House Transcript, April 20, 2011

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

REPRESENTATIVE GEANIE W. MORRISON: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. It is my privilege to introduce to you a very good friend of mine, this is Bishop David Reed who started out in Harlingen and came to Victoria and was in Victoria for seven years and basically raised my children for me. We all raised them together. And then he went back to Harlingen for a few years and then in 2006 Bishop Reed was elected to be the Suffragan Bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of South Texas and he is here today and I told them that we're going through a lot of trying times and he's going to give us a good blessing, Bishop Reed.

BISHOP DAVID REED: Thank you, it's a privilege to be here and an honor to have been asked and be assured of the prayers of many that have been going on for quite sometime for y'all in the past few months. Let us pray. All mighty God our Heavenly Father, we ask your blessing upon our state and upon this House today. You have entrusted this good land to our care and for our heritage and we pray that you may make us, the people, always mindful of your favor and glad to serve. We remember this morning particularly those whose lives, land, and property have been devastated by the wildfires across Texas and we give you thanks for those who battle those fires. Assist them in their dangerous work by sending rain and lots of it to refresh our parched state. As this House beginnings another day in this hard and complicated session we thank you for the representatives assembled here for their willingness to serve the people of Texas. Guide and govern them all throughout this day. Grant to each member wisdom, clarity of mind, spirit of perseverance, and compassionate heart. Give them courage and confidence to work together for the greatest common good. Give them foresight and vision to avoid narrow self-interest, boldness to resist voices of division and despair, and in all things charity and respect for one another. Uphold them with a sense of purpose and a renewed zeal for the ideals and principles of our state. May all they do this day be pleasing to you and in accordance with your gracious and merciful will. We give you thanks also for those who work behind the scenes. For those who aid and assist the House in its work. And we pray that they may do their work this day with patience, diligence, honor, and good humor. And finally oh, Lord when this day ends and evening comes and the rush and fever of this work is done we ask that you give each member satisfaction for things well done, the grace to let go of disappointments, the company of friends and peaceful rest. And I offer all of this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Riddle will say the pledges to our state and U.S. flags. Pledge allegiance to the state and United States flag. Representative Riddle moves to suspend the reading and referral of bills until the end of today's business. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner to introduce the doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, please, help me welcome todays doctor of the day from my district Williamson County and Milam County Dr. Dan Voss. Dr. Voss is a family physician at the Georgetown Medical Center Clinic. Like myself Dr. Voss attended the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston and did his residency at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. He is a member of the Texas Academy of Family Physicians, the Williamson County Medical Society and the Christian and Medical and Dental Society. He and his wife Cathy are active members at North Gabriel Christian Assembly and have four children. Members, please, help me welcome Dr. Dan Voss as our doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to recommit HB 2294 to the committee. It was the declaratory judgment bill. To Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Members, you have heard the motion to recommit the bill. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker we have a messenger from the Senate with bunch of bills, not House bills at the door of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Admit the messenger.

SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House --

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Mr. Speaker, members, I have something in honor of San Jacinto Day tomorrow. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1439.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Clerk read the resolution in full.

CLERK: HR 1439 by Aliseda. WHEREAS, The achievement of Texas independence in 1836 marked the culmination of a heroic struggle and the beginning of a new chapter in Texas history, and a series of recordings and a companion film produced by K. R. Wood and Jeff Horny pay tribute to that Dramatic period; and WHEREAS, Mr. Wood, a singer and songwriter, chronicled the Colonization efforts of Moses Austin and Stephen F. Austin and the Story of the Texas Revolution in his first CD, titled Fathers of Texas; a compilation of songs, narration, and poetry, the album Contained performances by many well-known artists, among them Gary P. Nunn, Steven Fromholz, Shake Russell, Eliza Gilkyson, and the Late Townes Van Zandt; subsequent recordings in the Fathers of Texas series include Crockett Chronicles, Los Tejanos, and Their Blood Ran Red Too, which honor the part played in the Texas Revolution by David Crockett, Tejanos, and African Americans Respectively; and WHEREAS, This talented Texan has also recorded Camp Cookie and the Cow Camp Review, a collection of songs and tales inspired by The days of the cattle drives, and Davy Crockett's Fiddle Plays On A live concert performed inside the Alamo with what is believed to Be Davy Crockett's own fiddle; and WHEREAS, K. R. Wood is currently touring with the Gone to Texas Band, playing music from the Fathers of Texas series; a film Documenting the tour is being created by Mr. Wood and by Jeff Horny Under the title Fathers of Texas: 175 Years of Texas Independence; and WHEREAS, Blending traditional tunes and his own Compositions, K. R. Wood evokes the freedom-loving spirit and Unyielding determination that brought the Republic of Texas into Being and that subsequently built the Lone Star State, and he and Jeff Horny are indeed deserving of recognition for their commitment To sharing the stirring saga of those eventful years; now Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 175th anniversary of the winning Of Texas independence and express appreciation to K. R. Wood, Jeff Horny, and all those who have participated in the making of the Fathers of Texas music series and the documentary film based on it For helping Texans gain a deeper appreciation of their rich and Diverse heritage; and, be it further RESOLVED, That official copies of this resolution be prepared For Mr. Wood and Mr. Horny as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Mr. Speaker, members, up here at the front mike I have with me, Mr. K.R. Wood; Karen *Gellison; former representative, Jim Von Dohlen and Jeff Horny. And I want you to take a moment to thank them for their efforts in telling the history of Texas through music and film. Mr. Speaker, I move for adoption. Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Hardcastle moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Chair recognizes Representative White.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 623.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk which are read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 623 by Christian. Recognizing April 20th, 2011, as Retire in Texas Day and commending the Go Texas Retirement Community Program and it's participants.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Chair recognizes Representative White.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES WHITE: Thank you. Good morning, members. Today we have Go Texan people in the gallery for recognition. Directly in the front, if they could stand, please. There they are. Thank you. Welcome to your House. Madam Speaker, with affordable housing and a lower cost of living, picturesque beauty, and a wealth of culture, it is no wonder that Texas is the No. 2 retirement destination in the state. Retirees contribute socially and economically to the Texas communities they chose to retire in. Retirees invest $750 million per year to the Texas economy. With that they bring volunteerism, experience, and a wealth of knowledge. As retirees increasingly chose to live in Texas the Texas Department of Agriculture invites communities to become a Go Texan certified retired community. Today we have a few of the 42 Go Texans certified retired communities as representatives in the Texas Capitol. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker, move passage.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, you might want to look at your desk. If you are using the iPad, Texas Legislative Counsel has made some upgrades that will allow you to run the faz system on your iPad and also allow you to use the district viewer so that you can look at redistricting. Members, from the Legislative Counsel will update your iPad if you would like. If you would like we have a prototype of the iPad up here that you're welcome to come up and look at, if you would like.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Madam Speaker.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: State your inquiry.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: When did they pass out the free iPads for members to use on this system.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: I've been waiting to get one myself.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: I can't find mine. I still have that big clunky thing on my desk. Did I miss that. Thank you.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: For what purpose, Mr. Menendez?

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: State your inquiry.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I just wanted to know if it would be an appropriate request that I could leave an address for any member who would like to purchase an iPad -- we can direct them to the nearest store that sells the iPads. Since no one is getting any free iPads.

REP. DONNA HOWARD: The Technology Committee thanks you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR 1267 -- 1269.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution. HR 1269 by Hunter. WHEREAS, Contestants of the 2011 Feria de las Flores Scholarship Pageant are visiting the State Capitol on April 20 2011; and WHEREAS, The pageant has been sponsored by LULAC Council No. 1 since 1959; through the generous support of the South Texas Business community, LULAC has distributed more than $1.5 million in Scholarship funds to students throughout the Coastal Bend area; and WHEREAS, The competition's contestants are judged in six Categories: beauty, personality, poise, costume, dance routine And onstage question, and the event, which is designed to pay Tribute to the heritage of Mexican American citizens, features Music, dance, and dress that typify various regions south of the Border; and WHEREAS, The talented individuals participating in this Year's competition are Vanessa Leigh-anne Valdez of Kingsville Betty Danielle Caraballo-Coronado, April De La Paz, Cintia Hinojosa, Valerie Rangel, Geneva Salinas, and Maricella Sanchez of Corpus Christi, and Myriah Gomez, Bianca Silvas, and Krystella Stobbs of Robstown; and WHEREAS, Through their involvement, these contestants have demonstrated great cultural pride and community spirit, and they may indeed look forward to bright and promising futures; now therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby welcome the 2011 Feria de las Flores contestants to the State Capitol and extend to them sincere best wishes for a Memorable and meaningful visit; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for the participants as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker and members, I move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Scott moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, representatives Scott, Torres, Aliseda, Lozano, myself want to thank very much our Feria girls and my good friend Elva. Wave up there. They have been very, very good friends, great to the community it's a great organization Valerie, Geneva, Daniella, Maricella, Cynthia, are here and if you-all from Feria de las Flores would stand up in the gallery stand up in the gallery. Just stand up. Thank you for coming to the Texas Capitol and thank you for what you do for the Coastal Bend area. Thank you all very much.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members, this is a memorial resolution. Please, take your seats and your conversations outside the rail. The chair recognizes Representative Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up memorial resolution, House Resolution 946.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following memorial resolution. Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 946 by Howard. WHEREAS, There are no words that can diminish the pain caused by a young life cut short, but all who shared in the love and friendship of Nicolis Terrel Williams of Sugar Land may find comfort in their memories of this special young man, who died on February 11, 2011, at the age of 20; and WHEREAS, The son of Gregory Williams and Arlene Williams Nico Williams was born on November 13, 1990; he played saxophone in the Kempner High School Cougar Marching Band and enjoyed playing soccer; and WHEREAS, Mr. Williams was a junior economics major at Texas A&M University; he was looking forward to studying in Ireland during the summer of 2011 and had his sights set on attending law school; and WHEREAS, A proud Aggie and a caring young man, Mr. Williams Assisted his fellow students through his work with Fish Camp, the Freshman orientation program, as well as with the Freshman Leaders In Progress program and with CARPOOL, a student-run group that Provides free rides home on selected nights; his generosity Continues to bless others in extraordinary ways, for his support of Organ donation has helped to save the lives of five individuals; and WHEREAS, Although his time on this earth was far too brief Nico Williams brought great joy into many lives, and he will forever Be remembered with admiration and affection; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the memory of Nicolis "Nico" Terrel Williams and extend deep condolences to the members of his Family: to his parents, Gregory Williams and Arlene Williams; to His sister, Tiffany Williams; to his grandparents, Annie Jean Williams and Hilton and Ernestine Green; and to his many other Relatives and friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be Prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Nicolis Williams.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Members, I'm sure we all remember several weeks ago we lost the life of a young man unnecessarily to a very terrible disease. And we're here to celebrate the memorial of that today. But members we are going to have an opportunity to prevent that type of death in the very near future because we're going to have House Bill 1816 on the floor. And we're going to prevent any young person coming onto our college campuses loosing their lives unnecessarily because of this dreadful disease. Today we have Greg and Arlene Williams on the podium and their daughter Tiffany. They have suffered a great loss and I know you-all will join me in remembering them and keeping them in your prayers. We have some other family members and friends in the balcony today but, you know, that's why we're here. We're here to protect the people of the state of Texas. We have that obligation and I thank you for helping us in doing all the things that we can do to protect our youth because they are our future. Thank you. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All in favor, please, rise. Members, the resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Reynolds moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members I move to suspend all necessary rules and ask for unanimous consent so that this following bills can be added to the local consent and resolution calendar for Thursday, April the 21st, 2011. House Bill 91, 398, 602, 692, 1145, 1162, 1179, 1795, 1887, 2040, 2337, 3314, and 3726.

REPRESENTATIVE CHUCK HOPSON: Members you heard the motion. Any objections? Chair hears none. So order. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The committee on Local and Consent Calendars will meet at 10:50 a.m. today April 20th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider an addendum to the local consent and resolutions calendar.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson for a motion.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Local Consent and Resolutions Calendars to meet at 10:50 a.m. while the House is in session today, April the 20th, 2011 at 3W.15 to consider the addendum to the local consent resolution calendars.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, this is a memorial resolution, please, take your seat. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, members, I move to introduce -- to suspend all necessary rules to introduce HR No. 568 honoring and memorializing the amazing life of Greg Coleman.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR 568. Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 568 by Phillips. WHEREAS, The life of a respected attorney and former state official came to an end with the untimely passing of Gregory Scott Coleman of Austin on November 23, 2010; and WHEREAS, Born on October 31, 1963, Greg Coleman grew up in a military family and lived in many different locations during his youth, though he came to regard the Lone Star State as his home; as an undergraduate, he earned a bachelor's degree magna cum laude in applied mathematics from Texas A&M and then continued his studies at the university to attain a master's degree summa cum laude in business administration; during his years in College Station, he met his future wife, Stephanie, and the couple later became the parents of three sons, Chase, Austin, and Reid; and WHEREAS, Intent on a career as a lawyer, Mr. Coleman enrolled at The University of Texas School of Law, where he served as the managing editor of the Texas Law Review and received a juris doctor degree with high honors in 1992; he then took the opportunity to broaden his legal knowledge by working as a judicial law clerk for U.S. Court of Appeals judge Edith Hollan Jones and U.S. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas; and WHEREAS, Known for his determination and intellectual curiosity, Mr. Coleman applied his talents to the practice of appellate law and quickly built a reputation for success; he initially worked in the Austin office of Weil, Gotshal & Manges heading the firm's national supreme court and appellate practice; undertaking a broad range of cases, from complex business litigation to public policy and constitutional issues, he provided vital assistance to numerous clients, often on a pro bono basis; and WHEREAS, This accomplished attorney was called to public service in 1999, when he became the first solicitor general of the State of Texas; in addition to skillfully arguing the state's position in its most important legal appeals, he established the high standards of professionalism that have continued to guide the actions of the individuals who have succeeded him in that important post; and WHEREAS, In 2007, Mr. Coleman cofounded the firm of Yetter Coleman, where he continued his stellar record as an appellate lawyer; in the course of his career, he frequently handled cases that were heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and he had the distinction of arguing more cases before that institution than any other lawyer in Texas; in 2009 alone, he won two closely watched high court rulings, and these triumphs were recognized by the National Law Journal, which named Yetter Coleman to its prestigious Appellate Hot List; moreover, Mr. Coleman's stature was acknowledged by his inclusion on a number of other well-known rankings of top attorneys, including those published by Benchmark Litigation, Corporate Counsel, The American Lawyer, and Texas Monthly; and WHEREAS, Mr. Coleman was a mentor to numerous young lawyers Serving as an adjunct professor at the South Texas College of Law And the UT School of Law and taking a deep interest in the Development of his law firm colleagues; widely admired by his Peers, he was a member and president-elect of the Texas Law Review Association, and had served as vice chair and secretary of the Texas Board of Criminal Justice as well as been active in various legal Organizations; and WHEREAS, In spite of his professional commitments, this Caring husband and father was dedicated to his family and took Special delight in accompanying his sons on Gulf of Mexico fishing Expeditions; his other interests included reading and taking part In a variety of outdoor activities, and he was a devoted member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and WHEREAS, Though his life ended far too soon, Greg Coleman Nonetheless established himself as a lawyer of rare ability whose Passion for justice and respect for the truth had a lasting and Positive impact on many lives; his legacy of achievement and Concern for others will remain an inspiration to all who had the good fortune to know him; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of Gregory Scott Coleman And that deepest condolences be extended to the members of his Family: to his wife of 23 years, Stephanie Coleman; to his sons Chase, Austin, and Reid Coleman; to his parents, Harold and Karen Coleman; to his sister, Sherie Olcott; and to his other relatives And many friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be Prepared for his family and that when the Texas House or Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of Gregory Coleman.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members for letting us come today with this memorial resolution. Greg Coleman for us lawyers was a lawyers lawyer. When we think about having argued more Supreme Court cases than any other lawyer in the state, being editor of the Texas Law Review Law School. Those of us as lawyers having argued some of these cases, being a Supreme Court justice law clerk, being a partner in a successful law firm. Pretty amazing for us that are lawyers to see this career at a young -- being able to reach that at such a young age. He was also important to the House and that his services were retained to help us with redistricting. And so, this summer when some you traveled around the State for redistricting Greg was there at some of those hearings and would visit with us and he was giving us legal advise to the House and to the speaker and so, he was actually a part of our family most recently. And besides being the first Solicitor General and being that role as a state official. So it's just so great that we are able to honor this man's important life. He's a man of faith, family, and service. And obviously his location was of high importance. Today we are fortunate to have with us on the dais his wife, Stephanie, and we have his three sons, Chase, 21, who's attending BYU; Austin, 19, who's attending A&M, and he's missing Texas government class today; and his youngest son Reed who attends Cedar Park High School which is in Dr. Schwertner's district. So we're pleased to have y'all here today. We also have in the gallery his two very good friends, Tan and Nancy Teller. I'm not sure where they are. Right there. And we also have from his law firm over here where he was obviously quite a leader Chris Ward, Kevin Terrazas, Scott Keller, April Farris, Ryan Bates, Suzy Bates, Ed Dawson, Rich Farrer or Farrer, Ginger Grimm, Delonda Dean, Carmen Olidin, Jones Fall, Sara Budd, Joy Morano and Abrie Wayneer from the firm of Yetter Coleman. We appreciate y'all coming and sharing with this day to recognize Greg's life. And we also Mr. Speaker have a flag that was flown over the Capitol to present. And I think it's right there. If you would do the honors we would appreciate. With that Mr. Speaker I move to adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Members this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. Motion is unanimously adopted. Representative Pena moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Darby for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, members. I'd like to recognize students from my district, Representative Hilderbran, Representative Landtroops districts who are participating in the Legislative Leadership Academy. Students, will you stand in the north gallery here. Okay. This program encourages students to be scholars, leaders, and community partners. The students were chosen through an application and interview process and demonstrate academic success, leadership, and extra curricular activities and a desire to learn about and support their community. I have students from Central High School in San Angelo and Gray Creek and of course the very best high school. And I think Representative Landtroop and Representative Hildebrand would like to recognize their students.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I also have a students from my district from Paint Rock High School we have Maria Salcedo, Senora High School Condie Salveas. And we're glad they're here today too. Thank y'all for coming.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Landtroop.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM LANDTROOP: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We also have up here from Sterling City, Chrisy and Tiffany Hadlock. Would y'all, please, stand as sponsors of this event. As well as Stacey Hastings and Cobie Hogan from Irion County. Thank you for sponsoring and letting these kids experience this. Welcome to your House.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One final recognition to Bud Hunt and, of course, Cynthia Lackey one of the sponsors from San Angelo of course my district director Cheryl de Cordova. Cheryl stand up. Thank you. Welcome to your House.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I'd like you to help me welcome one of Mr. Craddick's or Dean Craddick's constituents. The beautiful lady in the gallery in the blue dress or the blue or turquoise jacket is my mom who is here visiting from Midland. So thanks for having me. The House stands at ease for now.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members, Mr. Rodriguez is recognized for a recognition.

REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'd like to recognize the ladies of the Texas Cottage Bakers industry who are sitting in the north side of the gallery -- actually I think they are right here. Y'all, please, welcome them and if y'all would stand up and be recognized, please. These individuals most of them are bakers. They come from all over the State to show support for Texas cottage foods bills that are up today in committee. And appreciate y'all being here today. Thank you.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: For what purpose, Mr. Bonnen?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Parliamentary inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: State your inquiry.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Would you recognize me for a motion to adjourn sine die.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: No, I will not.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Parliamentary inquiry. Is that what we're discussing? Are we figuring whether to adjourn.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Say it again.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Are we discussing whether to adjourn sine die.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: I'm not advised. We're up here praying for rain, Mr. Bonnen.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Members, it's the Chair's intention to recognize Representative Hunter to discuss the calendar rule. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker and members, please, pay attention if you will. On Tuesday we have set the calendar for House redistricting. I'm going to make a motion for a calendar rule. The calendar rule that was made in the Calendars Committee were for amendments for Thursday, April 21st at 8:00 p.m. I'm going to make a motion for a calendar rule that makes it 5:00 p.m. Friday, April 22nd for the amendments. That is good Friday, yes, ma'am. So I'm going to make that motion. I'm going to read it to the record so you hear exactly what the motion is citing the citations and then there's some questions that you can ask me and Burt Solomons, the author of the bill. Mr. Speaker, members, I move that pursuant to House Rule 3, Section 52 and House Rule 6, Section 16F we propose the following rule governing for consideration of CSHB 150 during 2nd reading and 3rd reading consideration of the bill no proposed amendment, amendment to the amendment, or substitute amendment changing any district is eligible for consideration unless five copies of an amendment packet prepared by the Texas Legislative Counsel has been submitted to the chief clerk. The amendment packet is not required to contain a textual description of the amendment but must include maps as prepared by the Texas Legislative Counsel indicating the changes made by the amendment and standard reports for the amendment prepared by Texas Legislative Counsel that indicate population, voter data, and incumbent locations for the districts effected by the amendment. No proposed amendment, amendment to the amendment, or substitute amendment is eligible for consideration if any district in the amendment contains parts that are not contiguous or adoption of the amendment would result in any unassigned or overlapping geography in the overall redistricting plan under consideration or a number of districts other than 150 in the overall plan. An amendment packet for each original amendment changing any district that will be offered during 2nd reading consideration of the bill must be filed with the chief clerk, and this is the modification, by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 22nd, 2011. Mr. Speaker, members, I move to adopt this calendar rule for House Bill 150.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry.

JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: The issue -- the calendar rule that was proposed by the Calenders Committee is not being proposed for a vote on the floor; is that correct?

JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And so, the original calendars rule would have required 76 votes for adoption. This calendar rule because it requires essentially a suspension, requires 100 votes for adoption; is that correct?

JOE STRAUS: It requires two thirds of the members present.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Two thirds of the members present. And as proposed the original calendars rule would have required amendments to be filed by tomorrow evening with the details, all of the maps and so forth required. Chairman's proposal now is to give an additional day, more or less, so that it would be Friday afternoon at 5:00 o'clock; is that correct?

JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And in addition to that, it's my understanding that there will be an opportunity over the weekend for everybody to look at and review now the these maps. Understanding that Easter falls right in between the review period. That's the goal is to give everybody an opportunity now not only to offer the amendment --

JOE STRAUS: That's correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: -- but to review the entire passage.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Martinez Fischer, for what purpose.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Gentleman yield for some questions?

JOE STRAUS: Hunter, do you yield?

REP. TODD HUNTER: Yes.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Representative Hunter, thank you for explaining the change in the calendar rule. Let's talk about the application of the filing of amendments. I understand there's some concern with alleged counsel being able to accommodate the membership. I think there's some confusion amongst the body of what constitutes filing for the purposes of meeting the 5:00 p.m. calendar rule deadline.

REP. TODD HUNTER: You should file it with the chief clerk but if you file it and get it in the system it is to be constructed notice that you met the deadline.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: So in the constructive filing so as long as any member working through the red apple system submits a map as a proposed amendment and makes that intention known to alleged counsel and, I guess, is there an obligation to also notify the chief clerk in that same e-mail and that satisfies the rule or just letting alleged counsel know.

REP. TODD HUNTER: No. The chief clerk will file it.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Okay. And so, we just -- we work with alleged counsel to submit our map and they we the member, the individual member, also contact the chief clerk to let them know what we just did.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I think -- yes, that would be good. Now the preference would be that you file it with the chief clerk but as you and I are discussing we said we would do this constructive notice as getting it into the system but I do think it would be good to tell the chief clerk. And let me -- to add to your question. The Texas Legislative Counsel will provide a list of amendments it is processing as of 5:00 p.m. Friday to the chief clerk and for those amendments they will be treated as if filed by the 5:00 p.m. Friday deadline.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And I imagine that's 5:00 p.m. central standard time in case there's somebody filing in El Paso they'd have to be 4:00 p.m. mountain time, correct?

