed it to add it if you profit, if you -- this is a criminal who offers a child for the purpose of sex. So it's trafficking of a child only for sex. So we did not add the other contents even though we possibly could have for the adult or for labor trafficking. This is only one part of the Senate Bill which we felt since it is a first degree felony and it is someone who sells a child for sex.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Let me tell you, I think it's covered by her bill, but by adding that you're making a statement and it's going to seem, well, we add that on other statutes. We have pornography with children or whatever. Well, it was not included in this specifically, does that mean it's excluded? Doesn't the arguments that you hear in court when you have this type of case, all I'm saying is that I think -- and Senator Huffman can give me her opinion that under her bill this is already covered.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: No, sir, Senator, it is not covered because we just passed Senate Bill 24 from both chambers and in -- when Senator Huffman was going through the process on this, we did not have section 20.A02. That wasn't in the code. So Senate Bill 24 dealt with many things, this is just pertaining to that portion of trafficking of a child for the purpose of sex.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I understand that, but if Senator Huffman's bill becomes law, it doesn't make a difference, whatever comes afterwards will also be covered as long as it covers for definition of sexual assault.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, if I may, would you yield?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I yield to Senator Huffman.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Senator Hinojosa, this is very specific language as to which offenses can be used, and I'm going to accept Senator Van de Putte's amendment because I think she has very much limited to it. In fact, the amendment states it's the first degree level of the offense. And as she said, it's a very limited, very particular crime and we are talking about trafficking young children for sex and I think that would be appropriate in this bill. It's not the intent to keep making it broader and broader. This is a brand new offense. And, of course, one that has come to the forefront lately and one that we're very concerned about. And I think it's appropriate for this bill, with all due respect.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, you know my concerns. I've been a prosecutor, I've been a defense lawyer and all we're doing is muddying up the statutes, something that makes it much more difficult to prosecute. And then while the intent is good, you end up messing up the statute.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Mr. President, I move adoption of Amendment No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Huffman on Floor Amendment No. 3.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: The Floor Amendment is acceptable to the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Van de Putte to close.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This is a very limited part of Senate Bill 24, but if you look under the provisions of Senate Bill 152 under line 46 it's sexual abuse of a young child, aggravated sexual assault, sexual performance, all of these. And we believe that trafficking of a child for sex is that egregious of a crime to be included in that. Move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Van de Putte moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 3. It's acceptable to the author, Senator Huffman. Is there objection from any member? Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member and Floor Amendment No. 3 is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Huffman for a motion.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I move --

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: For what purpose do you rise, Senator West?

SENATOR WEST: Question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Huffman yield to Senator West?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR WEST: And I understand it's on engrossment, Mr. President, just briefly though. Senator Huffman --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WEST: -- as it relates to discovery in conjunction with these, what type of offenses, do we still call them extraneous offenses?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: They're called similar offenses.

SENATOR WEST: So we have similar offenses and extraneous offenses.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Right.

SENATOR WEST: That's going to be new jargon in criminal jurisprudence?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: For these specific cases, yes.

SENATOR WEST: As it relates to similar offenses, Senator Duncan -- you accepted an amendment from Senator Duncan that basically says within 30 days of the trial you have to give notice.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR WEST: Is it your intent that the citizen accused also gets the ability to conduct ample discovery to defend against these similar offenses?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It is my intent that the citizen accused would have the same discovery rights that is applicable to all proceedings.

SENATOR WEST: As it relates to -- and make certain -- if a judge allows a similar offense into evidence.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR WEST: And a jury finds the citizen accused not guilty for the underlying offense that they've been charged for by the indictment, does double jeopardy attach to the similar offenses?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: No, I would not think it would.

SENATOR WEST: Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. And, members, you need to listen to this. If an extraneous offense under current law is introduced into evidence, does double jeopardy attach to that?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: No.

SENATOR WEST: Double jeopardy does not attach?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: No. If the jury is not charged on making a finding, a specific finding does not attach.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. And I haven't looked up the law recently, but I thought it did attach.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: It has to be the charged offense for which jeopardy attached.

SENATOR WEST: So when a person -- when a judge allows a similar offense into evidence under your bill now and a person defends that and a jury finds the citizen accused not guilty under the underlying offense for which they're charged, even though the person's had to defend against the similar offenses and has been found not guilty by a jury of an underlying charge --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Right.

