Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales to introduce our pastor of the day.
REP. LARRY GONZALES: Members, please, help me welcome our pastor of the day. The Reverend A.O. Martinez, age 85, graduated valedictorian from the Latin American Bible Institute of the Assemblies of God in 1944. He started his ministry at the age of 18 and has been in the ministry for a total 67 years. Of these 53 years have been dedicated to the Latin American Bible Institute. He continues to work there today serving as an educator and vice president of business services. He has been pastor to numerous students throughout the United States and foreign countries including Africa, Brazil, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Mexico and Panama. The Reverend A.O. Martinez was given the key to the city of El Paso for distinguished and lifetime of service to the Latin American Bible Institute. The Reverend A.O. Martinez is joined here today with his wife of 65 years, Ruth. They are blessed with three children, Raul Martinez who pastors in El Paso, Texas, Evangeline Martinez who pastors in Alvin, Texas. They have 10 grandchildren and 16 great grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, members, honored guests, please, help me welcome to the Texas House of Representatives a true man of God and my grandpa, A.O. Martinez.
PASTOR OF THE DAY: Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here this morning and thank you for the invitation. God bless you. As I was thinking about coming and meeting with you folks today I thought what I could convey to you and I thought the long hours you put into your work the absence from your families and so many other things because you have both chosen to be servants. In his earthly ministry Jesus did something for one of his followers. The young man did not want him to do that for him, he wanted to help him. And Jesus said, I did not come to be served, I came to serve. And so this morning I feel that you are servants of all of us. You serve us well you spend long hours, many hours of labor, work but we appreciate it very much and thank you for all the work you do for us and help us during our time of trouble. So today it is an honor to tell you that we do appreciate your work and thank you Lord because you have taken this upon yourselves. We thank the Lord for all you have done for us. So, this morning we pray that God will help you, lead you, and guide you in all your work. Be here with you and lead you in all you do and everything you intend to do Lord because you are serving him and you are serving God. So we again thank you and appreciate the great work you are doing for us. Amen. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Representative Legler to lead us in the pledge.
REP. KEN LEGLER: Mr. Speaker, members, guests in the gallery, please, join me in the pledge to the greatest nation in the world and then honoring the flag of the greatest state in the greatest nation in the world.
(Pledge to the U.S. and Texas flag)
THE SPEAKER: Excuse Representative Lucio on important business on motion of Representative Scott. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat to introduce our doctor of the day.
REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you, members, I want to introduce to you Dr. Timothy Vachris. He has great credentials. University of Texas medical school in Houston, residency in family medicine at Memorial Southwest family medicine residency in Sugar Land. And he is with Texas Sports and Family program and he's the assistant team physician for intercollegiate athletics at the University of Texas at Austin. This is Dr. Timothy Vachris. Let's give him a nice welcome.
THE SPEAKER: Madam Doorkeeper.
THE DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the honorable messenger.
THE MESSENGER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am directed by Senate to inform the House the Senate has passed the following measures, SB 1213 Corona.
THE SPEAKER: Will the honorable messenger pause for a moment.
THE MESSENGER: Settlement.
THE SPEAKER: Will the honorable messenger pause for a moment. The chair recognizes Representative Cook to report whether there are blue backs in that stack.
REPRESENTATIVE COOK: On the very bottom, sir.
THE SPEAKER: On the very bottom of the stack.
REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Yes, sir, quite a few of them.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you, Messenger. Excuse Representative Otto because of conference committee HB 1 on the motion of Representative Orr. Any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Cook. Chair recognizes Representative Cook for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on State Affairs to consider HB 15 and pending business. Business time 8:00 a.m. date, May 12th, 2011, place, JHR140.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Cook for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I request permission for the Committee on State Affairs to meet while the House is in session, 8:00 a.m.; date, May the 12th, 2011; place, JHR140 to consider H -- excuse me SB 15 and pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcements. The clerk read the announcements.
THE CLERK: The Committee on State Affairs will meet at 8:00 a.m. on May 12th, 2011 at JHR140. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 15 and pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE COOK: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm going to try one more time. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on State Affairs to consider SB 15 and pending businesses. Time, 8:00 a.m.; date, May the 12th, 2011; place, JHR140.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered . Following announcement. Clerk read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on State Affairs will meet at 8:00 a.m. on May 12th, 2011 at JHR140. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 15 and pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, move to suspend all necessary rules following five day the posting rule to allow the Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence to meet at 8:00 a.m., May 11th, 2011 in E2036 to consider HCR 141, SB 473, SB 481, SB 482, SB 791, SB 1025, SB 1159, SB 1216, SB 1228, SB 1236, SB 1322, SB 1545. SB 1883, and SB 1560, SB 1887. Including SB 1887.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will meet at 8:00 a.m. on May 11, 2011 at E2.036. This will be a public hearing to consider HCR 141, SB 473, SB 481, SB 482, SB 791, SB 1025, SB 1159, SB 1216, SB 1228, SB 1236, SB 1322, SB 1545, SB 1887, and SB 1560.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler moves to suspend reading and referral of bills until the end of today's business. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Please join me in welcoming students from the Navarro Elementary in Lockhart. They are students in the gifted and talented program and are here joined by their teacher Mrs. Hoyle. Welcome to your State Capitol. Please join me in a round of applause. Please stand up students and be recognized. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Garza.
REPRESENTATIVE GARZA: Good morning, Madam Speaker. I move to suspended all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1819.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Resolution 1819. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 1819 by Garza. Honoring the public school superintendents of Texas House District 117.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Garza.
REPRESENTATIVE GARZA: Members of the House, guests in the gallery, today I present to you the superintendents of House District 117. These public school superintendents work tirelessly to advance the quality of the education of the schools in my district area. And they're also here to provide students with the supportive and challenging educational environment. I'd like just to recognize who is here today and then I'll have them stand. From the Lytle Independent School District I have Mrs. Michelle Carroll-Smith, Lytle ISD has an enrollment of 1737. She's a third generation Pirate with her grandparents and children. She's a grandparent has her children attending as well. From Medina Valley Independent School District I have James Stansberry, they have an enrollment of just short of 3400 students. He has 12 years as superintendent and he started as a history teacher. Northside Independent School District one of the top four school districts in the state. I have Dr. John Folks who has an enrollment of almost 95,000 students, so he oversees the third largest ISD in Texas. And Somerset ISD, I have Mr. Saul Hinojosa, with an enrollment of almost 3800. He is Somerset's largest employer. Southside Independent School District, Dr. Juan Antonio Jasso is also here today. He has an enrollment of just over 5,000. He's been an educator for 33 years and started the well acclaimed Harlandale Extended Learning Center. And lastly but not least, Southwest Independent School District, Dr. Lloyd Verstuyft, he has an enrollment of just under 12,000. He's received the *Carol H award the U.S. Department of Education. Combined in my school districts, these superintendents are educating over 35,000 students in the western part of their county. So, I would like you to give them a warm welcome to their Texas House this morning. Would y'all please stand? They're over here in the north gallery. And we're meeting with them today and we're going to have some real productive chats today and we thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on the adoption of the resolution. Is there any objection? Hearing none. Resolution is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Cain for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Madam Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1649 in recognition of the Silver Springs Adult Leadership class.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR 1649 by Cain. Welcoming members of the Silver Springs Chamber of Commerce Adult Leadership class to the State Capitol.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Cain.
REPRESENTATIVE CAIN: Madam Speaker, members. Thank you, the Silver Springs Adult Leadership class is comprised of various businessmen, business owners from Hopkins county. To learn about important aspects of their city, county, and state governments. Coming to the Capitol today is part of culminating this project. So, please welcome some great people. Congratulate them on successful completion of their course. They're seated here in the east gallery. Folks stand up and welcome to your House. Thank you. Madam Speaker, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none. Resolution is adopted. Representative Cain moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Hearing none. So ordered. Members, we are about to go on the calendar. Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez for a recognition.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. If I could direct your attention to the east end of the gallery here. I want to recognize a constituent of mine, Flo Tulme. Flo suffered a stroke back in 2005 which left her unable to walk. Following her stroke, Flo entered a nursing home at which she received skilled nursing care and learn to utilize a walker. Before her stroke Flo was a registered nurse and practiced as a hospital nurse for 14 years. She was also the directer of nursing at Duval Care Center for 17 additional years. Despite her extensive background in nursing and health care -- members, can I get some so order here, please? A little bit of order thank you. Members, this is -- this is important recognition, so if I could just have a little bit more of your attention. Despite her extensive background in nursing and health care and without any surviving family members, proposed Medicaid cuts are threatening to leave Flo homeless and without resources to supplement care. Flo has experienced both sides of health care providing and receiving. And has come here today to urge the members of the 82nd legislature not to offer significant cuts that can close 50 percent of Texas nursing homes. Members what we're doing today has a direct impact on people's lives, our constituents. And I just wanted to recognize Flo as someone whose going to be negatively impacted by the decisions that we make here this session. So with that, can we, please, recognize Flo and acknowledge her please? Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out on third reading HB 12.
THE CLERK: HB 12 by Solomon. Relating to the enforcement of state and federal laws governing immigration by certain governmental entities.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the bill we debated on and off most of the day. From the afternoon on into the late evening. And I believe members have third reading amendments and then I'll be happy to close and move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro. Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is an amendment that would apply the provisions of this bill to the companies and the employers who contract with illegal labor in this country who are on the demand side of this issue. We know that the reason that people come to the United States is because they're seeking a better life. They're seeking opportunities in our country that they may not find in theirs. They often work in very difficult industries, in tough situations, but the fact is that many American industries, including the service industry, the agriculture industry, the hospitality industry and others, quite frankly, rely on undocumented labor. So we passed a bill yesterday that I believe deals entirely with the supply side of this equation but really does not address the reason that people come here which is for an opportunity to work. And that work throughout the decades has driven our national economy. And I think many times that's a fact that as a nation, we can't be honest with ourselves about. But this amendment is an amendment that says what's good for the goose is good for the ganders. If we're going to pass a bill like this then we may as well apply it to everyone who's involved in this system, including employers.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REP. LON BURNAM: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I would.
REP. LON BURNAM: Representative Castro, I'm trying to get a better understanding of your proposed amendment. You talked a little bit about theories concerning supply and demand. And so are you suggesting that people and corporations in this country are willingly and actively engaged in promoting the violation of laws in order to hire people for lower wages?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: We know that they are, sure.
REP. LON BURNAM: And so, if you perceive this as a law enforcement problem because literally hundreds of thousands of companies and corporations are violating the law, how would your amendment improve law enforcement?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, what it would say is that if you had a general contractor, a subcontractor or a general contractor that is doing business with one of these governmental entities, if they are employing undocumented labor, then what we would expect is the cities, essentially would cancel those contracts because they wouldn't want to lose state funding.
REP. LON BURNAM: Would it not be sufficient to just require all employers to carry proof of citizenship at all times whenever they're traveling throughout their communities doing their day-to-day business activities.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: The employers themselves?
REP. LON BURNAM: Yes. I mean you used the analogy what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If we're going expect everybody who has a slightly browner than average skin tone to carry proof of identification, shouldn't we apply that to all employers?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I certainly hope that this law will be applied -- will be applied to everyone. And that people will not be targeted, which I feel is going to happen because of this legislation.
REP. LON BURNAM: So, your amendment would not increase the probability of racial profiling, it would just increase the probability of profiling based on class and economic status. It would require employers to carry identification as well employees.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: It would require employers to justify their payrolls.
REP. LON BURNAM: Sure. So you have already made clear your understanding of supply and demand economics, isn't this Marxist proposal to suggest that employers should be held to the same standards as workers in this country.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I think it's a fair proposal. I think that, you know, if we're going to acknowledge that there is a problem with undocumented immigrants in the United States, we must also be honest with ourselves and acknowledge that much of the reason they are here is because there is a -- there is a labor market pool that receives them. They are not here just hanging out, they are here working. But we have a state and a nation that really can't fully be honest with itself, but, in fact, this labor drivers many industries in our country.
REP. LON BURNAM: So, you're saying this is not really a Marxist amendment it's more a what's good for the goose is good for the gander amendment.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Sure.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you for your explanation.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gonzalez, for what purpose?
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: Will the gentleman yield for questions?
THE SPEAKER: Does the gentleman yield?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I do.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And leading off of what Representative Burnam just said, we have a free market society, correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And as consumers in this country we like goods that are low priced, correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And a labor pool that is willing to work for less than minimum wage with no health insurance and little protection under the law buys cheap products, does it not?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: It does.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And so the consumer is benefiting from this surplus or this labor pool that is willing to work under wage and without any real protection, correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: It is. Many of these folks are unprotected, they are not protected either by the law or by the labor standards set up by the state government or the Federal government and there are employers that take advantage of that.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And, Representative Castro, to your knowledge does the Federal government allow unskilled laborers to be in this country legally. Is there any sort of visa currently in Federal law that would allow them to be here.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Unskilled labor, no. There is a visa for skilled labor I know. For unskilled labor you used to have -- back in the earlier -- the last century the Settle program that brought unskilled labor essentially to drive economic engine of the country.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And so your bill is just trying to enforce the fact that at all levels from a consumer point of view that if we are taking advantage of a service labor system that we -- you are absolutely right. We need to call it what it is and we need to be able to enforce our -- if this should pass, this particular piece of legislation -- that we need to enforce this at all levels or our society; is that correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I agree. And you know, Representative Gonzalez, I think the point here is also that this legislation that Representative Solomons passed last night and will ostensively pass today targets governmental entities but governmental entities are only one part of the equation and arguably not even the largest part of the equation. They are in the middle of what is this market system that's operations between employers and employees. On the one hand the industries of America and the undocumented immigrants who come here to work. And those are the two actors in that supply side drama and the cities and governmental entities, that are the subject of this bill, are really just in the middle of that.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: So cities and counties who are doing business with contractors who maybe employing surplus -- or really undocumented workers really have to held accountable as well, correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: That's right. Absolutely.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And along that line we can't just turn a blind eye to the fact, you know, if cities or municipalities and counties are engaging in contracting undocumented labor that there is some sort of -- something in place, correct?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Correct. Absolutely.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: All right. I would move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Mr. Castro has sent up an amendment that I think defeats the spirit of the bill. This bill primarily deals with prohibiting policies by governmental entities. He has some concerns about how they contract our and all the independent contractors. We're not trying to get to that point and I think that this particular amendment is one which helps change the direction of the bill somewhat dealing with private entities. Mr. Castro has said that if I try not to get a ruling on germaneness that he would prefer a vote. And I would be more than happy to try and do that. I think the body has spoken on these issues about changing the bill at this point but got go from there, I guess.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for questions?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Sure.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative, what do you find disagreeable about this amendment? This amendment applies to your law, to folks who contract with governmental entities. What do you find disagreeable about that?
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I had it in my -- if I can find it in my binder I had some arguments about that. Number one, I didn't think that was really germane. And number two, I'd have to go back and look but I think what you're doing is the bill goes to private -- I mean governmental entities prohibiting them from having a policy that prohibits the enforcement of immigration law and, quite frankly, that's all the bill does. And the idea that you want to add contractors, subcontractors, general contractors as doing business with them -- I know you're trying to get that conexus and connection because some basically contract out and trying to drive it down to those folks. I understand what you're trying to do but I don't think it's germane to this bill and that's why I'm going to move to table.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, if it's not germane, okay, then just stop me on germanous and I'll go away. I want a substantive argument about this on the policy. If it's going to be a procedural argument and it's not germane --
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I think it goes against the spirit of the bill. I think what you're trying to do -- what we're trying to do in the bill is provide, you know -- you said if I didn't pop it on germanous you just wanted a vote.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'd like a vote. Right.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Right. You would not get into that argument with me on the floor. Now, if you do want to get into that argument with me on the floor we can ask Chris if it's germane or not and we'll get a formal ruling and we'll go from there.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: What I'm questioning --
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: At the end of the day the members are -- with this bill I think the bill is really pretty good as it stands. If you're going to have this kind of bill to try to resolve these issues of sanctuary, governmental entities, I think it works. I think you've had plenty of time. You mentioned to me early on that you were going to have some amendments. And this one we haven't really had a conversation about and done any research with in how it might be -- add to the bill, take away from the bill in connection with that. So at this point in time I don't want accept the amendment I'm going move to table.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Burt, can I ask one more question?
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I'll tell you all I'm going to do is move to table.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Let me ask one more question. You're carrying a major bill with regard to immigration. Okay. Do you see a role that employers play in this system? The bill targets governmental entities. Do you see a role that employers have here?
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I don't understand and how so?
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, you acknowledge there's free market system --
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I see the bill in a context that perhaps you don't see the bill. You probably see it in a broader view. I see the bill in trying to have uniform consistency in policy as it deals with governmental entities. However that flows down it still the fact that I don't want governmental entities -- I don't see why you have governmental entities dealing with -- I just want them dealing with this prohibiting those kinds of policies where you can't -- you're interfering with a commissioned police officer and their employees and they deal with in connection to immigration reform. Now if you want to get into the verify issue, I support the verify issue. I actually think we ought to do something about verify. If you're trying to get into that avenue I don't think it has anything to do with this bill.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. Then are you going to move to table?
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: I do support. By the way I think you have a number of members on this floor that would like to see some sort of e-verify legislation that sort of is a statement from this body that we don't want employers knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The problem is Federal law already deals with a lot of that. The State Affairs Committee has had a number of bills trying to sort through what we can get to the floor and Mrs. Cook is dealing with that issue. We're trying to get something done because a lot of members think that's important. I don't want to get into e-verify in this particular bill. I think your amendment is going outside, in some respects, of what my intent of this bill is and I'm going to move to table.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'd like to speak on the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Members, we've talked now about the fact and I think everybody acknowledges that there are many actors in this economic system that we have. Leading up to each legislative session I read in the paper how people want to make sure that we crack down on illegal immigration. And I even see quotes about how they believe employers should be sanctioned for using undocumented labor. If you are sincere about that, if you believe in it -- further more if you believe that we're going to punish cities then we should also punish those (*inaudible) then this is the amendment to make that statement and this is the amendment to make that policy. The facts are these: Many of our industries rely on undocumented labor. We do have a problem in this country and this state. But there are also a lot of facts --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to call a point of order on early consideration of this amendment. It is not germane to the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Bring you point of order down front. Excuse Representative Coleman because of illness on the motion of Representative Veasey. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair has reviewed arguments on both sides of this point of order and respectfully sustains the point. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Phillips, for what purpose?
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker how many -- are you aware that we have 12 pages of bills set on today's calendar?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, I am aware of that.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: And parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: How many amendments do we have on the table?
THE SPEAKER: There are 14.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: So there are more amendments that there are pages of bills; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: That would be correct.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: When is the last day bills can be passed out of here?
THE SPEAKER: Thursday.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Do we have more calendars besides this set?
THE SPEAKER: I didn't hear your question.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Are we going to have more bills set on other calendars besides this?
THE SPEAKER: You would have to ask Chairman Hunter.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Would you recognize me to cease any further amendments than those on the table -- before the table?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Phillips, at this time we have 15 amendments.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: They keep growing.
THE SPEAKER: Not at this time, Mr. Phillips. Chair recognizes Representative Burnman.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members this is a proportionality amendment. We know that what we're really talking about here is economic issues. And this amendment simply suggests that we should put as much emphasis on enforcing the Internal Revenue Code as we do immigration law. And if you look at the economic analysis this would do far more to be helpful to the state if we eliminated this white collar criminal activity that is going on. I realize some people like over 50 and white might object to this because people that do racial profiling know that people that are over 50 and white are far more likely to be in violation of our Internal Revenue Code than people of color that don't have any resources to be in violation of the code. I move this adoption.
REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I raise the point of order further consideration of this amendment is not germane.
