REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members, guests; let us approach our God with gratitude. Our Father, we do bow before you. We thank you for making us in your image. Father, we ask that you help us to justly to love mercy and to walk humbly with you. Father, we pray that especially this being your day, that if we forget you, we pray that you remember us. We pray these things in Jesus' name. Amen.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper Brown to lead us in the pledge. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Member s and honored guests, please stand and remain standing as we say the pledge to the United States flag and the great flag of Texas. (Pledge of Allegiance to the flags.)
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I hope you would join me in a moment of silence in memory of Representative Nash's sister, who passed away this morning, a good friend of mine, Bev Walsh and Barbara's dear sister. Please join me in a moment of silence. Mr. Speaker, I move that when we adjourn today I move that we adjourn in memory of Bev Walsh.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, the Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas to introduce our Doctor of the Day.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. And it is a distinct honor to recognize the Doctor of the Day as one of our colleagues, Dr. Schwertner over here to the left. Dr. Schwertner to the left. Thank you for stepping up and assuming that duty. If you have any orthopedic injury at all that you need to have looked at, he'll have office hours over there today. Thank y'all.
JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out a matter of unfinished business on House Bill 1. The clerk will read the bill.
CLERK: HB1 by Pitts. General Appropriations Bill.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker and members, we're back on the bill that we started on Friday, on House Bill 1, and we are on Article 4.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the amendment on page 249 has been withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 250.
CLERK: Amendment by King.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. It brings me a great deal of privilege to bring you this amendment, and I believe there's an amendment to the amendment by Mr. Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members; this amendment to the amendment strikes the language in the original King amendment and substitutes the language that's in the amendment to the amendment. As you know, 911 service has been a hugely successful program throughout the state. Many communities have what is called a public safety answering point. This program of the 911 system provides realtime information on law enforcement agencies which has this peace app equipment. There are communities in Texas which have been advised that they're going to lose this funding for this critical emergency notification system. If they lose it, then their calls will be redirected to another system; at which time they will be manually forwarded back to the law enforcement agency where the emergency originated, which means critical time is lost and lives will be at stake. This amendment restores the funding for these communities, so that they will not lose this crucial service. We are taking some money from the governor's criminal justice strategy, A13, and redirecting it to the restoration of these services. This amendment is acceptable to the author. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. We're back on the King amendment. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 251 has been withdrawn. Members, we are on page 251. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, we want to move that to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Amendment on page 252. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Hartnett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that we take this amendment to Article 11 as well.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, I'd like to have this amendment directed to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Solomons because of flight cancellation, on the motion of Representative Alvarado. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're on Article 5. The amendments on pages 266 and 264 have been withdrawn. The amendment on page 265. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this just keeps TDJC from doing salary adjustment rates and to do compression raises. I move adoption, and I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're on page 266. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment changes a may to a shall, as far as the utilization of funding. And TDCJ has a program where they have personnel that are there that they keep and are there seven days a week. They have one thing in it that was allowing them to have free meals all seven days of the week. I have an amendment that strikes the employees residing in the dormitories from getting free meals all day. So they continue to get them when they're on the shifts, and any time that they're actually working. But they don't continue to get them the days they're not there. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker .
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Kolkhorst, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you. Mr. Madden, I just want to talk about this for a second and clarify that the current rider that's in the bill has been there for quite some time, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It has, yes. It's not something new, Ms. Kolkhorst, at all. Its' been there quite a few years.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. And so do you know what the theory behind that rider was, so we can get some clarification?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sure. There are two or three things that are in the rider. First of all, for personnel that were working shifts, obviously, there was an attempt there for meals, if they would be there, so they'd be there on the shift that they were there. There are other people that are provided housing that are there, in dorm-like housing, for the officers. And that was part of the amendment. And a couple of other things, obviously, in that rider, also, that they were attempting to do, and I didn't change any of those things at all.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So what you're changing is that no one can receive free meals all day?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'm saying that no one can get -- When they're in those housing units that they have, and they're not on shift, that they have to pay for those meals if they're there when they're not doing the shift duty. That's what I'm doing.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. And this doesn't create more of an accounting nightmare for TDCJ, then?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I don't think so. They have about four thousand meals per meal that are given to officers that they have in the unit. I don't think this will create any accounting problems at all. I don't believe it will.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. And along the line I'll talk to you about your next amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Sure. Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. Page 267.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, one of the other things that Ms. Kolkhorst and I, and others, have been working on is housing at TDCJ and the units that are there. All this amendment does is basically says if we're providing housing there, which we are, that it be on a cost recovery program and the total fees charged to the people who have that housing will at least cover the maintenance and utility costs that are there; so we're basically not paying for those as a state taxpayer but, in fact, as the individuals who are there at the housing will do us a fair share, I believe, with the cost; which will basically take care of the maintenance and utilities that they're using. And I know it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker , will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course I yield, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I already yielded.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I was just saying to be proper etiquette. I don't know. Okay. Mr. Madden, let's talk about this for a second. I want to make sure that everyone understands that currently we have housing on units, that's been a long time tradition. Though our new units don't have those kinds of models, right?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That's generally correct, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay, so --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: We have about 700, I think, in total. I think we have people that have had housing to some degree in the last several years, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Now for members on the floor, I want you to realize that some of you and your constituents will start to pay more money. Tell us how much this could cost them, you know, on already slim salaries this could cost them, while they live in those units?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And of course we realize, Ms. Kolkhorst, some of them have been paying nothing for their housing for the entire time they have been there. There've been a few of those. Some of the others will have a small -- and I believe we worked that out. Mr. Livingston and I had quite a few conversations on this, and I know they're working on a policy specifically to do the kinds of things that we talked about, which I believe those give us the cost recovery for the state, so that at least the state, the citizens of the state are not paying for those costs, either.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Here is my only question about this: So I was in the negotiations and I want to make sure that it's not overly punitive. I know that you've got some bills that are working. These are people we have on the unit at any time, for a reason.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Absolutely. Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: We want them there for a protection issue that we have there. But the other thing I want to ask you is I've been traveling around the state a little bit and looking and TDCJ is not the only agency that has housing.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You're absolutely right.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So I'm thinking of other agencies, what do other agencies do on cost and maintenance?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Each of them has their separate policies, Ms. Kolkhorst. I mean, obviously, I've talked to the ones in the criminal justice area to get a feel for what TYC, for example, does with its people. And, generally, they have it on -- like if we remember the three groupings of housings that we had; most of their people were in what we call that center grouping, about the 20 percent valuation of the property and they were paying some amount as based upon -- off of that 20 percent.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Here's my biggest issue with this, I think, Mr. Madden; is that we've targeted this criminal justice system and said that we're going to make you abide by one set of rules. And I look over here, whether it's Parks and Wildlife or other places that have housing, and I'm not sure we have a one-size-fits-all policy for the state of Texas. And I would like to either do an amendment to your amendment that says that, or do an adjustment in Article 9 to Chairman Pitts to encourage him in conference that we look at not just being punitive to employees that live on the unit in our criminal justice system, which is a hard place to live.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: We understand that, Ms. Kolkhorst. But, obviously, other citizens that we have out there are having hard times, too. And it's my at least my feeling that the state's taxpayers paying the burden that they're paying for people -- for what amounts to, in many cases, free or absolutely reduced housing, was not the thing to do. So at least in the areas that I have at least some influence on and some working knowledge of, I certainly -- I would certainly look at and think that some of this thing ought be done in Article 9. I'd like to put this in so when we work with our friends in the Senate that be going into Article 9 as a general policy.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Well, and that's one of the things, that I think you and I had good discussions in cost recovery. Keep in mind that we asked these people to live there for a reason. We ask for safety --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And some of those, we talked about the ones that are actually there for a reason, and there are others, as you know, that have been granted housing for some period of time; and they don't have the same reasons as others do beyond the unit.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: So as we -- and I'm not going to fight you on this, but as we walk through this and work through it, I would like to say if we're going to do this to the criminal justice system it should be applied to all state agencies. And you had said about cost --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I totally agree with you on that. I think the policy should be uniform throughout. I would totally agree with you on that.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: All right, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment, clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is clarifying language on the Correctional Managed Health Care Program. I believe there's an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is clarification language and cleanup language on the Correctional Managed Care Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speak er.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the gentlemen yield for a moment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, do you yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Madden, this is the amendment to the amendment? Is that where we are right now?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. I'll hold on until we get to the main amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Madden amendment as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I yield, Mr. Turner, of course.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you. Chairman Madden, tell me what we're doing with this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: In the amendment we're taking out two of the riders. One of those that said no appropriations could be used for appropriation of Correctional Managed Health Care, because we had discussions ongoing on the Correctional Managed Health Care side. There was also a portion of this that was going to be cleaned up in another amendment that deals with the funding that could be used for some of the medical students and medical student policy could be done.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. So the amendment is not touching on how Correctional Managed Care -- How --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: No, absolutely not. This is clarification and basically cleanup language that's in the language of the bill right now.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It was brought to me, by the way, by the managed health care.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Mr. Speaker , will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: For what purpose, Representative Kolkhorst?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Madden. I know you and I have had a conversation about this. This particular, very small agency was zeroed out in the base bill; am I correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is correct. And it's still zero, unfortunately. But all this language is doing is it leaves the limit in the rider that says we can't use any of this language.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Right. So as we move forward, Mr. Madden, and I look forward to working with you, we talked about how we are in negotiations with, how we're going to do health care in a correctional setting. And I think that there's some good that can come out of this, that we probably need a -- what I call a kind of a middle person that's not maybe the university's UTMB and not TDCJ and their board, but someone that's got doctors on it --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And that was obviously when the Correctional Managed Health Care Committee was structured and set up. That was, in fact, the intent, I believe, of the legislature in doing the Correctional Managed Health Care.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: I think it's a great amendment, Mr. Madden. I support it.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you, Ms. Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there observation? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 270. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is one that deals with delivery of commissary goods to be delivered to TDCJ. This, in fact, is one thing that I think opens it up, makes it more friendly for families to be able to provide items to people, that is totally a vender neutral thing, but other states are doing this; which allows families to send in packages of supplies to the inmates at TDCJ. And it should have a positive impact on our budget of several million dollars and our commissary fees.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker .
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Giddings, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentlemen yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course I yield to my classmate, Ms. Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much, Chairman Madden. I see your amendment, but I am not quite sure what it does. First, tell me what families do now in terms of getting purchases and --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There is -- In fact, the commissary that's operated at TDCJ is a provider of everything that's there. So they're all used within the commissary. There is not a provision for most families to be bringing in items. What this is, it would allow the shipment of certain packages that are approved by TDCJ for shipment, that could be, in fact, delivered to the inmate so that they would have additional commissary items that they might not have otherwise.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: So today a family member cannot, in fact, purchase anything but in fact they must --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They'd have to deposit money going into the commissary account.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: In the account of the inmates?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Now, what is the Texas Department of Criminal Justice going to do? Is the Department going to --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There will be a procedure that they'll set up for doing this and the actual ability for the people to bring in. As I said, they'll probably use the experience I think, Ms. Giddings, of several of the other states that are doing this now. So I think that they'll find it very positive.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Who -- It's very unique, very interesting. Who's doing this right now?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There are several states. I'm going to tell you -- I think the states -- I don't want to give you the wrong ones. Let me give you a list of those maybe after this session. I don't want to tell you the states and they be wrong. I know several of them that are doing this.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And, to your knowledge, since you're the expert, or certainly one of the experts in this area, do we have multiple companies out there that are capable of providing --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There are right now, in other states, I've heard four or five companies, at least, that are already doing this, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. And so what kind of qualifications would such a --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That would be set by TDCJ. I'm sure.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: What kind of credentials do they have in other places, that you're familiar with?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Qualification s they have? Obviously, they'd have to be an approved vendor. Obviously, they'd have to be under some sort of approved vendor list to do this. And then the other sections would have to be done. But I believe the program would be very positive for our state and be very positive for the revenues and positive for the inmates. I don't see -- This is one we looked at very carefully, Ms. Giddings, were there any negatives on this? I couldn't find any during this whole program. There are multiple vendors in other states doing this project, doing the providing the additional products for the inmates, and they appear to be working very well.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. And what does -- What's in a commissary, generally? I guess food items, magazines, that kind of thing.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Food items toiletries and a spectrum of things. You would expect, in my old military days back in the commissary -- Some are restricted on what they have there and some are restricted to a list that they'd have to follow.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: And so the real action, in terms of your particular amendment, seems to be that there will be a percentage of all the purchases made through the inmate package program that will be going to the state's general fund?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There will be additional money to aid revenues, absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Does that mean that these families of these inmates -- It's not the inmates generally who pay, it's generally --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: It would probably be the families, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yeah. So are we setting up any kind of a situation where the inmates families, who may already be strapped, are going to be paying more for the same item because we set up this process?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Well, if they have a desire to send their loved ones certain products and they want to do that, I guess just like we send to our military troops overseas, we could do that and it might have some sort of financial burden. It's possible, but I highly doubt it. You know, it's no more-so than -- Obviously, they don't have to purchase it in the commissary. It will still be there, doing the same items that they currently got. It just strikes me as an extremely positive thing we ought to be doing.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, that's what I was trying to get to. We are not going to stop the commissary program that's already in place, but this is just a second way to purchase merchandise? The commissary is still going to be there?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: That is true. That is correct. There are there will be some things, but they could also offer discount prices.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Offer discount prices?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Absolutely. Sure they could.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you. Move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden sends up an amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We're on page 269. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to move this to Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. From page 271, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Speaker, members; this is another cost or additive of ideas that we have for additional possible revenues for the State of Texas. However, it's an absolutely great fit for Article 11, so I'm going to move it to Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: This was just a clean up to make sure the language did what I said, I just told you. It did, so it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Back on the Madden Amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Move to move to Article 11 and move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendments on page 272 and 273 are withdrawn. Page 273, the following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is setting up a bill pattern for what will be House Bill 915, or what is equivalent to the bill to youth commission and juvenile probation. It's an appropriate bill also for Article 11. I'm also going to move it to Article 11, but the intent is there to have something in our bill pattern that we can use when that particular piece of legislation passes. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. We are on page 275. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is a an amendment that Ruth McClendon brought to the bill and it basically says that salary increases of existing personnel in an amount greater than 12 percent of the previous year cannot be down without a an approval to TDJC. And it is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable -- Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Does the gentleman yield for questions?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Otto, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Could you explain that again?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Basically what it's doing saying is that anybody that she's putting the 12 percent cap that requires approval, that's not saying that --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Of who?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Salary increases of existing personnel in the local juvenile probation boards and juvenile board members. None of the above and allocated juvenile probation boards should be extended salary increases greater than 12 percent unless it's pre-approved.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And you know that those local -- Is that telling our local communities what they have to do and how they have to pay it?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's basically putting a cap of 12 percent, where if local committees want to go above that they just have to come get approval.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: So we're telling the local people they have to come to Austin to get approval for their decisions that we told them they could make?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I mean I'm trying -- Representative McClendon is not here. I'm just telling you what is in her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: And it's something that y'all are intending to accept?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Even though we don't know -- So does that mean they have to go back and get everybody that approved at a certain salary?
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, I'm not aware of anybody in these times that ought to be getting more than a 12 percent salary increase year over year.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, what if they take an executive director's position from being a just a regular, juvenile probation officer? That's just my question. What are we --
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: She doesn't address if there's a change in position. If, at this time, if y'all would like, I would just move that we take this to Article 11. That way it's still active but we can deal with it at a later time. Move to Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment on page 276 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 278, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment on page 270 is temporarily withdrawn. Amendment on page 279, following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Miller of Comal.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Members, this amendment is to correct an oversight or an inaccuracy that was done. And I'm working with Representative Riddle to help out the DPS and the game wardens. And, with that in mind, she's got her amendment up and I'm going to withdraw my amendment.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 280.
CLERK: Amendment by Riddle.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Riddle.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the DPS conducts special operations from time to time along the U.S. Mexico border that involve the assess of personnels of other agencies, including sheriff's department and local police. Current language has DPS and local police forces, which prevent the Texas game wardens from getting paid overtime. The others do get overtime. And it's really not fair that when they are requested to participate in these operations that they do not get the same. This amendment simply corrects that oversight. Director Steve McGraw has concurred that the Texas Parks and Wildlife should be added. It is acceptable to the author, I believe, and if my colleague, Mr. Miller, has any questions I'd --
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: For a question.
JOE STRAUS: Ms. Riddle, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Gladly.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Thank you, I appreciate at you doing that. And I appreciate you working together on this issue and this is an issue that is very important to the border operation, isn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Absolutely. It's really critical. Because, as I've said over and over, the number one priority that we have as elected officials is to make sure that the safety and security of the people of Texas is well established.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: And if we don't pass this amendment there will be some thirty game wardens that will be working with the DPS troopers that won't be getting paid overtime; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes. And when the others are paid overtime it makes absolutely no sense to have them essentially penalized, when they're putting their life on the line the same way as the others.
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: All right. Thank you for working with me on this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Representative Lozano, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Oh, just for some questions, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: For Ms. Riddle?
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Yes. Ms. Riddle. Would she yield?
JOE STRAUS: Ms. Riddle, would you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'd be delighted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you. Representative Riddle, I really didn't have any questions, I just wanted to thank you for your amendment. My district has six counties, it's got the largest amount of Intracoastal waterway of all House districts. And I've met with the game wardens and been informed that they're no longer enforcing fishing laws, that they're finding people using the intra coastal waterway to smuggle drugs, essentially, and the possibility of cash and guns going south. So they're already going extra, they're doing things that they were not intentionally going to do in the beginning. And this will help them protect our waterways and I want to thank you for that.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Well, thank you so much. I really appreciate your comment on that. And I think Representative Miller and I completely concur. We have both been down there, he has been down there recently. And these guys truthfully do put their lives on the line. They do a lot of heavy lifting for us, that's absolutely critical. I believe this was an oversight last session. We can correct it this session.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you so much, Representative.
REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Thank you so much. I move adoption, Mr. Speaker.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Mr. Miller? The amendment on page 281 is withdrawn. Page 282, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment prioritizes the use of data bases to make sure that criminal information is used to maintain records of misdemeanors and felonies. And it is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 283 has been withdrawn. Amendment on page 284, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden. Amendment 195 --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this one deals with the leases for Texas facilities. I'm going to be moving this to Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Amendment on page 285 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 286, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, every once in a while when you leave this stuff and you're in a place you have one of those oh, my gosh, moments and looking at rider number five on the Texas Youth Commissions was one of those oh, my gosh, moments. When we're paying up to $50,000 per facility to be paid, these students, that means the youth, at TYC for doing whatever their chores were that they wanted to have. And I said that's half a million dollars a year, that's a million dollars a biennium that we don't need to be doing that. And, therefore, I move to adoption of this amendment, which deletes that rider. That rider has been in there for about 50 years, and I really get concerns with investors with things, you know, that happened in 2005, of where that money would have been used and things like that.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker?
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Of course.