SENATOR WEST: -- a prosecutor could come back under similar offenses that a judge has found that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and a jury has found against that and turned around and charged the person for the same offense for which a jury -- the similar offense for which the jury has considered and found the person not guilty for the underlying offense?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: That scenario could happen. Though you and I both know it would be highly unlikely. Also you don't know if a jury could find the individual not guilty of the underlying offense and still have believed beyond a reasonable doubt on the similar offense, right? Because they may have otherwise felt --

SENATOR WEST: It is new law. The judge, based on what we've done thus far and the amendments that you have introduced and the bill accepted, you have said that before a judge would be allowed to admit evidence of a similar offense that that judge, members, would have to make a determination that that evidence supports a person guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, right?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: If there's evidence to support it. Whether or not a judge believes it would be up --

SENATOR WEST: Evidence to support finding of a similar offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes.

SENATOR WEST: And so now that evidence has been admitted, Senator Hinojosa has talked and asked you questions about the mini trial that occurs before the judge and makes the determination outside the presence -- evidence is admitted. The jury considers it.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Right.

SENATOR WEST: The jury determines that the person is not guilty of the underlying offense. You're now telling the members that that prosecutor can then come back and charge a person for a similar offense that's been considered by a jury to say, I'm a person not guilty, correct?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: As I told you, Senator Hinojosa, it is possible --

SENATOR WEST: No, I'm Senator West.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I'm sorry. Senator West, it is possible in this situation that you laid out the jury could find the underlying offense or to say we'll call it the similar offense that they have found that and believed it beyond a reasonable doubt but could still find a defendant not guilty for the offense charged because there may not be other evidence, they may have believed the victim on the similar offense but didn't believe the defendant in the other case.

SENATOR WEST: That's what we're saying, Senator. That's what we're saying. The judge prior to admitting the similar offense has to make a determination that there's sufficient evidence to find the person guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: That's right.

SENATOR WEST: A jury has determined that there's not sufficient evidence to make determination of the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt for the similar offense.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: That's not --

SENATOR WEST: Now, you're saying that a prosecutor can then come back and charge a person with that same similar offense in later prosecution.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: If they've never been charged, yes, that's correct. Now, there may be some instances where the individual has been found guilty. You know, it could be different types of scenarios but --

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Well at the appropriate time, Mr. President, I'd like to speak against the bill.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Huffman moves the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 152 as amended. The Chair recognizes Senator West to speak against the bill.

SENATOR WEST: Members, this particular bill, and I think all of us are Law and Order and the whole nine yards and we want to make certain that our records are such where we can go back home and say we are pro-law and order. This particular piece of legislation changes jurisprudence in the state of Texas as it relates to creating a new class of evidence called similar offenses as compared with extraneous offenses. I know Senator Huffman has served as a judge, I've served as a prosecutor, her experience is more recent to mine as it relates to what the judicial standard is, as it relates to extraneous offenses. But what we're hearing now is that an individual, a judge, who makes a determination, members, that there's sufficient evidence, we charge a person -- should they charge a person with a similar offense, there's sufficient evidence to admit there's sufficient evidence and -- offense beyond a reasonable doubt. And so you will have in these limited offenses many trials outside the presence of the jury for the judge to make that determination. He then admits the evidence. Once he admits the evidence, a jury can take into consideration this particular evidence to determine whether or not the person is guilty for the underlying offense that they're being charged for. The jury takes it into consideration, and they return a verdict of not guilty for the underlying offense. What Senator Huffman is saying then once that similar offense is taken into consideration and a citizen accused, a citizen accused and but for the grace of God they go out, a citizen accused has defended that similar offense and the jury has found that person, Senator Whitmire, not guilty. Double jeopardy does not attach, and, members, that -- double jeopardy basically means you can't be tried for the same or similar offense. In this particular instance they would be able to be tried for the same or similar offense. We are carving new ground in criminal jurisprudence as we consider this particular bill. And, members, you need to think long and hard. Is that fair? Now, understand, as I said, we want to make certain that our credentials as strong law enforcement officials, legislators, is intact but you have to ask yourself whether or not creating a new category, Senator Seliger, of similar offenses and then you're charged with the similar offense -- or I shouldn't say charged, I should say evidence of a similar offense is put into the record, a jury considers it, finds you not guilty, you can now be -- under this legislation as it comes to law, you can still be charged with that same similar offense that you've already defended yourself against. I will be voting no for those reasons.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Huffman. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 23 ayes and eight nays, Senate Bill 152 as amended passes to engrossment.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator. Members, at the request of Senator Ogden, because it's Passover, Senator Shapiro needs to pass a bill out of Senate finance today, and so I'm going to take the recommendation of Senator Ogden. And the president's desk is clear. We'll have a little longer day tomorrow but the president's desk is clear. The -- are there announcements, members? Senator Shapiro, I didn't moan to embarrass you. That was at the request of Senator Ogden. Members, are there any announcements? Chair recognizes Senator Ogden for the purpose of an announcement.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, the Senate finance committee will reconvene at 3:15 to vote out legislation, so we need a quorum, and if at all possible, please show up.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Shapiro for an announcement.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you so much, Mr. President. I do want to remind everybody that we do have Good Friday off for everybody, so thank you for indulging me for the afternoon. Mr. President, Senate finance committee on public education funding will reconvene in five minutes in the Betty King room to continue our public school finance bill, Senate Bill -- Committee Substitute Senate Bill 22.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for an announcement.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President, members. The Senate committee on international relations and trade will not be meeting this afternoon. We had originally announced that we would be meeting after session this afternoon. Again, IRT will not be meeting this afternoon. Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Patsy, can you read something? Members, the following motion in writing. The secretary will read the motion.

