Senate Transcript, April 4, 2011

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

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Members, a quorum is present. Would all those on the floor please rise and in the gallery please rise, ladies and gentlemen, for the invocation this morning to be delivered by Betsy Bueller, the pastor of the Community Bible Church and chaplain of the San Antonio police department. But before she does that, I'd like to recognize our colleague Senator Van de Putte to introduce our pastor.

SENATOR VAN DE PUTTE: Thank you, Mr. President. Good afternoon, members. My good friend, Betsy Bueller is originally from Tennessee, but like many folks from Tennessee, found her way to Texas. And this month marks the 10th anniversary for Betsy to be a citizen of Texas. She serves alongside my brother-in-law John Valenzuela at the Community Bible Church in San Antonio as the pastor of communications, and before that that department was almost nonexistent. She has single handedly created a group of eager professionals to create that ambiance at every single church service and event held at the very, very large church in San Antonio. In addition to being that pastor of communications, Betsy is a chaplain for the police department in the city of San Antonio and the only female chaplain. She works alongside of 200 officers at the Joan Waltzberger station, and she says that she's here for them. She says she's not their preacher, she just wants to connect and be a friend. And I want to especially thank her for the service that was recently held for our fallen officer, San Antonio police officer Stephanie Brown where pastor Betsy Bueller served as the coordinator for the most solemn occasion. Please welcome my dear friend, a sister who loves also female basketball Betsy Bueller. Welcome to the Texas Senate, and I thank you for your friendship and I thank you for sharing the gift of prayer with us today.

PASTOR: Good afternoon. Would you pray with me? Our Father in heaven, I come to You today with a grateful heart. I thank You for our nation, our freedom, and allowing our dreams to become reality. I thank You for every man and woman that serves this wonderful nation. Today I especially thank You for those who serve here in this Texas State Capitol. I ask that You give them wisdom and discernment as they deal with challenges and make decisions that not only affect today but our future generations. Let each one have conviction in their hearts to do what is right, help them to walk in one accord with each other. I ask as they serve here that You protect their homes and their families, give them peace and join their journey. God, You said in Your word to trust You with all of Your heart and lean not on our understanding and all our ways to commit to You and You will make our paths straight. Today we lay it at Your feat and put our trust in You. With respect to all faith, I pray in Jesus' name. Amen.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Amen. Thank you, pastor, for being here. Ladies and gentlemen, please be seated. Thank you so much. Members, Senator Whitmire moves to dispense from the reading of yesterday's journal. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, so ordered. Chair announces the signing in the presence of the Senate the following.

PATSY SPAW: House Concurrent Resolution No. 125, House Concurrent Resolution No. 79 and House Concurrent Resolution No. 123. Mr. Doorkeeper.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Admit the messenger.

MESSENGER: Mr. President, I'm directed by the House to inform the Senate that the House has taken the following action. The House has passed the following measures, HB1 by Pitts, general appropriations bill; HB4 by Pitts relating to making supplemental appropriations.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, if there's no objections, I'd like to postpone the reading and referral of bills until after the session today. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. Senate Resolution No. 695 by Senator Lucio and Senator Shapiro. Secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 695 declaring Monday April 4th, 2011, as Maggie's Hope Day by Lucio and Shapiro.

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

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. If I could have a little order, please, sir. Members, today is Maggie's Hope Day. Maggie's Hope is a charity dedicated to helping families affected by autism. It is named in honor of Ms. Maggie Scarborough who is here with us today along with her family. Her sister Mia, her mom Lisa Scarborough, grandfather El Armandez, all of whom are based in Atlanta, Georgia. And Maggie's aunt, Ms. Lorena Hernandez, Armanda Hernandez, who you will recognize are from Austin's Fox Seven News. Members, you know that passing legislation helping those affected by autism has been a passion of mine for some years now. Autism affects 23,000 children in Texas alone and is a growing issue that we must grapple with in our United States. It is for people like Maggie and for families like Maggie's family that we are working here today. Members, I thank you for your help in getting legislation passed, but my biggest thank you is reserved for families like the ones we have here today. At this time I would like to direct your attention to the gallery, the north gallery and help me welcome other members of Maggie's Hope who are joining us here today. Please welcome them to the State Capitol. You achieved -- you achieved more than any bill could. Your love is stronger than legislation. We've all seen it here on this Senate floor over the years, but that does not mean legislation cannot enable love. That is why I am proud to work with charities like Maggie's Hope. Maggie's Hope is part of solutions cultivating a higher awareness of autism and creating a long-term commitment to affected families. I would like to yield to the coauthor of this resolution, my very dear friend, Senator Shapiro, at this time.

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

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Yes. Thank you, Mr. President and members. And thank you, Senator Lucio, for bringing this forward. We have a lot of people here today specifically for the purpose of recognizing autism and the things that occur to families. So as our colleague Senator Whitmire likes to say, let's put a face on it. And certainly Maggie and all the people that are here that are just like Maggie are faces that we all want to see and recognize. And thank you so much for bringing this forward.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Senator Shapiro. You have made a big difference, you have played an integral part not only in legislation but many legislations dealing with our Texas children. Thank you.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you.

SENATOR LUCIO: At this time, Mr. President, I'd like to move adoption of Senate Resolution 695. Thank you, members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Lucio moves adoption of the resolution. Is there observation from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and the resolution is adopted. The Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 656 by Senator Shapiro, Lucio, Davis, Zaffirini, Whitmire, Rodriguez and Nelson.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 656 recognizing April 2nd, 2011, as World Autism Awareness Day by Shapiro, et al.

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

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you so much, Mr. President and members. Senate Resolution 656 declares today as World Autism Awareness Day in the Texas State Capitol, and it recognizes the good work of Autism Speaks, the nation's largest autism science and advocacy organization. I'd like to take just a moment to say thank you to every member that's on this floor that has chosen to join me by either coauthoring this resolution with me or wearing blue on these days or even those of you that have put on the little puzzles that we have on our lapels. This day is meant to raise awareness about autism and to promote early diagnosis and behavioral intervention. It is a day that we should all take close to heart. You'll notice that some of us are wearing these blue puzzle pieces, and there's a very specific reason for that. The puzzle piece symbolizes this that complex nuero biological disorder is a puzzle and that we're working to do our part to solve it. Think about this, the autism spectrum disorders affects one in 110 children. One in 70 boys, four times more boys than girls in the United States. Putting these numbers in perspective, each of you stop for a moment and thing about the people you know, whether they're neighbors, whether they're part of your church or synagog, whether they're people in your neighborhood, friends, relatives, loved ones. Put them in groups of 100 and recognize immediately that out of that 100 that you know at least one of them has been involved many times with the idea and the thoughts that related to autism. There are children, a child in their life, somebody has been affected. I think it's really important that we recognize that autism is a very real conditioning -- condition affecting very real people in all walks of life, and more often than not each passing day there are more and more and more individuals who are touched by someone with autism. The prevalence of autism arises 57 percent over the last four years between 2002 and 2006 and continues to rise each and every year. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention consider autism a lifelong condition, a national public health crisis whose cause and cure remain unknown. Autism is the fastest growing serious developmental disability in America. Thankfully there are many very thoughtful and very dedicated people trying to make advances that will benefit those affected by autism. Autism Speaks is committed to funding research into the causes, the prevention, the treatment and the cure for autism. Today I am honored to have with us on the floor of the Senate Max Whitney. Hi, Max. Hi. Max's mom Tracy and father Cameron. Welcome. And Jordon Gonzales. Hi, Jordan. And his mother Tanya. If the gallery would please rise all of those who are here who also represent the Autism Speaks and the people that are involved with autism throughout the state. If you would please rise and let us recognize you as well. Thank you. We are so proud to stand here today with all of you and recognize the importance that autism has in all of our lives. And if there's anything along the way that we can do to make your life just a little bit easier, we're dedicated to doing that. So, Mr. President, I move adoption of this resolution. I will, of course, yield to anyone who would like to discuss this.

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

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Shapiro. I want to join you in recognizing today as World Autism Awareness Day, and I also want to join you in support of the good work of Autism Speaks. Like you, I'm wearing a puzzle pin today. Senator, as you know, autism as a puzzle that we have not yet solved. But I'm confident that as the state and the nation continues to invest in research and care, we can unlock the puzzle and make a difference in the lives of those affected. So I want to thank you for this resolution. It's time for us to come together as a world society and address the issues affecting the people that we love and care for. The people of this world. Thank you.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you so much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Shapiro. Is there any objection from any member? The Chair hears none, and the resolution is adopted.

SENATOR SHAPIRO: Thank you very much.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Senator Hinojosa to introduce the doctor for the day.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Today we actually have a double treat. We have two family physicians from my district volunteering their time away from practice to staff our Capitol clinic. It is an honor to introduce to you Dr. Baylor Palacio. Dr. Palacio. Dr. Palacio and Dr. Chris Castle. Both doctors practice medicine at the Palacio and Castle Family Medicine Clinic in Edinburgh. Dr. Palacio earned her MD at the University of Texas Medical School in San Antonio, completed her residency at the McAllen residency family program. Dr. Castle earned her MD at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston and completed her residency at the Corpus Christi resident family program. Please help me welcome these two fine doctors from the Rio Grande Valley that will be helping us here today at the Capitol.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Zaffirini for the purpose of an introduction.

SENATOR ZAFFIRNI: Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, it is my pleasure to welcome a very special group of constituents to the Texas Capitol today. Zapata High School's award winning mariachi (inaudible) from Zapata, Texas. Mariachi Alcon has won numerous awards and accolades. And this year, Mr. President and members, they are the winners of the state championship in the class 3A mariachi state competition. Bravo for them. The members of Mariachi Alcon are notable not only for their keen musical talent but also their commitment to scholastic achievement. I am very proud that over the last five years a hundred of the seniors of Mariachi Alcon have gone on to an institution of higher education. Their success reflects dedication and hard work, and they're a testament to the importance of financing cultural arts program that enrich our public schools. They certainly enriched the Texas Capitol earlier this afternoon with their wonderful concert in our rotunda. Mariachi Alcon has drawn national attention. If you notice the TV cameras around them, it is because they will be featured in Mariachi High, a documentary that chronicles a year in the life of competitive mariachi musicians. These students are in the north gallery today accompanied by their director (inaudible) and it's my pleasure to ask them to rise and be recognized, as I ask you, members and Mr. President, to join me in congratulating them, thanking them and welcoming to the Texas Senate. Thank you, Mr. President and members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Zaffirini. And thank you for being -- Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 567 by Senator Jackson. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution No. 567 commending the Pearland High School football team on winning the 2010 class 5A division 1 state championship. By Jackson.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Chair recognizes Senator Jackson on the resolution.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President and members. It is my extreme pleasure to welcome the Pearland High School varsity football team to the State Capitol. They're here today to be honored for their undefeated season, and they are our 5A state champions and we are so proud of you and so glad to have you here. The team's motto this year was "plus one" and it means the team would make one more play, give one more degree of effort or do whatever it takes to get a victory. Such the mentality got the team through a remarkable season with five games that were won in the last minute of play. The state championship was no exception. And, Senator Nelson and Senator Davis, we at Pearland wanted to congratulate y'all's team Euliss Trinity for being so good and having such a good season and coming in second this year that we wanted you to be able to congratulate the Pearland team as well. It was a great game. The Pearland Oilers faced the number one team in the nation Euliss Trinity, the Trojans. They had a 79-yard drive that took just over two minutes and only seven plays in the second quarter to get them on the board. After four hard fought quarters, the Oilers were leading the Trojans 28-24. And with six seconds left, Trinity had the football, faced a fourth down that would decide the game. Our senior Dustin Garrison who was the Touch Down Club of Houston's offensive player of the year was playing in the secondary for that last play and he broke up the final pass of the game to secure the first state championship in Pearland High School's history. And hopefully it won't be the last. But I'd like to recognize the team captains who are on the floor here today with us. Trey Anderson. Trey, raise your hand. Dustin Garrison who we just talked about. Dustin. Miles Caynips, Caynips, and Sam Ukewaychi. We appreciate y'all being here. We also have the coach. Is coach on the floor? He's up in the gallery. Okay. Coach Tony Heath, they're all up here. Members, please help me welcome your 5A state champions. Pearland Oilers. Y'all stand up right here in the south gallery. And I move adoption, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Jackson. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Jackson. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection, and the resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for the purpose of an introduction.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, it must be state championship day today at the Capitol. I've got a very special group from the part of state that I'm from. We have the Wiley High School girls basketball team, that's Abilene Wiley, that are here. They are the 2011 3A state champions. That is the Wiley Bulldogs, isn't it? Make sure I had the right ones. Wiley Bulldogs. That was the girl's second consecutive appearance in the state championship game. This year they walked away victorious. I congratulate these girls for the hard work, dedication, the victory they brought back to our area. I would like them to stand and welcome them to the Capitol. The Abilene Wiley girl's basketball state champions.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: 675. The Chair recognizes, once again, Senator Jackson for -- the Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 675 by Senator Jackson. The secretary will read the resolution.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 675 commending the Pearland High School girls softball team on winning the 2010 Interscholastic League class 5A state championship. By Jackson.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. Chair recognizes Senator Jackson to explain the resolution.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President. You know, I would just -- I'd love to stand up here and do these resolutions all day long, but not to be outdone by having the state championship 5A football team, I'm also honored to have in my district and to introduce today the 5A ladies volleyball (sic) team. They're the senior members of varsity softball team from Pearland High School, and they're here today to be honored for their 5A championship title. After taking second place last year or a year ago, the Lady Oilers returned to the state championship in 2010 where they beat Austin Buoy 4 to 0. And, Senator Wentworth, I know he's on the floor right here. We wanted to congratulate Austin Buoy High School for coming in second place and, you know, they played very tough and very hard but we also wanted to give you the opportunity to meet the ladies that, yeah, they kind of beat Buoy and they are your 5A state champion. So understandably the girls started ranked No. 1, and they're doing great. So on the floor today we have the seniors from the 2010 state championship team. We've got Kirsty Berick, there she is. Brook Duebwa, we got Jessica Bowden on this end. Sarah Clements, Lauren Langler, we've got Chelsea Bennet, and Leandra Miles. I want to say thank y'all for -- you have made us all very, very proud and an outstanding job that you have done. I'd also like to recognize their outstanding coaching staff led by head coach Lanay Clark. Is she -- she's up in the gallery, okay. Members, if y'all will, will the rest of the group please that's up in the gallery. Coach is here, okay. Coach, we want to say thank you and congratulations. And members, please help me congratulate our varsity softball team. I move adoption, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Jackson. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection and the resolution is adopted. Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 694 by Senator Harris and Senator Davis. The secretary will --

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 694 declaring April of 2011 as Scottish Heritage Month in Texas and Celebrate National Tartan Day on Wednesday April 6, by Harris and Davis.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Harris.

SENATOR HARRIS: Members, please join me in recognizing April as Scottish Heritage Month in Texas. Joining us today on the floor are Dorene Goodson and Carol Terrifellow who are Scottish Texans. Some -- our Texas Scottish heritage goes back to the base of the creation of Texas. In fact, 30 Navy born Texas Scots fought at the Alamo. Davey Crockett himself was a second generation Scot. Some Texans -- Texas Scottish names include Ellis and Davis and Watson. All right. Even some of our Texas counties includes Scottish names such as Wise, Denton, and Chambers County. Texas even has its own official bluebonnet tartan to represent its Scottish Texans. Members, please help me recognize April as Scottish Heritage Month in the state of Texas. I move adoption.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Harris. Thank you so much. Senator Fraser, did you wish to speak on the resolution?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes, I do. I have a question of the author. I'm Scottish. Fraser is Scottish, and there's actually a Fraser castle in Scotland. I am confused by the Tartan Day. Could you explain the tartan, what that means? Come on.