JOE STRAUS: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Madden, but do we know why -- for what purpose is it given, why it's been given? Has it been abused? Is it serving a worthwhile purpose? I mean, are there things there that we do not know that maybe we need to take a look at?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I've gotten a list from them. They spent about $200,000, a little over $200,000 dollars in the last two years. Some of them might, you know, might be good uses of it, Sylvester. But at this time I have a real hard time giving up money, state money and state taxpayers' money that are then paid only to people -- only people who can get those are juveniles that have committed felonies. We changed TYC significantly back in 2007, as you know. And the make up, it just strikes me as a bad idea for me to be using funds --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But shouldn't we move to look at it a little bit more before we strike it, though, Jerry? I mean it's -- I think there's a reason --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I'm willing, but I think that the Senate may have it in, but the Senate had one of those moments, too, when they looked at it, Sylvester. They said why are we doing this?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But you know that's the same that --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I am more than willing to obviously sit down with you as this process moves forward and really should be left in.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Is it okay to move it to Article 11, as we continue to talk about it?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I would prefer that we delete it and then continue to talk about it as we move forward. I think it's the proper thing to do. It's about $400,000, Sylvester, that we're talking about. And it would be well used in our other things that we're doing with the youth commission. And in the meantime, when 1915 comes back and you want to bring it up in that time --
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: But, Chairman, what's the total amount that we're talking about? What's the total amount?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: They're authorized up to $50,000 per facility, which means the ten facilities, and that's half a million dollars a year or a million dollars in the biennium could be the total of what this could be worth.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. And what I'm saying, would it not be better instead of just trying to strike it, maybe it needs to be restructured. Maybe there's some useful purposes for it.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: There were some purposes 50 years ago for it, Sylvester, I'm sure that's when it went in 50 years ago, and they're using it. And I've heard from the director, and the director would obviously like to retain it. And it's one of those things in a hard budget time I have a real hard time recommending to this body that we ought to retain that particular amount of money.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And, Chairman, right now, I mean I've got a number of questions that have been posed in reference to it. And I am just saying until we have had more time to take a look at it, allow the rest of us to take a look at it and see if we can get to where you are.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: You and I both know that this process -- And, out of respect to you, Mr. Turner, and we will look at this and the Senate will look at it. If you will work with me I will move it to Article 11 just out of due respect to you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I appreciate it and --
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And I would hope that you would come back here in about two weeks when we eliminate the whole fee, that you can stand up here with me and we take it and use it for the right things. I find it -- and I think you do, too, find it hard to make payments to juveniles who are in our juvenile facilities, who are locked in our juvenile facilities that have committed felonies, that we, as the state, are going to pay them for whatever that they're being paid for.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I understand that. And I'm fully open to bring an open mind to it. I just want to take a look at it.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I've been working with you for many years and your mind is very open, and I don't mind moving to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I appreciate that Chairman. Thank you very much. Thank you.
JOE STRAUS: Mr. Madden sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. We're on page 278. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's an amendment to the amendment that strikes most of the original amendment and clarifies the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Menendez.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply is a response to a concern. And it really is a technical -- because it merely clarifies an issue that the folks here that work for the Texas Ranger's Division, management No. 1 and No. 2, it provides a flexibility to allow them to pay for certified part-time personnel and peace officers and law enforcement for personnel, and it is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Now, on the amendment to the amendment I move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is amended. Mr. Menendez sends up the amendment as amended, is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 287, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the same cost for recovery amendment that we had for TDCJ. We also have it for TYC, also. It is acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Page 288, following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Hamilton.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Mr. Speaker , I would like to move this to Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, since we just finished up the last of my subcommittees' articles, I wanted to draw special attention to the other members of my subcommittee who put as many hours in as I did. Representative McClendon, Representative Martinez, Representative Button, Representative Shelton and Representative Margo. I wanted to thank them for all of their assistance.
JOE STRAUS: Members, we're onto Article 6. Amendments on page 290 and 291 have been withdrawn. Amendment on page 292, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker and members, this is just the amendment that makes the cotton farmers that mow their stocks that volunteer in the commission to regulate boll weevils.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Darby.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Members, what this amendment does, it just keeps it from costing the bill -- I believe it's acceptable, since it is my amendment to the amendment.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 293 is withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez. REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO "MANDO" MARTINEZ: T hank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This changes the Department of Agriculture integrated pest management for grand revenue collection, and I believe it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 295 has been withdrawn. Amendment on page 296 and the amendment on page 297 have been withdrawn. The amendment on page 298 has been temporarily withdrawn. The amendments on 301 and 302 are subject to a point of order on page 301. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE BURNHAM: Amendment is withdrawn.
JOE STRAUS: The amendments on page 303 and 304 are withdrawn. Page 305, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Giddings.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment has to do with the lie wrap program and the ability for the locals to have some money for administration so that they can do the local option programs in non-attainment areas. And I I'm going to move that this amendment go to Article 11 so that we can have some further discussion and make sure that we've aired out everything.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 307 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 308 is withdrawn. The amendments on page 309 through 312 are withdrawn. We're on page 314. The following amendment the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment relates to the nine plus million dollars that we raised to buy the state park from the State in 2005, and it dedicates the fund to purchase another state park in the future. It does not, however, affect the ability to use that money to balance the budget at this time. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
JOE STRAUS: Members, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendments from 316 through 321 are withdrawn. On page 321, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Workman.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.
REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to put this in Article 11. Move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Members, the amendments between page 323 and 332 have been withdrawn. Amendment on page 334 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 346 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 338, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this is an amendment by Ruth McClendon Jones, and she filed about ten amendments regarding the railroad relocation program. And we decided there's an existing rider in the TxDOT bill that passed, that we've added $50 million in the event that the federal government decides to fund rail relocation programs here in the State of Texas, and the State of Texas would match up to $50 million of that out of non-dedicated funds. And so that amendment is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
JOE STRAUS: Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection. Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Back on page 298, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Raymond.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Than k you, Mr. Speaker. We have an amendment to the amendment. If we could lay that out to Mr. Darby.
JOE STRAUS: The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Darby.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable and I want to adopt that.
JOE STRAUS: The opening statement to the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The member's amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Than k you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the Barnet shale (inaudible) permit by rate study. And Mr. Darby and I would change the existing language and rider 33 from 24 months to 18 months, and it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
JOE STRAUS: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. On page 326 the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET F. COLEMAN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment that has to do with the educational aid program, and I move to put this in Article 11.
JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're on page 342. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask that it be moved to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion adopted. On page 309, the following amendment, clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, the purpose of this amendment is to ask the General Land Office and the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission to look at a more accurate method of determining how much natural gas is vented or flared from a gas well by a gas well operator. These amounts now are being under reported or unreported.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. On page 355, following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. I'm sorry. The amendments on page 355 through page 358 have been withdrawn. We're on page 343, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I ask that it be moved to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Amendment on page 348, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: I ask that it be moved to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Amendment on page 359, the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, the current appropriations bill includes a provision that there'll be reports on property casualty insurance companies. This is Senate Bill 14, several years ago. The current bill includes all kinds of insurance, like life and health and a whole bunch of other insurance lines. So what I do is delete that on everybody, take it back to the current law, owner, property and casualty, and add Workers' Comp. so they would all file quarterly reports. But not the entire industry, because that's unnecessary. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 360. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker , members, this amendment would simply ask the Department of Insurance to conduct a review of mental disorders, and I believe it's acceptable to the author. Thanks.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendments on page 261 through 264 are withdrawn. We're on page 366. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Turner? The Chair recognizes Representative turner.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment simply says that any balance left incumbered from the assistant benefit fund will be used to continue the discount program. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Members, we're on Article 9. Page 368. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. We're on page 365. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Senator Carona has a bill that we hope is going to come over, it's going to put the power to a website into statute, which it is not right now. This amendment is contingent upon passage of that bill, that would enable but not require the public utility commission to spend up to $150,000 of its appropriated budget on upgrading that website so consumers can get better information and make the best choices they can about electric rates. I move adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Strama amendment. The Chair recognizes Representative Strama.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, as amended, the amendment just does exactly what I told you the amendment to the amendment does. It allows the PUC, contingent on passage of Senator Carona's bill, to spend up to $150,000 on the power to do these website enhancements. I move adoption of the amendment and it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. We're on page 353. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Farias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment would take $3,894,271 to offset the reduction made to the special item funding for Texas A&M, San Antonio.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Farias, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Is this taking money again out of the work-force development?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, sir, it does.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: And you're going to use it for what?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: For Texas A&M, San Antonio.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So you're just going to appropriate it to Texas A&M, San Antonio, so that is out of our junior college funds; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: I don't believe it comes out of junior college fund.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Well, it comes out of the work-force development.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, it does. And our intent is that we're going to be developing employees, anyway, at the University of Texas A&M, San Antonio. So it's going to be used for the same purpose of educating our work-force, except at a different level. We'll be producing folks that are going to get into the work-force at a different level of education.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is withdrawn. Ms. Giddings. Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to reconsider the amendment on page 251.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members, we're back on the Zedler amendment on page 251. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler. Following amendment to the amendment, clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, all this amendment to the amendment does is to ensure that the public integrity unit continues to be funded, if Mr. Zedler's bill does not pass. So, if Zedler's bill does not pass, the fund will continue to go to the integrity unit. But if it does pass, they go over to the AG's office. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Mr. Rodriguez, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Question of Mr. Geren, if he's still available.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Can you -- I'm sorry. Charlie, can you explain that again? What does this amendment do? Amendment to the amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: It's the amendment to the amendment. It's the -- In the Zedler amendment, if his bill doesn't pass the public integrity unit money goes away. This, my amendment, ensures that if the Zedler amendment does pass, money goes to the AG. If it doesn't pass, the integrity unit is still funded.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: But this is still, but this would still -- would this still mean -- if Zedler's bill pass -- and forgive me, I'm just trying to get this straight here. If Zedler's amendment passes then, it's no longer at Travis County that's going to be at the AG's office, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: That's -- if his bill passes, not the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That is the bill. If the bill passes -- Okay. I got it.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: The money -- This is an appropriation bill, obviously, so all it does is deal with the funding. The funding would switch to the AG's office if his bill were to pass. If his bill does not pass, I didn't want the AG's -- I mean, excuse me, the public integrity unit not to have any funding at all. So this would keep the fund active in the public integrity unit if the bill does not pass.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Now, members and Mr. Speaker, members, move to move it, the amendment on page 251 to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The amendment on page 369. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is just on the DPS and their classification of salary. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 370 is withdrawn. The amendments from pages 370 through 376 have been withdrawn. We're on page 377. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 376. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, move this -- Move to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. Amendment on page 377. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is what I would call a very soft hiring freeze. I've got an amendment to the amendment and then Mr. Gutierrez and I have worked out an amendment from him that I'm going to accept.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The following amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King of Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members, this just provides that when they hire someone on an emergency employment that they have to notify the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor's Office. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.
