Senate Transcript, April 28, 2011

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, the Senate will come to order. And the secretary will call the roll.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, a quorum is present. Would all those in the gallery please rise. On the floor please rise for the invocation this morning to be delivered by Pastor John Stennfield, Lutheran Church in Austin.

PASTOR: Dear Father in heaven, we thank and praise You for this new day. We thank You that You have granted us to live in the greatest and most blessed nation on Earth and granted us to serve in this greatest and most blessed State of Texas. As our fellow citizens in this state and country suffer from recent fires, floods, and devastating storms, we ask You to bring them comfort, hope, and healing. Give to them the assurance of a brighter future and the certainty of a nation that will not abandon them in their time of need. On this day also, Lord, we praise You that You have chosen us to lead and to guide and to serve the people of this state. Help us always remember that we best lead and serve by example and through sacrifice. Forgive us for times when we have placed our desires before others' needs. Use us in this place and on this day as instruments of Your love and Your grace to benefit the people of Texas for the sake of Jesus Christ, Your son, we pray. Amen.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Amen. Thank you, Pastor. Ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. Thank you so much. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense with the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Following message from the governor. Secretary will read the message.

PATSY SPAW: To the Senate of the 82nd legislature I ask the advice, consent and confirmation with respect to the following appointments. To be members of the State Employee Charitable Campaign Policy Committee: Gregory "Greg" Davidson, Lexington; Cecile Erwin Young, Austin. Respectfully submitted, Rick Perry, governor of Texas. To nominations.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Mr. Doorkeeper.

MR. DOORKEEPER: Mr. President, there's a message from the House.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action. The House has passed the following measures, HB38 by Menendez relating to -- civil consequences of damaging property with graffiti. HB127 by Alvarado relating to the types of beverages that may be sold to students on public school campuses. HB237 by Zerwas relating to the creation of a study committee for the interstate health care compact. HB598 by Jim Jackson relating to requiring certain applicants for motor vehicle registration to provide proof that the applicant holds valid driver's license. HB738 by Patrick relating to required online information regarding public institutions of higher education. HB1029 by Carter relating to conditions of release on bond for certain defendants charged with an offense of burglary. HB1146 by Keumpel relating to registration and appraisal of management companies and the composition of the Texas appraiser licensing and certification board providing penalties. HB1451 by Thompson relating to licensing and regulation of certain dog and cat breeders, providing penalties. HB1648 by William Smith relating to the purchase of plastic bulk merchandise containers by certain businesses, providing penalty. HB1812 by Phillips relating to the type of newspaper required for publication of notice in certain counties. HB1853 by Hamilton relating to --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, the Chair signs in the presence of the Senate the following.

PATSY SPAW: House Concurrent Resolution No. 137, House Concurrent Resolution No. 32, House Concurrent Resolution No. 109, House Bill 74. Senate Bill 416, Senate Bill 488, Senate Bill 605, Senate Bill 630, Senate Bill 692, Senate Bill 729, Senate Bill 777, Senate Bill 873, Senate Bill 874, Senate Bill 914, Senate Bill 1230, SCR43, SCR44, and SCR48.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, if there's no objection I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills and resolutions until the end of today's session. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection. So ordered. Members, the president lays out the following Senate resolution. Senate Resolution No. 860 by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 860. WHEREAS, The Senate of the State of Texas joins Texans across the state in observing April 28, 2011, as Workers' Memorial Day; and WHEREAS, Workers' Memorial Day is an internationally recognized day of remembrance for workers who have died while performing their jobs; and WHEREAS, More workers in the construction industry are killed on the job than in any other sector of the economy, and more construction workers die in Texas than any other state, with 138 Texans dying on the job in 2009 alone; and WHEREAS, The construction industry is one of the most important components of the Texas economy, providing more than $29.2 billion in wages each year and generating more than 600,000 jobs; workers in every field can safely perform their jobs if the highest standards of workplace safety are upheld and if all workers receive the training and equipment necessary to keep them safe on the job; and WHEREAS, It is truly fitting that a day be set aside to remember and honor those men and women who have given their lives while building our state; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the Senate of the State of Texas, 82nd Legislature, hereby pay tribute to the men and women who have lost their lives on the job and call on all Texans to observe April 28, 2011, as Workers' Memorial Day; and, be it further RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution be prepared in honor of this special day.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Mr. President and members, thank you very much. It is my honor this morning to be carrying Senate resolution 860 in honor of Worker's Memorial Day. Today we are remembering all workers who have died while on the job. I want to take this special opportunity to REMEMBER construction workers who have passed away while on the job. There are nearly 600,000 men and women who are employed in the Texas construction industry. In 2009, 138 men and women gave their lives to building our state. Most fatalities that occur at construction work sites could be prevented if safety training and equipment had been provided. I have a few names of men who have died recently while on the job at construction sites. Victor Pisana age 56 from Dallas, Texas. Zach Eagam age 26 from Palestine, Texas. Jeffrey Willinborg age 43 from Grand Prairie, Texas. Wilson Joe

(inaudible) age 30. Jesus Lan kin Lopez Perez age 29 and (inaudible) Comacho age 27. The last three names are names of individuals who died in one of Austin's deadliest -- deadliest accidents in 2009 when a scaffolding broke at a west campus apartment complex. I want to take this opportunity to remind all of us of the responsibility we have to make sure that we do what we can to ensure that the highest standards of safety are in place to protect construction workers and all workers who serve our great state of Texas. Members, here with us today on our floor are individuals who have been leaders in promoting workers' rights. And as I identify you please raise your hand. Guadalupe Torres, if he's here. Hector Hernandez, Fernando Adame, Juan Gutierrez and also with them Reverend Jim Stockton. These workers and the reverend will be visiting our office today to talk to us about the importance of worker safety. So members and Mr. President, please help me welcome all of these workers on this day that we are observing as Worker's Memorial Day. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Lucio is recognized to speak on the resolution.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Members, this is a very important resolution designating today as Worker's Memorial Day. As a member of the state affairs committee, I have been part of a committees that HAS taken up and considered legislation dealing with worker safety. We understand and appreciate the significance of our workers in this state. This very building that we're standing or sitting in today and working, to represent the people of our great state should also serve as a reminder of many who did pass away and got hurt in building this building, the workers of this state back when but there's still -- we're still not where we need to be. There's still a lot of need in us doing the right thing for the men and women of this state who serve as the backbone of building our infrastructure and making sure that future generations have the buildings and the construction taking place today that they will enjoy at that time when they grow up, like that little boy in the hands of one of our guests here today, in the arms of one of our guests. So members, I think we need to reflect because all of us, no matter where we live in the state, have construction workers. We have workers that are out there building for tomorrow and we need to do everything we can within our power, we have that decision making power to make it better for them so that they can provide a better quality of life for our children and future generations. Senator Rodriguez, thank you for bringing this resolution to the floor and bringing this to a realization that we should all -- all 31 of us -- 32 of us in this chamber ought to be looking at what we can do, what we must do. It's our responsibility to look at these issues that protect the lives of these workers and any life -- any life that we take up and consider in this chamber is important no matter what the background, no matter what the culture background and no matter where they live in our great state. Thank you very much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. The Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to close.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator Lucio. And I just want to again express my appreciation to you, Mr. President and members, for allowing the workers to be here with the representative and they are having a memorial event out in the rotunda here in a few minutes. So if you have a chance you're welcome to step out and to shake hands with these workers and to hear some of the concerns they have. Thank you very much, sir.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Rodriguez. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, and the resolution is adopted. The president lays out the following resolution SCR46 by Senator Ellis. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Concurrent Resolution 46. WHEREAS, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center is marking its 70th anniversary in 2011, and this occasion provides an ideal opportunity to recognize the remarkable achievements of this noteworthy institution; and WHEREAS, Over the past seven decades, MD Anderson has served more than 800,000 people, the majority of whom have been Texas residents, and patients in every corner of the world have benefited from medical discoveries at the center; public education and community outreach programs initiated by MD Anderson now reach more than 1.4 million Texans annually and address the needs of those at increased risk for cancer, particularly underserved and minority populations; and WHEREAS, For many years, MD Anderson has received more grants from the National Cancer Institute and conducted more clinical trials to evaluate new treatments than any other institution; the center sets the standard in developing new therapies targeted to the cancer-related genes and proteins associated with each patient's disease; moreover, MD Anderson has expanded the continuum of care beyond diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients to encompass major programs in cancer prevention and to address the special needs of cancer survivors; and WHEREAS, Rising to meet the health care challenges of the 21st century, MD Anderson excels as a degree-granting institution; it awards baccalaureate degrees in eight allied health disciplines and master's and doctoral degrees in biomedical research; more than 85,000 physicians, scientists, nurses, and health care professionals have been trained at the center; and WHEREAS, President John Mendelsohn, M.D., has guided MD Anderson for the past 15 years, building on the strong foundation built by his predecessors, Charles A. LeMaistre, M.D., and R. Lee Clark, M.D.; Dr. Mendelsohn provides inspired leadership to a staff of more than 17,000 dedicated professionals, along with approximately 1,200 hospital volunteers; their efforts are supported by the skillful direction of The University of Texas System Board of Regents, the work of citizen volunteers of The University Cancer Foundation Board of Visitors, and the generosity of thousands of donors; and WHEREAS, Internationally recognized for its excellence, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center has been named the nation's number one cancer hospital by US News & World Report; the exceptional reputation of this institution is a reflection of its immeasurable contributions to the advancement of medical science and of the outstanding care that has made a positive difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of patients and their families over the past seven decades; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commemorate the 70th anniversary of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and extend to all those associated with the institution sincere best wishes for continued success in their vital endeavors; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center as an expression of high regard by the Texas Senate and House of Representatives. By Ellis.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Ellis to explain the resolution.

SENATOR ELLIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to make a few points on this very important resolution. I want to point out that we are commemorating the 70 anniversary of MD Anderson again, but we're also celebrating 15 years of service from Dr. Mendelsohn and his lovely wife. And I just want to reiterate a couple of other points in case we forget it. MD Anderson is one of our nation's three comprehensive cancer centers designated back in 1971 under the National Cancer Act and is one of 40 national cancer centers today. Dr. Mendelsohn, by the way, is originally from Cincinnati, educated at Harvard. He previously worked at the University of California and San Diego and in San Diego before moving to New York. I had the privilege, as many of you on this floor, of knowing him and also his predecessors who helped build this great institution over the years. I mentioned last night if you can remember Congressman Mickey Leland introduced me when I was a young lad to Arley Clark and I was (inaudible) years ago and they were talking about their Interferon research there and I asked how in the world did you all get involved in Interferon. And it was from of Dr. Mendelsohn's predecessors, and, of course, we all remember working with Charles LaMader. Dr. Mendelsohn and his wife had big shoes to fill and they did a good job in a very rich tradition. MD Anderson in the fiscal year 2010 provided care to 105,000 patients. She mentioned that earlier, but I also want you to note that they currently operate in 58 buildings in the Texas Medical Center and they also have institutions and programs in other states as well as in other countries. It is because of the fine work of Dr. Mendelsohn and his team on the floor that I'm going to introduce in a minute that when my mother was diagnosed with cancer, Oliver Theresa Penes, my family and I sought treatment at MD Anderson and they gave her the kind of care and compassion that made us so proud that she had during the final days of her life. On the floor with Dr. Mendelsohn are key members of his team. Most of them were at the dinner last night that I got to a little late but I did make it there. But you see Dr. Mendelsohn. Of course you know his wife Ann Mendelsohn. We were commenting last night that now that he's going to take on a different role, he's not going anywhere, he'll still be at MD Anderson but he'll no longer be president. He's gong to focus more of his energy into research, but she had to teach the kids to ride bikes and do all those other things. So we thank you, Ann, for sharing your husband with us for all these years. Also we have Leon Leach, executive vice president. Thomas Burke, Dr. Thomas Burke executive PD and physician in chief and Adrian Lang, vice president for center programs at MD Anderson. Members, I want to yield. I know several of my colleagues, Mr. President, may have wanted to speak. I know in particular Senator Lucio because he just asked me a second ago, so I'm going to yield to Senator Lucio at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio on the resolution.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Senator Ellis, for allowing me to say a few words that hit at the heart of what I feel and think about this outstanding organization. My wife and I lead very happy lives seeing our children grow up without any illnesses up to about five or six years ago when my daughter contracted leukemia and it really changed our perspective of how we view life itself. I can tell you moving into the Houston area for six months and becoming part of that community, seeing firsthand, members, what happens in this outstanding institution I can sincerely say and rightfully say that it's an organization with some of the brightest minds in the world. But most importantly I don't think anyone can match their compassion for all people no matter where they come from. Whether it's this state, this country or the world because that's what this institution is global. And I can tell you that we owe -- my family and I, our daughter's lives to this institution and the wonderful people that represent MD Anderson. I was five years old -- actually you all were five years old in the institution when I was born and I -- the MD Anderson name just resounds something very special in this state and I don't think there's a member on the floor here that can say that they've never had the occasion of having to deal with you, with your institution in terms of their constituents, because I know that every corner of this state has been there at one time or another for services -- health care delivery services and I think it's a result -- we all agree with what I'm saying here today that no one in any way ever has been mistreated, has been looked -- has been turned away. There's always been a way where you have dealt with every one of the ones that I've referred there. Every last one of them over the 24 years I've been here and I can't thank you enough in their behalf. Of course the result was pretty happy with most of them but I know that -- and the ones who lost dear ones never failed to tell me that they will forever remember how they were treated and that's what's important, you know. MD Anderson represents something special in this state, in this country. And when I go there, it is just something unbelievable, members, that I witness every time and I look and I study and I see the same thing happening every day. It's like you don't get tired and you never lose sight of the fact that you're dealing with human beings that are special and their lives are important to you. And for that reason I stand before you today in direct witness of what you are and what you represent to this state and this country and this world because I met so many people who I couldn't even communicate with in the hallways and in the elevators. So thank you for all that you do for everyone in this world that we live in. And I know that if we continue to assist you, you will continue to do the job that God asked you to do before you were born. So I thank you for that. God bless you all. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on the resolution.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Mr. President. I'm extremely honored to be able to join this resolution today. Dr. Mendelsohn, we're -- standing here listening to Senator Lucio it reminds me that all of us are touched every day by cancer. As you know, we've had family members that have been there, we've had friends been there, we've had family people that mean a lot to us. And I can tell you through the years of my years in the legislature watching what y'all have done, a world class cancer care. But much more important being that the feeling that you give to the people come there and the being so expedient about making sure you make care of it. I can't tell you how much it means to all of us watching that. Y'all are a Texas treasure and it means a lot and under your leadership, I know that you're guiding that. I do want to make sure that I give credit to -- and you know where I'm going here. One of the favorite things that y'all do and it's one of my favorite thing that I do every year. All of the kids that have gone through MD Anderson that have had cancer and most of them are amputees, every year there are usually about 12, 15, sometimes more of those kids that on their first rehabilitation effort we take them snow skiing in Park City to the ability center. I've been lucky enough to play a small part of that in both helping as an ability instructor but also trying to raise money. Here on the floor we've got numerous members that have assisted that. I've looked across here. Senator Nelson, obviously she's a great supporter. Senator Whitmire, he's never turned me down when I asked money on this. Senator Van de Putte, Senator Huffman is out here has assisted with it, Senator Watson is a cancer survivor gives money, Senator Williams, Senator Ellis have never turned me down when I asked him for money. And every year when we help fund that program and you allow me to go and help with that, it is absolutely my favorite thing that I do every year and I thank you for allowing me to play a part in that. Thank you for doing it, what you do for all these kids. I had a piece of legislation I carried this year that had to do with prosthesis, making sure that it was easy for all those amputees to get the funding to pay for the prosthesis, I think we're going to try to do a bill signing at some point, maybe we can come down to your place to do it, the governor's agreed to do that. But thank you so much for all you do and we appreciate so much you being here with us today.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Patrick on the resolution.

SENATOR PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Dr. Mendelsohn and members from MD Anderson, it is a great honor for us to have you here today. And, Dr. Mendelsohn, it's been a great pleasure to get to know you better over the last couple of years. And as you know, not long after we had a luncheon at the hospital we talked about the issues of cancer and how percent, which was a number I'll never forget, 41 percent of all Americans will have a cancer of some form in their lives. It wasn't long after that my wife was diagnosed with cancer so I got a chance to see the legislative side, the personal side and then the therapy and the patient side through my wife. And it is without question one of the shining stars on the entire planet. And through your leadership and those who preceded you, it is something that Texas is just proud of and the lives that MD Anderson has touched all over the world who come for treatment, not just from all over Texas and from the Houston area and thank you for your dedication. You have an incredible story, everyone who works there has an incredible story. And if I recall 18,000 employees and walking through those halls those days my wife was there for treatment, I never found someone who didn't have a smile, who didn't lift up. And obviously it can be at times very difficult for the people in the families s that are there. There's a feeling of hope, there's a feeling of absolute passion, compassion, and care about every individual and with 18,000 employees and the difficult cases that you see, that really, I think, speaks a lot about leadership. So thank you for what you done for all us and will do in the future. Thank you very much. We're honored to have you here.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Patrick. Chair recognizes Senator Nelson to speak on the resolution.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. And, Senator Ellis, thank you for bringing this resolution to the FLOOR to give us this opportunity to honor all the wonderful work that's done at MD Anderson and specifically to thank Dr. Mendelsohn and his whole team. It's been said. I mean certainly, I think we focus a lot on the wonderful treatment that they provide, but maybe we need to say a little bit more about the prevention efforts that take place there and certainly the wonderful research that's been done. Senator Ellis, as you well know when we were -- before we had passed the legislation that created the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas we had to convince people that there were wonderful programs that if we were able to fund and give a boost to the research that we're undertaking we could do great things and find cures for these cancer that they're doing such a wonderful job right now treating and we could not point to a finer example of what could be done and Dr. Mendelsohn and others from MD Anderson were wonderful resources who came and testified. And I remember one individual testifying from MD Anderson saying, you know, ten years ago if we'd been asked if this was a wise investment of Texas dollars maybe, maybe not. But right now we are so close on so many of the possible cures, we've learned so much with the genome research and all of that that this boost of funding will draw people from all over the world to Texas to continue the research and participate and I -- it has been wildly successful. I'm convinced after having heard about the grants that we have allocated funding to some right there at MD Anderson we are close and so I'm happy to take this opportunity to thank you, Dr. Mendelsohn, and everyone working there at that wonderful facility not just for the good treatment that you do but also for the research that you're undertaking that's going to help us not have to have all that treatment there. So thank you, Senator Ellis. Thank you, Dr. Mendelsohn and everyone at MD Anderson for what you do.