SENATOR HARRIS: It's the tartan cloth.

SENATOR FRASER: Cloth itself is the tartan, which is the crest and the -- is that a tartan there that she's warring?

SENATOR HARRIS: Yes.

SENATOR FRASER: It's not a very positive response.

SENATOR HARRIS: Or is that the dress they wear?

SENATOR FRASER: Kilt. Could be a Kilt. It's not a tartan, I don't think.

SENATOR HARRIS: You know, I think it's interesting on the list of Scottish members of the legislature Senator Fraser, that you were left off. I apologize for that.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Harris. Is there observation from any member? The Chair hears none, and the resolution is adopted. Members, the Chair lays out Senate Resolution No. 700 by Senator Watson. The secretary will read the resolution in full.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Resolution 700. Whereas, as the Senate of the state of Texas is pleased to recognize Brenda Siscoe Vaughn who is being awarded a doctorate in educational administration by the University of Texas at Austin; whereas, a native of Honey Grove, Brenda Vaughn for many years has served the Texas Senate with distinction from serving on the staff of Senator Jeff Wentworth to tracking legislation as a bill clerk to managing up to 100 employees as messenger supervisor. She has performed her duties with exceptional efficiency and dedication. And she has won the respect and admiration, not to mention the affection and gratitude of all those with whom she has worked; and whereas, in pursuit of her doctorate, she received the Alexander Caswell Ellis fellowship in education three times. She has also earned a masters of science and architectural studies degree with a certification in historic preservation from the University of Texas Austin School of Architecture. As an undergraduate at Texas A&M University Commerce, she studied interior design and business; and whereas, Brenda Vaughn has served as an example to all who know her with her perseverance and her determination to succeed in the difficult process of earning a doctorate and she is truly deserving of recognition for this impressive achievement. Now, therefore it be resolved that the Senate of the State of Texas 82nd Legislature hereby commend Brenda Siscoe Vaughn on her outstanding service to the Texas Senate and extend congratulations to her on receiving her doctorate in education administration from the University of Texas at Austin. By Watson.

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

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you very much, Mr. President. Members, this is one of those opportunities where we get to honor one of our own and we get to say thank you, but also take a moment to point out how hard the folks that work with us really work and the kind of time and energy they put in. And we sometimes know what they're doing for us on any given day or during a legislative session but we're not always sure or know what they're doing in what we would call in their off time. And Brenda Vaughn, Dr. Vaughn, if you will, Dr. Vaughn has worked for many, many years now, part-time working to get her doctorate degree and she has now achieved that lofty goal, that lifetime goal, if you will. And so we talk a moment to say thank you for your service but also congratulations on showing what it means to have a goal, to work hard toward that goal and to see it all the way through. Dr. Vaughn, Brenda, is joined on the floor by her son and his soon to be wife, her soon to be daughter-in-law, let's give a round of applause and say congratulations to Brenda Vaughn. Mr. President, I move adoption of Senate Resolution No. 700.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Watson. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Watson. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hears no objection, and the resolution is adopted.

SENATOR HEGAR: Members, that concludes the morning call. Senator Nelson is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute Senate Bill 76. Senate Bill 76 addresses the reports of fraud in the federal self-arranged day care program which compensates the relatives of single parents who need child care to remain in the work force. Reports of uncovered fraudulent payments in this program as well as payments to individuals with serious criminal history. Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76 requires a criminal background check and abuse/neglect central registry check and a sex offender registry check for potential caregivers. It authorizes the Work Force Commission to verify that child care services are being provided using an electronic validation system, and it requires the Work Force Commission to develop fraud prevention tools and to withhold, stop or recoup payments when fraud is discovered. I move suspension.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Nelson moves suspension of regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 76. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 76. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 76 relating to certain providers of subsidized child care.

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

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Nelson.

SENATOR HEGAR: Chair recognizes Senator Nelson to explain the amendment.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you, Mr. President. The Committee Substitute inadvertently waived the $20 annual listing fee that relative day care providers currently, currently pay DFPS if the caregiver provides (inaudible) or outside the child's own home. This amendment clarifies that the $20 annual listing fee is only waived for relative day care providers who provide care in the child's home and it clarifies that providers whose payments the Work Force Commission proposes to withhold, stop or recoup are entitled to appeal the proposed corrective action.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Nelson moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Senator Nelson is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR NELSON: I move passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76 to engrossment.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Nelson moves passage to engrossment. Is there any objection? Hearing none, passed. Senator Nelson is recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR HEGAR: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rules are suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 76. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76 relating to certain providers of subsidized child care.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Nelson is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR NELSON: Thank you. I move final passage of Senate Bill 76.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Nelson moves final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 76. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR HEGAR: There being 31 ayes and zero nays, the bill is finally passed.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate bill 1150.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1150 at this time relating to requiring certain non ERCOT utilities to comply with energy efficiency goals. When these energy efficiency goals were set in the Utility Code Section 39, it applied to those that were coming out of the regulation, it did not include Excel Energy Company even though that company has worked voluntarily with the PUC and local stakeholders to invest in energy efficiency. I move suspension.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 1150. Is there any objection? Hearing none. The secretary will call the roll -- the rules are suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1150. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1150 relating to requiring certain non ERCOT utilities to comply with energy efficiency goals.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1150.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger moves passage to engrossment. Is there any objection? Hearing none, passed to engrossment. Senator Seliger is recognize for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR HEGAR: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the rules are suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1150. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1150 relating to requiring certain non ERCOT utilities to comply with energy efficiency goals.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR SELIGER: Mr. President, I move final passage of Senate Bill 1150.

SENATOR HEGAR: Senator Seliger moves final passage of Senate Bill 1150. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR HEGAR: There being 31 ayes, zero nays. The bill finally passes.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio. Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute to SB871.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I'd like to move at this time to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 871. Members, at my request and that of Representative Smithee, chairman of the House Committee on Insurance, the language before you was developed by the Texas Department of Insurance. This bill passed out of the Senate Committee on Business and Commerce unanimously. Under chapters 2254 of the insurance code, if the commission determines that an insurer has charged policyholders excessive rates, then the commissioner may order refunds. The insurer may contest this by requesting an administrative hearing on the owe fund order. At this point the refund order will be affirmed, reversed or modified and then a final order issued. If the office of administrative hearings approves the original refund order and the insurer would like to further contest the refund order in court, this bill requires an insurer to deposit or post bond in the full amount of the refunds owed plus interest within 30 days after the refund order becomes final. Requiring such a bond would ensure that an insurance company has sufficient resources to pay policyholders. The refunds, they are -- that are owed -- excuse me. Requiring such a bond would also encourage a faster resolution of rate cases by discouraging practiced appeals. That is, the insurer will no longer be able to use refunds owed to the policyholders as operating capital during the pendency of the appeal. Mr. President, I move suspension of the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 871.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute 871. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 relating to a stay of the requirement to provide refunds or discounts on excessive or unfairly discriminatory residential property premium rates.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Hegar. Secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Hegar.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Members, Senator Hegar, if you would, let's wait until we get it on the desk. Thank you. Members, you should have Floor Amendment No. 1 on your desk. Senator Hegar to explain the amendment.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this floor amendment -- and I appreciate Senator Lucio working with me that Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 addresses an issue of prorated rate appeals. This amendment taken from Section 3.008 of the TDI sunset bill, which I will ask to bring before y'all here hopefully in a few weeks, achieves the same goal as the Committee Substitute that we have before us right now on Senate Bill 871. But instead of requiring insurers to post a bond, the amendment will increase the inter-penalty that insurers must pay if a rate is determined to be excessive or unfairly discriminatory. The language that you see in the amendment is the actual part of sunset bill which we passed off of this floor last session, and that while I will bring to you here again hopefully in the next few weeks. And I would move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio on the amendment.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, members, the amendment is acceptable. It adds language that, quite frankly, comes out of the Sunset process. So the amendment is acceptable.

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

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 is passed to engrossment. Senator Lucio is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, members, I'd like to move to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three separate days.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: There being 27 ayes, four nays, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 relaying to a stay of the requirements to provide refunds or discounts on excessive or unfairly discriminatory residential property premium rates.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR LUCIO: Mr. President, I'd like to move final passage for the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Lucio moves final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 28 ayes, three nays, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 871 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Lucio.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Senate Bill 385.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, Senate Bill 385 is a follow on to the legislation which we passed last session. In the 81st session we provided incentives to reduce exhaust emissions from vehicle fleets in nonattainment areas by creating the Clean Fleet program. The Clean Fleet program reimburses a portion of the incremental cost of alternative fuel vehicle. Applicants have to have at least a hundred vehicles in the fleet and must add 25 new vehicles a year to obtain reimbursement for that year. This program is funded through the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan. Senate Bill 385 will build on the success of that program from last session by providing incentives to build refueling stations for alternative fuel fleets. The ability to increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles in the state depends on the availability of infrastructure to fuel such vehicles. Senate Bill 385 creates an alternative fueling facilities program which reimburses a portion of the incremental cost of constructing, reconstructing or acquiring an alternative fueling facility in nonattainment areas of the state. Mr. President, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 385.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 385. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 385. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 385 relating to the creation of an alternative fuel program to be funded by the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan Fund.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Williams. Secretary, please read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Williams.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams to explain the amendment.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Members, this amendment was a recommendation that came to us from the TCEQ staff. It removes language in section 393.0061 on page 2, line 54 that limits the eligible cost to those incurred in one calendar year. The agency believes that that limit would make it very difficult for the grant recipients to meet the timing requirements for the project to be started and completed and could place the agency in the position of not being able to reimburse expenses because the grant recipient did not meet the calendar year deadlines for purchasing and production. Instead, this amendment allows the agency to reimburse expenses for eligible costs within deadlines that are established by the commission. I move adoption.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Harris, for what purpose?

SENATOR HARRIS: Will the author yield for a question?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I yield.

SENATOR HARRIS: Do these facilities that are being set up for the natural gas, do these have to be open to the public?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: They do have to be open to the public. And these facilities would not just be for natural gas, any alternative fueling station would be eligible. So if it was a plug in-station for electric vehicles, that would also be eligible. Also, you know, you've got LNGMCNG vehicles. They'd all be eligible. And if a company seeks reimbursement, their guidelines that they have to follow to make that available to the public to have access to those facilities.

SENATOR HARRIS: You got a good bill. Thank you.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Harris. Members, Senator Williams has moved adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Senator Williams is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move passage of engrossment of Senate Bill 385 as amended.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, SB385 as amended is passed to engrossment. Senator Williams is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 29 ayes, two nays. The rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB385 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB385 relating to the creation of an alternative fuel program.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I move final passage.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Williams moves final passage of SB385 as amended. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, SB385 as amended is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Williams.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is now recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB899.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 899. In 2007 the legislature passed SB2031 which amended the civil practices and remedies code to ensure that the legislature determines the extent to which a state weighs its sovereign immunity with regard to a settlement of a claim or action against the state. Requiring an expenditure of state funds exceeding million or commits the state to a course of action that in unreasonable probability will entail a continuing increased expenditure of state funds over subsequent state biennium. Requirement of legislative approval does not apply to a refund of tax fee or any related penalty or interest. This bill lowers that threshold from 25 million to 10 million. I move to suspend the regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden moves suspension of regular order of business to take up and consider SB899. Is there objection? The Chair hears none rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading SB899. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB899 relating to the legislature's consent or approval of a settlement of a claim or action against the state.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, I move passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 899.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden moves passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 899. Is there objection? Chair hears none, bill is passed to engrossment. Senator Ogden is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, I move the constitutional three day rule to take up and consider Senate Bill 899.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB899. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 899 relating to the legislature's consent or approval of a settlement or claim of action against the state.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden recognized for a motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I move final passage of Senate Bill 899.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Ogden moves final passage of Senate Bill 899. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 899 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Ogden. Senator Watson is now recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB1034.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President, members, I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time SB 1034 that would extend the deadline -- it's the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1034 that would extend the deadline by which jurisdictions can change their election date to the November uniform election date. It would also remove a statutory requirement for the city of Austin to hold council elections in the spring. Members, this is a combination bill. Senator Seliger had a very similar bill related to the movement of the elections for the -- I think he was bringing it on behalf of the city of Odessa to the November uniform election date and we combined these two bills together to create the Committee Substitute to Senate bill 1034. Mr. President, I move suspension of the rules.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to SB1034. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute SB1034. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute 1034 relating to the authority of certain political subdivisions to change the date of their general elections.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WATSON: Mr. President, I move passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1034 to engrossment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB1034 is passed to engrossment. Senator Watson is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WATSON: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute SB1034. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB1034 relating to the authority of certain political subdivisions to change the date of their general elections.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson is recognized for a motion.

SENATOR WATSON: I move final passage of the Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1034.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson moves final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1034. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays Committee Substitute SB1034 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Watson.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson, 497. Senator Jackson is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB497.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this is the bill that we had up last Thursday, got in a pretty long discussion about -- 497 is the legislation that we -- requires wind farm developers to notify the PUC of a project within 25 miles of a federally operated radar or military installation. And, as I said, we discussed this. I think we got an amendment worked out. I think we'll have a couple of amendments. If there's no questions, I'd move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 497.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa, for what purpose?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: To ask Senator Jackson a question.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson yield?

SENATOR JACKSON: I yield.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Senator Jackson, I just want to thank you for working with us. As you know, Senator Duncan and I worked on the language to at least try and provide some kind of process which a wind farm will have to be notified, notify PUC and the FAA to make sure there was a process like which a Naval air base could object. And you said you were okay with that amendment?

SENATOR JACKSON: Yes.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you. Appreciate that.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Hinojosa. Senator Jackson moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB497. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading SB497. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute Senate Bill 497 relating to the notice of the construction or expansion of a wind powered electric generation facility.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Jackson. Secretary, please read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Jackson.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson to explain the amendment.

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this amendment was done at the request of the Public Utility Commission. The amendment clarifies how the agency can administer the process that we are delegating to them via this legislation. It allows the PUC to delegate the notification to ERCOT if they choose so and transfers the statute from chapter 252 to chapter 44 of the Utilities Code. It also removes the $10,000 mark for notification and now requires the wind developer to notify the agency 120 days before the construction or expansion of a structure above 200 feet. And in addition it adds the Department of Defense, their energy siting clearinghouse is an additional recipient of notification and was done at the request of the Department of Defense. And I move adoption.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Members, you have the amendment before you. Senator Jackson moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Floor Amendment No. 2 by Duncan, Hinojosa. Secretary, please read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Hinojosa and Duncan.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa to explain the amendment.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you, Mr. President, members. Right now under current process, the wind developer notifies the FAA, Federal Aviation Administration, at least 45 days for construction of a wind farm. What this amendment does, it would require that wind developers may not begin construction or expansion of a wind powered electric generation facility until they file with a PUC a determination issued by the Federal Aviation Administration regarding whether proposed construction or expansion would be a hazard to air navigation. This amendment will allow PUC to implement penalties and other enforcement actions against the developer who does not comply.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson on the amendment.

SENATOR JACKSON: It's acceptable.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I move adoption.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2. Is there objection? Senator Watson, for what purpose?

SENATOR WATSON: Question of the author of the amendment.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa, you yield?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Yes, sir.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Senator. I want to make sure I understand what this does, because it looks like it may do two separate things. One is at the top of the page it seems to indicate that there's going to be a requirement of notification, but then what it ends up saying is that the Federal Aviation Administration will need to make a determination regarding the construction or expansion of the facility; is that right?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct.