REPRESENTATIVE ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, all this amendment does is it eliminates the language on emergency, changes the language to critically relate it to the agency's ability performing core function. I think that Representative King and I worked on making a very good amendment even better. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Back on the King amendment. Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's acceptable to Mr. Pitts, and I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The amendment on page 378 is withdrawn. We're on page 379. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Anderson of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's withdrawn. The amendments on page 380 and 381 have been withdrawn. On page 382. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members, I have a perfecting amendment.
JOE STRAUS: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members, I have a perfecting amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment, clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Members, this is just a perfecting amendment on page 382. I move adoption. It's acceptable by the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment to the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move adoption of my amendment. I believe it is acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Will the gentlemen yield for some questions, Mr. Isaac?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Isaac, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Isaac. I'm trying to understand what your amendment's about. Could you explain it to me, please?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Yes, this amendment, I'm basically just going to read this. The intent --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I'm sorry, what?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: I'm basically going to read this: The intent of the legislature that funds appropriated from general revenue under this act not be used to compel a person to purchase or to enforce a requirement that a person purchase health insurance or similar health coverage, unless the funds appropriated from general revenue under this act have first been used for the purpose specified.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: So this is exclusively a statement of intent and does not create general law?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Does not create general law.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members, the amendments from pages 383 through 386 have been withdrawn. Members we're on page 387. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, I have an amendment to the amendment I'd like to lay out.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, on -- what we are trying to do here is on the cancer prevention program, what I did is I wiped out the whole program talking the 300 million a year away. The amendment to the amendment, what it does, it takes it from 300 million to 100 million, because I want the program, it's a great program. But here we are in a time where we're laying off teachers and people in nursing homes, and so what it does is allow us to get through this economy and to our next biennium and that's what the amendment does. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Back on the Orr amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speak er.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hardcastle , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Will be glad to.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And that explanation went really fast, and I'm really slow. So, explain to me again what we're doing in this amendment, because the original amendment doesn't look like something we want on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: And, Representative Hardcastle, I totally agree. The original amendment did completely away with the research, and that was never my intention. I think we're doing good work. And so -- But because we are in this economy of laying off teachers and folks in nursing homes, what I did was take it from 300 million to 100 million per year. So it's 200 million for the biennium. So they can fund, keep working, keep doing research. And then, as things get better, they'll still have the ability to -- We have ten years to do all the different bonds for this that we passed several years ago.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And that's against our bonds that we're doing on cancer research that's not part of the general appropriations anyway?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: And how's that going to make any difference on the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Well, what it's going to do is it will save about $15 million in the next biennium, so that we can hire more teachers and keep from laying off. So that's what it's going to do.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, let me kind of go back so everybody can understand. The public voted to create what we call secret bonds, which would be -- $300 million worth of bonds would be issued annually. And we put this in Article 9 and it cost the bill. And we have been working with the public finance authority and their sunset legislation to save money. And at first it was thought that they could use their bond proceeds to pay their bond indebtedness, and instead we found out that we could not do that. So in the Texas Public Finance Authority Sunset Bill, we have the savings that this bill used, the sale of these bonds will not cost our bill anything. And so the Appropriations Committee came up with it. We want to go ahead and do the $300 million worth of the bonds, per year. I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Could I ask the gentlemen some questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Jim, this is the program that has gotten some sort of worldwide recognition because of the peer reviewed nature of the grant? We have scientists from outside of Texas who look at each one of these grants and then they're awarded to various cancer programs in the state; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Yes, it's gotten worldwide recognition. Lance Armstrong came to the Capitol and pushed us for this program. And it has really made Texas the center of cancer research.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And we are creating all kinds of jobs, bringing all kinds of technology and funding into the state. And it seems to me that at a time when we need to keep jobs and funding and research and the focus on Texas, and attack this scourge that -- particularly when we can do it in a way where we put on in this chamber a match where you had to have 50 cents for every dollar of public funding, that we had to have 50 cents of private dollars.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: That is correct. It's a great program. We voted for it here in the legislature and the Texans have voted for this.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: And what you're saying is, as the Appropriations Committee laid it out, that even the principle and interest payments on the bonds, without reducing it; which is what the proposed amendment tries to do, wasn't going to cost the bill anything?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Would not cost anything.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: So without costing our budget anything this cycle, we could continue all this funding, all this attention, all this good research, all these job creations.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Big economic development for the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Done.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the only program, here we are in the worst recession we have been in since the great depression, second time we've ever reduced financing on hiring teachers and here we are going out and increasing $600 million of debt to our state for cancer prevention.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Keffer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Orr, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you know that the last hearing with the comptroller's office that the cost of cancer and all affiliated issues are over 20 billion a year to this state. So that is the reason that this is such a great program. We are having successes. And, really, to tamper with or harm it now, it would be really -- it would be detrimental of going the other way of what you're trying to do. And plus, what Mr. Pitts said, this session there was no cost whatsoever to this House Bill 1 on the bonds or the interest.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: What it does, the -- if you take the 300 million to 100 million, it does save about $15 million a year.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: I know, sir. But the cost of cancer and the related issues and the scourge that Mr. Branch talked about a minute ago, 15 million, we have to really stop and think the breadth of what good this agency is doing to this state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: It's never been that this is not a great program. I think it is a great program. But here we are in the middle of a recession. And, to me, when we're talking about laying off teachers and nursing homes, and this being about basically one of the only programs that did not take any type of discount in their funding that -- I think it's just a good time, that we ought to hold off for a couple of years. It still does a hundred million per year in bonds, so they can still move forward, still do research and it does not affect the program. And let's us get back onto a winning strategy for our state. I close.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Orr sends up an amendment. Mr. Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye. Show Mr. Hardcastle voting aye. Show Mr. Otto voting aye. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 125 ayes, 16 nays. Motion to table prevails. The amendments on pages 388 and 389 have been withdrawn. Page 390. Following amendment, clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker , members, I move that this amendment be moved to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Mr. Phillips, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Just want to make sure I understand the procedure, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Just want to see what is the procedure going to be for Article 11? We've moved a lot of these to Article 11. Some of them, we've had a concern about those. And my understanding is that when it says withdraw, I mean that -- My understanding is that right now the journal, whenever Ms. Patrick is about to try to move it to Article 11 and if that succeeds, that will show up in the journal as having been withdrawn; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: That's not my understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Well, that -- Again, that's what the journal clerk indicated. We just want to make sure, otherwise we need to have a lot of no's earlier, because it's not passing that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, the answer to Representative Phillips' question was when your amendments are moved to Article 11, they're rescanned and then moved to that Article. Members, I'm going to recognize Ms. Patrick in a moment. She's going to make a motion to move her amendment to Article 11. And the effect of that, again, is to rescan, is to withdraw her amendment, rescan it, move it to Article 11. And we'll consider Article 11 items later. Chair recognizes Representative Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE DIANE PATRICK: Mr. Speaker , members, I move that Amendment 236 be moved to Article 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. We're on page 391. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Eiland? Chair recognizes Mr. Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: This is a contingency rider on legislation. So I move to move it to Article 11.5.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Motion is adopted. We're on page 392. Following amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez Fischer.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that gave us a lot of thought. I want you to understand where I'm coming from on this. We've had very little discussion about revenue, we have only talked about the appropriations, spending the money we have now. We have not had a lot of dialogue from Ways and Means on this budget. I know Chairman Hilderbran has been out ill, but we've had lots of discussions in Ways and Means. And I want to make a couple of points and tell you why I believe Jim Pitts should adopt this amendment. The revenue that we're working with is based on a biennial revenue estimate that made some projections in their model. And there are two things that are very important: One, the model by which we're basing this revenue off of, assuming that oil would be trading at $70.73 cents a barrel, last Friday was trading at $104 a barrel; which means there is excess revenue coming to the state, which we can use for our budget, for goods and services, not having to make these tough choices and these ugly votes and robbing Peter to pay Paul. A second important aspect is the fact that revenue projections have come in three times stronger than what they base the revenue estimate on. So, in other words, sales tax revenues are aggressively coming back, outpacing the model at a race of three to one. 64 percent of the revenue in the state comes from sales taxes. So the point being, when Governor Perry says that our state is strong and robust, well he's right, based on this revenue estimate. He's right based on these facts. But we're spending money as if oil was trading at $70 a barrel, and people are not out there buying goods and paying sales tax. And what also troubles me is you hear on the other side of the chamber, you hear our Senate, through the voice of our Lieutenant Governor saying that they are fully going to fund the foundation school program. We just made huge cuts to that on Friday. He also says they're going to fully fund the $1 billion to our elderly, which we just cut as well. And so what I'm asking in this amendment is that we just take a prudent approach, look at a third option. I'm asking that we cut our revenues in 2013 by 50 percent. We cut our appropriations. So, in other words, we have an 18-month appropriation. And we come back, if the governor wants to bring us back, we come back, we spend that last six months, based on the adjustments in our economy, if they are on track, the price of oil and being consistent, we will have more money to spend, we can restore the pay. If sales tax revenues and revenue stays at that hearty rate, outpacing the model three to one, we will have more money to spend. So we won't go home telling constituents we had to cut when they come to find out not only did we have money in the rainy day fund, we also had money in the GR that could be used. I don't want to take that risk, I don't want to go home and tell my constituents that we voted for a budget with all these cuts when we left money in the cookie jar. I want to make sure that we spend everything the comptroller tells us. But, unfortunately, the model has not kept up with the pace of our economy. And so this is what this amendment does. It just cuts the appropriations, cuts it from 24 months to 18 months; gives us the option to come back. And, of course, if the governor does not want to bring us back, LBB, we know there'll be a supplemental. We've been voting on one since I've been in this chamber. We just voted on one last week. And so, with that, I would like to make it be acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pitts.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: I move to table, because you're front loading the budget and there's been some talk. This is a one year budget, make it look real good. When we come back, we don't have the money. This is an 18 month budget and we need to go ahead and try to determine if there's a law that says we have to do a two year budget. But it's tradition that we do a two year budget. And I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez Fischer to close.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you for that articulate explanation. It's very simple. Very simple. The model that the comptroller used to come up with the money we are we are spending assumed that oil was going to be $70 a barrel, it's $104. You can look it up right now. And it also assume that we have certain revenues and today those revenues are outpacing the model at a rate of three to one. There is nothing, and you heard nothing, there is no requirement that we have a 24 month budget. They'd like us to have one. All it says is we have to spend in the second year. So I'm being generous saying let's do an 18 month budget, let's look at the economy and let's not make a rush to judgment. I see the looks on your faces, both sides of the aisle. You do not like these votes, you do not like these cuts. You know, some of you have told me personally that you feel that you want to be voting another way, but that you're committed to shrinking this budget because that's a realty. Well, I'm here to tell you that's not the realty.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker , will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Be happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentlemen yields/
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Martin ez Fischer, do you know why we budget biennially in Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I know why, but would you please tell the chamber why?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Do you know we adopted that provision in the constitution at a time when people had to ride a horse from Texarkana and El Paso and Brownsville --
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha t's why I didn't want to answer, I didn't want to offend the --
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: -- to Austin?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: -- equestrians in my district. But, yeah, it was at a time when -- How did you get -- Well, you drove, and people flew and people are able to get here a lot more easily than they were able to when they adopted the practice of budgeting biennially in Texas. And, moreover, we've actually modernized the budget system to allow the LBB to make appropriations when we're not here. I mean this is a seamless -- We're one of the last states in the country that actually has a biennially legislature, where they're not doing the budget more frequently.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Martin ez Fischer, are you aware of any other states of our size with budgets of our scale and complexity that budget biennially?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: No, I'm not. In fact, I think we're the last state to do it.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And do you know, I think you do know this, by how much did the comptroller's economist miss the revenue forecast when we adopted the budget last biennially?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, I don't have the specific number. But here is what I'll say, those of you who were here in 2003, recognize that we made serious cuts. And then, all of a sudden in 2005, we made these magical restorations. It wasn't because someone dropped off a Brinks truck full of money at the back door of the comptroller's office. It's because we missed the estimate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: We missed the estimate poorly. And so when we restored those cuts, we actually, you know, gave the money back to people because we misjudged our economy.