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

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Thank you, Mr. President. And Senator Ellis, I really appreciate you bringing this resolution to the floor. Dr. Mendelsohn, my challenge to you is to some way go back to Houston and allow every one of your employees to know about this resolution. We're giving you proper accolades and your team and your partners but some way or another we've got to convey to the rank and file the people that make the great experience under difficult circumstances at your hospital know how greatly they're appreciated. And I would share with my colleagues one way we'd do it is to protect their benefits and their salary, Senator Ogden, of all the people and the doctors and the nurses and technicians at the hospital, please some way or another convey to them how this body, all 31 of us, appreciate because under difficult circumstances you make it the best possible. I also in closing want you to know that when we're talking about budget shortfalls, you should not be surprised that I use MD Anderson as the example of where we cannot cut the state budget. We have over 200 agencies and state institutions, numerous campuses and teaching hospitals but I want you to know and you heard me speak when people say, well, you got to run it like a business and cut the finances in difficult times. I say, do you really mean you want to reduce the funding for MD Anderson? So that puts a face on our budget shortfall and it's a credit to you and your team and your employees. So thank you, Senator Ellis. Thank you, Dr. Mendelsohn, for the effort and when I first got -- I told Senator Nelson because I got so much on my plate this morning, I said, well, he's not going anywhere. I know you're changing roles but we're honoring the institution but we also want to thank the leadership. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Duncan on the resolution.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you. I want to make sure a west Texas guy stands up and says thank you to Dr. Mendelsohn and also MD Anderson for all that you do for not only this state but this nation. I have really enjoyed working with Dr. Mendelsohn over all these years, he's been very forthright and up front and it's always a pleasure to see you when I'm walking down the hall. But you have really approached the legislature in an appropriate way and you have made your case well and I just appreciate the way you've done that. But more importantly what you have done for the state of Texas, what MD Anderson is doing for the state and this nation but also what you've done to assist them in your role there, your current role and I'm sure you'll even do better in your new role. So congratulations to you on that too.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Gallegos to speak on the resolution.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Ellis, I join you in this resolution. Dr. Mendelsohn, what can I say? You know, I think -- I'm trying to remember the year, I think it was '99 when the tobacco settlement was done and I was on Senate finance and I decided to be a little creative and I know San Antonio was a little upset at me when we tried to take 50 million from them, we got ten, we got ten but we were very creative on that. And I understand the role at MD Anderson and at that time never knowing that I was going to have to use your services. But you handle all the indigent Texans that have cancer and I knew that was incumbent of you of that cost, that cost, you know, that Senator Whitmire just talked about, that -- you know, people need to know that. A lot of the folks. I do. And then really when I was going through the services at MD Anderson waiting in line to take my MRIs and all the rest of the tests and waiting in line with those sick people like I was, it gives you a different perspective in life and what really happens. You really don't know until you wait in line in those halls over there and you're testing labs and having to wait in line with those sick folks, you know, and looking in their face how sick they are, you know, and then knowing what services that MD Anderson, you know, provides. And I just wanted from myself and those -- you know, we heard Senator Lucio and all on the personal nature. Like I said, when I did that amendment to get you some extra money, I didn't know that I was going to have to use your services but I think that, you know, when we do get a chance and try to sneak some money over to MD Anderson, I can assure you that we'll try to do it and I really appreciate the work that you and your staff do for not only Houston but all over the world, Texas and especially those with cancer. And I just want to thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn, Dr. Mendelsohn, and I was over at your hospital and said that I had 31 signatures to keep you from retiring on a bill, but you're just moving over, taking on another role. So once again thank you for what you do.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Deuell to speak on the resolution. By the way, Dr. Mendelsohn I think this is a record of senators that have wanted to speak on this resolution and accordingly so.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. And Dr. Mendelsohn, I'll just say thank you for this institution of serving 25 years. Our son did part of his medical training there. And on behalf of me and my patients and all the physicians in Texas, thank you.

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

SENATOR ELLIS: Just a quick two points, Mr. President. One, for those of you who may not know it, MD Anderson stole Dr. Mendelsohn from New York. He left Sloan to come here and when he was at Sloan, Sloan was ranked number one on that U.S. News and World ranking. I want to point out to members that HD Anderson is ranked No. 1 as a cancer hospital in America. They've had that slot seven out of the past nine years including 2010. So we're certainly glad that you didn't stay in New York or stay in California. Last point I want to make, members, as you go up in a second and shake the hands of our guests including Dr. Mendelsohn and his wife, when I stopped by that dinner last night they mentioned the two most promising areas in terms of cancer prevention. One is diet, as we go back into that room to eat and pick up legislation on this session, we ought to all reflect on that. And the second one, Senator Jackson, is reduction in terms of us being exposed to cigarette smoke. So I just want you to remember that. I appreciate all the great comments that have been said and I assure you I'm going to use some of your comments on issues that will come up before this body this session to make sure we are serious about reducing deaths from cancer in Texas. With that, Mr. President, I move adoption of this resolution honoring Dr. Mendelsohn and his wife and recognizing the 75th anniversary of the Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Well said. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Ellis. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection. Senator Lucio, did you wish to speak? And the resolution is adopted. Thank you.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move that all members' names be added to the resolution.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Lucio. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the motion is adopted. Members, that concludes the morning call. Senator Williams. 568. Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for an introduction.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you so much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Did I get that right?

SENATOR NELSON: Yes, thank you so much, Mr. President and members. I'm so pleased today to recognize students who are here today. There are students from Texas A&M Universities who are participating in our policy internship programs in Austin. I know many of you have seen them around. Some of you have them working in your office, and you know how outstanding these individuals are. The agricultural and natural resources policy internship and public policy internship programs help students deepen their understanding of government, develop their professional skills. These outstanding young adults are working in legislative offices and state agencies. One of them, I'm very partial to, it is Michael Bacca who is doing great work in my office and just got engaged. Congratulations, she's a lucky young woman and I'd like to ask all of the students who are -- I know some of them who had to leave but the students who are still here with the Texas A&M policy interning in the gallery. Please rise and let us welcome you and thank you for what you do and I think there may be a couple of other Senators, if they're on the floor, that may want to add comments, maybe not. But we sure do appreciate you all.

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

SENATOR LUCIO: In support of Senator Nelson's recognition and resolution of the policy --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: You're recognized.

SENATOR LUCIO: -- program that she has introduced and recognized. My office has been glad, members, also to welcome into our fold Ms. Caitlin Deets. She's right here by the side by the rail and is one of the A&M interns for the session. Caitlin is from Kingsville, Texas, is in my district, and is a recent graduate from A&M where she acquired a degree in agriculture communications and journalism. She has been a great help to our office over the last five months, taken an active role in constituent correspondence and bill tracking. It is my hope that she will take the skills she has learned here and invest them back in her community. Caitlin is a capable young woman with a whole future ahead of her. She is a great example, Senator Nelson, of how valuable this program can be for both offices and interns. So I stand before you in support of this outstanding internship program. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Deuell, you're recognized.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I might be also to express my gratitude to the Texas A&M interns. I had I think four previous to this year, one of them actually graduated and came back to work for me. But this year I have Shelly Reynolds on the staff, she's an Austin native, an environmental study senior and an outstanding representative of Texas A&M. She's a smart, hard worker, presents a smiling face as people walk in the door and I'm sure she's going to do well in whatever she chooses to do in the future. So I just want to express my appreciation for this program and the young men and women who participate. Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Deuell. Senator Hegar, you're recognized.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. And I join Senator Nelson and my colleagues in this session to one of the A&M interns that works for me, Renee Gertz, whose family is actually constituents of mine and it's been a real privilege to have her working on my staff. This is the third session, much like Senator Deuell, with the fourth session for him having interns, and they've always been very valuable individuals in my office. And I know Renee will do a fantastic job in whatever she chooses after graduating from A&M. And I think that everybody does a great jopb. I really appreciate. This is a fantastic program not just for us as senators and for our constituents but for the A&M students as well and we thank you for all that you've done for us this session.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Hegar. Senator Harris, you're recognized.

SENATOR HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. President. I've had the great privilege to work with Ryan this session. He's a proud Aggie, he's wrapping up his junior year this summer. Ryan has been an extremely valuable member of our staff. And Ryan, I thank you for your hard work and best of luck to you in your future. I do know you'll do great. Thank you, Ryan.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Harris. Thank you for being at the Texas Senate today. Senator Williams. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB568.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, Senate Bill 568 would allow an institution of higher education to have access to the secure web site of the DPS to do criminal background checks on students applying for campus housing to reside on campus. It would limit the use of that information to the chief of police or the housing office. It would prohibit the release of that information unless there was a court order or permission from the person to release the information and it would require the information to be destroyed after the beginning of the academic period. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 568.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB568. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB568. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB568 relating to access by a public institution of higher education to the criminal history record information of certain persons.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Hearing none, SB568 is passed to engrossment. Senator Williams is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB568. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 568 relating to access by a public institution of higher education to criminal history record information of certain persons.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move final passage.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams now moves final passage of SB568. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, no nays, SB568 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Williams.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business on Committee Substitute to SB738.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senate Bill 738 is a bill that gives parents not just a voice but an avenue for action when their child's school struggling. According to current statute after three years of earning an academically unacceptable rating, a commissioner may repurpose a campus, bring in alternative management or close the campus. Families who send their children to these low performing schools have no voice in their process. Their only option is to either switch schools which often means more time and resources for the family. This bill empowers parents with a voice and a pathway to make a change at a low performing school by allowing them to petition the commissioner for repurposing, alternative management or closure of the campus. This pathway we are calling the parent trigger. I move that we suspend the Senate's regular order of business at this time.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB738. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to SB738. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 738 relating to parental role in determining sanctions applied to public school campuses under certain circumstances.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 738 at this time.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to SB738 is now passed to engrossment. Senator Shapiro is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB738. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to SB738 relating to parental role in determining sanctions applied to certain public schools.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 738 at this time.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro moves for final passage of Committee Substitute SB738. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 738 is finally passed. Congratulations Senator Shapiro.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB1668.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. During several public meetings in 2010 the TRS board and staff reviewed the different types of service credit that TRS members could purchase. The cost of various types of purchases were unequal and sometimes purchases were subsidized by other TRS members. This legislation is another one of our TRS Let's Make It Better Bills and it will eliminate or at least reduce subsidizing the purchase of service credits and eliminating or reduce cost inequities. The TRS estimates that this could save the pension fund, trust fund proximately 200 million per year. So this is a good bill for us to consider this session. With that explanation I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1668.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB1668. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB1668. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1668 relating to purchase of service credit and the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, SB1668 is passed to engrossment. Senator Duncan is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB1668. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1668 relating to purchase of service credit in the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I move final passage.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan now moves final passage of Senate Bill 1668. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes and zero nays, SB1668 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Duncan. Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SJR4.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up SJR4. SJR4 deals with water development bonds. As you know, the water development board does a lot of financing for local communities that need financial help to deal with water problems they may have from water plants to flood control to infrastructure needs. And I can tell you that this is an ever growing proposal so that our water plant can be implemented on a long-term basis. I can tell you our water development board is one of the agencies that really protects the taxpayers' money. In that they have saved the state of Texas approximately over $100 million dollars during the last 12, 14 years. I will also tell you that these bonds are self-sustaining where we don't have to spend any GR money to pay out the debt. And I move suspension.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio, for what purpose?

SENATOR LUCIO: Will the gentlemen yield for questions?

SENATOR ELTIFE: You yield, Senator Hinojosa?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield.

SENATOR LUCIO: Senator, first of all, I'm very supportive of your SJR. I think it's a very important piece of legislation this session to help local communities throughout the state of Texas access to the funds they need to address water and waste water projects, correct? What percentage the bonds that we're talking about here, what percentage of need do these bonds represent?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: It's estimated that we need over $50 billion just to implement the statewide water plant and it helps that these bonds are self-sustaining and they can be reused again as the different entities pay back the funds that are loaned to them.

SENATOR LUCIO: So it's a small percentage?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Very small percentage.

SENATOR LUCIO: Around eight to 10 percent maybe?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I would say somewhere around 10 percent.

SENATOR LUCIO: Okay. Well, I thank you for bringing this and I hope it goes all the way through. It's certainly something that's needed by all communities throughout the state of Texas.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I think you'll find that the water development board helps communities across the state not only in the rural areas but also in cities like Houston and Dallas and San Antonio.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you very much.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Hinojosa moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SJR4. Is there objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SJR4. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SJR4 proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas water development board.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SJR4 is now passed to engrossment. Senator Hinojosa is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President, I move that we suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SJR4. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SJR4 proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional obligation bonds for the Texas water development board.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President, members, I now move final passage of SJR4.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa now moves final passage of SJR4. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, zero nays, SJR is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Hinojosa.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte. Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB1796.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1796. Members, this bill will establish a Texas coordinating council for veteran services in order to coordinate and protect activities of our state agencies that assist veteran members and their families. We all know the unique needs of veterans in our communities and particularly those that are returning from combat. The result of this bill is conversations and dialogue that we have had with the Veterans Commission and Health and Human Services, the Texas Council of Community Centers and the (inaudible) general's department. This council would help us coordinate those services for veterans, active duty military and their families to have a better response and plan for having Texas the number one state to live in for our veterans. With that, Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business at this time to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1796.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to SB1796. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB1796. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1697 relating to creation of the Texas coordinating council for veteran services.

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

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1796 is passed to engrossment. Senator Van de Putte is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to SB1796. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1796 relating to the creation of coordinating council for veteran services.

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

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1796.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte moves final passage for Committee Substitute to SB1796. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, Committee Substitute to SB1796 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Van de Putte.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB1294.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senate Bill 1294 is another bill that I've been bringing forward on Railroad Commission trying to bring in to some lines of their penalties to bring them more in line with the federal conforment so when they go back for a delegation on pipeline and other issues, Senate Bill 1294 removes a potential ambiguity and provides the commission with a single penalty statute to apply for all violations in a natural resource code in Title 3. Also the Senate bill increases the penalty provision from $10,000 a day to $30,000 a day in violation and finally it increases administrative penalties for knowingly filing false applications, reports and documents not to exceed $25,000. And I would move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1294.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar -- Senator Patrick, for what purpose? Nothing. Okay. Thank you, Senator Patrick. Senator Hegar has moved suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB1294. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rules is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB1294. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1249 relating to imposition of administrative penalties by the Railroad Commission of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HEGAR: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, SB1294 is passed to engrossment. Senator Hegar is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HEGAR: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB1294. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1294 relating to imposition of administrative penalties by the Railroad Commission of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HEGAR: Move final passage of Senate Bill 1294.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hegar moves final passage of SB1294. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, SB1294 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Hegar. Senator Deuell is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB1302.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business so that we can take up and consider Senate Bill 1302. Members, this seeks to address the issue of mail in ballots fraud. It will make it a class C misdemeanor to accept pay or payments on how many voters one can assist if they mail in ballots. Why I do not believe this is a widespread practice, it is known to have occurred recently in Texas. I believe this practice invites fraud and it's a small step toward the integrity of our mail in ballots. I have committed to keeping amendments off this bill so we can achieve the stated purpose of the bill. I move suspension.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB1302. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB1302. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1302 relating to the offense of paying or receiving certain forms of compensation for assisting voters who vote early by mail.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SB1302 is passed to engrossment. Senator Deuell is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR DEUELL: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB1302. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1302 relating to the offense of paying or receiving certain forms of compensation for assisting early voters who vote by mail.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move final passage of Senate Bill 1302.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell now moves final passage of Senate Bill 1302. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, SB1302 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Deuell.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, members.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute to SB4.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, I'd like to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 at this time. Members, Senate Bill 4 addresses one of the most important issues in education and that's teacher quality. Senate Bill 4 relates to the certification, the performance, the continuing education and the appraisal of public school teachers. This bill aims to improve the teacher pipeline and increase the potential for every teacher, every teacher regardless of the pathway to certification, demonstrated effectiveness upon entering the classroom must be paramount. It is an incredibly difficult profession and not just anyone can be successful. Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 thoughtfully addresses the quality of support and continuing education teachers receive in order to foster successful outcomes for every teacher. Good teachers are often drawn into other positions or professions for more money or for professional growth. It is imperative that we keep effective teachers in the classroom. Members, what we are doing here today on Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 is probably one of the most creative things that we will do this legislative session. I am very proud to tell you that we have the teacher groups, we had stakeholders of all kinds with us trying to craft this national model for what we believe at the end of the day will be one of the best curriculum developers and best for our teachers that we could possibly do. I believe Randy Winegarten who is the national president of the American Federation of Teachers said it best she spoke to our committee. I might add, sitting next to the commissioner of education Robert Scott and she said, nobody can say let's wait until the next best curriculum or the best teachers or the best (inaudible) for improving student performance. Ms. Winegarten insisted that we must begin these reforms now and she and the commissioner testified in support of this bill. The education committee passed this bill out with bipartisan support and I hope that we in the Senate can do the same. I believe that this commitment to the teaching profession is something we can all be very, very proud of. I move suspension of the Senate's regular order of business at this time.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson, for what purpose?

SENATOR WATSON: Question of the author please.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro yield?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR WATSON: I have a question, I think it's probably a quick question. But can you describe in evaluation of teachers that's talked about in this bill what standards are utilized for evaluation of teachers and whether standardized test scores play a role in that or an exclusive role in that.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: That's a very good question. This is a work in progress. What we're doing here is beginning the long road of finding the right match and that's one of the things that Randy Winegarten talked about is you got to start now, you got to plan for the future and you got to bring all the stakeholders together to make these decisions. We heard loud and clear it should not be solely based on student achievement, and we agree with that. There must be other multiples that you look at. This will not solely be done on student achievement, I assure you. But what will happen is as we begin this plan -- and this won't go into implementation for probably four years. We are going to be planning this over the next two to three years with all the stakeholders at the table with the local districts, with the stakeholders at the state level, with the state -- Senator Williams, sorry -- with the stakeholders, with the stakeholders at the state level, the teacher groups, the educators, all the people that are going to be involved in putting together a quality program for teacher effectiveness. I'm committed to that, Senator Watson.

SENATOR WATSON: I appreciate that. When the -- where do the teacher groups end up on this at the time it was voted out of committee?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: They still had some issues they wanted to discuss and I'm happy to tell you that on the next -- on the passage to engrossment I have an amendment that clarifies many of the points they wanted and I will be offering an amendment and I hope to tell you -- I can't speak for everyone but from what I understand every teacher group is fine with these changes, they're fine with the bill.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you very much.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Watson. Senator Davis, you wish to be recognized?

SENATOR WENDY DAVIS: Yes, thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: For what purpose?

SENATOR DAVIS: Just to help a little bit on the recollection --

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro yield?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR DAVIS: Committee -- I'm sorry. Thank you, Senator Shapiro. In committee, yes, it's correct I think that our teacher groups have expressed some concerns but it was my understanding when we had the hearing on the Committee Substitute and Randy -- I apologize, I don't remember her last name -- Winegarten came and spoke and talked about what those measurement tools could and should look like. The teacher groups from my recollection of that committee hearing were very much on board of the type of approach that she was advocating and it's your intention, I understand, after submitting the Committee Substitute and with the amendments you're bringing forth today --

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Correct.

SENATOR DAVIS: -- that they will be included in creating the measurement system by which they will be measured.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct. In fact, we're clear about who the groups of stakeholders will be throughout the process.

SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Davis. Senator Van de Putte, did you wish to be recognized? For what purpose?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Will the chairman yield, please?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes, I will.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you very much, Senator Shapiro. And I know as we worked in the education committee on the substitute there were still a few points that we were concerned about language and tweaks and I know that I was at the time working on a possible amendment. I'm going to give my support to the bill as I know our teacher groups did come and say they were comfortable with it. There were a few things and we would like to continue working as it gets through the process with just a few of the things I'm making sure what we had really talked about. But I want to thank you very much for having all the teacher groups at the table and in particularly giving them a part of the systems. And with regard to our school districts, they really wanted to have a little bit of the flexibility but meet a standard of some sort of an appraisal or to kind of up the game and I know it's a tough time for our public schools but the march toward equality should never stop.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Absolutely. Thank you. I couldn't agree with you more, and I couldn't agree with you more and as well as Senator Davis. The people involved in this program, in this plan, in this process must be the stakeholders whose lives are going to be affected by it and the teacher groups are exactly who need to be at the table, so I'm 100 percent behind that.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte. Senator Gallegos, for what purpose?