SENATOR WATSON: And under this amendment there would be the ability to say that construction cannot go forward.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Correct.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. Do we know of any other type of electric generation that's required to have this sort of approval in terms of siting?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Not to my knowledge. Of course, that's a little bit different than what's being proposed under wind farms and the type of hazard they provide and could cost aviation not only from civil aviation but also military aviation plus the airports.

SENATOR WATSON: But this is not -- I want to be clear on this amendment. This is not just a notification. This bill previously was a note -- required notification, but what your amendment would do is change it from just a notification to actually a siting requirement.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Correct.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. Thank you very much.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Duncan, for what purpose?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, I just want to clarify if Senator Hinojosa will yield.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa, do you yield?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield.

SENATOR DUNCAN: And I think, Senator Hinojosa, you're absolutely correct. It's not a siting requirement, this is basically what the FFA requires anyway to -- that you notify whenever there's a construction over 200 feet and then you have to get a certain type of certificate which is a no hazard certificate and all this is doing is requiring you to file that no hazard certificate from the -- with the PUC once you receive clearance from the FAA, which is already required for anything over 200 feet.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct, Senator. Maybe I misunderstood the question, but the requirements right now where a wind farm has to notify the FAA of any construction close or nearby airports.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So this just puts it over at the peak -- what happens then is once you do that and once you comply with existing FAA requirements, then this requires you to notify the PUC of that.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Correct. And, of course, if they don't comply, the PUC can set a hearing process by which they penalize the wind developer for noncompliance.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So this basically takes existing requirements, make sure everybody knows what they are and then puts notification of those compliance with those existing requirements of the PUC?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So it's no new siting requirement or anything like that. It's just an added notification.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: It is a notification, but if they do not notify when they start construction, they can be penalized by the rules under PUC, a fine.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson, for what purpose?

SENATOR WATSON: I just want to make sure I understand, because I'm getting different answers to the same question. And I understand how that can sometimes happen, so I want to make sure I am very clear. If this is already a requirement, what is it that this amendment does? If all you're saying is that this amendment is doing what is already required, tell me what the purpose of the amendment is.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, because right now you can notify the FAA but there's no state agency involving the process itself. This amendment requires for the -- for the wind developer to also notify the PUC.

SENATOR WATSON: And what is the purpose of that? Why if it's already a requirement for the notification and you're not doing nothing to change the siting requirements, why create that additional activity if it doesn't do anything?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: It is not fictional, Senator Watson, for a simple reason that they cannot start construction until they get an FAA letter saying that it's safe, plus file with the PUC. If they don't do that, they can have a hearing process by which they're fined for not complying to a PUC. It doesn't exist right now, so there is a penalty involved if they don't comply. Right now there's no penalty involved, there's no oversight, there's no requirement of a hearing.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, and I guess that's my question. Is there now a hearing required?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, there'll be a hearing required if they don't comply and notify the PUC. When they find out -- they cannot start construction until they notify the PUC.

SENATOR WATSON: I suppose that gets back to my basic question. As I understand what you're saying, there is currently a requirement of notification of the Federal Aviation Administration.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Correct.

SENATOR WATSON: And you can't start construction until that notification has been provided to the Federal Aviation Administration?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Well, there's no one to enforce it right now. The FAA could probably show a letter that says, Well, it's a safety hazard. But there's nothing to enforce that letter in terms of the wind farm not starting construction. With this amendment, it does have an enforced mechanism that the PUC can set up by rule because they have to be notified.

SENATOR WATSON: So the goal of your amendment is to have some entity involved that can say, You can't go forward.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct. Because we have a letter from FAA that says this is a hazard to aviation.

SENATOR WATSON: Can the FAA not currently say, You didn't construct or expand if they've made a finding of hazard to air navigation?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I don't think so.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona, for what purpose?

SENATOR CARONA: Will Senator Hinojosa yield?

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa yield?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I yield.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator, would it be possible to do either one or two things, to hold this amendment and bill until tomorrow, until those of us who are seeing this for the first time have over night to look at it or to pass this bill and then hold it on third reading and you could add it as a third reading amendment at that time?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I'm not the author. Senator Jackson held it last week because there were questions, and the problem right now is that we don't know the wind farms and some are being built too close to airports. It could cause possible problem or danger or safety issues to the general public. We have wind farms sometimes being too close to military air bases that provide training to pilots, and we also have concerns about that. And this amendment tries to set up a process by which we get a state agency involved to make sure that construction doesn't begin until the FAA has issued a letter saying that it's not a hazard to the public in terms of aviation or any airports or military bases.

SENATOR CARONA: Well, the reason I ask, for me, at least, this bill, unlike most of the other bills in my packet had said specific notes on it saying watch for any amendments to this piece of legislation. And it's only for that reason that I'd like to have overnight just to look at this amendment and any other amendment that might be on the table expected to follow it and then take it back up tomorrow when we reconvene.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: I don't -- that's fine with me, but let's see what the author wants to do. And you know what we're trying to address here, Senator Carona, right?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Will the gentlemen yield?

SENATOR ELTIFE: Will the gentlemen yield?

SENATOR CARONA: Certainly I will.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Senator Carona, you may recall this came up last Thursday and there was concerns that -- this is a notification bill. The bill primarily requires you to -- if you're going to build -- as originally filed, if you're going to build something within 25 miles of an airport or an Air Force base that you notify the PUC.

SENATOR CARONA: Did we have this amendment last Thursday or is this one that's been developed?

SENATOR DUNCAN: This is an amendment that was developed to resolve some of the concerns that Senator Hinojosa raised, because he was concerned that there was no teeth, that there were no teeth in the notification requirement. So what we did was we pulled the bill down and we started working and looking and the fact we determined that the FFA requires you to file or to notify them any time you build something over 200 feet. And so the way this -- what this amendment does is once you do that and get a no hazard determination from the FAA, then this amendment requires you to file it with the PUC under this new procedure, so that those who are interested have a registry that can keep up with that. And then if they see that there's a tower going in, even though it meets FAA standards for no hazard, they can still go in and discuss with the developers about the radar issues and the things, just as Senator Fraser described that happened in his district where he worked with Dais Air Force base to resolve some of the radar issues. I think they -- I'm not going to speak for the aviation people, but it's my understanding that they need to know that if there's going to be construction nearby, it might interfere with the radar. And that's what Senator Hinojosa's concerned about and this is what we came up as a solution to that problem.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hinojosa, is this your understanding as well?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: It is.

SENATOR CARONA: Okay. I withdraw my objection.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Senator Carona. Thank you, Senator Duncan. Senator Hinojosa has moved adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2. Senator Jackson, Floor Amendment No. 2 is acceptable to you; is that correct?

SENATOR HINOJOSA: That's correct.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson, Floor Amendment No. 2 is acceptable to you?

SENATOR JACKSON: I'm sorry, Mr. President?

SENATOR ELTIFE: Amendment No. 2 is acceptable to you?

SENATOR JACKSON: It is acceptable. Yes, sir.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Hinojosa has moved adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2, members. Is there objection of Floor Amendment No. 2? Members, there is no objection. Floor Amendment No. 2 is adopted.

SENATOR HINOJOSA: Thank you.

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

SENATOR JACKSON: Thank you, Mr. President. I move passage to engrossment for the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 497.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hears none, Committee Substitute SB497 as amended is passed to engrossment. Senator Jackson is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR JACKSON: So moved, Mr. President.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes -- 29 ayes, three nays, SB497, rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute Senate Bill 497 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute SB497 relating to the notice of the construction or expansion of certain wind powered electric generation facilities.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson's recognized for a motion.

SENATOR JACKSON: Mr. President, I move finally for passage of Senate Bill 497 as amended.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Jackson moves finally final passage of Committee Substitute SB497 as amended. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, Committee Substitute SB497 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Jackson.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on SB990.

SENATOR CARONA: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, under current law regional transportation authorities created under chapter 452 in the transportation code -- and by the way, this only applies to the Dallas Area Rapid Transit and the T in Fort Worth -- are responsible for enforcement of laws related to HOV lanes. These laws include things such as regulation of proper entrance into and exit from the structures and observation of vehicle occupancy. The HOV lane offenses are classified as class C misdemeanors which are prosecuted in JP courts. Consequently the funds collected from these fines, they go to the JP courts, although the enforcement burden and cost is with the transit agency. This bill would give Regional Transportation Authority created under this chapter authority to impose administrative fines for HOV lane violations. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona moves suspension of the regular order of business to take up and consider SB990. Is there objection? Chair hears none, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on second reading SB990. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB 990 relating to regulation of high occupancy vehicle lanes.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona is recognized for a motion.

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

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona now moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? Chair hairs none, SB990 is passed to engrossment. Senator Carona is now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR CARONA: So moved.

SENATOR ELTIFE: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 30 ayes, one nay, rules are suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB990. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: SB the 990 relating to regulation of high occupancy vehicle lanes.

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

SENATOR CARONA: I move final passage.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Carona how moves final passage of SB990. The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR ELTIFE: 31 ayes, zero nays, SB990 is finally passed. Congratulations, Senator Carona. Senator Fraser is recognized for a motion to suspend the regular order of business on Committee Substitute SB885.

SENATOR FRASER: Thank you, members. Senate Bill 885 relating to compliance of state and federal environmental permits. Members, the EPA is attempting to regulate the greenhouse gas emissions by unilaterally amending the federal Clean Air Act. In the wake of this federal climate change regulation, the growing trend of lawsuits to use public nuisance as a means to collect greenhouse gas emerged. This legal attack to claiming that public nuisance simply because a company produces greenhouse gas is anticipated to have a negative impact on Texas business if left unchecked. 875 provides affirmative defense to an entity who's subject to an administrative, civil or criminal action for a nuisance or trespass violation arising out of greenhouse gas. Senator Hinojosa will be offering an amendment to require that the entity be in substantial compliance before claiming the defense. The amendment is acceptable. I would move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Senate Bill 875.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Davis, for what purpose?

SENATOR DAVIS: Ask questions of the author, please.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Fraser yield?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR DAVIS: Senator Fraser, I have some real concerns and questions about this bill. As I understand the bill, what we would be doing basically would be -- we would create --

SENATOR WEST: Mr. President, can we have some order on the floor? This is an important debate.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Members, let's have a little order on the floor. Thank you, Senator West. Continue, Senator Davis.

SENATOR DAVIS: As I understand it, essentially this bill creates what we've never done in this state before. It creates a permit immunity and basically says if an industry is authorized by permit to emit particular pollutants into the air, so long as they fit within the regulation of the permit, then they're authorized to do so. And that makes sense to me that they would be authorized under the terms of the permit to emit what the permit provides them with the opportunity to emit. Right now, in the state of Texas, we don't have -- it's my understanding under this particular permit, it doesn't address greenhouse gases. So it doesn't authorize them or prohibit them, but the problem is that if I, in a community, suffer a consequence as a result of that emission, your bill would say that I have no recourse against the emitter because the permit didn't cover it. And so long as that person was permitted, they can be immune from liability even if they're admitting something that they were not permitted to emit. And I understand Senator Hinojosa's amendment requiring that there be substantial compliance with the permit before that immunity could be given. The problem is that a -- an emitter, a source emitter, can completely comply with a permit in the state of Texas under this bill, still emit a greenhouse gas, and be immune for any cause of action for that greenhouse gas simply because they were permitted to emit other sources; is that correct?

SENATOR FRASER: Well, that's actually not correct at all. I think you're very aware of the fact that greenhouse gas -- there's never been a vote of Congress regulating greenhouse gas. There's an attempt by the federal government, but they have not given any parameters of the way that you will regulate or any of the stipulations of that regulation. Not only do not have it on the federal basis, you also don't have that on the state basis. So if there's not a parameter of whatever the greenhouse gas is, the potential of problems that we're just saying that because there are no parameters that have been set up for the regulation of greenhouse gas, that on a state basis, if someone has a state valid permit that they've been issued by the state of Texas and that permit is within the guidelines as set by the state agency, that would act as an affirmative defense.

SENATOR DAVIS: And I think we're saying the same thing.

SENATOR FRASER: Good. So you're for my bill.

SENATOR DAVIS: But I'm concerned if we're saying the same thing. I think what you're saying is because there's not in place right now a particular state action on the emission of a greenhouse gas, it may be the case that in the future such an emission would give rise to a nuisance cause of action or even a trespass cause of action in the state of Texas. But if we give permit immunity that says so long as you've been permitted by the TCEQ you are immune regardless of whether you create a nuisance, whether you trespass under the terms of the law as that may define in the future, either through state regulation or federal regulation, through this bill you're going to be immune because this person's going to have an affirmative defense and the defense will be, I complied with the permit for which I was given and, therefore, even though I emitted something that caused a nuisance or a trespass against another person, I'll be immune from it.

SENATOR FRASER: Well, the first part of what you just said, the second to the last statement is exactly what this does. Yes. If you have a valid state permit and that permit is covered by the rules of the state of Texas and you're in compliance with that, that would act as an affirmative defense. And yes, that's what my bill does.

SENATOR DAVIS: My concern with that, Senator Fraser, is that if a person who has an affirmatives defense under this statute, though they're permitted to do one thing -- and I can understand why that permit itself should provide them with an affirmative defense to a violation if they're producing only what they're permitted to do and what the state authorizes them to do.

SENATOR FRASER: Isn't that what permits are about, is that you seek a permit and you help state parameters and the state sets those parameters, and as long as you're within the grounds of those same state parameters, you should have an affirmative defense that you're doing what the state asked you to do. Not a blue sky set of something that at some point we may hear about from the federal government that has never been issued, we're saying that under current Texas law that if you have a valid permit that you are -- that would be an affirmative defense of that permit.

SENATOR DAVIS: And I understand that and I understand the logic behind that and I support that. I support an affirmative defense where you are acting within the parameters for which you are authorized under a permit. The problem with that is this state or the federal government may move forward, as you recognized, which I believe is the reason behind the filing of the bill. The state or the federal government may move forward actually in creating the opportunity for a cause of action where a nuisance or a trespass claim can be made out by virtue of the emission of greenhouse gases. What I don't understand is how -- how -- honestly, how we constrain someone's ability to file a cause of action for a nuisance or a trespass under a future regulation that may be created by virtue of saying that simply because you've been permitted to do these other things, you're going to now also be immune from liability for future actions that may be created by virtue of the state of Texas Regulatory Authority or the Federal Regulatory Authority.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, I appreciate your argument. But I think you're actually making my case that if the state permit is set by the guidelines of the state of Texas, based on the things that the parameters of the permit, as long as you're operating within the guidelines of those permits, of those regulated items, you shouldn't be sued as a nuisance on something that might be coming out in the future.

SENATOR DAVIS: Let me ask you this question. So if I live near a concrete batching plant and the concrete batching plant has been provided with a permit to emit a certain amount of VO2s into the air and the concrete --

SENATOR FRASER: VO2s?

SENATOR DAVIS: VOCs, I'm sorry. And the concrete batcher complies with that and they do not exceed the limitation of the VOCs, but at the same time that they are doing their concrete batch work, they produce NOX to a level that creates a nuisance under the law or a trespass violation under the law, what we're saying here is that because this person's been permitted for the VOC emissions, they would then be immune. This is what we're opening the door to. They would be immune for the emissions that they're creating under a different condition, regardless of the harm that's being caused to a third party who's been subject to those emissions.