REP. TODD HUNTER: 5:00 p.m. central Texas time.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you. One other question and I believe the intent of everybody working on this is to file amendments to meet the 5:00 p.m. deadline. Undoubtedly there may be amendments to the amendment and giving the requirements of the calendar rule you understand that that could slow down deliberations and that should not be negatively construed among the member of the body, if that were to take place, to meet the printing requirements and all the obligations to file amendments to the amendment that's -- you understand that?

REP. TODD HUNTER: I understand.

TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Now -- thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, I actually have a question for Chairman Solomons just to clarify something. Will Chairman Solomons --

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Sure.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Chairman Solomons, one of the worries I guess is that every author of the bill has the is opportunity at first to offer perfecting amendments for the legislation. And so, the question becomes, would you draft an amendment to the bill as filed or do you draft it -- if the author's perfecting amendment comes first and changes anything then obviously that would change all of the amendments down the road. So, it is not -- it is your intention to essentially go with a map as it came out of committee and as it currently exists so that members can be assured that their amendments should be tailored to the map as it came out of committee as opposed to any perfecting amendment that you might offer later.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: That subject came up about possibility of needing some sort of perfecting amendment. It was never my intention, in fact, I don't know that I need a perfecting amendment but I may be told by legal or legislative counsel that we need to make a fix of some sort but I would have to get my amendment in by that time as well. But it's never been my intention to do it. And it's certainly not my intention at all to have an amendment to the amendment that somehow changes everything work product of the committee or myself at this point, at all.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Because that's the other issue. The other concern was, if members work to meet that deadline by 6:00 p.m. tomorrow and then their amendments are somehow no longer -- they have to be recrafted and redrafted.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I understand that but the members -- for those who don't understand the system having not been through a redistricting process the difficulty in drawing amendments anyway is about legal descriptions. And a lot of members and I would suggest all members if you've got an amendment they may want to have some sort of visual maybe to help. But at the end of the day from my prospective I'm not trying to somehow change everything that we have. In my opinion it's the House's map at this point. If legal or alleged counsel tells me oh, we made a mistake, we need to fix something here or there or whatever, that's all I was intending to do. But I didn't even know that I might even need a perfecting amendment, although, I was aware that it's often done. Mr. King and I even talked about that because he has a little bit of experience on this process but at the end I'm not trying to change the maps so everybody would be confused.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So, this is important in terms of we don't want everybody's amendments to be knocked out --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: -- because suddenly what they're amending no longer exists and you can't --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I'm not trying to do that. I'm not trying to do that.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So all the members their amendments will be given consideration.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: And besides that that's why we have alleged counsel basically to make any adaptations that we need. Just like any other bill there's a process and anything that might even be a minor change, if there needs to be an adjustment you've got all day Monday to do that Saturday and Monday.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And so, I wonder if you might be willing then to offer the author's perfect the final product in the end so that everybody's amendments are debated and then your amendments come at the end on the map, as opposed to having 149 of us figure out --

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I'm not sure what you're asking me.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: If you have a perfecting amendment you can offer it at the end of the proceedings and perfect the map as it has been at that point drawn by the House.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: You know what, I may need to do that. I don't know that yet. This is the first time I've chaired this committee and had to stand here and listen to how many amendments and amendments to amendments, I don't know what I'm going to need at this point but I'm pretty sure if I have to fix something the body -- you know, I would ask permission of the body to do that. They have to approve it, number one. And for all I know on 3rd reading I might need to do something but it will be up and above board.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Well, the critical thing, obviously, for me -- I think for all the members is to have the opportunity to amend and so that their amendments are not knocked out. And you've essentially you have indicated that that's not your intent to offer an amendment that would change everything so, that the work that is done by the members on amendments to the current map as it now exists would be valid on Tuesday.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner, for what purpose.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Which gentleman.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would Chairman Solomon and then move to Chairman Hunter. Thank you, Chairman Solomon. And just for an appreciation of the timeline, you laid out the bill on redistricting, I guess, House Bill 150 a week ago, on a Wednesday; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I guess. I forgot the day, the exact time. I'm sure you remember. Actually, I've been putting out a lot of fires since I did that.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I believe it was Wednesday and then there were the -- I mean, there were the meetings on the redistricting bill on Friday and Sunday.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Followed by the committee voting the bill out on -- was it Monday, was it Monday or Tuesday? It was Tuesday.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I think it was Tuesday.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Tuesday of this week. And the reason why I raised -- why I raised the concerns is that I know that I have looked at a couple of different maps as it relates to the redistricting process and which districts like mine and I am an African American, representing African American constituency in which the constituencies within my district -- and I would venture to say within other African American incumbent districts had been adversely effected. And my concern is -- is that I am concerned about the limited amount of input that we have had in the drafting of these legislative districts. And I think I voiced to you as well as to others concerns that I have in reference to the drafting of these districts.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Oh, yeah, you did. In fact on the first floor this morning you indicated again that you were not pleased with it.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And the reason why I raise these concerns is that now with the bill having been voted out on Tuesday that are adversely effecting the drafting of districts represented by African Americans and the retrogression that I am see in some of those districts we are now being asked to submit amendments on a bill that was voted out on Tuesday in committee -- amendments by Friday of this week by 5:00 o'clock. That's the understanding right now; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I think whatever we've said up to this point is self-explanatory, yes, sir.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And we as African Americans representing African American districts that are being adversely effected by the drawing of these maps in a very short period of time are now being asked to respond with amendments in the same week by Friday at 5:00 o'clock with Friday being Good Friday. And I will tell you, I will be at church in Houston on Good Friday. That is -- I am baptist and that is a big deal for me and my religion and my faith will tromp this bill. I will be in church on Sunday and we are being asked to put forth amendments by 5:00 o'clock to attempt to correct problems that we see in the drafting of districts that are presently held by African Americans in which there has been very little input by African Americans and the drawing of these districts. And it appears as though that we are now rushing the caucus -- of the African American Texas Black Caucus being rushed to draw -- to try to correct the situation by Friday at 5:00 o'clock with Friday being Good Friday. Do you understand the concerns that some of us are having with the process?

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: I understand your concern.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I'm -- so I'm at a loss to understand why the cutoff would be on Friday rather than on Monday when the bill was simply laid out a week ago and now we're being asked to produce amendments to a bill that was voted out of committee this past Tuesday that are adversely effecting many African American districts held by African American legislators right now. Where it appears to be, at least to many of us in the caucus, where there has been very little input from us in the drafting of these districts and I raise those concerns.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you for raising those concerns, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, if I could speak to Chairman Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE BURT R. SOLOMONS: Yes, sir, I'd be more than happy to.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Hunter, as Chairman of the Calendars Committee -- as chair of the Calendars Committee, I mean, I want to impress on you and the Texas House that the abbreviated and expedited timeline under which we are operating this was a bill that was laid out a week ago Wednesday, there were committee hearings on Friday and Sunday of this past week. A bill that was voted out on Tuesday morning and now we are being asked to provide amendments to this bill by Friday, 5:00 p.m. with Friday being Good Friday and with many of us are going to participate in the Good Friday ceremonies and I will tell you in the strongest of terms that the legislative black caucus has some serious concerns about the retrogression in House Bill 150. About the impact -- the adverse impact that this bill has on our districts. And deeply concerned about the lack of input that we have had in the total process and the drafting of these bills that we believe that a calendar rule Friday at 5:00 o'clock on good Friday is simply -- goes counter to an open and fair process.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Noted.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Is there any reason why we cannot have the rule put forth changed where it would apply on Monday instead of on Friday or Tuesday instead of on Friday.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Representative Turner, the original was going to be tomorrow night. Now because of suggestion of certain members in discussion we proposed tomorrow. It was actually set for 8:00 p.m. Thursday night.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And the reason why I'm raising it -- I know that there have been other discussions -- meetings with people in reference to the timeline or when or what the calendar initial calendar rules might be or what have you. But as members of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus we are concerned that we have not been a part of this process and the product speaks for itself. And our districts are adversely effected and there is no more important bill as it relates to our representation of the districts that we represent than House Bill 150 which will impact us for the next ten years.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I understand.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And so, again -- Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear. Thank you. I would respectfully on Chairman Hunter request that a calendar rule not take effect on Friday at 5:00 o'clock with Friday being Good Friday. And I would respectfully request upon behalf of the Texas Legislative Black Caucus and those of us who are deeply concerned about the impact of this -- of HB 150 on our respected districts that no calendar rule take effect until next week.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Understand and noted.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, I recognize that we are only 17 out of 150 and that the numbers may not be there but the process is so important and the process is so critical and I am concerned. And I want to raise these concerns before we even vote that the process will lead to a result that denies us equitable and fair and representation as codified by the Civil Rights Act. And raises serious concerns as to whether or not the end product can be reflective.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I understand.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Turner, for what purpose?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I would ask that the comments between myself and Chairman Solomons as well as Chairman Hunter be reduced to writing and placed in the record.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: This is a parliamentary inquiry. I want to talk over -- make sure I understood the mechanics, make sure all the members understood the mechanics of filing an amendment. So it probably is a parliamentary inquiry. And I appreciate Mr. Solomons commitment to go with the bill as filed so that we know what to create amendments to -- anyone wishing to create an amendment. What is the minimum that's going to be required by a member who is sitting in his office trying to draft up an amendment -- what's the minimum that will be required to be filed with alleged counsel to constitute an amendment in the works? Will it simply be do they need -- do they need to draw their own map on red apple and take that to alleged counsel or do they need to simply send an Email to alleged counsel in the normal format saying, I want to adjust my district? I mean what is the minimum to be acceptable as a filed amendment or amendment being prepared for filing?

JOE STRAUS: You're going to have to go to alleged counsel and have them draw the map that you want.

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

JOE STRAUS: You're going to have to go to alleged counsel and have them draw the map that you're interested in proposing.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you. I guess I'm trying to find out since we're on kind of a short timetable what constitutes us getting the proper documents? I mean, if someone fills out an Email request and sends it to alleged counsel saying I want to amend Parker County, what's the level of specificity that is going to be necessary to get me on the list as they try to work it out over the weekend. I mean normally you kind of end up sitting down with alleged counsel for quite a bit. Normally what you do is draw up your own little map on red apple, you take it over to alleged counsel, you sit down with them and you work through that. But we're not going to have time to do that. So, what's the minimum amount to get us in that list where we know we're on the list with an amendment?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, you're going to have to call legislative counsel and then you'll have to identify the plan. The plan that you want drafted into an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I can't hear you I apologize.

JOE STRAUS: You're going to have to call alleged counsel and tell them the plan that you want drafted into an amendment -- the plan that you've drawn.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And receive -- so any type of acknowledgment that we would receive from alleged counsel that they are working on their amendment is sufficient to get us on the list, as timely filed? In other words, all we need is an acknowledgment from alleged counsel -- I think this is a simple thing. All we need is an acknowledgment from alleged counsel that they are working on our amendment and we know we are sufficiently in the process to protect us for Tuesday.

JOE STRAUS: At 5:00 p.m. on Friday alleged counsel will send a list of all the amendments that they're drafting. If they're in process they'll be included on the list.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I just want to make sure. If we get some kind of acknowledgment from them that ours is in process that means it's in process. I know, what I'm worried about is the list coming out at 5:00 o'clock, everybody being home, ours not on it and there's nobody to talk and no way to fix it. So I presume if we got some type of Email acknowledgment or something similar from alleged counsel that ours is filed with them and they're working on it that that's sufficient to hold our place.

JOE STRAUS: Alleged counsel will send you an Email before the 5:00 o'clock deadline that acknowledges the draft.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That's perfect, thank you. And one more question -- inquiry just to make sure, I guess, that everybody who haven't been here for redistricting which is most of the body, am I correct that if we are doing amendments to the amendment that members should not expect that alleged counsel is going to be printing out a map that shows that amendment. That alleged counsel instead will be presenting what is in effect a legal description of census tracks or county lines or whatever. And that if members want a demonstrative aid that is actually a map for people on the floor to look at, they're going to have to be responsible for preparing that themselves and distributing it; is that correct?

JOE STRAUS: The amendments to amendments will be handled the same way as amendments, you will be handed maps and reports.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So, alleged counsel would be providing the legal description, as it were, as well as a printed map.

JOE STRAUS: Just the map and the report.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry, sir.

JOE STRAUS: The map and the report.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: But the map will not -- am I correct that the map will not be visible on the system or will it not be for each amendment.

JOE STRAUS: It should be visible on the system.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: So the legal description and the map itself for amendments and amendments to the amendments would be visible on the system.

JOE STRAUS: The maps and the reports will be visible on the system.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Mr. Hunter.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Ms. Gonzales, for what purpose?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, will Chairman Hunter yield for a question?

JOE STRAUS: Representative Hunter, do you yield?

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Chairman Hunter, does the tag rule that applies in calendar to every other bill not apply to redistricting?

REP. TODD HUNTER: I can't hear.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: The tag rule that applies to bills and calendars does that is not apply to the redistricting bill.

REP. TODD HUNTER: There isn't a formal process but at the beginning of the session I announced to my committee that redistricting and appropriations would be set as soon as possible.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. Does that mean --

REP. TODD HUNTER: Just to answer you quickly I made the decision.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Was that decision made known to the body.

REP. TODD HUNTER: No, that's the committee's decision and I made it as the chairman.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: I have another question. I don't know if it's appropriate for Chairman Hunter or Chairman Solomons but with regard to -- maybe it's a parliamentary inquiry. So let me ask it and then we can decide. If that's okay, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the amendments can you just draw a map of your county and not do a statewide map but a map of your county as long as the net effect is to not change the number of districts in the state.

JOE STRAUS: All districts that are to be effected must be represented in the map.

REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. So just the districts that are effected are to be represented in the map; is that correct, Mr. Speaker?

JOE STRAUS: That is correct. Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Can we reduce the writing and exchanges between Representative Turner and the chair and Representative Gallegos and the chair and placed in the journal? And Representative Gonzalez?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, why don't we reduce to writing everything pertaining to the discussion of the calendar rule.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: That's great.

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

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Aycock, for what purpose?

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Parliamentary inquiry.

JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Can we be advised as a best guess as amendments come forward in the process and amendments to the amendments come forward do we know the timeline of how that will be lagged on the -- on our screens or will it be moving in realtime pretty quickly.

JOE STRAUS: The plans will be shone as they are entered into the system just the way they were on the SBEO maps.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: And as soon as they are entered they'll come up on our screen. And the amendments that will be filed by Friday, do we know when -- do we have an anticipated time when they will be viewable on the screens.

JOE STRAUS: I'm going recognize Chairman Hunter to respond.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Aycock, as soon as they have been placed with the clerks office they will make it viewable by the screen.

REP. JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Okay. Thank you very much.

JOE STRAUS: Members, there's a substitute motion to be offered by Representative Dutton. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, one of the things if you've been through redistricting you have to recognize that there are going to be court challenges to whatever we do here. One of the first challenges though comes or aims or targets the process by which we accomplished whatever the end result was. Before you ever get to the substantive challenges based on the law. My motion -- my substitute motion is rather than having the deadline be 5:00 o'clock on Friday, my motion is to make that 5:00 o'clock on Monday and that's really all it does. It just say that we won't deny or we won't restrict or limit the ability of members to get their amendments done by having -- forcing them to chose between working on what is going to be a holiday versus just changing it over to Monday. Now, I know the chairman has indicated they want to have this on Tuesday but there's nothing magic about Tuesday, they can have this on Wednesday which would be just as acceptable to everybody. And so I don't know why but that's the essence of my substitute motion is to change the deadline so that you don't have to stay here beyond Friday to get it done. You can change it -- yeah, it is a Christian holiday. You can change it to a 5:00 o'clock Monday. And that's the essence of my substitute motion, members. And I'd be happy to answer any questions if someone had them.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter in opposition.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to table. We have discussed this. I'm going to keep with the motion after the motion for table. I want you to stick with me 5:00 p.m. Friday and I respectfully move to table.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: We were having a little trouble hearing. Could I ask Mr. Hunter a couple questions?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, do you yield?

REP. TODD HUNTER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. So the amendment by Mr. Dutton is to delay final amendment filing until 5:00 p.m. Monday afternoon; is that correct?

REP. TODD HUNTER: That's what I heard.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry.

REP. TODD HUNTER: That's what I heard. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And so honest question I'm not fighting anything. What would be the downside to doing that.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I think that the more the members have time to look at any of the amendments the better. I mean, the longer you take the harder it is for them to review. This original calendar rule was for Thursday I talked to members, I extended it a day. That was my decision. And if you make it to Monday it's just less time you get to review the process --

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

REP. TODD HUNTER: -- and let me finish. The one thing I disagree with is this is not an over night. The members that were elected have been in this process awhile. Some chose to be in it. Some chose not to be in it. So when we say surprise, there have been hearings, there has been involvement, there's been drawings since at least last year. So I can understand new members but members that have been here or been through the redistricting process have some knowledge of this.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Parliamentary inquiry.

JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: If amendments are filed by the deadline on Friday, recognizing that Saturday and Sunday are holidays. When would be the first time that those amendments would be printed and available for the members to view them? I'm assuming it's going to be sometime Monday.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, they should be available in the clerks office as soon as they are filed and available on district viewer and on red apple.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Does that -- so would that mean when we get here at 8:00 o'clock Monday morning that all the amendments that were filed by the Friday deadline are going to be up and available for review by that time.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. King, they should be viewable by Friday.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: By Friday? If there was a 5:00 p.m. deadline on Monday, when would the amendments be available to be viewed in preparation for Tuesday.

JOE STRAUS: Sometime after 5:00 p.m. on Monday.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would the gentleman yield for question?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Hunter, then if I understand it right although I very much like the idea of having till Monday to file, if we delay it until 5:00 p.m. Monday we would still be on the floor Tuesday. It's your intent that we go on the floor Tuesday for the bill.

REP. TODD HUNTER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would there be an objection to an agreement to move hearing of the bill from Tuesday until Wednesday morning to give everyone a full business day Monday to prepare for the debate.

REP. TODD HUNTER: An objection from whom?

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

REP. TODD HUNTER: An objection from whom?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: From the chair of calendars.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I have set it for Tuesday and that's the schedule.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Would the chair consider an amendment.

REP. TODD HUNTER: Not at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, do you yield?

REP. TODD HUNTER: Always.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Hunter, my friend. What is wrong with having the amendments filed on Monday at 5:00 hearing the bill on Wednesday. When we are talking about a redistricting bill that will impact the State of Texas for the next ten years.

REP. TODD HUNTER: My friend, Mr. Turner and you and I have been through this before.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes.

REP. TODD HUNTER: We can keep delaying and delaying we have set a schedule. Let the membership decide. If they like Mr. Dutton's amendment fine, if not, go with mine. We have got to set a schedule.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand, Chairman Hunter, but the bill was just layed out a week ago Wednesday. It was just laid out a week ago Wednesday. Friday is Good Friday, Sunday is Easter and typically -- and let me just say, in the past as you and I very well know for the Easter break -- for the Easter break we have paused on a Thursday and come back on a Tuesday. For the Easter break, as far as I can recall we have paused on a Thursday for the Easter break -- for the Easter holiday, paused on a Thursday, come back on a Tuesday. We have done that in honor of the Easter holiday. And so my question is, this time what is the rush? Why the rush?

REP. TODD HUNTER: I understand your position.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I would propose that we stay with Representative Dutton's amendment. Come on Monday, have the amendments filed at 5:00 pick the bill up on Wednesday.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I understand.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And your support of the amendment helps to solidify the body.

REP. TODD HUNTER: I appreciate your comments and move to table.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to close.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker and members, there are two things that I have learned being in this House that have to be respected. One is the people in this House. And the other one is the process in this House. What I'm talking about today is having the process be respected. Because if we are going to change -- not going to change this I can guaranty you that the first challenge to any map that comes out of this House in court is going to be on the basis of the process.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: In just a second I will, Mr. Workman. This particular procedure and the way we're doing it now puts a huge bulls eye on this redistricting plan. That's basically all it does. And I started to think, well maybe I should let you go ahead and do it because it makes it fairly easy on me as a lawyer and some of the other lawyers to challenge this plan. But I think I have at least a duty to not only the people in my district but to all of you-all to make sure that when this process is being disrespected I have a duty and obligation to stand up here and see if I can't change it. And so that's the reason I'm here and that's the reason I'm offering this substitute motion and I'll be happy to yield, Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Workman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Dutton, your motion is suggested on the motion of process. If we were to grant this until Monday will you defend the process in any court challenge?

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, I will defend the process if the process is defendable.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: My question was, you indicated that if we move it to Monday that would fix the process problem. I'm asking you if you would defend it if we give you that?

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: If the process is defendable I will do everything in my power to defend it, is what I'm telling you.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yeah, and I just want -- I want to let the membership know this is the start of the process. This is the first start of it. Whether or not members had adequate time in which to participate in the process of developing a map. That's going to be the first question. That's not the whole process that's just one part of it. But I can tell you if you start out -- if you star out violating what I believe to be or at least setting it up for the legal challenges you won't ever get to the rest of the process. You will never get through the end of it because as I said a moment ago what you've done is put a huge bulls eye on this process by suggesting that somehow or another members who have an opportunity have the same opportunity as everybody else. But it's limited because we have decided that the House is going to shutdown on Thursday, we're not coming back until Monday and somehow or another the members who want to offer at least some amendments to this you have do it by 5:00 o'clock on Friday. I don't believe that two days or three days in which to change this is going to make one difference to the people advancing this plan. But it will make a difference to all of us who would like to find some basis on which to support it. And that's what I'm arguing is that we ought to start with this by just simply changing it to 5:00 o'clock on Monday. And I would ask you to vote no and I'd be happy to answer any questions, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Representative Dutton, would you just remind us what your amendment does.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: My amendment just -- right now, Charlie, the motion from Chairman Hunter is to -- we have to have the amendments filed by 5:00 o'clock on Friday. That is Good Friday as you well know. A Christian holiday for most of us, all of us who are Catholic we will be at church on Friday. We will also be at church on Sunday. What my amendment -- what my substitute motion simply does is changes that so that it's not 5:00 o'clock on Friday but 5:00 o'clock on Monday.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Okay. Representative Dutton, you've been here longer than I have. I've only been here 17 years but I don't ever recall us not having a four day holiday for Easter honoring the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: That's one of the challenges that's going to be made too, Charlie. Is that first of all you shorten the time period in which members had. The second one is within that same timeframe what you did was you limited the ability of certain members to participate by offering amendments to the whole redistricting process bill. And so that's what my amendment does. I don't think its unfair. I think it's reasonable. I think it has all of the merits that are necessary to at least begin this process and to make it appear fair.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Representative Dutton, do you realize that under this current process that all of our staffs and everybody else are going to miss their Easter holidays.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, if we leave it like it is you have a choice to make. And I suspect it's probably one of those pyrrhic choices where no matter what you do you're probably making the wrong choices.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Ritter raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. He says my time is up. I couldn't even hear him say that. But I hope the time is not up for debating and making sure this process is fair and that's what my motion does. It makes this fair by moving the deadline from 5:00 o'clock Friday to 5:00 o'clock on Monday.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: I think we got to honor God and take that four day holiday.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And I think if you'll vote with me, Charlie, that's what we're going to do. They are motioning to table and motioning to suspend rules.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to withdraw my substitute motion.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to withdraw my motion.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Hunter moves for motions.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm about to make another motion it took me a few minutes because of all the requests that have been handed to me as I'm making this motion. All right. Let me make this motion. Now this will take two-thirds. And this is a motion in two parts. I move to suspend all necessary rules to change the calendar that has already been set for Tuesday to handle the redistricting bill CSHB 150 to Wednesday. In addition the motion is pursuant to House 3, Section 52 and House Rule 6, Section 16F. We propose the rule governing for consideration of CSHB 150 to Monday at 5:00 p.m. for all amendments. So, basically the amendment calendar rule will be Monday 5:00 p.m. Everything that we talked about remains. And then we are moving to suspend what my 100 percent agreement the calendar redistricting to Wednesday. Mr. Speaker I move Wednesday of this next week in central standard time applies to all times. The Trey Martinez Fischer rule.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Hunter, we can scratch all of the conversations that we've had. The rule that you are proposing and your proposing a rule that didn't go through the calendars committee so it requires two-thirds vote because the you're suspending. So the rule would be amendments are due by 5:00 p.m. on Monday.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And the bill which previously been set for debate on Tuesday will now be set for debate on Wednesday.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And does that require any additional meetings of the calendars committee or are we doing that -- are we setting a calendar as body.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: I am allowing you to do this through my motion but it takes two-thirds and I'm requesting that you do so.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So the House will set a calendar rule that has not been previously agreed to by the calendars committee and the House will actually set a bill on the calendar that was not set by the calendars committee. So Wednesday will be total, solely, completely, devoted to the redistricting bill for the House districts.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Well, I can only say that right now I haven't set the Wednesday calendar but there could be other things set. This is only setting redistricting for that day. Now if it takes the full day.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And do you still have time to set additional bills on the Tuesday calendar or will you have to suspend any rules to set additional bills on the Tuesday calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No, we're fine.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So you can still set a calendar on Tuesday.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes, I will check the list to see where your name is.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Hunter, that would be great.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No. We have plenty of time.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Okay. Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a double motion.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose? Mr. Hochberg for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Chairman Hunter, just to make sure that we all understand the motion or that I understand the motion. I believe there is a second bill on the calendar for Tuesday as set. You are moving just House Bill 150 not moving the entire calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So, that other bill that was set -- I don't remember what it is, will remain set for Tuesday plus anything you may chose to add.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: That's correct. The calendars committee will meet again and we will make sure that there's a calendar set, I believe, for Monday and Tuesday. The bill that was set is a sunset bill. I believe the forestry bill on Tuesday and it remains. The motion is only dealing with the redistricting bill and what I'm doing is allowing the body to set redistricting bill for Wednesday and then have the amendment deadline 5:00 p.m. Monday.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, do you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Chairman, thank you and I appreciate your flexibility and latitude in allowing the members to give you their request for more time. But is it your understanding as we spoke earlier that in 1981, in 1991, in 2001 that this legislature ultimately did not draw the maps in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: I don't know which years but I know there were some years or some decades we did not.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And it is correct that under our system that legislative redistricting board if we don't get this resolved in this chamber and the other chamber and to the governor that a different board -- body will draw the maps in this state.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: That's possibly, correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And there is reason to move with all promptness while also giving all members plenty of opportunity.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Because I for one wasn't a member of those legislatures but I would like this legislature would be now the fourth decennial where we actually do draw the map which is our constitutional duty.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Can I have, again, all the exchanges reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So order.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: And just a clarification. Will chairman Hunter yield for a question?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hunter, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: Yes.