SENATOR GALLEGOS: To ask the author a question.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro yield?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator Shapiro -- and I know you've done a lot of work on this -- I believe it's in section six, I'm trying to bring up the bill in front of me where it allows school districts to go ahead and use their own evaluation or methodology of evaluation and I have concerns that the largest school district in the state has in the Sanders program that doesn't allow teachers the opportunity to find out why they're being fired and you have heard me in committee, that's a concern to me. I don't have a problem with, you know, bad teachers and letting them go and all that but as long as you tell them why you're letting them go A.n.d that's my concern here that we allow the school to use methods like the Sanders that doesn't tell teachers why they're being fired. Again, you go through four years of college, you go for that teaching certificate, you go to class, you teach and then you're told that obviously you're lacking in whatever. But under the Sanders program they're not being told that and I have a big concern about that. If you're going to fire or let somebody go they should be told why they're being pink slipped and that way they can go obviously for continuing education, redeem themselves and get back in the classroom and be a better teacher. And that's my concern. Is that still -- do any of your amendments clarify that?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: My amendments do not clarify that. That is a local issue. My hope is, Senator Gallegos, I hear what you're saying and I certainly agree with you, my hope is that while we go through this process, because this is not going to be implemented immediately that those kinds of concerns will come up to these stakeholders groups and the meetings and will be able to be ferreted out and say, that's not the way we want to handle it. Let's make sure that we do it in a better way and so that's what I'm hoping will happen. One of the reasons we're not starting this right away is that those kind of things need to be ferreted out.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: I understand. It's being used in the largest school district in the state and that concerns me.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Gallegos. Senator West, for what purpose? Thank you, Senator West. Senator Shapiro has moved suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB4. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB4, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB4. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 relating to certification performance, continuing education and appraisal of public school teachers.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment no. 1 by Shapiro. Secretary please read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Shapiro.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro to explain the amendment.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes, Mr. President and members. This floor amendment respects the very thoughtful collaboration that we did with the teacher groups that was mentioned earlier and even other members on really assuring that this bill is for, I want to emphasize for teachers and professionalizing the role of teachers. We also wanted to make the changes to the appraisal process as collaborative and as transparent as possible. So the major changes to this amendment include establishing a floor as well as a ceiling for the weight that a teacher effectiveness measure has in a teacher appraisal make 30 to 50 percent. We also wanted to ensure the state assessment is not the primary source for determining the teacher effectiveness and that all teachers regardless of subject are held to the same standards. And we wanted to prove ample time for developing validation and piloting the redesigned appraisal system as well as looking at multiple appraisal options before bringing this option to a statewide program and we did change the certification to begin September the 1st in 2003. I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte, for what purpose?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: To question the author on the amendment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro yield?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: I do.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you very much. And I know on the language of the amendment line two and three we talked about a lower bar and certainly it is by 5 percent but I'm worried that still that not -- more than 50 percent would still be too high, so I hope that we can continue to work with that. My question has to do with line 24. We talked about in committee that before this is done on a statewide basis that it needs to be a pilot project and I understand the wording here is that the commissioner may initiate a pilot project. So --

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Now, this is before the commissioner adopts rules, the commissioner must develop, validate and test the proposals which means those proposals that are done --

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Well, I wanted to make sure --

SENATOR SHAPIRO: -- regarding the --

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: -- that we're going to do a pilot first to make sure that we've got all of the data and everything and that the dates on the amendment -- on page two of the amendment coincide with allowing the time for pilot projects to come forward.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: That is correct. That way from 2013 to 2016 if you will look at line nine -- eight and nine we struck 2013 and we substituted it with 2016.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: So it is definitely that the commissioner would take in the rules, do the pilot, evaluate before we would do something --

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Exactly. And I love the term and really Randy Winegarten used it. Local trials, that they would have those local trials out in the community to see what worked best, that really hit home with me and I think that's why we went to 16. That's correct.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: You're welcome.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Van de Putte. Senator Shapiro has moved adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Hearing none, Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes, thank you. Members, I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 as amended.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 is passed to engrossment. Senator Shapiro is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 27 ayes, four nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB4 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 relating to certification, performance, continuing education appraisal of public school teachers.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 4 as amended.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Shapiro moves final passage of Committee Substitute to SB4. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 28 ayes, three nays, Committee Substitute SB4 as amended is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Shapiro.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you very much. Thank you, members.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB736.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Senate Bill -- I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 736. This is a bill that deals with dating violence policies in schools and what it does on those boards that they have in different schools require that they have an amendment bill to require that an annual report provide recommendations in policy programs and resources on dating violence. As you all know, it's a big issue, big problem in our schools that we need to educate our students and make them aware of dating violence with other people.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB736. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB736. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB736 relating to membership and duties of local school health advisory council.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SB736 is passed to engrossment. Senator Hinojosa is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB736. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB736 relating to membership and duties of local school health advisory council.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Mr. President and members, I move final passage of Senate Bill 736.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa now moves final passage of SB736. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, Committee Substitute -- excuse me, SB736 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Hinojosa.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SJR50.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members. Members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time Committee Substitute to SJR50. Members, the SJR proposes a constitutional amendment to be submitted to the voters on the election to be held November the 8th, 2011 to increase bonding authority for the coordinating board to issue the college access loan, CAL, which is one of the loan programs that compromises the Hazelwood student loan program. Seven separate elections held between 1965 and 2007 Texas voters have authorized seven constitutional amendments totaling $1.86 billion to provide funds for the Texas higher education coordinating board. Over the life of the program the board has issued over $1.4 billion of self-supporting bonds. The bonds are repaid from loan repayments. The state has never had to provide general revenue -- let me underscore -- general revenue to repay the bonds because the bonds are self-supporting. They're not included in the state's constitutional debt limit as mandated by section 49J of the Texas constitution. The board's last constitutional amendment that was approved by the voters was in 2007 for 500 million. The board has 400 million of authorization remaining. The board expects that this remaining authority will be exhausted by 2013. The loans offered by the board are alternative loans that are used to make up the differences between what students can get from other sources and the cost of attendance. Mr. President, I move to suspend the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson, for what purpose?

SENATOR JACKSON: Will the gentlemen yield?

SENATOR WEST: Yes, I will.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you. I thought I heard the answer to my question, but I was going to ask if you would review that for me. My issue is the bonds and the bond indebtedness and how those funds get paid back. I think they get paid back by the students themselves. I would like to see if you have in your notes maybe the percentage of default on that. Is that an issue? Thank you.

SENATOR WEST: I don't know that I have the percentage of default, but we have never had to use the bonds repaid from loan repayments, the state has never had to provide general revenue to repay the bonds.

SENATOR JACKSON: Okay. So these are self-sustaining and don't --

SENATOR WEST: They are and --

SENATOR JACKSON: -- use any of the bond indebtedness impact?

SENATOR WEST: That is correct. The terms and here's the constitution right here. The term does not include bonds that although backed by the full faith and credit of the state are reasonably expected to be paid from other revenue sources that are not expected to create a general revenue draw and these are those bonds.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SJR50. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SJR50. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SJR50 proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the state financial education loans to students.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SJR50 is now passed to engrossment. Senator West is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WEST: Move to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 26 ayes, five nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SJR50. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to SJR50 proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance educational loans.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: I move final passage of Committee Substitute to SJR50.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West now moves final passage of Committee Substitute to SJR50. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 27 ayes, four nays Committee Substitute SJR50 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator West.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West is now recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of bids on Committee Substitute SB1799.

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President and members, at this time I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1799. Mr. President and members, this Committee Substitute proposes to increase the amount of bonds that the education coordinating board can issue from 125 million each year to 350 million each fiscal year to meet the anticipated increase fiscal loan demand. This is the enabling legislation of SJR50.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West moves suspension of SJR50 -- Committee Substitute to SB1799. Is there objection? Char hears none, rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB1799. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1799 relating to student loan program administered by the Texas higher education coordinating board.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1799 is now passed to engrossment. Senator West is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WEST: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 26 ayes, five nays, rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB1799. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1799 relating to student loan program administered by the Texas higher education coordinating board.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President, at this time I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1799.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West moves final passage of Committee Substitute SB1799. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 27 ayes, four nays, Committee Substitute SB1799 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator West. Senator Huffman is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB529.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, r. President. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 529. Members, this bill is the auto dealer's bill and I'd like to start out by saying that my original goal of bringing this body to an agreed to bill has been finally realized after many hours of deliberations, all of the shareholders, all of the stakeholders have reached an agreement. The Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 529 aims to prevent automobile manufacturers from imposing unfair expenses and burdensome practices on automobile dealers in our state. Over the past two years the automobile industry has experienced the bankruptcy of major manufacturers and the loss of over 70 franchise dealers in the state. Unfortunately the response to the manufactures -- the bankruptcy has led to the development of new agreements called private use agreements that bond the private property dealer on the end of the franchise agreement. The Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 529 places what I think you'll find to be an appropriate protection on dealers, private property rights, by prohibiting a manufacturer from forcing a dealer to define a property use agreement by condition of entering into a franchise, approving the addition of a line make relocation or sale or transfer of a dealerships. It better protects private customer information and it ensures that a manufacturer or distributor cannot frequently mandate facility changes at dealerships. And I will have a floor amendment, members, that will finalize and codify the agreement between all of the stakeholders which I'll be offering and has been signed off by everyone. So with that point I would move to suspend, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Davis, for what purpose.

SENATOR DAVIS: Will the author of the bill yield, please?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Yes, ma'am.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you. Senator Huffman, really this question is meant as a very gentle one intended as a compliment to you. The question is did you manage to get the manufacturers and auto dealers to actually agree on something that is the result of the amendment that you propose to your bill?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: They are in agreement and I actually, I don't have the copy in front of me but I had them sign the floor amendment, everyone is in agreement and I believe there's probably representatives watching here today. So everyone seems pleased with the bill.

SENATOR DAVIS: Well, I wanted to make sure and ask that question because I think those of us who have been watching this issue closely understand how difficult it was to find that consensus point, and you have worked tremendously hard on this and deserve tremendous congratulations for bringing both sides to the table and coming up with a work product that everyone feels good about.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, thank you very much, Senator Davis, and thank you very much for your help in this as well. Thank you.

SENATOR DAVIS: You're welcome.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB529. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB529. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 529 relating to the regulation of motor vehicle dealers, manufacturers, distributors and representatives.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Huffman. Please read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Huffman.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman to explain the amendment.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Mr. President, this floor amendment as I mentioned previously is the final agreement between the parties. It basically changes -- addresses the manufacturer's concern that they should only be required to pay for facility bills or remodel within two years of a discontinued line make if they have required these changes. The second change addresses manufacturers' concerns with the language that prohibited a manufacturer from requiring a facility upgrade if the dealer had complied with a previous facility upgrade in the last ten years by allowing exceptions for requirements necessary to comply with health and safety law or technology changes needed to sell or service a line make. And lastly the floor amendment addresses the largest concern of the manufacturers relating to the prohibition of the use of property use agreement and we have crafted a very limited exception for the use of those agreements. With that I would move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Members, Senator Huffman moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Senator Huffman is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB529 as amended is passed to engrossment. Senator Huffman is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 28 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB529. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB529 relating to regulation of motor vehicle dealers, manufacturers, distributers and representatives.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I move for final passage of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 529.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman now moves final passage of Committee Substitute for SB529 as amended. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, zero nays Committee Substitute SB529 as amended is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Huffman.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you very much.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SJR5.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, SJR5 proposes a constitutional amendment relating to increasing the market value of the permanent school fund for the purposes of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund. The post constitutional amendment will allow for the consolidation of permanent school investment assets in order to better accurately reflect the full balance of the permanent school fund. The amendment upholds certain aspects by the school land board to the asset base is for the permanent school fund total base calculations including discretionary real asset investments and cash in the state treasury derived from real property belonging to the permanent school fund. The fiscal note indicates a GR revenue gain of 184.8 million for fiscal years 12 and 13 due to increased distributions from the available school fund. I move suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SJR5. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to SJR5. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to SJR5 proposing a constitutional amendment increasing the market value of the permanent school fund.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to SJR5.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to SJR5 is passed to engrossment. Senator Ogden is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move suspension of the constitutional three day rule to take up and consider SJR5.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 28 ayes and three nays, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SJR5. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SJR5 proposing a constitutional amendment relating to increasing the market value of the permanent school fund.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, I move final passage of Committee Substitute SJR5.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden now moves final passage of Committee Substitute SJR5. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays, Committee Substitute SJR5 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Ogden. Senator Ogden is now recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business Committee Substitute SB365.

SENATOR OGDEN: 165 or 365?

SENATOR ELTIFE: 365, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move suspension of the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 365 relating to distributive generation of electric power. This is a bill that we passed last session allowing or permitting significant amounts of natural gas that may be wasted, stranded or under utilized to be used to make electricity and supply the grid. It's primarily a permissive bill guaranteeing access to any natural gas producers converting natural gas to electricity but also requiring that natural gas producer to pay the costing associated with that access. I move suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden now moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB365. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB365. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 365 relating to the distribution of generation of electric power.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute Senate Bill 365.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB365 is passed to engrossment. Senator Ogden is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, I move suspension of the constitutional three day rule to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 365.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB365. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB365 relating to distributive generation of electric power.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 365.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden now moves final passage of Committee Substitute SB365. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, Committee Substitute SB365 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Ogden. Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business SB1669.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Over the years the statutes controlling the TRS return to work provisions have become increasingly complex and difficult to administer. In general a TRS retiree may return to work in a full-time position for up to six months per each school year without losing annuity payments. However, there are numerous exceptions to that. The -- during the interim the TRS board and staff held several public meetings with members of the system to discuss simplifying the law. Senate Bill 1669 would make changes in the return to work provision simply to simplify administration. The changes have no actuarial changes -- no actuarial impact on the trust fund. I want to point out that this bill does not affect the retire, rehire surcharges that we enacted in 2005. With that explanation I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1669.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB1669, is there objection? Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1669. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1669 relating to presumption of service by retirees under teacher retirement system of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, Senate Bill 1669 is passed to engrossment. Senator Duncan is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you. I move to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB1669. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB1669 relating to the resumption of services for retirees under the teacher retirement system of Texas.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I move final passage.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan now moves final passage of SB1669. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes no nays, SB1669 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Duncan. Senator West is now recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB462.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President and members. Members, this is the expunction bill that we've passed in the past legislative sessions. It was -- it died in the calendars committee of the House last time and it represents a compromise, I think, between prosecution and also defense counsel. What it deals with, it deals with a situation where an individual has not been charged and needs to be able to go through an expunction of their record. Texas law allows the records of criminal charges to be expunged only on the matter of circumstances. Senate Bill 462 only addresses the issues related to the expunction of the criminal charges when the cases have, in fact, been dismissed. I move suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West now moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 462. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to SB462. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 462 relating to the expunction of records and files relating to a person's arrest.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator West is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WEST: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Huffman, for what purpose?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I'd like to ask a question of the author.

SENATOR WEST: Without question.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Pardon?

SENATOR WEST: Without question.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Senator West, I'm sorry, I stepped out for a moment. And in your bill, if I recall correctly, is this the bill that is going to expunge arrest records even if a person has been arrested and made bond and then fled and have been outside of the jurisdiction but -- so they did not have a final conviction within a certain period of time?

SENATOR WEST: No.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Okay. Tell me what your bill does then.

SENATOR WEST: What it does is it expunges records of cases that have been dismissed, cases where individuals have been found not guilty.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Okay.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. You remember the Bing case back in 2007 that basically said that even under current law where you could have an expunction, the court of criminal appeals ruled that you couldn't get an expunction until the statute of limitations ran on the case. So it addresses that particular issue.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: All right. My concern is I believe that your bill says that if a time limit has passed and the person has not been arrested, that that record is expunged and my concern --

SENATOR WEST: Okay. Where in the bill -- where in the bill does it say that?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Let me get my copy of the bill. My concerns are the situations where a person -- they're arrested, they make bond and they flee. So they take themselves away. Now, you know the law and I know the law that if a -- if the sheriffs department and so forth has not done due diligence within a certain period of time that the case can be dismissed or speedy trial attaches and so forth, statute of limitation attaches.

SENATOR WEST: Statute of limitations, Judge, won't apply though if a person's been arrested and charged, it doesn't apply.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Okay. I just want to make --

SENATOR WEST: You'd agree with that, right?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I want to ask you a question. I want to make sure that an individual who makes bond and leaves the jurisdictions, these could also be individuals who are not legally in our country who have been -- who go back to another country and then come back later. I want to make sure that there's a record that they have been arrested because it's a valuable tool for law enforcement. Even if the case couldn't otherwise be prosecuted, it's important to know if a person has been previously arrested and has fled the jurisdiction who on their own have left so that their case could not be --

SENATOR WEST: And this is what I'll say to you. As the bill makes it through the process, if that's an issue, I will deal with it with you and work with you on that.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Okay.

SENATOR WEST: I don't think that applies here.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: I just want to make sure that's not your intent. I'm going to register a no on this because I'm concerned about it, but thank you very much, Senator West.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. If you're concerned about it, why don't you say not voting and we'll continue to work on it?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Well, because I know your bill. Thank you, sir.

SENATOR WEST: Okay.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Huffman. Senator West has moved passage to engrossment. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 24 ayes, seven nays, Committee Substitute SB462 is passed to engrossment.

SENATOR WEST: I'll see you tomorrow.

SENATOR ELTIFE: We look forward to it. Senator Van de Putte is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB1734. SB1734, you're recognized, Senator Van de Putte.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time Senate Bill 1734. Members, this bill deals with the ability of our Texas Army National Guard and International Guard to have the Hazelwood exemption if they served less than 181 days in combat. This is needed to align that if those service members become injured before the 181st day, they would not qualify for Hazelwood. But if they've been injured they certainly would have been there 181 days. This is to make sure the possibility, and we have had a case of the Texas Guard being deployed to combat theater and getting wounded prior to reaching the threshold of 181 days of active duty to be able to qualify for the Hazelwood. With that I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time Senate Bill 1734.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB1734. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading SB1734. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB1734 relating to tuition and fee exemptions at public institution of higher education for certain Texas military veterans.

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

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I move passage of Senate Bill 1734 to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SB1734 is now passed to engrossment. Senator Van de Putte is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB1734. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB1734 relating to tuition and fee exemptions at public institutions of higher education for certain Texas military veterans.

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

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: I move final passage of Committee Substitute SB1734.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Van de Putte now moves final passage of SB1734. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, SB1734 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Van de Putte.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB1319.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I'd like to move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1319. Members, currently mortgage lenders in Texas are not required to provide any kind of accounting to borrowers if the lender does not meet the threshold to be a federally regulated lender. The Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1319 addresses abusive loan services practices by nonfederally regulated mortgage loans. Because of this lack of accounting requirement, many small and owner finance mortgage lenders have not been given borrowers any sense of whether they are nearing their payoff date, have reached it or are overpaying. In some cases borrowers have even stopped making payments on their mortgages believing they have paid off their loans only to find out they still owe he lender thousands of dollars plus all related interest and late fees. Members we worked to develop a Committee Substitute with stakeholders, banking industry which -- in the banking industry which passed out of business and commerce unanimously nine to zero. It narrows the applicability of the bills so that it only applies to residential mortgage loans and would not be applicable to transactions between family members. Additionally it removes some of the prescriptive reporting requirements of lenders by doing three things. No. 1, requiring a receipt for each payment made. No. 2, simplifying the information and actions required to relating to the annual accounting statement, and No. 3 extending the amount of the time a lender has to respond to a borrower's request for information. Mr. President, I move suspension of the rules.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB1319. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB1319. Secretary please read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB1319 relating to certain loans created by liens on residential and real property.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR LUCIO: I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB1319 passed to engrossment. Senator Lucio is now recognized to suspended spends the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR LUCIO: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB1319. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB131 relating to the loan secured by lien on residential and real property.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move final passage for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1319.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio now moves final passage of Committee Substitute SB1319. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, Committee Substitute SB1319 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Lucio.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB1320.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'd like to move at this time to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1320. Members, because of the customer protections of the state has enacted in contract for deed, land, home sales, many unscrupulous sellers develop a new scheme to take advantage of home and land buyers. Now using traditional mortgage financing, these sellers provide title to the property of the closing. However, they require buyers to execute what is called a deed in lieu of foreclosure at the closing table. This document is usually not explained to the would be buyers since in essence it gives title back to the seller/lender the same day the property is purchased. Additionally this makes Texans sign away the foreclosure rights that the legislature has provided to them over the years. The statute that we enacted had passed and we developed in committee was voted out nine to zero makes the requirement of having to execute a deed in lieu of foreclosure at closing an unlawful practice by including it under a new and separate chapter in the business and commerce code. Additionally in the event that a deed and lieu of foreclosure occurs, the substitute would make such a deed voidable under -- voidable under certain circumstances. I have suspension of the rules.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB1320. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB1320. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1320 relating to execution of deeds containing residential and real estate in connection with certain transactions.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR LUCIO: Move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio how moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, Committee Substitute to SB1320 is now passed to engrossment. Senator Lucio is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR LUCIO: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB1320. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 1320 relating to execution of certain deeds containing residential real estate.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio, you're recognized for a motion.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move final passage of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 1320.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio now moves final passage of Committee Substitute SB1320. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, Committee Substitute SB1320 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Lucio.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB506. SB506.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I move that we suspend the Senate's regular order of business so that we can take up and consider Senate Bill 506. Members, this is a bill that changes the levels -- warning levels for mercury in our lakes, it's currently .9. We want to lower it to .3 to protect pregnant women and children from getting mercury in their system. I move suspension at this time.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB506. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB506. The secretary will read the caption.