SENATOR FRASER: I'm not addressing that. All I'm addressing is greenhouse gas. So I appreciate the example, but the direction you're going we're not addressing this bill.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Watson, for what purpose?

SENATOR WATSON: Question of the author.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Senator Fraser yield? Senator Fraser yield to Senator Watson?

SENATOR FRASER: I'd love to.

SENATOR WATSON: Senator, I want to start where I think you were talking to Senator Davis. What I think is being said, and I think you'll agree with this, in the state of Texas currently, there's no permit to be obtained related to greenhouse gas emissions.

SENATOR FRASER: There is no permit to be obtained on the federal basis either, is that --

SENATOR WATSON: Fair enough.

SENATOR FRASER: But they -- let's recognize this, is that they -- the EPA has said at some point they may do it but there are no parameters. So if that's the case, I'm saying if there are no rules to go by, you can't be sued by the rules that are not there.

SENATOR WATSON: But what I am trying -- I want to be very clear here, so let's not get off on a different answer to a question I haven't asked.

SENATOR FRASER: I am practicing being a lawyer.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, I won't go there.

SENATOR FRASER: It won't work, I'll tell you.

SENATOR WATSON: Yeah. But in Texas you can't be permitted for the emission of greenhouse gases.

SENATOR FRASER: That is correct.

SENATOR WATSON: Okay. Now, with that being said, you can get permits for other things, for example, particulate matter.

SENATOR FRASER: And I'm not addressing that in this bill.

SENATOR WATSON: But yet you are because what your bill says is if you are in general compliance with the permit you have, in other words, a permit for particulate matter, then you can do anything you want with regard to greenhouse gases and you cannot be sued for a nuisance or a trespass because you are in general compliance with your particulate matter permit.

SENATOR FRASER: That is correct.

SENATOR WATSON: And I think the problem that is being pointed out here, Senator, is that it's not right to say that you can do whatever it is you want with greenhouse gases simply because you are in general compliance with some permit that doesn't even cover greenhouse gases.

SENATOR FRASER: No. All I'm saying is there's no rules that have been established for greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gas, whether you agree or disagree with the concept, there are no rules that have been established. And so if there are no rules that have been established that we can measure that against state law, then there are no -- you are in compliance on the area of greenhouse gas. You're in compliance with your state permit.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, you -- by that logic, the simple fact that you cannot have a permit, you would all be in compliance. I guess the point being -- let's ask it this way, you intend to provide immunity for acts where there could be a nuisance or a trespass for greenhouse gas emissions even if the only compliance that the facility is in is in compliance with a permit that is unrelated to greenhouse gases.

SENATOR FRASER: I'm sorry, I didn't follow what you said.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, fair enough. Let me ask the second part of this. It says that one of the other ways that you would be able to get this immunity is if the federal government or a state agency or an agency of the federal government exercised enforcement discretion. Now, as I understand the way that works is if there was an upset at a plant and greenhouse gases were emitted, they would be required to report those emissions to the agency. And if the agency didn't take any action, then that would be exercising enforcement discretion.

SENATOR FRASER: There are no rules currently governing greenhouse gas, so anything that you're doing is a projection of something that might happen in the future. There are no rules for greenhouse gas.

SENATOR WATSON: Senator, I'm reading your bill, and I am trying to understand what your bill is intending to do. I don't know what question you're answering, so let me ask this question. Your bill says that immunity is granted if there's the commission -- the commission, that would be the TCEQ; is that right?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR WATSON: Or the federal government or an agency of a federal government exercised enforcement discretion in connection with the actions that resulted in the alleged nuisance or trespass. So if there is, let's say, an upset at a facility and that results --

SENATOR FRASER: Wait, a what?

SENATOR WATSON: One of the terms that's used when there's a large amount of emissions that come out of a facility is called an upset.

SENATOR FRASER: Well, I am assuming you're describing something would be SOX, NOX and other things that are regulated but not greenhouse gas because there's no rule.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, then tell me what your second point is supposed to do, Senator. Maybe that will make it simpler. Is if you tell me what you intend by point No. 2. What do you intend -- because I'm trying to ask a specific question about emissions that would be exempted from a lawsuit or a claim of nuisance or trespass under point No. 2.

SENATOR FRASER: Anything that's not covered under your current state permit; IE greenhouse gas. If you'll look at No. 1 up at the top it references greenhouse gas. The only thing that we're addressing in this bill is greenhouse gas, because there are no rules that have been established by the federal government for regulation of that and it will act as an affirmative defense. So that's the answer.

SENATOR WATSON: So tell me what point No. 2 is attempting to do. Why even have point No. 2 in there if that's all you are intending to do?

SENATOR FRASER: It's clarifying that this is an affirmative defense.

SENATOR WATSON: So if the commission has -- as you say, the commission or the federal government have no authority or discretion anyway, you're putting language in this bill that says if they exercise enforcement discretion in connections with the actions that resulted in the alleged nuisance or trespass, it creates immunity. Basically that language would be meaningless?

SENATOR FRASER: No. It says that if you're operating under a valid air permit issued by the state of Texas, that is an affirmative -- if you're meeting the parameters of that permit, that is an affirmative defense.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, that's what number one says when it talks about general compliance. But fair enough, Senator. Let's talk about general compliance. You indicate that Senator Hinojosa has an amendment?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR WATSON: And his amendment is going to change the word "general" to what?

SENATOR FRASER: Substantial.

SENATOR WATSON: Substantial?

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR WATSON: Is that the standard by which you will typically find some form of absolution for activities in the water code?

SENATOR FRASER: My understanding is that Senator Hinojosa and Senator Uresti in committee raised that and said that general -- they wanted to have a higher standard to raise the bar of the level of proof and they wanted to change it to substantial rather than general. And we looked at that, agreed with them and I've agreed to take that amendment.

SENATOR WATSON: What happens under your bill if the person -- and by "person," we're not just talking about an individual, we're talking about companies and others that might be operating these facilities, if they omit to do something that results in an alleged nuisance or trespass. Is your bill only to apply in cases where there's been an intentional action?

SENATOR FRASER: The bill says that having to do with greenhouse gases, of which there are no recalls for the measurement or the penalty of greenhouse gas, that the -- if you have a valid permit, that that will act as an affirmative defense against a nuisance claim related to greenhouse gas.

SENATOR WATSON: I've heard that somewhere. My question is: It says if the person's actions that resulted. Is it alleged -- your legislative intent that if a "person" is defined under the code, which could also be a company operating a facility of any sort or size, if it's not an act but is instead an omission on their part that this would not apply to them.

SENATOR FRASER: Give me the reference of what you're referring to.

SENATOR WATSON: Yes, I'm looking at line 120 here. It says if the person's actions that resulted in the alleged nuisance or trespass were authorized -- and I want to make sure that there's clarity here. Are you saying that this would not apply in instances where the person failed to act or omitted to act?

SENATOR FRASER: I think it's very clear by the language of the bill is that if the action that resulted in alleged nuisance were authorized by a rule, permit or order. It says exactly what my intent is.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, in the law there are actions and there are failures to act and I'm trying to make sure there's clarity, since we're creating a class of immunity. I'm trying to make sure that we're clear. It reads to me like if they act, then they would receive this immunity but they wouldn't receive this immunity if they fail to act or commit a negligence.

SENATOR FRASER: It's an affirmative defense to the person alleged of the action that resulted in the alleged nuisance were authorized by rule, permit and have a valid permit.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President.

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

SENATOR RODNEY ELLIS: Couple of questions for Senator Fraser.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Fraser yield?

SENATOR ELLIS: Troy, I'm going to ask you a couple of questions when you're finished, Senator Fraser, if you would yield.

SENATOR FRASER: I will yield.

SENATOR ELLIS: Now, Senator, in committee, I assume that a couple of members voted against the bill in committee.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator Hinojosa and Senator Uresti both voted no because the word referred in the bill that said "general" and they believe the word "substantial" should be, and I have agreed to accept an amendment of them.

SENATOR ELLIS: Can you -- okay. Obviously only because that's an important point to them of you having enough votes to bring this bill up. Can you tell me the difference between general compliance and substantial compliance?

SENATOR FRASER: I think probably Senator Hinojosa, when he lays that out, will explain that. My bill says general, he's going to offer an amendment and I am sure he will lay that out and talk about the bar that's got to be --

SENATOR ELLIS: So you don't know the difference?

SENATOR FRASER: No, I know the difference but I'd rather the author of the amendment explain it to you.

SENATOR ELLIS: Well, I'm just trying to find out now because I think it has some varying on some members like myself, we're trying to establish to vote to bring the bill up. Let me ask you this. Will you commit to keep it?

SENATOR FRASER: Absolutely. The question was asked by Senator Hinojosa and Senator Uresti, and I have committed to keeping the bill.

SENATOR ELLIS: That probably makes the case it won't do much if you agree to keep it in. Is that a fair assessment?

SENATOR FRASER: Say that again.

SENATOR ELLIS: It's a stitch between general and substantial is not very substantial and that's why you're agreeing to keep it in.

SENATOR FRASER: Yes.

SENATOR ELLIS: I just want to make sure my colleagues understand that before they vote to bring the bill up, assuming you're substituting the word "substantial" for "general" means something. As it relates to this bill, I just want to stress that's meaningless, and I'm just trying to get my deskmate to agree with me. It is meaningless.

SENATOR FRASER: It is what?

SENATOR ELLIS: Meaningless. It's a do nothing amendment.

SENATOR FRASER: Oh, I disagree. I think it's very substantial.

SENATOR ELLIS: Sure. Thank you.

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

SENATOR OGDEN: To ask the author a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Fraser yield?

SENATOR FRASER: I yield.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Fraser, I've got a question about what a greenhouse gas is. And let me tell you why I'm asking that question. In my district which has a lot of agriculture and oil and gas, from time to time there comes disputes about noxious gases and the people around the natural gas processing facility or the compressor station or the chicken house frequently complain to me about smells. And what I want to make sure is that if I vote for this bill, that I'm not basically giving businesses a blanket exemption from basically stinking up the neighborhood.

SENATOR FRASER: Those would not apply.

SENATOR OGDEN: And why is that? The definition --

SENATOR FRASER: The definition of greenhouse gas, and I'm not sure that emissions by chickens are covered under that.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, to the extent that methane or hydrogen sulfide is considered a greenhouse gas -- and I don't know if it is or not, but I bet methane is. Pure methane is odorless, so that would be a noxious gas. But hydrogen sulfide is rotten eggs and it is -- and I don't know if that's a greenhouse gas or not.

SENATOR FRASER: My understanding, and I just asked staff about the question that you're asking, that it would not be subject to that.

SENATOR OGDEN: So what's the definition of a greenhouse gas?

SENATOR FRASER: Well, and I think that's probably open for discussion because the government has declared a greenhouse gases to regulate but they have not given us the parameters of that.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well --

SENATOR FRASER: The state does not have the ability to interpret that.

SENATOR OGDEN: I'm sensitive to a situation where somebody's admitting carbon dioxide and somebody says this is a nuisance. Well, that seems unfair, but to the extent that this definition of greenhouse gases being poorly defined would exempt people from basically expelling noxious odors to the

(inaudible) that anybody that lives around there is made to feel ill, they should not get that exemption. And so I'm wondering if you can clarify this by an amendment to say it's not your intent to exempt from people claiming a nuisance because the plant stinks.

SENATOR FRASER: Okay. The greenhouse gases were declared pollutants per EPA's endangerment findings. They are: Carbon dioxide, CO2, methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, hydrogen fluorocarbons, pero fluorocarbons and sulfur hexa fluoride.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, the only one I don't know of is sulfer hexa fluoride. I think the other ones are probably not noxious, but it seems to me like in order to be crystal clear with your intent is we need somehow in this bill to better define what you mean by greenhouse gas.

SENATOR FRASER: Well, greenhouse gases have been defined, they've been declared by this endangerment finding, and it was made possible through a US Supreme Court decision and they defined it at that time. And these six are defined in that court case, which I'm assuming we could put these in the bill to clarify or I could give legislative intent that this is the six we're trying to define.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I think it would make it an easier bill to pass and I think to the extent that -- I think it's unlikely that a greenhouse gas is going to also be a noxious gas, but we don't know that fact. I don't want to be voting for a bill that's taking a chance on taking away what frequently is the only remedy my constituents have against noxious odors. If you take away their ability to sue for nuisance, there's just not much they can do.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, could we -- could I approach the front with Senator Ogden, please?

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Yes. Members, Senator Fraser withdraws his motion. He'll make his motion again in a few minutes after an amendment is drawn. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. Everyone remembers that on February of early this year, Texas faced the state's first electric grid emergency after a huge winter storm, dozens of power plants that were expected to furnish power suddenly reported operating difficulties. As a result, an Electronic Reliability Counsel of Texas, ERCOT

(inaudible) utilities to initiate rolling blackouts for to 45 minutes. In an effort to understand what happened, we've been through separate committee hearings and at the end of the day, Senate Bill 1133 was filed to require better reporting of weatherization plans at power plants. And weatherization plans are both summarization and winterization. And I would move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you heard the senator's motion. Is there any objection? There being none. So ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133 relating to the report by the Public Utility Commission of Texas on the ability of electric generators to respond to abnormal weather conditions.

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

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Hegar.

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hegar, would you explain your amendment?

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes, thank you. The floor amendment clarifies to capture all the entities that operate generation facilities in Texas. Both of those that are in ERCOT and those that are out ERCOT. It also references a definition of what is an electric utility in chapter 31, because in section -- 86 it does not define the term. Also it deletes section F in the bill that deals with the third party assessment. That seemed to be something that just wasn't quite workable, so we're removing that. It also clarifies that confidential information that can be redacted when provided to the public but the full information is provided to ERCOT. And then lastly it clarifies that only ERCOT entities that are within ERCOT would provide a report to ERCOT, because we don't want those outside reporting to them. And I would move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you have heard the explanation. Is there any objection to the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1? There being none, the amendment is adopted. The Chair lays out on second reading -- Senator, you're recognized for a motion.

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

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hegar moves passage to engrossment. Is there objection? There being none, the bill is passed to engrossment. Senator Hegar, you're recognized now for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you. Move to suspend the Senate's three day rule.

SENATOR CARONA: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR CARONA: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 1133 relating to a report by the utility commission of Texas on the ability of electric generators to respond to abnormal weather conditions.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you. Move final passage.

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

SENATOR CARONA: There being 31 ayes and no nays, the bill is finally passed. Thank you, Senator. Senator Watson is recognized for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business on Senate Bill 1187.

SENATOR WATSON: Thank you, Mr. President, members. I move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider at this time Senate Bill 1187 which makes a lis pendens effective once the notice is actually indexed in the public record and available for public access. I move suspension of the rules.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you have heard Senator Watson's motion. Is there any objection? There being none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 1187. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1187 relating to the effect of indexing notices of lis pendens.

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

SENATOR WATSON: Mr. President, I move passage of Senate Bill 1187 to engrossment.

SENATOR CARONA: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? There being none, so ordered. Senator Watson you're now recognized for a motion to suspend the constitutional three day rule.

SENATOR WATSON: So moved.

SENATOR CARONA: The secretary will call the roll.

SENATOR CARONA: There being 30 ayes and one nay, the constitutional rules are suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1187. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 187 relating to the indexing notices of lis pendens.

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

SENATOR WATSON: I move final passage of Senate Bill 1187.

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

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

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

SENATOR CARONA: Senator Hegar, if you could come to the floor?