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alvarado.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment strikes out language on page 2, line 9 that says, detains for the investigation of a criminal offense. And it also strikes it out on page 1, line 13, a well. And the reason for this is to give police officers some flexibility so that -- well not necessarily police officers but police chiefs. To give police departments flexibility in their day to day operations.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo for what purpose?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Alvarado, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Yes.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Why do you bring this amendment, Ms. Alvarado?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Well, I think it's important for police departments because basically in HB 12 what we're doing is we're taking away the authority, the flexibility of police chiefs all across Texas. And detaining means -- could mean if they -- if you're pulled over and you're on the sides of the road or you're crossing the street and you're jay walking and they stop you and if you're detained, that means that at that point, in this bill, they have the authority to question, to inquire about your immigration status as, opposed to what most cities do right now which is once you're booked, once you're arrested in a detention facility.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Ms. Alvarado, you are on the City Council in Houston; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Yes.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And did you ever find that the police chief or the police came up to you and said we have a problem. We want to deal with immigration, did that ever occur?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: No, because we have a very good working relationship with ICE. And as I mentioned time and time again, any time someone is booked and arrested, their immigration status is inquired upon and if that person is illegally here in the United States, then ICE is immediately called. So we have a very good working relationship, as many other cities across our state. It has been said that the need for HB 12 is so that we have some consistency. Well, if we already have almost every city in Texas with a secure communities plan, that sounds pretty consistent to me and there's no need for the language that's in HB 12.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: In essence what you're trying to do you just want to make sure that the police, from your experience, as councilwoman, have the opportunity to do their work instead of people hesitating to come forward because they believe that their immigration status will be questioned; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: That's correct. But it's also to conform with what police chiefs across this state have said. They are the experts. The arguments I put up yesterday, that was -- that was strictly from the major cities, Chiefs of Police Association. It wasn't from some partisan talking points, that came straight from police departments who will have this policy shoved down their throat and their flexibility to run their departments the way they see fit stripped away from them.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And nobody from Houston came and asked for this legislation; is that correct? Nobody from Dallas came and asked for this legislation; is that correct? Nobody from San Antonio, nobody from Fort Worth?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: What I have seen, Representative Alonzo, no chief, no police department has asked for this. They have continuously said we don't want this, we can't afford it, we will have to train our police officers. Anybody who believes that this can be implemented without training is totally -- has been misled and misguided.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: And anytime the police chief or the police officers have wanted something to help them in doing their work they've come to us and asked for it; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Absolutely. And I would hope that whenever we have legislation that is so significant like this that we rely on the experts. And in this case, we haven't. We've gone against what every police department, every police chief who has opposed this have said. We have turned our backs on what law enforcement -- this is basically -- it's not only an anti-immigrant piece of legislation, it's also anti-law enforcement because we are forcing the hands of police departments to do something they don't want to do. And what gives us the right to shove that down their throat.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and colleagues. Ms. Alvarado has an amendment that basically -- Ms. Alvarado, I'm sorry. It's been late. The amendment basically guts the issue of what we're trying to accomplish here. She knows that. We've had a lot of this debate about police departments and about why we need the bill. About why we don't need the bill. And I would ask you to oppose the amendment and vote no on the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative to close.
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I respectfully disagree with my desk mate and ask that you consider what we are asking police departments to do and vote for this amendment. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on adoption of the Alvarado amendment. Record vote. Clerk ring the bell. This is on the amendment. Have all voted? Being 43 ayes, 100 nays, the amendment fails adoption. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment will address concerns regarding the burden on the office of Attorney General with untold number of citizen complaints. This amendment would strike the provision allowing any citizen to file a complaint with the AG's office if they believe any city, county or special district is prohibiting the full enforcement of Federal immigration laws. Members, I want you to think of certain instances where you read on the San Antonio papers or on the Houston Chronicle or here in the Statesman when you have instances where they have an article about immigration. You look and you scroll down to the bottom to get to the comments. And you get so many comments behind those articles by folks -- sometimes anonymous making some very disturbing comments. And because this bill is very politically charged emotions run very high and particularly for us that represent Latino communities. Being members of this body obviously the issue of this bill being personal for all of us as it has been said. HB 12 would result in a flood of complaints to the AG's office to investigate. Imagine one complaint for every anti-immigrant comment you see after an online article about immigration or someone with a Spanish surname being arrested for a crime. This bill would derail the work of the AG's office and may force them to succumb to political pressure and file unnecessary lawsuits. This also will be a cost -- instead of focusing on child support enforcement and the work of crime victims. What we're doing here is basically making citizen ICE agents where they can file a complaint against a governmental entity for political gain. And that political gain is not called for in the State of Texas when you have folks that are going to be gone after because of the color of their skin because they might have a Spanish surname. And that's what we're trying to accomplish with this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Rodriguez, for what purpose?
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Walle, do you yield?
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Walle, in this bill is there any funding at all for lawsuits. I mean, if you have a lawsuit the local police, also the city are going to be liable for that. They've got to pay out for that probably.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: That's correct. Especially if you have a complaint on somebody that is frivolous. If they make a complaint to the -- if another citizen of the state makes a complaint you're here as an undocumented person, the city doesn't enforce this particular bill and it turns out that you actually are, you were born in this country. How can they defend that?
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Right. I can easily see someone like my father who is a third generation Mexican American being pulled over and mortified by that and hurt by that wanting to maybe sue about that.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: That's correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: We don't have any funding to pay for these suits; is that correct?
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: That's correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And so the cities either going to have to hire outside attorneys or pay overtime to city attorneys; is that right?
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: And they don't come cheap.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I have an amendment that I filed about unfunded mandate which this bill really is. A perfect example, my police chief, we talked on the phone when this bill was first layed out and he asked that question as far as the unfunded mandate part, what about lawsuits? As soon as one of my officers -- because we both know that the police officers are going to enforce the law. That's what they are supposed to do.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And so if this bill passes I don't expect they're not going to enforce it. We have to assume that law officers are actually going to enforce this.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: And actually it does settle into my second amendment that will be layed out soon with the training. If you are going to enforce this bill, impose this bill on local governments law enforcement agents, personnel don't have (*inaudible). You could have a real big problem if a law enforcement agent unjustly detains somebody.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I believe it will be just that one time, I think, even that one time when you will find -- in my case APD and the city of Austin will be in a lawsuit. Right now we're struggling for money as it is with budget cuts left and right. Talk to my city council members, they'll tell you. But one big lawsuit like this, I don't know how they are going to afford it. I think that's something we need to consider.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: That's correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think we really need to look at that as an unfunded mandate. I think you have a good amendment.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: That's absolutely correct. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak on or against the Walle amendment? Question occurs on the adoption of the Walle amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Walle voting aye, Representative Solomons voting no. Have all voted? There being 43 ayes and 101 nays, amendment fails to adopt. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment strikes a provision in the bill that allows the attorney general to recover legal and investigative expenses in enforcing the law. If we pass House Bill 12 the attorney general will be able to challenge the local government in court to force them to comply with the law. The provision in the law that I am trying to strike will allow the AG to also pass the cost of the court challenge on to the local government regardless of the outcome of the case. It is entirely possible that the attorney general using this provision in the law any local government to court without worrying about the fiscal impact that it will have on the their budgets. This will lead to further losses and challenges of local governments costing the taxpayers entirely too much money. Members, in our part of Texas, the City of Farmers Branch filed a -- I'm sorry, passed an ordinance to deny or required people to show whether they were citizens or not in Farmers Branch. Well, up to this point with all the litigation they've been involved with it's cost the city over $3 million. It's real clear the courts have said repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly, that what they've done is wrong. They continue and it's their choice to continue in court. But what shows is an example of what bringing this amendment -- the cost involved. Over $3 million that's one city of the many cities in the state. One county of many counties. So, members, I ask that you approve this.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, I do.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Alonzo, thank you for bringing this amendment. As you know I represent part of Farmers Branch and I went and spoke twice against the ordinance that they were going to pass suggesting that this was going to lead to lawsuits and ultimately a division of the community. Isn't it true that they've spent currently $3 million but this could -- the legal bill could be up to $5 million in the future?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That's correct.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Isn't it also correct that they had to lay off city staff as a result of a budget shortfall that they really needed the 3 or $5 million to plug.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That's correct.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And isn't it true that they had to raise taxes?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That's probably correct.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Well, it is. Thank you for bringing this amendment. And I fear that the actions that we're going to be taking here today are reminiscent of the misguided policies that occurred in Farmers Branch. So I thank you for bringing it.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That is certainly correct.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Chairman.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Isn't it also true that 70 percent of the people went to the polls when Farmers Branch passed that ordinance.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: You're probably correct. Now, members, all Mr. Jackson's pointed out and I think what he's trying to say, listen to the percentages. Listen -- well, he brought it up. Chairman Solomons is asking me what does Farmers Branch have to do with it? Is that correct? And I'm going to answer, I'm going to answer. And I think he made a good point. I think what Mr. Jackson was trying to say just like 70 percent in Farmers Branch voted for the ordinance, and it's costing them $3 million. And now, the reason I think he's trying to make a point and I think it's good point, Mr. Jackson, there's similar numbers here in the house 2 to 1, 101 to 49. I think that's what you're trying to make the point. And since we have learned from Farmers Branch about what's going on, what did we learn here in the house? That if Farmers Branch has made a mistake, why do we make the mistake twice. Members, let's not make the mistake that Farmers Branch, let's learn from Farmers Branch, let's not do this again here at the statewide level. In answer to the question, Chairman Solomons, I think you had a good question. Chairman Solomons, it's 2 to 1 ratio, it was a wrong decision, wrong, wrong, wrong. Let's not do it again.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: I must tell the gentleman that he misinterpreted my remarks. Rather, far from the mark.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, I was going to say what's good for the goose, but that's -- I won't do it.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose?
REP. LON BURNAM: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: I yield.
REP. LON BURNAM: Representative Alonzo, the point of your amendment is to give light to the problems in Farmers Branch, correct?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: That is correct.
REP. LON BURNAM: Does your amendment also address the economic consequences of what happened in Irving when they adopted the procedures that they adopted. We had three to four times more Latinos arrested on minor issues than in the past.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Just so you know, Mr. Burnam, Irving gets most of the attention but even Farmers Branch deserves some of that reputation.
REP. LON BURNAM: Well, I think it's an important amendment that we point out the consequences of ill advised legislation targeting minority populations. With regard to the point that you were trying to make on -- or Representative Jackson was trying to make on who votes and who doesn't vote, isn't it true that in Farmers Branch, there's a far larger populations of older white voters than there are younger Hispanic voters. I mean, actually registered to vote.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: I think Mr. Jackson is probably better able to answer that question.
REP. LON BURNAM: Well, I thought I'd ask you because you're at the front mike. Thank you for your time.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you. Members, again there's already been a mistake, a humongous and big mistake in Farmers Branch. Can you imagine they spent over $3 million and they've lost. This is what this legislation talks about, that I am trying to propose. Let's not go down that wrong decision. Let's make the right decision. In addition, you know, as a Representative Anchia pointed out they're going to have to get the money from somewhere. And although the fiscal bill says it has no fiscal impact, this is an example of what it's going to cost to try. And I'm telling you again, to try to implement this legislation because in the end I believe what's going to happen is what happened to Farmers Branch. So, members, I ask you to vote yes on this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak on the Alonzo amendment? Question occurs on the adoption of the Alonzo amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Hopson voting no, Representative Solomons voting no, Representative Perry voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? 43 ayes, and 95 nays, the motion fails to adopt. Representative Perry for an introduction.
REP. CHARLES PERRY: Members, thank you. Mr. Chairman, we've got a group from Seminole High School in the Capitol today. Their in Austin to compete in a UIL competition one act play competition, UIL acted team competition. On behalf of the Texas House of Representatives I want to wish you best of luck when you compete. Go ahead and stand up. I think they're over here on this side. Welcome to your Capitol, the peoples' Capitol.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Bohac.
REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Speaker, members, we are -- I'm up here with Representative Woolly and Representative Murphy and I believe Hubert Vo and Jessica Farrar have a little bit of Spring Branch ISD as well. But we are very fortunate today to have the president of the SBISD school board Mike Falick here and legislative government relations person from the SBISD board, Susan Kellner they're over there in the -- what side of the corner is that, northeast corner. So waive your hand, guys. Welcome SBISD. And also just on a personal note I'm happy to have two constituents, their kids are here actually as pages for Lois Kolkhorst but they're actually constituents of mine, Debbie and Troy Neuman we all go to church together and they own a house in my district. So Debbie and Troy wave your hands. Good to see y'all.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Castro on the floor of the House? Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I want to be -- I'll be brief. I think this is very important, and significant amendment. Basically what this amendment does it says, if this is going to cost local government something, they can opt out of it. Here's what's been said, all this whole time, the whole debate, is that there's -- there's no -- this isn't going to cost local governments. There's no fiscal impact. My police chief thinks differently and I have to trust him on this. My police chief has told me I had a long conversation with him. First of all he's going to enforce the law. Every law enforcement person, every police chef in the State of Texas will enforce this law if it passes. They should. That's what they're supposed to be doing but there's a cost to that. And my police chief laid it out like this: There will have to be new hires, or pay overtime because if you're going to enforce this law that's going to mean officers are not going to be doing some of the other things their supposed to be doing, more serious, violent crimes. So those are the things I know Austinites want officers to focus on. And I'm sure all of you here in this body want your local law enforcement to focus on at least more violent, serious crimes not being immigration officers which is what we're turning our local police into. Right here in Austin, we contract with the county for jail space. That -- that number, the amount of money that APD has paid out to the City of Austin has paid out has gone up the two last years. He anticipates that cost going up even higher. So that is an additional cost there. My police chief believes and I think other police chiefs have told you all the same thing, that training is going to be required because basically, they aren't trained to be ICE officers. They aren't not trained to be immigration officers. They're going to have to have certain training to be able to do this job right. To do their job right. And APD is going to enforce this law. They're going to want to do it right. So there's going to be new training involved. And I mentioned this on the back mike when Representative Walle had his amendment, but lawsuits. The last thing that my police chief talked to me about is, who's going to pay for these lawsuits? There's going to be lawsuits that are going to occur. If an officer pulls somebody over, asks for their proof of citizenship, the person is an American citizen, they're going to be up set about this. They're going to want to have justice, they're going to sue the City of Austin. They're going to sue the APD. And in this time, when the Federal government, my police chief told me as well, are cutting some major programs, cutting -- making major budget cuts to programs that deal with law enforcement. They're actually losing money already. How are they going to pay for lawsuits? How are they going to pay for more jail space? How are they going to pay for training? The fact is they can't. I'm going to end with this because I know that this has gone on but this is really important and I know that Burt and others -- that Chairman Solomons and others have said this isn't an unfunded mandate. I'm one of 95 members who signed on to that constitutional amendment, that bill. But the last thing that my police chief said --
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr.Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Rodriguez, do you yield?
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Eddie, I'm listening to what you're saying and do you know what one of the biggest problems in the city that I live in is? It's drive by shootings and it's drug you go dealing by gangs. And the gangs are made up of illegal aliens in Tyler. Half of them, yes. And there are cities around the state that are experiencing the same kinds of problems. And that takes up most of or much of my police department's time. Just wanted to let you know is that.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Okay. I appreciate you telling me that. I know that's a serious problem here in Austin. Let me say this, I will close here. Here in Austin our jail here if someone commits a crime they go to jail. There's an ICE agent in the jail. That ICE agent is going to check for citizenship. If that person is not a citizen deportation -- the process for deportation happens immediately. So in the situation where Leo was talking about if that happened right here in Travis county where there's a situation like this, a drive by shooting, anything like that. Gang related violence, if there's an arrest they're going to be -- if that were to happen here they would be put in jail and they would be deported immediately. The last thing I would say and this is what my police chief said and I have to trust my police chief he's very vocal about how this is going to cost them money and force them to not enforce other laws that we really care about; violent crimes, drug related crimes. He says -- this is my police chief, I call upon state law makers to allow law enforcement leaders to set criminal just priorities that reflect the needs of local communities. The failure to do so would -- the failure to do so would fly in the face of what Texas and Texans stand for. The last thing Texas law enforcement needs is another unfunded mandate at a time when federal and state funding to keep our cities safe is being drastically cut. With that, members, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against the Rodriguez amendment. Question occurs on the adoption of the Rodriguez amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Rodriguez voting aye, Representative Solomons voting no. Have all voted? Being 45 ayes, 100 nays, the amendment fails adoption. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal for a recognition.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I would like to recognize Phillip *Vagatel in the gallery. A client of Sam Ministries of San Antonio, Texas along with Sam Ministries staff Erika Heigl. Thank you for joining us. Sam Ministries improves the human conditions of homeless individuals by sheltering them with basic needs provided by funds from the homeless housing and service program. 20 million was removed from the budget for all homeless activity. Members, you should know that. This will significantly impact rapid rehousing and prevention programs. Last year Sam Ministries served almost 8,000 individuals. A majority of those were women and children, 3,000 of them were children. Thank you so much for all of your work. Members, let us reflect on their service and wish them well. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari for a motion.
REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I stand here with some of the others members of the Houston delegation. I'd like to move to suspend all necessary rules so the House can take up and consider House Resolution 1766 -- 1762 to pay tribute to a life of service of my friend Jim Box.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
THE CLERK: HR 1762 by Callegari.
THE SPEAKER: Members, this is a Memorial Resolution, please, take your seats.
THE CLERK: WHEREAS, Longtime Houston developer and community leader James Clarke Box passed away on April 14, 2011, at the age of 80; and WHEREAS, A descendant of John Neely Bryan, the founder of Dallas, Jim Box was born on February 1, 1931, in Houston; he began his career as a draftsman for the City of Houston but eventually joined the Mischer Corporation, where he worked his way up to senior vice president and played an instrumental role in the construction of many local subdivisions; in 1993, he became an independent consultant in the development field; and WHEREAS, Mr. Box spent nearly three decades on the board of the Greater Houston Builders Association and also served as the longtime chair of its Community Developers Council; in addition, he was a member of the Houston Contractors Association and the Association of Water Board Directors, and he was appointed by Governor Rick Perry in 2002 to the Texas Water Advisory Council; and WHEREAS, In 1979, Mr. Box was named by the City of Houston to The board of the Harris-Galveston Subsidence District; he worked on The committee that formulated the first regulatory plan for the district, supervised passage of a 1999 plan calling for access to surface water for residents of north and west Harris County, and helped to ensure the success of the districtís water conservation programs; he was elected chair of the district board in 1984 and held that post until his passing; and WHEREAS, This esteemed gentleman further shared his time talents, and expertise with local civic organizations and institutions, including the Houston Community College Foundation which he chaired; for his efforts, he received six presidential citations and the Harris B. Lieberman Distinguished Service Award and he was selected as Developer of the Year three times by the Greater Houston Builders Association; and WHEREAS, In all of his endeavors, Mr. Box enjoyed the love and support of his wife of 53 years, Ellen, and his children, Doug, Kandice, and Allyson; among his greatest pleasures was spending time with his family at his farm in Caldwell; moreover, he enjoyed being actively involved in his congregation at the Foundry Methodist Church in Houston; and WHEREAS, Jim Box brought to his many undertakings enthusiasm and a desire to make a positive difference, and although he is deeply missed, he leaves behind a legacy that will long resonate in the community and state he was proud to call home; now, therefore be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of James Clarke Box and extend sincere sympathy to the members of his family: to his wife Ellen Box; to his son, Doug Box, and his wife, LaVelda; to his daughters, Kandice Gremillion and her husband, Keith, and Allyson Koether and her husband, Brian; to his grandchildren, Daniel Popps and his partner, Lynette, David Box and his wife, Jennifer, Derrick Box and his fiancee, Elle, Sam Barrick, Hannah Koether, and Phillip Koether; to his great-grandchildren, Kayo Popps, Michael Popps, and Austin Box; and to his other relatives and friends; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be prepared for his family and that when the Texas House of Representatives adjourns this day, it do so in memory of James Clarke Box.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.
REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Members, I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. This is a Memorial Resolution, all those in favor, please, rise. Resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Howard moves to add all members' names. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Chairman, just a few words about Jim Box. Jim Box was a dear friend of mine. In fact, I'm here basically because of Jim Box' involvement. He called me one day to try to get me to join the Builders Association and his famous saying -- and if you talk to anybody that knows him they'll repeat it -- is that: "The world is run by those who show up." And whenever you talk to Jim -- you talk to anybody that knew him they'll tell you that that was his favorite saying and he's right. He got me involved in politics. He got me involved in the Builders Association with developers. I suspect that everybody here will have a similar story. I can't tell you how many people when we went to his service made the comment that Jim was special to them. He was their mentor. He just made everybody feel that they were special. He's just a special individual, but I think -- but one of the biggest things he did he was the conscious, I should say, of the development industry and business industry in the Houston area. Many a times Jim would say, We really don't have to do this, but it's the right thing to do so let's do it. So a lot of things that have happened in a positive way happened because of the very positive influence of Jim Box and certainly the people in Houston and Harris County owe him a great deal of gratitude for the things that he done for our area. I would like to recognize the people on podium. His wife, Ellen; his daughter, Allison Koether; his son, Doug Box; and his wife LaVelda; and certainly good friend Joe Allen who everybody knows. Thank y'all for being here and thank you for allowing us to honor Jim Box today.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego for a purpose.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker before getting back to the bill, I also know it's the chair's intent to at some point break for lunch; but a parliamentary problem inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Phillips earlier asked if the chair was aware that today's calendar was 12 pages long. And I took the liberty of having my staff research. Is the chair aware of how many pages were on the House calendar on this day -- on this day of session in 2009?