SENATOR DEUELL: I move to engrossment.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 506 relating to mercury advisory and contamination of certain fish.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell is now recognized for a motion.

SENATOR DEUELL: Now, I move to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Deuell now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB506 is passed to engrossment. Senator Deuell is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR DEUELL: I'm going to hold at this point, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Deuell. 1580 first, Mr. Chairman. Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB1580.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, I move suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580. This is an omnibus fiscal matters bill related to health and human services in the state agencies and administering health and human services programs. The provisions in this bill are incorporated in the Committee Substitute to House Bill 1, the appropriations bill. And according to the fiscal note the estimated positive impact to the state treasury if we pass this bill is $9,721,000. It does this by changing certain fees that the Department of Health and Human Services and other state agencies can set. Regulatory fees are increased by up to 5 percent, laboratory fees are increased by up to 12 percent, and child care licensing fees are increased three times above the current amount in order to improve the regulation and monitoring of child care facilities. I move suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute SB1580. Is there objection? There's objection. The secretary will call the roll. Senator Ellis, for what purpose?

SENATOR ELLIS: I was just going to ask him, what was the vote on this bill? I was trying to look at my notes in the finance committee. Was this one that came out unanimously?

SENATOR OGDEN: I --

SENATOR ELLIS: Do you remember?

SENATOR OGDEN: There were four nos, it was 11 ayes, I think. 11 ayes and four nos.

SENATOR ELLIS: And, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I came down a little late. Can you just give us -- what does it do?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir. There are -- and the bill's pretty simple. It's like a two page bill and it raises certain regulatory fees by 5 percent, certain laboratory fees by 12 percent and the largest increase is in child care licensing fees. And I think the new licensing fee for child care facilities on page two, department shall charge the licensed child placement agency an annual license fee of $105 or depending on the type of facility $150 or $300. It basically triples the licensing fees for child care, licensing facilities and the different types of facilities have a different fee structure but it basically triples them. It should raise about $7 million. And I've been told that the purpose for this is to allow the department to improve their inspection and monitoring of these facilities. The other provisions of this bill, I have a whole list of fees that specifically that are being changed. But basically it's 5 percent for most fees except for most regulatory fees and 12 percent for most laboratory fees. And if you'll give me a second I'll tell you what those are.

SENATOR ELLIS: Now, Senator, when you raise these fees on day care industries, does it go back into day care related issues like inspection or does it go into general revenue?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's the intent, Senator.

SENATOR ELLIS: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Ellis. Senator Watson, for what purpose?

SENATOR WATSON: Question of the author.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Senator. Mr. Chairman, as you discussed these fees, will these fees fall into the category of fees that we sometimes refer to as general revenue dedicated funds?

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator I'm not sure about that. To the extent that -- I don't think so. I don't think that these fees that we -- are basically fees that are collected by the agency, I don't think they go into a general revenue dedicated account, I think they just go into general revenue.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. So is there anything that assures that these fees will go for their intended purpose?

SENATOR OGDEN: The appropriations bill.

SENATOR WATSON: So we know that in the appropriation bill that there are fees and taxes charged to citizens of the state that go into in some cases the general fund and in some cases into general revenue dedicated accounts but then are not appropriated for that specific purpose instead they're used to otherwise balance the budget; isn't that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir, there's a lot of those.

SENATOR WATSON: Right. So is there anything that assures the fees that are referred to in the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580 will be actually appropriated or utilized for their purposes particularly since they don't even go into a general revenue dedicated fund but just goes into general revenue?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, to the extent that the -- we've reappropriated the money in the bill, it does. I mean, our bill assumes that this fee increase is reappropriated to the agencies that collected it.

SENATOR WATSON: So for purposes of --

SENATOR OGDEN: At least for now, there's assurance because of the bill.

SENATOR WATSON: And that's what I was going to ask you. So let me make sure I'm clear. What you're suggesting is the increases in fees that we see in Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580 in HB1, the proposed Committee Substitute to HB1 those fees go for the specific purpose. Is that what you're saying?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, but it goes through a general revenue account. So I mean if you're audited, for example, there's not a tag on it.

SENATOR WATSON: Right. And for future purposes the practice that the legislature has gotten into the habit of doing over the years of taking fees and taxes that otherwise get utilized that have a designated purpose such as here but then get swept and used otherwise to balance the budget, there's no assurance in the future that these fees and fee increase won't be used for other purposes?

SENATOR OGDEN: I guess the answer's yes.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Watson. Senator Davis, for what purpose?

SENATOR DAVIS: Will the author yield for a question, please?

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, I yield. Go ahead, Senator.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator. I'm a little bit confused looking at the bill in my bill book. The underlined section of the Committee Substitute that I have includes only the portion dealing with fees but the analysis of the bill that I have indicates that this also includes portions of this bill that don't demonstrate to be underlined. So in my understanding this would mean these things were already in law today. If you can help clarify that for me. Specifically I'm looking at page one talking about eligibility requirements starting on line 30 and then also there is language on line 52 about adopting or -- excuse me, on line 54 about modifying and streamlining processes that are used in eligibility determinations. Is there anything in this bill that's opening up an opportunity to reconsider or change the eligibility requirements that are in place today?

SENATOR OGDEN: No. And I have an amendment to strike that section. That section is in there in order to basically allow the author and the Senate to pretty much do anything they want with respect to Article II of the budget and now that the budget's on the floor, I'm going to have an amendment to take out what we call the omnibus, which is what you're asking for. So if we suspend and you take my amendment, your question becomes moot because it's no longer in the bill.

SENATOR DAVIS: And then it moves into Article II of the budget where these --

SENATOR OGDEN: Basically it's raising fees to help pay for the budget.

SENATOR DAVIS: And the authority to help pay for the eligibility requirements moves out of this bill and to Article II of the budget bill.

SENATOR OGDEN: It just moves out. I mean, on this line what is it? Which line were you talking about?

SENATOR DAVIS: Line 54 and then also line 30.

SENATOR OGDEN: Line 54 that says modifying and streamlining the process used in the content of eligibility determinations which could be code words for changing them.

SENATOR DAVIS: Right.

SENATOR OGDEN: If we take it out of the bill, it basically eliminates that possibility and it doesn't create a new possibility in the appropriations bill. It's just gone.

SENATOR DAVIS: But under Article II were decisions made that changed the eligibility requirements that this bill is setting up the funding to realize?

SENATOR OGDEN: No. This Article I is not necessary for the implementation of the provisions in the appropriations bill. The only thing that's necessary is the fee changes.

SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. I'd like to look at your amendment if you don't mind, Senator, I'm going to come over and get a copy.

SENATOR OGDEN: Okay. It's pretty simple, strike the section.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Davis. Senator Lucio, for what purpose?

SENATOR LUCIO: Will the chairman please yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden yield.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you. Chairman. I think I voted against this bill because in my opinion it would allow state agencies to prioritize benefits based on who is the most deserving. My question would be how would you respond if I would say that the downfall is that in this bill it would allow the Health and Human Services Commission related agencies to take steps to making changes to eligibility requirements which could mean that less people will get the services they need and -- would it allow state agencies to make changes to eligibility criteria for benefits as a cost savings measure which would force agencies to prioritize which people need services the most? That is my concern with the bill.

SENATOR OGDEN: In response to your concern the answer is yes, and I propose to eliminate that section of the bill if I suspend, we'll take that section out that's causing you the concern.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Senator Ogden has moved suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 11 ayes 20 nays, Committee Substitute SB1580 fails to suspend. Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB1582.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, this is a bill relating to state fiscal matters relating to the judiciary. And while we're considering these bills, I'd ask you to pay more attention to what the bills say. The last one just cost us 9.7 million. And we're sitting there trying to figure out how to balance the budget, the only reason that these bills are on the floor is because this is statutory changes that match the method of finance in the appropriations bill. And the only alternative if we don't pass these bills is to start cutting the appropriations so, you know, I'll accept the will of the Senate, I know how to cut. Relating to -- this is relating to state fiscal matters related to the judiciary. This bill reduces the -- has a -- stipulates that reimbursements and payments to various persons including state employees, visiting judges, district judges, and prosecuting attorneys not be made in an amount greater than the amounts authorized in the general appropriations act. In Article III the bill would amend the government code to allow the process server review board to recommend to the supreme court for fees to be charged for the certification and renewal of certification process servers. And Article IV of the bill would change the classification of the judicial court personnel changing fund No. 540 from other funds to a dedicated fund within the general revenue which picks up about $20 million. Article V of the bill would eliminate the statutory rape for juror pay reimbursement, basically reduce it by 15 percent. If you look at the fiscal note on this, it has a positive fiscal note of 1.6 million and it moves $22 million into general revenue which will be used to balance the budget. Now, members --

SENATOR ELTIFE: Can we have a little order on the floor.

SENATOR OGDEN: I will accept the will of the Senate but this bill will balance and if you don't want to vote for this, the only alternative is to start cutting the appropriations bill. I move for suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ellis, for what purpose?

SENATOR ELLIS: I'd like to ask Senator Ogden a few questions.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR ELLIS: Senator, I appreciate what you're trying to do but not the way you're doing it. I want to make sure you, Senator Ogden, and all the members know under this bill, what we're doing is essentially setting ourselves up again for what we do with the system's benefit fund, it's just on a smaller level. Part of the money in this bill is a court fee, a $4 court fee that was added to every criminal conviction in 2005 to give jurors a pay raise. The first pay raise that they had gotten in Texas in 50 years. We set juror pay in Texas the year I was born at $6 a day and the bill really came to me from the folks at the Vincent and Elkins law firm, if my memory serves me correct. I think Ron kirk was with the firm and they took it on pm a pro bono basis as a tribute to Judge Vincent from Vincent and Elkins where he represented some African American who was convicted by an all white jury, famous case, went all the way to the United States Supreme Court. So this law firm, to celebrate some anniversary of their law firm, decided they were going to help raise juror pay in Texas. And the problem was there was a survey that came out that found out that in neighborhoods in Texas that found out an average annual income of near $85,000 jury participation exceeded percent. In areas where incomes are $30,000 and under jury turnout was below 10 percent. It was really to help us meet our constitutional responsibility to make sure that everyone had a chance to participate in juries. The idea, Senator Rodriguez, came from El Paso County because they did this. Six dollars a day won't pay for your parking to serve on a jury in Dallas or Houston. So we passed this $4 fee in this Senate virtually unanimously to dedicate that money to have a juror pay in Texas increase in Texas. So now what we're going to do in Texas is come back and sweep that jury fee and go balance the budget. You know, I was offering an amendment on the previous bill that would have given $30 million. It would have been enough for this bill, the money you're going to come up in this bill and the previous bill. So I just don't think we ought to act as though we don't have choices, we do. I will have an amendment at some point to say why don't we get rid of that natural gas exemption. Why don't we get rid of the exemption that gives somebody a tax break for paying their taxes on time? If you didn't pay your taxes on time on April 15th, let me tell you a little secret, you're going to pay a penalty and you're not going to get a rebate because you paid. There are a lot of choices that we have, this is not a good way of doing this. Senator Rodriguez, I know you got an amendment that you want to add to this bill to add a court fee put the money in civil and indigent defense or criminal indigent, civil and criminal defense. I mean, that's a non sequitur. I mean, on one hand somebody is trying to get you to vote to bring this bill up. So you can put more money in indigent defense. Then you going to get all the indigents off the jury. Give me a break. That is not what we came here to do, and it's just not appropriate. I mean, I don't want to spend a lot of time on it, but it's the same thing we do with the system benefit fund. It's not truth in budgeting. If we're going to collect a fee from somebody and we pass the fee saying it's going to be dedicated at a certain place, we ought to be dedicated to putting the money where we say we're going to put it when we raise the fee. And if we're not going to do that, if the only alternative, if you can't get a majority of us to go in and come up with additional revenue, well, you have to do whatever's left on the table. But this is not in my judgment an appropriate way to do it. And I would urge you, Mr. Chairman, you're a smart guy, you have done a great job, you agree with me on a lot of these tax cuts that we ought to get rid of, this is not the way to do it to go try to balance the budget of the state of Texas on the backs of the most vulnerable people in our society. If you're willing to take that out, I'll certainly look at whatever else you're doing, but it was a lot of effort to get that fee put in. It is interesting, and this is the question I'm going to ask you. You didn't touch the judge's pay raise, which should be more money. Direct that money. I mean, I remember when we passed that out of the state affairs. The idea of incentivizing a judge to say guilty so they can get a pay raise, might I add. So we increase our retirement, you want to come up with some real money, go get rid of that. But don't go take this money that lets poor people get a chance to exercise their constitutional right to serve on the jury. So I would encourage members to vote no. Mr. Chairman, I guess to ask you a question since I said I was going to ask one. Why didn't you touch the judge's pay?

SENATOR OGDEN: There was an amendment in the committee that was to reduce the pay for all state employees I think 5 percent, and it failed so we didn't touch the judge's pay because the committee wouldn't vote for it.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, on this fee, separate from all state employees, on this fee there is a fee on every conviction in Texas and it went to give judges a pay raise when we didn't have money. I thought it was a bad precedent because I figured when we do have money we're still not going to use general revenue to do it. So my question is if you want to come up with some real money, I have no idea, Senator Duncan's not on the floor, and that was really his idea, it was a brilliant idea, I can't remember him asking me would I reconsider being against the bill because at some point he'd get the votes, and so I went back and said, well, instead of $7 fee, make it a $6 fee, make it a $10 fee and I wanted to put that other money somewhere else. You might remember that session when I think Representative Key and I had a big blowup in that session. I think 2003 of 2005. But my question is if you wanted to come up with real money and divert something, why wouldn't you go divert the court fee that goes into giving judges a pay raise in which our retirement is tied to. That's real money.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, if you want to do an amendment, let's debate it.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, if you pull this bill down, I'll be more than happy, with your leadership, I prefer that we reverse the names O then E, Ogden then Ellis, I'd be more than happy to file that bill with you.

SENATOR OGDEN: I'd be more than happy to pull the bill down if you're going to amend it.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, I don't think I'm going to have the votes. The reason I'm against the bill is unless you were to agree to pull out the juror fee part, I don't think I have the votes, to be honest. I don't know if I can get 16.

SENATOR OGDEN: : Well, I don't know if I can get 21 to suspend, so we're were even. Senator, we've been talking about this for two days and the issue in Committee Substitute to House Bill 1 is the method of finance. And here is an opportunity for y'all to vote up and down on one of the pieces of that method of finance. And if it's the will of the Senate to not use these tools in basically the previous bill and this bill, I understand it. But I tell you this, we're going to balance that budget and the implication of voting these bills down is I've got to go in there and cut something. And you know what, I'll be happy to work with you. We'll go pick your favorite budget cut, and I understand it. It's fine with me. If you don't think we should cut juror reimbursement rates by 15 percent, which is what this bill is doing, then all right, fine. We'll go cut something else. But this Senate is going to have to sit down and get serious about passing a budget and how we're going to pay for it. And that's why I'm bringing these bills to the floor. If you want to vote to suspend, fine. If you want to vote against it, that's fine.

SENATOR ELLIS: I respect that, Senator, and it's a good healthy discussion, I hope all the members are listening, the part where we may disagree a little bit or substantially is what has happened is that somebody has decided which areas we would sweep because they're the groups where they don't have somebody with a lobbyist or a loud enough voice or enough stature to speak for them. So I don't want anybody to feel like because you vote against this, you said you have to cut. Because the other option that would be on the table this caption is just not broad enough, but I can assure you I'm watching for a caption that comes up that is broad enough, you can go and get rid of that natural gas ripoff, you can get rid of that ripoff for retailers who get a tax break for paying their taxes on time. And the committee process is where those issues normally work their way to the top. So I don't want in any way to have anybody get the impression that because you vote against this those other options are not on the table. Those options are on the table if through the committee process people who have the power bring them up to the top. With that I rest my case, I'm going to respectfully vote no on the motion to suspend.

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

SENATOR WATSON: I'd like to ask a question of the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure I understand. One of the things that this bill does is allow for server process certification to start being charged; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's correct.

SENATOR WATSON: And I think I understood you to say those fees, it doesn't set the fees in this bill.

SENATOR OGDEN: It allows the Supreme Court to do it.

SENATOR WATSON: So the fees that would be collected, it wants the Supreme Court to set that, that's not being used to balance this budget because you don't know what those fees will be; is that right?

SENATOR OGDEN: I think so. Let's go back and look at the fiscal note, and that will be the determinative factor in the fiscal note. I don't think it factors in any process server fees.

SENATOR WATSON: So what this does -- and I think that's right, and that's why I'm asking because I wanted to be sure because as I look also at the bill it doesn't set a fee, it just says that the board can send it to the Supreme Court with a recommendation and then the Supreme Court can establish that fee. So in essence this creates a fee that doesn't go to balancing this budget?

SENATOR OGDEN: : I believe that's correct. I'm reading section three myself right now.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay.

SENATOR OGDEN: The only way -- I can't quite tell for purposes of discussion and legislative intent the answer is no. It's not the intent to use process server fees to help balance the budget.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. Because as we talk about balancing the budget, I want everyone to be clear that it looks look there is a new fee being collected that isn't going to the balance of this budget. So that if you're not in favor of this bill, at least as it applies because of that fee -- at least as that fee applies, it would not be doing so with regard to balancing the Committee Substitute to HB1. Now, with that being said, I want to be clear that the fees collected for the process server part of this, those fees would be deposited into one of those things we call a general revenue dedicated fund. Is that what you said or does this go just directly to general revenue?

SENATOR OGDEN: I think it goes to general revenue.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. So once again this would be one of those fees that the state could charge with an apparent dedicated or promised purpose but it would go into the general revenue fund and could simply be utilized to balance future budgets and not be appropriated for any specific purpose.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I don't know about the future but for the purposes of this bill, it would allow those fees to be collected, to be appropriated for the support of the regulatory programs for process servers and guardians.

SENATOR WATSON: It says it may be appropriated for that purpose, but as we know --

SENATOR OGDEN: No, in the fiscal note it says allow. So the "may," is that the actual statutory?

SENATOR WATSON: Well, I'm looking at the language in the bill itself, it says the fees collected under this section may be appropriated.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, if you want to put shall, that's okay.