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this is the Railroad Commission Sunset bill, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655. The Railroad Commission of Texas serves as the state's primary regulator of the oil and gas industry. The agency's mission is to ensure the efficient production, safe transportation and fair price of the state's energy resources with minimal impacts to the environment. The major provisions in the Sunset Legislation No. 1 creates a Texas Oil and Gas Commission governed by a single elected commissioner. It abolishes the Railroad Commission without the need for a constitutional amendment. Phases in the elected Texas Oil and Gas commissioner, who's initially appointed by the governor until the general election of 2012. As part of this process the last elected railroad commissioner will serve until the governor makes the appointment, and that commissioner may be appointed to serve as the Oil and Gas commissioner. The term will be for four years, unifying it up with the standard statewide elections. Also the bill will continue the Texas Oil and Gas Commission for a standard 12 year time frame. Secondly, majorly the bill requires the commission's oil and gas program to be self-supporting by authorizing the agency to levy surcharges on permits and licensing annually saving the state more than 25 million in general revenue. Thirdly, it strengthens the agency's enforcement process to prevent future threats to the environment and the public safety. It transfers enforcement in gas utility contested case hearings to SOA. In the last legislative process and the last time that Sunset reviewed Oil and Gas Commission, Railroad Commission, was the fact that there was a recommendation to move it to SOA. The next legislative session, the legislature decided to make that optional and essentially the Railroad Commission has decided to never use SOA. There's only five state agencies currently that do not use SOA. Railroad Commission is one of them. The other ones are Texas Youth Commission. We also have 0in those also is the Board of Pardon Paroles and a few others that are not of a major state agency like this. The also bill eliminates the state agency's propane marketing program. And lastly it addresses separate concerns related to the hearing process for forced pooling. And if there's any questions, I'll be happy to answer questions. If not, I would move to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar. Senator Davis, for what purpose?

SENATOR DAVIS: Questions of the author please.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Hegar yield?

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes.

SENATOR DAVIS: Senator Hegar, I want to congratulate you for the work that you and your committee did on this bill and the significant improvement that I think it makes to the function and operation of the Railroad Commission as it stands today. I want to make sure, really just to clarify for the record, because I think for the constituency that I represent this is a very important piece of the bill. Can you talk a little bit about the surcharge that you mentioned in your bill layout and explain what the surcharge is meant to allow. And if -- you know, if it was provided to for the Sunset, by the Sunset commission staff, what the timing on the implementation of those surcharges and, therefore, the use of those proceeds might be available.

SENATOR HEGAR: Exactly, Senator. And I appreciate you asking. And in the process that we went through and ultimately the surcharges that we were changing the Oil Field Cleanup Fund, which is just really the name from Oil Field Cleanup Fund to where it's the regulation of the industry and the Oil Field Cleanup Fund. The Oil Field Cleanup Fund has had a set of directives of reporting information back to the full legislature in the appropriations process. So we've taken that out of the appropriations process and put that in statute. So, therefore, it's clearly defined, because this is one fund that we're talking about, we wanted to make sure that those provisions are still continued and that the industry is having the cleanup issues resolved. So, therefore, we're putting that in stout. As far as the timing, the Railroad Commission or Oil and Gas Commission, if the legislation ultimately passes, which I believe should, is that the commission should then go forth and determine how to best place the surcharges on the appropriate different parts of the industry. So, therefore, it is a detailed process to make sure that you don't put an overly burdensome increase or surcharge on one sector of the industry per se because maybe they are not necessarily requiring that much effort out of the commission in regulating. So the surcharge is an important effort to replace the general revenue that currently is going to the Railroad Commission. The Railroad Commission is essentially one of the only major regulators that still gets GR and is not fully funded through the industry. I think that the House budget, which they approved the other day, and we'll be bringing ours, there is no GR. And so, therefore, if the industry is going to be regulated, then the only mechanism to make sure that a fully funded oil and gas commission exists is through this bill. This bill is the only mechanism to get us there. Otherwise, there really won't be the funding, and, unfortunately, the industry won't be regulated in the manner I think the public deserves.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you, Senator. Can you also explain in a little greater detail the recommendation to move to the SOA hearing process versus the process that's occurring today. What motivated that and what will be, in your mind, corrected by the use of the SOA administrative process?

SENATOR HEGAR: I think it's a couple of different things. No. 1, that was a recommendation that occurred 12 years ago, yet ultimately the legislature decided in the next session to make that an option and essentially the Railroad Commission has decided not, No. 1, to pursue that path. Of the agencies I was mentioning earlier besides the Railroad Commission, there's the Texas Finance Commission, the Board of Pardon Paroles, the Texas Work Force Commission and then Texas Youth Commission. And so when you look at all the state agencies that go to SOA for complicated state issues, it really doesn't make sense that Railroad Commission is not going over there as well. And then lastly in the effort to try to make the agency come to the 21st century per se, when Railroad Commission was first created, and the constitutional language just says that if the legislature -- to have a Railroad Commission, it was to regulate railroads. It hasn't regulated railroads for a very long time. Motor carriers. Hasn't regulated motor carriers since the 1980s. Only over time has it gotten oil and gas which is really what it does, not what the constitution originally envisioned. And if you look at this agency compared to others, if we go to one commissioner to bring it in the 21st century, as I would say, then it makes more sense especially in that dynamic to make sure that those contested cases are able to go to SOA, the full vetting process like we do in other types of situations and other contested cases with other state agencies that deal with similar issues.

SENATOR DAVIS: And it's my understanding, and this is a concern certainly that's been brought to me repeatedly by the constituency that I represent, relative to hearings on activity (inaudible). In a nutshell, right now persons who are interested in those hearings have to travel to Austin to have their voices heard. What will be different about that hearing process under this bill?

SENATOR HEGAR: We heard a substantial amount of testimony on that issue and part of it dealing with force pooling, rule 37 and beyond 37 where you're not adjacent but pouring under. And it seemed to be such a problematic issue that the general public drive all the way down to Austin for a hearing, yet at that time the person wanting to invoke the rule, the company or individuals would simply say, Oh, we'd like to wait until another day. So that person would have to drive all the way back home. And then if they get reset for another day, guess what, they drive down and what happens, they say, Oh, sorry, we'd like to postpone for another day. So it seemed the most reasonable, cost effective, most efficient way to balance those interests was simply to say if the person would come into a local office of the Railroad Commission, Oil and Gas Commission if we pass the legislation, another sister agency, then you could go have a phone conference call. Simply call in. Imagine that. That you don't have to physically show up in person, you wouldn't have to take an entire time to drive down here. Because most of these people are doing it on their own. They don't have lawyers, they can't afford lawyers. And then also a provision in the bill that the commission would set up a mechanism whereby if you do cancel, then there is a sliding scale that you may have to pay a steeper fee for the second bite, the third bite, the fourth bite. In essence just to provide a little carrot, slight stick to dis-incentivize companies from abusing the process. So it seems like it's not an onerous mechanism but it helps the average consumer with issues that they have and having to drive all the way down to Austin.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you very much, Senator Hegar.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Senator Davis.

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

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

SENATOR HEGAR: Gladly.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator yield?

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Hegar, you made reference in your opening remarks that there were some changes to the way the pooling would work under this bill. Would you just briefly explain what those changes are, point to them in the bill for me?

SENATOR HEGAR: Yeah, I'd be more than happy to. Essentially the pooling aspect was simply what I was referencing to Senator Davis just now. The fact that on the pooling aspect, people would be able to -- and I'm going to scan this real quick on page 11.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Uh-huh.

SENATOR HEGAR: Lines 23 through 30, if I can find that. Page 11 section 45. And essentially in that section is when a company has a filing and then withdraws that filing and subsequently refiles. Let's say, for example, if I come down to Austin for the forced pooling hearing and then you -- if you're the company and you withdraw and say, Nope, don't want to have a hearing today, I have to go home. And essentially No. 1 it provides the commission and ability to put an incentive to go ahead and have the hearing. We didn't put a fee in there, we just said a sliding scale that as you keep taking a second and a third bite, that amount could go up to ask for a second and a third hearing because you canceled it. And then No. 2 is for individuals to be able to simply go to a local state office and call in via phone, but they need to be in a state office, they can't do it from their cellphone or their car driving down the road. But just if you have conference calling on other issues.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: So what you've done is change the hearing procedures, you really haven't changed any of the substantive rules about who can be forced into --

SENATOR HEGAR: No, sir, none whatsoever. That should not be part of a Sunset bill. No, sir, whatsoever.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: I agree. I just want to make sure I understand.

SENATOR HEGAR: Very good question. Thank you, Senator.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 29 ayes and two nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading a Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 relating to abolition of the Railroad Commission of Texas, the creation of the Texas Oil and Gas Commission and the transfer of the powers.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Madam Secretary. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 1 by Senator Seliger. The secretary will read the amendment.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Seliger.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Mr. Seliger to explain Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. In a way this amendment acknowledges all of the positive work done in this Sunset process and what this amount does is essentially restore the membership to the new Oil and Gas Commission to the three commissioners for the simple fact that it is difficult to find out what deficiency is going to be answered in this bill by going from three commissioners to one commissioner and perhaps the diversity of viewpoint and three commissioners is more advantageous from a public policy standpoint and from industrial viewpoint. And I move adoption of the floor amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Hegar on Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Seliger, I appreciate your amendment, and I appreciate your concerns and thoughts of needing to keep three railroad commissioners. I have a vastly different thought, needless to say, with all due respect. It is in my opinion, and through a lot of testimony we received and really actually going back several sessions serving here in the legislature both in the House for four years and now ultimately starting the fifth here in the Senate. I noticed one reoccurring theme that we always seem to discuss whether we should have one commissioner or changing the three structure. Now, A lot of states -- it's interesting to know that Texas and Oklahoma are the only two states with elected commissioners. The other states have ultimately appointed commissioners. I think it is very vital that we have elected commissioners. However, one of the constant themes that we heard during the Sunset process is that the current system is broke, and it's broke in the fact that it's stagnant. You always have three that may have different opinions. When they come to the legislature, one says, Cut our funding. One says, Nope, we need to increase funding and another one may not have an opinion. It's very hard for us as the legislature to truly move forward under the current structure, in my opinion, for the most efficient and effective regulation of the oil and gas industry. And it is with all due respect that I think keeping the current three is a broken system. I think what you have is three big fish. Three statewide elected officials in a very small pond and that small pond oil and gas is very vital to the state of Texas. I think we need to have a very vibrant oil and gas industry, but with that being said, I do not think the consumers, nor taxpayers, nor do I think the industry is well served by having three commissioners. So with all due respect, I would ask to table Floor Amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Ogden, I think you tried to signal that you wanted to speak before the motion to table.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir, I did.

SENATOR HEGAR: I withdraw may motion.

SENATOR OGDEN: I wanted to talk to the author of the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: All right. Will Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR SELIGER: I do.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Seliger, this is a fundamental piece of the legislation that's before us. In fact, it's probably the most significant piece, won't you say? Significant change?

SENATOR SELIGER: I think it is.

SENATOR OGDEN: And, you know, I've gone back and forth on this because it's articulated that somehow going to one elected commissioner brings this agency into the 21st century and that over were 95 years of oil and gas regulation in this state by three elected commissioners is somehow antiquated and no longer appropriate in the year 2011. Do you share that view?

SENATOR SELIGER: I don't because I don't know that the efficiencies that Senator Hegar talks about are necessarily relevant. And he points particularly to that diversity of opinion represented by those three commissioners for the Senate. Is that diversity of opinion a bad thing? I would submit that having that diversity presented at least to the degree that it's presented in the legislature is a useful tool for us. Different viewpoints, people who are -- whose activities are integrated into both the industry and the regulatory environment, it's really a useful tool to present that diversity of viewpoints. We limit it to one is a limited viewpoint somehow more modern are somehow more efficient. While I agree with Senator Hegar that most of the problems come from statewide elected officials in the state of Texas. In this case I don't know that going to one elected commissioner solves any of the problems existing in the Railroad Commission today.

SENATOR OGDEN: One of the -- I -- I know anybody that's dealt with the Railroad Commission in recent years, I think, has been frustrated in different ways, and I have. But I never thought the frustration derived from this government structure. In fact, I've seen no evidence that the problems that the Railroad Commission are because we have a three member elected commission versus one. I mean, in fact, have you ever heard of anybody factually articulate that the problem with the Railroad Commission is the governance structure? Because I haven't.

SENATOR SELIGER: I don't think I've heard that the governance structure itself has been a problem. If there is a problem with responsiveness or process, and things like that, yes. But simply the fact that there are three commissioners as opposed to one. Elected aa opposed to appointed, no, I don't believe I've heard that at all.

SENATOR OGDEN: In other regulatory bodies in this state like the Public Utility Commission, how many commissioners do they have?

SENATOR SELIGER: They have three. And we find people in the industry take great exception to the decisions that they make and the way they make them also.

SENATOR OGDEN: In areas that Senator Davis is concerned about, particularly the TCEQ, how many commissioners do they have?

SENATOR SELIGER: I think TCQ has three, do they not?

SENATOR OGDEN: Three. How many -- you know one of the things that we're frustrated about with TxDOT is -- TxDOT, how many commissioners do they have?

SENATOR SELIGER: Five.

SENATOR OGDEN: And they used to have how many?

SENATOR SELIGER: They used to have three.

SENATOR OGDEN: And when we changed it to five, did we argue that one would bring it into the 21st century or did we think five might do a better job at representing the state?

SENATOR SELIGER: We didn't argue for one commissioner, and at the same time I don't see that five has necessarily improved the TxDOT commission.

SENATOR OGDEN: The -- in our courts, in our appeals courts and in the Texas Supreme Court, do we usually allow appeals of legal decisions decided by one person?

SENATOR SELIGER: We do not.

SENATOR OGDEN: We do not. And so there's well over a hundred years of experience in this state that suggests that a single person empowered with all of the legal authority necessary to regulate an industry may not be such a good idea, at least based -- at least based in areas like oil and gas, electric utility regulation, environmental regulation, highway regulation, legal regulation. So I wonder where -- do you know of any example in this state where one is better than three as far as governmental regulation? I am not sure I can think of one.

SENATOR SELIGER: I haven't. And it's an important observation, I think, because as Senator Hegar pointed out that with three elected commissioners there's some inefficiencies, clearly. With the diversity that exist there are. What I would argue with one is the risk, it may be very efficient, but then it becomes very arbitrary or the possibility is it becomes very arbitrary, because then there is only one viewpoint and one way to do things.

SENATOR OGDEN: So I will vote for your amendment, and if your amendment goes on, fine. And if it doesn't go on, then I'm going to come with another amendment because I think there's another issue that needs to be addressed and it may not be appropriate on this amendment. But on a later amendment is that who should decide, whether it's the people of the state of Texas who are ultimately the owners of their government or should the legislature in a single stroke of legislation decide for them. That's an issue that I will bring to the floor if your amendment does not succeed.

SENATOR SELIGER: I think it's an important issue and amendment.

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

SENATOR NICHOLS: To ask Senator Seliger some questions on his amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Seliger yield?

SENATOR SELIGER: I do.

SENATOR NICHOLS: I was listening very closely to the conversation between you and Senator Ogden on the three versus one. And we have agencies, really quite large ones, some that have three or more and some that have one. The -- and so they work differently for different reasons. But when you get into statewide elections and we're looking at our agencies, can you tell me how many other agencies we have in the state of Texas that have more than one statewide elected official?

SENATOR SELIGER: With the exception of agriculture, that's the only one I can think of.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. The comptroller's office is a very large office.

SENATOR SELIGER: Oh, the comptroller's office.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Making the elections on our budget is an extremely critical thing, we have one statewide person over that massively important one item. Would you say that three would work better there too?