JOE STRAUS: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Chairman Hunter, you mentioned earlier y'all been drawing maps for a year already.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No, what I said is that I'm sure people have had a year to draw maps if they want.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Just want to clarify that.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: No, there haven't been any hidden map drawing that I know about.

REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay.

JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a double motion. The first part of the motion moves House Bill 150 from Tuesday's calendars to Wednesday of next week. The second part of the motion is to adopt the calendar rule that was previously laid out with the exception that the amendments are now due at 5:00 p.m. on Monday. This is a record vote. Vote aye, vote nay. Have all voted? Being 145 ayes and 0 nays, the motion is adopted. Mr. Hardcastle, Mr. Hildebrand, Mr. Pena and Mr. Phillips? Members, we're going to break for lunch until two o'clock. Please, listen up to these committee's chairman for their announcements. Following announcements. Clerk will read the announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Technology will meet during lunch recess on April 20th, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Ways and Means will meet during lunch recess on April 20th, 2011, at desk No. 9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Land and Resource Management will meet during lunch recess on April 20th, 2011 at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet upon lunch recess on April 20th, 2011 at House desk No. 92. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REPRESENTATIVE RENE O. OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The Land and Resource Management Committee will meet during the lunch recess as was announced in 3W.15 I believe. Third floor above. But as for the announcement land and resource for a quick meeting.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The Agriculture and Livestock Committee will meet at desk 25 for a formal meeting at lunch recess to take up pending business and if everybody will show up we won't be there but a minute.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Members, just as a reminder the Committee on Business and Industry is meeting at desk 47 at the lunch recess for a meeting for pending business.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, and members. The Capitol Commission bible Study with Don Gardener is a meeting upon recess at the Austin Club, lunch is provided. Another opportunity is tomorrow in the members lounge at 7:30 in the Capitol Extension. Breakfast is provided and then finally on Friday at 8:00 a.m. in the members lounge in the extension is a Bible study open to the entire Capitol community. Breakfast is provided. Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Since I've given you a fire update -- since I've given you a fire update every day for the last couple of weeks. We only had ten new fires yesterday and all of them were pretty well contained in the a short period. Our totals for right now we're up over 1,400,000 acres lost. And we've lost over 385 total structure. Not all those are houses but total structures, houses and barns and all. We are in stage three of using Federal resources and we have every available aircraft and ground crew that the Federal government had available or Department of Emergency Management or the Texas Forest Service. So I'll keep you posted. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Members the House stands in recess until 2:00 p.m. House come to order. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.

CLERK: SB333. SB691. SCR42.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Members, I move to recommit House Bill 2853 to the Committee on Economic and Small Business Development.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, I have a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment releasing the States claim of ownership on title of certain lands in Lee County, Texas. What this does and what it proposes to do is clear up title of 215 acres in Lee County, Texas that I have a family that's been on since 1944 under a deed from the county.

JOE STRAUS: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection. Chair hears none. This is permission to introduce. Requires a vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted. Showing representative Hunter voting aye. Have all voted? Being 139 ayes and 0 nays motion is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Davis for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I would like to suspend the following five day posting rule to allow the Economic and Small Business Development to consider House Bill 2853 at 8:00 a.m. April 21st, 2011, in room E2.014.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you're heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Economic and Small Business Development will meet at 8:00 a.m. on April 21st, 2011 at E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 2853 and previously posted agenda.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Geren for an introduction.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I'd like for y'all to meet a young man that I just met on the elevator said it took him two days to get here. Peter Vance would you stand up and wave at us, Peter. Peter, wave at me buddy.

JOE STRAUS: Members we're about to go on the calendar. Chair lays out on final passage SB 85. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 85 by Nelson. Relating to the duties of county tax assessor collector and voter registrar regarding exemptions from jury service.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Solomons.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is bill that we heard yesterday that makes government a little bit more efficient by reducing some redundant recordkeeping. I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 85. Question occurs on final passage of SB 85. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 145 ayes and 0 nays, SB 85 is finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage SB 323. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 323 by Carona. Relating to the applicability of certain laws governing corporations to limited liability companies.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.

REPRESENTATIVE GARY ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the bill we passed yesterday that conforms provisions of the Texas business code. Move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 323. Question occurs on final passage of SB 323. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 146 ayes, 0 nays, SB 323 finally passes. Chair lays out on 3rd reading final passage SB 539. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 539 by Carona. Relating to award for cause of attorney's fees in certain proceedings concerning mechanic's, contractor's or materialman's liens.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Senate Bill 539 deals with award of attorney's fees in certain proceedings dealing with mechanic's, contractor's, materialman's liens as we took care of the amendment also yesterday.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 539. The question occurs on final passage of SB 539. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 141 ayes, 3 nays, 1 present not voting SB 539 has finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage SB 782. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 782 by Carona. Relating to uniform law and secure transactions.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We passed this bill yesterday but I do have an amendment.

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

CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: This is just clarifying language that would allow a person that wins the lottery if they want to cash out they could also include the last two years.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Deshotel sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I move adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 782. The question occurs on final passage of SB 782. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 148 ayes, 0 nays, SB 782 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB 313. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 313 by Seliger. Relating to priority groundwater management areas.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the Senate Bill we considered yesterday relating to groundwater areas, priority groundwater management areas to the creation or joining to GCD's within them and the extension of the planning period from 25 to 50 years. Move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 313. Question occurs on final passage of SB 313. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 145 ayes 0 nays, SB 313 has finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage SB 638. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 638 by Jackson. Relating to computation of surplus credit and surplus credit rate for certain successor employee units.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Murphy.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill allows the Texas Workforce Commission to allow surplus credits. Thank you, Randy, for your support. Members I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against SB 638. Question occurs on final passage of SB 638. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Mr. Smith of Harris voting aye. Have all voted? Being 148 ayes and 0 nays SB 638 has finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage HB 2694. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2694 by Smith. Relating to continuation of functions of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and abolishing On-site Wastewater Treatment Research Council.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Smith. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the amendment that we talked about yesterday that has to do with aquaculture something that is recognized in the agriculture code as a farming business related to the fish industry, of course. The question occurred as to whether the water provided for aquaculture should be categorized as that provided for agriculture versus industrial use. The water code currently recognizes aquaculture as an industrial use. It is recommended that we change that and it be reflected as an agriculture use. Chairman Ritter raised some concerns about that. In the interim since yesterday we've had an opportunity to have some discussion on this and I'll turn the microphone over to Chairman Ritter so that he can make some comments in this regard.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Chairman Ritter in support of the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Excuse me, members, yesterday when this came up I had some concerns that I really wasn't up on and I had a discussion with Mr. Zerwas and Mr. Smith and told them my concerns. I said, after the vote I'll do a bunch of research and if we can all get comfortable I will help you bring this back up. I have done the research and his amendment -- what he says it's going to do is exactly what it says it's going to do. It does not change any priority uses in surface water so, its a good amendment and I ask you for your support. I am voting for.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Smith. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I hope y'all pay attention to this amendment. It's a 3rd reading amendment because Representative Chisum put one of his bills on the TCEQ sunset bill yesterday as amendment No. 40. All right. And I was unable to fully analyze at the time of the debate this amendment. I want to give members of the House the opportunity with this 3rd reading amendment to confirm that you really want to own that vote. After the meeting a -- meeting this morning with sunset staff I was able to confirm that the Chisum amendment shifts the burden of proof not only for contested permit hearings under the Clean Air Act but also for water quality, injection wells, sewage and toxic chemicals under Chapters 26 and 27 of the Water Code and Chapter 361 of the Health and Safety Code. So let's think about this members. The burden of proof is being shifted to the community from the applicant. If the applicant desires to have a toxic chemical permit by way of example or water permit for example, he's coming to the community and saying I have the technology to do this. But in a case of a contested case hearsing Mr. Chisum is saying, no, no, the burden is on the community to prove that the applicant does not rather than the applicant having the burden of proof that they do. I think this is a major policy change, ladies and gentlemen, I don't know that the members of the House realized what they were doing. So, members, I have this 3rd reading amendment that will require 100 votes. It simply strips out that one Chisum amendment. It doesn't deal with any of the other Chisum amendments just this one which was amendment No. 40. He has a stand alone bill and he's able to work this bill through committee and calendars and everything else.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I do.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Yes, sir, I was just wondering of course some of us -- Mr. Chisum being an author of the bill has he been advised of this amendment.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I posted this amendment early in the morning. It's been on the FAS.

REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: So, we've not received -- at least we have not received his opinions since this is his bill. I see he has arrived so I will reserve this question for him. Thank you.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Okay. So, members I just want to let you know what you were voting on yesterday it applies not only to the Texas Clean Air Act, which I think was clear from the amendment but also impacts burden of proof for water quality, injection wells, sewage and toxic chemicals. So I think it's important you need to evaluate whether you want to go home and say you shifted the burden of proof in a contested case hearing to the community rather than the applicant. Okay. I'm not comfortable in doing that. So, that's why I'm bringing this 3rd reading amendment. So we can strip this off and if Mr. Chisum he has a bill in committee or out of the committee on a way -- if he works that bill through the process that's one thing. I just don't think that we had a requisite time to review and analyze it. I'm glad I did last night on this sunset bill. So, with that members I move adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum in opposition.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, what's happening here is that he's trying to reverse what we did on the floor yesterday on a 3rd reading amendment.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, do you yield?

REP. WARREN CHISUM: As soon as I get through here. The mere fact of having someone have to state a reason why they oppose a permit, that is not an imposition. It's done in civil courts all the time. Just the fact they have to say why they are opposing the permit. All the permit has gone through the technical and all of the legal ramifications for a permit and it's open to the public. So they can look at it. If they're going to oppose it they need to oppose it on the basis of it. There was also some language in that amendment that allowed for the executive director to participate in a contested case hearing. That is very important. Do you know we take executive director completely out of hearing when they are hearing contested hearings. That amendment did more than just make someone state what the purpose of them objecting to a permit was. So, I encourage you not to let him take this out on a third reading amendment and I yield Mr. Speaker.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Chisum. So in your lay out you said this would undue all of our work on the bill yesterday. This doesn't effect your amendment related to storage tanks, does it?

REP. WARREN CHISUM: No.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: It doesn't effect any of your other amendments other than the amendment --

REP. WARREN CHISUM: The storage tank amendment was not in this amendment.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Correct. So this only impacts your amendment related to the burden of proof.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: That's right.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. And related to discovery where you limit the amount of discovery in contested case hearings, correct?

REP. WARREN CHISUM: That's the way with any law.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And then you also -- and I failed to mention you also prohibit other state agencies from weighing in as intervener. For example, Texas Parks and Wildlife wanted to weigh in because a permit on water may impact water flows downstream that would impact wildlife you say in your amendment that they cannot do it.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: They had a chance to comment on the amendment -- on the permit when it's done.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: But they can't intervene contested case.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: We don't want state agencies fighting state agencies. So that's the reason that's in there.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Even though they have a different jurisdiction and maybe looking at wildlife.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: And we exempted the water authorities and river authorities from doing that.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I know. So, you had a couple of narrow exceptions but you were essentially saying no other state agencies -- we don't want you involved in contested case hearings; is that not right?

REP. WARREN CHISUM: That's exactly right. They need to be involved in the permit but not in the suing or going to court against one another. That's not what we need to do and so, I move to vote no on the amendment.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.

REP. WARREN CHISUM: I move to table.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to close.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Again, members, lets not get confused about what's happening here. The major policy change for water quality, for injection wells, for sewage, for toxic chemicals the amendments are to Chapter 26 and 27 of the Water Code and 361 of the Health and Safety Code also impacts the Clean Air Act. And it says that the community now has to hire the experts, hire the lawyers, undertake the modeling, undertake significant expense if they don't want one of these permit in your backyard or in their backyard. Okay. In my view it should be the applicant, the people that are coming to the community and requesting the application that should make that case but not the burden of proof in SOA hearings and contested cases should not be shifted to the community. To those who are effected persons as it says under the law, in Section 5.115 of the water code.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Solomon, for what purpose?

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: I'd like to ask the gentleman a couple questions.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I yield.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Let me -- let me try to put this -- I'm, you know, I'm a country lawyer, suburban lawyer. You -- I know -- I understand what burden of proof is and so forth but for the members of this body, for them to understand and I know you're being technical about all the various things. This really does boil down about 40 years worth of change in the burden of how they process this and does this not mean that if you make an application now all you can do is you can apply with anything and the entire burden of proof, the idea that it's unsafe is on somebody wanting to contest it versus someone making an application and saying we believe it is safe and being able to proof that up; is that correct?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Of course.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Wait a minute; is that correct?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yes. It is correct. Once you get do a contested case it is, correct?

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: You're right. In a contested case it is correct. And at the end of the day it effects every member in this body and their constituents and everybody who may have concerns that the person making the application doesn't really have to prove it's safe it's up to you to prove its unsafe.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: At the SOA hearing that would be absolutely, correct.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Is that what the amendment is.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And just so we're clear --

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: And just so the body knows you're trying to undue Mr. Chisum's amendment. And I'm sure its brought with all due respect and good faith about what he thinks is necessary to do in this process but it effects every member. That when your constituents call you and say what can we to about it. It's not that the party has to prove it's safe and say, we made this application. We have some burden of proof here. It is the idea that we have shifted that burden to your constituents and to other groups to come in and prove that it is somehow unsafe; is that right?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: That's right in the Texas Administrative codes currently in Section 30TAC80.17, sub A. It's a TCEQ. I'm just telling where the cite is. The TCEQ has made through their rules a judgment that the burden of proof is on the applicant, on the movement. Okay. This changes that TCEQ rule. And last I checked the TCEQ has not been an enemy of industry. I think they're very fair with industry. So, I don't believe that this would create undue burden on behalf of industry. I think it creates an undue burden for the people who are contesting these cases.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Let me tell you something. I don't know that I don't think some of the members here and I know I don't have a sterling record on environmental issues like you do, Mr. Anchia, but at the end of the day this is a pretty darn big change, is it not?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: It's a big change, Burt.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: And quite frankly when you're shifting the burden of proof like this members need to know whether there for or against it. What exactly they're doing when they get contacted by their constituents.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I agree with you. And, frankly, think this merits a little bit more discussion than putting a bill on a sunset bill.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Well, it seems to me that's one of those things that the sunset committee basically said, we don't want a bunch of policy. We think that certain bills with certain issues should be bills and stand on their own.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I agree.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: And you're on the commission. Didn't -- you haven't you even said we'd like to keep these things generally as clean as possible and not have various controversial issues that aren't handled separately.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Look, there's a bill on this that's moving through the process. I think we should let that bill move through the process. I think this is not the place for it. But in addition I think that the policy is not right.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Thank you.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Legler, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Will the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I do.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Mr. Anchia, thank you. Isn't it -- I sat on the TCEQ board a long time and I sat on the Environmental Committee but when an application is filed the TCEQ actually reviews the application; is not correct?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: And they determine if its safe or not by current law; is that correct?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yeah, the executive director makes a determination, that's right. Before it goes to contested case.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: And the only way to contest it is how?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Well, the contested case has to be granted, first of all. Then the TCEQ narrows the issues in the contested case and there's typically a movement for the contested case hearing, typically members of the community.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: But in other words, what you're saying the company applies or individual applies whatever for the permit. TCEQ has the rules and regulations they go by and they say, yes, you are meeting all these rules and regulations. We agree with you. Then someone may come up and say well, I disagree with you and since I agree with you you're going have to prove to me why instead of me proving to you why. You're asking the person who's already been approved by an agency that's following the rules to prove it. I don't understand the problem here. The agency has approved it. But now, all we're asking now is a person who says well, Mr. Agency you're not right. And so you're not right, I don't have to prove why your not right. They're going to have to prove why they're right. It just seems backwards.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: So then -- I mean, under your analysis then we don't have a contested case process at all. Then the agency just says, it's whatever the agency says and there's no more due process and it doesn't give the community the ability to have a contested case hearing. What this amendment says is that in the contested case hearing we're going to reverse TCEQ rule related to contested case hearings where the movent for a contested case -- excuse me, the applicant has the burden of proof. Here it's shifts it. It says no. The people who want to take this to SOA then automatically the community has a contested case and just says the agency's wrong. We just think it's wrong. And it maybe technically wrong in a small way, it maybe a big wrong. But we're going to have a contested case and they're going to go to SOA.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I agree with you.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Good.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: But what I'm saying about agreeing with you on that is, they should come to me and come to them and say this is why, Mr. Agency, you are wrong. All they're coming and saying is you're wrong.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Well, just to give you a scope of magnitude. In 2010 there were 1921 permit applications filed. There were only 72 contested case hearings requested and only 33 were granted. And in all of those cases there were some modification made. Okay. So, if you're just saying the final arbitrator should be the executive director let's get rid of this SOA hearing. Lets not have it at all.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: No, no.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: But I think it's important that the community is able to weigh in because they are the ones that are impacted. They are able to weigh in and say, hey, look we are not satisfied with the ED's decision we want a contested case. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I'm not disagreeing that the community cannot.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Members, please, vote no on the motion to table.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Anchia sends up an amendment and representative Chisum moves to table. Showing representative Chisum voting aye. The question is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Chisum voting aye, showing Wayne Smith voting aye, showing Representative Farrar voting no, showing representative Anchia voting no. Have all members voted? Have all voted? There being 92 ayes, 52 nays and two present not voting the motion to table prevails.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I ask that the dialogue between the proponent of the amendment and all conversantes be reduced to writing and put in the House journal.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair areas none. So ordered. Members that's all the amendments. Is their anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 2694. If not the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2694. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 109 ayes 40 nays, one present not voting House Bill 2694 has finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 1633 by Bonnen. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1633 by Bonnen. Relating to a persons ability to read and write English as a qualification for services as a petite juror.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: This is the bill that we passed yesterday on jury service in allowing the judges the authority. I move passage.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, we have an amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: The chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to explain his amendment.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I won't take much of your time but the debate we had yesterday was regarding this bill is that we were going to add read and write English to being able to be a juror. And the discussion we had yesterday we all heard was that there really is no need because right now the judge can ask whether the person is biased or not. The judge can make a whole bunch of determinations. In fact the law right now deals with it. So what I did, after having passed this bill, is I put together this amendment that says, if you do not read and write or understand English. And let me tell you why we did that. I had a discussion with Representative Harold Dutton regarding the bill. And the big issue, members, is whether somebody understands what's going on. Yesterday I mentioned that -- what I meant by that was; for example, does somebody understand what we just talked about as far as hearings. Let's say you go to court regarding hearing, the technical aspects of it. To be a juror you do not have to technically understand all issues. You do not have to technically understand science. You do not technically have to understand damages. All you got do is have common sense. I think if we add this language to the bill it kind of helps out because if you will recall this bill was brought because there was a concern. Well as you know as we go through the process we hear from people that have a concern. For example, we have a hearing on environmental regulation. We go to environmental reg bill. We have an issue with urban areas. We go to Urban Affairs Committee. We have an issue with criminal justice or prisons we go to the corrections. If you have an issue regarding judges and juries you hear from the judges. Tell me how many of you have heard from the judges that there's a concern? How many of you have heard from the state bar of Texas that there is a concern? How many of you real quick have you head from a group called Texas Judicial Counsel that there's a concern?