SENATOR WATSON: My question is this is another one -- and we've talked about this for two sessions now. This is another one of those bills where fees are either raised or created but the promise of what they will go to, there's nothing that assures that promise. And, in fact, over the past decade what we have seen is a growing bad practice of financial management which is that we tell the public we're raising a fee or a tax for a specific purpose but it gets used to balance the budget in other ways. And in fact, what we've seen since about 2003 is that increased from about 1.2 billion of diversions to now in the neighborhood of four or more; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, it's not a diversion, you just don't spend it. And if you don't spend it, it counts for certification. So the money in general revenue dedicated accounts is not being spent for a purpose for which it was not collected, it's just not being spent. So the argument is not a diversion it's that basically you're collecting a greater fee than you need to for the purpose which it was created.

SENATOR WATSON: And I had a bill this session that would have said that if you're collecting a fee for a dedicated or specific purpose and you collect, I think it said 110 percent more than is actually being appropriated, you would stop collecting that fee. You remember that bill?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yeah.

SENATOR WATSON: That bill hadn't been able to get a hearing during this session. So whether you're, as you suggest, actually taking the money to balance the budget and spending it or you're just taking the money to certify the additional spending, either way, we're playing with words at that point, either way, we're charging billions of dollars of fees and taxes for promised or dedicated purposes the public thought they were going to be used for; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SENATOR SHAPIRO: To ask the author a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Senator Ogden, I remember hearing this bill in committee and I guess that I'm getting a little concerned that we're getting away from the purpose of the bill, because the whole purpose of this bill is not just to raise money but is restructuring -- if I'm not mistaken, it's a restructuring of the judiciary; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: In what sense do you mean?

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Well, we're talking here about expenditures, I think it says something about the jurors and how we reimbursed the jurors. It has a whole thing in here -- a whole section about the training regarding judicial and court personnel training funds. I mean, we're losing sight of what the purpose of the bill is in my opinion. To just say that we're doing just processer server fees for the purpose of just putting in the general fund, this bill does a lot more than that.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, ma'am, and the -- in addition to that, as you know, in the appropriations bill there are certain circumstances because of previous statutes that have been passed to raise and lower fees.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Correct.

SENATOR OGDEN: What these fiscal matter bills are doing is providing the statutory authority for us to raise and lower fees in the appropriations bill for purposes of better regulation of nursing homes, for purposes of better regulation of process servers. And it is not accurate that these bills are somehow making the situation that Senator Watson describes as worse. In fact, what these billions are is a dollar for dollar -- it's a dollar for dollar appropriation. You raise the fee, the appropriation bill deposits all of that money for the purpose which it was intended. If anything this is an improvement over the criticism that Senator Watson offered.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: That was my point, Senator Ogden. I think if we just listen to the dialogue we'll get lost in some of the dialogue because that's not what the purpose of this is. We do this every legislative session. This is not something that you just chose to do because you want to use this money for the current budget; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's correct.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you very much.

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

SENATOR WATSON: I need to ask a question. I'd like to ask a question based upon the dialogue that just occurred.

SENATOR SELIGER: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR WATSON: Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay, thank you. When we were talking about 1580, the previous bill, I asked you a question about that and what you said it was a dollar for dollar appropriation but I thought I heard you also say that was for this Committee Substitute to HB1 for this biennium but there was nothing in that bill and there's nothing in 1582 that would prevent those fees to be collected and not appropriated in the future; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's correct. And I don't think you can do that. A bill. I mean, unless you sunset the fee. I mean, you can't bind the next legislature. So I guess if that was your concern and it would change your vote, I'll sunset the fee increases.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, one of the -- as I indicated, what I want to be clear about because Senator Shapiro asked a very good question and it's important. You're correct that for this biennium the new fees that you charge or the increase fee you charge for either or both of these bills you may be -- except for the process servers which don't have a fee and isn't part of the fiscal matter in this one, you may be doing a dollar for dollar for this appropriation time but in the future you could appropriate it for another purpose, you could use it to certify additional spending. There's no stop to that and we haven't been able to agree as a legislature on how we want to reform that system. In fact, we haven't even had hearings on how we might reform that system, so when taxpayers are told that money's going to be raised for a specific purpose, that in the future it will in fact be used for that purpose; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: And my suggestion to you is -- and if you want to I'll pull down the bill again, you can sunset this so that we can debate it again for two years from now. To the best of my knowledge that's the only way I can think of to prevent the problem that you described is to basically authorize the letting of the fee for this period to match the appropriations bill and then if we wanted to use it next time, we'd have to repass the statute.

SENATOR WATSON: There was a bill this session that said if you collect more than 110 percent of the appropriated amount, you would have to stop collecting these fees but there's been no hearing on that. Would you accept that as an amendment to this bill?

SENATOR OGDEN: No.

SENATOR WATSON: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 23 ayes and eight nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582 relating to state fiscal matters relating to the judiciary.

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

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Ogden.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Ogden to explain Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, Floor Amendment No. 1 puts some restraints on this bill. There is a very broad caption on it and it eliminates the omnibus provision of it and narrows the purpose of this bill down to what we debated on the floor, so I think it's a conservative amendment. It basically improves this bill by not basically having omnibus provisions in here that may or may not change things dramatically when it goes to the House. So I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Ogden. Members, you heard the amendment by Senator Ogden, is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Chair lays out floor amendment No. 2 by Senator Ellis. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Ellis.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Ellis on Floor Amendment No. 2.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President, this amendment is pretty straightforward. This amendment simply deletes Article V of the bill to protect juror pay. What it does is let that fee for juror pay that was added to give jurors additional pay go where it was intended to go. Pretty straightforward.

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

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, we debated this and if we delete -- if we accept this amendment, then it will reduce -- in fact, I think it will probably eliminate all the positive impact in this bill which is at 1.6 million. And I move to table Floor Amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Ogden moves to table Floor Amendment No. 2. The Chair recognizes Senator Ellis to close.

SENATOR ELLIS: Members, I just want to encourage you to vote against the amendment to table. We have talked a lot about diversions about truth in budgeting. This fee was added to every criminal conviction to increase jury pay in all of our counties and if you vote with Chairman Ogden, you'll go to simply cast a vote to let folks do something with this money other than what it was intended for. So, I encourage you to vote no.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 20 ayes and 11 nays the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 3 by Senator Rodriguez. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 3 by Rodriguez, et al.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Rodriguez to explain Floor Amendment No. 3.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Chairman Ogden, first of all, thank you for your hard work on this bill. Members, as you may remember, and I know you do, we discussed the importance for funding for legal and indigent defense on this floor two weeks ago. Civil legal defense. Civil legal aid and indigent defense funding two weeks ago. Both the legal aid and the indigent defense programs have faced significant budget cuts and legal aid has especially been impacted as far as legal reductions (inaudible) that. Now, this Floor Amendment has the same purpose as my Senate Bill 726 that passed on second reading two weeks ago. It establishes the judicial access and proven accounts as an account in the general revenue account fund for the purpose of funding legal aid indigent defense and judicial technical support. However, this amendment is based on the House companion to Senate Bill 726, House Bill 2174 by Representative Hartnett, House Bill 2174 was necessarily tailored last week after negotiations with members of the House committee on judiciary and civil jurisprudence. The Committee Substitute for House Bill 2174 was voted out of the committee by nine to one. But revenue generated, members, by this amendment for legal aid and indigent defense is greatly reduced compared to Senate Bill 726. In addition fundings for E filing and retrievable software in the courts is reduced to pilot project. Nevertheless, I think it's a good compromise. I hope that it will address some of the concerns that you raised for example, Senator Seliger, in this chamber a few weeks ago. Let me highlight how this amendment is different from my bill that passed on second reading. The amendment reduces the maximum amount of fees on electronic filing and retrieval in Texas courts from 4 million per year to 1 million per year. It omits the language allowing up to 1 million per year to be used for the state law library. It also omits the provisions requiring a county clerk for -- document recording -- document recording fee of $2 at the time of the filing of the document in the records of the office of the clerk. It reduces importantly from $10 to $5 the court cost at justice courts and municipal courts on conviction of a class C misdemeanor offense other than offenses relating to prohibition of the parking for a motor vehicle. Members, this amendment also includes House Bill 2502 by Representative Thompson's committee and the House committee's Chairman Jackson suggested that legal aid funding bills be all rolled into one bill. Therefore, House Bill 2502 is not included in the Committee Substitute for House Bill 2174. And Senator Wentworth is carrying the companion bill to House Bill 2502. So that's the bill that's set in fact for our hearing in Senate finance today, Senator Wentworth's bill. But that's all rolled into this bill as well with Senator Wentworth's consent. Members, this amendment will generate about 32.6 million next biennium to be distributed among legal aid, indigent defense and E filing pilot project. That's less than half of what my bill, Senate Bill 726, would have generated which was nearly 78 million over the biennium. So to break it down for you, it's about million for legal aid, 7.6 million for indigent defense, which I remind you is a constitutional mandate on counties to provide for and $2 million for -- million a year for the E filing and retrieval of records. Members, I believe this is a good compromise. It gets legal aid and indigent defense to about the same funding as last session, so that's all we're trying to do with Representative Hartnett's bill is to get legal aid and indigent defense to the same level of financing as last session. And again, members, even at current funding levels legal aid is serving only one of five people. So Mr. President, if there's no objections, I respectfully move adoption.

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

SENATOR SELIGER: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: I'm sorry?

SENATOR SELIGER: Parliamentary inquiry.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: State your inquiry.

SENATOR SELIGER: The inquiry was related to fines levied on -- related to these particular fiscal matters.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Would you approach the bench?

SENATOR SELIGER: Yes, sir.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Seliger temporarily pulls down his parliamentary inquiry. The Chair recognizes Senator Huffman. For what purpose do you rise, Senator?

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Permission to question the author of the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Rodriguez yield?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am, I yield.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Senator, I have just a couple of questions. I was trying to follow your presentation and there was a lot of information there and since I've never seen the document I want to make sure I understand what's in it. So you've rolled two bills into this amendment; is that correct? One of yours and one of Senator Wentworth's, but your bill is substituted out from the House committee; is that correct? It hasn't passed the House but it has passed out of committee?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: It has passed the House, Representative Hartnett's bill has passed the House, that's Senate Bill 2174.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Okay. And then both of the bills have a separate fee assessment or is there just one fee assessment, same fee assessment?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Same fee assessment. $5. My bill 726 called for a $10 court cost on misdemeanors and JP and municipal courts. Representative Hartnett's bill had a $5 court cost, so the amendment drops down the cost to $5 to be consistent with the House. So everything that I have in the amendment is identical to what's on the House Bill.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: All right. But these are separate bills, correct?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, ma'am.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: And the fee will be collected, as I understand it, is this every offense in the state of Texas where it's some type of offense other than a pedestrian which I guess is like a jaywalking or a parking violation? Every --

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Every misdemeanor.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Every misdemeanor. So that would include every speeding ticket in the state of Texas.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: It would include speeding tickets, running red lights --

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Every -- so every traffic violation in the state of Texas will be assessed an additional $5 and any indigent, everyone's who's arrested for anything and it's a misdemeanor and is convicted has to pay an additional $5. Do you know what the fees are now on criminal offenses? I mean, so this is in addition --

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: For these kind of fees do you mean in JP court and municipal court, I think there's $97.10, 82 which comes to the state and the balance goes to the local communities.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Does the bill provide how this money will be allocated between the funds that you discussed?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, it does, Senator. It provides for a 70/30 split. That's 70 percent for civil indigent, civil legal services work and 30 percent for indigent defense. Criminal indigent defense.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: So some criminal defendants -- and I'm saying criminal quote unquote because these are people that could just get a traffic violation as well and that means I guess technically they commit a criminal offense, these are folks, some may be going to jail but I guess a lot probably aren't will be contributing to civil indigent defense; is that right? So it will be sent to the civil courts for the indigent; is that correct?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: That's correct. Both, percent of the funds will go to civil legal aid cases and 30 percent will go to criminal indigent defense.

SENATOR HUFFMAN: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Ogden.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Rodriguez, thank you for bringing this amendment and I hope the members are paying attention because this is a big deal. How much money will this raise?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: It will raise approximately $32 billion over the biennium. About million of that for civil legal aid work and seven and a half I believe for indigent defense, criminal indigent defense.

SENATOR OGDEN: The -- and both of those are important programs, right?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, I believe so. The indigent defense program is a program that's necessitated by the Texas constitution. We're required, counties are, to provide indigent defense for people charged with criminal offenses and they can't afford a lawyer so in every one of your counties you have a county commissioner's court allocating funds to provide a lawyer for or a public defender's office for people who cannot afford for people to hire their own lawyer.

SENATOR OGDEN: And what's the largest fee increase in here?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: The $5.

SENATOR OGDEN: And the five --

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: The fact, Senator, I think I need to clarify that. It's only a $5 fee now -- court cost that we're talking about. In the original bill we also had a $2 recording fee in there that was going to be used for other purposes to maintain the state library and to provide some other services but we eliminated that recording fee from the bill.

SENATOR OGDEN: So when this amendment was originally considered in committee, didn't it have a percent threshold, does it still have that?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir, 70 percent for legal aid work and --

SENATOR OGDEN: Thirty for indigent.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thirty for indigent.

SENATOR OGDEN: And is there -- you mentioned earlier that it once again -- would you restate what the 1 million that goes -- that the Supreme Court can withdraw goes for?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: That is for E filing and retrieval of records. And that's 1 million a year. Now, that is coming out of the same $5 fee by the way, okay? We don't have a separate fee for that.

SENATOR OGDEN: All right. Members, I hope you were paying attention to the debate. I'm going to leave it up to the will of the Senate, and thank you for bringing this amendment to the floor.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator Ogden.

SENATOR SELIGER: Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, the parliamentarian needs just a moment or two more. So if we could stand at ease for about two minutes.

(At ease.)

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

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Mr. President, I withdraw my amendment at this time.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Rodriguez. Chair recognizes Senator Ogden for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582.

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

SENATOR ELLIS: Just to ask the Senator a quick question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR ELLIS: Now, Senator, thank you so much. I want to make sure that I understand that what this bill does is take away the money that was a designated court fee for a juror pay raise of $4 and it will be used somewhere else but you were willing to accept an amendment to add a $5 court fee on convictions for indigent defense, which I appreciate. I don't know if I was a cosponsor on the amendment, I'm certainly a cosponsor of the bill. I'm just trying to make sure there's not a non sequitur here before I follow it. You'll be for -- you'd be against, because you need to balance the budget -- additional money for poor people to serve on juries but you would be for -- based on earlier conversation, you'd be for $5 to go into indigent defense. So I'm just trying to figure out was the thought to go sweep that later or is there a disconnect that I'm missing?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, you know, you have got legitimate competing interests and poor people on both sides of the issue but when you look at the importance of basically providing a constitutional defense for indigent people and you look at the incredible need for legal services for indigent people in civil and nonjudicial matters, last session we had the money and we appropriated for example $20 million to the indigent defense, civil defense fund. We had the money to provide indigent defense in criminal cases at your leadership but the question is, is that when you don't have the money, is it okay to walk away from what is a constitutional right? You don't have a constitutional right to get $40 a day to be a juror but you have a constitutional right for a competent defense. And I think that his bill in the overall scheme of things is more important than cutting juror pay.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, Senator, I understand. I hope members will follow and get into the extent as we go through this session on the budget process, if that logic is being used, it's just interesting to dichotomy on the same bill to go through this and to look at some of the votes. I know I was in Senator Whitmire's office earlier this morning, I made the comment that I'm sure God has a sense of humor because look at us and this discussion just really convinces me that that's true more and more because it's a non sequitur if there ever has been one --

SENATOR OGDEN: But Senator, also, would not object if the amendment had been germane for your concerns and his concerns to basically be united. I mean, it doesn't have to be a zero sum game. All I'm saying is as a method of finance you have either got to cut spending or raise fees and I think it's possible to do both intelligently but there's certainly causes where it's smarter to raise the fee than cut the spending and I'll be more than happy to debate it. And I know as eloquent as you are you could figure a way around this box by --

SENATOR ELLIS: I thought I had and maybe as we go through process we will because it was really Senator Duncan's idea. I'm against the bill and I've stated why. We don't have money to give judges a pay raise and they deserved it. So we opted to go increase the fee on criminal convictions, Judge Huffman, to give judges a pay raise and I was fighting the bill and then Senator Duncan said, I wish you'd find a way to get there. So I took his idea and really past the juror pay bill using the same method of finance, a fee, not asking for GR. No state money. A fee. Then come forward six years later and we're going to take that fee and use it for something else and to fund indigent defense on the criminal side. Texas is one of two or three states that put no money into that prior to 2001. I did the same thing with a fee. You and your budget, Mr. Chairman, you're going to take some of that money, by the way, from indigent defense criminal and you're going to use that as a method of finance of a separate entity. So I just want to make sure members do realize that God has a sense of humor and thank God for giving me one as well because this is the funniest thing I have ever seen in my life, this is a non sequitur. But I truly rest my case, I'm going to respectfully vote no, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR OGDEN: I don't think this is the end of the line. I think there are several bills where your viewpoint is germane and we ought to debate it and they're still coming.

SENATOR ELLIS: And I just hope there's a separate bill I think you talked about giving me a hearing on because the issue is not just cutting, diverting fees or raising revenue we can get, which breaks are we going to get rid of.

SENATOR OGDEN: It's my intention to hear that on Monday.

SENATOR ELLIS: I need your help. Now, it's my sense there's a lot of hearing going on right now, not much listening but there's a lot of hearing. If you catch my drift. Thank you.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir. I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Ogden. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Ogden. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1582 as amended is passed to engrossment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move to suspend --

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Nelson. Senator Ogden tried to cut in front of you again, but I held him off. All right. Chair recognizes Senator Nelson to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, members. Mr. President, I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23. The Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 reflects literally months of work by the finance subcommittee on Medicaid in which we identified nearly $3 billion in cost savings. This bill implements the cost saving initiatives that required statutory changes. Specifically this legislation allows for the carve-in of prescription drugs into Medicaid managed care while enduring that existing patient protections under fee for service are maintained. It transfers children in the state kid's insurance program to the children's health insurance program. It eliminates the existing -- thank you, Mr. President, what Senator Ellis was talking about listening and hearing, and I want everyone to listen to what this good bill does. It eliminates the existing electronic finger imaging requirement for the supplemental nutrition assistance program. It updates statute to remove the health opportunity pool. This was never created as a beneficiary of proceeds from the adult entertainment fee. It assures the state can move forward with Medicaid managed care by repealing the current prohibition in several south Texas counties. It limits the electronic visit technology and communication care programs, it requires waiver consumers to receive personal attendant services through a Medicaid state planned services first with any additional services provided through the waiver. And it prevents over utilization of waiver services and implements an objective client essential services. Process for acute nursing services. This Committee Substitute was approved unanimously by the full finance committee last week and it is critical to achieve the Medicaid cost saving and efficiencies that were assumed in House Bill 1. Mr. President, I move suspension.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Nelson. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Nelson, is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 relating to efficiency cost saving fraud prescreenings and funding measures for certain health and human services program.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair lays out the following Floor Amendment by Senator Van de Putte.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Van de Putte.

SENATOR NELSON: Wait, Mr. President, I think the one we have is Senator Williams' amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Well, we'll just change. We're flexible. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 1 by Senator Williams. All right?