SENATOR SELIGER: Not necessarily.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. I agree with you on that.

SENATOR SELIGER: The question is not an argument, Senator, as to whether it works better or not. It is, is there a reason to change. Is this a solution in search of a problem?

SENATOR NICHOLS: Okay. Let's go on that thought then. Is there a reason for change? When the Sunset Commission had our hearing and we led up to the many months getting ready to have the hearings on the various agencies, I had a lot of different groups from the industry that expressed that there was a lot of problems in the current structure, primarily because of the statewide elected structure. I'm talking about me personally. We also heard a lot of that publicly that there was a structural deficiency there. That in effect the very practical standpoint was that you have -- and we all know it -- you have three statewide officials wide openly, two of which are running for a totally different office than the office they currently have against each other and trying to work with each other at the same time. I mean, that's cause for a lot of concern when everybody's internal to those agencies -- those individuals. They're supposed to be working together to come up with good decisions. Are you aware --

SENATOR SELIGER: Well, it's true. But what would be the difference in that and having one of the commissions, the controller and the commissioner of agriculture running for reelection against a member of this body? Once again elected officials who are supposed to be working together. If elections are the problem, then that's a separate issue for legislation and it has been argued that we need to have some sort of constraint about statewide officers running for other offices and remaining in office. And I think that's a legitimate argument as well.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Well, your comment was -- because I was talking about the need for one versus three or more and I was talking about as long as it's running well, why change it? And what we kept hearing, what I personally kept hearing from a wide variety was there really is a problem and it really does need to be changed. It either needed to go to an appointment process or a singular elective, that's kind of the structure. And I didn't particularly like the three appointment but I could have lived with that. But the three electives seemed to be where the real issue has been and not just in recent years but in previous years as well. The second thing related to that in your amendment relates to the election. Is there any restriction on campaign contribution collections at all year after year if you go back?

SENATOR SELIGER: The constraints on them is the same as you and me. And let me make this point. I didn't say necessarily the Railroad Commission is operating well, I'm saying replacing three fallible human beings with one fallible human being, I'm not sure I see that improvement, and then you add that element of arbitrariness to there with no diversity of opinion or debate at the top of an important commission and I failed to see that that's a big improvement.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Well, in your amendment for electing three, I know that the bill as currently constructed by Senator Hegar where there's one elected had a restriction that prohibited the commissioner from collecting campaign contributions for at least three out of those four years. You can only collect campaign contributions one year before the election cycle and for a few weeks afterwards. And I think the reason that was put on there is we heard in testimony quite a bit of evidence that the commissioners themselves are actually voting to set the rates on the gas industry and they're voting to regulate an industry who is contributing campaign contributions to them while they're setting the rates. And as a matter of fact, when they did the study of how much of their campaign contributions came from the industry they regulate, it turned out to be percent and they campaign year around, year around. At least we have to stop during the session. So Senator Hegar's bill currently says only 12 months prior to the session, and I was going to ask you on your amendment do they just get to campaign collections year around?

SENATOR SELIGER: There's nothing in that amendment that changes it. If you choose to forward an amendment to the amendment that changes it, perfectly okay with me. I think it's probably a good idea. But are you saying that with that change that the same percentage of contributions that somehow that will be different than the percentage coming from the industry that comes now? And what guarantees that, Senator?

SENATOR NICHOLS: What I was trying to say was from a public perception standpoint, at least in my district, when somebody is actually -- their campaign is dependent on the industry in which they regulate, every year after year, that's not perceived very well in my district and I was supportive of trying to restrict that to the best of our ability.

SENATOR SELIGER: Are you saying that there's a single elected commissioner, a lesser percentage of those campaign contributions will come from the industry and what ensures that?

SENATOR NICHOLS: I think one single elected will have a tendency to focus on the job they're doing a lot more than three running against each other for other offices.

SENATOR SELIGER: But that's not the point you made.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Well, it's because I followed your line of rationalization that don't try to fix it, if it's not broke. And there is a problem.

SENATOR SELIGER: Your criticism was if there's three elected commissioners and 80 percent of the campaign contributions come from the industry, then you must feel if there's a single elected one, there will by some means be a lesser percentage of their campaign contributions coming from the industry. I don't think that's true at all.

SENATOR NICHOLS: Well, that some means was a restriction prohibition from collecting campaign contributions for probably three out of those four years.

SENATOR SELIGER: Which is perfectly okay. But they would still come from the industry, don't you think?

SENATOR NICHOLS: All right. Thank you, Senator Seliger.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Hegar on Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I would just say I appreciate the debate on the elected versus the appointed and the fact that I really appreciate Senator Seliger's comments one infallible versus three infallible. That's interesting to me. But the fact is having one saves the state $1.2 million, which is vital in this budget cycle, but even beyond that when we look at officials in the state of Texas, statewide elected officials, the attorney general, the ag commissioner, the comptroller and the land commissioner are all one. And I still think -- I feel very strongly that we need to have one commissioner at the Oil and Gas Commission. And I would move to table Floor Amendment No. 1.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hegar moves to table Floor Amendment No. 1. The Chair recognizes Senator Seliger to close.

SENATOR SELIGER: Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate Senator Hegar's hard work on this bill and urge the members to vote against the motion to table.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, the motion is by Senator Hegar to table Floor Amendment No. 1. Senator Seliger opposes. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 29 ayes to table and two nays, the motion to table prevails. The Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 2 by Senator Ogden. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Ogden.

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

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, in the great tradition of never say die, we'll try again on Floor Amendment No. 2. One of the other issues that I've been concerned about, and I've asked you on the floor to at least listen to the debate, is whether it's appropriate to change a hundred years of electoral regulation in legislation itself when what we're changing through legislation is basically 120 year old provision in the constitution. We talk about the Railroad Commission as not having anything to do with the oil and gas, but that's only true if you read the world's Railroad Commission. The fact is the Railroad Commission has been regulating oil and gas since at least 1917, when the legislature declared that pipelines were common carriers and they gave the commission jurisdiction. In 1919 the commission adopted rule 37 for oil and gas industry requiring certain spacing rules between wells. An issue that is currently relevant in all the groundwater discussion that we're talking about. That is well over 90 years of regulatory authority in the oil and gas industry. So for at least 90 years, the people of the state of Texas have been electing commissioners to six year terms as required by the constitution to regulate oil and gas. And now what we're saying is that in our electoral wisdom, we're going to change that by statute. What this amendment tries to do is strike a balance between what proponents suggest would be an improvement, and they may be right, and the people of the state of Texas who ought to have a say on that. And so the provision -- what my amendment does is that it says that going from a three member elected commission as set out in the constitution to a single member elected commissioner as set out by legislation and basically eliminating the reason for a Railroad Commission that's existed for over a hundred years by statute, will not go into effect until approved by the voters through a constitutional amendment. The right way to change this, members, in my opinion, is to go out with a constitutional amendment that changes the name of the Railroad Commission to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission and changes in our constitution that the Railroad Commission shall consist of three members elected to six year terms to one member elected to a six year term and allow the people to decide for themselves how they want what is arguably the most important industry in our state. So I move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I appreciate Senator Ogden's effort in talking about sending it to the voters. Again, No. 1, if it not be a main reason for moving from three to one, I think it moves this agency in the direction of the 21st century that is very needed and very important at this juncture in Texas history. By removing and changing and adopting his amendment, it will eliminate the $2.1 million in savings. It will also add an additional cost, a minor cost, that is for an election, but it requires an SJR, which there is no SJR. So by adopting this amendment, it essentially kills this whole section of the bill because with -- I don't know what we got, 57 days left, I don't think there's any mechanism that we're going to get an SJR passed this legislative session. And so I am not going to redebate all the issues as we went with Senator Seliger's amendment, but for those reason I would ask that we table Floor Amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Hegar moves to table the Floor Amendment No. 2. Chair recognizes Senator Ogden to close.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, we will this session pass over a dozen SJRs. As far as I know, no more than one or two have been to the floor. And if this amendment goes on, I will personally introduce the SJR to repair what I think is a serious power grab by this legislature. I think the people for over a hundred years have been electing their regulators for oil and gas and the Railroad Commission and they ought to have a right to decide whether it's three or one. And it will be no problem if you approve this amendment for me to get that SJR to the floor. So I'd ask you to vote no on tabling Floor Amendment No. 2.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Hegar moves to table Floor Amendment No. 2. Senator Ogden opposes. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 25 ayes and six nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 3 by Senator Ogden. The secretary will read the amendment.

SENATOR OGDEN: Floor Amendment No. 3 by Ogden.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Ogden on Floor Amendment 3.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I'm going to ask Senator Hegar to cosponsor the appropriations bill, maybe I can do as well.

SENATOR HEGAR: You're on your own.

SENATOR OGDEN: Members, Floor Amendment No. 3 is a different subject, and I'd ask you to at least pay attention to the debate. Members, one of the reasons that I believe that the oil and gas industry has been so successful in our state is because there's been a lot of oil and gas to find. But one of the things that can impede expiration and production is multiple government regulation and we see this all over our society, where there is so much regulation, it's practically impossible to do anything. When it comes to trying to permit a power plant, for example, it takes years to satisfy all different multiple regulatory jurisdictions, any one of which has veto power over that power plant. It is costly, it is expensive, it's arguably not very effective. When we try to build a highway project in this state, it takes years to get all the required clearances from all the different regulatory jurisdictions in our state. It takes years and millions of dollars and it's surprising how many different entities claim a right to regulate building highways in this state. In a hundred years of history, the oil and gas industry has not been given that economic burden. It has been allowed to operate, produce, and prosper in this state in part because it had a single regulatory agency with which it had to sty. Now, that's changing, and I would say not for the better. Recently, you have heard a lot of discussion about the issues in the Barnett shell and the authority that the TCEQ has to regulate for the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the area emissions in the Barnett shell. I personally do not have a stake in that issue and do not have a opposition to whatever regulations there are. But in order for an industry to be successful, the regulations have got to be clear, they have got to be well defined. And if someone wants to comply, they need to know how to do it. What this amendment does is it states as a matter of policy that in the state of Texas regulation for oil and gas resides with the Texas Oil and Gas Commission and that to the extent that the federal government regulations affects oil and gas operations and delegates that authority to the state, the delegation will be to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. Now, there's an exception under the current Clean Air rules with respect to the TCEQ rules under this amendment. Under the current Clean Air rules, the TCEQ is delegated with authority to regulate clean air regulations and SIP rules that we've agreed to in the federal government. This amendment does not change that without permission from the Environmental Protection Agency. So I am not trying to disrupt what currently exists, but what this amendment says is that as a matter of public policy in the future, oil and gas regulation and federal oil and gas regulation delegated to the states reside with the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. And if the federal government will not give us permission, because one of the problems, as I understand it now with the EPA, is they never give you an answer. You ask for permission for something, and you never hear anything from them. In fact, that flex permit argument right now, we've requested a permission from the EPA for at least, I think, 17 years. No answer. Federal government should not have the right to give you no answer. And so what this amendment says is that if we petition the federal government for permission to regulate oil and gas and they delegate the -- federal authorities to regulate oil and gas, it resides with the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. And if they won't give you an answer, then the attorney general is authorized to go into federal court and ask for an answer. This bill is not an attempt to water down any regulation. What this bill is an attempt to do is to put the regulatory authority for what is arguably the most important industry in our state in a single agency so that people who have an interest in oil and gas regulation, both for and against, have nowhere to go, know who's in charge and know how to get an answer. And so I would request that you vote with me and adopt Floor Amendment No. 3.

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

SENATOR URESTI: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR URESTI: Thank you, Senator Ogden. I just want to make sure that I understand your amendment. I think I actually agree with you on this issue. I understand there's differences between -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- between oil and gas sites and refinery or chemical plants. And how does is this amendment distinguish --

SENATOR OGDEN: It's my intent, sir that it deals with production and not refineries per se. If there's ambiguity in that, I would change it. But the intent of this is the oil and gas development production.

SENATOR URESTI: And what I gather from your amendment is that you're trying to streamline for those that are actually beginning the production and the emission from oil and gas sites are less significant, far less significant than the refineries.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, that's true and the -- but that's not the point. The point is whether they're significant or not significant and industries should have the right to go to a single regulator and in this case a regulator whose commissioner is elected by the people of the state of Texas and satisfy the regulation or if there's a dispute, get that regulation resolved. What we have too much in this country is just because you certify one regulator doesn't mean anything because you got to satisfy five or six others, and I'm just trying to make sure, and I think this is in the public interest as well as in the private interest, to say if you want to regulate oil and gas, you're concerned about proper enforcement or implementation, there's one agency in the state that does it. And that's my intent, Senator.

SENATOR URESTI: So your amendment would streamline that effort?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, streamline and also to basically protect a hundred years of tradition. I mean, the Railroad Commission has always regulated oil and gas and I see it changing and even in the area of the Environmental Protection Agency with respect to the Clean Water Act, disposal wells for oil and gas waste are regulated by the Railroad Commission. They've already recognized from at least the standpoint of clean water that the Railroad Commission regulates oil and gas disposal wells. And I'm just trying to put in statute our intent as a state that that's where oil and gas regulation belongs.

SENATOR URESTI: I think you have a good amendment. Thank you, Senator Ogden.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Uresti. Chair recognizes Senator Duncan.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I appreciate what this amendment's trying to do. I just want to understand it though. If an oil and gas production is going to occur in an area where you have close -- an area where we have a SIP, I guess is what you call it in their world, where TCEQ has an interest in providing a regulatory frame work that complies generally with the EPA and the Oil and Gas Commission has jurisdiction specifically for oil and gas, who prevails?

SENATOR OGDEN: Under current law of the TCEQ?

SENATOR DUNCAN: What about under the amendment?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well --

SENATOR DUNCAN: In other words, where you have concurrent jurisdiction in an area and there is a compelling state interest for TCEQ to have regulatory authority in order to comply with the general federal regulation on that in areas like close to Houston or Dallas or wherever they have air quality problems, under your amendment who prevails in emissions? Is it the commission or the TCEQ?

SENATOR OGDEN: The TCEQ until the EPA authorizes a transfer of regulatory authority to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. That's the intent of my amendment. And I thank you for asking that because that's the key point. I think when I first introduced this, what I proposed to do is just automatically transfer and say we're going to do it. But there's been a lot of concern that there would be unintended adverse consequences for all involved if you did it unilaterally. So with respect to air emissions, they would be transferred to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission only when the Environmental Protection Agency grants that authority.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So what you're telling me, then, is that the EPA then could say, We're not going to allow you to do that or if you're going to drill a well near Houston, for example, then the EPA could say, We're not going to transfer that authority to you in those areas, that would have to stay within TCEQ?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's correct.

SENATOR DUNCAN: And that occurs because you're requiring that authority to be transferred to the commission by EPA?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, no. Under -- on page 1 of the amendment it says jurisdiction of Texas Oil and Gas Commission over emissions of containments from oil and gas exploration, preservation and production. This section is effective on the date the delegation of authority under the federal Clean Air Act related to the regulation of emissions of air contaminants from the exploration of foreign development and production of oil and gas has been transferred to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. So the bill will petition the Environmental Protection Agency for permission. It authorizes the attorney general to go into federal court to get an answer, but it's not effective until the EPA delegates the authority.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Does the commission --

SENATOR OGDEN: Am I answering your question?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Yeah, I think you are. I think what I am trying to understand is that where we have an interest in the state to be able to keep our emissions down because we're in a nonattainment area, and so we don't want two agencies in those areas with conflicting standards.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I don't. I don't.

SENATOR DUNCAN: And you're saying this amendment deals with that.