PATSY SPAW: Mr. President, I move suspension of Senate Rule 11.107B to permit the introduction of the following bills. Senate Bill 2 by Jackson relating to certain economic and work force development programs through which employers may receive grants and subsidies. Senate Bill 1900 by Duncan relating to the ability to exclude certain territory from the Hammond hospital district. Senate Bill 1906 by Wentworth relating to certain notice requirements for municipalities and counties for the open meetings law. Senate Bill 1907 by Wentworth relating to access to certain archaic information. Senate Bill 1908 by Lucio relating to the authority of a general law municipality to annex receiving water and sewer services from municipal utility districts. Senate Bill 1909 by Lucio relating to University of Texas at Brownsville including its partnership agreement with the Texas Southmost College District. SJR5 by Ogden proposing a constitutional amendment relating to determination of the market value of the permanent school fund and providing certain transfers from the school fund to the available school fund. Motion by Whitmire.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you have heard the motion in writing by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and the motion is adopted. The following bills and resolutions on first reading in reference to committee. The secretary will read the bills and resolutions.

PATSY SPAW: SJR5 by Ogden proposing a constitutional amendment relating to the determination of the market value of the permanent school fund and providing for certain transfers from the permanent school fund to the available school fund. To Finance. Senate Bill 2 by Jackson relating to certain economic and work force development programs through which employers may receive grant and subsidies. To Economic Development. Senate Bill 1900 by Duncan relating to the ability to exclude certain territory from the Hamlin hospital district. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 1906 by Wentworth relating to certain notice requirements for municipalities in counties under the open meetings law. To Open Government. Senate Bill 1907 by Wentworth relating to access to certain archaic information. To Open Government. Senate Bill 1908 by Lucio relating to authority of a general law municipality to annex territory receiving water and sewer services from municipal utility district. To International Relations and Trade. Senate Bill 1909 by Lucio relating to the University of Texas at Brownsville. To Higher Education.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, are there any additional announcements? The Chair recognizes the Dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.

DEAN OF THE SENATE: Mr. President, before I move to adjourn, I'd ask everyone's attention and I would yield to Senator Fraser who would like to --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President and members, I've asked today to adjourn the session in memory of a very brave Texan, Gregory M. Simmons, Gregory gave his life this weekend in a wildfire in Eastland County. He's been a volunteer firefighter for the last 21 years, the last 11 of those years was in Eastland, Texas. He's survived by his wife Carrie and his two daughters Katelyn, 20, Carly 15 of Eastland. His mother Thelma Inez and sister Sharon Lively, both of Garland, Texas. Gregory was a seasoned veteran and an invaluable member of the department community. He was Eastland Fireman of the Year in 2001. Please join me in extending my heartfelt sympathy to his family.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Fraser. Chair recognizes the Dean.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Also Senator Williams would ask --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, members and thank you, Senator Fraser, for bringing that forward. I would also like for the Senate to join in memory of James Clark Box of Houston, Jim Box. Many of us here knew Jim, he was known for his tireless work in the development in the home building industry. He was a long time member of the association of board -- water board directors, the Houston Home Builders Association, the Houston Advisory Council, and chairman of the Harris Galveston Coastal Subsidence district and the chairman of the Houston Community College Foundation. He was tireless work -- worked tirelessly to make our community a better place to live. He was always a pleasant person and someone who was a real pleasure to work with. He'll be missed by his family and colleagues and remembered for his service to our state and our community.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Williams. Chair recognizes Senator Whitmire.

SENATOR JOHN WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I move that the Senate adjourn until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow April 19th in memory of Gregory Simmons, James Clark Box and H. William Card.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, and the Senate will stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow April 19th in memory of Gregory Simmons, James Box and H. William Card.

(Adjourned.)