SENATOR NELSON: Perfect.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Williams.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Williams to explain Floor Amendment No. 1. Senator Williams, I'm sorry, can I ask you -- the Chair recognizes Senator Williams to explain Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: And that's on Senate Bill 23.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I'm with you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thanks.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: During the 81st legislative session there were changes that were made to the 24.004 of the health and safety code and it altered references made to facilities exempted from assisted living licensure requirements. The change in statute would have the inadvertent effect of requiring a bunch of our local mental health associations to seek licensure and so this amendment just merely corrected that. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Nelson on Floor Amendment --

SENATOR NELSON: I think, Senator Williams, this was inadvertently left off, removed from last session. It is acceptable.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Williams moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1, it's acceptable to the author, Senator Nelson. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 2 by Senator Van de Putte. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Van de Putte.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: And this is the real Van de Putte amendment. Not the Williams draft. Chair recognizes Senator Van de Putte to explain Floor Amendment 2.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members and Senator Nelson, I know that Senate Bill 23 does include many of our provisions that incorporate our health care related cost saving measures, however this amendment that I'd like to talk about right now deals with the requirement that managed care organizations will now take over the vendor drug program or actually the -- our pharmacy program. Members, since the inception of our Medicaid program our vendor drug program, even when the move to managed care happened in other parts of the state, was still left as a carve out and one of the rationales during that time was because we could control our own formulary and we had the ability to recapture the supplemental rebates that were given by pharmaceutical manufacturers for certain price considerations and volumes and number of prescriptions. The Senate Bill 23 changes that relationship that requires now that the department contract with a managed care organization, so that's like your HMOs, to provide the prescription drug services and in doing it provides millions of dollars in savings. However, there is a cost to the millions of dollars in savings and that's to your local pharmacies. Right now, there is a provision in the vendor drug program that says that any provider, any pharmacy that would accept the price, the contract, for services in the prescription drug program under Medicaid is able to enroll and therefore any enrollee, which would be any Medicaid recipient, would have the ability to go to any pharmacy that accepts Medicaid. Senate Bill 23 changes that relationship in that it makes it no longer the choice of course of the Medicaid recipient but that it now leaves it exclusively to the ability of the HMO to decide which pharmacies get that contract. Now, I've got to tell you that many of you have come to me and said, I really worry about our small independent rural or hard to serve populations and those in the inner cities where you had those independent pharmacies always be a part of the prescription drug program. You see because people in poverty live in pockets, but also a concern is all of our retail chain drugstores. So if you talk to HEB, Walgreen's, Wal-Mart, all of them have concerns because what they know will happen is that one chain will get the Texas pharmacy contract under a managed care organization and when that does, because what they usually operate is in a realm of miles and it is a realm of miles, if you don't have a pharmacy contract provider within 5 miles, then that's all they need in their network. That's what normally happens and it's a good thing for employee and employer health sponsored because people who have an employee health sponsored insurance plan and prescription drug plan usually have a car, unlike the Medicaid population which are for the most part either senior citizens in a nursing home, and we're not talking about this but we're talking about basically moms with children or people who are severely disabled, both who are impacted because they are in poverty and they don't have transportation. So what happens is to get the savings in the bill will require that a PBM, a pharmacy benefit manager, be the entity that will manage the vendor drug contract. This is very different from what we have now. Now, what my amendment does is a couple of things. It requires that the managed care organization accepts any willing provider in their network as long as the provider makes sure that they want to accept the terms and conditions. So in other words if they want to reduce the fee for the drugs, the prescriptions and they can, that if the pharmacy wants to accept that that yes, they can participate. But right now the way they make sure they contain the cost is to exclude providers. And, members, I got to tell you when you exclude providers you decrease access. You decrease access, you're going to have problems with patients getting the prescriptions. Now, in the drug cost in the methodology and fiscal note, that saves money. What is not calculated is what happens when the Medicaid recipient cannot get the prescription at their local pharmacy whether it be a chain and they have to go to the ER or they go to the doctor's office. And so we know that this works very well and mandatory mail order prescriptions work very well with an employee prescription drug plan. It does not work well with your Medicaid, so this amendment provides for open networks like we have now. It ensures that mail order services will not be mandated but can be offered. It also makes sure that your managed care organizations promptly pay your pharmacies. That's been in the code since the inception. The reason, when pharmacies buy prescription drugs from their distributers they have to pay within a day window. Why? Because it's a narcotic. No other provision in the law that any provider has to pay for something and it sits on their shelf. So we have enacted prompt pay provisions to make sure that pharmacies do get reimbursed. The prompt pay provisions are reinstated in this amendment. And the other part of this is it allows for transparencies on the machines paid for by the state for Medicaid pharmacy benefits. The language requires managed care organizations and their PBMs, their pharmacy benefit management to identify and charge separately administration fees for their service. This will ensure that the state is paying for funds that are not retained by the managed care or PBM as a profit. Members, this is a huge change in our Medicaid program. Right now any profits made from the prescription drug program stays in your community. It stays in your community because it tips your mom or pop drug stores or chain drugstores. When this changes, the profits go to an out of state insurance company and an out of state pharmacy benefit management company. Now, given that I know that this bill is very important and I would love to be able to have a dialogue with Senator Nelson on this so we can ensure she's aware of the problem and I know that each of you, many of you have come to me on the floor and say that hurts particularly those pharmacy providers that have taken the Medicaid contract for years. But I'm going to tell you what's going to happen. It's going to be through a pharmacy benefit management company that is done by the managed care organization and they will exclude providers. For your areas that have high concentration of people in poverty and who use Medicaid, those providers are going to be out of business because they can't shift to a cash pay and they can't shift to an employee third party payer mix of applications. So you got to understand people just by the nature of this, they're going to go out of business and that's the price we pay for saving the state some money because no longer is that money going to go back into your local communities. It's going to go to an insurance company and a PBM. Members, I know that we've talked about it and we've worried about it, Senator Nelson is aware of this, I know we would like to continue working on it, love to be able to have a dialogue with Senator Nelson so that we can continue discussing the proposal on amendment No. 2.

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

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask Senator Nelson a question, but I think Senator Van de Putte has the floor.

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

SENATOR NELSON: Absolutely.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Senator. And actually I have a question, Senator, if I may, you know, I've been getting lots of calls from my pharmacists and some of the issues that were brought up by Senator Van de Putte, what protection do we have there for pharmacists?

SENATOR NELSON: Okay. And I was going to try to answer Senator Van de Putte's questions in my response as well and I think that is probably her No. 1 question that she brings forward and I have to tell you, Senator, that protecting the physician patient relationship was the number one most important thing to us but we also were very sensitive to putting protections in place to do the kinds of things that Senator Van de Putte's talking about as we transition and this is all new territory. So I think Senator Van de Putte is right on and she has been very vocal even before today about her concerns and I am very sensitive to her concerns and I think there is a solution to this. I will tell you, Senator, can I kind of include my response to you with my response to her? Because I think this is all -- your concerns I think are very similar to Senator Van de Putte's and I know that there are pharmacists that are calling all of us, me included, who are nervous about this and this is new territory. I mean, we haven't -- the carve in of prescription benefits under Medicaid managed care is brand new territory for our state. So Senator Van de Putte and Senator Hinojosa are both justified in being concerned. Now, Senator Van de Putte, you had asked about -- here's the point, I scribbled notes while you were asking your question. Right now, prescription drugs are currently accessed through managed care in all other government and private health plans. I'm told that we're doing this in ERS, TRS, Medicare, private insurance so I think that there is precedence but I also am very sensitive to -- yes, Medicaid is a different --

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: People in poverty.

SENATOR NELSON: -- population, yes. But I am very sensitive to the issues that you brought up about access and that's probably I think your No. 1 -- well, I don't know your No. 1, but it's a very valid concern. The commissioner tells me that he can -- will not even contract with a managed care organization that cannot demonstrate that they have an adequate network. Well, even then I understand that there's still some concerns so if they have an inadequate network, does that mean they go into the areas where our Medicaid patients are, clientele are. So that's an issue I think we need to continue to be concerned about and talk about. PBMs you mentioned. I don't think there's any requirement on managed care organizations to use PBMs. You can leave it up to managed care organizations to determine the most effective way of managing prescription drugs. Bottom line, Senator, I absolutely am sensitive to the concerns and I think we -- really before we pass this bill need to do something. I also know that the savings are carved into House Bill 1 for this and if we were to pass this amendment as it is, it's going to cost $50 million. So you think there's a way for us to work on this with the stakeholders, I want to get in these pharmacists and talk to them and Senator Van de Putte's been like a dog on a bone on this issue to get everybody together before -- we got some representatives in the House that also have contacted me since this issue. So if we can continue to work on this, I am sensitive but I want to do what we do, keeping the protection for the pharmacists in place but also not eating our $50 million that's carved into House Bill 1.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Let me just say a few comments, Senator Nelson, because I know you and I worked together on the Medicaid subcommittee and you've been very open in the process in terms of making sure all the stakeholders have input, to testify in making recommendations on how to modify what we proposed originally and I look forward to continue to work with you and trying to soften some of the I guess sharper -- paying costs by sharp paying cost by some parts of the bill, so thank you for your --

SENATOR NELSON: Well, thank you, thank you and Senator Van de Putte, I would like to continue working on this. If we pass the amendment, it's going to cost us 50 million more and Senator Ogden's not going to be happy with me, he's neither listening or hearing, so if you keep working with me on this. I can tell you I'm very -- and Senator Hinojosa too, I hear you, we'll keep working on it and we'll come up with something that we can all live with. Is that good?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Chairman Nelson and Senator Hinojosa, I am worried and we have pharmacy benefit managers who are the agents who manage a prescription drug program under any managed care. There is no managed care organization that does its own pharmacy program. What they do is they all contract with PBMs. That's just how it does. Now, some PBMs are going just to transmit the data because as you know pharmacy claims are very different from other medical claims and hospital claims and they are adjudicated at the point of service so there are some pharmacy benefit managers, PBMs that just do is claims adjudications but in every single managed care program that has a prescription benefit, they contract with a PBM to manage that piece of business. And so the insurance company is up here, the health plan is up here. They don't have any say so once they contract with the PBM, the PBM manages it and it's very effective to save cost to have a managed care plan and a close network, a mandatory prescription mail order if it's an employee health care plan. Very effective and it's saved our employers, saved our state through ERS and TRS but this Medicaid population is different. For the most part they do not have jobs. They are children and usually moms that either if they work they are very minimum wage or they wouldn't qualify to begin with Medicaid or they are the severely disabled adult that are not quite the age that would have Medicare. So this population is different. Mail order's different because this population is mobile. Mail order's different because there are drugs that are required to be signed for and as you know, there are not -- UPS and Fed Ex don't go into housing projects. Very difficult for the state to get into -- so even in the inner cities, even -- you know, I think the brunt of this will be felt in the rural areas. The brunt is going to be felt in the rural areas because there is no patient mix and there are no safeguards. There's not any willing provider, there's nothing that says you can't mandate mail order, there's nothing that says that they will pay promptly and there's nothing that says in the contract we're going to see how much money you're keeping and how much profit the PBM is making so the state can understand how much is actually paying for this, right? Because the only way they reduce the cost is by lowering the fees of the pharmacy prescription drug service. It's the only Medicaid component that has both a product and a service and so it is very different and that's why the state of Texas has always had a carve out, a vendor drug carve out and so it does have it. But the way it saves money is if you're going to have lower fees. And if you have lower fees you're going to have pharmacies that can't participate and right now they have closed networks. Senator, what I would like to do and in visiting with Senator Nelson, she's aware of this, I would pull down my amendment, we are going to continue as this goes forward, we know that it is a great concern in the House but understand under this bill there are winners and losers and the winners we're going to do things more efficiently, we're going to certify more money for the (inaudible) we have cost savings. The losers -- are you have to understand there are going to be some pharmacies that because of the high volume that they do of Medicaid prescriptions, they can't offset it and -- they're going to close.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Those that get maybe percent of business from Medicaid are going to be --

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: They cannot stay open having owned -- I haven't owned a pharmacy since 1995, we have got to have a mix and we have got to have that because we have paid a fee to our pharmacies and a plan where they could at least -- I mean, they're not luxurious by any means but at least they could stay in business and serve the people of that community. With a managed care, they're not going to care. I mean, once they contract with one chain they don't give the business to other chains and you know that because of our prescription drug programs and so it's not just the independent mom and pops but somebody's going to be left out and access will be reduced. That's how you save the money and I would love to continue to work with it, out of respect for the great work that Senator Nelson has done and what we need to do is pass this bill so we can achieve some savings but I do know we are going to continue to work on confidence that when it gets to the House that we're going to continue and with Senator Nelson's sincere desire to protect and put in some language so that an insurance company doesn't reap the savings instead of your mom and pops and jobs in your community and ultimately what we want to make sure that our Medicaid patients get the prescriptions that they need that the doctors have prescribed and they don't end up hospitalized or anything. So at this time I withdraw amendment No. 2.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you. And, Mr. President, before we move on. Senator Van de Putte, I'm very grateful for your willingness to work with me. And Senator Hinojosa, I hear you loudly. Your end statement was the best statement. Ultimately what we care about is the patients and you know I am sensitive to what we're hearing from the pharmacists. We're going to work on this but we're going to work on this keeping in the back of our minds that our goal is that none of our Medicaid patients are hurt or negatively impacted by anything we do. And so, you know, we're going to keep working with the House and I'm very grateful and there are many other things in this bill that are very critically important and I'm happy that you seem to be in agreement with this except this, so I don't want this bill to be negatively impacted by not moving forward because of this. I'm grateful and we will continue to work on it. Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you Senators. Senator Hegar, for what purpose do you rise?

SENATOR HEGAR: Just real quick to ask Senator Nelson.

SENATOR NELSON: Yes, sir.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator, not to drag out any longer but I just want to say No. 1, appreciate your willingness to work on and continue to go as we go forward. I have some real questions, obviously some of the same ones that Senator Hinojosa and Van de Putte brought up not only about the local communities but part of my questions are really the cost savings and PBM what really we are truly saving. So I had thought about it and talked to you about bringing a similar amendment that we need to continue to move the bill forward and continue to work on that and with that commitment I appreciate that and support you to keep going forward. But I think we need to really look at how do we get at those true numbers. So I'll stop at that and thank you for your willingness to wok on it as we find solutions.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you. And you picked up the mic and I will tell you there were several others who came and -- Senator Nichols is nodding his head -- they're hearing from their local pharmacists and we are very sensitive. You asked about the cost saving, a $50 million cost saving and I think we can still achieve without totally removing this section of the bill. So thank you for working with me and I certainly will acknowledge that there are many members who want us to keep working on this.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Hegar. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for a motion.

SENATOR NELSON: I move passage to engrossment of the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Nelson. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Nelson. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 as amended passes to engrossment. Chair recognizes Senator Nelson for a motions to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. I do move to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three several days.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third leading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 relating to efficiency, cost saving, fraud prevention and funding measures for certain health and human services benefit programs.

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

SENATOR NELSON: Mr. President, I move final passage to Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 23 is finally passed.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, members. Yes, it is big. It is big.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505.

SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President, members, good afternoon. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505 on second reading. This bill is relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of a real property interest in an oil or gas. This bill represents a consensus of the oil and gas industry and counties association and provides a solution that would replace a comptroller's current practices with the widely accepted industry standard. With that, Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1605.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 505. Is there objection? Just one moment, Senator Uresti. Hearing none the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505 relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of a real property interest in oil or gas in place.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR URESTI: Mr. President, I move passage to engrossment.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Hearing none, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505 is passed to engrossment. Senator Uresti is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR URESTI: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR SELIGER: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505 relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of a real property interest of oil and gas in place.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti moves final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1505. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Uresti.

SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President.

SENATOR SELIGER: Chair recognizes Senator Ogden for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, Committee Substitute to 1580 increases certain fees at health and human services a 5 percent regulatory fees, percent laboratory fees, it increases child care fees there was some concern on this bill about section one which granted broad authority to the agency to do just about whatever they want and I'll introduce an amendment to delete that section from the bill. I move suspension of the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President.

SENATOR SELIGER: For what purpose does the Senator from Harris wish to be recognized?

SENATOR ELLIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

SENATOR SELIGER: State your inquiry.

SENATOR ELLIS: If this was a bill that was previously heard and did not -- or a motion to suspend and was not suspended. What was the vote required to bring back up such a bill and who can make such a motion?

SENATOR SELIGER: The vote is still 21 required for a motion to suspend. Two-thirds of the members present.

SENATOR ELLIS: Okay, thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: For what purpose does the Senator from Smith County wish to be recognized, Senator Eltife? Senator Ogden moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580. Is there objection? There is. Clerk call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 24 ayes and seven nays, motion is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580 relating to state fiscal matters related to health and human services.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: I think I have an amendment.

SENATOR ELLIS: Parliamentary inquiry.

SENATOR SELIGER: State your inquiry.

SENATOR ELLIS: Did my amendment go up in smoke?

SENATOR SELIGER: The Chair is informed the amendment was passed out earlier, it should still be on member's desks. There will be some more copies shortly.

SENATOR ELLIS: Is that the only amendment, Mr. President? Could we go to another one? Is my amendment the only amendment? I'm going to pull my amendment down out of deference to the chairman and the body. I just can't take any more of this rejection today.

SENATOR SELIGER: The following amendment. Secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Ogden.

SENATOR SELIGER: Chair recognizes Senator Ogden.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Ellis, I know how you feel. Members, Floor Amendment No. 1 addresses a concern that was brought up by a number of the members in that in Article I it granted broad authority to the agency to do just about anything they wanted to and this amendment strikes Article I. I think it tightens the bill up considerably. And I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Ogden moves passage of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Amendment is adopted. Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move passage to engrossment of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Ogden moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? There is objection. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 23 ayes and eight nays, the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1580 is passed to engrossment. Do you have further comment?

SENATOR OGDEN: And I know it was 23 ayes and eight nays and in addition to that I'll be happy to hold it until tomorrow.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Senator Ogden. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, my committee members and I have worked very hard to make the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 the very best bill that we could. We took hours of testimony and worked through several versions of bill to bring the most comprehensive and growable form of the bill for you to vote on today. With that said I know that there's still some confusion about what is in and what's not in the bill and I'd like to clear some of those items up first. Items that were in the filed version of the bill that have been removed entirely from the bill are driver's license and insurance check points, the use of a GPS device without a court order and increased drug fine and language that would have required the -- would have removed the requirement for an overt act to prove conspiracy. Those things are no longer in the bill and in addition to these changes, the bill contains the following measures. It requires that every person arrested in Texas to be run through the federal secure communities program when they're booked into jail. This program is already in use in our county jails around the state. This legislation would address a loophole where people are arrested and never taken to a county jail and they're therefore not run through the program. And I'll be offering an amendment that will clarify that if a person is arrested and booked into a city jail and they're going to be transferred to the county jail, that they would not have to be run through that program more than once. It also requires DPS to conduct a pilot program and the use of license plate readers installed on law enforcement videocassettes. And with the committee's approval Senator Watson added very specific limitations about the data that's collected by these readers namely that the data has to be used for law enforcement purposes. It must be destroyed one year after it's collected unless there's an active criminal investigation or prosecution and it requests that the data -- and it requests for data by law enforcement agencies are subject to open records. The Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 9 extends the definition of Special Ranger to allow the commission to utilize the Department of Public Safety officers on a voluntary basis to assist with administrative tasks to aid in disaster relief efforts and provide backup for officers in high threat areas and to conduct background checks and investigations to monitor sex offenders. It requires the Texas commission on jail standards to include the number of people in Texas prisons with immigration and customs enforcement detainers in their monthly report and the cost of housing those inmates. It also improves our organized crime statutes by increasing opinions and making these existing statutes more desirable to be used by prosecutors. Specifically it eliminates inmates serving time for an organized crime or offense for being eligible for parole until they've served at least half of their sentence requirement or 30 years whichever's less and a person convicted under this statute is required to serve a minimum of two years in prison and is protected from release to mandatory supervision. For a criminal found guilty of engaging in organized criminal activity involving the commission of a first degree felony, his or her conviction may be used to create the category of defense for which the person may be charged a minimum sentence and finally a person will be required to serve a minimum sentence of 25 years if he or she is convicted of directing, enhancing or financing a criminalized street gang by committing or conspiring to commit a felony of the first or second degree. The bill also allows fingerprints collected for driver's licenses to be cross referenced with a criminal database to check for criminal warrants and wanted fugitives. It ties the expiration date of driver's license to criminal stay in the United States. Currently the DPS issues visitors -- driver's license with the length of the validity of the driver's license is statutorily mandated to six years. So while a person's legal stay may be up, they're still carrying a valid Texas driver's license. It also increases the fees collected on automobile insurance policies for the automobile theft prevention from $1 to $2 and requires that half the fee be dedicated to the auto theft and burglary convention authority. Given that the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 codifies driver's license changes rules currently in place at DPS, it was brought to the committee's attention that the driver's license system is in major disrepair and instead of placing additional mandates on the system without trying to solve the problem, the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 solves the problem and adds additional fee to driver's license records and reinstatement fees and dedicates those fees to fixing the driver's license in Texas. The fees raised were used to fix the problem with driver's license, the bill creates a new chapter in the transportation code that establishes the driver's license system improvement fund and this fund is specifically dedicated to improving the driver's license system around the state including additional staff, facilities, mobile units, equipment and training. Since this bill doesn't raise additional revenue for specific purposes, Senator Watson also added an amendment in committee to be certain that these funds would not be subject to the consolidation provisions in statute and would be used for the purpose for which they're being raised. This new subchapter adds the following new fees and adds to driver's license improvement fund $8 on a regular six year driver's license, $20 on a resident five year commercial license, $40 on a nonresident commercial driver's license, $25 on driver's license reinstatement fees that are currently $100, and the standardization fee to make the driver's record fees $5 and $10. Along with these changes and other items in the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 some very specific concerns were raised in committee by groups like MOLDAF and ALA while it's my intention to help the Department of Public Safety make the Texas driver's license a more secure credential, we as a committee did take steps to try to address the concerns in the Committee Substitute from these groups. Here are a few of those changes we've tried to address the concern that legal aid status be determined by a federal agency other than immigration and customs. The bill allows the department to accept a valid stay authorizing documentation from any appropriate United States agency and to address the concerns about driver's license clerks not knowing what a valid form of temporary visitor ID is. The bill requires that the Department of Public Safety designate certain driver's license offices as temporary visitor stations. These offices must have at least two staff members who are especially trained to identify the 25 types of documentation in the department's temporary visitor guide -- issuance guide and it must act -- and these people must about as a resource to offices around the state. Mr. President, I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Watson, for what purpose does the Senator from Travis County wish to be recognized?