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir it does. Basically you now have two conflicting agencies now. You got the TCEQ who has been given the delegated authority from the EPA to regulate air emissions under our SIP and the Railroad Commission has regulatory authority under everything else basically.

SENATOR DUNCAN: But not on air.

SENATOR OGDEN: Not on air. And this legislation with the permission of the EPA attempts to put all that authority in one agency.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Does the agency currently have the expertise to do that?

SENATOR OGDEN: Not currently, no. But if we transferred it, we'd have to make sure that it has the expertise.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Okay. Well, the next question is how do we -- what do we do -- how do we accomplish that? Does that require an appropriation or does it require -- how do we fund that is what I am getting at. Is that funded through fees or --

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I think -- the obvious answer is that it would be funded by the same fees that Senator Hegar has in his bill for all other regulation and I think this bill gives the Railroad Commission plenty of authority to levy a fee to regulate all oil and gas activities including clean air compliance. I know that's his intent.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Maybe he could answer that for us.

SENATOR OGDEN: Senator Hegar.

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes, I didn't hear the question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Before we go to Hegar, I was going to go to you last.

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes, sir, I think there was a question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking to Senator Shapiro. All right. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar --

SENATOR HEGAR: Could I answer the question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield to Senator Hegar?

SENATOR OGDEN: I do.

SENATOR DUNCAN: The question, Senator Hegar, is if we adopted this amendment, and we allowed the Oil and Gas Commission to have this regulatory authority for the oil and gas industry, do the fees -- or would the fees contemplated by your bill provide a mechanism to pay for that?

SENATOR HEGAR: No. Because, of course, the structure of the bill is that the commission could put surcharges and those surcharges in essence is for the operation of the agency. The operation of the agency as contemplated is under the current regulatory environment and structure. So, therefore, surcharges would go up appropriately on different sectors of the industry to take the place of the general revenue that we're subsidizing that position of the agency right now. So, therefore, that is not contemplated in the drafting. Now, I would assume that if his amendment was successful, that this would take several years to work through probably the legal issues as well as how is it structured, is it set up, who's included, refineries, the SIP issues, you know, a whole host of issues --

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, it depends on what the EPA grants.

SENATOR HEGAR: That is correct.

SENATOR DUNCAN: So the infrastructure -- what you're saying is the way you're funding this agency now will be like an Article 8 agency, it's going to be funded on the fees it collects.

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes, sir, that's correct.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Like the insurance department and everybody else.

SENATOR HEGAR: Yes, sir, that's correct.

SENATOR DUNCAN: And if this amendment were put on and it took on these responsibilities, then a fee could be charged for the purpose of accomplishing or at least financing adequate regulation.

SENATOR HEGAR: And then obviously subject to the statutory, I would say the appropriation process of the legislature in recognizing that the agency needs funding for those types of issues. So, you know, those agencies go through the appropriations process. Even though they're self-funding we still recognize and target what their priorities are, this is a priority that would be years set out so we couldn't even begin to contemplate or tie the hands of subsequent legislators on how they would even try to deal with this issue.

SENATOR DUNCAN: But just allowing the agency to acquire or assess a fee won't be tying the hands of the legislature.

SENATOR HEGAR: No, no, no. None whatsoever.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Davis, for what purpose do you rise, ma'am?

SENATOR DAVIS: To ask a question of Senator Ogden.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes.

SENATOR DAVIS: Senator Ogden, Senator Duncan asked some similar questions that I have about your amendment and I understand and I'm very sympathetic to what you're attempting to achieve here because there certainly has been a frustration not only on the part of elected officials who represent constituencies who try to navigate between these two agencies and the line that's sometimes blurred between their responsibilities, but people throughout Texas have often be confused about who to turn to when they have a question or a concern about activities related to the oil and gas industry specifically because it's separated. And I agree with you that it creates a problem. I think there's another problem, though, and I'm not sure how to answer it. If we move oversight of air quality emissions that are due to activities of the oil and gas industry into this new Oil and Gas Commission, then we have another issue that we deal with where an agency that's tasked with overseeing air quality emissions in all other arenas is now no longer the agency tasked with air quality emissions in this particular arena. The area that I represent is a nonattainment area and we, of course, have been through the SIP process numerous times in an attempt to come in compliance with federal rules with regard to air quality in north Texas. My concern and my question is -- and I sincerely want to hear your thoughts on this. If the responsibility of that air quality oversight is divided and TCEQ now has the responsibility for all other emissions as they relate to the SIP, whether they're vehicular emission or industrial emissions, and now this new agency, the renamed agency has oversight of the emissions as they relate to the oil and gas industry, are we creating an unintended problem where we now, once again, have artificially split what really should be in the domain of one agency that can collectively understand and respond to emissions? Have we artificially divided it in a way that's going to create a problem?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I don't know how to answer that without speculating. And, you know, I can speculate either way. I would tell you this though. That with respect to the Clear Water Act, we've already done this. As I understand it in the Clear Water Act, there are five different types of disposal wells. One of which is oil and gas waste disposal, saltwater disposal wells. You have been told that the TCEQ regulates four of those five, but on saltwater disposal wells the Railroad Commission is the specific regulatory authority. So at least in that area, the kind of problem that you described, as far as I know, does not exist. With respect to clean air, I think the question really revolves around can the two agencies work together in a coordinating fashion so that the overall plan is successful. I would thing the answer is yes, and I would think that we would not get permission from the EPA until we showed that that would be the case.

SENATOR DAVIS: Those are my concerns, Senator, thank you. Appreciate your answers.

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

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Would the author of the amendment yield for a question?

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Ogden yield?

SENATOR OGDEN: I yield.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Senator Ogden, I'm trying to understand the -- I want to put in context or get you to help me put in context the discussion that you had with Senator Duncan, and also Senator Hegar was involved in here, about the fees and how this would be transferred over. Because as I read your amendment, it looks -- is it correct, am I understanding that on page lines 22 through 27, it looks like we're not going to actually transfer any of this authority until we receive permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to move this from TCEQ over to the Railroad Commission; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: That's correct.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Okay. So the whole idea that especially given the time line that they seem to operate under at the EPA, we could be in session again before they grant us permission for this to happen. That wouldn't be an unrealistic --

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, there's a belief that if the EPA is the EPA, that we may never get this permission unless we went into federal court because the problem with EPA is they never give you an answer.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Right.

SENATOR OGDEN: Now, the question that Senator Duncan asked and that Senator Hegar answered was answered in our committee. Whether this bill passes with or without my amendment, it's going to require a contingency appropriation. It's going to say contingent on passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 or equivalent. The appropriation for the Railroad Commission is X and what I would think would be in our bill is that we will say, we will take all the GR out of the Railroad Commission and basically make a contingency appropriation that the Railroad Commission is supposed to raise fees and run their agency. One of which is regulating the air.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: That would take care of itself, and it's only going to be the emissions related to oil and gas production; is that correct?

SENATOR OGDEN: Yes, sir. What the bill says is regulated to the emissions of air contaminants from the exploration for and development and production of oil and gas, and so it's not my intent to get refineries in this.

SENATOR WILLIAMS: Well, and then just to follow up on Senator Davis' question. I think she's raised an interesting point here. Senator Nichols and I actually have a situation in our district in Montgomery County that we are grateful that some of these duties are split between the TCEQ and the Railroad Commission. As you noted, these injection wells are partly regulated. I think as you noted the Railroad Commission does the saltwater injection wells but for a disposal well to get rid of hazardous and nonhazardous waste, which I have a lot of those kinds of wells in my district with all the refining capacity and everything that we got. They have to go to the Railroad Commission and get a no harm letter before they can issue the permit for an injection well. We have a situation in Montgomery County where a SOA judge has actually said, You shouldn't issue this permit to the TCEQ. Every elected official in Montgomery County is opposed to it, the oil and gas industry is opposed to it, and so they're going to come through, now, the TCEQ they're trying to issue that permit and pressure the Railroad Commission in giving that no harm letter, which they initially did. But on further study they rescinded, and so actually I think in at least my experience has been that by having two agencies to look at this, the public's interest is being protected better because they both have to agree on how this is going to work and they're not going to be able to get that permit issued until the Railroad Commission gives the no harm letter. And it appears at least for now that they're not going to do that. So I think it'd be nice if we could have it all in one big agency, but sometimes these agencies don't make a right decision, and it's good to have someone looking over their shoulder, so to speak, before these things happen. So I think you got a good amendment here. I appreciate you bringing this forward to us.

SENATOR OGDEN: Thank you.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. Would Senator Ogden -- on dealing with the federal delegation issue, I know that the amendment, since we visited last week, it talks about if EPA approves this so it doesn't trigger upon EPA approval unless the attorney general then sues, because they have taken too much time or if they disapproved it. And so I think that was trying to deal with the delegation issue. But I guess have you contemplated what does the agency need to do in order to develop rules and requests the delegation of this authority? So have you -- because it's not as though Railroad Commission or Oil and Gas Commission would just say, We want this, federal government, EPA, but there has to be a rule process put into place. And so have you contemplated how they would go through that?

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, sure. I think if you petition the EPA for delegation -- or transfer of authority, the petition would have to say that the current regulation would be transferred to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission and that the Texas Oil and Gas Commission is fully capable of implementing the regulations. It would have to say that.

SENATOR HEGAR: So then I guess you would see it as though the commission oil and gas, Railroad Commission would essentially take the TCEQ rules and regulations and just take that package and send it to the federal government.

SENATOR OGDEN: Sure, initially. And as time passed, if there was time to modify it. But my experience is you don't modify too many federal rules and regulations. I mean, basically our state becomes an agent of the federal government and just enforces whatever they tell us.

SENATOR HEGAR: And then one of the things that Senator Duncan was asking earlier and Senator Williams talking about the fee, one of the things that my staff had reminded me of, which I did not state completely earlier, is that there's actually an air fee at TCEQ that pays for the Title V permitting, and we can only have one fee. So I didn't necessarily realize that earlier when I was trying to answer that question. So one of the things I'm not really sure about is that fee is going to be collected at TCEQ. But then how does that money get sent over to Railroad Commission? Because TCEQ would be the only designee as the collector of that fee.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I think once the TCEQ petition, then you have the authority, you transfer the fee to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. I am sure you would, and any money that the TCEQ had, they'd probably transfer under an intergovernmental contract. Those issues are not hard to solve.

SENATOR HEGAR: Well, I think there would be a little difference in opinions on that. And as far as the multiple permitting, one of the things that I was thinking about, say, for example, waste water discharge permits are still going to have to be over at TCEQ. So not necessarily everything -- and one of my questions was going to be the refineries, but you answered that question earlier. I heard in an earlier discussion. But say, for example, with waste water discharge, those permits are still going to be over at TCEQ, so there won't be an entire one stop shop. And I didn't get to kind of fully figure that out until I got the amendment earlier today, but it doesn't quite accomplish the entire process that I think you're trying to accomplish. And then I guess the last concern that I would have is that it seems as though this is going to have a cost because railroad or Oil and Gas Commission is not going to have the type of equipment necessary for air quality maintenance. They're not going to have the employees for the permitting, the inspections, and so it seems as though what we're actually going to create is a sidetracked process. Really just for the oil and gas industry. But you still have to have those duplication of resources for everybody else over at TCEQ. So it seems as though we're creating more government in trying to do this. And I understand the point that you're trying to accomplish, and I have absolutely respect for that. But I think once we get down into the difficulties of this, I don't know how we get there with all these different hurdles that we have.

SENATOR OGDEN: Well, I do. I think it's relatively simple, and I think the hardest part is getting the EPA to approve this. But I think the state of Texas, and we've all campaigned on this, about how the regulations need to be simple, straightforward, people ought to be able to complain, they ought to be the least intrusive as possible. I know, there is no doubt in my mind, that one of the reasons it seems like we cannot do anything in this country very fast or very efficiently because of the multiple regulatory jurisdictions that overlap everything. The best example I have, which is not directly related, but they say in New York City it's practically impossible to get a license to open a restaurant because you've got to satisfy 25 different agencies just to open a restaurant.

SENATOR HEGAR: That's one of the reasons I'm not in the restaurant business in New York.

SENATOR OGDEN: The oil and gas industry has enjoyed a competitive advantage over the years, and I think it's been good for our state. It's only had to satisfy one regulator, and I've aways argued that regulator needs to be fair and tough and we need to take care of our business if you're in the oil and gas business, because if you don't, someone else is going to take care of it for us. But this is a good public policy principle that I'm trying to defend here. If this amendment could be improved, I'd be happy to improve it. But I still think I'm right on the principle and the principle is that -- if you're going to regulate an industry, put the authority in a single agency so everybody knows who's in charge and knows who to hold responsible.

SENATOR HEGAR: And I fully appreciate that. And you and I have been visiting about this issue off and on, and I appreciate you -- you actually mentioned this to me early in session. And I appreciate that greatly. I think the principle issue of one regulator, I do not disagree with you in the fact that we have too many regulatory agencies period. I won't necessarily say in dealing with oil and gas but I do say in general. I do think we have too many layers of governments, but I think at the end of the day what we're going to try and do is set up a separate process that's really just special for oil and gas industry. And I think it's going to be to the detriment of the SIP areas for everybody else that's included. I think it's going to be to the detriment of the taxpayers in having duplicating resources in two different agencies. And I thought long and hard about this, because we have been visiting about it. When you first mentioned it to me a couple of months ago, I just don't necessarily see still how this could be manageable. So with that, with all due respect --

SENATOR OGDEN: Okay. And I understand. No use in belaboring it, let's just vote. Only comment I've gotten is the same one I had with Senator Davis. We already do this with water, and there's not that much difference in my opinion with regulatory issues with respect to water, that there is with respect to air. This can be done, it has been done and it's good public policy.

SENATOR HEGAR: I appreciate it except for waste water discharge permit. With that, I move that we table Floor Amendment No. 3.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Do you wish to close?

SENATOR OGDEN: I close.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar. Senator Hegar moves to table Floor Amendment No. 3. Senator Ogden opposes. The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 22 ayes -- I'm sorry, 23 ayes and eight nays, the motion to table prevails. Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 4 by Senator Hegar. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Nor amendment No. 4 by Hegar.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Hegar on Floor Amendment No. 4.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. This floor amendment will clean up an amendment that we had put on a committee that Senator Ogden had asked that we put on, and I didn't disagree with it. In that the governor will make the appointment of the first commissioner to the Oil and Gas Commission as soon as possible. But if the governor does not, then the last elected commissioner would serve in that capacity. This is a cleanup language that would essentially make sure that there was not a transitional gap between the Railroad Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission and this is an alleged amendment to clean up that language to make sure that the transition is effective. And I would move adoption of Floor Amendment No. 4.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Hegar, I'm going to hold for just a moment because we need to pass out the amendment. Oh, I'm sorry, you have a Floor Amendment No. 5? Oh, I see. Okay. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Hegar. Is there objection from any member? There being -- Chair hearing no objection from any member, Floor Amendment No. 4 is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, you heard the motion by Senator Hegar. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 passes to engrossment. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three separate days.

SENATOR HEGAR: So moved.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 28 ayes and three nays, the rule is suspended. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 as amended. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 relating to the abolition of the Railroad Commission of Texas.

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

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President. I move final passage of Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 as amended.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: There being 29 ayes and two nays, Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 655 as amended is finally passed.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Ogden, are you -- following bills and resolutions on first reading in reference to committee. The secretary will read the bills and resolutions.