REPRESENTATIVE LANDTROOP: And, in fact, if I understand correctly what happened, we came back the next session after enacting severe cuts in 2003, we came back and not only restored some of the cuts before the biennium ended, we rolled the rest of it forward and spent it as if it was operating money, rather than if it was a rolled full of surplus. And that contributed to the structural deficit that we've created and are dealing with today. Isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And I am glad you brought that up, because that's what I want the membership to understand. It's not about how you feel philosophically about spending. You know, we don't want to spend beyond our means. We don't want to spend a penny more than the revenue we have available.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: It's really about precision --
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Rig ht.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: -- budgeting isn't it? Accuracy.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: The revenue estimate is wrong and it's that simple.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: And it was wrong -- To my earlier question, it was wrong by $4 billion in the current biennium. And I think, if I remember correctly, was wrong by $5 billion when y'all adopted that 2003 budget. It's wrong. No economist could possibly know, especially at a time when the economists at the Federal Reserve tell us we're in a period of extreme economic uncertainty, no economist could possibly anticipate what an economy of this scale is going to generate over a two year period in a state that is dependent on sales taxes; the most volatile type of tax, as this state is. Isn't that the point of the your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha t's it. And here are the options: You have the Senate saying they're not going to have to make these cuts. They have something obviously we don't. We have a model that's pricing the oil at $70, we're not there. Our sales taxes are 64 percent of our revenue stream, and we have been busting our sales tax projections month after month for the last four, if not five months. And it's projected to continue that way. What are we going to do with that money? I think that's what I'm trying to prevent. When we go home, you can talk about the rainy day fund and how your feel whether you want to vote to suspend it or not, but it is ridiculous to not vote and spend the money that we have available based on a true model, and not a model that's made some very poor assumptions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO ALONZO: One last point, Mr. Martinez Fischer, because I don't want to stop questioners behind me. But we haven't talked much in the course of this debate about the LBB letter that anticipated hundreds of thousands of lost jobs from the budget that is currently proposed. Wouldn't you say that we might be looking at a much better fiscal scenario a year from now, if we can avoid the draconian cuts in this budget. And that might give us the ability to enact a second year budget that avoids those cuts as well. Isn't that part of the intention of your amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: It is. And it also gives us a time to get it right. It also gives us more time to come back and look at this and make the right choice. In eighteen months, if we're just as in bad of shape as people think we are today, then the choice is obvious. But if we have one dollar more to spend, then that's one child we can provide an education to, that's one senior that we can provide an elderly assistant payment to, that's -- That's somebody's life that we could improve. And that's what I'm saying, we don't have to do this how. We can take, what I believe is a responsible approach. It is not this crazy aggressive thing to do, to go and spend all this money we don't have and it's not the conservative thing that we're going to hold the line. It's the right thing. And so it ought to upset both parties, but it's the right thing to do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentlemen yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Mr. Martinez Fischer, under this proposal would you have the legislature come back in the -- with the summer of 2012, 18 months from January? When would you start your 18 months.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, I believe if the House follows the course of the Senate. You know, Senate's looking at revenue options that don't involve taxes and so they're studying that. I believe Ways and Means has said all along we're not going to do a tax bill. I imagine we're going to study a tax bill in this interim. So I think the leaders, the leadership of both parties can come up with a responsible time-line, it all depends on whether the governor wants to bring us back. So I'm not going to make the poor assumption that we automatically come back in 18 months but --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: You're not trying to change the constitution, you're just wanting to do something where you put the legislature in the hands of the governor, that you hope he brings us back? Because, as you know, under the Constitution, we can't bring ourselves back other than every two years.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: For that reason we have the LBB in place. And you and I both know we just voted to give --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: There's a bunch of wise folks on the LBB, don't you think?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, when they put you on it's going to be a lot wiser. So, you know, we just spent $3 billion last Friday that we didn't have back in '09, either.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Now, Mr. Martinez Fischer, and your point about the oil price changing I thought was a good one. But we do have -- Don't we have another opportunity for the comptroller between now and the end of the session where she could make a revised adjustment to her estimate?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Yes . And I think this is following on that logic, because I do believe if the trajectory is going to be going up, which most people will tell you it is, then imagine what it's going to look like --
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: So she can predict that and hopefully be conservative, and if we have extra funds that will be a good thing; don't you think?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, it will be. But it will be captured at the end of the session and not at the time when I think we will need it most, which will be that 2013 year.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: But it just seems like your amendment doesn't seem to make sense, given our constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'l l tell you what, I just left the district I represent this morning and it makes lots of sense to the people I went to church with. It makes lots of sense to the people I had lunch with at the restaurant. They understand we're in tough times. But if they find out that we left money in the cookie jar, and not the rainy day fund, we left money in the general revenue cookie jar; we're going to have a lot of explaining to do. I don't want to have to make that explanation. I don't think you do, either. You know, this is a sensible amendment. Come on, if things change in conference, I'm a reasonable person, but this is a reasonable approach that I do believe all of our budget leadership should consider. And it's not -- Let's just try to do this right.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Will the gentlemen yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chairman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Tray, do we have many options to deal with this budget other than the few months of every other year that we're here?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: We don't. It's limited. And while we're here based on the rules we can't even look at revenue outside of this revenue model that no one has told me is right.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Do you know how often the LBB actually meets to talk about these things during the interim? How often they meet to talk about this?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I don't know their schedule. I do know they --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. Gentlemen's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the member's time be extended.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the objection. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Time has expired -- is extended.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Representative, I'm trying to grasp what the concept is here. You're saying that maybe, because of the crisis we're in, that we should do like more than other -- more than 40 other states do, and that is to give ourself some time to evaluate the economic trends. Is that, in part, because we're expecting another revenue estimate from the comptroller in May that will probably tell us we're doing a lot better than we think we have been doing?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: It puts the power back in the legislature. I mean we know the LBB will do supplementals, I've been advised they'll be coming in January and February of next year to make these revisions. But we're talking about 2013, we're talking about giving our economy an opportunity to grow and rebound. And it ought to be the legislature's prerogative to write the budget. And I appreciate the LBB safety net that we have, but the choices that we need to make should come from the members that represent the diverse districts of the legislature, not a chosen few that have seats on the LBB. I don't think there's but a few people on the LBB. Many of us would rather write that budget than let someone else do it.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So it seems to me, in order to avoid a train wreck or a worse train wreck, we just slow down, pause, give ourselves an opportunity to reevaluate the situation and maybe save some of these 300,000 jobs we're talking about losing.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thi s amendment doesn't spend one dollar. It doesn't violate general law, and it doesn't violate the constitution because I am laying it out. All it says is let's be very careful and let's make sure we know what we're doing when we vote on this budget. And if we're voting on this budget based on revenue estimates that don't capture realty, then we're, you know, we're voting on an imaginary budget. And that's the problem I have with it. If the model was better, I wouldn't raise this. If the model was off just by a smidgen, but the difference between $70 and $104 for the price of oil, that's a lot of revenue for a oil and gas heavy state like the State of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: That's a whole lot of money. So what you're really doing is your asking us like to think outside of the box and try to solve the problem that we're in?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: It' s kind of like I don't want the legislature to write the check until payday. And I'll know how much money I have in the bank when I get my paycheck. This model is an estimate of what my paycheck is going to look like. If we wait until March, 2013, we will know what kind of money is in that account and we can spend it, make better choices and save some lives and make a difference in the lives of people who are losing their jobs, the lives of people who are losing their health care, the lives of people who are losing their educational opportunities; pretty simple. This is the best thing we can do for them without spending one dollar.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Chairman, I think you have a great idea, but you are asking us to think outside the box and try to solve our problems.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha nk you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Murphy, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Will the gentlemen yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Does the chairman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield for three.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Tray, I read your amendment and it seems kind of short. So I am trying to understand where it's taking us. So we go through March and that's the end of the budget that we would adopt? So what happens after that? I mean, is there a mechanism for us to come back together?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, there's two mechanisms. I mean the governor can bring us back, and we know that there has been constant speculation of a special session already. This is another reason to bring us back. But if the governor chooses not to bring this back, in addition to having a lot of explaining to do as to why he won't bring this back, the LBB will then flip in and make these decisions for us. But here's the deal, here's the cover that you're going to have, Jim. You're not going to have to walk around in your neighborhood and say, "Well, I tried my best and someone else did it for me." I want you to be able to say, "I voted for an amendment that gave us the very power that the LBB has, because I think I can better represent my district in Houston than the LBB can, and I want to be on the floor to make those decisions and be involved in those discussions." And so if you want to keep that control that I imagine you and I campaigned on, and you and I promised we would do for our constituents, then we're not going to kick it to the LBB knowingly. There will be expenditures made that you and I --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Here's the thing, unless you have some great entree with the governor, and unless he calls us in session to do this, we sort of be stepping off the plank without a net to have a way of coming back together. So do you have a bill filed to bring us back together after March?