SENATOR WATSON: Questions of the author.

SENATOR SELIGER: Will you yield, Senator Williams?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I do.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Senator. I want to acknowledge to a number of colleagues the number of items you've dealt with and I think you did a very good job of laying that out. But I want to appreciate it but I want to underline a couple of points if we might. First I might want to say this, that no one really likes to admit it but the fact of the matter is for the committee the state driver's license, Texas driver's licenses are no longer just proof that you're eligible to drive while wearing glasses or not wearing glasses anymore. As you have pointed out, a driver's license is what gets us on to airplanes, it gives us access to bank accounts, it gives us proof of who we are in any number of transactions. So it's a very important resource that we shouldn't be making it unduly difficult to obtain. And you've been very clear about that while we're been working on this bill, very careful to avoid creating opportunities for this identification to be used in such a way that keeps people from actively participating in our daily society and you touched on it but we heard during the course of working on this bill horror stores about it taking hours for someone to get a driver's license or to get a U.S. passport and not be accepted as valid identification and a whole lot of other types of complaints. And many of these issues we learned were as a result from a serious lack of forces due to insufficient fee revenue or general revenue that's really been for a decade or two in that process. To emphasize a couple of points they were important to those of us on the committee as we went through this -- and by the way, let me pause and say how much I appreciated the approach you took to this bill. You worked very hard and in good faith to listen to a variety of people and the original bill looks -- looked nothing look the bill that you just laid out because you listened to people and you took a great deal of things out of that bill, you were willing to take amendments and I want to say thank you for the approach that you took as Chair of the transportation and homeland security.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I've enjoyed working with you on these issues.

SENATOR WATSON: And this bill that we talked about that will be put to work, as I understand it, updating the equipment, making more of the processes available on line and ensuring that staff, especially those at temporary visitor stations are well trained and I want to thank you, for as you pointed out, taking my amendment to help ensure that those dedicated funds do go for their intended use and aren't swept. In committee you really described the deplorable conditions of DPS mobile units and their computer systems. Would you mind sharing that with the Senate?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Absolutely. And mostly the driver's license facilities in our states were built in the 60s and 70s and a few of them in the 80s to serve a population that was much smaller than it is now just in the last zero r yays our state's grown by 21 percent with very new facilities being added. Many if not all of the mobile driver's license units are completely out of order to update and the ones that are working are large and very cumbersome meaning they're not very mobile and the technology, most of which was developed in the late 80s and early 90s is outdated and it's very slow and people -- the people at the Department of Public Safety are literally having to cannibalize old units to get parts for the things they have now and it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say some of it's being held together with duct tape and pencils. So the -- you know, funding and improving the systems is very important to this entire process of making sure not only that our constituents are well served when they go to renew their driver's license but also that it remain a secure document and we don't find ourselves in the embarrassing situation of having someone who's a fugitive from justice be able to go into a driver's license office and get a Texas driver's license, a temporary permit bestowed on them because we can't determine that they are someone who's wanted and we're literally at that point.

SENATOR WATSON: How many -- we've talked about the fees and you laid out those fees in some detail. How many additional driver's license and identification employees will those fees support?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: You know, I have that here if you'll give me just a second. I'll look that up. The --

SENATOR WATSON: My memory was over three, it was like --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: 326 new direct customer staff people would be created by this, 361 total new FTs in the metroplex, our staff there would increase by percent. Here in Austin you'd see a staff increase of approximately 36 percent, San Antonio 39 percent, the Houston driver's license staff would increase by percent and the contact increase by 103 percent and so those staffing levels will let the DPS have people where the number of transactions are. As you know, in some of our urban areas we literally have three, four, five hour waits to get a driver's license and I had reports last session or during the interim of elderly people in my district that were, you know, having to stand out on the sidewalk outside of the building with no place to sit down who become -- they suffer from heat exhaustion having to wait in line so long and unable to be inside an air-conditioned building.

SENATOR WATSON: One of the differences that we were just talking about, and I want to put an exclamation point on the difference between the original bill as filed and the one that you just laid out is in the original language the language codifying DPS driver's license rules allowed documents only from -- from only immigration and customs enforcement in order to verify legal residency and there was quite a bit of objection to that and a lot of us listened to that testimony and listened to constituents and others asked us to treat us differently various federal agencies provide such documentation depending upon the status of residing in the United States. You touched upon it in our open comments but can you explain for people that are listening to this how this issue is now addressed in SB9.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Watson, to address some very specific concerns that were raised by group such as MOLDAF and IALA the bill allows for the department to accept a valid stay authorizing document from any appropriate United States agency because what we found was that there are some people who are here that aren't coming through the normal immigration process, they may be a asylum, they may be here because of various reasons and they're here legally and we want to make sure that we made that language as broad as possible and left the discretion with the department so they could adjust appropriately their guidelines to make sure that they could accommodate these folks. In addition to that language it also addresses concerns about driver's license clerks which we heard a whole lot about not being properly trained and knowing what was a valid form of temporary visit identification, so we're require in this bill that the Department of Public Safety designate certain driver's license offices as temporary visitor stations, the offices have to have at least two members, staff members who are especially trained to identify the 25 types of documentation and they have to act as a resource for the other offices around the state. The Department of Public Safety has also informed me that this guide continues to be updated when federal laws change so that folks will know who are serving these people, they'll know what's appropriate. The other thing I think is important is we have a budget rider, and I'm working from memory now that requires that some of these temporary visitor stations be located in specified cities located in McAllen, Brownsville, (inaudible) sew, there were probably some other communities, as I recall four or five communities in the border region and also our major metropolitan areas where you have people who are immigrating to the United States if they're coming in on a plane or they end up in Houston or Dallas, we're going to have those. And as I recall there were two or three stations that we left it to the discretion of the department to determine where else they need to be. But I wanted to make sure that the border region was properly served by this --

SENATOR WATSON: And I think you had it in Brownsville, Laredo, McAllen and El Paso.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Right. And so all important places where entering the country so --

SENATOR WATSON: Finally let me ask you a question from committee but I'd like to repeat it now because there's been some concern that SB9 could be a vehicle for the emergency item regarding so-called sanctuaries. I asked you this in committee before we voted, will you allow such language related to sanctuary cities to be added to SB9?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Watson, I'm glad that you asked that question and I see that as a separate issue and I won't accept any language like that as an amendment onto this bill either in the Senate or the House. I am not willing to accept that. There is a bill that's been filed on that, I'm carrying the Senate companion. We're waiting on the House Bill to come over and we can have a healthy debate on that issue but I see it as a completely separate issue from what we're trying to accomplish here and I don't want to mix the two issues.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Lucio, for what purpose does the Senator from Cameron County stand?

SENATOR LUCIO: Will the gentlemen yield?

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams, will you yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Senator Williams. As you well know border security is something I care deeply about. It's very important for my district but as you have stated many times over the last few sessions it's important for the whole state and I've been glad to work with you and I'm very pleased to work with you on this particular issue on border security legislation this session including your Senate Concurrent Resolution 36 and my Senate Bill 288 regarding South Padre Island check points. I think you had --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: And I'm glad to coauthor with you on that.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you. I think you have a very good bill here and I think it will be even better if, you know, we maybe tack a few things into consideration, but my worry as I have mentioned to you and discussed with you is hopefully it will not come back from the House with some rather unagreeable amendments --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Lucio, I hope that too, I will assure you that I will work with you and others to make sure that we keep this bill clean of course. This is going to do but when it gets to conference I want to make sure that we have a bill that's very similar to what we have here that's dealing with these same issues. I don't want to deal with a lot of extraneous issues --

SENATOR LUCIO: To follow up on the conversation Senator Watson and yourself and also I know Senator Hinojosa supported you in committee and I'm pleased with that. I wanted to make sure that we reiterate that we have concerns about establishing driver's license check ponts and I personally want to make a point, I hope that there's not an amendment that causes any illegal immigrants that are apprehended to be in violation of a quote state crime. Let me tell you why I say that. There are a lot of very humble, humble people that come across just to seek some kind of work to feed their families, go back to their home, to their home country, they're not looking to violate any laws, they're looking for a way of life, they're looking just to exist. Unfortunately their country is under turmoil especially with drug wars and things that are going on in Mexico, you and I know that. And I won't elaborate but it will be very hard for a good person who unfortunately crosses -- and I don't advocate illegal immigration, by the way, but if he does and she does and they're looking to try to make a little bit of money with a side job of some kind which there are opportunities for that, that we would, you know, kick them with a state crime. And lastly I want to just say that we would hope that an amendment is not added that requires peace officers to ask people about their immigration status that they suspect of being undocumented and I certainly want to stand here and just tell you publicly that I appreciate the conversations that you and I have had and the hard work that you've endeavored in not just this session but over the last three sessions that I can remember. This conversation started sometime ago and it's gotten you to this point. I want you to succeed and I want us to have a clear understanding. I'm going to vote for your bill, I'm going to sign up on your bill and I hope that this is an opportunity that some of us may be able to work with you in conference if it gets to that. I hope they accept your bill the way it is, that's our goal and that's why I support this bill and that's why I want to say publicly we trust your hard work and how you've expressed yourself what you want to do with this bill. Thank you.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Senator Lucio. And some of the issues that you raised are Senator Watson said I'm very proud to have your support and help and frankly it has been a real joy and a pleasure for me to work with the folks along the border to help understand how they're being affected by this and how we can best go about supporting those Texas citizens who are threatened by this violence spilling over from the other side and so I appreciate your help on this. And my commitment to you is as I said to Senator Watson we're going to keep this bill clean.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you very much, Senator. And again I think for the rest of the citizens of our state that may be listening, you know, what we do to ensure security along the Texas/Mexico border impacts the entire state and not just the border area.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Absolutely it does and you have I think been in committee and heard direct from across say the biggest single threat to the safety and security of our state, our entire state and to the nation in his estimation is the spill over, the potential for a spill over violence from the cartels and transnational gangs that are operating in Mexico.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Davis, for what purpose does the Senator from Tarrant County stand?

SENATOR DAVIS: To ask the author a few questions.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams, will you yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator yields.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator Williams. And I want to echo what Senator Watson said earlier about how wonderful it was to work with you on this bill, to be a member of your committee and feel the inclusiveness that you provided to each of us in terms of your input and your willingness to accept constructive input on the bill not only from the members of the committee but of course people who came and testified and I'm really proud of the product that we collectively produced and thank you for letting me be a part of it. I just want to ask a couple of questions kind of in the same spirit that Senator Watson did to make sure that we clarify for the record what the bill previously proposed to do versus what it proposes to do after we had our opportunity of input in it and I'm going to start with the secured communities program. Regarding that program as the bill was originally introduced, law enforcement was concerned with the requirement that the arresting officer would have to run the individual through the system taking them off the street and requiring a greater number of officers to be involved in the process. So could you please explain the requirements in the bill as we will be voting on it today?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, thank you, Senator Davis. And I want to thank you for your help on this. I want to acknowledge your hard work and it's been a great process for all of us and this is a truly work product that we all came up with and I appreciate your input into this. Senate Bill 9 requires that a peace officer process the arrested individual in a jail facility using the secure communities program. The person can only be run through the program if he or she is arrested and taken to jail and so the processing is then done along with the other criminal warrant and background checks at the jail facility and not only does this free up the arresting officer and get that officer back on their job, it also ensures that the person doing the processing is knowledgeable and experienced with a system and it avoids errors and time consuming delays and as you know this is very successful program that's already been implemented in all 254 of our counties and we're expanding it to the other facilities in our county jail where people might be arrested and booked into those facilities.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. Also, Senator Williams, there were numerous issues raised concerning the proposed drivers license and insurance check points including the possible use of this authority to create de facto immigration check points. This provision has been removed from your bill, correct?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That's correct. The driver's license check points are not a part of this bill.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you. And then also concern for raise regarding civil liberties and the proposed authority for DPS to use a GPS device without a court order and license plate readers the GPS tracker authority has been removed and I appreciate very much the constraints you placed on the license plate reader including Senator Watson's amendment, if you wouldn't mind just for a moment explaining those constraints that are now found in this version of the bill.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Yes. The Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 requires that the Department of Public Safety conduct a pilot program for the use of license plate readers installed in law enforcement vehicles and report back to the next legislature. With the committee's approval Senator Watson added some very specific limitations to the data collected by these readers specifically that the data has to be used for law enforcement purposes, that it has to be destroyed after one year unless it's involved in a criminal investigation or prosecution and that any request for data by law enforcement agency would be subject to open records so if there's a sharing of this data people can find out it's being shared and so the actual data is protected by the law enforcement exception to the open records request. So we made an exception to that. So this is, I think addresses a lot of the concerns that were brought up about people's civil liberties and by the way I'm very sensitive of those things. This was a tough issue to get your arms around even for me and I've worked on this issue because I think it's a very useful tool for law enforcement but I'm very sensitive also that we don't want big brother looking over our shoulder anymore than we have to.

SENATOR DAVIS: Absolutely. Thank you so much, Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose does the Senator from Hidalgo County stand?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask the author a question.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams, will you yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator yields.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Senator, Williams, this bill as it stands and reads today is very different than the original.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: It is.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And we worked very hard to tie some loose ends and clarify some language but I want to follow up on Senator Davis' questions and secured communities about because I think there's a lot of misunderstanding how the process works and I think you would agree that right now under federal law both counties are required to check the legal status of anyone in the process.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: As mandated but the problem is there's a loophole right now that exists in the presence law that many times you have a defendant who's arrested process in the city jail and then before he's transferred to the county he's bonded out.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Correct.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And he's gone. Could be a murderer, could be a drug smuggler or some other criminal that's wanted in some other state or even some other country.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That's correct.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And there was a question that was raised, well, if you get a speeding ticket you're not going to be checked.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Absolutely not. This only applies to people who are arrested and booked into county jail and as you know a speeding ticket is a ticketble offense where they would write you the ticket and you would go home so there would have to be some higher level of offense for this to ever apply.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And the other point is there were some issues brought that this is an unfunded mandate for city jails or for cities but I think we have fee there to cover that cost but in addition to that, cities have an option either arrest one they don't have to bond that person out at the city level they can just process out at the county jail which right now is mandated under federal law to check --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That's correct. And in addition to that, Senator Hinojosa, I'm going to offer an amendment to the bill to clarify that you don't have to be processed at both facilities. In other words if they're transferring someone to the county jail I don't want the city to have to incur the cost of running through the immigration check with the secured communities.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: And actually it will be very easy for a city to have some kind of arrangement with the county. I know that Hidalgao County, what happens is anyone who's arrested the city police transfer that person whether it's a felony or a misdemeanor except for class C to county jail where they are processed and checked. As required by federal statute.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Correct. Thank you.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Uresti, for what purpose does the Senator from Bexar County stand?

SENATOR URESTI: To ask Senator Williams a couple of questions.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams, will you yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Mr. President and thank you, Senator Williams. As you know I had a few concerns about the bill in general and I know you have done a great job in amending it with your substitute and you've addressed many of my concerns. I had several amendments that I had filed that I had withdrawn based on our conversations with Senator Hinojosa and so I appreciate you working with me and the rest of our colleagues and I think you have a very good bill. I only have one question, it kind of follows along the same lines as Senator Hinojosa with regard to an arrest and as you know, that can be interpreted many different ways. Can you tell us in your bill and your intent, when we talk about arrest what exactly are we talking about?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, we're actually talking about in the bill someone who's arrested and booked into the jail because sometimes you'll see if there's some dispute, you know, kids fighting or whatever it may be they might stop everybody then and they might handcuff them and they may even put them under arrest but then after the situations resolved, booked into the jail, this would not apply to them only to the people who are booked into the jail.

SENATOR URESTI: Yes, you're right, Senator Williams. Oftentimes if there's a disturbance etc. they may come in and actually place them in handcuffs or perhaps but the them in behind the officer's vehicle but they're not technically under arrest, according to your bill they haven't been booked --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Right. According to the facility, the secure communities doesn't apply.

SENATOR URESTI: But thank you for your hard work on this bill, Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Gallegos, for what purpose does the Senator from -- stand?