PATSY SPAW: Senate Bill 1890 by Rodriguez relating to creation of the Montecillo Municipal Management District No. l. To Intergovernmental Relations. Senate Bill 1891 by Hegar relating to the creation of North Fort Bend County Improvement District No. 1. To Intergovernmental Relations. House Bill 1. To Finance. House Bill 4. To Finance. House Bill 74. To Veteran Affairs and Military Installations. House Bill 275. To Finance. House Bill 367. To Transportation and Homeland Security. House Bill 699. To International Relations and Trade. House Bill 801. To Natural Resources. House Bill 861. To Education. House Bill 1383. To Intergovernmental Relations. House Bill 1409. To Transportation and Homeland Security. House Bill 1510. To Business and Commerce.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, we're waiting on one -- we're waiting on -- we have one bill left, and so I'm pausing momentarily for Senator Fraser. Members, this is our last bill. After this, the president's desk will be clear. I wanted to mention that I had not scheduled a Chair or vice Chair meeting this afternoon because I thought the Dean was going to be calling a caucus of the members. It being as late as it is, there are different committee meetings to be held, and so I'm not going to hold a Chair and vice Chair this evening. And I think it's up to the Dean and you all for a meeting tomorrow or Wednesday. So having said that. Senator Fraser, are you ready? Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, this is Senate Bill 875 relating to the compliance of state and federal environmental permits. The question was raised by Senator Ogden that I think he has an amendment that he's going to offer that will be acceptable, and if there's no more questions, I would now move to suspend the regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 875.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Davis, for what purpose do you rise, ma'am?

SENATOR DAVIS: Well, I still have some questions of the author and I understand that Senator Ogden's concerns are going to be introduced through an amendment that would demonstrate that this wouldn't create any kind of an affirmative defense or immunity for noxious odors, but I still have some concerns and identify spent some time as we have been pausing on this issue, Senator Fraser -- I'm sorry, Senator Fraser, do you yield for a question?

SENATOR FRASER: I will yield.

SENATOR DAVIS: Thank you. It's my understanding that currently if you break down the particulates that are included in the definitions of greenhouse gases, it includes six different things. Four of which are currently regulated by TCEQ and those four are nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexa fluoride. And my question and my concern is if your bill through a permit to do something else creates an immunity or an affirmative defense for any claims of nuisance or trespass that's been caused by one of the underlying components that can make up a greenhouse gas or that are defined as greenhouse gas, are we now creating an immunity for something that's currently regulated by the state? And again, those four elements that are currently regulated are nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexa fluoride. So are we going to create an immunity for a nuisance or trespass case for these air contaminants that are currently regulated by TCEQ through your bill?

SENATOR FRASER: The language is very clear. It just says that in regards to greenhouse gas that this will serve as an affirmative defense for -- under the water code, this is not by anything brought by individuals. This is just under the water code for a municipality and will serve as an affirmative defense for them if they're currently holding a valid state permit.

SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. I have a question about that. So can you point -- I'm sorry. I'm very sorry. Can you point to me in your bill where this is applicable only to a cause of action that would be brought by a municipality.

SENATOR FRASER: Senator, we're amending the water code and the water code -- this would not be an action by individuals. If you'll look at section 1 which says (inaudible) chapter water code as amended by adding subsection 7. We're amending the water code, so it would not have anything to do with an action brought by an individual.

SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. Well, I am a little bit confused because the section that you're adding says a person as defined by section 382.003 of the Health and Safety Code who is subject to an administrative, civil or criminal action brought under this chapter for nuisance or trespass. Under that chapter, under the Health and Safety Code chapter arising from greenhouse gas emissions has an affirmative defense to that action if the person's actions that resulted in the alleged nuisance or trespass were authorized by a rural permit, order, license, certificate, registration, approval or any other form of authorization issued by the commissioner of federal government, or an agency of the federal government.

SENATOR FRASER: This bill amends chapter seven of the water code and enforcement authority does not provide affirmative defense in cases brought by individuals.

SENATOR DAVIS: Well, I'm sorry, Senator Fraser, I'm not reading your bill that way. And I don't think that's how it's going to be read or how it's going to be applied.

SENATOR FRASER: My advice to you would be to pull the water code and look at it. We're amending chapter seven of the water code. This does not address a nuisance caused brought by an individual.

SENATOR DAVIS: Okay. Thank you, Senator Fraser.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Fraser moves to suspend the Senate's regular order of business to take up and consider Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875. Is there objection from any member? The secretary will call the roll.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 23 ayes and eight nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on second reading Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875 relating to compliance with state, federal, environmental permits as a defense for certain actions of nuisance or trespass.

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

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 1 by Ogden.

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

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President and members, I want to thank you, Senator Fraser, for allowing me to work on this amendment and thank my staff for drafting it. But it accomplishes what I asked before in that it says that this section of the bill, the affirmative defense does not apply to a nuisance action relating to noxious odors. I believe it's acceptable to the author. I move adoption of Floor Amendment No.1.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 1.

SENATOR FRASER: Bock bock bock. It's acceptable.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, Senator Ogden moves adoption of Floor Amendment No. 1. It's acceptable to Senator Fraser. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and Floor Amendment No. 1 is adopted. Chair lays out Floor Amendment No. 2 by Senator Duncan. The secretary will read the caption.

PATSY SPAW: Floor Amendment No. 2 by Duncan.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Senator Ogden, congratulations on getting your amendment passed. Chair recognizes Senator Duncan to explain Floor Amendment No. 2.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. You've heard this discussed. Senator Hinojosa, who sits next to me in Natural Resources, we discussed this and we both agreed that the word -- if you'll hook on page 1 line 25 where it says "the person was in general -- "affirmative defense applies where a person is in general compliance" should actually be "substantial compliance." And so this amendment changes "general compliance" and substitutes the word "substantial."

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

SENATOR WATSON: Question of the author of the amendment.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Will Senator Duncan yield?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I will yield.

SENATOR WATSON: Senator, it's a pretty simple question. Going from general to substantial, I guess part of my -- the question I got is why have you used the word "substantial" when we're talking about the water code in this specific area? Typically if there's an exception to an enforcement action, I think it's typically been that you have to be in strict compliance. In other words if there's a discharge, you can be held liable for that discharge with the exception if you are in strict compliance. Why did you choose "substantial" as opposed to what I believe is the more recognized compliance and that would be "strict"?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I think the words in this amendment was vetted with the agency and with others and that substantial compliance actually is an acceptable term of art here and substantial is certainly more than general and I think can be construed to be -- I don't know how strict compliance is construed nor do I know the difference between strict and substantial. I know that substantial would be certainly more than general, and strict would seem to be absolute. So I would say that general and strict, substantial is somewhere in between there and probably closer to strict on the continuum between those two.

SENATOR WATSON: I guess what I'm trying to figure out before we vote I guess -- first of all, I completely agree that general -- I'm not sure where that comes from, but substantial is better than general. But as we vote on creating this affirmative defense and there's so many issues related to this and the vagaries of this new statute, it would be helpful if we knew what the basis for substantial was going to be. And I'll be candid with you, that in doing a search, if you do a search of chapter 67 in enforcement section, I don't know that you will find the word "substantial" for in compliance and I think you will find multiple times that it talks in terms of strict. And I don't know if I am getting an answer as to why it is we're not using strict as opposed to substantial.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Well, strict compliance is absolute, and I do believe that substantial compliance would be construed to mean in compliance with the rule to the extent that it is germane to the allegation of nuisance.

SENATOR WATSON: Well, except in this case, as it's already been pointed out, and I think you'll agree with me, you can be in -- if this amendment goes on, substantial compliance with a permit that doesn't even cover what this is dealing with.

SENATOR DUNCAN: No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you could have some variance for compliance on an issue that's not germane or relevant. There's a lot of different themes that are involved with compliance of these rules and regulations. You can have an administrative noncompliance that would have nothing to do with the strict with this, so the point here is you need to be in substantial compliance with the rule, which is an improvement from general compliance.

SENATOR WATSON: I'll give you it's an improvement. I'm not sure I understand why you shouldn't have strict compliance if you're going to create a defense, particularly if that compliance is unrelated to the greenhouse gas emissions. This is a situation. What we're getting ready to do, if we pass this, is we're going to say with regard to greenhouse emission is that someone can be in compliance with a permit that has nothing to do with that part, with that activity. You can be in substantial compliance with something completely unrelated and have this affirmative defense and I don't understand why you have chosen substantial as opposed to requiring strict compliance when it's a separate issue.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I've chosen substantial because I believe that would be the appropriate standard to be used in a judging whether or not this affirmative defense would be available.

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

SENATOR WEST: I have a very substantial question.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Would Senator Duncan yield for a very substantial question?

SENATOR WEST: It may be general, but I think it's substantial.

SENATOR DUNCAN: I will yield to my colleague from Dallas.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much. As it relates to the conversation, the debate between you and Senator Watson, was his assessment of the situation correct? That is, you can be in substantial compliance with something totally unrelated to the particular activity that's the subject of the complaint?

SENATOR DUNCAN: I'm not sure I understand your question. I think you could roll this word around all day long, but the intent is to raise the standard from general compliance and not apply strict compliance, because strict compliance would mean compliance with every administrative and substantive detail of the regulation. And I think that you're going to have a question of fact about whether or not there was substantial compliance.

SENATOR WEST: That was going to be my next question. Is this a fact question?

SENATOR DUNCAN: It certainly is.

SENATOR WEST: Okay. So a fact finder would have to make a determination as to whether there was substantial compliance.

SENATOR DUNCAN: That's correct.

SENATOR WEST: In providing guidance to a fact finder, will there be a definition of substantial?

SENATOR DUNCAN: No, I don't think you define substantial by any objective means. I think that's why it's a fact question.

SENATOR WEST: So you allow fact finders to make that determination?

SENATOR DUNCAN: That's correct. Based on the evidence that is placed before them and allow them to weight the evidence like we do in everything else, but this is certainly an elevation from general compliance and I think --

SENATOR WEST: But it is, in fact, a fact question that a trier of fact would have to make that determination?

SENATOR DUNCAN: Right.

SENATOR WEST: All right. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser on Floor Amendment No. 4.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, the amendment is acceptable.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: I said Floor Amendment No. 4, I meant Floor Amendment No. 2. Members, Senator Duncan moves the adoption of Floor Amendment No. 2. It's acceptable to Senator Fraser. Is there objection from any member? The Chair hearing no objection from any member, Floor Amendment No. 2 is adopted. Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion.

SENATOR FRASER: Members, I would move passage of engrossment of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 875.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 23 ayes and eight nays, a Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875 as amended passes to engrossment. The Chair recognizes Senator Fraser for a motion to suspend the constitutional rule that bills be read on three separate days.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, I now move to suspend the constitutional rules that bills be read on three separate days.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 25 ayes and six nays, the rule is suspended. The Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875 as amended.

SENATOR FRASER: Mr. President, members, I now move final passage of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 875.

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

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Members, there being 23 ayes and eight nays, a Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 875 as amended is finally passed. The Chair recognizes Senator Eltife for a motion.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend -- I move suspension of Senate Rule 7.12A, the printing rule, to order the committee reports on Senate Bills s 1147 and 1303 not printed by the Senate. These are legislative counsel recodification bills which were voted out of the administration committee unamended last week. I move suspension of the printing rule on SB1147 and SB1303.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Eltife. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator Eltife. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection from any member, and the rule is suspended. The bills are ordered not printed.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Thank you, Mr. President.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Eltife. Members, the president's desk is clear. The Chair recognizes Senator Lucio for an announcement. Again, members, no vice -- no Chair and vice Chair meeting this evening.

SENATOR LUCIO: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, the Senate Committee on International Relations and Trade will meet in room E1.016 of the Capitol Extension to continue our hearing that began this morning. We will finish hearing bills on the agenda and consider pending business. The committee will reconvene in 30 minutes. That's 30 minutes after adjournment. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Lucio. Chair recognizes Senator Deuell for a motion to suspend the Senate Rule 11.10.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. I move to suspend Senate Rule 11.10 so that the Senate committee on nominations can meet at my desk upon adjournment to vote on pending nominees on our meeting held earlier today.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Deuell. Members, you have heard the motion by Senator Deuell. Is there objection from any member? Chair hairs no objection from any member, and the rule is suspended. Chair recognizes Senator Estes for a motion.

SENATOR ESTES: Thank you, Mr. President. An announcement. Senate Committee on Agriculture and Rural Affairs will meet at 6:00 clock in E1.012.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Estes. Members, you're -- Chair recognizes Senator Duncan for an announcement.

SENATOR DUNCAN: Thank you, Mr. President and members. The Senate State Affairs Committee will meet 30 minutes upon adjournment, which will be at 6:05. We have -- and I want to make an announcement here to the members of the committee. We have several bills that we need to vote on and several -- and a few other bills that won't take a lot of time that we need to lay out. We're going to take up the Move Act and I want all the members there if we can. I think that's an important bill that we need to consider, and so we will kind of gauge it. We'll probably start with a couple of bills until we can get a full quorum to take up bills and vote. So we'll meet upon adjournment or at 6:05.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Duncan. Chair recognizes Senator West for an announcement.

SENATOR WEST: Thank you very much, Mr. President. I move to suspend all necessary Senate rules including the Senate posting rules 11.10 and 11.18 so that the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Higher Education Funding can meet tomorrow, March (sic) the 5th, 2011, at 1:30 or upon adjournment of the Senate in E1.036 for an organizational meeting and to take up outstanding items in Article III relating to higher education. I'm sorry, I said March 5th. Should have been April the 5th.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator west. Members, you've heard the motion by Senator West to suspend the rules 11.10 and 11.18. So the Subcommittee on Higher Education can meet tomorrow after session. Is there objection from any member? Chair hears no objection, and the rules are suspended. Chair recognizes Senator Eltife for an announcement.

SENATOR ELTIFE: Announcement. Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President and members, the Senate Committee on Administration will meet today to certify bills for the next local and uncontested calendar which will be this Thursday at 8:00 a.m. Today we will meet at 5:50. 5:50 at E1.714. Also the deadline to turn in bills to have them considered for next week's local and uncontested calendar is this Thursday April 7th at 10:00 a.m. Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, members.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Eltife. Chair recognizes Senator Hegar for an announcement.

SENATOR HEGAR: Thank you, Mr. President and members. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that the Aggie girls last night won their game, and they're in the national championship for the first time in school history. So I encourage all members to stay tuned because I think after Tuesday we might get to have the Aggie girls come down and show us their national championship this year.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Ogden for an announcement.

SENATOR OGDEN: Mr. President, members, Senate Finance Committee will reconvene to take up and hear one bill and take testimony at 6:40. 6:40.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: 6:40. Chair recognizes Senator Ellis.

SENATOR ELLIS: Thank you, Mr. President. The Government Organization Committee will meet upon adjournment as soon as we get enough members to vote on bills. We got some major bills to vote out. Thank you.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: The Chair recognizes Senator Deuell for an announcement.

SENATOR DEUELL: Thank you, Mr. President. The Senate committee on nominations will meet at my desk upon adjournment to vote on the nominees that are pending from this morning.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Senator Deuell. Members, before I go to the Dean for a highly privileged motion, the president would like to mention that today is the birthday of one of our colleagues, Senator Dan Patrick. The Chair recognizes the Dean for a highly privileged motion.

DEAN OF THE SENATE: Thank you, Mr. President. And you had mentioned that the Senate will not caucus this evening but we'll do so at an appropriate time. I would move that the Senate adjourn until 11:00 a.m. tomorrow.

LT. GOVERNOR DEWHURST: Thank you, Dean. Members, you heard the motion by Senator Whitmire. Is there objection from any member? Hearing no objection from any member, the Senate will stand adjourned until 11:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, April 5th.

(Adjourned.)