THE SPEAKER: Chair is not advised.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Which is the Tuesday before the last day to get a bill before the House. In 2009 the calendar at this point was 18 pages long. Is the chair aware of how many pages comparable in 2007?
THE SPEAKER: Not aware.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: In 2007 the calendar was 21 pages long on this day in the session. So, I'd say that over all the calendar is moving fairly well?
THE SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Gallego. Mr. Castro? Mr. Castro on the floor of the House. Mr. Castro's amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo. Is Mr. Alonzo on the floor of the House? Is Mr. Alonzo on the floor of the House? All right. Mr. Alonzo's amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this particular amendment has to do with venue. If you'll look with me at the bottom of page 3 of your bill it indicates that if the attorney general determines that a complaint filed under subsection F of the bill, against an entity, whether it's a city or a school board or a county or whatever. If the AG finds that the complaint is valid then the attorney general can file a petition for a writ of mandamus essentially look for other relief in a district court. So, the question becomes what district court do they have to file in? And the bill provides for relief in a district court in Travis County or in a county in which the principle office of an entity is located. In other words, if you're going to file suit against a city of Alpine; for example. Or the City of Del Rio you'd have to drag the city of Del Rio you'd have the option -- the attorney general would have the option of dragging the City of Alpine or the city of Del Rio into Travis County District Court. And, frankly, I'm not sure if that is what the members would intend to have every suit on the issue or giving the option of always bringing cities and counties from across the state or school boards or whoever bringing them into district court in Travis County before the Travis County Bench. What my amendment would do would be to make that a local hearing essentially. And so the attorney general would have to go out and file suit in the county where that political subdivision is located. So, if that political subdivision is located in Harris County then you'd file suit in Harris County. If that political subdivision is located in Brewster County then you'd file suit in Brewster County. Wherever that political subdivision is located that's where you should file suit. Instead of requiring everybody to have the additional litigation cost and I'm showing up. The Travis County judges are certainly very competent and very able to hear that in the - in that sense. But the truth is that because they hear so many administrative appeals from state agencies and because they hear so many other things their also, frankly, their docket is pretty significant. And so this will seek to not only be more fair and to the counties and cities jurisdictions out there but also try to have the practical impact of evening the workload among the various -- if there is a workload, if this does happen among the various district courts of the state. So, I would move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Gallego amendment? If not the question occurs on the Gallego Amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Solomons voting no, Representative Gallego voting aye, show Representative Hochberg voting aye, show Representative Torres voting, no. Have all voted? Being 48 ayes and 97 nays, motion fails. The amendment failed. Following amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland for a recognition? Q.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members I'd like you to welcome with me today a former member back in the back talking to Larry Taylor, Jim Earthman. Jim was here back in what I would call the glory days back in the 70's when there was only about five Republicans in the House and some of us long for those days. He was a member of the dirty thirty with Mr. Craddick. And so, he's visiting with us today. So, please, say hello and welcome in Mr. Earthman.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment would apply the loser pay provision that this House overwhelmingly supported yesterday to this bill. Now, just to bring this into context, recall that the legal process works this way, anybody can essentially file a complaint with the attorney general, the attorney general then vets that complaint and the attorney general can then take action which will -- which can result in the loss of all state grant funding to any of our cities or counties or other governmental entities that are covered in this bill. So what my amendment would do is simply say that the loser of the litigation would pay in the same way that we passed that bill yesterday. So that before the state takes action against any of our governmental entities, it has to make a very careful decision about whether it believes that that's the best course of action. And in the end, if the state doesn't prevail, if the state filed action and the state loses against one of our cities, or our school districts, then the state would pay the litigation cost. So this is simply a loser pay to this bill and I would ask adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak on, for, or against Castro amendment? The question is on the adoption of the Castro amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Castro voting aye, show Representative Solomons voting no, show Representative Phillips voting no. Have all voted? Being 47 ayes and 98 nays the amendment fails. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I have in the spirit of following the process I've given a copy to Mr. Solomons so he can look at it. And while he's looking it let me read it to you. It says not withstanding any other law, a local enforcement agency may not provide any form of legal advice to a person who is being detained for suspected violation of immigration law. I think what Mr. Solomons is trying to do is to get an investigation done. And I think part of it is, I guess, asking folks' immigration status. But the other part is legal advice. On many occasions from what I've heard is that officers, jailers tell people what the law is. And sometimes they get it wrong. I don't think sometimes, a lot of times. So what I'm doing with this amendment is simply doing what I think Mr. Solomons -- Chairman Solomons trying to do. He's trying to enforce immigration law, a law that already exists. This is a law that already exists, in fact, it's wrong, it's illegal for anybody to be given legal advice. But I can tell you when people tell people what the law is even though they don't know what the law is and they've got a badge and a gun that has lots of impact. So members, I ask that you accept is this amendment. Chairman Solomons is nodding sideways I'm not sure I know what that means. But that doesn't mean, I think he's not going to come up here to argue against the amendment. So perhaps by saying he's not arguing he's not that strongly against the amendment. Because if he was strongly against the amendment, he would come up and debate this issue. So members, I ask you that you vote for this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo, do you yield?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Yes, I yield.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Alonzo, what does that mean exactly not give legal device? Because it's been my experience that most law enforcement officers don't really -- they don't really give you legal advice or what are you referring to exactly?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, let me tell you what happens exactly. A person gets detained, you know, they get, I think what's going to happen they're going to ask immigration status. Let's say they're a legal resident but they don't have proof that they are, which I think is one of the consequences of what's going to happen. Or better yet, a U.S. citizen, a United States citizen. So the person is there, an officer has a gun, a badge, you know, an authority and the officer says well, you know, just get deported. He goes what do you mean just get deported. Well you know if it's true, if you're a legal resident, a United States citizen you will get deported and there's been occasions when that happened. So even though a person has that opportunity to hire a lawyer, the advice is just get deported, you don't need a lawyer. Well he has a right to have a lawyer. Number two, he has a right to have certain hearings under the process and these people are telling him no. So what they're doing is violating their rights. What I'm trying to say is, do your job, don't cross the line.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: And how do you know where that line is?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Well I don't think they're clear. And the reason I say I don't think they're clear is one of the comments I made in my presentation yesterday, that in a letter that was sent to the Justice Department by the governor of Illinois whose taking away the security communities Federal legislation. On many occasions people are not violating the laws are being detained. So that's an example how it's not real clear. Members, I ask that you vote aye on this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Alonzo amendment? The question occurs on the adoption of the Alonzo amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Alonzo voting aye, Representative Solomons voting no. Have all voted? Being 47 ayes, 100 nays, the amendment fails. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I think you should listen up on this amendment because I believe there's one of you has a bill very similar to this. Last night, Representative Aliseda said to us that this is the Federal law of the land. And then Representative Burnam said that a police officer when they pull you over they ask you for your driver's license, and your proof of insurance. So what they got me thinking is that what we should do, then, in order for this law -- because it appears this law is going to become the law of the land in Texas. In order for us to truly do what Representative Solomons wants us to do and apply it uniformly and standard across the state is that we ask everybody. So now, what my amendment says, you get pulled over, you get asked for your driver's license, your proof of insurance and your proof of citizenship. This way, there is absolutely no way to have any kind of racial profiling. The law is applied uniformly across the board. No matter what they look like, no matter how they speak, no matter what they're driving. No longer will you put a police officer in the position of having to determine whether someone looks like they're undocumented or they're not. I really don't see how you argue against applying this law when the author of the bill has said we want a uniform standard application of the law. This is the only way to really create a uniform standard application of the law. Members, if you truly want to get after those folks who are here in this country undocumented, then you should ask everybody that gets pulled over. So I present this amendment in a bipartisan fashion. I believe if this is what you really want, that we should take this amendment and apply it to everybody. I don't understand why we should be picking and choosing those folks who we think might be undocumented based on what.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Menendez I apologize. I just caught the last part of what you were saying but what did you say about applying it. What is your amendment do?
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Well, Chairman Solomons has said that all his bill is about is about having a standard uniform application of the law throughout all of our law enforcement, what I am doing --
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Apply the same standards in 254 counties.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Exactly right. No exceptions. And so, what I'm saying is lets actually do that with every single traffic stop, from now on. If what we really want to know who is here, who has proof of their citizenship or not, whose here legally or not then let's ask everybody we stop. That's the only way.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: On every single stop regardless of what the person looks like or sounds like or says or whatever.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Well, how do you pick and choose who you want to ask, otherwise, how do you choose who you think is undocumented?
REP. PETE GALLEGO: So you ask everybody.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: You ask everyone. It's the only way you eliminate racial profiling. The only 100 percent proof to eliminate it is by asking everybody.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Treating everybody the same.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: That's how you catch that. As Chairman Oliveira said last night the Canadian immigrants who overstayed their visa. You know, who maybe you wouldn't ask. They have no proof of citizenship. So we need to ask -- if this is truly the spirit -- I've heard this term used on various occasions this morning by the author of the bill. The spirit of this bill, this amendment truly works in the complete spirit of this bill. Let's ask everyone that we pull over. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Menendez amendment. Question occurs on the adoption of the amendment. The Menendez amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Menendez voting aye, representative Solomons voting no. Have all voted? Being 44 ayes and 101 nays the amendment fails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAAC: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Isaac, for what purpose?
REP. JASON ISAAC: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REP. JASON ISAAC: The system shows there are 89 amendments submitted for House Bill 12 and we're on No. 15, I believe. Do you know how many amendments we have left?
THE SPEAKER: There are four amendments, Mr. Isaac. Thank you. Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Because it was really nice amendment last night that was kind of a fluffy gesture towards avoiding racial profiling. I'm offering the amendment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.
REP. LON BURNAM: If I could finish first, please. I'm offering an amendment that would put a little teeth to --
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order. Amendment is not germane.
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Phillips withdraws the point of order. Chair recognizes Mr. Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment is in fact germane and is very straightforward. As I said coming out of the amendment that was acceptable to the author yesterday in an attempt to avoid racial profiling. That amendment that was excepted yesterday had no teeth, no enforce mechanism, no way to make it work. This amendment is very simple. It says that the officer commits an offense if the officer engages in racial profiling. Under this it is a class B misdemeanor. That is a very difficult thing to prove but it puts into statute a disincentive to do what we're all concerned is going to happen if this bill actually becomes law. I move it's adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against the Burnam amendment? Question occurs on the adoption of the Burnam amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Burnam voting aye, show Representative Solomons voting no, Representative Munoz voting aye, show Representative Villarreal voting aye. Have all voted? 41 ayes, 102 nays amendment fails.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, members, with this amendment I tried to bring forward a piece of legislation that I filed. Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment makes sure that landlords cannot use immigration status as a determining factor if someones lease application is -- Let me continue. This amendment makes sure that landlords cannot use immigration status in determining if someones lease application is approved or renewed. If House Bill 12 is truly about bringing a level playing field to state policies then we need to make sure that individual cities like Farmers Branch are not passing local immigration ordinances. Landlords and other property owners are not educated in immigration law and are not in a position to be competent in this area of law. Immigration law is a very complex issue and even immigration law experts and scholars will tell you about it's constantly changing history. This legislation will allow apartment associations just like all Texas businesses to be free to conduct business without having to scrutinize immigration documents and determine whether an individual has eligible immigration status as the Farmers Branch ordinance requires. The amendment does not -- does not prohibit landlords from using things like credit scores, employment history, rental history or other relevant factors relating to apartment rental in making decisions about a rental application. Members, one of the questions that always comes up, has this bill gone through a committee? Yes. Has there been witnesses? Yes. Has it been discussed? Yes. So, now I bring it forward as a piece of legislation and I ask that you vote for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: A point of order on this bill that it is not relevant. It is not germane.
THE SPEAKER: Bring you point of order down front. Chair recognizes Representative Turner for a recognition.
REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: While this is taking place, thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, this year marks the 50th anniversary of an important and pivotable moment in the civil rights movement the freedom ride of 1961. The freedom ride involved groups of civil rights activists, young and old, black and white, traveling by bus, train, and planes to the south to challenge segregation and Jim Crow laws. They were often met with angry mobs arrests and beatings. In one particular freedom ride 11 Californians boarded a train in Los Angeles destined for Houston where they joined with the Houston Progressive Association and students from Texas Southern University and others in hopes of nonviolently desegregating Union Station coffee shops. Unfortunately with many events on the freedom trail while the students and those fighting for change were committed to nonviolence the forces fighting for segregation held no such value. Each California freedom rider was arrested and spent ten days in the Harris County jail. Where they were brutally beaten and later tried. They were met with stunning repression and violence but they put their own bodies on the line in order to push the movement for racial justice forward. On May 16th PBS will air a documentary on the freedom ride and focus on those who answered the call of history and risked their lives to change America. The documentary is a snapshot into the past that is not always what we wished it to be but one we wish never to forget. Fifty years later we have made great strides but we should not pretend that the journey is complete. Members, with us today is one of those California freedom riders, Robert Farrell of LA. Robert served on the Los Angeles city council for 17 years and now, works as an aide to a state assemblyman. In 1961 fresh out of UCLA he joined several other college students in LA headed east determined to make a stand for change. He and his fellow riders recently shared their story on the Oprah Winfrey show and play a key role in the PBS documentary. His courage and determination and that of his fellow freedom riders helped change Texas and helped change America. Members, if you will, please, join me in celebrating the 50th anniversary of the freedom ride and in welcoming Robert Farrell to the Texas House of Representatives today. Mr. Farrell, thank you for being here on behalf of all of the members of the Texas House of Representatives. We certainly have come a long way.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Giddings.
REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. While we don't have a resolution today I know all the members of the Texas House join in thanking Mr. Farrell for the sacrifices he and the freedom riders made not just for African Americans but for all Americans as it relates to freedom, justice, and equality. And I know that all of the members of the Texas House join with me today in recommitting ourselves to the furtherance of freedom, justice, and equality because we all understand that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. So again, thank you, Mr. Farrell for being with us.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Let me clarify real quick and apologize for the confusion. We're trying to be as unconfused as possible. There was a point of order on my amendment but that point of order was withdrawn. I'll tell you later how it got done but now we're going to deal with the amendment. The amendment as I pointed out says that immigration status will not be asked by apartment owners when they rent an apartment. And the question is, does this amendment hurt business, the answer is no, not at all. We love business in Texas. This bill does not put business in jeopardy. Under this bill landlords can still deny an apartment to anyone who they believe does not have the financial means to pay their rent. This amendment simply says that apartment companies or apartment are not ICE agents and it holds the longstanding principal that business cannot determine who to do business with based on skin color or race. Let me tell you members, when this amendment was proposed and passed in Farmers Branch, you and I know that as adults -- as adults, we can take it but can you imagine the children, the children, members, wondering whether even though they were United States citizen, whether they were going to have a place to stay. Let me repeat this, the children, members, the children. In 1982 the Supreme Court said the undocumented children have rights here in this country, in the state. And let me tell you, members, prior to 1983, in Texas, in Texas, in order for economic problem, they kicked the undocumented kids from the schools but the Supreme Court says no, and what I'm saying here with this legislation, I also say no, no, no, no, you cannot ask immigration status and if you don't like the adults just think about the children. Think about the children, members, I ask that you vote yes on this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson to speak against the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Members, I represent 80 percent of Farmers Branch. These people have taken a vote, 70 percent of them voted for this ordinance. That may or may not be legal. It may or may not be good but it is local determination, elections count. That's the reason we have 101 Republican members of this House, because elections count. An election should count on the local level and we should not be coming down here trying to undo these things. And let the courts take their course. I urge you to vote no on this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Alonzo to close.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I think Mr. Jackson made a good point, very good point. Yes, there was a vote in Farmers Branch, but, yes, the court said no. Let me give you example of decisions and votes and courts. In the year 2000 -- and you might not like the decision of the courts but guess what we can either have a war or we can respect the courts. Let me tell you what I mean by that. In the year 2000 there was an election for president between Al Gore and George Bush. And in my opinion -- in my opinion Al Gore won, Al Gore won. That was the vote. But the Supreme Court said George Bush won. And guess what? We all agreed to what the court said, that's why we had George Bush as president, even though the vote says Al Gore won. In this case, the ordinance says -- the ordinance says implement the ordinance and the court said, no. And by being the way it is, Farmers branch has spent $3 million, members, $3 million and counting. They don't want to respect the court and that's -- that's understood. That's understood. We used to have a process just like we have a process today in debating this amendment. Farmers Branch has the right to use the process to keep on spending money. And all I'm saying, members, it's the wrong decision and with this amendment, you're going to make the right decision. So those that vote yes will make the right decision, those that vote no will make the wrong decision. Thank you, members.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo sends up an amendment. Mr. Solomons moves -- and Mr. Jackson moves to table. Mr. Alonzo sends up an amendment. Strict enforcement has been requested. Strict enforcement has been granted. Please vote from your desks, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Members, you'll have plenty of time to vote. Mr. Solomons voting no. You'll have plenty of time to vote, members. We don't want anymore Mr. Pickets. All members voted? All members voted? There be 92 nays, 35 ayes, motion fails. Amendment fails. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Callegari.
REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Government Efficiency and Reform to meet while the House is in session, 2:30 p.m. Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 in room 3WN -- 3W9 to consider Senate Bill 1618.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Any objections? Chair hears none. Clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Government Efficiency and Reform will meet on at 2:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 10th, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider Senate Bill 1618.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Gallego.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is essentially a very straightforward but it's very important and I'll tell you why it's very important. Each of you -- each of you I'm sure knows about the Golden Rule, do unto others. Can you imagine traveling in another country with or without your family and being questioned by any law enforcement officer and being taken into custody by any law enforcement officer. Those of you who have had the experience of traveling in other countries know that that can be a pretty intimidating experience. Can you imagine how you would feel if you were arrested or placed in custody in a foreign country and you are not even allowed to contact the U.S. Consulate. Can you imagine how you'd feel. You weren't able to talk to the United States Government's representative, you weren't able to ask for any assistance and you'd have to figure out and wait and wonder if the American Consulate even ever knew where you were. If the State Department ever even knew where you were. What this amendment seeks to do is to say that a municipality or a county or a special direct or anybody who has given authority under the law that we're about to pass has as part of that power, as part of that authority, they also have the obligation to recognize rights that are outlined under international law. In other words, you'd provide them a form that says here's the phone number, here's the contact information for the nearest consulate from your country. If you're Canadian, if you're Vietnamese, if you're Cambodian, if you're Thai, if you're Mexican, any country in the world, you'd be provided the information to contact your embassy. And we all know that the greatest number of people would be Mexican. And so there are consulates across the state but the consulate can't help unless they know you're there. And so what this amendment seeks to do is to, again, require that any person who is detained be given written information about that person's rights to contact they're own consulate. You'd want that right as an American citizen traveling abroad and I hope if you follow this rule about doing unto others you understand how important it is for others who are here to have that same right. So I would move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment, Mr. Solomons moves to table. Mr. Gallego sends up an amendment. Is there anyone to speak on, for, or against the amendment? On the Gallego amendment? Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk will ring the bell. All voted? Being 97 nays, 48 ayes, amendment fails. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, members, Mr. Speaker. This amendment responds to the reality that human trafficking is a serious, serious matter in our state. And it's also related to human trafficking is related to immigration because we share such a large border with Mexico. And I want to acknowledge the work that Mrs. -- Committee Chairwoman Thompson has done on this issue on raising awareness of human trafficking and how to identify somebody here that's a victim. And I want to reiterate that they're a victim of human trafficking, Randy. And I remember your bill from last session and I thank you for that. But it's serious, serious issue and what this amendment would do would require local law enforcement agents to receive training in state and Federal and particularly Federal immigration laws with an emphasis on identifying cases of human trafficking. This bill is responsive to the fact -- to the fact that more than 20 -- or this amendment that 20 percent of trafficking cases identified in the U.S. can be traced here to Texas. Law enforcement are the first responders to raids in safe houses and when trafficking cases are identified. Trafficking victims cases are crucial -- they are very crucial to identifying as witnesses to identify who these perpetrators are and who these folks are that we need to go after when they are victims of human trafficking. And it builds with -- it actually builds on the way to dismantle these organizations that are trafficking folks here. And HB 12 as it is written this amendment will ensure that local law enforcement agents who are more likely to come across immigrants and trafficking victims that they will have the tools to identify -- to identify how these -- how these folks can be prevented from being victims of human trafficking and with that I move passage.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker will the gentlemen yield?