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes, I will.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields, Mr. Dutton.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Now, Mr. Alonzo the bill -- well, let's talk about what the current law is. The current law says simply that you have to read and write; is that correct?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And does it say what you have to read or what you have to be able to write.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: No.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. But all the courts in Texas use what language?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: English.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. So even without Mr. Bonnen's bill the practical effect of the current law is that a juror would be expected to read and write English.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct. And the Texas government code right now -- right now, right now in Section 62.102, Section 5 it says, the ability to write -- read and write is a statutory requirement for a trial juror. So in what language does he point out, English.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Right. So but let's turn to Mr. Bonnen's bill then adding the word English, what does that change in a terms of the current law, anything?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: No. And it doesn't because what language does the judge speak. What language does the DA speak, what language was the defense and plaintiffs speak. It's English.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: So what your amendment does it says it makes Mr. Bonnen's bill better.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. I'm here to make his bill better.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And it's better because there are many people in Texas who can't read English, who can't write English but they understand English.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. And, in fact, yesterday Mr. Bonnen in the Dallas Morning News said, and I think this is for legislative intent, Mr. Dutton, that no test would be given if a jurors speak English they will be fine.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: So his statement relates to understanding English then?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And I think when Judge Lewis was here asking questions of Mr. Bonnen he indicated had sometimes jurors may not understand.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And what your amendment does is clears up that you have to understand English in order to qualify as a juror or you will be struck for cause by one of the attorneys.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. And that's the big issue here because as you know, Mr. Dutton, right now if a attorney, civil attorney, plaintiff or defense are in a criminal case the prosecutor or the defense attorney they can describe anybody for whatever reason under certain limited. What we're going here and what I want to make sure doesn't happen -- I want to make sure it doesn't happen that people are pulled off the jury just because of who they are.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: You're not trying to do any violence to Mr. Bonnen's bill.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I'm trying to do no violence to Mr. Bonnen's bill because I don't want this to be considered a violent -- not only violent but a very violent attempt at his bill.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Alonzo.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Members, again, please, support this amendment. This is a good amendment. It's what you really and I think -- and I'm kind of glad that Mr. Bonnen brought this bill because by bringing this bill we're getting a better understanding -- a better understanding of how the judicial process works. Why it is so important -- why it is so important that we have a right to a jury. And number two, that who is that jury. It's a jury of our peers. It doesn't say you have to be an expert on science, it doesn't say you have to be an expert on the environment, you have to you use your common sense and I know that's one of the things that is Mr. Bonnen has been using throughout this debate, it's a very common sense approach. What I'm trying to do is to bring this to where we're trying to be -- is that you understand what's going on. With that, Mr. Speaker, members, I ask that you vote for this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Speaker members. You know this is almost becoming comical which I think is Mr. Alonzo's goal. In the debate on this I was asked, well, Mr. Bonnen, how are we going to know if they can read and write English? Are we going to give them a test? Are we going to do this? Are we going to do that? If you say understand you're actually now we going to give them a third grade reading comprehension test. I mean when you say understand, that's now what you're creating. This is leaving the ability for the judge to decide if the juror is appropriate and able to serve under current law, which is read and write and we're clarifying that it is English. As is in Louisiana you must be able to read write and speak the English language. The federal government says be adequately proficient in English. I move that you vote no on the Alonzo amendment. Thank you.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to close.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, members, this is not comical. This is not comical. In the U.S. Constitution we have a right to a jury. This is not comical, members. One of the biggest powers that we have in the United States and definitely in Texas is a right to a jury. A right to a jury that also let me tell you allows for members to be in a jury that use their common sense. It's not a joke. It's not a joke. If a person's life is at stake, it's not a joke. If a person's home is at stake, it's not a joke. I do not bring my comments, my argument before this body for comedy. I bring it for what's right and for what's right is defending each and every opportunity for a person to be on a jury. And let me tell you, members. Let me tell you how serious this is. If this was so serious an issue don't you think that the state bar of Texas would have been involved. Don't you think that the Judicial Counsel of Texas would have been involved they are not this is brawling --

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose, Mr. Gallego?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: One moment, Mr. Gallego. This was brought from one area of Texas and we respect everybody's opportunity to bring their issues forward. But I can tell you as I leave this, I'm going to respect Mr. Bonnen's opportunity, ability, desire to bring a bill but I'm going to tell you it's not comical.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes, I yield.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields for a question, Mr. Gallego.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Alonzo, the amendment that you have drafted says have to read or write or understand English to serve on a jury, right? You add understand.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Yes, sir.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And if you -- my grandfather who had a business building fences and was a very, very shrewd businessman and he certainly could understand English but he didn't read or write in English he had somebody to that for them although he was a successful businessman and ran his own fencing company. He would have been excluded from a jury because he was unable to read or write is that your understanding of the bill that Mr. Bonnen has.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Without your amendment.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Right.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So for those of us whose parents or grandparents may not be totally and completely versed in the nuances of reading or writing in English but they can certainly converse and understand and so, in the jury box when you're listening to testimony and somebody will read the evidence to you. Should you be precluded? I mean, won't that have the, perhaps, unintentional impact of excluding a large number of Spanish speaking people, Latinos from jury panels because those are the folks that they may well be able to read and write in Spanish and they maybe perfectly fluent in English but they can't necessarily read or write in English.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct. And, Mr. Gallego, just so you know we did a lot of research on literacy. In fact I got the Texas legislative library to do some work. And it's not only that you speak Spanish, there are folks that understand English.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Well, like my grandfather did he understood English perfectly.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: And watch this. In the research that they did it said that in Texas one in three adults cannot read this sentence. So by the research it doesn't even say Spanish.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: So all these people who are high school dropouts; for example, who will now have to have -- it's not enough to be able to listen to the testimony is there going to be given to jurors to show that you can read or write.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That's the comment that was made earlier. There's no way to determine and I know the courts are going to interpret it but like I said --

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Will that be grounds for appeal that somebody served on the jury that couldn't read or write. If the attorneys don't notice that or the judge doesn't notice that and the person was on the panel and the party that looses gets unhappy and he or she files an appeal on the basis that perhaps one of the jurors did not read or write English.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: And that's part of my point too, Mr. Gallego. This issue was not vetted before judges. It wasn't vetted before the Criminal Jurisprudence Committee. It wasn't vetted to the State bar of Texas. It wasn't vetted to the Texas Judicial Counsel. I mean people that are experts -- we are being brought a bill -- we're being brought a bill with all due respect to Mr. Bonnen and he's, you know, a good man, kind soul, but this is an issue that is bigger than what we're talking about. As I said, to be a juror you have to use your common sense. To be a juror you have to understand.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: In fact, I've always told jurors that you don't have to check your common sense at the door. That's what's required of you is to decide based on the evidence that you hear as you listen based on the arguments of counsel. And it seems to me that this would exclude a large number of people from potential service on the jury. And I don't know if it's creating essentially a new appeal and you're going to see a lot more appeals because you just gave that party new grounds. You can find the juror that perhaps didn't spell well or read or write and that becomes your grounds for appeal.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: That is correct.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Representative Aliseda, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

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

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I yield.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Mr. Alonzo, if you were on trial for murder whose right is more important. Your trial, to have a fair jury or that jurors right to serve on that jury because he cannot understand English.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Well, in my response to your question -- in my response to your question the defendant has a right, a big right -- in fact he has a right just to say nothing. But the other part is this part of the process is for an opportunity for a citizen of the State of Texas to be on the jury.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Well, I think you have your priorities wrong. The priority is for.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Alonzo sends up an amendment. The question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. We're directly on the amendment, members. Vote aye, or vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Alonzo voting aye, show Representative Bonnen voting no, show Mr. Gonzales voting no, show Todd Hunter voting no. Have all members voted? There being 48 ayes and 102 present not voting the amendment fails to adopt. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Bonnen's bill. Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, members for the opportunity to visit on this issue. I'm just going to simply ask you to vote no on the bill.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen to close on his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill is about insuring that we have a fair process for each and every citizen of the great State of Texas when they find themselves in a Texas courtroom they have a jury of their peers who understand the English language that is being presented to them. I move passage.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, you've heard the motion. The question occurs on passage on the final passage of House Bill 1633. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Show Todd Smith voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 110 ayes, 39 nays, one present not voting House Bill 1633 is finally passed. Is Sid Miller on the floor? Chair recognizes Representative Miller for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend the following rules. The five day posting rule to allow the committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety and the Subcommittee on Law Enforcement issues to consider House Bill 2178 and House Bill 3376 at 8:30 a.m. on April 21st, 2011 in E2028.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The committee on. Homeland Security and Public Safety, Subcommittee on Law Enforcement Issues will meet at 8:30 a.m. an April 21st, 2011, at E2.028. This will be a public hear to go consider posted schedule HB 2178 and HB 3376.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair lays out on 3rd reading House Bill 268 by Hildebrand. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 268 by Hildebrand. Relating to the exemption of the sales tax for certain agriculture items.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Hildebrand to explain his bill.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members. This bill that we heard yesterday that deals with clarifying whose responsibility it is to claim ag exemptions. Retailer or consumer seeking the exemption and I move passage.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, there is an amendment the clerk will -- the clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Davis of Dallas to explain her amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment just tries to start talking about what I think is important as it relates to public policy for the State of Texas. As you-all know the State has several billion dollars of exemption and though some of them might be really important some of them might no longer be important. This amendment just seeks to have an evaluation and examine the exemptions as it relates to the state. And Chairman Hildebrand and I have been discussing with regard to the entire issue as it relates to exemptions and this amendment is merely to further talk about the need for us as a state to examine the kinds of exemption we have in place. What the value is? What's the cost? What's the benefit? So that we can legitimately say we reviewed it and understand what it brings in terms of the state -- to the State from an Economic Investment and Growth of this state. And that's kind of what this amendment does. Today we have looked at and most of these compensations have not been evaluated in 15, 20 years so. This is kind of what this amendment does.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose, Mr. Hardcastle.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Would the lady yield?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Will the gentle lady yield?

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I will yield.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: She yields for a question.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Ms. Davis, you understand that exemption is only on the inputs to ag.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, sir. And, Mr. Hardcastle, what we're trying to do is examine it from the perspective of the value it brings to the state. I understand that the question is whether or not we as a state would like to continue the exemptions based on a benefit that we can articulate and it can be measured and evaluated. And today there's no examination of these exemptions and that's what this amendment was brought forth to do.

REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: And would you mind if I put up an amendment to the amendment on because that exemption is on the imputes to food and fiber and we also exempt tax on groceries.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I will tell you I will not have a problem with you amending the amendment to look all exemptions. But I will tell you this bill probably doesn't go that far. But I, in fact, believe we ought to be examining all exemptions to determine the value they bring to the State of Texas and whether they are still needed because it is a $30 billion cost. And so, I understand what you're saying and I have agreed with Chairman Hildebrand to do it a little more comprehensively on another bill but I'm happy to entertain an amendment to take them all into consideration and review and examine them all. I will tell you Chairman Hildebrand is not so happy with that. I certainly think we need to as a state from a public policy standpoint we need to look at this amount of exemptions that are in place and determine what the benefit is to the state, review how we are captioning these exemptions and verifying that they are in fact doing what they are supposed to do for the state and the states economy.

REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And Ms. Davis, I understand that. But you understand this bill is set up to take away the abuse of that exemption.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And that's why I wanted to have the discussion because I think Chairman Hilderbran's bill is in fact designed to look at the very things that we ought to be looking at as it relates to all exemptions and to make sure and verify that in fact that what we want to see happening is happening. And so, his amendment -- his bill is actually introducing what I think we ought to be doing -- is creating a way, a mechanism to decide whether or not we are in fact getting what we want from that exemption. So I understand that's what his bill does and that's what this seeks to do just a step further. Members, I will again tell you that I have -- have assured Chairman Hilderbran that I will pull this down because we do have a bill that we think is probably a better vehicle and is more comprehensive as it relates to the evaluation, examination of exemptions including, not just limited to the agriculture exemptions but all exemptions because it is such a tremendous cost. There is no review process. And some of them have been not been reviewed or examined since they were instituted. And so, our goal is to have a thorough discussion about this because from a public policy standpoint we need to be saying, why we give away $30 billion of revenue that we ought to have for our economy. With that I'm going withdraw this amendment and respect Chairman Hilderbran -- our agreement to look at this on another bill thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, the amendment has been withdrawn. Is there anyone wishing to speak for, on, or against House Bill 268. Chair hears none. The chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran to close on his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I just want to comment. The Ways and Means Committee under the chairmanship and leadership of Chairman Aliseda exemption during the last interim and made a recommendation to the legislature about those. And this bill is very narrow dealing with clarifying and removing any abuse from the use of the ag exemptions or sales tax exemptions. And that's what the bill does. But I appreciate Representative Davis efforts and we have set her bill for next Monday so we can have a more extensive review of this subject in the committee to give her the ability to raise this issue to all of us. And we're going to do that next Monday.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for just one question?

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Would the speaker -- will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And Chairman Hilderbran, just because I really appreciate you letting us do this. I just want to make for the record -- raise a question. It is true that most of these exemptions have not been examined thoroughly in terms of their benefits to the State. Would you agree to that?

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: No. I mean, they have been. They were reviewed last interim under chairman Aliseda's leadership. The Committee of Ways and Means -- we looked at every exemption including these exemptions.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But are they -- to an extent that you-all looked at them as a committee because I sat in some of those hearings. But to examine the benefits that they provide to the state and to the degree of how much -- how much it cost us versus what we get, there's been an ongoing discussion about the value versus what it cost us. And to that extent I don't think there's been a thorough investigation.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: In light of the economic conditions and the revenue shortfalls there's a lot of interest in looking at all kinds of things including exemptions and whether we're getting enough money or not and how much it costs state, how much it generates in economic -- whether it's fair. Something that we really need to do.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's what I'm saying.

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: And so, we have a Constitutional Amendment by Representative Pena -- I mean Chairman Raymond that we're going to be hearing soon too. And that's on making those two exemptions the medical and grocery permanent in the constitution. But all of these have been reviewed. The ag ones and any other raw input have never really been challenged. They've always -- they've been periodically reviewed and most of the public understands that that's a great value.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And Chairman Hilderbran, would you agree that I didn't say that they might not a value --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I understand your position. You want to review everything.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And Chairman Hilderbran, are you aware that this is not the first session I have fought this bill. That this has been going on -- I've followed this bill probably for the last four sessions trying to get them to review them as a state. I don't want you to think this something that I'm just doing because of the economic times. I think this is a policy issue because it takes so much money off --

REPRESENTATIVE HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I didn't mean to suggest that you were doing it because of economic times. I'm just saying because of economic times more people are looking at different areas like this. And at this time I move passage of a very good bill, House Bill 268.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 268. Vote aye, vote no, members. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, one nay, two present not voting, House Bill 268 is finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading House Bill 470 by Anderson. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 470 by Anderson. Relating to the addition of Salvia divinorum and its derivatives and extracts to Penalty Group 3 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson to explain his bill. CHARLES "DOC" ANDERSON: Thank you, members. This is the bill that we passed yesterday on secondary -- on 2nd reading that adds Salvia divinorum distributors to the penalty group three of the Texas Controlled Substance Act. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, is anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 470. If not the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 470. Clerk will ring the bell. Vote aye, vote no, members. Have all voted? Showing Mr. Torres once again voting aye. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, two nays and one present not voting, House Bill 470 is finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading House Bill 663 Kleinschmidt.

CLERK: HB 663 Kleinschmidt. Relating to procedures for amending restrictions governing certain residential subdivisions.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. House Bill 663 amends property code Section 211.02A to allow counties having a population of less than 65,000 in the 2000 census to amend their restrictive covenants in their residential subdivisions. Move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Is anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 663. Chair hears none. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 663. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 148 ayes 0 nays, one present not voting, the House Bill 663 is finally passed.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair lays out House Bill 896 on 3rd reading and final passage. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 896 by Howard. Relating to auxiliary members of an appraisal review board.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Howard of Fort Bend.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, the question occurs on passage of House Bill 896. This is on final engrossment. All those in favor vote aye. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, 1 nay, two present not voting House Bill finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 1137 on 3rd reading and final passage by Darby. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1137 by Darby. Relating to the transmission of records regarding over-the-counter sales of ephedrine, pseudoephedrine, and norpseudoephedrine and a person's civil liability for certain acts arising from the sale of those products.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Mr. Darby to explain the bill. Chair recognizes Representative Aycock to move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE JIMMIE DON AYCOCK: Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, the question occurs on final vote of House Bill 1137. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 130 ayes, 13 nays, two present not voting, the bill finally passage. Chair lays out House Bill 1601 on 3rd reading by Mr. Price. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1601 by Price. Relating to consecutive sentences for certain offenses involving injury to a child, an elderly individual, or a disabled individual and arising out of the same criminal episode.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Price to explain the bill. REP. WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Members, 1601 provides sentencing flexibility of first degree felony offenses of injury to a child, the elderly, or disabled individuals causing serious bodily harm --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1601. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Mr.Zedler voting aye. There being 148 ayes, 0 nays, two present not voting, House Bill 1601 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 1682 on final passage and 3rd reading. Chair recognizes the clerk to ring the bill.

CLERK: HB 1682 by Weber. Relating to prohibiting school districts from requiring or coercing school district employees to make charitable contributions.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Weber to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE RANDY WEBER: Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1682. Clerk will please ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, 0 nays, two present not voting, House Bill 1682 final passes. Chair lays out House Bill 1862 on 3rd reading final passage. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1862 by Anchia. Relating to a tenant's remedies regarding a local government's revocation of a certificate of occupancy due to a landlord's failure to maintain the premises.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This relates to the tenant's remedies regarding revocation of certificates of occupancy. Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the bill? Chair sees no one. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1862. The clerk will please ring the bell. It's a record vote. Have all voted? There are 132 ayes, 9 nays, 3 present not voting, House Bill 1862 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 1907 on 3rd reading and final passage. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1907 by Madden. Relating to notification requirements concerning offenses committed by students and school district discretion over admission or placement of certain students.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Madden to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Members, this is our teacher and education employee protection bill we passed yesterday. Move adoption.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1907? Seeing no one. This is a record vote. Question occurs on final passage. Clerk which are ring the bell. Have all voted? Representative Guillen voting aye. There are a 143 ayes, no nays and two present not voting, House Bill 1907 finally passes. House bill -- chair lays out House Bill 1964. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1964 by Villarreal. Relating to discharging fines and cost assessed against certain juvenile defendants set for community service.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal to explain the bill.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, this bill allows judges to use community service as a way of dismissing fees on juveniles.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1964. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1964. This is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all members voted? There being 139 ayes 5 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 1964 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 2017 on final passage. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2017 by McClendon. Relating to the organization, governance, duties, and functions of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mrs. McClendon to explain the bill.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the Department of Motor Vehicle clean up bill that we heard yesterday. It addresses several small structural changes that would improve general functions of the agencies and I think --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: There's a 3rd reading amendment, members. Clerk will, please, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment doesn't create a new place. It just reorganizes them essentially into executive and legislative branches and then the judicial branch separately. And I believe it is acceptable to the author.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Amendment by Mr. Gallego is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Mrs. McClendon to move passage.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you. I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2017. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2017. This is record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, no nays, two present not voting. House Bill 2017 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 2468 on final passage. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2468 by Phillips. Relating to providing a patron of a pay-to-park or valet parking service with certain information; providing a civil penalty.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Phillips to explain his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: This is the parking bill we discussed yesterday. I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on House Bill 2468? This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, 2 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 2468 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 2561 on final passage. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2561 by Eissler. Relating to the definition of "school year" for purposes of the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Eissler to move passage.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, I do move passage on the standardization of the TRS school year.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2561. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2561. This is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Show representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, no nays, two present not voting. House Bill 2561 is final passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading House Bill 2619. The clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2619 by Callegari. Relating to the submission of information about critical water and wastewater facilities.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, this bill has to do with submerging this information to a county judge.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2619. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2619. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, no nays, two present not voting. House Bill 2619 is finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage House Bill 2632. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2632 by Driver. Relating to access to the criminal history record information of certain persons by the Texas Facilities Commission.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Driver to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DRIVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This allows the Texas Facility Commission to obtain criminal records from DPS. Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2632. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2632. This a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Show Mr. Driver voting no -- I'm sorry, showing Mr. Driver voting aye. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes 2 nos, two present not voting House Bill 2632 finally passes. Chair lays out on 3rd reading, final passage House Bill 2680. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2680 by King. Relating to procedure for certain small local exchange companies to propose to offer certain services or to make a minor change in a rate or tariff.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes the King of Zavala.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill allows small telephone co-ops to raise their rates in a manner differently than they do now and I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2680. The question occurs on final passage of -- oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chisum, I apologize. Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. King, are you yielding for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Yes.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields for a question. He yields Mr. Chisum. I think Mr. Chisum yielded to ask a question.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. King, would you just go through this bill one more time for me --

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: I'd be glad to. I'd be glad to. Mr. Chairman, what this bill does is it applies to small local telephone cooperatives and small telephone companies that have some restrictions on the way they are not deregulated like the larger companies.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: And they have some restrictions on how they can adjust their rates. And as the local type, you know, your -- this allows them to raise their rate on things like caller ID and call waiting and voice mail services. That's typically the things that they charge a dollar for now, for example. This allows them the raise that up to 50 percent. Current law allows them only to raise it up to 10 percent without -- they can do that once year I believe. So if they want to raise it by 50 cents from a dollar to a dollar and a half they'd have to raise it in 10 percent increments for five years. And this allows them to do this. This does not -- there is a 5 percent total revenue cap. So what it does not mean is that somebody's phone bill is go going to increase by 50 percent because that 5 percent revenue cap kicks in and you can't even get close to that.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. So, it's just -- it's just -- it's a little flexibility if they want to offer caller I. D. and not charge a dollar for it, they can charge a dollar and 50 cents but they're overall revenue for the company would not increase more than 5 percent, is that what you said?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: That is absolutely, correct.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So, it's not a windfall or a --

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: No, it just saves them the expense -- a lot of these companies just have a few thousand users and it saves them the expense of having to go through a whole rate making process at the PUC.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. King, I know I have several of these. Do you know how many of these there are in Texas? They don't have them in the big cities are they?

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Oh, I think they told me there were 49 of them. The vast majority of them only just a few thousand users. And, in fact, I think if you have over 31,000 users then you're not classified in this category anymore.

REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: You're in a totally different category. Okay. Thank you very much.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2680. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2680. It's a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 101 ayes 36 nays, three present not voting. House Bill 2680 is finally passed. Chair lays out on 3rd reading House Bill 2779. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2779 by Bohac. Relating to provisions in the dedicatory instruments of property owners' associations regarding display of flags.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Bohac to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, this is the flag that we passed yesterday that allows each Texan to proudly fly the flag on a free standing flag pole in their yard. Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: There's an amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to explain the amendment.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, this allows a resident to be able to fly the flag of the city or the county.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Farrar offers up the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Bohac to close on his bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, I proudly move passage of the flag bill.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2779. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2779. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Bohac voting aye. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, 1 no, two present not voting. House Bill 2779 finally passage. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage House Bill 2991. Clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2991 by Deshotel. Relating to a determination of the reasonable relation of certain transactions to particular jurisdictions.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Deshotel to explain the bill.

REP. JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker this bill simply allows relationships that are a per se reasonable for the charts and laws and business traction.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2991. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2991. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 148 ayes, 0 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 2991 finally passes. House Bill 3004 is layed out on 3rd reading and final passage. The clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 3004 by Nash. Relating to prepaid funeral benefits contracts and the prepaid funeral contract guaranty fund.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Nash to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: This is the bill we talked about yesterday where the funeral home goes out of business you're pre-need is still guaranteed by the guaranty fund.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3004? Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3004. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes 0 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 3004 final passes. Chair lays out on 3rd reading and final passage House Bill 3234. The clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 3234 by Hernandez Luna. Relating to the prioritization of requests to release certain case records maintained by the Department of Family and Protective Services.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Hernandez Luna.

REPRESENTATIVE ANA LUNA HERNANDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the bill we passed yesterday questioning DFPS to establish guideline that they prioritize requests to release records made by former foster families.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3234? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3234. This is a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 141 ayes, 7 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 3234 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 3372 on 3rd reading and final passage. The clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 3372 by King of Zavala. Relating to standards for a structure that is connected to a public water supply system and has a rainwater harvesting system.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes the King of Zavala.

REPRESENTATIVE TRACY O. KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill allows an individual to use harvested rain water for drinking purposes in their home even if it's connected to a municipal utility system as long as they have the appropriate cross connection safeguards in place. I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3372. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3372. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Me show me voting aye. I mean, Ms. Kolkhorst voting aye, Representative Workman voting aye. Have all voted? There being 148 ayes, 0 nays, one present not voting. House Bill 3372 finally passes. Chair lays out House Bill 3389 on 3rd reading and final passage. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 3389 by Workman. Relating to a sellers disclosure of natural or liquid propane gas on residential real property.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Workman to explain the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday that amends one line on the sellers disclosure form for residential sales. I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3389. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3389. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being a 147 ayes, 0 neighs, two present not voting. House Bill 3389 has finally passed. Members we're now on 2nd reading. Chair recognizes -- I'm sorry the chair lays out House Bill 1825. The clerk will read the bill.