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Will the Senator yield for questions?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I'd be glad to yield.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams yields.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator Williams, and I've heard my colleagues and that the bill has changed tremendously since it was filed and I still have, in Harris County the Houston metroplex we almost have million Latinos there and I am getting calls and concerns on for instance your non -- your noncitizen legal residence, legal residence that attempt to get a license and I didn't hear in your discussion with my colleagues that if they're denied the opportunity to obtain a license, do they have an appeal process under your bill?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Gallegos, I think what this bill, whatever appeal process is in place now would stay in place, we're not addressing that on one side or the other but for people who are in the country legally, they're noncitizen legal immigrants, the way we've addressed that is by putting in place the temporary visitor center status we would have that in Houston, we would have it in all our major metropolitan areas as well as along the border region and we're actually requiring the Department of Public Safety to staff that with two people who are specially trained in helping these people get their documents processed because there are a lot of people who are here in the country legally but I will say those are complex transactions that they're engaged in and so we need specially trained people. So my goal here is for no one who is here legally to ever be denied getting their driver's license. I think the best way to address that is head on ands that to require the department to have specially trained people and locate those people where there's going to be a lot of those sort of transactions as well as requiring those specially trained people to offer support to the more remote areas of our state where they may not see as many of these transactions and so I think that will hopefully solve that problem, I know its been an issue, it's something we heard about in committee, I'm sensitive to it and we worked really hard to try to address that in a way that will help those people who are in our country visiting legally to get their license issued in a timely fashion. Senator Gallegos, the other thing that it does is for our constituents who are residents of the state and U.S. citizens who are stuck in line behind these people with very complex transactions that could take up to 45 moneys or an hour may be two hours for the paperwork to get done, it moves those people into a line with specially trained people so that folks with more standard renewals will be able to process their applications for a driver's license, for renewal in a much more rapid fashion. Our goal here is to have no one transaction take more than 30 minutes for a standard renewal and for any other transaction 45 minutes. It's a lot longer than that now as you well know.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: And Senator Williams, I appreciate the work you've done with the committee and the revisions and as early as yesterday I visited with the counselor of Mexico personally, and he was -- his concern was with the nonresidents that are here legally going to school, and those that have legal status here that they were having problems obtaining the license and that there wasn't or they weren't advised that there was an appeal pro-excess they'd have to go and obtain an attorney even though they have legal status and this comes straight from the counsel general in my city and that they were having to obtain a lawyer to claim their legal status ultimately get their license but it cost them money and then it also cost the state money you know in the case.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, Senator Gallegos, goes I don't deny that that has happened. What I'm saying is I'm attempting to address that problem in this bill by providing the department with the resources and to require them to have the trained personnel so that those people won't experience what -- we had testimony about that many committee and this bill in part is an honest attempt to try to solve that problem.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: I wanted to point that out, Senator, and the other issue that I had and I know you've talked to Senator Watson and Senator Lucio and Senator Hinojosa, my other problem with it is the caption that it's pretty open, it's wide open and obviously the immigration groups in my district and counsel of Mexico and others are concerned, you know, and I understand what you just said here today and it's when it goes over to the House you know is that the language, your language that you've worked out in committee going to stay that way. You know do you -- have you worked out anything with the chairman over that's going to have it in the House?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Gallegos, I have had discussions with some of the members that they want to keep this bill clean. I can't tell you what will or will not happen in the House but as you know, it's a buy cam rail process we have and if they amend this bill in the House, then it's going to come back and go into a conference committee and my commitment -- my clear commitment to everybody on this floor, I've said it several times s already is that we're going to keep this bill as close to the original version that we have here on the floor, the one that we're going to vote on here if we possibly can and I have no interest in some of the issues that have been brought up by the same groups that you're talking about sanctuary cities and other issues that Senator Lucio talked about, I see those as separate issues from this bill. I have no interest in mixing those two issues together. This is an important bill for all Texans, it's an important bill for all people who are legal immigrants to our country because it's going to vastly improve the way we deal with that and unless this bill passes and we give the department the resources that they need to improve the entire licensing process, the kinds of problems that you drabbed are going to continue to exist because the truth of the matter is the system has not really been properly addressed in probably 20 or 25 years. There really hasn't been any significant new funding and it's woefully inadequate and antiquated and not appropriately sized to the state that we are today with the large urban population that we have and so all of those things are addressed in this bill and my commitment to you as it has been to the other members who've questioned about this is that this is the version that I'd like to see passed. I can't sit here and tell you that the House is not going to amend it. You have been a House member, you know how it works over there but I can tell you any amendment that takes us away from the purpose of the bill that you see here is not really -- it's not going to be acceptable and so --

SENATOR GALLEGOS: And let me once again thank you for work with my colleagues in the committee to work over some of their concerns on the original bill but I also want to tell you that I also am concerned about border security I want all illegals with criminal backgrounds I don't want them here, I want them in my city, I don't want them in my state and hopefully your bill at least tries to correct a lot of that and it's just that you know some of the effects, the side effects that we -- for lack of a better word, for lack of a better word I understand what you're trying to do and I really appreciate it too because we do need homeland security especially on the boarder and it's just my concern on the side effects, Senator, that my --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Gallegos, we had a lot of testimony and I made a very sincere effort to try to address this and I think we've done a very good job and I'd love to have your support on this bill.

SENATOR GALLEGOS: Senator, thank you very much.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Rodriguez, for what purpose does the Senator from El Paso stand?

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: To ask the author a question.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams will you yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I'll gladly yield.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator Williams. You and I have talked and I even attended one of your committee hearings on this issue and so you're aware that I have some concerns about it and while I appreciate that there's been a lot of work that's been put into it, there's no question about that both bipartisan (inaudible) that you have a lot of support from a lot of our democrats here in the committee and on the floor, it's important to bring out some concerns that I have. You know, on the driver's license issue requiring documentation of citizenship I think you heard a lot of testimony about the concerns that people have with that process under the current DPS program. In fact, you're aware, aren't you, that there's a state district court here in Austin that issued a temporary injunction against the implementation of the program because DPS was not fully prepared to implement the program in a way that would deny lawfully present persons here in the state a driver's license. Are you aware of that?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I am aware of that.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: In fact that court is still pending that case is still pending. Now --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator, would you like me to address that or --

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, the driver's license requirements that we have in this bill were adopted by rule by the department of public safety two years ago. They currently authenticate citizenship and they have temporary driver's license that's issue to nonresidents. What this bill does is it creates a driver's license system improvement funds using the license and record fees to fully staff the offices, to open new offices and to obtain efficient equipment and implement mu technology and the resources that the offices need to be able to speed up transactions and improve customer service and to try to address the concerns of people who are in there getting a license. Now, I do acknowledge that there is a complexity and fluidity about document verification and this bill requires that the department have ten driver's license offices that are designate as temporary visitor stations and that those folks there will be specially trained and they will act as a resource. There are safety and security concerns with denying licenses to people because of legal stay, that's an issue that's been raised but I would say also is that the driver's license in Texas proves that the holder, it's much more than what it used to be. It proves that the holder has passed the test and the laws of our Texas roadway, roadways, but it's also a secure form of identification that's used for opening bang accounts, cashing checks, purchasing a handgun and I would say that to issue this type of identification to someone without vetting their status, their legal stay thank you, sir opens the door for abuse and it erodes the credibility of our document and so we made -- it's a balancing act here. I understand some of the concerns, I understand exactly what you say, what you're saying but I think we've struck a good balance here. This is not a document that is just permission to drive in Texas which is what it used to be. This is a document that is a secure form of identification and if you are a legal visitor to our current write, you will be better served by the department of public safety once the provision of this bill are implemented.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: I understand what you're trying to do with the bill and you have just gone through a whole litany of provisions in it but I think what's being raised in the litigation is concerns that the department does not have the ability at this time to preclude or prevent a denial of a license to a lawfully present person in this country. I think I mentioned to you at one of those hearings actually I said it at the whole hearing that I had complaints when I was U.S. attorney of El Paso from U.S. citizens one of them I said was a decorative Vietnam war veteran who went to renew his driver's license at a DPS office and they told him he was not in the computer and so the point I'm trying to make is there's a reason why a lot of the civil liberties, mall f that you mentioned and others have raised concerns about this I know MALDOF has received over 267 complaints from people who lawfully were present in the country but were not able to get their driver's license and in fact that's why that lawsuit was filed and so it's a concern to me as I hope it would be to you that while we want DPS to have the capacity to do this by providing the funding and all that we simply are not there yet. It seems to me that a more cautious approach would be to have some kind of interim program where you're trying to iron out the kinks in the database system where the workers and DPS actually get the trainings and so forth before we start denying people before this bill becomes effective who are here lawfully their driver's license. So that's a big concern --

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator, if they here lawfully, once this bill is implemented they won't be denied a driver's license because the department will have the resources that they need to address this problem and I acknowledge and did acknowledge in committee the concerns of those very groups and this is an honest attempt to try to address those concerns. I can't fix what's already happened but what I can do is try to improve the system so that our citizens and the folks who are here visiting our country legally are better served by the process and it's simply antiquated equipment, it's lack of training and it's inadequate staffing levels and all of those things are dependent upon additional funding and this bill addresses that head on.

SENATOR RODRIGUEZ: Well, I appreciate what you're trying to do. Let me jus mention one other thing on the secured securities on the bill section one. While I appreciate that was amended to say it wouldn't be now the individual law enforcement officers arresting -- taking people to jail under the secured communities program that now, it's a law enforcement agency, the agency I think is the way you changed the language nevertheless you have a program that I think we all have been reading in the press from the New York times to the LA times to other national publications that has got a lot of problems with it. It was implemented with the proposition that it would address violent criminals and in fact what's been reported is that a substantial number of immigrants who are not violent criminals have been picked up under the program and in many cases been departed. I think I shared with you the Los Angeles Times article account the woman and this is not an uncommon situation because I think I remember reading something in the Austin American spaceman a year ago so it happened here in Austin as well where a woman was complaining about domestic violence, she is undocumented or maybe she's got to some immigration issues may be not necessarily totally undocumented, files a report against the abuser, the abuser says that she initiated the assault and she gets taken into jail just like the abuser and the next thing you know she's getting placed in deportation under the secured communities program. She's got U.S. citizen children here and so I think that when this program was un-vailed to the country and it was under the premises that it was going to go after those violent criminals but it has not turned out to be the case. I can give you a hot of statistics of a number of people, for example, in the New York times in 2009 the ice figures indicated the nation wide 5,800 people documented throughout -- I am grants were, in fact, U.S. citizens. Either studies that indicate that one-third of all apprehensions of secured communities about 33,000 of 888 individuals in 2010 have no criminal conviction at all. So I just have some real concerns with a programs that currently right now as you know in the national news because the federal government let us to believe including myself as county attorney and sheriff in El Paso county when they visited us for this program that this was a voluntary program and now, the media's disclosing the federal government has acknowledged saying you know what this is mandatory you have to implement this and there's a lot of people saying like out in California and elsewhere we are withdrawing from this program, if you want to challenge us then that's fine. All by way of saying in conclusion here Senator Williams is that while I understand what we're trying to accomplish here there are some serious problems with both of these programs that I think are detrimental to law-abiding citizens including U.S. citizens here in this country and that's my reason I have my objections to it. I just want to let you and the rest of the members know. I appreciate your attention thank you.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9. Any objection? Hearing none the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 relating to homeland security.

SENATOR SELIGER: The following amendments. Secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 1 by Williams.

SENATOR SELIGER: Chair recognizes Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this is the amendment that I mentioned in my opening remarks. I call it the not doubling up on the secure communities check amendment since inmates for more serious offenses are often transferred from the city jail to the county jail, this amendment clarifies that the persons not required to be run through the secured securities program more than once if they're being moved between facilities. I would move adoption.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams moves adoption of amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. An amendment, the secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 2 by Williams.

SENATOR SELIGER: The Senator -- the Chair recognizes Senator Williams.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President, members, this amendment clarifies that the driver's license improvement fund that's created by the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 9 may be used for improving and maintaining the driver's license system. There were some concerns that were raised once the I am profits were made that they might not be able to use these funds to maintain the improvements. That was never (inaudible) and so this amendment just brings the language in the bill in line with our original intent. I move adoption.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams moves adoption of the amendment. Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment. Secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 3 by Davis.

SENATOR SELIGER: Chair recognizes Senator Davis.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. President, and Chairman Williams for the opportunity lay out this amendment. As it was explained by Chairman Williams in the committee the intent of section 11 in the bill is to increase penalties for persons commonly known as king pins who finance, direct or supervise criminal street gangs to commit certain offenses. This section also seeks to make existing statutes more applicable for use by prosecutors. During the committee hearing I expressed concern over how kingpin was defined in the bill. I felt it was important in an effort to stay true to the intention of the section to narrow the definition so it could not be applied to low or mid level gang members especially since we were not only going to be increasing the penalties for those convicted but also going to make it easier for them to be prosecuted. This amendment adds the amendment that the person be part identifiable leadership of a criminal street gang end quote and tweaks the object of the finances direct supervisors language from the other gang members who might commit a crime to the actual conspiracy or commission of the crime itself. In other words the state would have to prove not merely that the king pen directed some gang members who happen to commit some of those listed crime but that the kingpin directed those gang members to do that specific crime. It is often specific rather than being gang members specific. Chairman Williams office and the Texas districting county attorneys association worked with my office on this long and I believe it is acceptable to the author.

SENATOR SELIGER: Chair recognizes Senator Williams on the amendment.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. It is acceptable to me and I want to thank you Senator Davis for raising this issue. This is a great point. I think it is a big improvement in the bill because what we don't want to do is put something out there that the prosecutors aren't going to be able to use and both the border prosecution unit and the Texas county and District Attorneys association feel like you made this a much better bill with your amendment and I appreciate you bringing this forward.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, chairman Williams.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Davis moves adoption of the amendment which is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is adopted.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you Mr. President.

SENATOR SELIGER: Following amendment. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor amendment No. 4 by Hinojosa and Lucio.

SENATOR SELIGER: The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you Mr. President and members, this amendment addresses a problem that we have along the border in south Texas. We now have situations where you have the police chasing a smuggler or chasing a criminal and what they're doing now, they're using this what I call tire deflation devices or cow stops, spike strips to throw out the window causing the police officer to either abandon the chase or either possibly blow out a tire or two and these devices are oftentimes left out in the highway or back streets and put in place the public in danger. I will tell you it is not illegal right mu in the present law to possess or manufacture the devices so what my amendment will do is make sure that people who use those devices who cannot be prosecuted right now under present law will be prosecuted and is a jail felony. And I put an exception there for devices that are used in car rental companies or they're used for (inaudible) or military purposes and I think the amendment's acceptable to the author.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: It is acceptable and I thank you for bringing this forward. I think you got a separate bill on this and Senator Hinojosa on one of my several trips that I made to the border region I was amazed to learn they've gone from throwing these device out the window to they have James Bond style deployment devices under their trucks and you might have as many as or 30 vehicles including police and pedestrian vehicles that just happen to be driving by with now, they've got four flat tours so I know it's a huge problem and appreciate you. They've even caught people on the side of the road with sacks full of these things and because there wasn't a criminal statute they couldn't prosecute them and they knew they were aiding and abetting some of these folks that are in organized crime. So I appreciate you bringing this forward. It's acceptable.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I move adoption.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Hinojosa moves adoption of the amendment which is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. Senator Williams moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 26 ayes and five nays, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9 relating to Homeland security.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move final passage.

SENATOR SELIGER: Senator Williams moves final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 9. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR SELIGER: There being 26 ayes and five nays, the bill is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Williams.

SENATOR OGDEN: Following motion in writing, secretary will read the motion.

PATSY SPAW: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Senate Bill 1623 relating to tuition and fee exemptions for certain military personnel to be withdrawn from the committee on veteran affairs and rereferred to the committee on higher education Senator Zaffirini author, Senator Van de Putte Chair committee from which bill is being withdrawn. Senator Zaffirini Chair to which bill is being rereferred.

SENATOR OGDEN: Is there objection to the motion? Chair hears none, motion's adopted. Members, Committee Substitute to House Bill 1 is eligible, you got any interest? We won't have to meet tomorrow. Well, with that, the president's desk is clear. Are there any announcements? Senator Deuell.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. The health and human services committee, subcommittee on the women's health program will meet in room E1.016. I was going to ask 30 minutes after adjournment, we'll meet 20 minutes after the caucus.

SENATOR OGDEN: All right. Are there any other announcements? Senator Seliger, you're recognized for an announcement.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, in the last week or so, we have celebrated Passover and Easter, times of peace and spiritual comfort, a time to hold our families close. Like Senator Eltife, I have a 22-year-old son and got to spend the weekend with him. And like many of the families represented in this room, in the gallery and on the floor, we are a demonstrative family. But recent events made me wonder during the last weekend, of that fine young man, if I hugged him often enough and hard enough. And in case the answer is no, like many of you, I resolve to make up for that this next weekend. Because David Castro, Sr., and Carmen Armendariz Castro, who live in the Permian Basin in my district, some time ago when they hugged their 25-year-old son, John Paul Castro, little did they know that it would be for the last time. Because Sergeant John Paul Castro, who lived in Senator Eltife's district in Clarksville, on Friday last, Good Friday, was killed by small arms fire in Afghanistan. He is the kind of young man that Andrews, where he was born, Clarksville, where he lived, and where he leaves a wife, Delia, and a young daughter, were that proud of him. Because after joining the Army in October of 2004, he was a recipient of the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Army Commendation, Army Good Conduct, the National Defense Service Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service, and the Army Service Ribbon, the NATO and Army Meritorious Unit Commendation. He'll never make it back to Clarksville, but the things that he fought for, and went to Afghanistan for, are there today, a family who lives at peace and safety and security because of the sacrifice of this brave American and Texan. Therefore, in honor and in memory of Sergeant John Paul Castro, I would ask that the Senate adjourn today in his memory and honor. Thank you.

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you, Senator Seliger. Senator Seliger requests that his remarks be reduced to writing and placed in the journal. There any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Senator Ellis.

SENATOR ELLIS: An announcement and a suspension, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: You're recognized for an announcement.

SENATOR ELLIS: Mr. President, I move to suspend the 24-hour posting rule in accordance with Senate rule 11.10 and 11.18 to allow the government organization committee to meet at my desk immediately upon adjournment to vote on the following bills that were previously heard in public hearing: Senate Bill 649 that's the housing corporation sunset bill and Senate Bill 665 the Texas department housing and community affairs sunset bill. And if there are no questions I move suspension.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, is there any objection to the suspension of the rules to take up and consider those bills at Senator Ellis' desk? Chair hears none, so ordered. Did you have an announcement?

SENATOR ELLIS: And we will meet at my desk upon adjournment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Okay, thank you. Senator Van de Putte, you're recognized for what purpose?

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: For an announcement, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: You're recognized for an announcement.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you. Members, tomorrow morning we will honor our Korean war veterans and at 8:00 a.m. in the lieutenant governor's reception room we'll have a breakfast and an opportunity to meet these brave men and women and we invite you to come and we particularly want you to meet JG Earnst who is a veteran from World War II from Korea, he fought in Vietnam and is a recipient of the civil star so we hope you'll come by tomorrow morning and later a guest honoring, we will honor our Korean war veterans. Thank you, Mr. President.

SENATOR OGDEN: Following motion in writing, secretary will read the motion.

PATSY SPAW: Motion in writing. Mr. President, I move to suspend Senate rule 11.13 so the committees may meet during the reading and referral of bills. By Eltife.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, you heard the motion, is there objection? Chair hears none, motion's adopted. Are there any other announcements? Chair recognizes Dean of the Senate for a highly privileged motion.

SENATOR WHITMIRE: Mr. President, I would move that the Senate adjourn until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow pending the reading and referral of bills and we do so in memory of Sergeant John Paul Castro.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Whitmire moves that the Senate adjourn until 9:00 a.m. Friday April 29th. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the Senate stands adjourned until 9:00 a.m. Friday April 29th pending the reading and referral of bills.

PATSY SPAW: House Bill 5 to health and human services. House Bill 237 to health and human services. House Bill 290 to criminal justice. House Bill 417 to state affairs. House Bill 890 transportation and homeland security. House Bill 1112 to transportation and homeland security. House Bill 1146 business and commerce. House Bill 1168 administration. House Bill 116 to jurisprudence. House Bill 1283 to intergovernmental relations. House Bill 1488 to intergovernmental relations. House Bill 1529 to criminal justice. House Bill 1545 to stot affairs. House Bill 1566 to criminal justice. House Bill 1666 criminal justice. House Bill 1759 intergovernmental relations. House Bill 1760 intergovernmental relations. House Bill 1853 business and commerce. House Bill 1899 transportation and homeland security. House Bill 1936 business and commerce. House Bill 2004 government organization. House Bill 2118 criminal justice. House Bill 2121 jurisprudence. House Bill 2162 intergovernmental relations. House Bill 2229 health and human services. House Bill 2327 transportation and home land security. House Bill 2330 jurisprudence. House Bill 2358 criminal justice. House Bill 2482 criminal justice. House Bill 2725 criminal justice. House Bill 2792 transportation and homeland security. House Bill 2793 administration. House Bill 2859 natural resources. House Bill 3287 business and commerce. House Bill 3804 intergovernmental relations.

SENATOR OGDEN: Pursuant to a motion previously adopted, the Senate is adjourned until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow.

(Adjourned.)