THE SPEAKER: Do you --
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: I will.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Thank you Representative Walle. Mando, thank you for giving me a shout out. Anti human trafficking laws are very near and dear to my heart. I have to say that your amendments probably going to be unnecessary, House Bill 4009 that Ms. Thompson and I passed last year along with Leticia Van de Putte actually has already built a task force through the Attorney General's office. They've done a great job, the continue to do a great job. So, I certainly respect your desire -- though it's already happening but I'm going to have to vote no but you're on the right track. I hope you get behind another great trafficking bill that we both have and I appreciate that.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Yeah, the -- Randy and I appreciate that. One of the things -- what this bill does is because we're preventing local law enforcement on implementing Federal immigration laws. Local law enforcement needs to know what those laws are and having the correct training in reference to human trafficking -- having the correct training to identify those folks -- and I respect the fact that we've created a task force and that's good -- we need to do that to find out what are the best practices. But we also need to actually implement those best practices and I think with this amendment that we can do that. And with that I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone else to speak on, for, or against the Walle amendment? The question occurs on the adoption of the Walle amendment. Vote aye, vote no, members. Ring the bell. All members voted? Show Ms. Farrar voting aye. All members voted. There being 96 nays, 48 -- 48 ayes, amendment fails. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Ms. Farrar.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment exempts victims of a crime and witnesses to a crime from inquiries as to their immigration status. When victims of crimes and witnesses to a crime are afraid to report to authorities the crime never gets reported. This allows domestic abusers and criminals to prey on immigrants because they know that an immigrant will be afraid to report a crime. In fact this is a problem today because the perception on the street among immigrants is that they can be discovered and deported if they have any encounter with the police, including the reporting of a crime. This is why police departments across the state particularly in Houston where my district lies has made huge overtures to work with immigrant communities so that they'll come forward to help them solve crimes. HPD is just making headway in this effort. Let's not impede this process. As in the instance of domestic abuse we in this room know that family violence is a learned behavior. The cycle will wear on when the cycle is not stopped. Without police intervention family violence continues and children in that family will predictably carry forward that behavior into their own lives as adults.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Will the lady yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Farrar, will you yield?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I do.
THE SPEAKER: She yields.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you. Representative Farrar, isn't it true that trust is a major component with police -- what police officers need in the community is trust is that -- would you say that's true?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yes, along with trust comes a lot of goodwill and people in that community bring information forward because, of course, police can't be in every corner all the time, they rely on folks in the community to bring them new information to solve crimes for instance.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, if a witness to a crime, if I'm understanding your amendment, right. If a witness to a crime is afraid and doesn't want to talk to the police for whatever reason maybe immigration status in this case, that -- and that witness could be helpful in solving a crime because our police officers are going to try to protect us whether we're citizens or not. That's what they're there for, to protect and serve. That witness -- there's a chance with this -- the passage of this bill that witness will not go to the police and will not report a crime and that crime may not ever be solved.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: That's correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And taken you also have instances where someone is say a victim of a abuse, spousal abuse, or domestic violence, that person, then, because of this bill, may not go to the authorities to try to report that person as well.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right, because if their choice is stay and take it and -- or go back home where conditions might even be worse they're probably going to stay and continue in that cycle of abuse and not even knowing that if there's children involved, those children will pick up on that behavior and they'll either become abusers or sometimes they pick partners in life who will hurt them.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I don't know about Houston PD but in Austin PD they have worked very hard over the course of several years to try to development a good relationship with immigrant community. They have worked very hard. There is a lot of crime on immigrants because they just carry cash, they might not have credit cards, whatnot. There is a lot of crime against them. That relationship here in Austin with the PD and immigrant community has been very fruitful. It has let to safer communities. I mean is Houston trying to do the same thing, Houston PD.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Yes, they are. And someone was asking earlier about gang violence. This information is very important because a uniformed officer walking through a neighborhood or patrolling through a neighborhood is not going to pick up the same information as those people that are on the streets. And so sometimes our best ally -- I say really our best allies are those folks that are living next door, across the street, passing by, things that are occurring. They know who lives in that certain house and what's going on in that certain house, and if we can get that sort of information, we can stop and we can solve a lot of crimes that go on. But if -- you mentioned the issue of trust, if -- if -- if -- I go back to where some immigrants may come from. They may come from countries where police may not, I would -- I'm just going to say it they may have corrupt police systems and so --
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: That's fair to say.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: They already come can a distrust and so for them, what we're trying to do with -- what our law enforcement community has tried hard to do is to build trust where there is none.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: We need partnerships with the community, all communities, and our police force to make our communities safer. That's you agree with that don't you?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Correct, correct.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think your amendment does that very thing. Basically, what you're trying to do is say that a police officer, if there's a crime committed, that we don't want the victim or a witness to a crime to be afraid to help keep a community safe by working with police; is that right?
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Right. That's exactly it.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I think you have a great amendment.
REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Thank you. Members, I ask you to consider the collateral effects of this legislation. I think this amendment helps to mitigate some of those and I ask you to please vote for the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone else to speak on, for, or against the Farrar amendment which is the last third reading of House Bill 12. If not, clerk will ring the bell. Ms. Farrar voting aye, Mr. Solomons voting nay. All voted. All voted. There being 97 nays, 47 ayes, the amendment fails. Ms. Gonzalez, Mr. Anchia, Gonzalez of El Paso, Mr. Anchia. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against House Bill 12 please come forward. Chair recognizes Ms. Gonzalez of El Paso to speak against.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I know that I'm a freshman and I know that like many of you cringe when I see people come up to the podium sometimes because I don't think that's the highest and best use of our time. But I stand before you today to speak against this particular House Bill not to grandstand, not to have some sort of personal benefit but to be able to look myself in the eye and to know I stood up and did the right thing. I think today is opening a wide door for the rest of government to interfere with our lives.
THE SPEAKER: Members, members, if you could take your seats and give respect to the speaker.
REP. NAOMI GONZALEZ: And so what we're doing today is opening the government to infringe on our civil liberties. And it's not just for undocumented individuals here in the United States and it's not for those of us who are protected as U.S. Citizens. It's for those that may not look like society at large or what we have learned to be society at large. And I know many of you won't pay attention to what I'm saying and I'm under no illusion that my words are going to change anybody's mind on how they're going to vote. I'm well aware of that. But I'm hoping that maybe all of you will take a break from playing angry birds, from looking at baseball, from watching the Three Stooges and pause for one moment to think about what we are going to unleash on our constituents. And it's not just my constituents, doesn't just affect El Paso, it affects all of Texas and it effects this nation in a very serious way. Many of you know that I'm an attorney and as an attorney I took an oath to uphold this wonderful document that I have before you and that is the United States Constitution. And what has made this country great, what makes it the best country in the world is this document right here. And it's not because it stands for the idea that might makes right, but we use this document to protect us when we are vulnerable. And that is why our country has been able to thrive and survive through periods of difficulty and periods that are tumultuous and periods that have caused great stress upon our country. It is this document right here that I firmly believe in and will stand and uphold till the day I die. This document makes our country great. But what we are doing today, ladies and gentlemen, violates that very document and it makes me sad. It truly does sadden me. And so I speak to you as I said before not to grand stand, not to do anything other than to be able to look myself in the eye and hold my head with dignity when I leave here after session and say I stood up for those who could not. And I want to leave you with these final words that are attributed to pastor Martin Muller and this was in reference to how the Nazi's essentially came to power and how they -- a lot of people around in that society just stood around and did nothing. And I really, really, it really irritates me I have to say and for me to go down this route is a bit of a stretch for me because I always -- it's very, I think it's done in distaste when we compare our society with what happened with Nazi Germany. But I think that these words just ring true in any situation. And it's "They First Came" They first came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. I'm speaking out so that in the hopes that one day, when they come for us, and when they come for me, someone will speak out for me, for us. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I stand here before you to give a closing speech because for me House Bill 12 is personal. Like some of my colleagues have shared with you today, I to am the son of immigrants. But I also stand here before you as a state representative from District 103. And a cursory review of you website will reveal that almost 50 percent of the constituents that I represent are foreign born. And about 42 percent of those are noncitizens. I feel that the burdens of House Bill 12 will fall squarely on the people I represent and so House Bill 12 is personal for them too. The immigrant population in District 103 include some of the finest and hard working people in the State of Texas. There are people that you're going the find on a roof, or in a construction crew in the middle of the summer when the temperature gauge exceeds 100 degrees. You trust them to take care of your children and you give them the keys to your house to do your dirty laundry. There are people of faith who fill the churches of all traditions and they're responsible for a faith revival in many waning congregations in Dallas. Yet the rhetoric surrounding this bill and bills like it have been filed in this House and in this legislature are laden with references to crime, terrorism, illegality, and, members, let me say I understand those fears. If there are people who are trafficking drugs, I want them gone. If there are terrorists who hate this country, I want them eliminated. If there are criminal gangs, I want them stopped. I tell you that's just not me and that's just not you, it is everybody in Texas, immigrant and non-immigrant alike, documented and undocumented alike. The constituents that I represent who are undocumented hate criminal gangs, hate drug dealers, hate the narcos, hate terrorists as much as any of us in this room. But I will tell you the people I represent are not criminals, they're people. They're made in the image of God, they're workers, they're mothers, grandmother's and children. They're our neighbors and our brothers and sisters. The irony, members, is that while the focus here has been on immigrant crime and you've heard a lot of discussions of drive-bys and drug dealing. House bill 12 actually makes all of our constituents less safe. In my amendment offered last week I ask that we defer to the chief law enforcement officers from around the state so this he can prioritize local resources without state interference to fight view violent crime and drug crime. And that amendment was not adopted. I carried that amendment because if someone is knocking down the back door of my home in the middle of the night when I'm here in Austin and my wife and children are inside, I do not want the beat cop taking in an undocumented grandmother for no proof of insurance and waiting four hours for ICE to arrive. I want them at my house answering the 911 call. I want them their fast, quick, and in a hurry. I know all of you want that too. Last night, a member of this House accused other members of grandstanding. After these members shared what I thought were very heart felt and personal stories. I found that comment unbelievable. I'll tell you what grandstanding is. Grandstanding is a governor declaring sanctuary cities an emergency item to further political ambition in the face of a $27 billion deficit. Grandstanding is members of this body and of the legislature talking real tough on immigration back home and then coming to the House and saying I really don't like this bill but we just need a record vote. Grandstanding is gratuitously creating fear into the community that I represent by filing bills and bills like this instead of working constructively with our members of congress and our senators to fix our federal system or even exempt school children from the effects of this bill. Speaking of the children that we refuse to exempt from this bill, Thomas Jefferson High School sits right on the north boundary of the district I represent. The school building is not in the district but most of the kids who go there live in District 103. So I have with me today a copy of the Thomas Jefferson document which was the -- commemorated the students in Thomas Jefferson in 1968, same year that I believe author of the bill graduated. And if you look at page 103, you'll see a picture of handsome young lad named but Burt R. Solomons. Who's the -- who was a member of the Latin club, the swimming team. I think Chairman Keffer also went, I believe, class of 1972. He played football. When these gentlemen and great members of this House went to TJ it was 5 percent Hispanic. Today it's 93 percent Latino. TJ, in some ways today is very different but in other ways in very important ways it's the same. Students may look different, but it's the same hard working people in the community, just as their parents were. Many of these people have two jobs and care very deeply about the education of their children, they're family oriented, they go to church, they have picnics in the park and, yes, many of them make our lives a lot easier. There's an interesting point, however, as I was perusing the Thomas Jefferson document from 1968 and there was a reference to the ROTC, the ROTC when Burt was in high school, the Reserve Officer Training Corp. Keep in mind, members, this is 1968, middle of a tumultuous time in this country and there was only about a dozen kids, maybe a couple dozen kids in the ROTC. So we called over to TJ, Thomas Jefferson High School talked to the Colonel who runs the ROTC program today. He was very proud to say that he has about 300 kids in ROTC and he expects it's going to grow to 400 next year. And here's the interesting part. It's estimated that more than half of those kids are undocumented, at least they're non citizens. So when the office asked him why a kid would go into the ROTC knowing they couldn't go into the armed forces because they maybe undocumented? He said, they're just hoping the laws going to change. More than anything they want an opportunity to serve. They want to be welcomed in this their adoptive country. TJ is a safe place for them today because the Dallas Independent School District, the school district that I have the honor of serving as a trustee for has a policy that the ISD law enforcement officers don't ask immigration status in school. But now with House Bill 12 if it passes this policy is gone and these kids maybe subject to producing papers. Burt said he thought this was a good bill. And I can't say the same. I would ask Burt after the session is over to come with me to TJ his alma mater. There's a very distinguished alumni. I know the students would be very, very proud to have him there but ask him to stand next to me and to explain to these students who are filled with hope and dreams just like Burt R. Solomons was in 1968. And explain to them how House Bill 12 is good for them. I hope he agrees. I hope we can do it together. Burt I consider you a friend. And always a worthy ally sometimes adversary. Burt's done some amazing work in this body but I would hate for this to be his legacy. Members, please, vote no.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Quintanilla to speak against.
REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Members, you will seldom see me come to the mic but last night I ran up here thinking that I would -- never knowing what you're going to do that I could say something last night. Now, we know three minutes I said, well, maybe someday I will. But I come before you this afternoon because I recall somebody sometime ago said, you know I was an illegal immigrant. And I was an illegal immigrant. And when I went to Sul Ross State University they asked me, what do you want to do? And I was going to join the Navy about that time. And they asked me, what are you going to do? And I said, well, I want to be a coach, a teacher. You can't be a coach or teacher until you become an American citizen. And I went, saw the immigration officer and I finished high school, I was second in my class. Went to see the immigration officer and he said, well, just sign the papers. You're going to school. You know everything. Sign the paper here. And he said to me but you know what one thing I would like for you to do is -- this is the perfect opportunity for you to change your name. What other name would you like besides, you know, Inocente? That is my given name. And I said no, this is my mothers given name and I will live with it. But she told me when you go to heaven they're going to call you by your name and you better answer. So that's what I told him and he laughed. And I said, I'll keep my name. But I come before you today not to tell my sad stories or anything but to tell you what I've done in this country. Representative Solomons, you know, who I also respect a lot last night said that we had debated this bill for ten hours. That we had spent ten hours talking about it and that was enough and he called the question. Question was called. My friends were at the back mic wanting to defend not immigration, not illegal immigration. We're not here to defend illegal immigration. I am the worst at -- with illegal immigrants probably because of what I went through, you know, and I want everybody to go through the system. But I'm not going after them. He cut the debate. He said, we spent ten hours doing this and this bill will undo will undo what 150 to 200 years of what we have done. We meaning Hispanics, African Americans, Asians, and many other like you. I have a daughter been married two Anglo boys. The first one died, has two children and I'm very proud to say that they are Irish Americans. Irish Americans they are. Some of my best friends have been Anglos and I kid you not. All the way from high school. I did not have any money when I went to college but I had a great friend in Phil Shafer. And guess what I did when I drove into Alpine -- Pete I don't know you were younger than I was, but I drove in Alpine in a 1964 red Corvette stingray, a little boy from a farm going to school in a 1964 red Corvette stingray. Fred, you know that was a beautiful car. And, you know, what? And I thought about it you know what a great country. Then I went to Alpine, Pete, and at the time when I went to Alpine, guess what, you had segregated schools. And I hung around with my Anglo friends and my Hispanic friends did not like me. I'd go across the tracks because there was railroad tracks there and they didn't like me. Then I'd go to the tap room -- I mean, you know, the old tap room and everybody looked at me and say what the hell are you doing here? And I couldn't figure out why because I had been raised not to see any discrimination Tornillo, Texas. I fully realized that in Alpine, the Hispanics were not liked by the Anglos and they were not allowed to go to the same schools. And the Anglos did not or the Hispanics did not like the Anglos. So I was in no man's land. But that was fine. You know I lived through that because I was big, bold football player and nobody picked on me. The quorum report this morning well the Austin American and I don't know if you read this -- the Austin American and I'll quote -- read. The legislature, the Republicans, super majorities flexed their muscle Monday Flattening tradition, rules, and Democratic objectives to advance long sought conservative agenda items. Voiding lawsuit limits on guns on campus and illegal immigration, illegal immigration. One the things I liked about this House that I met when I first came in 19 -- in 2003, they told me this is going to be the best experience in your life. You are going to remember this for the rest of your life. And I said great, and I've had some great friends here. And you know what and I hate for one of these days when I leave this place and say it was not the best experience in my life. I came with grandiose ideas and found some of my Republican conservative friends and friends that did not think Texas was for all. Randy Weber, I appreciate what you do. Randy Weber is a devout, staunch conservative Republican but he stands by his ideals. He stands for what he believes in whether you're Democrat, Republican, or whatever, he will fight for Texas. And it makes no difference. I appreciate men like Randy Weber because he does what is right and what he believes in. I appreciate Dan Branch because he has done so much for our kids that are going to school, higher Ed. And maybe what we're doing now is going to keep some of our children, some of our bright young minds from going to school. I appreciate Tom Craddick. Friend, I consider you a friend. Unfortunately -- no not unfortunate. Fortunately I stood by you many times when people did not want to stand by you. I stood by you because I saw the value you had in yourself. The value to hold the line with your friends. You had four or five Hispanic friends, Mr. Craddick, and you are no longer up here because you stood by the rights and defended those people that were behind you. You defended those people and you stood by them and your conservative Republicans came after you and guess what? Some of us joined those conservative Republicans to keep a person like you from running this House. That you kept immigration bills from coming to the floor of this House and they got upset at you for doing it. Leo Berman got really upset with you for doing this. Also, this happened in the 79th legislature. I'll remind you that Warren Chisum, David Swinford which was one of our friends here, they supported a person by the name of Victor Leal. Victor Leal ran for office in Amarillo, Texas. And Warren Chisum in his bright statements he always makes said we need to look for bright Hispanics because they are going to be here. David Swinford realized this and he was looking for them. Victor Leal ran against an Anglo Republican and lost. And yet he had all the money in the world and money did not help him. Victor Carillo you know him was appointed by Governor Perry. An Anglo ran against him and even in El Paso, he lost to the Republican party. Lost by big numbers and he had big money behind him. He was Hispanic and an Anglo ran against him. The Quorum Report talks this morning and I quote, if this bill is the face of the Republican party, the ugly face of the Republican party. So I'll remind you, I mean, you know, I'll you show you another picture here. I don't know if y'all know who this young man is but it's Tony a Texas Ranger. He leads the Texas Rangers and, yes, the Texas Rangers were probably the hardest on Hispanics and yet he is leading -- of course, he's leaving now, the force. A great person. We have had many great Hispanics helping mold Texas. Don't do this to our Texas. Thank you and I hope you vote no and vote your conscious.