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

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone consideration of HB 1825 to a time certain on April 28th to allow the senate bill companion to catch up. Time certain 8:00 a.m.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair areas none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 10 on 2nd reading. Clerk will please read the bill.

CLERK: HB 10 by Branch. Relating to eligibility for a Texas grant into administration of the Texas Grant Program.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members -- members, chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The Senate Bill 28 is over and eligible.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, the senate companion to House Bill 10 is over and eligible. Accordingly the chair lays out Senate Bill 28 and the clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: SB 28 by Zaffirini. Relating to eligibility for a Texas grant into administration of the Texas Grant Program.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Branch to explain Senate Bill 28.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Senate bill 28 which was our House Bill 10 --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Berman.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the -- Mr. Branch some questions?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: I would guess Mr. Branch would first want to lay his bill out.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: All right. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to those but if you could, Representative Berman, just lay out my bill and then we'll get to that. Mr. Speaker, members, this is the Texas Grant College Readiness Reform Act. And what this essentially does is take a program that has been focused on needy students but allows the line, the cue if you will, for applications to be based almost completely on who was good at turning in the application quickly. Over time we did require the recommended high school program and what we seen is that when we did require that 69 percent of the students ended up taking the program and that increased the interest in that particular program. Now we have 98 percent that are taking that program. What this bill does is a continuation in that evolution and instead of it just being needs plus speed the program would move toward need plus college ready. It doesn't mean that those who are needy and not as college ready wouldn't be able to apply. They could still apply but under in proposal as passed by the Senate it would allow those who had shown some college readiness to move to the front of the line. So we would have need plus college ready at the front of the line and then need and under the current law would still be in the line but not at the front. And then what are the four standards to show college readiness. We have a program that we work with the coordinating board that says if you have at least two of four we broadened the parameters. So one of the four is academic readiness and that is defined as either take the distinguished academic program.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Berman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Just a minute -- or you take 12 hours of college credit through duel credit, A. P. or I. P. That's one. Let me get through the other three, Leo, and then we'll go to your questions. The other is you've shown college readiness either by passing the accuplacer or one of the other tests that make up the Texas Success Initiative or you're exempt by taking a SAT or ACT or TAKS score. That's two. The third one is you could be in the top third of your high school class or have a B average. And the fourth is being successful in math beyond algebra II. And I'd be happy to take a question from Representative Berman.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Berman the gentleman yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Thank you very much. Dan, are you familiar with an HBCU -- HBCU.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: The Historic Black College Universities.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Do you know that I served on the board of an HBCU in Tyler for eight years now.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Texas College, I believe.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: And that's Texas College.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I also recall you telling me that.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Yes, also in our area we have not HBCU by the name of Wiley College in Marshall and we have Jarvis Christian College in Hawkins. We have HBCU's around the entire state.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Even Texas Southern University.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Even Texas Southern, exactly.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Prairie view A&M.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Were you in the legislature when Dr. Jesse Jones was a member of the legislature.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I was. We were -- I was privileged to overlap one term with Dr. Jones from Dallas.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: He was a great guy. Jesse was a democrat and I as a republican both served on the board of an HBCU. In fact Texas College was the only college in the state that had two board members who were actually members of the House of Representatives. Jesse and I worked together for many years to get money for TEG's for HBCU's and for other private colleges. And, now, when we had House Bill 1 on the floor, Dan, there were a number of amendments that I was going to amend to. To take $48 million away from the supplement to illegal aliens which would take them from out of state tuition to in state tuition and move that into TEG's so that U. S. black, hispanic, white and Asian students can go to school. Now, with the cut we made in TEG's what we're doing this year with this dramatic cut we are allowing people who are illegally in the state to go to school while black children who need to be in school in Texas College, Jarvis Christian College are not getting their TEG's. And that's the discussion that we had last week. I'm trying to find out how I can get more TEG's in honor of Dr. Jesse Jones into our college and into other HBCU's around the State and other private colleges. Can you answer that?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, that's a laudable goal Representative Berman and I understand your case that you're trying to make. This particular piece of legislation does not deal with tuition equalization grants, it only deals with Texas grants.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Right, I understand that --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's a different program.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: When we spoke last week though you mentioned something about getting tuition equalization grant money for HBCU and other private colleges.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I know as the budget has moved through the Senate they're focused on the amount of financial aid including Texas grants as you mentioned, and also the TEOG programs, the one that we fully funded and the work study program. So, that whole toolbox of financial aid will be on the table and I'm sure discussed in conference committee and I know there will be an effort and I'd be one the advocate for more Texas grant funding and TEG funding.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Not only Texas grant funding and TEG funding but also there is teacher grant funding that comes from the State that we were getting at Texas College. And I want to make sure that we continue to do that because right now we're operating backwards. We're allowing kids who are in the state illegally to go to school on in state tuition. We are doing that while black kids and hispanic kids and white kids and Asian kids who go to HBCU's and other private colleges are not getting the money to go to college. Something is wrong with that picture and I hope you'll take that up with Senator Zaffirini when you see her.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I absolutely will do that.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Berman.

REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move that the conversation between Representative Branch and I be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, sir. Members, you heard the motion by Mr. Berman. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mrs. Giddings, for what purpose.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield for a question, Mr. Speaker?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Branch, would you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Absolutely.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: The gentleman yields gladly for questions.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much. Representative Branch, as you well know we passed this legislation in 1999. I have the pleasure on serving on appropriations back then and while this bill by Representative Quair went through higher education. We had a lot of discussion in it in appropriations because of the amount of dollars that were involved. Are you aware of the program and from what state this Texas grant program was modeled after.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: The Georgia program.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Exactly. It was modeled after the Georgia program which was a needs based program. And while our program is needs based there are some eligible requirements, are there not?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: There are there are some eligibility requirements on the front end and as you know there are some eligibility requirements once you get the scholarship and as you continue through your career in higher education in order to maintain those.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: So, do you agree that one of the eligibility requirements for continuing your Texas grant is that you have to perform satisfactorily.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes. On the front end, Ms. Giddings, I would think of -- the only requirement other than getting your application in, in a timely fashion would be the -- that now we require the recommended high school program. And as I mention in my opening, before we required that only 69 percent of our students in the state took it. Now, the good news is that by raising the standard 98 of all our high school students take the higher -- the recommended program.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, and let's see you have to enroll for at least three-fourths of a full course load is another requirement.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, once you get in, that's right.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: According to the data.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I think also to just set the record complete on that. You have to complete 24 hours per year and maintain a 2.5 GPA.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes. I think that pretty much covers it and you have to enter higher education within 16 months of graduation. So that pretty much covers it. It seems to me, Representative, that this Texas grant program has worked pretty well, college participation is up and folks are earning their college degrees and pretty good numbers, do you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, I agree with some aspects. I guess the problem with this legislation attempts to improve about this program is the completion and that's what, you know, I get kidded by some of my colleagues here about having charts. But the chart that we have up here now illustrates the problem quite well, and I think it's important if we're going to be serious about policy that we communicate effectively to the members and this show that -- illustrates how many kids we're loosing by not completing. Nearly two-thirds and how much money we're loosing if we invest in these students and they are not complete and getting a credential. And so if we can improve that I'm in the favor of the program.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: According to data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board we are showing that the Texas grants students have a persistent rate nearly equal to students with incomes that are too high to be eligible for financial aid, are you aware of that?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Generally aware of the data.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Beg your pardon.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: You have made me aware of that. I've taken you at your word. I'm having a hard time hearing but keep asking questions if you so desire.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, we're having a difficult time hearing the two conversations between the two mikes. If you would, please, take your conversations outside the rail that would be greatly appreciated. Go ahead, Mr. Branch.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: As a matter of fact, according to data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board under the current standards the vast majority of Texas grant students have either graduated or are on the path to graduation. Do you happen to know what their six year graduation rate is?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: The question was what is the six year graduation rate at which university.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Just Texas -- Texas grant students over all, public universities.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Why don't you give me that because I've got a lot of different ones from different universities.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Texas grants recipients have a six year graduation rate of 55.3 percent. And then if you look at public universities financial aid eligible non-Texas grant that's 45.6 percent. So you can see there that Texas grant recipients have a higher six year graduation rate. And then if you look at all public university students the graduation rate is 55.9 percent so there is a .6 difference between all public university students and Texas grant recipients. So I am at a loss, neighbor, for you to tell me what problem it is we're trying to solve here.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, when we're taking taxpayers money and we're investing in students and we're loosing -- whether you take your numbers overall or we take some other numbers at key universities -- when we're loosing in some cases around 50 percent or more than 50 percent in some cases much more than 50 percent at certain schools because you know we allocate this money by universities then I'm not happy with not getting a return for 50 percent of the dollars of our taxpayers.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, the difference in all public university students and those who are receiving Texas grants in fact is .6 percent.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I know but it's one thing if a student choses to not complete with his own money or his families money, that's one issue. It's another thing when we are investing as stewards taxpayers money and we're not getting -- only getting about half complete.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, sitting on appropriations where you have sat for four years, Mr. Branch, and where I have sat for at least six or eight --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Six years for me.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, I guess eight for me. No student goes to a public school in Texas without taxpayer support.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, in terms of the subsidy that's right. In form of funding.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes, there's formula funding. So everybody has taxpayer support.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And that's right. And we're encouraging -- and this is one part of an effort, as you know, to encourage more and more completions because we need -- even beyond our taxpayer investment, we need to secure our future to have completions. We need to have adult population 25 and over with credentials so that we compare favorably with other states and other countries. And this is a part of that effort. And I have a great passage for that.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: And you and I are both very, very passionate about that. The difference is, Mr. Branch, is that I believe that these students are doing pretty well in terms of their graduation rates compared to everybody else out there. And you're right they are getting financial aid but all of these students are using taxpayer money, as they well should. We have a right to and responsibility to educate our young people. Not just for their sakes but for the sake of our state. I have holding in my hand here a copy of the college board -- the college completion agenda for 2010 progress report. And they give ten things that they think needs to happen for states to move ahead and would you know what No. 7 is?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I do not.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: No. 7 is provide more needs based grant and simplify the process.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker, may I move that the gentleman's time be extended.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members Representative Giddings moves that the gentleman's time expired. This is the first request for an extension of time. So ordered. Go ahead, Ms. Giddings, you still have the floor on question.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Branch, I know that you are aware because I see my colleague there and this is of course the same bill that we worked on so hard last session and thank goodness we were able to defeat it as it well should have been defeated because it ought to be our purpose here --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Is that a question? If so, I don't agree with --

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: You may answer it from your perspective Mr. Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I think this approach is a different approach with input from people like yourself who have some thoughtful comments about the metrics that we have much broader metrics this time, as I tried to lay out. And we have an option, a range that we can capture not just one SAT score or one ACT score but now we can have a broader range of evidence of college readiness. And that's what we worked on very hard over the interim as you know.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: I appreciate so much all the work that you have put into this bill and I do believe that you and I want to get to the same place. I just believe that we see the world a little bit differently and perhaps because we're all products of our experiences.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And that makes the chamber a richer place. At least from your perspective.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Absolutely, but, Mr. Branch, are you aware that there are many, many, many organizations and many sources of scholarships for students who have great GPA's and great SAT scores. And that the sources for financial aid for those students who, for perhaps reasons beyond their control -- they might of had to work in high school or whatever else. The scholarship availability is not as likely, as prevalent for those students.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We have all kinds of scholarships I acknowledge that. Absolutely, we have need based we have merit based, we have combinations, all kinds of scholarships, public, private. Even in our own public arsenal Be on Time, work study. We have a very large as you know a billion dollar, Hazelwood loan program that -- so we have a lot of arsenal -- I think the best financial aid in the State of Texas is the low price of our broad community college systems.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, let me ask you another question. Under this legislation, do students with the Texas Equalization Grant is there a merit piece to the Texas Equalization Grant.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: This bill does not involve -- if we're going to limit it to debate of Texas grants this bill as I told Representative Berman this bill does not focus on tuition equalization grant.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: I've read it. So I'm obviously aware of that. But that does have a barring on the question that I want to ask you. Which is, is it fair to students in public schools who are applying for Texas grants to have to apply based on merit when if you're getting the tuition equalization grant it's not based on merit?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, I guess when someone asks me a question about fairness I think of President John Kennedy's comment. You know life is not fair and fair is often in the eye of the beholder. So my view is they're very different programs. One can argue this the TEG program is one of the best investments that the taxpayers make because of the subsidy allowing a student to get into a program of say ten to 15,000 or $30,000 a-year tuition for a very small investment that incrementally gets the student into a private school. And I know that you've had students in private and public and done quite outstanding actually. So for me it's a different issue because graduation rates are much higher there. The investment pays off much quicker in four year graduation rates. They are in a different setting, a different program. Often some of those universities, not all of them, but many of them have very high standards to get in. And so the college readiness is actually tougher than what we're -- what I would say in most cases much higher than what we proposing here.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: I would disagree. I bet that in fact that is the case but we could debate that for a long time and probably not agree. What I will close with because there are other people who want to ask questions, Mr. Branch, Representative branch is --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But I'd rather visit with you because you're so eloquent and lovely and my neighbor.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: We have to keep the love in the neighborhood. But it's clear to me that you already know that I think we're absolutely going in the wrong direction. I think that students who are out there who are needy, many of them may have to work second jobs, they may come from homes where they don't have a lot of support. Those students need to have an opportunity to go to college too. And I think what we're doing here is denying a whole group of people who could succeed. We have to be able to save the students who's average is a C. It has been determined that they graduate from college, as well. And there's all kinds of support for students who make A's and B's and I'm all for that. I want every student to maximize their potential and their effort but we are definitely moving in the wrong way and I would never have voted for this bill if I saw this bill coming.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: If I could respond. On that front if you take the distinguished academic program which is not much different than the recommended, as you know. It involves one foreign language and some additional tests in the same classes. So, if you take the distinguished achievement program, known in the code as the advanced program, you can make a C and still be eligible under this program. And remember, of course, you're still eligible. All those students and I'm very concerned and I share with you your passion for the diamond in the rough. The great story, the late bloomer, being a late bloomer myself. I understand your point but remember what we're doing here those students are all still eligible. What we are saying here is those students who show strong evidence of some -- a fairly modest level of college readiness they just get to go to the front of the line as opposed to right now whether your college ready or not as college ready whoever is the fastest at filling out his form and pressing the button or turning form in they go to the front of the line. I don't think that's as good of a system as what we're proposing in out of this bill. But all are still eligible.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: In closing I would say if the data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board is worth the paper that it's written on, these students are performing as the system is pretty well.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And they all need to do better.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Walle, for what purpose.

REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Chairman, would Chairman Branch yield for a few questions?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chairman, do you yield for a few questions?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'd be happy to yield.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields for questions. And you're running very low on time.

REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, one of the things that concerns me because I was that kid that received a lot of those Texas grants. I attended the University of Houston on those grants and the Pell grant. And one of the things that I'm concerned about is we could potentially be closing the doors on kids that are going to need that assistance. That, yes, they did turn in their application but they're making the grade. I mean, they're making the grade. And those future kids that could benefit from this because, again, I was one of those kids. When I graduated high school my mom was working at Churches Chicken. Out of high school and at a candle factory making 4.35 an hour. So there was no way my mom could pay for my college tuition. Do you think we're closing the door on some of those kids? You know such as myself back then that didn't have the resources to attend college or a four-year university or even a community college.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We are not closing the door. We are changing who gets to go first, as opposed to just randomly whoever turns in their form. So we're not knocking anyone off the line. If there's enough funding there at an individual school because we are not changing the tranches of money at school. So a lot of these people that aren't in the front of the line are still going to be eligible. The larger question, of course, will be the level of funding. But to be responsive to yours let me give you an example. You can have a C student under the distinguished program and complete a math course beyond algebra II, he's in, he doesn't have to pass. Representative Sheffield raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: State your inquiry, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: How many amendments are on this bill.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: There are three amendments on this bill. We will get you to church on time. There are four amendments.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: There are four amendments.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: There are four.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, with that being the case I would move that the gentleman's time be extended.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: This would be the second request for an extension of time. Representative Turner's first, the bill's second. So therefore it requires unanimous. It must be unanimous. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The gentleman's time has been extended for the first request by Mr. Turner. The second on the bill.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I promise I will not take but a few minutes. I just have a few questions.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Can you promise that for those behind you.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, I promise I do promise. In fact I've written my questions down.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: He who filches my time.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Chairman, and I looked at the chart below and it talks about those who have received financial aid but did not graduate. That is inclusive of the entire pool; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yes, sir.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So it just doesn't focus on Texas grants.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: What was your question? The entire pool of what?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, the chart. Those students that received who did not graduate, it's those are just not the students who received Texas grants those are students college students that received financial aid in general.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Why don't we just sit -- wait -- there's actually both metrics on there.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Let me ask this question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: The larger number at the top, as you know, we basically loose a 100,000 students out of a 150,000 that start.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Is the reason for the bill -- for the change in criteria is that because that we are not fully funding Texas grant program. Is that the motivation behind the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No. No. As you know, I advocated strongly last session and we added nearly a hundred -- along with the efforts of Chairman Villarreal, Chairman Hochberg, Chairman Pitts, nearly a hundred -- maybe over $186 million in addition to what we had in the program. Our largest new contribution last time. Obviously this time it's a different story but we tried to dramatically increase and we did the number of students who not only were eligible but could actually receive a Texas grant.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. But even last session we did not fully fund the Texas Grant Program in order to meet the numbers that apply.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's right. And fully fund if that means trying to find 100 percent of all eligible students.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And this time -- and this time the funding provided by the State is even less than last time.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's correct.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And so, I'm trying to understand the motivation for the change in criteria. Because the criteria was always based on need to make sure more students who were capable to go have an opportunity to go to college or university.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's right. Remember as we talked with Ms. Giddings it was needs plus some parameters.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Recommended high school and once you got in you had to do certain things.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Okay.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: It's not just based on need. They had to meet a certain academic level.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Yep.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. My question to you would be, how many students received Texas grants in the past that did not go -- did not precede and did not receive a college education or college degree? Do we know that answer?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: How many people --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: How many students actually received a Texas grant but did not finish somebody's college or university.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We know its somewhere in the range depending on the university, it's anywhere in the range of 50 let's call it north of 60 percent.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Who received Texas grants but did not actually graduate.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Within a six-year timeframe. So some of these student are taking even longer. As you know we used to measure four year and now we measure six years.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Some graduate in four years, some graduate in six years, some may graduate even longer. Now based on the information --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And the coordinating board evidence is that we're losing a huge, huge amount of our investment aid. A very large number of our students aren't completing and getting the credentials we want. In order to be a good steward with taxpayer dollars, I mean, the point of the bill is to try and encourage more completions, more credentials, and hopefully get a better return for taxpayer investments.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: But the information that I have seen said, that the second best predicter in terms of students receiving a college degree happen to be those students that receive the Texas grant.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I guess whether that's causative or there's a correlation or it's just an association, I'm not familiar with that. I am familiar with statistics that say if you pass through algebra II that's a good predicter of high school success. If you are in a top certain percentage of your high school. If you have a combination of factors which is what the coordinating board and their hard work and the research tried to come up with. A range of reasonably modest standards that show some evidence of college readiness and then give the student a choice just to go to front of the line. Everyone is still in the line. Do we take the person who files the application first or do you take the person who showed some readiness.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. But Chairman Branch -- and I really don't want to take a lot of time, but based on the information based on the information before me those who receive Texas grants 22 percent graduated within four years, 45 percent graduated within 5 and 55 percent graduated in six years. And then when you combine it all 73 percent of those who received Texas grants did graduate. Now that is in comparison -- if you just take the six year comparison for students who enrolled in public university across the board in general, the people that received Texas grants are on the same level as percentage wise of those who are graduating.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And that level all of us agree is unacceptable and we need to do better at completing. All our students -- unless we are in dire shape in this state in the next twenty years. And this is an effort with taxpayer money to try to encourage beyond 22 percent in four years. We need to do better than 22 percent.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And under this bill, Senate Bill 28 we are eliminating Texas grants for those kids that are attending community colleges as well as technical schools as of 2013; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No, what we're doing under this bill is to say when we create a line of eligible applicants that the people at front of the line are those who have shown some level of college readiness.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So when I'm looking at the analysis on Senate Bill 28 and it says that this bill will eliminate eligibility for Texas grant awards at community and technical colleges; is that true or not true?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: As you know, we have a TEOG program. Right. And the Texas grants while we have some students that it works out because of their timing and they're using them in community colleges. We have another program that we are fully funding this time TEOG grants which is just the primary financial aid vehicle for community colleges.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And are you representing to the body -- let's assume we passed Senate Bill 28 with this new criteria, are you saying that every student qualifies under this new criteria is going to be receiving a Texas grant?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Wait a second. Everyone --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Let's say Senate Bill 28 passes and now we have a thousand students that are qualifying that meet this new criteria under Senate Bill 28.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Two out of four, low level.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would everyone of those students be receiving a Texas grant?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Well, you know, the answer to that, Sylvester. That depends on what you and your colleagues in appropriations decide on how much we are going to fund the Texas grant pool.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's exactly my point because on HB 1 as it currently exists not one of them will be receiving a Texas grant. So we are modifying the standard at a time when we're not putting any money into the Texas grant program.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But as you know we're not completely done. I think we have 40 something days. I'm relying on people like you to make sure that at the end day when it's all said and done that we will have -- and the gentleman behind you Mr. Villarreal -- I think we are going to have some money in Texas.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I'm relying on people like you in carrying this bill that's making a representation to these kids that there will be a Texas grant funded that they can rely on.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And we have an amendment from Representative Castro that's going to deal with one of the issues I think you're focusing on.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that. And lastly, and I will be through the bill says, that this coordinating board cannot make any adjustments as it relates to the proportionality of the college and universities that are receiving Texas grants. But the bill also says that the Texas Coordinating Board may through its rule making change some of the additional criteria. And the reason why I raise the issue is that even though we are voting on this bill, this bill gives the coordinating board the authority to change the rules even further.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman's time has expired. Mr. Turner. Following amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is essentially a report that the coordinating board would provide to the legislature and they would do a few things. They would give an annual -- they would give a report on the allocations of both initial and renewal Texas grant awards by institution. The number of Texas grant awards for students statewide, this aggregated by race, ethnicity, and EFC, expected family contribution. Also the number of Texas grants both statewide and by each institution awarded under the old method and the new priority model this aggregated again by race, ethnicity, and EFC. And also the retention and graduation rates for Texas grant recipients. I believe that my amendment is acceptable to the author.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Representative Castro offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to author. Is the there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk would, please, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Castro.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Castro to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: This amendment essentially creates an on ramp for any students who are not initial Texas grant recipients because of budget cuts. This is a way for them to be considered when there's more money later if they completely miss out because of budget cuts. And I believe it too is acceptable to the author.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Castro offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego to explain his amendment.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment would provide is for a pilot project with Texas grants. Here's the issue we have a lot of universities in the state which have under utilized space where we built dormitories and so forth and they're not fully utilized. So that would be -- there's some in south Texas, there's some in west Texas, there's some in north Texas. And we have some universities where really there's a long line of people waiting to get in. So what this would seek to create a pilot program where you take a thousand students and you see if with a thousand students if you can create an incentive for those students to go to those under utilized universities. So the coordinating board would establish that pilot project and establish the rules by which we would do that and the theory is rather than continue building new buildings and new facilities at certain places to see if there's a possibility through the incentive program to see if we can fill the beds that are already built and use the facilities that are already there and that way over the long-term you're actually saving significant state dollars. So for universities in the panhandle, for universities in west Texas, and north Texas some of those are under utilized and have dormitory space, for example, that have laboratory space that is not used as often this would allow the coordinating board to create that pilot program to see if with a thousand kids -- it's really an experiment to see if with a thousand kids you might be able to incentivize behavior to see if you can get those kids to attend one of the universities that's perhaps under utilized and I'm happy to yield Judge Lewis.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Do you yield?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: I would be happy to yield.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chairman is happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: I just have a couple of questions, if I might. First of all in addition to benefiting these individual institutions that might be under utilized, will the fact of economies of scale and things of that sort will this also benefit the state if the pilot project shows that this is a useful method of using these grants.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Oh, absolutely. It would be very cost effective for the state in terms of the long term building new facilities and going into debt with bonds and those kinds of things. We would be able to use the facilities that we have now in a better and more efficient way. That's the goal of the project. And, again, it's an experiment. It's a thousand kids to see if this works or not.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: And are these under utilized colleges located throughout the state of Texas. So it would benefit throughout the State, east Texas, west Texas.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: They are not limited -- the coordinating board can tell you who has unutilized space and who has a lot of dormitory rooms, for example, that are unfilled. If you look at the amendment the amendment allows the coordinating board to determine which institution has the facilities based on criteria that the coordinating board determines is appropriate. So they figure out how to run it. They figure out -- and, you know, it's going to be limited to a thousand kids. There maybe some that, you know, in east Texas there may be some in south Texas, north Texas Sam Houston San Angelo, there's going to be a number of universities out there that could perhaps -- that could benefit under this program.