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Tha t's a great question. Two things: A. if we don't come back in session there will be lots of angry people come November and they'll want to know why. And that puts it on you to do your best work and you do the recount that you need to do to make sure we come back. Secondly, as to whether or not we have a bill, the bill we would have would get referred to appropriations, okay? And this is what we're doing and this is not a general law bill. This is an idea. It doesn't create general law because I am laying it out.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Yeah, I did the research on it. I'd be up here saying something different if it were. It's really more a restriction on funds is what it is.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: And so, like I applaud the hard work that the LBB does. But we know the model is wrong. You know, like the difference between knowingly doing something and intentionally doing something and maybe being negligent, we're knowingly voting for an imaginary budget; because the model is wrong. And the only thing someone could tell me was well, we'll let other people spend the money for us. And I don't want to accept that. We have had some hearty debates, we've had some robust debates --
REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: But, Tray, that's exactly what will happen if we don't have a mechanism to come back, that's what will happen. By this amendment, we'll be advocating our positions as legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Wel l, I think that there would be lots of reasons to come back and I won't articulate them all for the sake of our friendship. But I think you and I can agree that to not bring people back with money in the bank and a robust economy and months and months of oil and gas taxes and revenues at $104 dollars a barrel, we haven't even hit --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. The gentlemen's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Martinez Fischer sends up an amendment. Representative Pitts moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, show Mr. Martinez Fischer voting no. Show Mr. Doug Miller voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 98 ayes and 49 nays, motion to table prevails. Page 395. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker , members, this amendment would take money from the House, the Legislative Counsel and the Senate and restore money to folks who have brain injuries. And I believe it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment's acceptable to the author. Is there objections? Chair hears none, amendment is adopted. Page 396. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker , members, this amendment would restore about $10 million to community schools for the wonderful work they do in 865,000 schools throughout the State of Texas. And, thankfully, I believe that this amendment is also acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 397 is withdrawn. 398. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that adds the rider that would have ledge (inaudible) counseling concerning the feasibility consolidating state functions in the Office of the House and the Senate. We are incurring a lot in this budget, a whole lot. Since we are asking so much of everyone else to do more with less, the House should be as well. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Amendment on page 399 is withdrawn. Members, what we're trying to do is dispense all the amendments before we get to Article 11. It will be articles 1 through 10. Okay. We have the Davis Amendment on page 368. We have two amendments by Christian. And the pending points of order. And an amendment by Giddings that's going to be reconsidered on page 309. Members, if you have any other questions on any of the other amendments on Articles 1 through 10, you need to come down and discuss it with us now. Members, we're on page 310. The Chair recognizes Ms. Giddings. We're on page 309. Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Members, I move to reconsider the vote on the amendment on page 309, to visit with some of the members who have a problem with that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. It's ordered. Members, we're back on the Giddings Amendment on page 309. Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment to the amendment just makes it very, very clear that this bill does not make law.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to be amended by Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Ms. Giddings.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Members, this amendment asks that the General Land Office work with the Texas Commission on Environment Quality, the Railroad Commission of Texas and the Comptroller to attempt to identify and develop an improved methodology that ensures the accurate measurements or estimation of the amount of gas flared or vented from wells located on state land. This asks only that we look to see if there is a better way of measuring the flared and vented gases. That does two things for us: A more accurate measurement at some time in the future, with proper legislation, not with this amendment, might bring an additional revenue. Additionally, it could result in reducing greenhouse gases. So we are trying to accomplish two things: To take a look and see if we are using the best and most accurate methodology for measuring these gases, and also to see if there's an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Christian , for what purpose? Mr. Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Ms. Giddi ngs?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: What I'm understanding you to say is that this is to finance a study of those properties so that we can find out what might best be done. But -- Is this a study, I guess is my question?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: It is not really classified as a study. It does require that the -- It does ask that Land Office and the Railroad Commission and the Comptroller together look at this issue. It's not a study, per se. And, let me be clear, we have spoken with everybody involved here, and we have been told that this does not require any money to take a look at this. We're looking at this to see if there are deficiencies. And I might tell you that there are a number of studies that have indicated that an assessment might result in some findings that would enhance the way we capture vented and flared gases. And that, in fact, might reduce greenhouse gases.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware of that many of us have been told that we could not do studies and our amendments have been killed?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Not a study, Mr. Christian. The studies have already been done. This is an assessment, and this really requires a meeting of several people to come together. Several offices. It is not a study.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It is an amendment to your amendment, is that correct? Or is this the main amendment, 305?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: No, sir. This is an amendment. And so the language, there was an error, it was never intended to say what was on the amendment in the book, in our amendment pack. That was always wrong. And it was just a mistake. And with all the amendments that we have --
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: It says that there's this $12.5 million fund that's raised each year. How much of the dollars will be required this year for this particular analysis that you're asking?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: This analysis or assessment, we have been told by the persons involved, will not require any money whatsoever. It just requires them to take a look, to assess the situation, and if there are savings to be had, if they find that there are more efficient ways, they will simply notify those people who have these oil and gas leases on state land that we think there's a better way. There's nothing in this bill that is going to cause somebody to do something that they're not doing today. I would submit to you that there is a possibility, in all candor, that if there is a finding that there is a more efficient way of doing this, then somebody might next time come around and say, "Hey, we ought to pass some legislation." But there is nothing here that creates law. We're not doing anything here that is outside of existing law. No finances are involved.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you. Let me just say, in closing on this amendment, that we have a number of studies that indicate that there are more efficient ways of measuring flared and vented gases. We basically charge royalties on those gases that are flared and vented, whether or not they're captured. The industry self-reports. They estimate how much they lose in this process. And this just follows these studies that we have and asks that we look at it to be sure that we're measuring these gases accurately. And, along with everything else, that if we can better control greenhouse gases, we will.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Zedler.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Will the gentle-lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Representative Giddings, let me ask you this: Here it says on the General Land Office's rider of the collection of royalties for actual volumes of natural gas flared and vented on the state's leases, this rider could increase gas royalty payments by up to 4 percent to the permanent school fund and --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Zedler , you have the wrong -- the old amendment. I'm sorry. We passed the wrong amendment. And it was not because we didn't have an amendment up here, it was because we had so many going. Now, at some point in the future, Mr. Zedler, according to studies that have been done, if in fact we find that we're not being as efficient as we might be here, at some time in the future, once we've assessed and analyzed the situation, it's quite possible that these, the permanent school funds -- It's quite possible that there would be additional dollars that would be going into that fund, if we find there's a better way of capturing these flared and vented gases.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Got you. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: You're welcome.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Representati ve Craddick?
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Does the gentle-lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: She yields, Mr. Craddick.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Helen, explain to me why do they flare gas?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, Mr. Craddick, since you're in that industry you would be better able to answer that question than I would. But I am sure that they flare it so they can find a better way to cap -- you know, to produce the oil so they can capture it.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Yeah, they do it to get the gas cap off. That's what I explained to you a while ago.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TOM CRADDICK: Why -- I don't understand this amendment. I don't understand why, if there's better methods to evaluate the amount of gas being flared, why the Land Office doesn't do it anyway. Why does the legislature need to do it?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, I think it's our responsibility, my friend, Mr. Craddick. When we are cutting everything and we're looking under rocks and hard places for additional revenue, to see if there's a possibility that we're missing something. It won't help us this time, but there's a possibility that it will help us in some later date. There are numerous studies that indicate that opportunities exist to capture vented and flared natural gas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Representati ve Sheffield raises the point of the order that the gentle-lady's amount of time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Members, I ask your support of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Darby?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, follow me here just a minute here. This amendment, while it's filed with studies or assessments, it's just another one of these unfunded mandates that is we are going to give to the GLO. The realty is that flared gas, out in the rural parts of Texas, there's no infrastructure to be able to take that gas cap and move it for production. So they have to flare it in order to produce these wells. This could very well cause a negative impact upon the production of oil and gas in the State of Texas. So --
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker .
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Would you explain to me, Representative Darby, where the unfunded mandate is? We have already talked to these persons, and there is no mandate as it requires -- as it relates to additional funding.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, the realty is, Ms. Giddings, is that the GLO currently has this ability to implement this new methodology if they want to. We don't need to study this anymore, and we don't need to assess this anymore. We already have the tools available in order to make this assessment.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, then nobody's going to be hurt then, will they, if they just sit around a table and do whatever they need to do?