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to make my closing remarks and ask you to vote no. And in a couple of parts. First, at the personal level. Yesterday I mentioned just a little part of the story and I want to be clear on the story, why it's personal. In the late 20's, early 30's my grandparents from Mexico went to Ohio to work in the fields and five kids were born there. And I pointed out that in that time, if you remember your history, the United States said how are we going to fix the depression. And one the ways they decided to fix the depression was to deport Mexicans back to Mexico. And I learned this story about seven years ago because I went to a funeral in Ohio for my Tia Toni. My tia Toni passed away and my aunt said that when it happened, they were on a train, my grandma, my grandpa, and my aunts and uncles and my dad and that my grandma was crying because she said, how are we taking these kids to Mexico when they're not from Mexico. How am I taking these kids to Mexico when they're not from Mexico. And through the years I always wondered how my dad grew up in Mexico and then being born in the United States. Well that's what happened. And then he came here to the United States later learned that he wasn't from Mexico that he was from the United States and it shows on his birth certificate. In fact, I pointed out that my aunt Stella who is one of the five doesn't even speak English. And many times when she's questioned and I knows she's going to be questioned under this legislation. She's always asked how come you don't speak English if you're a United States citizen. And she says because I'm a United States citizen and I can speak the language that I want. I speak at the personal level because you heard many of the stories from some of our members and I know there's tons of stories. And I know through the years I have even heard stories from all members in their districts about specific examples of dealing with folks and dealing with situations. And, in fact, in 2003, I introduced legislation, members, when Speaker Craddick got elected in 2003. In 2003, I introduced legislation that would give the right to an undocumented individual, a right to an undocumented individual to get a driver's license and we got 99 votes and we only had 62 Democrats at the time. Ninety-nine votes and we had about 20 folks against it because people knew the practical aspects of that legislation. So I speak to you first from personal examples, personal experiences, my personal -- as well as every single one you, I bet you, I bet you, I bet you has a personal example as well. Now I also speak to you as it relates to my district. My district is similar to you. And why do I say many of you because of the census. Having been on redistricting I completely, completely, always say look at the demographics. In ten years, members, in ten years, between 2000 and 2010 the increase of the population has gone up to 4.3 million people or so. 3 million Hispanics, 300,000 Anglos, 500,000 African Americans, 800,000 Asian Americans or so. The numbers are there, the numbers are there, the numbers are there but do we want to see them there and sometimes we don't. And I'll give you an example. Being on redistricting, we were dealing with redistricting on State Board of Education. I asked the chairwoman of the State Board of Education who came to testify on that bill. I go, ma'am, how many Hispanics are there throughout the state and the school districts? She goes, 53 percent. I go, how many African Americans? She goes, I don't know. This is the chairwoman of the State Board of Education, who is dealing with our kids and she don't know. And sometimes we don't want to know, but guess what? You know, every single one of you knows what your district looks like and what changes have occurred and what's going on, just like I do. In representing my district I come before you to ask no to this legislation. The biggest issue, the biggest issue, members, aside from the budget is this legislation right here. Every time I go back home and through the years, this has been the big deal. And let me give you an example of how big a deal this is. It's a big deal. In 2006, we had a rally downtown, Dallas, Texas, on immigration. 500,000 people -- let me repeat that, 500,000 people. If you think 500,000 is a big number, you understand it's a big deal. Now what's the final point. The final point, this issue is not about local police because it's not a problem. Why isn't it a problem because we don't have no police officers, no chiefs coming to ask for this. No city councils, county commissioners coming to ask for this. And every time we speak here about, you know, unfunded mandates, we talk about our city councils, our school boards and county commissioners don't want unfunded mandates. And I have never heard anybody say that their city councilman, their school board member, their county commissioner wanted this legislation. Because in the end, members, what is this all about? This is about immigration, this is about immigration reform, this is about the economic importance of immigration reform. This is about, not Texas, not the city, not the county, not the school, but that the nation fix the economic, the immigration problem. That millions of folks are living in the shadows and are vulnerable to businesses that skirt taxes, pay workers less than minimum wage, cut corners with health and safety. This also puts companies that follow those rules who and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage and overtime -- this is about immigration, members. Now, the other part about the numbers is security. Border security we dealt with that last session and there was tons of funds sent over there. The President of the United States has dealt with it. And you know how he's dealt with it as far as security? Do you know how the President of the United States has dealt with it as far as security? The big *kakuy. The big boogie man was Osama bin Laden. The biggest issue on immigration was terrorists coming over. The biggest issue was catching Osama bin Laden and he did do that. Did he do that? Yes. So he's dealt with security. So, members, there's a personal situation, there's a district situation but it's also about immigration. Members, this is not a deal we should be dealing with at the city, the school, the county or the state. This is a Federal issue, let the Federal government take care of it. Thank you. Vote no on this bill.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. It's not a concealed weapon I promise. I came prepared to talk about a number of things. I had about 5, 10 pages of notes. And I'm not going to talk about racism. I'm not going to cast stones at Burt I think he's a fine guy, although I think he's a little cocky at times but he's a nice gentleman and he's done some good pieces of legislation for this body in the past and I'm sure he'll continued to good work into the future. I'm not going to call anybody out today and I'm not going to tell you -- we've heard a lot of poignant stories over the last several days about some of our colleagues and the things they've gone through. I'm not going to tell you about how my immigrant father came to this country when he was 17 years old and fulfilled the American dream and my biggest fight with him why he keeps voting for Ronald Reagan and George Bush but that's an aside. I think I've got him back on the right track now. Especially after this debate. And so, you know, I came to talk about all those things, but I'm not going to bother you with the idea that because of the color of my skin -- I've been told on numerous occasions, you know Roland you're a good Mexican of the I don't know what a good Mexican is. I don't know what a -- I thought I was not just a good American or a good Mexican-American I thought he was just trying to be a good person but those are the kinds of things that pervade our current culture. I came to talk today, I was prepared to talk about the critics because we keep talking about these ratings and these scorecards and I think of this fine, fine, member of our body, good, good dear friend he's kind of my conscious on this Doc Anderson. He gave me this as a freshman he gave me this plaque about the man in the arena. And I know you know that Teddy Roosevelt phrase that Teddy Roosevelt quote. And I'll tell you about it a little bit because it's important when we talk about these critics and these scorekeepers. The reason I say Doc's my conscious is because every time I pass by his desk and I say a curse word he says, hey hold off. And so here I seem to say a lot of curse words. But the man in the arena is important and the quote is important. It's not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs in the man in the arena whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood who strives valiantly. Who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion who spends himself in a worthy cause. That best knows in the end triumph of high achievement. And who if at worst if he fails at least fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be where those cold and timid souls who have never known victory or defeat. It's important because we come in here and I know that we vote the right way because we want to. But every now and then I hear someone in this body say, I got to get this scorecard up or I'm down to a 63 or, you know, I don't know what my score is on any scorecard. I think that the ACLU probably has one, I guess the Texas Conservative Coalition, I think I might have gotten a hundred yesterday for my amendment on lose or pay. But you know, my message to this body is that those scorecards -- think about this quote, because those people, those timid souls -- there's 150 of you in the State of Texas, just 150 that come here, that make it and you make it because your constituents value your worth, they value your opinion, they understand that you will not always agree with them, they understand your principals and that's why they vote for you. That's why they ask you and that's why they honor you with their vote, to come here and represent them to do valiant things, to do things that are important, to do things that are substantive, to do things that affect the very nature of their being, the very nature of their existence, their day-to-day lives. To the things that effect their economy, their mortgage, their pocketbooks, that's why you're elected to come here not because of some scorecard that somebody prints up and sends out come election time. Those constituents will have you back like they have Doc and everybody else back here because you do good work. And so, I came to talk about a lot of things. I was prepared to talk today about the myth of sanctuary cities because nobody showed me one yet. I was prepared to talk about the unfunded mandate but I think so a lot of people have already covered that piece. I was prepared to talk about the hypocrisy of our immigration laws, how we take -- how we take all the rich of the world -- I don't know if many of you know this I used to do a lot of criminal defense work. In the last three years I switched my practice to a lot of immigration work. And it's a shame that I can't help the people that I want to help, these people that we're talking about here today over the last 24 hours. The people I end up helping out a lot are fortunately or unfortunately, for their situation. Wealthy people that are fleeing Mexico and other countries to come to the United States because our immigration policy, the hypocrisy of America, the hypocrisy of our immigration policy. We'll take your poor -- we'll take your rich we'll give you an investor visa, pay $500,000, provide ten jobs you're an automatic United States citizen. That's lovely. You can invest some money, start up a small business or an intercompany transfer, that's lovely. I was prepared to talk about all that hypocrisy. I was prepared to talk about a piece of legislation in this House. I think we heard parts of it earlier that was going to, you know, basically go out and penalize employers for hiring illegal immigrants. The hypocrisy is those employers Texas Association of Business, Restaurant Association well they don't want any of that legislation because, you know, Juan Gonzales comes up to their restaurant, their place of business gives them a Social Security card. Come on in Juan. Wash our dishes. Two years later they get a no match letter from the Federal government. I'm sorry, Juan, you're going to have to get on down the road but all the while Juan paid his taxes, never going to get them back. We never talk about that. The net effect is that illegal immigration and every study has shown this costs there's a net -- there's no net loss or gain by what we provide for these folks. The fact is and I talked about this the other day, and I'm not going to harp on it today. I'm not going to talk today about how the Federal government has dropped the ball on this. I'm not going to talk about how we are being asked state after state after state is being asked to be a pawn for cowards who can't make a decision on an issue -- on the most important issue of our time. To take 12 million people in the United States, approximately 2 million in the State of Texas, make them responsible tax paying citizens which they want to do. I urge you and I respectfully submit to you this. They want to be here and pay taxes and do the right thing. And so, for that small fragment of that community that's doing bad things they need to go. There's not one of the 49 people that have been voted over the last 24 hours that is suggesting that people that do elicit acts should stay. This is about working class people and so the hypocrisy is we certainly want them to pick our fields, we certainly want them to work in our restaurants, that's the hypocrisy. And we certainly want them to carve out exceptions so that they can take care of our kids and clean our toilets. That's the hypocrisy of the immigration policy in the United States. But at the end of the day, it's in not our jurisdiction, it's not our job. So what I'm going to talk about today is I wanted you to understand a little bit, I want to tell you a story about the feelings that you've seen here over the last 24, 36, 48 hours and you've had some people cry. You've had other members telling you how they were brought to tears by the actions of law enforcement, and I wanted you to -- I wanted to dispel a story and I wanted to come here today thinking about, you know, bringing fire and brimstone on this body and I thought to myself, I saw a great man here yesterday. I saw Harold come up here and calmly tell you a story. So I wanted to tell you a story so you could understand how people feel. And this story is about a group of people that lived on an island and these foreign invaders come in, these foreign folks come in on their ships and they embrace them. They take them in. Have dinner with them. Have a little Thanksgiving dinner. Life is good, until the foreigner wants more. Moves out west, wants some resources, wants some gold, wants some coal to feed his trains and they keep moving west for hundreds of years. Then 150 years we irradicate that people down to nothing. And they're placed in these camps, in these reservations. Let me tell you about another group of people that were brought into this country to basically pick the cotton, work the fields, enslaved, they're whipped, women are raped, children are harassed, people are hung, people are lynched. And then there was a group of people that World War II comes along, and those people are put in camps, because we're not sure about their loyalties. And then another group comes along, we can't whip them anymore but with we have them pick our cotton, we have them pick our fields, and our strawberries and our fruit and we work them in substandard conditions. We pay them nothing. Mr. Speaker, if I could extend my time for two more minutes. And so, members, at the end of the day, members, I want you to imagine that these people -- and I'll shorten my comments down to the next two minutes. All of these people come to this country and now I want you to imagine that all those people that were raped or lynched or asked to work in substandard conditions imagine that they're white. How do you feel.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.
REP. CAROL ALVARADO: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. You know last night was a very emotional night for many of us and it was hard to sit here and listen to some of the testimony. When my colleague, my friend Jessica Farrar, got up here I could sense her hurt. I could sense her pain in her words and it was hard to listen to that. It has been difficult because my desk mate is the author of this bill and I respect him so much but I completely disagree with this bill and we've had some pretty lively discussions sitting in our chairs. And it's always hard to go against you desk mate but it's not hard to sit here and speak about what you believe in and to speak for the people you represent. And many of us -- and I don't know if this is a record the number of people we've had up here giving speeches but until you've walked in our shoes you have no idea what we're feeling and what we're thinking. We're a very proud people. We're very proud people like Joe Ramirez, Jr. the commandant of the Corp of Cadets at Texas A & M. The first Latino. We're also proud of people like Ruben Mejia, the son of Mexican immigrants who was part of the Navy Seal squadron the killed Osama bin Laden. We're proud of him. I have tried to explain to people back home why we're taking up this bill. And my desk mate and I have had this conversation. If we can't name one sanctuary city, if we can't come up with a reason why we're debating this bill and the merits of it and the only thing that comes to mind is we -- what we're doing to local governments. I think it is so hypocritical of us to complain about the constraints that the Federal government plys on us and then to turn around and tie the hands of city governments, of school districts. Police departments from across the state have said in a very articulate manner that they're concerned about how this undermines the cooperation and trust of immigrant communities. They talked about the lack of resources within their departments. They've talked about the complexity of Federal immigration law and the lack of authority and state law limitations on the authority and the risk of civil liability. When Arizona passed its law a certain leader here in our state stood up and said don't worry Texas isn't going in that direction. And here we are today. Arizona stands to lose nearly $400 million in economic output, $5 million more in lost tax revenue and over a couple of thousand jobs lost from the convention industry. Texas can't afford this. During the last campaign there was a sign that was proudly waved in the commercial "Open for business." Well, when we pass this we may see a sign that says, "Texas closed for business." You see this bill is a dissolution in search of a problem. In my opinion it's a well dressed lie placed by the naked truth. Members, I ask you to think about what we're doing here and the message we send not just throughout this state but throughout this country. I ask you to join me and my many colleagues in opposing this bill. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Every man is created equal, but obviously during this session, it has not been the case. In light of expansion -- expansive budget cuts in a $27 billion deficit, our local law enforcement and state agencies in Texas are now facing a further burdensome responsibility and an unfunded mandate. This would exacerbate the strain on an already overburdened system, requiring city and county jailers to act as immigration officers, create intrusive and new licensing requirements that would have unintended consequences for naturalized citizens. Add new mandatory minimum sentences for potentially vague offenders that would grow the prison population. This means that not only will local agencies lose discretion over the use of local tax dollars, they will be forced to pay for the costly incarceration of non-violent individuals. Not one law enforcement agency supported this legislation. The most compelling argument is that there has been not been one individual able to describe what a sanctuary city is or where one is located. Mr. Solomons mentioned that the Federal law already exists. So what is the purpose, members, what is the purpose for tearing this body apart? Truth is, there is not a purpose. And I ask you to vote no on this legislation.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales.
REP. VERONICA GONZALES: Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Those words were written by Martin Luther King when he was in prison in 1963. Asking children to prove their citizenship or inquiring as to the status of their parents citizenship is an injustice. Asking an elderly woman who is stopped for a traffic violation and may speak broken English to prove her citizenship is an injustice. Giving overzealous police officers the right to detain and harass persons, proud American citizens who look different to prove their citizenship is an injustice. Martin Luther King wrote those words while in prison for protesting discrimination. And 48 years later the words of Martin Luther King continue to ring true. As elected officials, as representatives of the people we have a duty to set good policy. To set a good example, to cure injustices not to create them. This legislation will create an injustice. That's why so many have risen to give impassioned speeches. That's why those of us who normally say little have risen to the front mic to oppose this legislation. That's why despite knowing the fate of this legislation I have risen to ask you to search your conscientious and to vote no. Because this legislation brings to mind another quote I learned as child from *Zapata.
(spoke in Spanish) translated it means: It's better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Vote no, members.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I said last night at an impromptu press conference that this bill represents the ugly face of the Republican party. And I believe that. Throughout this session and over the past several years there has been this fight within the party between those who don't believe in these things, those that do believe these things are ugly that they divide people, that it's purely showmanship. Those who are willing to look to the future rather than shadowbox with the past and those who would rather serve up the red beet to the right wing of the party. I would submit to you that the passage of this bill is further evidence that there is no more Republican party -- moderate Republican party in Texas. There is no pro business moderate Republican party in Texas. It is a party dominated by the right wing. There is no middle left. There's certainly no middle that's in control. What has been the most disturbing and the reason that I say that this is the face of the Republican party is because I sincerely believe that it's not necessarily where the hearts and minds of many of the legislators that I know personally here in this chamber reside. As others -- as others have mentioned, there have been countless folks who have said throughout this debate that they don't believe that this is necessary, but that they know that somebody is keeping score. Is that what legislation has come to here? That you're simply slaves to four or five think tanks in Texas and around the nation? And you grade yourself in public policy by the score that you receive at the end of the session? That might not be so bad if half truths and outright misrepresentations didn't dominate the debate. For example, there was a legislator last night who mentioned that the Federal government has done absolutely nothing, that was the quote, to secure our borders and do something about immigration. When that's just an outright misrepresentation. The facts are these and I'll provide the documentation to anyone of you that wants it. Over the last few years, the border patrol in the United States has never had more resources and never had more employees and agents on the frontline of the border than ever before. The number of people who have come across the border is lower over the last few years than it has been in the past 10 or 12 years. Those are the facts. And they can be substantiated. Yet, to listen to some of the comments from some folks they would have you believe that there are hardly any border patrol agents. That we barely finance the border patrol. That people are coming here as though there was no border. When you hear those comments I wish you would ask yourself this. I know there are people out in the public that believe that. I know you have people come up to you out in your districts who make those comments and for that reason -- you may have a lot of those folks. And for that reason you feel a real pressure to enact legislation like this. But ask yourself what responsibility do you have as a public servant to set them straight and to find out the real record and to share that with them. Is the answer to that that we don't have any responsibility. That all we're supposed to do is to submit to whatever they want. This bill has also been disturbing because it's part of an ugly trend of bills filed by Republicans this session. There is a bill on birthright citizenship, there is a bill on anchor babies, there's a bill to make English the official language which is tinted with ethnic undertones, there's a bill to undue what we call the Texas dream act. And that's just a short list of the many of the 40 plus bills that have been filed on all of these issues. So this is not an isolated bill. This is not an isolated incident. This is the new -- this is the ugly face of the Republican party today. I hope that as we go forward, we choose not to take the course of a place that I lived in 15 years ago which was the state of California. I was in California as a student in northern California when the state enacted in 1994 the infamous prop 187. And as different as this state strives to be from California, we have taken a step closer to being Pete Wilson's California of almost 20 years ago. The biggest or the worst consequence of that bill as I recall living in California at the time was the divisiveness and the tension, the ethnic and racial tensions that it created among the citizens of the state, the residents of the state, such that you could feel it at that time being out in public among all these different groups. I would ask you whether that's what you want for our home state of Texas? Do you want to create that kind of divisiveness, that kind of public tension with people when they are among each other, because that's what this bill helps do. And I hope that you'll keep that in mind.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Gallego.
REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I think we can all cheer because I think I'm close to the end. So, let me very briefly cover two topics on my one card. I want to take the discussion away a little bit from being about things that divide us and talk about a couple of things that unite us. As individuals, as parents or uncles or grandparents or brothers or sisters, I want to talk about a couple of things that we can all relate to. The first thing I want to talk about is fear. In my own life I will call it the -- we call it the tale of two grandmothers. My grandmother Victorianna *Almadova was an Apache Indian and as a little boy growing up you didn't -- there were no nursing homes there was no -- your grandmother came to live with you and you took care of your grandmother until she died. And I always wondered why my grandmother would hide when somebody knocked on the door. I never understood that, until later on in my adult years, when my sisters and I, my parents, were around the table talking and that came up. My father said that as a little girl growing up, as Apache Indian -- and to tell you the truth I don't know whether she was a United States citizen or not. But as a little girl growing up, there was a price to be paid for the scalps of Apache Indians even in the late 1800's and early 1900's. And so every time somebody she didn't expect knocked on the door she hid. And now looking back on it I think, wow, what a horrible way to live. My other grandmother, her name was Cecilia Perez. And I do know she was not. Cecilia Perez was born in Chihuahua and came over when she married my grandfather. She never became a U.S. citizen but she never back to Mexico again. She was always afraid she would not get to come back. And why I tell you that, why I tell you about my grandmother is because she had a lot of grandchildren. She played with her grandchildren. I still have the things she gave me as a little kid. When he's old enough I'll give to Nicholas. But I will tell you that children are scrupulously honest. On my last trip back from home when I was driving from Austin to -- when I was driving from Alpine I got stopped for speeding, we were all in the car. The trooper asked me if I had been stopped before and Nicholas, who wasn't even in the conversation pops up from the back seat and says well, he hasn't been stopped today. Well, I give you that as an example of children being scrupulously honest. And can you imagine what happens if we asked kids to be the lead witnesses against their grandparents and against their parents because we start talking to them in the public schools, in the emergency rooms, wherever in the state about where are your parents from, are they citizens, and can you imagine the long term damage that that does to a family relationship. I will tell you -- I have no idea how I got to the House, I have no idea how I made it through law school because my original plan was to teach English literature. And so let me revert to what makes me feel comfortable. Emerson, tells us that consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. I don't believe that. I don't believe that. But I will tell you that for me there's some value in consistency. And the one thing that I will say about this is, I had the privilege of being the Democratic caucus chairman while Governor Richards and Governor Bush both served as governors of Texas. And when Governor Bush was elected and through the course of his service as governor -- in the beginning he was a little suspicious I guess is the word -- my English -- is I was a little suspect of him because I had been very close with Governor Richards. But when we got to know each other one of the interesting things about Governor Bush was that he began to talk to me. He said, Pete, you're the future of the Republican party, you need to come home to the Republican party. You're conservative. And we had a lot of conversations about philosophy. We had a lot of conversations about the opportunities that the Republican party might give to the Latinos. We had a lot of those. But when he asked me one day, what does it mean what can you tell me -- tell me what the core values are of being a Democrat. And I had to think about it because I said that -- well, you know, individual rights for people, we support education and we support -- and he looked at me -- stopped me in the middle of the conversation and he said, Pete, I can tell you three things about the Republican party. The three core values of the Republican party he said are, fewer taxes, less government, and local control. Those are the three core values that we talked about. Today I can't tell you in bullet points what the core values are of the Republican party. But what I can tell you is that House Bill 12 doesn't create fewer taxes, it doesn't create less government and it certainly isn't about local control. To revert back a little bit to that English literature background that I have let me talk to you about "Animal Farm," and George Orwell because those of us that have been here for awhile and those of us who have been in positions of authority be it someone like Speaker Craddick or someone like Warren Chisum that had the opportunity to chair the appropriations or Mr. Pitts who does chair it today. There is a tendency that we all have to be careful of and that is the tendency to forget who we are and where we came from and get carried away in the moment. Get carried away. And we fight that. All of us even as one of the 150, each of us fights that on occasion, to remember who we are, where we came from and what we're about. And not get carried away in the member censored world of this chamber that we live in. But George Orwell is pretty interesting in a book that was banned originally in Russia, called "Animal Farm." And in "Animal Farm" the animals overthrow the humans because they think the humans are corrupt and they're bad and they're all sorts of other things. And the animals take over and they run their own farm. And they want to be different. They want to stark contrasts with those that came before them because they feel that they have a new mandate to do things a different way. And you know what happens particularly to the pigs in the end and the rest of the animals in "Animal Farm" is that they find out that they are just like the people who came before them. We have to really -- because we have authority doesn't mean we should always use it. We should still be mindful of the individual rights, we should still be mindful of the individual situations, and we should still be mindful of the of the fact that our country, which we all every subject one of us loves I think with our last drop of blood -- our country is meant for all of us and legislation that is designed or has the impact of dividing us is legislation that we should treat with a great deal, a great deal of circumspection. I think this bill in the final analysis does more harm than good. I think it creates a great deal of fear for grandmothers and grandfathers and aunts and uncles, for parents, for brothers and for sisters. I urge all of you to be consistent in your arguments. To be respectful of each other as we debate through the remainder of the rest of the session. And I know we've made up our minds and we'll vote how we're going to vote but, again, it's how we do it. I hope we do it with respect, I hope we do it with mutual understanding, and I hope at the end of the day we all remember that we're all Texans and we're really all friends. So thank you very much for the opportunity and I urge you to think about you vote as we go on about our business today. REP. TREY MARTINEZ-FISCHER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Sunday was Mother's Day and those of you who were here on Saturday were very happy for that holiday because we were able to go home and take ourselves away from a very bad day. Like all Mother's Day traditions many of us celebrate it with our loved ones, our wives, our mothers, the mothers of our children and then with our mothers. So I called my mother and asked her what I could do to make her day special. So she asked me to drive her to the cemetery so that she could take flowers to her mother. So we got in the car and we drove to Leming, Texas and we went to the family private cemetery. As my mother laid flowers at her mother's grave, my grandmother I looked around and I saw headstones from out family that date back to my great, great grandparents, Anastio and Calista Robles. There were headstones that go back to 1840. Those of you trying to figure that out that's four years after the Battle of the Alamo, five years before Texas became a state. While I don't like this bill I'm glad we don't have a provision in there that prohibits sanctuary cemeteries because the fact of that would be devastating to this state. No question about it this bill is the single most assault on Latinos in the State of Texas. It's aimed directly at Latinos. It is a very sensitive topic because it deals with race, ethnicity, and national origin. As it's been said, session after session we have fought these bills back because it's not our place, it's not our fight, we don't have a dog in that hunt. But for some reason this session we found an opportunity in House Bill 12 to talk about something that has yet to be explained but yet has risen to the level of a state emergency. Last night the author of this bill despite its emergent nature decided it was time to cut off debate because he was tired. Because the Friday before we considered five amendments and took up the chambers time and because he felt that the five amendments he offered last night were sufficient to satisfy the emergency. Substituting his judgment for that of the body. And when do we ever do that? What member carries that kind of presumption that you can bring a bill to the floor and say you know it better that anybody else. When you don't walk in those shoes. And yet for the 30 plus amendments left up on that dais, it didn't matter what they thought. You could have tabled it in 20 minutes. We spent more time on third reading amendments than we could have spent last night on second reading. So I appreciate the fact -- I appreciate the bone that we were thrown today to talk about amendments on third reading. Didn't recognize -- the speaker didn't recognize anybody for a motion to -- let's do this for 76 votes like we did on second reading. It's like, okay, discuss your idea and if you can get 100 votes you can get it on. This may not be the most important bill this session but it certainly is one of the most controversial. It made me think about a young kid who lived on Real Street in the heart of San Antonio's west side (*inaudible). Everybody in Bexar County Antonio knows where that is. It's in the district that I represent, the district I share with other members because (*inaudible) is a big street. And I thought about what if that kid got up that morning and said, you know, I'm tired today. I'm not going to show up for work either. And what would have happened if he never would have stepped foot inside that Blackhawk helicopter on February 25th, 2003. And what happened if he wasn't in that helicopter when it went down on a night mission 30 miles north of the Kuwait border. And perhaps he wouldn't have been one of the first ones killed in Operation Enduring Freedom. His name is Specialist Rodrigo Gonzalez-Garza. He was a lot of things. Graduate of Fox Technical High School in San Antonio, he was a son, he was a soldier. And like I said he was one of the first, if not the first casualty of Operation Enduring Freedom. But most important for House Bill 12, he wasn't from this country. He was born in Sabinas Hidalgo, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. He was brought to this country by his parents as a baby, as an infant in diapers. Kind of like somebody I know in the good book. And more than that he has three brothers. All three of them are serving in the military today. Staff Sergeant Ramiro Gonzalez, Private Roland Gonzalez, and Private Ricardo Gonzalez, Rodrigo Gonzalez's twin brother. What if there commitment to their adoptive country was as weak as our commitment to debate? What if he decided not to jump into that helicopter because he was tired? Thankfully for everyone in the room his love for America surpassed the fidelity that we have for the traditions of this House. His call to service made us all safer. His devotion exceeded the cowardice we exhibited last night. His service does everyone in this room honor. His sacrifice keeps us safe. And the bill that many of you decided to end last night, all 91 of you, we didn't even get a chance to talk about whether his military uniform was enough to prohibit him from the disrespect and the disgust of House Bill 12. We couldn't even offer that amendment because it was a perfect bill and we were tired. Last night we dishonored his legacy. And perhaps that's the reason why -- let me not say that because I don't know but perhaps it could be a reason why his family chose to bury him in Mexico where he is celebrated as a hero and now where his legacy is dishonored by public servants. My personal opinion, I like Burt Solomons but he's wrong. But he's hardly alone, so are you. But it's not your fault because there's one person who gets to decide who's recognized on this floor and that's the Speaker of our House. I believe what we did last night is weakness, I believe it's a lack of judgment. Where was this leadership on March 14th when this bill was passed out of committee? And in fact let's rewind the clock. Where was this leadership on November 12th, 2010 when House Bill 47 was filed that looks just like House Bill 12? I saw on January 11th Governor Perry declared this an emergency. And what I say to Governor Perry's emergency, I say happy anniversary, because this is the four month anniversary of this emergency and I pray that we don't have to declare an emergency for west Texas fires because if it takes four months to address an emergency in west Texas people are in a lot of trouble. And so this is the four month anniversary of this emergency. It's been sitting in calendars since March 23rd. Where was the leadership on that? Instead of leading the Speaker and the leadership of the House chose to wait, chose not to address this emergency. I'll leave it to them to explain why. Was their intent not to get to House Bill 12? Was it their intent to put a big, ugly bill on the calendar the last week so we don't get to your bills, my bills, our bills? I'll let them answer that because I don't know. But that's the net affect when you put a monster on the floor in the last week of the session. But here is what I do know. I knew a man who had aspirations for this office and inspired us all. One day back in 2009 he said, let us come together. Let us come together as colleagues and servants to do what is right for Texas together -- together. We will build a House where members have an opportunity to express their views and a chance, a chance to do something great for their districts and for Texas. This is a man I can no longer recognize and wish it weren't so. Vote down House Bill 12.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen to speak for the bill.
REP. DENNIS BONNEN: This is my eighth legislative session and I have never, ever stepped to the front mic on a major bill in closing speeches. This is my first and I will try to be brief. I respect each and every member of this House and I respect the members who spoke here today. But what I don't respect is having my position and my motives characterized for me. I will be voting for this bill but not because of a score card. I will be voting for this bill because of Rick Salter. Those of you on State Affairs met Rick Salter. Rick Salter is probably one of the finest constituents that I have. He's absolutely one of the most courageous. No one is better at his job than Houston police officer Rick Salter coworkers said. A 27 year veteran of the force Salter is the point man for an elite squad of undercover officers that specializes in narcotics investigation. He typically leads the squad through the door to confront sometimes well armed and dangerous suspects. What happened to Mr. Salter was that he did that in March of 2009. And he was confronted by a gentleman who had been arrested five times for possession, delivery of drugs, including three times after an immigration judge had granted him voluntary departure in March of 2001. Mr. Salter was shot in the face. The article goes on to say that he was clinging to life at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, Texas. Our friend who made a very positive speech, my friend Representative Alvarado was at that hospital with him supporting him and his family. And has been supportive of him and his story. But, members, it would be irresponsible of me to not come up here today and not tell you about Rick Salter. I called him and asked him if he was interested in these bills and he said absolutely. He sent me a very long text message because it's the best way that he is able to communicate now. His text message just about brought me to tears because he said he doesn't have the use of the left side of his body and his life will never be the same again. His wife's life will never be the same again. Rick Salter came to Austin, Texas to testify that day and Chairman Cook was very gracious to he and his wife. The entire committee was. He was in a wheel chair which he'll probably get mad at me for saying it. He would not allow the wheel chair in the committee room. He walked in and he walked out and it was a struggle as it will be for the rest of his life. But, members, the reason we are supporting House Bill today, at least for me, and I know for most of my colleagues is for men like Rick Salter and for young men like Josh Wilkerson. Representative Weber's constituent who he helped greet at the Capitol to testify that day. Their son was murdered in November of this past year by someone who was at the Brazoria County Courthouse for legal matters he found himself in the week prior. He was here illegally. Life will never be the same. Members, I respect everyone on this issue. I respect the volatility, emotion, the difficultness of it but it is vital that there are two sides to this discussion. It is vital that we remember Rick Salter, we remember the Wilkerson family and remember many others who have been effected by this in this great state and I ask you to vote for House Bill 12.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Solomons to close.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Well aside from Mr. Anchia reminding me how old I am I do appreciate everyone's comments and concerns. This is an emotional issue for a lot of us. We do represent the people of Texas all of us in here. When you really think about it and having chaired redistricting, with over 25 million people. I can't than remember if it's .1 or .3 but with over 25 million people when you really think about it there's 150 of us, pretty big honor to be 1 of 150 out of 25 million plus people. And we represent our districts, we represent the people of Texas and we have different points of view. Now, I don't profess and I think most people who know me -- you -- you understand I don't profess to be a great, you know, the most articulate person or the best orator in the body. We certainly have a number of members that can do better than I can do. However, I do kind of pride myself at least in part on trying to take on issues and try to resolve issues and try to address issues in a way that makes some kind of sense. And people of Texas and a lot of us in these districts, both Republican and Democrat alike have been talking about this sanctuary issue. Whether you call it sanctuary cities or sanctuary policies, it's been going on a while. Going on all over the country certainly going on in Texas as well. Whether you come from the Republican side or the Democrat side these issues do get talked about in our districts. And I think we have tried to do that in this bill in a responsible manner and sort of the Texas way, where it's very logical and very direct. And as much as I sincerely appreciate all the courtesies and civilities that have been provided to me, even when tempers flair a little bit. Everybody seems to be respectful of each other and I certainly appreciate it and y'all ought to be appreciative of the fact that the members are respectful to each other here. But I do think it's an important issue. It's being discussed all over the state, it's being discussed both emotionally and logically and practically and with the idea of personal feelings and/or just the idea of how do resolve some of these issues, and this one in particular in the illegal immigration arena. And so I was going to ask you to vote for the bill, send it to the Senate and we'll see what they'll do with it. But I do think it's an issue that finally needs to be resolved and we tried to do it in a logical and direct manner. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 12. Record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted. Being 100 ayes and 47 nays, House Bill 12 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson for a recognition.
REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker and members Mr. Hubert and I would like to ask you all to help us recognize some fourth grade students from Fall Creek Elementary School from the Humble School District in the gallery. This is the third year -- this is a three year old school in my district. These students held fundraisers and they raised their own monies to pay for this trip. I want to thank the school principal, Cathy Airola, the fourth grade teachers, Jere Brown, Mrs. Weissinger, Mrs. Jones, Mrs. Bellinger, and Mrs. Pruitt and thank you for your hard work in educating these young minds and for you dedication to the of those who will be our future leaders in this great state. Mrs. Tina Whitehead with the Fall Creek Elementary PTO thank you for your help in coordinating this trip with myself. And I appreciate these parents who have taken time off from their busy schedules to join our kids here today. Members, please, help me welcome these outstanding young people who are visiting us. Would you, please, stand. Fall Creek Elementary School, thank you, thank you, thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Quintanilla for a recognition.
REP. CHENTE QUINTANILLA: Members, members, I've got to tell you something I'm very proud of. If you'll look over there in the southwest corner -- south corner over there. A group from Tornillo, Texas and Fort Hancock they were going to listen to this stuff but they didn't quite get here to hear me. My sisters, two coaches, (*inaudible) is up there and then we have a state champion up there in tennis. He's the state champion in tennis. He just won this morning. His name is Jesse Guerra, his parents. I think that's what Texas is all about. The state champion is up there. We also have some people from Fort Hancock that are here. Welcome to your House and sisters we'll see you back home. Thank you for being here and they'll have a tour for you. Thank you, members.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Not for a point of order. Would you kindly put the comments of Mr. Quintanilla addressing those gentlemen up there so it can be recorded in the journal to recognize the state champion.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo, all of the comments -- oh, for the recognition. Members, you heard the motion. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.
REP. JAMES KEFFER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I wish to suspend the following rules: Five day posting rule for energy resources. Listen up energy resources -- to consider Senate Bill 105, 924, 1293, 1294, 1296, and 1434 and the time is 8:00 a.m., tomorrow, 5/11, E2010. 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REP. DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to suspend the following rules: The five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Higher Education to consider SB 794 at 8:30 a.m., May 11th, 2011 at E1.014.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Madam doorkeeper.
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.
MESSENGER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I am directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action. The Senate has passed the following measures.
THE SPEAKER: Following announcements. Clerk will read the announcements.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Rules and Regulations will meet during lunch recess on May 10th, 2011 at desk number 89 on the House floor. This will be a formal meeting to set a congratulatory and memorial calendar. The Committee on Higher Education will meet at 8:30 a.m. on May 11th, 2011 at E1.014. This will be public hearing to consider SC 794 and previously posted agenda.
THE SPEAKER: If there are no further announcements the House will stand in recess until 3:15 this afternoon. House come to order. Chair recognizes Representative Phillips for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I just want to remind everybody that tomorrow at 8:00 we do have our Transportation Committee meeting. On behalf of the Transportation Committee I want to say to our wonderful committee clerk, Courtney Reed, happy birthday. It's good to have you helping us and have a great day.
THE SPEAKER: Chair announces the signing of the following in the presents of the House.
THE CLERK: SB 1680, SB 1331, SB 1168, SB 1160, SB 1153, SB 1104, SB 980, SB 883 SB 656, SB 501.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Truitt for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Would you please help me in recognizing a group students here today as part of their proud to be Texan Learning Day here at the Capitol. They're with the Education in Action Group and are here to learn more about our state's Capitol and about how legislators represent them. I believe there are several schools joining us but I especially want to welcome those of you who are here from Colleyville Elementary School. Could I get you to stand up? They're they are. Welcome to your Capitol, guys. They're still coming in. Let -- they will all get in and then we'll wave to them. And the line keeps going. They're still filing in. They're filling up the south gallery. Kids as you're coming in and sitting down we're wondering what's happening to your weighted average daily attendance at school today.
THE SPEAKER: Madam Doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.
THE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action.
THE CLERK: Chair recognizes Representative Truitt.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you. It looks like everyone is in the chamber now. So, young people with Education in Action and you're here from several schools but I wanted to especially acknowledge the people from Colleyville Elementary where I had the privilege of representing. And to all of you from all of the schools, we want to, as members of the House, offer you a very warm welcome to your state Capitol and know that we are here to serve you. This isn't about us, this is about you. And we each of us thanks you for the privilege of allowing us to be here and, you know, our form of government is not perfect but it is absolutely the best in the world and it only works, though, it always works best if the people are engaged. And that you're here learning how to become engaged is a really positive thing. So we, as members of the House, want to welcome you and thank you for your interest. And don't forget to always get engaged and stay engaged because its your government. Thank you for being here.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Hernandez-Luna has asked for a personal privilege speech, pursuant to rule five. Chair recognizes Hernandez-Luna.
REP. ANA HERNANDEZ LUNA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, thank you for allowing me this time.
THE SPEAKER: Members, please take your seats.
REP. ANA HERNANDEZ LUNA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members thank you for allowing me this time to speak. I know that House Bill 12 has already passed and in the long run there is nothing that could have been done about its passage. But what is important for me is to express my concerns and why this issue is so important to me. Immigration and all that it encompasses is very personal for me because I was an undocumented immigrant. You may prefer to use the word "illegal alien" but I'm not an alien. I'm not a problem that must handled, I'm a human. A person standing before you now as a representative of the Texas House. I was born in Reynosa, Mexico and brought to the United States as an infant child with the hope of a life my parents never knew or could dream I might have. My parents along with my sister and I came on a visitor's visa and over stayed our visa. We lived undocumented status for eight years until the Immigration Reform and Control act of 1996 was passed under President Ronald Reagan, an icon for many of you. Under this act we were able to become temporary residents, then legal permanent residents and at age 18 I went through citizen naturalization process to become a United States citizen. I still remember my interview with the immigration officer. I was 18 years old, had attended Texas public schools from kindergarten through high school, graduating with when I was 16 years old and was a sophomore in college. Yet I was very nervous over the questions that would be asked during the citizenship examination. I was so nervous that when asked to name the Capitol of the United States I responded, Austin, Texas. The officer reasked his question. Name the Capitol of the United States and then I quickly responded Washington, D.C. During the time we lived in undocumented status I remember the constant fear my family lived with each day. The fear my parents experienced each day as their two little girls went to school. Not knowing if there would an immigration raid that day. And they wouldn't be able to pick up their daughters from school and not knowing who would take care of them if that were to occur. My parents worked hard to provide a better life for my sister and I. My mother worked the day shift and my father worked the night shift to make sure that one of them would always be home and there for us. The daily task of going to the grocery store to buy groceries may seem a simple task to you but to us it was a death sentence that one of my parents maybe deported. And as an elementary student I remember being embarrassed and shy when classmates discussed where they were born. I knew I wasn't a citizen and I feared their reactions if they knew I was that not a citizen. Some say immigrant children are a drain on our public schools but I don't consider myself a drain. I graduated from high school at age 16 with honors, earned my bachelor's degree my law degree and was elected to the Texas House at 26 -- 27. I know there are many immigrants out there like me waiting to get the opportunity that I was given. And a part of my beliefs that the hurt and turmoil that I went through is justified in the fact my parents never asked for government assistance, they paid their taxes and instilled excellent family values in their two daughters. I firsthand the impact of HB 12 will have on many families that are currently in the same legal status that my family once was. I know how this bill will push immigrants into the shadows. Mothers will be afraid to go to the grocery store to buy groceries for their family, as my mother once was. Because of my background and the many opportunities afforded to me it is incumbent upon me to continue fighting to ensure that others can have the American dream and to know you can make it if you try and work hard enough, even if those elected to serve don't believe and protect that opportunity for you. Thank you, members.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we're going on the calendar. Is Mr. Branch on the floor of the House? Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 3025. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3025 by Branch. Relating to measures to facilitate the transfer of students within the public higher education system and the timely graduation of students from public institutions of higher education.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is our bill that will help more students transfer within our higher education system and hopefully improve our graduation rates and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against House Bill 3025. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3025. Record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 147 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 3025 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading House Bill 2660. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2660 by John Davis of Harris. Relating to the functions of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs and transferring certain department functions to the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members and also have an amendment from Jose Menendez.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. After talking with Jose after this bill passed there was an issue -- this amendment codifies previously used rider language to allow TDHCA to -- regarding revenue for funds appropriated for homeless services in the state. Like the Haven for Hope there in Bexar County and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Menendez sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Excuse Representative Deshotel because of important business on the motion of Representative Pena. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against House Bill 2660? If no the question occurs on passage of 2660. Final vote. The clerk will ring the bell. There being 140 ayes, 4 nays, House Bill 2660 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading final passage House Bill 1818. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 1818 by Harper-Brown. Relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas State Affordable Housing Corporation and to the appointment of commissioners of a municipal housing authority; providing penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Members, this is the Keyshack sunset bill and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1818? If not, question occurs on passage -- final passage of House Bill 1818. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 1818 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Hughes for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider at this time House Concurrent Resolution 157 honoring Bill and Marlena Terry on their 50th anniversary.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HCR 157 my Hughes. Congratulating Bill and Marlena Terry of White Oak on the occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYAN HUGHES: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on third reading final passage on Senate Bill 1693. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1693 by Carona. Relating to periodic rate adjustments by electric utilities.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the electric utility bill we passed yesterday. I move final passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against Senate Bill 1693? If not, the question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1693. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 140 ayes, 3 nays, Senate Bill 1693 finally passed. Chair lays out on final reading House Bill 3308. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3308 by Rodriguez. Relating to the operation of plug-in electric motor vehicles.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill would allow electric vehicles to use HOV lanes. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3308? Representative Turner withdraws his point of order temporarily. Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker, I move to postpone this bill until a time certain 5:00 o'clock today.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on third reading final passage House Bill 2825.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2825 by Otto. Relating to the composition and appointment of the board of directors of a corporation to which the board of regents of The University of Texas System delegates investment authority for the permanent university fund or other funds under the control of the board of regents.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday that will give A&M equal representation with only having two out of nine board members. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2825. If not, question occurs on the passage -- final passage of House bill 2825. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 2825 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final reading House Bill 1799.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Members, this is the bill that applies on commercial real estate appraisers that they are able to register and then do commercial property.