REPRESENTATIVE TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. Very good amendment.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: I think it incentivizes behavior and I think it makes an effort to see if we can learn something new using the Texas grant program.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Branch in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I appreciate Chairman Gallegos comments and I appreciate his need for representing his area and for schools that are -- have excess capacity. We also have many universities in this state that have are short on capacity, have a large number of students are growing dramatically and they care deeply about not reallocating the mix. The unfortunate part of his amendment is it's a binary and so when you try to create a pilot program for a thousand students you're going to suck a lot of the Texas grant money to these schools and take it away from the rest of the -- the rest of the group of universities which are now on board for not using allocations.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Branch, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Inaudible.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: How many people get the Texas grant program? How many got it in the last year.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: How many what?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: How many college students.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: We have hundreds of thousand of students.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Right. You get hundreds of thousands of students. And so, if this pilot program is limited to a thousand of them, then every grant, every university may get a dollar less. And you're only talking about a thousand kids. So it's not this giant sucking money from one college and moving it to another. Money from one university and moving it to another. You're talking about a very small as opposed to hundreds of thousands of kids. You're talking about learning something, doing an experiment with a thousand kids to see if in the long run it pays to use the facilities that we've already built and paid for as opposed to going into debt to build additional facilities.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I said I acknowledge that -- perhaps when you were moving to the back, that I see the value in this for our schools that have excess capacity. We built the equipment and the buildings and so an incentive to move those students to those locations --

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Right. So it sounds like you're going to accept the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: It's not without merit. And as you know you have a bill for that and I gave you a hearing and it's now sitting before you.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: And the difficulty the bill that I have or that I had didn't -- wasn't a pilot program and it wasn't limited to a thousand kids. And really for the purposes of the Texas grant program you really just want to see if this works or not. And so this is a very small scale effort to see what we can determine with a thousand kids as opposed to launching a program out there that would change it in a wholesale fashion. This is just with a thousand kids out of a hundred, 200,000, 300,000. It's not a lot of money.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I hear your point and the concept of a pilot at some point I would be supportive of and work with you.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: I'm glad are you supportive of that today.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'm not prepared to do that on this piece of legislation, at this time given what we've worked out with all the other universities but I appreciate your efforts.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: How much would this impact any other university if its only a thousand kids, $2.00, $3.00, $4.00.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Keep going.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: $5.00. With a thousand kids it's not going impact the universities very much.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: It's a material amount. Particularly if those thousand kids didn't draw down dollars for six years, maybe longer.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Cook raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Representative Branch moves to table. Representative Gallego to close on his amendment.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Members, this is really an issue of efficiency. You got a lot of dorms, you got a lot of facilities, you got labs, you got a lot of stuff that you already built and that you already paid for and you also have universities that are constantly asking for more and more and more facilities. This gives us an opportunity in a very limited way with only a thousand kids, in a very limited way to determine whether or not we can incentivize behavior by sending students to an under utilized university. If we can do something about balancing enrollment across the state. With a thousand kids it gives you an opportunity to learn. It's not a wholesale change. It's not anything that's going to cost any university even any form or fashion a significant amount of money. It's an attempt to learn something. It's an attempt really to experiment. To see if we can balance enrollment. And Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to my desk mate Mr. Hochberg.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Hochberg for a question. Gentleman yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Gallego isn't it true that for some of these small institutions and we actually pay them a small institution supplement, where we send them extra state money just to keep their doors open because they do have a small student count.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: That's exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So wouldn't it be better to put that money into tuition for actual students who could come there than having to offset the fact that they don't have students.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: You know instead of paying -- it's one of those things instead of paying universities to keep their doors open when they don't have enough kids. Let's make sure they have the kids to go there because they've got the faculty, they've got the facility, and this will give a lot of universities across the state -- I mean UT and A & M don't have this issue but a lot of other universities do across the state. Where they have either dormitories or labs or programs that is under utilized. And again this is an opportunity to use the facilities that we have and create an experiment using the Texas Grant Program. And it's actually a pretty innovative idea and I think we can learn a lot from it if you'll give us the opportunity -- if we'll let the idea go.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: This isn't just for an institution in your district although you have one or two of them. But it's for -- it's for institutions around the state that are small and particularly in rural areas.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Absolutely. If you look at the panhandle, for example, with declining enrollment. If you look at east Texas with declining enrollment. Some of the urban centers may not benefit as much but they're not going to loose any money under this pilot program either. So, again this is a win, win for everybody because it really gives us the opportunity to learn if we can balance student enrollment and use the facility that we already have instead of constantly using TRB's, new bonds and others and other kinds of going into debt to build new facilities.

REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Gallego, with respect to Chairman Branch I think you have a good amendment.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Hochberg.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Coleman, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE GARNET F. COLEMAN: Yes. Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: I'm happy to yield.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: He yields.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: Thank you very much, Representative Gallego. There was a program started in Texas, right, that said we save money by giving grants to individuals to send them to colleges that already has buildings because it saves us money. Do you know what the name of that program is.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Tuition Equalization Grant.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: Texas Equalization Grant.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Right.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: And before Texas Grants was created which program got more money than any other program for scholarships for students.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Well, they got more money, as you know, it didn't count against the budget for certification purposes under the Tuition Equalization Grant.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: And Tuition Equalization Grants have been policy for a long time and we keep increasing it and all of that. But the logic that you've laid out is exactly the same reason why we do Tuition Equalization Grants.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Absolutely. And this is an opportunity to learn if we can do that kind of thing with the public universities and the state system to see if we can balance out the enrollment and create an opportunity. Create incentives through financial aid. And again with a thousand kids it's not going cost anybody a lot of money.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: I can tell you there are more than a thousand kids receiving Tuition Equalization Grants.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Absolutely.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: I represent St. Thomas University, I'm a graduate. There are colleagues people I went to school with that have TED.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: I'm so happy that's in Houston, Texas.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: That's exactly right. But I think you have a very good amendment.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Coleman, I appreciate that. Members, I think this is great public policy and it really is something from an efficiency standpoint it will help us to learn a lot about where we need to go with this state and what we need to do and it will certainly help us in terms of our ongoing debt issues. So, I ask you to vote against the motion to table. Please, vote no on the motion to table.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Gallego offers up an amendment. Representative Branch moves to table. Question occurs on the motion to table. This is a division vote. Please, vote. I'm sorry, Mr. Gallego has requested a record vote. This is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Showing Mr. Branch voting aye, showing Mr. Gallego voting no, show Mr. Branch voting aye, please. Have all voted? There being 90 ayes, 53 nays and two present not voting. The motion to table does prevail. Following amendment. Representative Gallego. Following amendment. The clerk -- amendment on page 0 is withdrawn. We do have another amendment though. Representative Coleman. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Coleman is stuck behind Representative Smithee but is aggressively making his way to the front mike. Representative Thompson is handling the problem. Representative Coleman to explain his amendment.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment does is just puts in the criterium that can be used by an institution both a personal statement and an interview just like we do in a lot of colleges and programs. So if there's additional merit that student can be moved up based on this is one of the criterium they would have to have with the another one. And I don't know what the chairman's position on it. But I think this allows som more flexibility for students who might have a great -- might be really good band player so --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'm going to have to oppose this but with due respect for Chairman Coleman because his amendment talks about an interview process and it adds -- it as an additional criteria that in one sense could make it more difficult for some of our students and in another sense interviews, of course, are always good. Some colleges and universities this would probably create some problems for them if they don't already do that. I guess third point would be, Chairman Coleman, is that a lot of these universities already have an interview process and I wouldn't want to micro manage that. And so in one once this would be redundant. So, with all due respect I'm going to move to table but I appreciate the efforts by Representative Coleman.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Coleman to close.

REP. GARNET F. COLEMAN: Members, you know, when Texas grants was done I remember the discussions in the conference committee and I remember when Senator Bivens and I put Teach for Texas as apart of Texas grants. I remember when we were moving forward trying to give students opportunity. When other criterium came in based on having an individual be able to go to a school and get scholarship money the use of interviews and the use of special criterium that would not be in a typical application for a scholarship or for admissions to university. There are people here that because they were very good at playing football or very good at playing in a band or very good in one area of education, be it science, math, or something else, but the merit doesn't show in the application. And so we don't want to lose the best people because they don't fit into the box that's been created. And when we do something that doesn't want -- we don't want people -- we want people who don't fit in the boxes lay it out by folks that still pursue excellence. And so, that's the reason I bring this amendment. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table. And I want to remind you all that this is a Senate Bill. We don't get another shot at this. This is it. So, I hope people are thinking about the merits of the amendments and the merits of the discussion because we haven't had many bills passed on final passage yet that we won't see again. That will become law. So I ask you to just add another criterium to this list because, you know, most people, regardless of who they need to at least to make the argument that they should be able to receive this money. And I ask to vote know on the motion to table.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Coleman offers up an amendment. Representative Branch moves to table. Record vote is requested. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Showing Representative Branch voting aye, showing Representative Coleman voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 88 ayes, 57 nays and two present not voting. The amendment is tabled. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal to explain his amendment.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Let me explain why I am signed on to this bill as a joint author. This is a much better bill than the attempt at reforming Texas grants that was tried in this legislature last session. Why, because we make one very important change. Money is first allocated to our universities based on their share of needy students. Before any prioritization takes place. We allocate money to universities based on their share of needy students. Then we tell the universities prioritize the students into two categories. Those who are more prepared for college based on the criteria layed out in the bill ahead of those that aren't. And you can allocate your share of dollars through the priority kids and into the students for in the second category. What this does members, is it recognizes that our universities have different missions. University of Texas in Austin is a tier one national research organization that attracts students of a very different make up than say, Texas A & M San Antonio in my hometown. That universities mission is really focused on access. And we value that mission just as much as we value excellence. And so, with this important change we do not undercut the universities who are all about access. We make sure that they receive the same share of money as they do today, based on their show of low income kids. This amendment that I'm offering further clarifies that. And Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield for a question.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, Mr. Turner, Mr. Villarreal yields for a question.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you. And Representative Villarreal, just on that one issue on proportion. The institution receiving -- the coordinating board cannot change the proportion of funds allocated based on the level of priority. Can you help me to understand?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes. Let me --

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: But it does say, if this analysis is correct that the coordinating board retains rule making authority to change allocation percentages for other reasons. What does that mean?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I'm sensitive to that language also and the explanation -- I walked over to the drafting attorneys and asked them to draft an amendment that trumps any kind discretion we are giving to the coordinating board that locks in place in statute exactly how the money is allocated to our universities. They have told me that this amendment accomplishes that and I believe that that allocation cannot be changed by the discretion that we are giving them. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Villarreal offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill, please, come on down front. Madam Doorkeeper.

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

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

SENATE MESSENGER: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate is taking the following actions and passed the following measures. SB 208 Gallego. Relating to public notice and forums concerning finalists for the position of superintendent of a school district. SB 220 Nelson. Relating to guardianships, including the assessment of prospective wards for, and the provision of, guardianship services by the Department of Aging and Disability Services. SB 434 Nelson. Relating to the establishment of a task force to address the relationship between domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. SB 635 Nickels. Relating to the authority of the executive director of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality in relation to establishing water and sewer utility rates.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Messenger, how many pages will we be listening to. Would you read the last page for me.

SENATE MESSENGER: Respectfully

(*inaudible) Secretary of the Senate.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you Mr. Messenger. Chair recognizes Representative Giddings to speak in opposition to the passage of Senate Bill 28.

REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And with all due respect to my good friend, Chairman Branch and who sits behind me and hails from the same city. I'm going to vote no on this bill. I'm going to vote no for these reasons. Number one, Texas Grants was designed to give hope to low income high school students. We asked them to do certain things to meet certain requirements and we told them that they would have an opportunity to go to college and now we want to change the rules. The second reason, that I'm going to vote against this bill is that the people, the students in Texas that this bill was designed to help, the Texas Grant Program is helping just those students. Members if you take a look at the selected income and related characteristics of House districts and it tells you the per capita income of each district, the number of persons, percentage who are living in poverty, on public assistance, Social Security, and whatnot and when you look at the districts and you see where the students are who are receiving these grants. The Texas grants are going to the person who need them the most. And that's what the program was designed to do. There are not a lot of Texas grants in my district for instance. But my district is not one of the highest poverty areas. So these grants are going to the students who have the most needs and that's what we said we wanted it to do. And finally, I am going to vote against this bill because according to data from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, grant recipients have a graduation and persistent rate above the overall student body average. What that means is, they're doing better. The combined graduation and persistent rate for all public university students is 72.8. For Texas Grant recipient it's 73.3. The persistent and the graduation rate is higher for Texas grant students. These students under the current standard the vast majority have either graduated or they're on the path to graduation. I would simply say to those members who represent rural areas, where students don't always score as well and to some of the other areas a lot of the students that you represent while they still may have needs based on scores and that kind of thing they're going to be put at the back. And I believe that all students should work hard and do the best that they can do. And we expect them to excel but I also understand that in a lot of situations and a lot of circumstances -- low income kids and that's the population that we serve with Texas Grants. Many of them may have to work and go to school and some of them may not be living in the most ideal circumstances. And if they can get a C and get through high school and then go to college as we promised them they ought to have that opportunity. And I know that we're not cutting them off but because we are reducing the number of persons on Texas Grants because we are giving the program less funding there are going to be fewer recipients for Texas Grants. And so the program is working and I don't know why we would want to break it at this point. So members I will be voting no on House Bill 10, Senate Bill 28.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to speak for Senate Bill 28.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I am supporting House Bill 10 or the senate bill, senate companion today because I do think it brings a great measure of accountability to the money that the state distributes to our students who are going onto college the assistance of the Texas Grants Program. And I want to say especially for my democratic colleagues who are thinking about how they want to vote on this because I know many of us have similar constituencies and I've got a few thousand folks in my district who are recipients of the Texas Grant Program. It's not a decision that I made lightly. There was a bill that we considered 2009 that was not the same but you know had the same theory behind it that didn't pass with through the legislature. And for two years we have worked on this bill gone back and forth on it put safeguards in it and I want to tell you a little bit about what those safeguards are. The first thing is the financial requirements for being in the eligible pool are not changing. Those are not changing at all. In other words, the people that are eligible next year will be the same people that are eligible today, or last year. What we're changing is who has the priority in line and that is where our measure of performance comes in. We're giving priority to people who have demonstrated a certain level of performance and those are folks who have hit two of the four criteria. We're not changing the fact that this is still a need based scholarship or need based grant. That's an important part. Secondly, we also added after my amendment an on ramp which I think is good for people who may not be initial recipients of Texas grants because of budgetary cuts to the program. They will now have as a result of this bill a way to get back into the program. So hopefully at some point they can come back on and be grant recipients, Texas grant recipients. And then finally, part of the reason that it was a tough decision for me over the years is because I thought about my own experience in going to college. The year that I went to college -- the year before I went to college my mom, who was a single mom at the time, made less than $20,000 that year. And she was trying to send two sons at once to Stanford University which you can imagine is infinitely more expensive than many of our public universities here. And so, I know it was a struggle for her and believe me I wouldn't support legislation that made it harder for families like that, like mine during those years to send their kids to college. This bill has enough safeguards and also promotes accountability. And I don't think that we should be scared of that. I think that considering the amount of money that the state loses, hundreds of millions of dollars over that six-year period which is on this billboard, we can't be scared of imposing certain accountability standards on our students. I think it's good for them and I also think it's good for the state and for that I support this bill.

REP. ERIC JOHNSON: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: For what purpose, Mr. Johnson.

REP. ERIC JOHNSON: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields.

REP. ERIC JOHNSON: Representative Castro, we serve on higher education together and we've had a lot of discussions about this and this is the bill that I had some concerns about too. So I just wanted to make sure that we are very clear on a couple of things. I think that it's very important that everybody understands what the bill does and what it doesn't do. So just for added clarification, does this bill do anything, anything at all to alter who is eligible for Texas grant based on income.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: It does not. In fact, Representative Johnson, we have put a provision in the bill which makes -- which cuts out the higher education coordinating board's ability to mess with that number, essentially. In other words, to allow people with more money, with higher income to be included in the pool that's another feature, safeguard that's part of this bill.

REP. ERIC JOHNSON: And as a follow-up question. Another concern that I have and I'm sure there are other members here that have it that hasn't really been discussed but -- have you seen data -- do you have any reason to believe that these changes that are being proposed would have any impact on the distribution of these grants within that pool according to race? Are we looking at any possible -- or anything is possible I suppose. What are the projections say or do we any data that would suggest that it would go up, down, stay the same? What's the situation with respect to the proportion of the grants that go to students based upon race.

REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: The data that I've seen, the numbers that were run by the coordinating board show that there's essentially no change. That there's no change in the ethnic composition of recipients. But I would also point out, Representative, that I know that many of us that represent either heavily Latino or heavily African American districts keep an eye out whenever there maybe a policy that disenfranchises or disadvantages our constituents, naturally. But I would also point out that 67 percent of public school students in Texas are now minority. And that number over 50 percent now are Hispanic. That number just continues to grow. So I think watching out for it is a valid concern but I think the numbers themselves the majority population now in our public schools is in fact majority minority.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point is the well taken and sustained. Anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 28. Chair recognizes Representative Branch to close.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, chairman if I could just ask this question.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Oh, you want the gentleman to yield for a question?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: That's okay. Representative Branch gentleman yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I'll have less time to have an eloquent close like my neighbor.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: You need less time to make an eloquent close than I do. I have to warm up. But Mr. Chairman let me ask this question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: I've got my card many any pocket.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: This is at the crux of it. The situation I have one student that is entering college with a 3.6 GPA. I've got another student that's entering college with a 3.0 GPA. Is there any study that you have that says that any student that enters college with a 3.5 is more likely to graduate than the student that is entering college with a 3. Because under the current system both would be eligible for Texas grant.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: That's right. Because if that was one of metrics they used to check the box out of the four which, as you know, if you look at those four metrics. There's a couple of -- in some of the four there's actually, you know, either or that you could get. So there's six options maybe seven options when you look at the options under the college credit. So you could do duel credit. So you don't have to have the B average. If you have 12 hours of duel credit, 12 hours of AP, 12 hours IB, anyway that you get there then you've checked one box.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. Because I'm just trying to figure out and because implicit within this debate.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But we have a lower standard. Your question asks 3.6 versus 3.0. We've taken the lower number as one of the metrics.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. But implicit in this debate is that those who are receiving -- who are eligible for Texas grants now that there are a certain -- that there is a certain student who is more likely to go to a college university and graduate than another within the existing criteria of the Texas grant. And I have get yet to see any data that says that those students that are, quote, unquote, performing at a higher level within the existing criteria are more likely to graduate from some college than those who are on the -- in the second level of existing criteria. Because implicit in this discussion is that assumption.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And the research shows that anyone of these metrics or some combination we have a higher likelihood and 70 percent of the current eligible students would be eligible for priority under the current status. So -- and then the studies that they've looked said that we will have a higher completion rate if we move in this direction. And that's what this is all about just slightly raising the bar. Just like what you-all did when you raised it to having the recommended curriculum and slightly raised the bar beyond just needs. This is slightly raising the bar again with a lot of options to ultimately get more completions. That's all this does.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: But I'm not -- I'm not seeing -- Dan, I'm not seeing those studies. I'm not see that. And I guess that is -- it seems as though to me -- it seems as though to me that these criteria are being driven a budgetary cap.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: No, no.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: This is just from my perception. This is me talking. Because I'm not looking at a study that says that under the present Texas grant system where 55 percent of those students that are graduating in six years comparable to every other category.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But unacceptable.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Huh.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I would hope that you would agree with me.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: It's unacceptable but we don't balance it or we should not balance it on the backs of the recipients of the Texas grant program. That's the point that I'm trying to -- that's the point that I'm making.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I don't think its fair to characterize that it's balancing on the back of the recipients of the Texas grant. I think what we're trying to do is say let's make the Texas grant money -- the return on that investment go further. Let's encourage a little more college readiness.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Look I am all for high standards. I am all for high standards. And we can all profile everybody in this room and terms of their standards. And I think I did exceeding well on the academic standards. But I am just as mindful that there are a lot of bright students out here and a lot of bright students in the State of Texas whose GPA may not be as high as someone else but there is a line that we have established under the existing Texas grant program and that those students go off to do exceedingly great things. I am concerned that what we are doing here is not -- is not necessarily producing the best students or creating a system where these students are going to be graduating in the shortest period of time. I don't think we do it through the Texas Grant Program that on balance -- on balance the Texas grant program is working for students in rural Texas. I think you will agree. From peopling coming from rural Texas they are benefiting from the system and from urban Texas as well.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And I would -- my only response would be, that under this program if you took the distinguished program and passed didn't even have a B average and also passed -- completed a class beyond algebra II which is a high end indicator of college credit, then you're at the front of the line. To be me it's a very modest bar, Sylvester. And in closing, members, I'd say the central facts for us is this, members. From 2003 to 2009 66 percent of those who started college did not graduate. That's unacceptable in our state. That's a loss of over $700 million in financial aid and over $300 million in state revenue. You heard the statistics with respect to the Texas grant and our investment in that. The average student loan debt of non-completers is about almost $11,000 at universities and $7,000 at community and tech colleges.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentleman's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: With that members I close and move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Suspend for just one question.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Be happy to.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Y'all are all on borrowed time.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: All right. Real quick. I've got my friend Mikey Easel here and we have a question for Mr. Branch on one of his visuals. I notice that this chart here and we have improved graduation. I think your bill is doing a great job. I'm just concerned about this six year graduate rate. Is that what we're going for now is six years on graduation now? On this visual?

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Sadly, Mr. Taylor, that -- when I came down here and I asked the same question in appropriations. That our Pell grant programs and a lot of our programs sort of contemplate and there's some good reasons for that. And there's probably some bad reasons for that. And we look between four, five, and six years. And I know you're one who wouldn't allow a victory lap for his children.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: No, certainly wouldn't. They would be paying their way for five and six. Thanks Mr. Branch, good bill.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members question occurs on passage to 3rd reading Senate Bill 28. It's a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Showing Representative Castro voting aye, showing Representative Branch voting aye, Representative Carter voting aye. Members, I'll give you time to vote from you desks. Mr. Burnam voting no. Have all voted? Representative Van Taylor voting aye. Have all voted. There being 123 ayes 25, nays, and two present not voting. Show representative Anchia voting aye. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business -- I'm sorry, members. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2433 on 2nd reading. The clerk will read the bill.