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Likewise, there's no need for this amendment if he already has that power.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, I have numerous studies. This one comes from the Government Accountability Office, and there are several others that indicate that likely there are many opportunities to capture vented and flared natural gas. And likely we can better control and reduce greenhouse gases. That likely there is a better methodology out there. And if there is a possibly of a better methodology out there I, for one, would want to know about that. So there's not much chance that we're going to see reduced revenues. There is some chance that if we do this assessment and we come back next session, that there will be a possibility of increased revenues. And, guess what, it's non-tax revenues. These are state -- this is state land where these oil producers are, and I'm very, very proud of the work that our oil producers do. If we didn't have the oil producers, we'd be in a really, really bad shape. But if we are looking under rocks and hard places, and every where we can, there is no reason why we shouldn't look here as well.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, the realty is, Ms. Giddings, that the GLO already has the tools in his tool box in order to implement this new methodology. If they thought that this would be an appropriate way to measure or to assess the flared gas, they already have that in place right now. And we don't need this amendment to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Well, as a member of the Legislature, I would think that you would agree that whenever and wherever we can find efficiency, and wherever and whenever there are large numbers of studies out there that say there are opportunities and that there are new methodologies that are not being used, the responsible thing for us to do, as legislators, is to make sure that every one of these agencies is operating efficiently. And, respectfully, I submit to you that's exactly what this amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Okay. Move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Giddings to close. You have your tennis shoes on. Ms. Giddings to close.
REPRESENTATIVE HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, there is no reason for us not to take a look. If we don't find anything, we don't find anything. But the responsible thing for us to do, in view of all of the studies that have been done that says that flared and vented gases are unreported or under reported, the responsible thing for us to do as legislators is at least analyze and evaluate the situation. It doesn't cost us any money. That's exactly what we're doing. There are -- These would be -- If at some point and some time in the future that new methodology were to be implemented, there would be an opportunity for half or increased revenues for our permanent school fund, and we all ought to be concerned about that. If we're looking at all the little people, let's look at all the big people as well. I ask that you vote no to the tabling of this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Members, we do have to do a little housekeeping here. Ms. Giddings has an amendment to the amendment, which is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the amendment to the amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now we're on the amended amendment. Ms. Giddings sends up the amendment. Mr. Darby moves to table. Members vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 98 ayes, 47 nays, two present not voting. Amendment failed. Members, we're on page 368. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes -- Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is an amendment that provides for good government, in spite of us. This good government just allows the various agencies, including the legislature, to look at strategic plans, how they do their business, become more efficient in doing their business so that we know that they're being good stewards of our money and providing the services that people are expecting to get from the various agencies. We're trying to make sure that we create an environment where we want them to think about the kinds of programs, the kinds of services that they're supposed to be providing to the citizens. We want them to look at how they maximize federal funding to the extent their federal dollars come in here, we're utilizing them properly so that it helps our budget, it doesn't handicap our budget. This is just simply a way for us to provide some direction to the agency that we expect good things from them. And I think it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by King of Parker.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Mr. King.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, if I could get everybody's attention, because this one is going to affect some things and you need to make sure whether you're voting up or down on this. And I want to make sure that I'm real, real clear. And I want to thank Chairman Hunter and Keffer and Geren and Creighton and Representative Anderson for signing on to this amendment as well. As you know, in the --
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Sp eaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Thompson , for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: I'd like to call a point of order against this amendment. And, Phil, I hate to do it to you but I got to.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Bring your point of order down to the front. Members, the Chair certainly appreciates the arguments of Ms. Thompson and Mr. King. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Chair recognizes Mr. King.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Mr. Speak er.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Hardcast le?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. King, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Chairman, would you mind if I just explained the amendment first then I'll take all your questions?
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Go right ahead.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Just give me a minute. My concern is, with HB1, there's a policy question. We'll be enacting about best I can tell about $149 million worth of fees. Now, about a third of those have a contingent rider, meaning that there's a bill out there somewhere that is going to go through the committee process, and we'll get to hear it on this floor and decide whether or not to vote up or down and approve that fee to be created or increased on the taxpayers. Now, there's about a hundred million dollars of fees in HB1 that don't require any enabling legislation. And so the concern is that if we vote on HB1 today, that we're going to also be voting to increase a hundred million dollars in fees upon the taxpayers of Texas. And without any enabling legislation with regard to those. So what this amendment simply does, it doesn't strip these out of the bill. All it really does is it converts all of those fees to being contingent riders, in effect. So that there will -- before they can go into effect before the money can be appropriated, that the -- there would have to be enabling legislation. Now, that could happen two ways. One, someone could take a shell bill, or someone could take a bill that's already floating through the process and they could amend it to enable this fee, and then we could vote it up or down on that tax on the floor. Or, there could be a motion for late filed legislation. But the bottom line is, unless we vote for this amendment, when we vote on HB1 today, you will be voting for a 100 million-dollar tax increase on the citizens of Texas. I want to vote for HB1, because I think it's got some very fine work in it. But I don't think we should be voting for $100 million in fee increases. I think each fee should come before the House for enabling legislation. And that's the purpose of the amendment. And, Mr. Hardcastle, I'll be happy to take your question if you still got one.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Dukes?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Gentlemen yields.
REPRESENTATIVE KING: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Representative King. Can you describe some of these programs within this $100 million that you are elucidating to us?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Sure. I left -- There's a long printout. I got it from Sylvester Turner. It's a long list of fees, but I left it on my desk. The one that stands out --
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Do you want to go get it?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, I can if you'd like, but I hate to leave the mike. I think it's coming. I think some of them are coming.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So Sylvester put you up to this?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Sylvester put you up to this?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Well, I have several lists and I can't tell whether or not these are the ones that have contingency riders or not. But one, for example, is one that Mr. Anderson brought to my attention, that took a fee that is currently a hundred dollars, I believe and took it up to $1,500.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Can you tell me which one that is?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry. I can tell you yesterday when Mr. Pitts was laying out the bill and I asked him from the back, I said, "Are there fees in this which require enabling legislation? He said, "Yes there were, I believe. Approximately $63 million." There was a thousand page bill. There's another list over there, too -- a thousand page bill and then I asked --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Specific though --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Can I finish? I asked him if there were any additional fees that did not require enabling legislation that would become law, would become a tax, if we voted for HB1. And he said yes. And I asked him how much those were. And he said there were approximately $100 million. Now, I think the --
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Can we be a little bit more specific? You know, it's like with my daughter, it's like well, when did it happen? She says Friday. Every day is not Friday. Can we be more specific?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Here's a few, Pesticide Application Certification, new fee, $180. Pesticide -- Dealer License, Pesticide Dealer two-year, $1,498. Here's the list. Thank you. There's fees for the Attorney General's Office, Comptroller's Office, Texas Commission Work Service, Office of Administration.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: These, every single one of these that you're reading, are you absolutely certain that fees are -- I cannot tell you from the bill. I can tell you that this one says a total of $145,840,000.
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: But still, are you -- Can you only speak of the one that absolutely you know are fee increases?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: You would probably need to get Mr. Pitts to go line through line and tell you which ones they are. I am working off the representation that he gave when he laid out his bill, that there were a hundred million dollars in miscellaneous line item fees in the bill that did not require enabling legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Can you think of what impact, if these alleged fees were, your amendment were to pass, and these so-called alleged fees were to be eliminated as a result of your action; what type of impact does it have on the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: The agency at issue would then not be able to charge or collect that fee. Now, in most cases, those were where there were existing fees and is we were authorizing those fees to be increased.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: So your amendment only, your amendment states that it has to be in statute, that there has to be statute?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No. What mine does is it basically aggregates all the fees that are being raised and do not have contingent riders. Contingent riders are generally used when you're creating a new statute to create a new fee. Most if not all of these fees, if I understand the appropriations process, most if not all of these fees were existing fees. And we are authorizing them by voting on this for a hundred million dollars to be increased --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Do you know how often --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- enabling legislation. What my amendment does is aggregates those together and requires enabling legislation before we add a hundred million dollars in taxes to Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Do you know how often, how often agencies have to go in through rule-making authority and change fees in order to be able to spread their caseloads of individuals that they can meet? They have to change those fees, increase those fees. So your amendment -- your amendment potentially -- yeah, stop that -- and potentially for all the social services programs, there are sliding scales where the agency is going to have to go in and increase those fees. You're saying they can't do that any more in order to be able to provide those social services. So you're blocking all of those social services and you're blocking them --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm not blocking them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, you are. Because you are talking away that rule-making authority, the ability to go in and increase the fees for social services.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, ma'am. No, ma'am. I have very good authority I'm blocking the appropriations of the funds.
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: No, what you're doing is also blocking the ability to increase those fees to collect from the individuals.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: No, no.
REPRESENTATIVE DUKES: Because they still have that --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That's a rule making authority. No, ma'am. I do not take away that rule-making authority.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, you do.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They still have that authority. I take away --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Yes, you do.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I take away the appropriations of those funds.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Well, you don't know exactly which fees you are changing. So how do you know you're not taking away a rule-making authority?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I understand why it's a little confusing. It took LBB and counsel all day for us to figure out a way for us to do this, but it did not change the statute and create general law.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I think that's a very --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: All it does is it converts those fee increases to contingent riders, where they will require independent legislation or, I guess, aggregated legislation; for those moneys to be appropriated that --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: The truth of the matter --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- they can still be in HB1 --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: No, the truth of the matter is that you're reducing what revenue would go to the agency. So, therefore, the agencies will now be able to serve fewer people. Because the only way they were able to expand their ability to serve individuals under this present bill was to be able to reduce services and, in some cases, increase the fees. So, by your amendment, you are, in essence de facto reducing again the greatly reduced list of individuals who receive --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Whatever they are collecting today, they will continue to collect.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: But the problem is the legislature does not put --
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They were in this case.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: -- program of the case load, they were going to have to increase fees, they were going to have to reduce some services. And now, it's going to be reduced even more.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Here's an example of a fee that's being increased from $50 to $5,104. Now, they would still be able --
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Which one? Which one are you talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That's the side-burn fee.
REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: From $50 to $400?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: $5,100. Now, my point is they will still be able to delay the $50 or the $200 or the $500. Whatever they collect today, members, they can still collect. What we're saying is they can't increase it without enabling legislation. It is simply doing all these contingent riders for all the other fees that have been created in HB1, they have to have enabling legislation. All this does is take that other hundred million dollars in tax increases that we're about to vote for, and convert those to a requirement for a contingent enabling legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker , will the gentlemen yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. King, do you yield? Mr. Lozano, he yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL LOZANO: Mr.-- I'm sorry, Representative King, I heard you mention that had this would be a hundred million dollar tax, essentially increase in taxes. Could you elaborate on that?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Yesterday morning when Mr. Pitts, with great eloquence, was laying out his bill, I asked several questions. One was if there was a -- if there were fees in this that would require enabling legislation, contingent riders. And we agreed that had there would be about $63 million worth of new fees being created. I then asked --
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Sheffield raised a point of order. Gentlemen's time has expired. The point is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL LOZANO: Will the gentlemen agree to extend his time just a little bit? Come on, guys.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Lozano moves to extend the gentlemen's time. Is there objection? The Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'm sorry. After I then asked him, I said, are there any other fees that are being increased in HB1 that do not have -- that do not require enabling legislation, so that if we just voted on HB1 we would then be voting for those fee increases? And he said yes. And I asked him how much and he said approximately a hundred million dollars.
REPRESENTATATIVE LOZANO: Okay, so you would see a fee as a tax?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Absolutely. A fee is a tax.
REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you, so much. Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the gentlemen's remarks be reduced to writing.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: In the journal or --
REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL LOZANO: In the journal, yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL LOZANO: Thank you so much.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: All right.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Mr. Speaker , will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Perry, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: One quick question.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you yield, Mr. King?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: I think part of the concern that we're kind of in the middle here. I agree with you, it's basically kind of disingenuous to go to an agency and ask them to reduce their budget and turn around and have the agency ask for an increased fee. I think our constituents are smart enough to figure that out. But, as I understand, there are constituents that showed up and said please increase my fee. As an example, CPA Group may have decided that the 200 bucks a year is not enough, and we want it to go to 300. That's something I'm having trouble with on the 14 million fee. What was constituent driven request and what was an agency driven request? After we cut the agency's budget, they came in and said give me more money. So I really think you're right, I like your bill, I like where you're going with it, but do we have the capacity to split out what was constituent asked and what was an agency funding request because they saw their budget go down?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: And I think you just identified part of the problem. Appropriations, in trying to balance the budget, cut an agency and then an agency would come in and say well, can we make that money up by charging fees? Now, I've also heard it said, you just said it a minute ago, the CPAs may have come in and asked for a fee increase. Well, I can assure you, I know that every CPA in my district did not come down there and say yes, please raise my license fees. So I think we need to distinguish between an agency asking, trying to raise their budget back up, because they took a hit like everybody did; and an association coming in --
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Cow Feeders or something.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: -- and asking for money. And the taxpayers actually saying yes, I want to pay this tax.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: So is it fair to say we may not have all the information we need to make, but at the same time your bill would -- your amendment would have to have a bill to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Doesn't strip it out of HB1 at all, it just converts it to a contingent rider.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES PERRY: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker , parliamentary inquiry, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: State your inquiry, Mr. Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Over the past couple of days I have heard quick question so many times I can't count. Can you give me a definition of what a quick question is?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: It's -- Yeah, it depends on whose back there, too.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Mr. Speak er.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Raymond?
REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD RAYMOND: Will the gentlemen have time for a quick question?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Quick question? Good. You have a quick question?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, could I move to extend the time?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: A long drawn out answer? I'm glad you brought this up. In all seriousness, I have introduced the constitutional amendment HCR145, and it's called the Honesty in taxation Amendment. And what it talks or speaks to is what I think you're trying to. And that is that so many of the fees and surcharges that the state charges affect our taxes. And you mentioned CPA, so the state says you go to college, you pay all that money, you get your education, you pass the test and you can be a CPA if you pay the state some money. Otherwise, you can't. And so it goes. And so these are taxes, and I'm glad you're bringing this up. I hope you look at HCR145. And those of you who agree that this isn't saying you're not going to support that tax, but it is I think a better way to approach government. Be honest with the public and tell them this is a tax and we're looking at increasing it, and here's why. And how we're going to use it, for taxes. So thank you for bringing it up.
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Raymond.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. King sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections?
REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: I'd like a record vote.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: There is an objection. It calls for a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. On the amendment to the amendment. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye. Show Mr. Gallego voting aye. Has everybody voted? All members voted? There being 136 ayes, nine nays, the amendment to the amendment is accepted. Successful. Now, we're back to Ms. Davis' amendment's amendment. Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I want to first say to you I think the most important thing we can do is have a transparent government. The most important thing we can do is make sure people know what we're doing and why we're doing it. My initial amendment was to make sure the agencies had an opportunity to look at and evaluate their programs and the directions. And I think this amendment just puts that in terms of how we spend the dollars, how dollars are raised to make those programs available and accessible. So, with that, I would move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Davis sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Members, we're on page 381. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Mr. Speaker and members, this is an issue that I brought before -- brought before the members before, and I think it's very important that we talk about this. And we ought to put this in our Appropriations Bill. The intent of this amendment is to prevent us from allowing companies to take our tax dollars and spend them overseas and create jobs overseas. In the past, we've always kind of been a pro-business, we've tried to make sure that we supported ways to bring businesses. But now we find that many businesses are having their development growth outside of our country while they enjoy the benefits of our tax break. And this is just an amendment to express the intent that if you're getting tax breaks, if you're getting exemptions from taxes then we expect to have your jobs -- create the jobs in Texas and not overseas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Following amendment to the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Davis of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Ms. Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This amendment is one that I was told we needed to do to clarify it and make sure that it actually represented what we're trying to do, so that we wouldn't get into the legal concerns that Chairman Simpson created. Essentially, what we're going to do is create an opportunity to express an intent of the legislature that dollars that Texans are giving companies, either through discounts or abatements or incentives, that we have an expressed intent to keep them invested in jobs in Texas. And so that's an amendment to the amendment, and it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Davis sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Now we're on the amended amendment. Mr. Pitts to speak in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to table.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Davis, Ms. Davis, Ms. Davis to close. Mr. Pitts has left the arena here. Come on down. Chair recognizes Ms. Davis to close.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Chairman Pitts, I don't know what your objection is to asking companies who get tax breaks to invest in Texas. This is just so -- such a common thing to expect, that if we would give companies tax breaks so that they would create jobs, we would like them to create the jobs in Texas and not in China or India. That's all this amendment does. It just speaks to trying to keep our jobs in Texas or investments in Texas. The fact that the chairman objects to it troubles me, because this is a vote to preserve jobs for Texas. We talk about a strong economy, we talk about strong businesses and we want to have -- we want to create jobs, but we are allowing them to take dollars outside of Texas. And it's our dollars. And so this is a simple bill that just says it's the intent of the legislature to have these companies not take our jobs out of this country and -- Chairman Branch is up here telling him something, too. But he won't get on the back mike and talk to me about it. So my point is --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Burnam?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Do you yield, Ms. Davis?
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Yes, I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: What are the questions that you would like to ask that you can't seem to get an answer?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I want to understand why we, as Texans, during these tough budget times, why wouldn't we want to have our dollars reinvested in Texas, versus trying to have them go outside of Texas with our dollars? Just talk about --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Just because we're -- Doesn't mean we should get anything in return, is there?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Just because we're giving them a big corporate subsidy doesn't mean we should get anything in return, should we?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, my thought is that companies and businesses have the right to invest wherever they want to. They can create jobs for whoever they want to. The question is whether they ought to take out Texas dollars to do it. And we know that there's more than $27 billion that's not on the budget, it's not being part of the budgetary process because we give exemptions right today. This only says that we want to have --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: You mean there's $27 billion out there that we could be collecting that we're not collecting with the existing taxes?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's exactly right. And our goal is to try to get the legislature to have an intent to recreate the jobs here in Texas. It's just common sense. It makes no sense that we would allow folks who make $49, $50 billion in profit to not have to pay their taxes and then not create the jobs in Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Do you think maybe we do a better job of demanding the accountability of our schools and children than we do a corporation we subsidize?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I think that's right, Mr. Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So this bill, this amendment is to simply allow us to express an intent to keep our Texas dollars working and Texas create jobs in Texas and not allow companies to take them and create them somewhere else.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I think you have a great amendment. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Ms. Davis sends up an amendment. Mr. Pitts moves to table the amendment. Vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Pitts voting aye, Ms. Davis voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Show Mr. Gooding voting aye. All members voted. There being 82 ayes, 58 nays, the amendment is tabled. Mr. Otto for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Members, in case you're not aware, the Texas A&M University Basketball Team just defeated Stanford by one point, and it's in the finals Tuesday night.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Well, that's okay. All right, it's better than okay. We're on page 293, following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Mr. Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Mr. Speaker and members, this is simply directing money to the program that it was intended for. It's the Designating Fund and I have an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Amendment to the amendment is just clarifying language and it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: The author sends up an amendment to the amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Mr. Castro, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: I have a question on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: On the amended amendment?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Okay. Mr. Miller?
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Miller , I know you said that it does something with the designated program. What exactly does your amendment do and which designated program?
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: In the 81st Legislature I created the Texas Incentive Fund to try to keep the horse industry in Texas, the voluntary program by horse owners, they pay a 30-dollar per mare charge at the end of the program. This is to make sure it doesn't get swept into the GR and it stays in the Texas --
REPRESENTATIVE JOAQUIN CASTRO: That it stays in that fund? Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Mr. Miller sends up an amendment. Okay. I'm sorry. Mr. Miller sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Chair hears none. Mr. Christian. Mr. Christian. Members, we're on page 147. Chair recognizes -- Oh, I'm sorry. Clerk will read the amendment.
CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES KEFFER: Chair recognizes Mr. Christian.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Thank you members, if you remember this is the amendment that the Birth Center, which is the Department of Human Services in Angelina County, ten rural counties are paying into our Department of Human Services there in order to allow any prisoner of thes