THE CLERK: HB 1799 by Bonnen. Relating to the exemption of certain real estate professionals from registration as property tax consultants.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Bonnen.
REP. DENNIS BONNEN: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1799? The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1799. Record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 1799 is finally passed. Chairs lays out on third reading House Bill 2878. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2078 by Villarreal. Relating to the independence of appraisal review boards and the enforcement of appraisal review board orders; changing the elements of an offense.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Members, I move that we postpone this bill until 4:00 o'clock today.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? The bill is postponed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2203 by Representative Otto.
THE CLERK: HB 2203 by Otto. Relating to the pilot program authorizing a property owner to appeal to the State Office of Administrative Hearings certain appraisal review board determinations.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the bill makes some minor changes to my pilot program hearing property tax cases and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone else wishing to speak on or against House Bill 2203. The question occurs on final passage. Record vote the. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. All voted. There being 142 ayes, zero nays, House Bill 2203 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third and final of passage House Bill 2237. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2237 by Lyne. Relating to the taxation and titling of certain off-road vehicles.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Lyne.
REP. LANHAM LYNE: Members, this is the bill that changes ATV's and off road dirt bikes from a sales tax incident to a motor vehicle tax incident.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2237. This is question occurs on passage -- final passage of House Bill 2237. This is record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There's 113 ayes, 24 nays 2 present not voting, House Bill 2237 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2596. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2596 by Garza. Relating to the authority of local governments to set speed limits on certain roadways.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Garza.
REPRESENTATIVE GARZA: This bill allows the city with no more than 2000 to reduce the speed limit of a public road to as slow as ten miles per hour.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2596. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2596. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Representative Sarah Davis, or is it John? Have all voted. There being 144 ayes, zero nays, 2 present not voting, House bill 2596 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2098.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2098 by John Davis of Harris. Relating to the authority of physicians and physician assistants to form certain entities.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative John Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill allows physician assistants to be minority owners in physician business entities.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2098. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2098. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, zero nays, two present not voting House Bill 2098 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2439. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2439 by Gallego. Relating to posting suggestions and ideas on cost-efficiency and certain budget documents on certain state agency websites.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the bill that allows state agencies to post up on internet. I move final passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2439. This is question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2439. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? All voted? There being 113 ayes and 30 nays, 1 present not voting, six absent, House Bill 2439 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 2389. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2389 by Fletcher. Relating to records of a holder of a motor vehicle title service license.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Fletcher.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN FLETCHER: House Bill 2389 records of a holder of a motor vehicle title license service. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2389. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2389. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all vote? Have all voted? There being 140 ayes, 3 nays, 2 present not voting, 5 absent, House Bill 2389 is finally passed. Chair lays out on final passage House Bill 2889 the clerk.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2889 Madden. Relating to the expunction of records and files relating to a person's arrest.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REP. JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members this is the records expunction bill we passed yesterday.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2889. Question occurs on final passage of 2889. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 141 ayes, 1 nay, 3 present not voting House Bill 2889 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3017. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3017 by Smithee. Relating to the prohibited use of discretionary clauses in certain health maintenance organization and insurance contracts.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee to explain the bill.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the bill that we passed yesterday regarding discretionary clauses in insurance contracts and I would move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3017. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3017. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 144 ayes, zero nays, 2 present not voting, 4 absent, House Bill 3017 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3036. The clerk, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3036 by Alvarado. Relating to the municipal street maintenance sales tax.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the bill we passed yesterday that gives cities flexibility in their municipal street maintenance sales and use tax.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3036. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3036. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bill. Have all voted? Have all voted? All voted? There being 67 ayes, 78 nays, 2 present not voting House Bill 3036 fails to adopt. Chairs lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3133. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3133 by Rodriguez. Relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of property on which housing is being or has been built or repaired for sale to a low-income individual or family.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a bill that seeks to resolve property tax assessment issues that nonprofits like Habitat for Humanity are experiencing. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3133. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3133. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Members, have all voted? All voted? There being 94 ayes, 50 nays, 2 present not voting, House Bill 3133 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 2759 on third reading and final passage. The clerk will, please, read bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2759 by Hartnett. Relating to the nonsubstantive revision of provisions of the Texas Probate Code relating to durable powers of attorney, guardianships, and other related proceedings and alternatives, and the redesignation of certain other provisions of the Texas Probate Code, including conforming amendments and repeals.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.
REPRESENTATIVE WILL HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a non-substantive recodification of a large part of the probate code. Makes no changes to existing law. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2759. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2759. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Alonzo voting aye. Have all voted? There being 145 ayes, zero nays, 2 present not voting, House Bill 2759 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 1013. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1013 by Brown Relating to the powers and duties of the Texas Medical Board and the regulation of certain persons licensed by the board.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Brown.
REPRESENTATIVE FRED BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is -- members, this is the Texas Medical Board bill that you so graciously passed out for me yesterday. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1013. The question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1013. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 141 ayes, 1 nay, 2 present not voting, House Bill 1013 finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 3727 by Representative Hilderbran. Clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3727 by Hilderbran. Relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of certain commercial aircraft that are temporarily located in this state for manufacturing or assembly purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, this bill passed yesterday. It's going to allow us to get Boeing and other special production aircraft. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 3727. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 3727. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, zero nays, 2 present not voting, House Bill 3727 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage House Bill 174. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 174 by Jackson. Relating to the cancellation of the voter registration and to the eligibility to vote of persons who are deceased or not citizens of the United States.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Members, this is the bill we passed yesterday to help clean up the voter rolls. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 174. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 174. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Sarah Davis of Harris voting aye, show representative Eiland of Galveston voting aye. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, 1 no 2 present not voting, House Bill 174 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third read and final passage, House Bill 2817. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2817 by Taylor of Galveston. Relating to certain election practices and procedures; providing penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Hi, Jackson. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to complain this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, this that little election bill we had yesterday. The Secretary of State clean-up bill and I believe there's a couple of amendments.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor will you yield to Mr. Burnam for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: No, I'd rather not. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The gentlemen is gladly willing to yield for long periods of time.
REP. LON BURNAM: Thank you. This is the little old Christmas tree bill that we spent over two hours on yesterday.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Yes. In the spirit of giving it was the little old Christmas tree that wandered through the House.
REP. LON BURNAM: This was a little but it grew into really big.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Yes. But the amendments that were added were bills that had gone through the committee and voted out and were in some stage of on the calendars.
REP. LON BURNAM: What does one punch about.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I'm sorry.
REP. LON BURNAM: Representative Branch asked about one punch. What is one punch?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Those -- sometimes the committee process works. That bill had not been voted out of committee.
REP. LON BURNAM: That bill. Thank you so much.
THE SPEAKER: Members, following amendment. The chair -- the clerk will read amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston County.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Seeing all the fun yesterday I do have a bill that was about three bills up on the calendar. It had a couple of issues I was taking all the things about voter assistance and watchers and I've deleted all that and left just the part that my local folks at home had requested having to do with super precincts but only for those counties in the program and continue doing that and there's one other provision. The state convention to hold their convention either in June or July. I move passage. The amendment is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor lays out an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.
THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Villarreal on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Lozano to explain the Villarreal amendment.
REP. J.M. LOZANO: Thank you, members. This amendment amends HB 2817 to create an exception to subsection B and that the information by Subsection A was approved -- provided to a peace officer.
THE SPEAKER: The Villarreal amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE SPEAKER: The chair recognizes Representative Madden to explain the amendment.
REP. JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker, members. Representative Price had an amendment yesterday Representative Strama and I were both concerned about. The tabulations that were made about the rechecks that were made on the equipment. We believe his amendment was directed at just the DRE's and did not -- should not have included the optical scanners which it did. This amendment does remove the optical scanners and leaves them as being rechecked while it does do as I believe he intended it to do and removes the DRE's and it's acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Madden offers an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. There any objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The chair lays out the amendment. Clerk will, please, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment just takes care of the early voting machines in counties under 100,000. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Chisum offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hochberg.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment that is similar to -- is the same as the bill we passed the other night 138 to 1 on electronic voter registration. It contains Mr. Zedler's amendment and Mr. Hartnett's amendment from that evening. It is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to accept the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sarah Davis of Harris.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Sarah Davis of Harris.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is just a clean up of some drafting errors from the amendment that we passed last night and it is acceptable to the author. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Davis of Harris -- Sarah Davis of Harris County offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there an objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I close. Move passage. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Representative Davis.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yield for a couple of questions? Gentlemen yields.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Chairman Taylor, could you just tell us what all you put on that bill. You just put on about six amendments by voice vote. If you could just tell us what they are?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Yeah, if somebody gives me a copy of them. Warren Chisum had a bill -- every one of them was ones that were passed out of committee. Ms. Davis had a cleanup of a --
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it but some of us are not on your committee, so we don't know what was passed, what you're doing so --
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I understand.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Would you like them to explain it.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Or you. Someone ought to explain what we're doing by voice vote. Like that on a --
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I can just tell you that Ms. Davis of Harris just did a correction of a drafting error from yesterday. Mr. Madden and Mr. Strama and several other folks had an issue regarding the verifying of the voting. They didn't like on the, is it the scantron? It still has the optic scanners and they're being verified. The check of the electronic tabulation, just gets you exactly the same number again but the optic scanners there are times when get a different number. So we took that out. So the optic scanners still have that. Chisum had something for very small towns. Early voting ballot board. Establishing a process where they could take the data from the voting machines so they could continue using the same voting machines on election day without having to buy additional machines. Obviously in small areas.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: There was another part of Representative Chisum's amendment, what was the bottom part of that -- of that amendment. I didn't understand the bottom part of it.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: It allows in the smaller areas where they have a voting machine. When they finished earlier voting, the current law they have to keep all that data in the machine, have to bring in different machines for election day. In a smaller town that allows them to take the data off the machine and use those same machines on election day.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And it says something about when they tally the votes and stuff.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: The Secretary of State has to approve the process for them to be able to do that. So it has to go through a process. They have to show them how they're going to do it and the Secretary of State has to approve that as far as ballot security goes.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I want to make sure because I'm hearing you run through it but I want to understand what happens. I have some small towns.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I understand.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: And so, to the extent that we're doing some changes I'd just like to be clear about what the changes are, so the small towns will be able to use the same machines. Wasn't there some provision when they count the early votes?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Just that they may establish a process for removing data from voting machines used in early voting before the polls open on election day. If the county will use the voting machines on election day and the Secretary of State approves the process.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, somebody has to -- I mean there has to be approval of that process.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Yes, ma'am. And then Mr. Hochberg had an electronic voter registration that as he stated we've already passed that bill off the House floor and I guess he just got another vehicle to ride on.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: And I think that was it.
REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Thank you. With that I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Veasey -- excuse Representative Veasey because of important business in the district on a motion by Representative Raymond. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2817. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2817. This is a record vote. The clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? All voted? There being 120 ayes, 23 nays, 2 present not voting House Bill 2817 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1082. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1082 by Hegar. Relating to strategic partnerships for the continuation of certain water districts annexed by a municipality.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.
REPRESENTATIVE LAUBENBERG: This is the special agreement bill for special districts.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LAUBENBERG: We got a couple of fixes.
THE CLERK: Amendment my Elkins.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. Yesterday, I put on an amendment on a Senate Bill 1082 that required a voter approval on a sales tax and that had the affect of invalidating financing and so I'm asking you to remove the amendment today. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Elkins offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The chair lays out amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Elkins.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Elkins to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Okay. This is a technical cleanup from yesterday on a fireworks in these strategic partnerships. This just corrects it and makes that it does not invalidate any existing contracts. Again it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Elkins offers up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to close.
REPRESENTATIVE LAUBENBERG: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1082. This is passage of final -- this is final passage. Record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Giddings voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 141 ayes and 1 nay, 2 present not voting Senate Bill 1082 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage of Senate Bill 529. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 529 by Huffman. Relating to the regulation of motor vehicle dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and representatives.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Hunter.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Move passage. This is the dealer manufacturer agreed bill.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 529. This is final passage of Senate Bill 529. Record vote. Please, ring the bell. Have all voted? All vote? Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, zero nays, Senate Bill 529 finally passes -- Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1024. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1024 by Rodriguez. Relating to the prosecution of the offense of theft of service.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: This bill protects individuals who do not pay for services already agreed to once work is completed. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone elses wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1024. Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1024. This is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 139 ayes, 1 nay, 2 present not voting, Senate Bill 1024 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 198. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 198 by West. Relating to exempting persons who are convicted of certain sexual offenses from registering as a sex offender in this state.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith of Tarrant.
REP. TODD SMITH: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the Romeo and Juliet bill that was passed yesterday and supported by Governor Perry, the Republican caucus, the Conservative Coalition. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 198? Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 198. This is a record vote. Clerk will,please, ring the bell. Have all voted? All voted? There being 136 ayes, 5 nays, 2 present not voting, 7 absent, Senate Bill 198 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 758. The clerk will, please, read the bill. Mr. Hilderbran.
THE CLERK: SB 758 by Deuell. Relating to sales and use tax information provided to certain local governmental entities.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hilderbran.
REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members, this is the bill we passed yesterday that lowers the threshold from 25,000 to 5,000. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 758? Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 758. This is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all voted? There being 149 ayes, zero nays, 2 present not voting, 6 absent, Senate Bill 758 finally passes. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 1478. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1478 by Hegar. Relating to deadlines for the Railroad Commission of Texas to review certain applications for surface coal mining operation permits.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover to explain Senate Bill 1478.
REP. MYRA CROWNOVER: This is the bill that streamlines the process for permitting surface money and activity.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1478. This is final passage therefore it is a record vote. Clerk will, please, ring the bell. Have all members voted? Have all voted? Being 142 ayes, zero nay, 2 present not voting, 6 absent Senate Bill 1478 is finally passed. Chair lays out on third reading and final passage Senate Bill 250. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 250 by Zaffirini. Relating to protective orders for stalking victims.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone further consideration of this bill until 5:00 p.m. today.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The bill is postponed. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading House Bill 1359. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 1359 by Veasey. Relating to authorization for a caregiver who is a relative to enroll a child in school.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez to explain the bill.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This bill would allow relatives caring for children who are not their own to enroll those children in school while also creating safeguards preventing overreaching relatives from exercising rights that belong with the parents.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1359. The question occurs on passage to third reading House Bill 1359. This is a voice vote. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 1359 passes to third reading. Members, is Mr. Villarreal back on the floor? Thank you Mr. Villarreal. Members, to my right in the House gallery is the Treadway family from Danbury in my district. I would like to welcome them and say hello. They are in the middle of their tour of the Capitol. Welcome to your Texas House. Madam Doorkeeper.
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
THE SPEAKER: Please admit the messenger.
THE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action. The Senate has passed the following measures: SB 5, Zaffirini. Relating to the administration and business affairs of public institutions of higher education. SB 146 Hinojosa. Relating to the offense of smuggling of persons and unlawful transport of an individual; providing penalties. Respectfully, secretary of the Senate.
THE SPEAKER: Are you done? Thank you. The chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2078. The clerk will, please, read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2078 by Villarreal. Relating to the independence of appraisal review boards and the enforcement of appraisal review board orders; changing the elements of an offense.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker and members, this is House Bill 2078 on third reading. We're getting an amendment that Representative Larson is going to be offering. Representative Otto offered an amendment on second reading. We need to make a correction to that provision added. Representative Otto -- but we need to do that in the Senate. The amendment isn't ready. So, we can take care of that in the Senate. Representative Larson --
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Larson.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Larson.
REP. LYLE LARSON: The amendment reads: The chief appraiser may not change a reappraisal or other corrections ordered by the board. The problem we had and I think throughout the state is the Appraisal Review Board will go through a process and will sit down with a lot of the property owners. They'll make an assessment and then there will be unwanted pressure being exerted by the chief appraisers. We've seen it in my county and I think throughout the state people have complained about that and this hopefully alleviate that. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Larson sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 2078. If not the question occurs on final passage of House Bill 2078. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Marquez voting aye. Have all voted? Being 95 ayes, 46 nays, House Bill 2078 is finally passed. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading. House Bill 272.
THE CLERK: HB 272 by Smithee. Relating to the operation and name of the Texas Windstorm Insurance Association and to the resolution of certain disputes concerning claims made to that association; providing penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Members, when we were on this bill before Representative Smithee was laying out the bill when Representative Gallego raised a point of order. Clerk will read the point of order.
THE CLERK: Representative Gallego raised a point of order against further consideration of HB 272 as a Rule 2, Section 32C. Because the bill analysis is substantially and materially misleading. The chair has reviewed the rule as well as bill analysis and the argument presented by both Representative Gallego and Representative Smithee. The chair finds that the bill analysis of HB 272 is not substantially or materially misleading. Accordingly the point of order is respectfully overruled.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, this is the TWIA bill and I know every bill that we do is very important but I think this one is particularly important for all of us. And I hope that -- certainly it's important for those of you who live on the coast but it's also important for those of us that live off the coast because we all have a stake in this. What happens in TWIA certainly what happens with the weather on the coast affects everyone of us. And I think I speak for most of us who live off the coast that we realize that we have an obligation and a duty that we're more than willing to undertake to help our friends on the coast when there's a major weather catastrophe in more ways than one but surely with insurance. We have that and we deal with it. I don't mind as a policyholder and also as a representative I don't object to using money that I paid in premiums or taxes to -- thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't object to using money that my constituents have paid to put roofs on houses and repair shingles but I do have a problem when I see money being thrown around and wasted. And I won't get into all that, members, but we've seen so many things that just don't make any sense at all. Trucks being given to employees who have been terminated. Bonuses and severance packages being given to employees who are being terminated. We've seen consultants paid, lawyers paid, and all kinds of things. We've heard talk about settlements that have been entered into where people had already been paid for their claims with other insurance. All of this adds up to where we have got to say there are only so many dollars available. Those dollars are very precious. We've got to do something. We can't go through another storm doing what we've been doing in the past. And so, with that we've got a long day and with respect to the House's time I will move forward and be glad to yield to Mr. Hunter.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hunter, for what purpose?
REP. TODD HUNTER: If the gentleman will yield.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Smithee do you yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I yield.