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

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members this Senate Bill is over and eligible Senate Bill --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Just a second, Mr. Callegari. One moment, members, the Senate companion to House Bill 2333[sic] is over and eligible. Accordingly the chair lays Senate Bill 1226 -- lays out Senate Bill 1226. And the clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 1226 by Hegar. Relating to the ballot language for junior college district annexation elections.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair now recognizes Representative Callegari to explain Senate Bill 1226.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Members, this bill changes ballot language for junior college annexation and it clearly states the name of the college and the tax rate that would be expected if an area is annexed into a junior college. I move adoption.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Callegari, would you yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I will.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentleman yields.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Callegari, are you aware that every community in the State of Texas is inside of a service area of the community college.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Yes, but everyone does not pay a community college fee.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And are you aware that though every part of Texas is inside of a service area of the community college not every community in Texas is inside of a taxing district of the community college.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: That's correct.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And so while I -- would you consider that a free rider problem.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Not really, no.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Why.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Because they weren't placed in a district and the people in those districts should have a right to decide if they want to be in a district or not and pay a tax and not be in a college district and if they're not then they pay a much higher fee for attending the college.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Are you aware that the fee isn't paid by the businesses and property owners throughout the community it's that higher fee is in the form of tuition paid by students and families.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Yes, I am aware of that.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Are you aware that higher tuition rate does not cover the full cost of providing that education to the students outside of the community college taxing district?

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I didn't understand your question.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Are you aware that those higher tuition fees don't cover the lost revenue.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I'm not sure if I agree with that. I've been told that maybe the case.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Tuition cost.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I don't know that for a fact.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Here's a concern that I have about your bill. It only tells one part of the story. While it communicates what the expected higher tax rate is, it does not communicate the expected decrease of tuition that will be paid by students and their families when they are inside the taxing district.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: This doesn't change that. All it does is require valid language to let people know what they are voting for. It's a transparency bill. It's not trying to create any hills or to increase any cost. It doesn't change what anybody in the district has to do. It just allows them to know what's on the ballot.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Now, but what I'm trying to explain is it only tells what the tax rate is going to be. It does not explain on the ballot how tuition will drop or decrease once a community is inside the taxing district. Would you be willing to include that.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: I would be willing if you have an amendment. If you think it's satisfactory I would look at it.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, sir.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1226. Question occurs on passage to 3rd reading Senate Bill 1226. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say, nay, the ayes have it. Senate Bill 1226 is passed to 3rd reading. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 115. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 115 by McClendon. Relating to the creation of a commission to investigate convictions after exoneration and to prevent wrongful convictions.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to explain Senate Bill 115. I apologize, members, House Bill 115.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This House Bill 115 would create a nine member commission appointed by the governor to review and investigate cases in which an innocent person was convicted and then exonerated. The commission would identify the causes of wrongful convictions and determine ways to minimize these erroneous outcomes in the future. The purpose of this bill is to reduce the number cases of exonerated persons. It is shameful to call ourselves God fearing Texans and then stand by and do nothing as persons are sent to prison for a crime they did not commit. This bill will show that Texas is serious about finding out why this trend is continuing and that the state is making a serious effort to turn this practice around. When a person is convicted wrongly on the basis of an invalid evidence it wastes public funds on the prosecution and incarceration of a person who is not responsible for the crime. This has happened often enough in Texas that we simply must identify and examine the person's reasons why this continues to occur. And take effective objections in response. If you remember a couple of months ago I had some gentlemen on the dais and I talked about the crime that they were incarcerated for from 3 to 30 years, for crimes that they did not commit. I have two amendments and I'd like to put on those amendments.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply changes the names from the Texas Innocence Commission to Timothy Cole Innocence Commission. It will be named Timothy Cole. And I think Mrs. Ruby Session is here. Are you here? She was here earlier with the family. Ruby Session is mother of Timothy Cole. He spent 13 years in the penitentiary and he was exonerated after that time. And the governor posthumously granted him a pardon. And I actually went to Fort Worth, Texas just this past summer to present that pardon to Timothy Cole's mother Ruby Session. And so I move adoption of this amendment.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mrs. McClendon sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to explain her amendment.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you. This amendment simply would restrict or prohibit the commission from evaluating, sentencing or post-conviction practices including the death penalty and I move adoption.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative McClendon offers up an amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Zedler to explain the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members what this does is it clarifies that this amendment that the commission is subject to open meetings requirements under Section 551 of the government code and I think it's acceptable to the author.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Zedler sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Anyone wishing to speak, on, for, or against. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to close.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And I further ask for your favorable further consideration of this bill. And I want to thank my sponsors and cosponsors for working so hard with me on this.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Kolkhorst.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Will the gentle lady yield, please?

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Yes.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentle lady yields.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Mrs. McClendon, I want to thank you for your work on this. Timothy Cole had roots in Brenham, Texas and also a case that has gotten much attention is Anthony Graves. Anthony Graves a classmate of mine and we are very pleased that after 19 years he's been freed. So, I thank you for your work on this and maybe it will improve Texas. Thank you.

REP. RUTH JONES MCCLENDON: Thank you I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, question occurs on passage to 3rd reading House Bill 115. Record vote is requested. Record vote is granted. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 82 ayes, 54 nays, two present not voting. House Bill 115 is passed to 3rd reading. Representative Branch moves to lay House bill 10 on the table subject to call. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. It is so ordered. Representative Callegari moves to lay House Bill 2433 on the table subject to the call. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. House Bill 3, chair lays out House Bill 3. And the clerk will, please, reads us the bill.

CLERK: HB 3 by Thompson. Relating to the imposition of a sentence of life without parole on certain defendants who commit certain sexual offenses.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to explain the bill.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members you've heard the motion --

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker members this bill imposes a life without parole on certain repeated sexual assaults and aggravated assaults persons, offenders within our system. We want to make sure that those persons who are committing these offenses are given sentences sufficient so that they will be taken out of the population of the general public. I think this is a very good bill. I think it serves a purpose in which it's proposed and I move passage.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3. Question occurs on passage to 3rd reading House Bill 3. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay, the ayes have it. House Bill 3 is passed to 3rd reading. Chair lays out House Bill 5 on 2nd reading. Clerk will, please, read the bill.

CLERK: HB 5 by Kolkhorst. Relating to the interstate health service compact.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst to explain the bill.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Although I think this is a pretty good view bill I wanted to say that, Representative Branch, I don't have any placards to put up. My budget doesn't allow for that. So, I just want to hit the highlights of this. I've had a lot of members ask me questions about what a compact is. A compact is an agreement that we pass here, we have to have two or more states that come together. Texas is a part of 24 compacts currently, the most recent compact passed on this House floor include one that was carried by Craig Eiland. And then, I think, that was in 2007. And then another one by Pat Haggerty in 2005 which had to do with the interstate compact for juveniles. So through the years we've gone together with other states to try to take care of some of the problems, utilize our resources better. The health care compact is an idea, it's probably the ultimate block grant from the United States Congress. So what it does is it asks for our funding for both medicaid and medicare to slow down from the federal governments, it use 2010 as the base rate. Some of the people in this room work hard for our F map to be 72 percent. And within that, the compact was formed, another state has passed it already which is Georgia and the governor has signed it today. And we go to Congress, we have to the congressional approval. You then form a compact but it does not, the number one question I'm asked by members is, does that tie us to another state and what they're doing? Absolutely not. We take our money and we look at how we spend those moneys in both medicaid and medicare. So with that I know there's a lot of questions from the back mike and I'm happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Does the gentle lady yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Does the gentle lady yield?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I do.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentle lady yields for a question, Representative.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: To my colleague from Fort Worth. I'm not supposed to say, go frogs anymore, according to my staff.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Always go frogs. I had a -- I did have a couple of questions for you.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Are you familiar -- I know that you said that you only need Congressional approval in order for a compact to become law. But did you know that under the Roosevelt administration at least -- and I went back pretty far, that he actually vetoed two compacts.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. What would make it different. Why won't you need the presidential approval this time around?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: So, Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution allows for compacts to be formed. And it's expressed that Congress has to approve it. It doesn't speak to the Executive Branch signing the agreement. But traditionally we have had, Mr. Veasey, we have had compacts that have been approved. So, you know, for the most part I know there will be some debates and, obviously, you know, President Obama because of our whole bond with all due respect said he doesn't like block grants. You know, he may, even if Congress gives his approval, he may try to veto it and that's not my job today to say what he is or isn't going to do. But I'm going to say to the strict constitutional powers given to us, which is we can form a compact with two or more states and it says it has to have congressional approval.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: You said that first constitutional language but, you know, that the Supreme Court disagrees with you. That there was a 1983 ruling, the INS versus Tadic that specifically said that you cannot have a legislation vetoed by Congress. That in order to veto legislation that has to do with as the legal rights and duties and relations of persons that it is required to be presented to the President. That was a seven to two opinion.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. So I think the Supreme Court doesn't agree with me often at all, I'm not a constitutional lawyer but --

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Neither am I but --

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Obviously that would be heavily debated. I would suspect that by the time these get passed at different times throughout the United States, different legislative meet at different times. I don't know if y'all know this but sine die yesterday in Arizona and Georgia. So I'm a little envious of that. It will take a while for this to pass and, Mark, I know you have an amendment that I'm going to have to oppose just because we're trying to keep the language very similar in every state. But in my personal and humble opinion I think that the best thing to do is have the President sign it.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Right. And the only reason I have an amendment is because I want to make it constitutional because I don't believe that the compact -- legislators that are working on the compact are interpreting the constitution correctly. But I know we'll disagree on that but let me go ahead and move on because Mr. Eiland has a question he would like to ask you. On the first page of your bill on line 19, you say that there are strains being placed on state budgets in relation to health care, which -- can you tell me which program are placing a strain on state budgets?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, certainly we have already felt the strain as we have passed HB 1 and we're 23 billion in all funds lower than we were last biennium. And so, what I think that language talks about is the trajectory that we're on in health care, all health care. We've talked about it in our committee. Not just government funded health care, medicaid, or medicare. You can get a private insurance you can go to private pay and say the cost of health care is rising at a rate that is pretty astronomical, in fact, it's often quoted in many of the publications as saying being one of the culprits of why we have a 14 to $15 trillion deficit. So, the strains and the idea of the compact that I get excited about, Representative Veasey, is that if the compact were to come our way, first dollar -- dollar -- so if you take this budget year and you say we don't have enough general revenue to put up to be able to draw down the dollars. Actually if you have the compact in place the federal dollars would be coming to us and the first dollar in is the federal dollar the last dollar in is the state dollar. And so it wouldn't put -- that all funds number wouldn't be as inflated to be bad as you and I might agree, the $23 billion number. So, I think that's what that line talks to. Whether you're a red state or a blue state you're feeling the pinch and providing health care and it's squeezing out the rest of our budget. I have some statistics here about how much medicaid has grown which is growing like the rest of health care costs. And in it's inception in 1967 Texas medicaid program has grown from serving fewer than 1 million Texans to serving over 3 million Texans and it operated 20 years before the budget reached the $2 billion mark. But the total medicaid budget for fiscal -- federal fiscal year 2009 including dish and upper limit -- upper payment limit funds were over 24 billion. So one in $4 that you're spending in your state budget is going towards health care.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. Are you familiar with the part of your bill that defines health care. Says, health care means care services complied with plans related to the health of an individual. It's --

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: It's the part of the your bill that defines health care.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Yes, yes. What page are you on?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: I'm on page No. 3 but we may have --

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Yeah, I got it. Sure.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Health care means service -- care services applied -- related to the plans health of an individual and includes but does not limit and or does not limit to plans provided by the -- if you go a little bit further down the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Veteran Affairs and services provided to native Americans.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: And so my next question to you is B. It also says to secure the rights of member states to regulate health care. So, what sort of regulation would these members states then have over the United States Department of Defense, the United States Department of Veteran Affairs and services currently being provided to native Americans. It sounds like if you have naval air station like we have in Fort Worth the Dyess Air Force Base or in San Antonio where there are many facilities, that section right there, we definitely want to know more about that.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Right, so Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution talks about the military and since -- and I think, Mark, and I'm going to have to.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. Gentle lady's time -- gentle lady's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained. Clerk will read the following amendment. Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Will the gentle lady extend her time for a comment please? Could we extend the time?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, this is -- Mr. Veasey we can extend your time or we can lay out your amendment, what would you like?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: I would like to do both.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Man. Members, this is the first request for extension of time. The time is extended.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Veasey, I was saying that the first hospital that the United States government actually formed, I believe, was in the late 1770's for the military. So, the Department of Defense actually owns and operates hospitals. It's an enumerated power in the constitution. That's why they're not included if you'll look on line 13 it says, accept any care, services, supplies, or plans provided by the United States Department of Defense, United States Department of Veteran Affairs or provided to native Americans. So when you look at the operations that you have in Fort Worth and throughout the state of Texas, when it comes to the Department of Defense and the United States Department of Veteran Affairs, those will not be effected by the compact because it is an enumerated power in the constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. And then my last question. Now, you're not trying to circumvent or go around the Affordable Health Care Act.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: No I'm not. This is a block grant. There has been lots of talk, Mark, I'm coming to the floor hopefully with the help of some of the colleagues on public health with another bill. It's a different way. What this does, Representative Veasey, is it asks permission from Congress to give us flexibility. The way that we have normally done that is through 1115 waivers, we've done it through 1915B and 1915C waivers which amend or ask for certain parts of the Social Security Act of 1965 which has been modified many times most vigorously in the 1980s and it asks CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid, permission to change certain stipulations. I'll be coming to the floor, hopefully, we can get it to the floor with that permission to go to CMS and ask for that. So this is a different task if you will and we're talking about President Obama, Secretary *Savilyas and other people. No matter what side of the isle you're on or the coin that you're on. Everyone is talking about flexibility. Paul Ryan is talking about it. I think that President Obama has sped up his state initiative plan from 2017 to 2014. So it's really interesting that we all know that we need flexibility, we need to be able to become innovative on the way that we deliver health care. One of the things that I like about this bill is that, you know, and it even mentions that you know we can do counseling and we can do, you know, mental health and things that we really aren't able to do today. And I'll give you an example. We have to ask for a waiver to keep people out of the nursing homes. That's a waiver. We have to ask CMS's permission to do that. Now, we all know that community based services is where we probably get the biggest bang for our buck. Although we don't want to hurt nursing homes because their institution of care, my mother just died in a nursing home in October and they did a marvelous job because she could no longer stay at home. So, you know, there's this balance that we're trying to work out with CMS and we're always asking permission and it's not that the Obama administration is saying no. Look we had Senate Bill 10 and a waiver up with President Bush and we absolutely got nowhere with that in his CMS administration. So now, we're going to congress to ask permission.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Thank you.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Representative.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentle lady yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Will the gentle lady yield for a question?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I do for my colleague from Galveston.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Lady yields for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, madam chair, I got a couple of questions. I'm going to vote for the bill but I do have several concerns. First just a quick search on mine I found that Tennessee, Missouri and Georgia finally have introduced similar compact proposals, what other states?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: So, there's ten states. I know Montana is in a state, Colorado, there are ten states that have introduced bills and Missouri and I'm sorry somewhere in this mess of paper I have all of those. But there's ten states that have introduced that and another probably 15 that are looking at it.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay, and one reason I ask that is because the compacting states and who we compact with to me might make a great difference on how good the compact is, for example, if you go over to page 7.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: No, I'm sorry, go to page 4. We have the member states current year funding level defined.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Right.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And I certainly understand that the member state based funding level used in 2010 is to our benefit. It's our state allotment is going to down because the F map changed because of our proposed bill.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: And there was some great work done and one of the colleagues that worked on that to extend the F map to 72 percent which is unheard of. So that is the base level funding exactly.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Right. But then we grow by population and inflation no matter what the make up of our population and growth is.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Where and it seems to me like Montana their population growth is going to be a whole lot different type of people than our population growth and I'm wondering how that might impact.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: You know, so -- you know their population growth may not be at all in Montana, you know, we have been this vibrant state that has grown a lot and F map really doesn't recognize that because it's based, as you all know, on unemployment which we're doing better than most states. Not as good as we could do but better than most states. So we tend to get a little bit penalized on the F map. So this goes in population growth which we're growing faster than most other states. I think that's to our benefit and one of the things I want to say about a compact is, yes, that has something to do with how much money we get but it doesn't say that this is the only pot -- I mean congress has to recognize that and it's not an equalization among the other states. And I also want follow up with that Craig and I know that my --

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: You're out of time. So next question. Under member states current year population adjustment factor, it says blah, blah, blah, and then you divide the added population of the member state and the federal fiscal year of 2010 plus one. What does plus one mean?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I think it's an equalization. I've seen it in an algebraic form on a piece of paper and I would be not great if I told you that. I was pretty good in algebra in high school not so good now. But I think that's the factor that goes to everyone. It's an equalization in an algebra formula.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: All right. Now, the original bill that was introduced had an actual dollar amount in it. 64 billion, 6.4 billion.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: 6.4 billion I think it was.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Which is stripped out in the substitute.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Why.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Why, yeah.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: So, in working with the speaker's office and some other folks that was an estimated number. If you'll go back to the original bill I think that it was estimated to be and because we were not sure of -- I think that with CBO and other agencies in the federal government we really don't show up that number until the summer. We did not know what that number was going to be in working with some of the economists and different people we thought that was a really low number. We project it to be actually higher but we won't know that number until the summer so it's kind of a guess number and I thought it was better to take it up.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Okay. And how many -- about how many hours of testimony do I have on this bill?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Oh, about two and a half, three hours.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: All right. Because this is a huge change if it happens.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: That's why I felt like I should have some placards and Representative Burkett said she would have held them for me.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Major Sheets raises a point of order. The gentle lady's time is expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained at this time. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment by Representative Eiland. It's by Eiland from the Island.

CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I'll tell you what my amendment does and then kind of why I have it. First if you look on page 2, we say that -- actually on page 3, line 11, we exempt the U.S. Department of Defense and we exempt Veteran Affairs and we exempt Indians or native Americans because -- and so this bill when we get a compact, we're not going to include you know the defense department, the veteran's affairs and the native Americans. But my amendment does is simply add medicare to that list of what we are not going to block grants and here is why. Both parties -- it seems to me both parties -- and I'm voting for the bill either way but both parties always seem to use our senior citizens as a wedge issue and we pass this compact it's going to be oh, they're going to destroy medicare, talk away health care from seniors, going to limit health care to seniors. I would rather get that off the table and let's do medicaid and whatever else we're going to do. Let's get that right and then let's move on to medicare. You know I don't get a lot of complaints from constituents about medicare. I don't get a lot of complaints from doctors and hospitals about medicare and about payments and coverage and those types of things. I do about medicaid and I deal with medicaid all the time and if we're going to block grant something I think we should start with medicaid. And I agree, we don't start with the military and I don't think we should start with the seniors. And one of my concerns is, you know, we're going to be exempting ourselves from all kinds of federal laws, we don't even know what federal laws we're going to be exempt ourselves from at this time. This bill has had two and a half hours of testimony on a very huge issue and I'm not sure that we've actually what they call plum the depths of what all this will entail and so --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Mr. Speaker.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: -- so I would rather --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Zerwas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Will the gentlemen yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Gentlemen yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I yield.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland yielding for a question, doctor.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Representative Eiland. So I heard you correcting what you said at first is that you were going to vote for this bill regardless of whether the amendment was accepted or not or voted in or not; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: So, if the circumstance was that the only way we could qualify to get the federal grant because other states are involved in this as a block grant, if you will, is to accept the federal dollars that would cover medicare but then -- but what your amendment would say is feed that back to the federal government for them to continue to function the medicare program on our behalf. Is that in essence what your amendment would do?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That's what we're looking at yes. You're not going to get a block grant for medicare.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: You're not saying then that we would have to -- we would be denied the grant if we in fact said we're not going to do medicare. In other words what I'm trying to get clear is that you're comfortable with the federal government continuing on the medicare program and if we need to have all the federal health care money granted to us, you're saying that's okay also but we're going to feed back the medicare portion to the federal government to run.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Is that correct? Okay. So in essence I think what you're saying is let's focus on the medicaid program and let's get that right. That's where we hear most of the problems and that's certainly where we're seeing our continued growth in terms of state expenditures and so forth; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Okay. So if we fast forward and say we get this medicaid program and I always make this analogy this is the dog chasing the car and now, he's got the car, so what does he do with it. This compact doesn't do anything with regard to that. It just says that, okay, you got this. What do you do with it now; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I don't understand the question.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: I think what my question to you is that the understanding of the compact is that it just simply gives you the right and the privilege, if you will, to go ahead and manage your federal -- your health care program for the indigent and the disabled and the agent as you see fit with the amount of dollars that you get; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Correct. Right.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: So for there to actually be something to further define what we do with that there would have to be another bill or would have to be some other body that would be put together to ultimately define what that program looks like.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Well, all I got in front of me is this bill right now. As the federal government we want you to send us all the money and we're going to take over the billing of these programs. We're going to eliminate all the federal laws, all the federal rules, all the federal regs. We're going to pick and choose which ones we want to apply and that's fine if we want to try that on medicaid. This is -- I don't want it to apply to medicare because I don't want to scare seniors.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Well, and I'm in full agreement with you on that. I think we bite off what we meant to bite off here and that was the medicaid program. There was a bill that was passed last session House Bill 497 that looked at what would the state do if we opted out of medicaid and are you familiar with that study that was done?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: And I think that you may recall in there that there was basically some ideas of what would need to happen if we ultimately are going to bring the medicare program under control. And one of those things I believe was something in the form of a block grant. Whether it's through a compact, whether it's through a waiver that would come from the federal government like Rhode Island got but something that gave the state the prerogative to say, this is what our state needs to take care of this group of people. And do you recall that being in that report at one of the sort of basic objectives that needed to be achieved?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Basically, yes, flexibility.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And so, in order to ultimately get where we're going to get with this I think we agree then that there needs to be some additional group put together to help define what this program is. Would we agree on that? Well, I think, as I understand, you have a bill that's coming along later that's for the commission that's represented in this bill that would be part of the compact with other states and there's 15 members of the commission and other states and they would decide what the compact was going to do, what laws is going to exempt and then I don't know if that bill would then come back and require the state to adopt additional legislation or if the state would have to adopt the commission recommendation or if that's just going to happen automatically. I haven't seen what the details of that are, if there are any details in that subsequent bill.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: No. And I think you bring up some good points and what I might suggest I don't know if you will agree on this or not but there's probably a portfolio of legislation and various things that have to happen in order for ultimately to execute on this. But for there ever to be a trigger to execute however have to at least be in the sense that we can actually achieve this block grant. What we're talking about here today is in the form of a health care compact as a way to get there. I think Chair Kolkhorst mentioned some other things in terms of the ways to try to loosen up the reigns a little bit that lets the state exercise a little bit more of their understanding, a little bit more authority over how we deliver health care for the indigent, disabled, and the aging so forth. So I don't know if you agree with that or not but it seems to me this is the first step we just need to get a little further along with some of the other things that would define this program. Would you agree with that?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, I do.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Great. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Thank you very much.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Major Sheets raises the point of order that the gentle lady's time -- Representative Eiland's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Mr. speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: I request an extension of time to ask a few questions to Mr. Eiland.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, this is the first request for extension of time. Is there objection? The time is extended. Representative Lewis.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And do you yield for those questions, sir?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Yes, I do.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: I have a few questions. First of all I take it from your response about this bill that you also feel that we're in a tremendous crisis in funding for medicaid of our state general revenues; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That's pretty close to a fair statement.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: And because of that the interest in approaching the federal government through a compact is of interest to you as well. But you're reticent to include medicare which is a purely federal program in that discussion; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: That is correct? Because we don't have anything to do with medicare right now except on dual eligible but I do not want to scare our seniors and so that's why I proposed this amendment.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: I share your feelings on that totally. I feel that way and I feel that way about medicare. However, here's my concern. For a compact to exist, several states have to join together in the compact and the states that are considering this compact.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Actually two or more.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Right. And the states that are actually considering the compact are considering as I understand passing it or about to pass it is this compact. And so, while I would like it to be different it seems to me that if we're going to have a compact that passes that does anything it's going to have to be, would it have to be in this wording and contain at all so that these matters can be on the table to be discussed by the compact members as they go to Washington. And if we don't do that don't we bust the compact?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Well, as --

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Bust the compact?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Well, as Representative Kolkhorst said, this is not going to happen overnight. This is going to be a long-term project and there's two things. One, on page 1, it says the state -- this state enacts the Interstate Health Care Compact and enters into the compact with all other states legally joining in the compact in substantially the following forms and then it goes on and that's where I believe that we would have a compact because everything else is gong to be substantially the same form. The only -- we got like a one word difference, not medicare, and so that's substantially the same form and if it's not, we can come back in two years or a special session and add medicare because this would be a big enough deal if we -- if there's some other compacting states they go up to the feds and say, yeah, we do this, Texas needs to add medicare in. Then we could come back to the body and do that one little fix after we know that it's all going to happen and we can tell seniors we got a plan but right now it is wrapped up in this compact, you're included and we have no clue what we're going to do if we get it.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Thank you. My reading of it I think that unless we pass it including all health care issues or at least on the table to be discussed I don't think we could enter into a compact. So, I feel differently about this but thank you very much, Representative Eiland.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Madam doorkeeper.

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

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

MESSENGER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action. The senate has passed the following measures. SB 89 Lucio. Relating to summer nutrition programs provided by --

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Was that an HB or an SB?

MESSENGER: SB 89, Lucio.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst in opposition to the amendment.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I rise to respectfully oppose my colleague Representative Eiland in excluding medicare as a part of this compact. I think Judge Lewis spoke to the need for the language to be very similar as it passes all of the various states. If it passes more states. One of the things that I've been looking into and it's going to be a follow up bill is one by Dr. Zerwas HB 273. It puts forth a commission it's five appointees from the Lieutenant Governor, five from the Speaker of the House and five from the Governor. We can, as this compact allows us to say we do not have to change anything. It gives us permission to change different programs. It says you may but one of the things we can do is we can contract with CMS to continue to do medicare just as it's done. As we move forward, if this were to get Congressional approval and Executive Branch and everybody blessed this and said as we move slow and expeditious manner. But one of the things that I think we all have to be, you know, aware of is that we are already in the business of helping provide services for our elderly, as you know, the medicaid program has the aged, the disabled, and the blind which actually costs the most part of the medicaid program. In fact a according to Kaiser state health facts there's 428,900 people on medicaid roles that are elderly today. So, if you look at medicare, it covers about 29.9 million -- I'm sorry 2.9 million people. We spend about 29 billion in Texas a year from federal dollars that we're actually covering more people on the medicaid role as a population which is between 3.5 and 4 million people. We can make those decisions here closer to home. I think that Texas can do it best. As we move forward smart people like Craig Eiland can help us figure out if we want to go into the medicare business or not. So I respectfully oppose his amendment. Move to table.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland to close.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker and members this is real simple. So I want to go straight to the point. I don't want to scare our seniors. I'm going to vote for the compact. I'll vote for the commission but I think we should do it one step at a time. There's absolutely no guarantee that all ten states who have introduced the bill are going to come out with the exact word for word end product. That's why the definition stands the same that's in here. If we need to come back and fix it to make it all work in another 18 months we can do so and we would not have scared our seniors. So, please, vote no on the motion to table. Let's leave the medicare system alone until we can reform the medicaid system. Vote no on the motion to table for our seniors.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland offers up an amendment. Representative Kolkhorst moves to table. All those in favor of tabling vote aye, opposed vote no. Show Representative Kolkhorst voting aye, show Representative Eiland voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 95 ayes, 45 nays, one present, not voting, the motion to table prevails. Amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, this is a very simple amendment that fixes Representative Kolkhorst's bill and I know that she is going to be against it but all I'm trying to do is make her bill constitutional and let me tell you why. There have been many causes fights as to why this is already constitutional but the one clauses that always conveniently left out of the debate is the presentment clause in the constitution. And let me read that to you. It says that -- that Article 1, Section 7 mandates that every bill and every order, resolution or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives maybe necessary shall -- shall be presented to the President of the United States for his signature. There's been a landmark Supreme Court case, the INS versus Tadic that dealt with deportation. It was a seven to two decision and the presentment clause lives on and it is a part of our living constitution and with that, I'm certain that she's going to move to table but if we want this to be constitutional then we have to make sure that it abides by the presentment clause and it currently does not.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Eiland.

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, I would request that the dialogue from Representative Kolkhorst and Mr. Veasey and myself in the first part of the bill be reduced to writing and placed in the journal.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: During her open?

REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: From her open to my amendment.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Okay. Members the request for the comments to be -- Representative Veasey, Representative Eiland, Representative Kolkhorst from the opening of the bill through Representative Eiland's bill -- amendment be taken all down in writing and put into the journal. You've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes -- chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst in opposition.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, and while I have a great deal of respect for Representative Veasey and also the Executive Branch and looking through the constitution here I will move to table. And as we work this through the process and it has a long journey, still has to go to the Senate if we find that we need that, I'll work in putting it on through the senate. This was kind of new to me and Representative Veasey approached me, you know, a little before the bill went up so. Just because of the language needing to be consistent with other states, I move to table. I know that there's a court ruling from 1983. So, obviously, it is implied. So, I move to table.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Please excuse Representative Joe Pickett because of important business on a motion by Representative Menendez. Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, please, vote no on the motion to table and protect the constitution.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, Representative Veasey offers up an amendment. Representative Kolkhorst moves to table, Mr. Veasey's amendment with great respect. This is a record vote. Clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Kolkhorst voting aye, show Representative Veasey voting no, Representative Coleman voting no, Representative Creighton voting aye. Have all voted? 102 ayes, 43 nays, and one present not voting, the motion to table does prevail. Anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair recognizes Representative Coleman in opposition.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker --

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Farrar.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I have a question for the chair.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Yes, ma'am.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that this bill violates Rule 4, Section 20A2.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Please, bring it down front. The House will stand at ease for four minutes and 30 seconds. Members, Representative Farrar raises as a point of order that the witness affirmation contains only an incomplete phone number. The chair has reviewed the witness affirmation and the previous president that had been graded by the chair. The chair respectfully overrules the point of order. Mr. Gallego raises a point of order that the bill analysis is incorrect, under Rule 4, Section 2. The char has reviewed the bill analysis and the bill and the point of order is with great respect overruled. We're now back on the closing to House Bill 5 and I believe Representative Coleman to speak in opposition to House Bill 5. Chair recognizes representative Coleman in opposition.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: And I really did want to have a question and answer with the author. So I am not going to spend much time so when she gets up I can actually do a question and answer. But members, there are a couple of things here that you need to know. When block grants are done even with an increased for inflation it's not an increase for medical inflation. And an increase in medical inflation is double -- medical inflation is double regular inflation. So, what that means is once a block grant is put together and that money is capped and even if it grew at a regular inflation rate, health care costs are going to grow at a greater rate and inflation at this moment is 2 percent -- inflation rate is 2 percent and health care inflation is still at 10 percent. That's an 8 percent difference. New York state that is growing slowly is going to keep all of its money and we're growing fast and we're going to be capped in the amount of dollars that come in to take care of the people in this state are going to be less and less per capita. Now, that means less money to take care of the needs of all of us because in the final analysis, a hospital that gets this funding is a level trauma one center. If those are the -- level one trauma center. Those are the hospitals when you're on the road even if it's a level four they can get you to the helicopter to get you to the level one trauma center. Most people don't understand that that is paid for by disproportionate share funding. The reason UPL is extremely important is because UPL has allowed us to take state balances, this is upper payment limits where we use local hospital district dollars to fund medicaid. It has allowed the state of Texas to pull out of the funding of medicaid general revenue. Now, people say that medicaid is a problem. Well, most of us know that every budget in this state will tell you this that every budget has purposely shorted medicaid over the last three or four bienniums so that the amount of money should have been appropriated never was, so we have a shortfall in medicaid when we really just never funded it appropriately. We could do the same thing with school children. We could say we're not going to fund all the children in the state of Texas and then have to come back in the session and do an emergency appropriation and actually fund the rest of the school children in the enrollment growth. But we do not do that because that would not be tolerated. Now, when it comes to the funding of people in nursing homes and, again, that's everybody because I want you to remember everybody starts off at one place but if you live long enough and you're in a nursing home that person becomes medicaid eligible. So the issue of how we move forward with our medicaid funding has a lot to do with how it's perceived in the budget. We found out this year because medicaid was insured this year because of 70, 30 F map. We actually closed the gap in medicaid for this biennium because it was extended six months. What is the problem? The problem is we have a structural shortfall that doesn't allow us to have enough money to fund general revenue programs like public education and higher education which by the way, account for most of our budget in general revenue. Every time someone lays out a number on medicaid they look to add the federal fund but what they don't tell you is that education's general revenue funds are a whole lot more than medicaid and if we don't spend the medicaid dollar, we don't get the federal dollar. Now, what people ought to just say is they're not for funding public programs that help the least of our people in this state and that they don't want to keep the hospitals open in their districts and that they don't want to see these programs continue and that, quite frankly, this is a rouge to get rid of the affordable care act. And the reason it is, you know this is how we always do things. We say we're going to deal with public policy. What we don't say is we don't like the affordable care act so we're going to try to find a way to nullify and they're going to bend the constitution in order to do so.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Mr. Naishtat, for what purpose?

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Coleman yields.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: I'd be happy to yield. What's your question.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: I just want to see if we can get some clarification about this. With a block grant we do is get some time type of budget certainty but and they would be adjusted for inflation but I think part of what you're saying is that health care costs are rising well above the rates of inflation.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: That is correct. Medical inflation is about three times the rate of inflation.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Right. So put it in different words instead of the federal government having to increase its medicaid cost at the same rate that health care costs are rising, the federal government would only have to increase its medicaid cost by the much lower rate of inflation.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Right. Which is now 2 percent. When we're in a recession it's 2 percent. So that means the new people coming on from the recession wouldn't be funded because inflation is 2 percent.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Another point that I think needs to be clarified is that we keep hearing about flexibility, that states would have under this proposal, correct?

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Yeah, that's a word that bounties about a lot. When most people think flexibility just means cut.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: But in the end if you get right down to what flexibility might involve going for block grants would simply mean that Texas would get less money for medicaid and fewer Texans ultimately would receive care; is that right?

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Well, that is correct.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: So, if we're talking about flexibility that we as lawmakers might have under this proposal what I think we would end up having is flexibility to ultimately reduce access or quality to those low income Texans who need health care the most.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: That's correct, Elliott, because you choose the measure that doesn't go with the actual funding formula and then when there's not enough money to serve the same people that we need to serve, there's no other choice but to use the flexibility and the design of the benefit or the flexibility and who's eligible for the program or the flexibility of who we believe is important in terms of service and that's where the flexibility comes in, less people can get on the program, the actual benefits that they get from the medicaid health plan goes down and, you know, obviously we start rationing the circumstance.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Sheets raises a point of order. The gentlemen's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Farrar in opposition.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, I acknowledge that the vote on this bill is a forgone conclusion and I want to take a moment to clarify the true meaning of HB 5. Both for members of this body and the people of Texas. This bill seeks to deprive Texans of the benefit of the patient protection and affordable act of 2009 and in place of these protections it substitutes the whims of the Texas legislature. This compact would allow any member state to nullify federal health care laws. I would submit to you first that our current congress would not approve this compact as required. The Affordable Health Care Act allows for interstate agreements that provide alternatives to certain portions of the law, a general power of nullification -- a general power of nullification on health care issues was not granted nor should it be granted. Individual states should not be invited to participate in the race to the bottom in which states do injury to the entire country by withholding participation from medicare or other critical health programs. Second, I would argue that this bill sets up the citizens of Texas for inadequate coverage and chaotic administration. Texas ranks dead last among the 50 states in percentage of persons covered by health insurance. Despite the enormous respect I have for members of this body, in all honesty I would have to rate this legislature's performance over the past decade in insuring health coverage as quite poor. In 2003 we kicked hundreds of thousands of children off of chip and medicaid. Earlier this session I watched an amendment after amendment to the budget go down two to one as some members tried to restore home care, preventative health services, and support for people living with H I.V. and aids. This lead me to despair and at some point the member's legislative majority simply seemed to not care about what happens to citizens who depend on these services. These decisions also seem to ignore the imperative to save, that's to save on health care cost. Without preventative care and services to promote healthy and independent living, health cost keeps spiraling upwards driving up future deficits and making an effective solution impossible. Leaders in Austin are fond of saying that we know better, we know better than what uncle Sam knows for the people of Texas. And at this point, frankly, I'm not sure that the Texas legislature has the compassion or the moral courage to make the right decisions about medical coverage. Members, I realize that the patient protection and Affordable Health Care Act is not particularly popular in this room but it is the one serious policy proposal we have in order to increase access to health care for all citizens and to reduce the cost of care to patients, government, and providers. With all respect to my republican colleagues health saving account, tax credit and tort reform do not even come close to accomplishing these goals. The Affordable Care Act deserves a chance to work for Texas. And I will say, again, if we enter into a compact instead of following the law, then we are going to end up having the feds impose it upon us as we do in so many other areas. Thank you.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognize s Representative Kolkhorst to close on her bill.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. And I appreciate the time today. We've seen a lot of important bill today that have come and gone. That's why we gather here every two years, we make big decisions for lots of people all over the state of Texas. That's in education, that's in the Department of Public Safety and the protection of our people, law-abiding citizens, and we make huge decisions in health care. Today our budget one in $4 is used on health care. I do not decide to carry House Bill 5 lightly. When I first looked at it I was nervous about the medicare part of it. I wrestled with it. But as I have worked through some of my colleagues and I've watched the talent of this building. I can guarantee you one thing that I think we will do better with the dollars than a senator from New York, a state representative from California, another senator from Montana, or someone from Florida because we are going to decide things for our Texans and the ultimate balance, members, if this compact actually passed and our governor signed it and it went to Washington D.C. and there was more than one state that asked for the ultimate block grant and they actually granted it to us, here's the people that we answer to. Is the electorate. If we're not providing for them, then we will certainly all be voted out. If we let our hospitals die, if we let them collapse, if the system collapses on top of us, we will certainly be voted out and should be voted out. What I am most worried about is that we, as Americans, are at a crossroads. We have a decision to make. Next week congress, congress, will vote to lift the debt sealing so we can borrow more money to be able to pay for the debt that we've already borrowed. Our children, by September, will be over $15 trillion in debt. With that, is it all health care? No certainly not. We know that there's lots of things that go into a Federal budget. But I will tell you this we would take every dime that they would give us and we would put it to use and the people that cannot afford to go to b Washington, D.C. and march on that Capitol will certainly find their way to marching right here because they have and they will. And we will have to answer to them. The first dollar in would be the federal dollar the last dollar in would be the state dollar and it is our responsibility to provide health care to the poor and the elderly and I for one will never stand for anything less. So with that, members, I'm getting emotional about this but I believe in Texas and I believe in the governing structure we have here.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Kolkhorst, will you yield to Representative Coleman for some questions?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I will.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Ms. Kolkhorst, if you were the queen of Texas then I would be with you because I know that you care about people, I sit next to you once a week. But you're not running Texas Ms. Kolkhorst and as you know we rank 50th in the number of people who have health insurance, as you know we rank last in terms of our per capita expenditures on medicaid. We have 6 million uninsured people. So why haven't we solved those problems? The last thing, and I'll ask you that question but the other question is what happened to all of this when the Texas governor was president? What happened to this cry about state rights and this cry about taking care of individuals -- I just thought I would have heard that when somebody who was listening was there. Is this -- I don't see the difference.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I didn't hear your question, I'm sorry, what was your question?

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: My question is why haven't we done something now because when we have control over programs like the medically needy, they've been eliminated. When we had control over prenatal care in 2003, they were eliminated. They didn't put it back because they were wrong. So the problem I have is when you say these folks who march up here, the problem isn't them, the problem is some of the people in here and --

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I don't disagree. I mean, we have made mistakes and we will make some great ones in the future. So we did correct some of that and, Garnet, you have been an unbelievable champion for those that have not just marched on the Capitol but are the silent ones. And it is a learning process. As we come together every two years we set priorities and education seems to get that first nod a lot of times and then they look at the other part of the budget that's really growing and then you and I and Dr. Zerwas and Dr. Schwertner and Ruth and other people are working on as kind of look at that as the growing part of the budget.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Ms. Kolkhorst, let me ask you something if this funding were taken away from hospitals across Texas and not put in a manner which help keeps -- how many hospitals would close?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: I bet you know the answer. I can't --

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: I tell you, every rural hospital would close and if there's not enough dollars to deal with the amount of people that need care in the increased cost -- do you know that rural hospitals because there's less population need to be propped up more than other hospitals?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Sure, we don't have the volume, our overhead is more.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: So, how do we do that with less money.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Are you asking about -- in this particular bill what excites me --

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Because of the block grant we will not grow with medical inflation in terms of how we fund hospitals and the rest of folks. How are we going to make up for that money.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: But what I do like about this, Garnet, is it recognizes our population growth and I think that that will make up for the what the medical inflation which many economists run one to 2 percent above right now --

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Do you agree, right, we have 2 percent. I heard it on the news last night we're at 2 percent inflation that would you agree with me that medical inflation is 10 to 11 or 12 percent.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Which should be of great concern to us.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Which should be to great concern to you in the crafting this bill because when we're responsible we make sure that whatever we do covers the amount of dollars that we need to keep that rural hospital open.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: But one of the things that I'm also working on is that our debt continues to grow and with that and we've heard testimony in committee. We should not be so obsessed on this medicaid. Look at private health care and the cost drivers in there and are we causing that a part of that.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: The last thing I'm going to ask you. You served on the appropriations committee. You know that medicaid has been shorted in every budget at lease since 1999 and that the actual amount that it cost to cover medicaid is never put in the bill and then we have to do an emergency or supplemental appropriations bill and those dollars make it look like medicaid has grown; isn't that true?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Let me see if I'm answering. What we usually do is we under predict the growth.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: We purposely under predict growth.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: We say it's probably like this but it's probably like that.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Let me ask you a question. Do you think that literally if we said, well, you know, what we're going to have a lot of money coming into schools, a lot of school kids but we can't afford to pay for that so we're only going to fund the schools until we get back in the session and have to do an emergency appropriations to fund school children. Do you think this House would stand for that?

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Oh, Mr. Chairman we may be doing that here.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: I understand but our policy has been to short medicaid by using the least predicted --

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: Our projections seem to be a little short.

REP. GARNET COLEMAN: Oh, perfectly. But I am saying to you. If we're going to have a discussion about this we need to have a real discussion and we need to deal with it from the standpoint that we're all trying to solve a problem. I know you are and I know this is a political bill that has been filed all over this country and I respect that. But I appreciate all that you do and at least that you look for solutions.

REP. LOIS KOLKHORST: And one last thing, Mr. Chairman, I do have to say to clarify that anyone that would look at this, if it were to happen that is a long journey there is a stipulation. All of those dollars have to be used in medicaid or medicare.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Representative Major Sheets raises a point of order that the lady's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Members the question occurs on House Bill 5. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say no. The ayes have it. Members, I think a record vote has been requested. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 102 ayes, 46 nays, one present not voting and one absent member, House Bill 5 is passed to 3rd reading. Representative Hancock, Representative Callegari and Representative Alvarado -- members, please bring your announcements down front. Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members of mouth. We will be having a mouth redistricting dinner meeting today at 7:00 p.m. in the mouth office to discuss redistricting with our voting rights counsel. To talk about -- we're accepting new members to talk about King Solomons map. House Bill 150. 7:00 p.m. in the mouth office.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Is this a membership drive? Chair recognizes Representative Hancock for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you Mr. Speaker, I request permission for the Committee of Insurance to meet while the House is in session at 8:45 a.m. on 4/21 in room 3W15 to consider pending business.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? The chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton. REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD DUTTON, JR.: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, I move to suspend the five day posting rule so the House Committee Urban Affairs can hear House Bill 3857 upon adjournment.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you heard the motion -- suspension of rules. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The chair recognizes Representative Callegari.

REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Government Efficiency Reform to consider House Bill 1875, tomorrow, April 21st, 2011 at 10:30 a.m. or final adjournment or recess at room E1.014.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you heard the suspension of rules. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton. REP. HAROLD DUTTONĀ² JR.: Mr. Speaker and members, let me try this again. I move to suspend the five day posting rule so the Urban Affairs Committee can take up a bill, House Bill 3857 on today in room E2.016 on the final recess during any reading and referral of bills and a committee will meet beginning at 7:00 o'clock promptly. 7:00 o'clock promptly.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you heard suspension of the rules. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Technology will meet at final recess today April 20th, 2011, at desk 37 in the House chamber. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures will meet at final recess today April 20th, 2011 at desk 122 in the House chamber. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet upon final recess on April 20th, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Elections will meet upon final recess on April 20th, 2011 at desk No. 81 in the House chamber. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Business and Industry will meet at final recess on, Wednesday, April 20th, 2011, at desk No. 47 in the House chamber. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 328 and pending business. The Committee on Insurance will meet at 8:45 a.m. on April 21st, 2011 in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Government and Efficiency and Reform will meet at 10:30 a.m. or upon final adjournment, recess on April 21st, 2011. This will be in room E1.014. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 1875 and previously posted business.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel for an announcement.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Members of the Culture Recreational and Tourism business I'm just reminding you that we have a meeting upon adjournment sometime have a hard time getting a quorum. So could you get on over there so we can get started? Thank you very much.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you Representative Deshotel. Culture and Tourism get to your meeting. Chair recognizes Representative Van Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker and members, I move we suspend all necessary rules so that the Subcommittee on Human Affairs can meet during bill referral on, today, April 20th, 2011 in hearing room E2.026 to take up and consider committee substitute for House Bill 3520.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: This is the Subcommittee for Human Affairs. I mean for Human Services.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Smith for an announcement.

REP. TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: The Committee on Environmental Regulations will meet today and we'll meet in 10 or 15 minutes. We need to make a quorum, so show up.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Environmental Reg show up. Chair recognizes Representative Menendez to recognize some important friends in the gallery.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to recognize a young man who's visiting us this evening at the Capitol today for the very first time. I came to first know Austin Liedal with my staff and I learned from his dad that he was seriously ill. It's one of the confirmed cases of H1N1 here in Austin, Texas in 2008. Fortunately, he's had a full recovery but he had us all worried. His father Michael Liedal has been a great friend and resource and a hard state employee whose worked for years on affordable housing issues. So I want to welcome them to the family. I want to ask Michael and his son Austin to stand up and I'm joined by friend and colleague Paul Workman because they're actually his constituents. So Michael and Austin, please, welcome. Welcome to your capitol. Congratulations, we're glad you're feeling better. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Members, do we have any other announcements? The following bill on reading and referral.

CLERK: Pursuant to rule 1, section 4 the chair corrects the referral of the following bills and resolutions. HCR 137 by Craddick. Designating April 20, 2011 as Parkinsons Awareness Month from Public Health to Rules and Resolutions.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Chair recognizes representative Larry Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you Mr. Speaker and Bonnen. The Election Committee will not be meeting this afternoon over here at my desk. We will be meeting tomorrow while the House is in session. We will make the announcement in the morning.

REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Thank you. There being no further announcements -- except for the fact that Representative Branch wants you to all be aware and prepared for the fact that tomorrow is a very important day being San Jacinto Day and also members, tomorrow evening Andy Muster will be held here in the house chambers. I believe Representative Workman is aware of that. Being nothing else to announce Representative Kolkhorst moves that the House stand recessed until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

(Adjourned.)