REP. TODD HUNTER: John, you and Larry and I have talked about this bill and I want to make sure the members know as well as the people that are listening. First, let's talk about rates. There is an agreement that there will be amendments offered by you or Mr. Taylor where the rates are taken out so we're not talking about rates today; is that correct?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Right. And we never were talking about raising all the rates. We were talking about readjusting the rates in TWIA. And I think you and myself and Mr. Taylor and certainly a number of other members, coastal members, agreed that probably with all the other things going on in TWIA now this is not the time to be dealing with that. And that's fine.
REP. TODD HUNTER: And I just want to make sure so the members that I've talked to know that anything doing with rates we're not dealing with -- will be taken out of the bill. I appreciate that. The second, there is a venue issue that has been raised. The issue is, should it be in Travis County claims versus the location of the property damage? Would you explain that to everybody?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, there's only so many ways we can get money if we have a storm this time around under the new structure. One is, by convincing bond buyers to in effect loan us money or number two, buying reinsurance. In either case we're having real problems right now. After what's happened in the last year I think it's essential to just have the ability to have any money to fight over that we can show bond buyers and reinsurers worldwide -- this isn't just in Texas, not just the U.S. we're talking about Europe and Bermuda is a big reinsurance center. Also in the Far East. We've got to show them that we've made changes in the tort system and in the way TWIA is operated. So, back to your question. I originally had in my original bill that venue would be in Travis County. A number of coastal representatives made a very persuasive case as far as I was concerned that was not good because coastal homeowners, especially small homeowners shouldn't have to come to Austin, Texas just for that. So, we do have a provision now that there is a trial de novo of the issues, all the issues, if the homeowner -- property owner is ultimately dissatisfied it will be tried in the county where the property is located on the coast instead of in Austin, Texas. So, that was a negotiated part of the bill that we have to demonstrate some changes to the tort system in order to be able to fund what we're doing. We want to recognize (*inaudible) and opinions of the members on the coast and the people they represent.
REP. TODD HUNTER: All right. So the members hear what you say the venue you will be into the county where the loss occurred. The third, if you would explain to members on the bill the judge that is involved. There was some discussions about outside judges coming into an area that is affected.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, you know, once again, we got to the situation where the reinsurers were telling me -- I talked to their lawyers and I talked to some of the reinsurers, I talked to some of the bonding lawyers and they said you've got to change the way things were done last time. Because the look at the way things were done over the last two years and I don't blame them. I mean if I had money, capital to invest I wouldn't invest it in that situation down there unless somebody could demonstrate changes. So, one of the changes that we have in the bill that seems to make a difference will be that a judge will be assigned, randomly assigned to the case from somewhere within the coastal first tier area. We will assign a judge -- the perception is everything here among the people we have to go to get money. (*inaudible) You know, in Galveston County, Nueces County in front of a Galveston County or Nueces County jury with a judge from that county that you're going to have a difficult time getting a fair trial or winning. Now, that perception may be right or wrong but we're dealing with perception. So we're trying to help the perception by saying we're going to have a venue in that county, we're going to have a jury from that county but we're going to have a judge randomly selected that could be from that county or might be from another county.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, for what purpose?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I yield.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Smithee, you and I have been on the insurance committee together for 16 of the 18 years.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: We were both young men when we started.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: On the majority of issues that have come through the insurance committee since we've been together we've agreed on. In fact we did some pioneering stuff back in the 90's related to physicians and HMO's and many issues over the years, right?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: You're one of the members I trust and regard at the very top of the list and you know that.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: We work together but every year we always disagree on some area.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: We always do but I will say that you and I have been able to sit down a lot of times with a legal tablet and the last three or four sessions we've been able to work out a deal that we both felt was okay.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: And so, I've got amendments on the bill today, you know, I don't agree with everything in the bill and I'm going to try and make it better. But the members of the body should know that we have legitimate differences of opinion on this bill, correct?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: We do. I will say I have changed a number of things in the bill just based on our conversations because I do trust your judgment on these issues. You know we haven't agreed on everything but you've made some suggestions that I thought were really good suggestions. Your input has had a big influence on the bill.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: One of the issues that we disagree on is the judge, right?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Correct.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: I've got an amendment on that in a minute. So, I guess now let's get it on.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Okay.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I yield.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Mr. Chairman, first of all let me tell you it's been a pleasure working with you on the Insurance Committee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you, Mr. Torres and your input just like Mr. Eiland has been very important on the issues. And you have a unique perspective on a lot of these issues representing the Corpus Christi area.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Yes, sir. And because of that it is very important to us back in Corpus this issue of TWIA just have some very simple questions just for clarity, if I may ask, Mr. Chairman. Number one, does this bill have any rate increases in it? C.A.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: No. What it does is it sits here but we have agreed to an amendment that Mr. Taylor is going to carry that will take those out. And as you're aware we were never raising rates overall. We were simply trying to reallocate based on risk who paid what. And I think you were in on the conversations that that's probably a little more than we need to tackle at this time because we've got so many other pressing issues.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Yes, sir.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: So, those are out.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Thank you. Do you see this bill as being something that will help build a strong economy in Texas?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, I mean here's the problem we've got now as you know. As we look forward now we're just now in the next month we'll be getting into storm season for 2011. As we've all said in a way jokingly but in a way serious, prayer is our best --
REP. RAUL TORRES: Answer.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: -- answer to all of this. Assuming that this is our year -- one of our years to get hit. The problem is we don't have any money right now in TWIA and what is even worse we don't have any way to get money. And, you know, I don't know what we're going to do. We're working on every available resource we have in order to try to get bonds in order to try to get reinsurance because, you know, we can fight about rights and procedures all day long but if there's no money in the pot it doesn't matter what your rights are. So here is what we're trying to do and this may not be an overnight situation. It may take several years of prayer, hoping that we don't get a storm but it - rebuilding TWIA and one of the things Mr. Allen's going to do and I'm in agreement, we're going to change the name. Because we've got to change the culture. We've got to change everything about the way this has been operated. But one of the things we're going to have to do is we're going to have to find a way to rebuild our reputation worldwide so that we can get access to capital and reinsurance if we need it. And that is the crown issue for the Texas coast. If you don't have any money there you don't have any insurance.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One other question. Would you tend to agree that anything that is good for the coast, as far as the risk that the coast faces, if it affects the coast, it also affects the rest of the state?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, you know we're all one big state and I've never questioned the importance of the coast to Texas. Now, you know, they talk about building a fence between Texas and Mexico, I've always urged them to build a fence between the tier 1 counties and the rest of the state. That's probably not going to happen, so, no, we're all one state. We're all in this together and I think most, if not all the members in here understand that.
REP. RAUL TORRES: Mr. Chairman, I think you have a good bill and we're going to make it better. Thank you, sir.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Thank you, Mr. Torres. Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: One other question.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yes.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Some of the information that's been disseminated, people have called TWIA a state agency but TWIA is not a state agency, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Yeah, I think they describe them as a quasi state agency and to me that's probably the worst possible situation because in a way they have access to the public treasury, but they don't have the direct accountability and the ethics standards that would apply to a normal state agency with state employees. And so we've created a little bit of an environment where corruption and scandal can kind of fester and hopefully, we can get -- we can define what TWIA or else go to some other way to provide or help with insurance on the coast. But we've got a bad situation with quasi state agency. It just isn't a good situation.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: They're not a state agency. They don't get state appropriation. They don't have state insurance. They don't use the attorney general as their lawyer They are not a state agency. We do agree on that.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Well, once again, we get back to the term "quasi" because the attorney general's rule that the open records and open meetings acts I think have applied to TWIA. I can't -- they do have access to the public treasury.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Not since 4409 do they have access to the public treasury unless there is a storm that is bigger than Ike, that hits an area more populated than Ike hit because not until $2.5 billion is there any chance that it could hit the public treasury.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, what they do now is give them right to assess insurance companies who then in turn write that assessment back into their rates that they charge all of us around the state.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: But it has nothing to do with the public treasury. It has nothing to do with the state budget. That would have been a true statement two years ago before we changed the funding structure in 4409, correct?
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I agree. We've detached TWIA from GR but I will say we're still attached through til we get all these Ike claims paid because they're funding Ike under the pre-4409 statute.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: This bill has nothing to do with Ike claims, correct?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: No, it will -- well, I think parts of the bill are worded so they apply to claims that -- that accrue or file I can't remember the exact enacting language after this --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler raises a point of order. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, we have -- this has been a work in progress. Frankly, as we began working on TWIA passing the bill out of committee there was a new revelation in the news almost every day about something else that had happened so we have been -- we've been kind of evolving this as we've gone. We've also worked with coastal members, not just those on the committee but others to deal with specific issues they had. But this amendment, the first amendment, is an amendment that I'd ask TDI to work with me on. Right now, TWIA has been put under a supervision by the department, just as any troubled insurance company would be and believe me, they've been troubled here lately. This would permit a conservatorship which is a -- which is a typical type of supervision for a troubled company. There are specific events that would trigger that conservatorship of TWIA. It would basically give TBI the legal authority to step in and make sure that -- that the money is available to pay claims, if at all possible and that the claims are being handled properly if -- hopefully, we don't come to that but if we do. So, I would move adoption of this amendment. It's acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Members and speakers, this is an amendment by Mr. Taylor and I. Think about how cockamamy this idea is. You have a storm that hits the coast. Mr. Legler's district, Mr. Weber's district, Mr. Bonnen's district, the Valley, South Padre and a business owner, a homeowner -- they switched up amendments on me. I withdraw this amendment. I'll bring back this cockamamy idea in just a minute.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland withdraws his amendment. We're back on the Smithee amendment. Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I think this is the one that Mr. Eiland wanted to offer his amendment to. Members, this is kind of the heart of what we're trying to do with the tort area of the bill. Right now, TWIA is -- claims are subject to chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code which basically is the unfair settlement of claims and so it subjects TWIA to treble damages or triple the amount of damages just like you would with a State Farm or Allstate. The problem is that this threat of triple damages forces TWIA in many cases where there's a lawyer involved to settle cases they shouldn't otherwise settle or settle for more money. It has simply driven up the cost of settlement. And so, what this amendment does is it takes TWIA claims out of the extra damages provisions of 541 and also Chapter 542. Those consumer protections still apply but they just don't get the additional damages. We're taking this the exclusive remedy and so basically if you're a TWIA policy holder you get the amount of your damage under the policy but you can also get your attorney's fees. Now, two reasons for this. First is that when we were dealing with TWIA the people that were doing the bad things were TWIA employees. The people who were being punished or subjected to being punished the taxpayers of Texas, and policyholders along the coast. And if I'm a policyholder in Corpus Christi or Brownsville, I don't want to have to pay for the mistakes that a bureaucrat made in Austin. And the second reason here is we've come to the realization that we've got limited dollars available, we want to get those dollars in the hands of people who have legal claims, legitimate claims to get their roofs back on, their shingles, the windows fixed. We don't want to be paying extra damages to some claimants because of who their lawyer was or how they're lawyer fought. We want to equally distribute the money according to merit, according to whether the claim -- whatever the claim justifies. So that's what we're doing here, we're also providing for an appeal and the appeal will be by a trial de novo in your county where the loss occurred and we have made some changes, some restrictions, to try to is to show our financial people that we have changed the tort system so that people will be willing to come back in and invest in Texas. So that's what that amendment does. It is probably, as I said, the heart of the bill because what we're doing is tweaking some of the things right now so that we'll have money available to pay these claims. And I would move for adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment to the amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Okay. Mr. Speaker, members, this is Mr. Taylor's and mine cockamamy idea and I'll talk about the amendment to the amendment first and then about the amendment. So, if there's a storm in Corpus Christi and a Corpus Christi business or homeowner has a claim, this is what the process -- this new process of what they bring up if that homeowner had a fire damage, they would be able to go and seek the same remedies that somebody in Dallas has but if it's a result of a hurricane and they're insured by TWIA they've got to go through this process, follow this process. They've got to submit their claim to TWIA. Okay, fine. If they don't like the response that the adjustor gives they have to submit it again and ask for a second review. If they don't like the second review, then it goes to an internal -- an independent review panel that the insurance commission is going to set up, made up of two or three people. Now, once that's in place, the homeowner or business man can be sent three different places because they could be sent to what's called and appraisal process, and that is if they agreed to the damages but disagree about the price, like maybe home contents, the clothes or the business, personal property they'll have to go over here to the appraisal contest. The way we've got it set up if on this internal review if there's any technical issues it would go to a technical review committee after the technical review committee gets done, the appraisal process gets done, and this internal review -- this independent review process gets done, if you're not satisfied, you can then go to district court in the county of the damage, where your home is, where your business is. But guess what, if you're -- if you're in Corpus Christi they have to import a judge from some other coastal county. Now, how much sense does that make. That's ridiculous that a Corpus judge is not competent to sit in judgment of a hurricane claim in Corpus but he is competent to sit in judgment of a fire case. Or that somebody -- and this happens in Harris County, too, because Harris County is part of this, too. Part of Harris County is in TWIA. So, they have to get judges from outside of Harris County to come into Harris County to be a judge. Who is going to pay? That's just -- first of all this is just a bureaucratic process that you have to go to and second it's discriminatory to our judges. And so, what my bill -- my amendment does on page 3 of the amendment, it says the appeal seeking a trial de novo under this section, the judge appointed by the judicial panel multi-litigation -- a judge appointed under this section must be a resident of a first tier coastal county or a second tier coastal county. And so, I'm going to stand up for our judges along the coast. I don't think that we should be importing judges from other counties into the county of the storm, they can handle it. They were elected locally in Brazoria County and Jefferson County and Victoria County and we should let them handle the case. It's ridiculous. Also, I think, it's one of them they do add, that they shouldn't object to. Right now they're saying that we can only recover our costs of court and reasonable attorney's fees. We don't even get to include interest. So we didn't get to include the delay cost of money that should have been paid. And so, I add interest. I'm sure they don't dispute that, but, they -- I wish they'd accept this where they would let the local judges handle the case.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, do you yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: I yield.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Eiland, this isn't my area of legal practice so I don't know as much about it but I think I gathered from Representative Smithee's amendment to the amendment or whatever it was, that we no longer are going to be able to have treble damages; is that accurate?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: You can't have -- not only can't you have treble damages in Chapter 541 under this amendment but you can't even have the penalty and interest under 542. The thing that this amendment does and this bill does that upsets coastal people is that -- the ones paying attention, is that we are now bastard step childs of the insurance industry. First of all, they won't insure us no matter what the price. Second, when they do insure us they take away our rights in the insurance code. So, everybody else in the state has standard normal rights under Chapter 541 and 542 but they say, no, coastal people you are insurance bastard step childs you do not get the same rights that every other Texan has.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: For those that aren't listening or don't understand this concept, can you tell him how bad face treble damages come about. Maybe they don't understand how these lawsuits come about. It's not a lawsuit against me versus you, its against me versus my insurance company, correct?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Correct.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: It's because my insurance company doesn't want to cover me in an appropriate fashion, correct?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: You never collect these damages. It's theoretical. But it's important to have even if it's just so that we're not second class citizens as it comes to insuring our property whether it's our home, our homestead, our business, our government buildings, our school districts. All my school districts are insured by TWIA, all my city and county buildings are insured by TWIA. Those are now going to be second class citizens and not have the same rights. We do keep our same rights if it's damaged by a fire but if it's damaged by a hurricane we're second class citizens. Take away our rights. Not only do they take away our rights, they take away our judges and they're going to import judges from some other county. That's ridiculous.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Very good amendment, colleague.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REP. RANDY WEBER: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes, I yield.
REP. RANDY WEBER: I'm sorry, Craig I came in late on the conversation. As I understand it, I read the bill a while back and you're from a coastal county, I'm from a coastal county. Wasn't it that when you said this we're I'll use the word stepchildren, what you mean by that? Is it that we have to go elsewhere for remedy? We have to go to a -- refresh my memory. Isn't that --
REP. CRAIG EILAND: The first thing is they take away our rights under Chapter 541 and 542 which means we don't have the same rights as hurricane people anywhere else or if it's windstorm damage, whether it's from hail or whatever.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Tornadoes.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: For the coastal counties. Second, they take away our judges. So, if your house has hurricane damage or hailstorm damage and you bring a claim, if you can get through this bureaucratic maze, and you want to go to court none of your local judges can hear your case. They are not adequate, they are not sufficient, they are not competent to hear your case. They are for a fire, for a car wreck, but not for hurricane.
REP. RANDY WEBER: So, what does that look like Craig? Does that mean I have to go to a different courthouse or they import a judge. Explain what that looks like.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: It's to be determined later but it's not going to be a judge from Brazoria County. They maybe from Jefferson County, they maybe from Nueces County they might be from Victoria, they might be from Houston.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Is this one of those deals we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler raise a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker, may we extend the gentleman's time, please.
THE SPEAKER: First extension of time.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: No, it's pretty clear. They're going to take away your local judges and they're going to take away your rights and make you a second class coastal insurance citizen.
REP. RANDY WEBER: So, for remedy -- but do we literally have to travel -- does the resident have to travel somewhere else? Where would that trial be held?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: The trial, under this amendment, would be in Brazoria county but they would import a judge from some other county.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Someone who is not familiar with the area, not familiar with the process or the problems that we encounter.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: And somebody is going to have to pay that judge to travel and to sit.
REP. RANDY WEBER: And these are problems isn't it true that we only encounter every 25 or 30 years, typically.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Correct.
REP. RANDY WEBER: And yet we would give up our rights for each and every year under this amendment.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REP. RANDY WEBER: It is a bad amendment, isn't it?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes, it is. I'm trying to make it better.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Okay. Well, thank you, Craig, I appreciate your attention to it.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I appreciate your educating the House on this issue. I have not been following this bill very closely, but I am going to be following the debate and asking questions so I can make the right call on this. The thrust of your argument it sounds like, is the property owners on the coastal -- on the coast are going to be treated differently than everybody else.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Correct. For their insurance claims, yes.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: For their wind damage claims.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Correct.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Under TWIA.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Isn't it fair -- couldn't somebody make the argument that's appropriate since TWIA is a last resort state government supported insurance policy that really is different than fire protection insurance?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: No. I'll tell you why. That was an adequate and valid argument two years ago but we changed the funding structure with Mr. Taylor's bill last session. And no longer is the state treasury on the hook. No longer do insurance companies withhold premium taxes after they get assessed at certain levels. The coastal people pay for all of these damages. The first billion dollars of bonds that are sold are reinsurance is coastal people. The next billion dollars is 70 percent coastal people, 30 percent insurance companies and the next 500 million would be insurance companies if you ever get there. Now that $800 million this is what was -- this is what upsets me. This was agreed to last session. This was agreed to last session by the same people that are on this bill now that if we moved away from the state treasury bit on the hook and that coastal people and the insurance companies handled it. The insurance companies know exactly how much max they would have each year, which is $800 million, either to buy reinsurance for it and put in new rates. And it doesn't matter if there's one claimant or no claims, that is in all the rates statewide. So it will never impact interior people's rates unless there is a major catastrophe above 2.5 billion which is a storm that has never happened. And so that was a valid argument two years ago. It is not a valid argument now the state is not subsidizing TWIA coastal policyholders. Period end of story.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee in opposition.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: With all respect to Representative Eiland, my good friend, there are two things that he said that simply I think I have to correct. One is Mr. Eiland made the statement that if you live in a coastal county and you have a claim that a judge from your county cannot preside over the trial. This is absolutely untrue. That is not in this amendment at all. All it says is that a judge will be appointed from one of the coastal counties. So you don't get a judge from Dallas or Austin or Lubbock or wherever Y.o.u get a coastal judge who is familiar with coastal issues. Okay. It might be judge from your county, it may be a judge from another county. The second thing that I think that needs to be clarified is we are all on the hook. Because after the first layer of bonds, the next layer goes to other coastal residents. There are many people who live on the coast who are not TWIA policyholders. But in the second layer of bonds, they get hit, on their homeowners insurance but also on their automobile insurance and a number of other forms of P and C insurance. So, you people who live in tier 1 counties you're on the hook for this and you need to know that even if you're not a TWIA policyholder. But the next layer is an assessment on insurance carriers but the commissioner has always said that those assessments --
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: If you can hold on for just a minute --
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Absolutely.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: -- those assessments are allowed to be rewritten into the rate base around the state. So, there is a direct impact on rates that you and I pay whenever these assessments are made. Once again I'm fine with that as long as I'm putting shingles on houses or replacing windows but I don't want to be paying a lot of extra damages and attorney's fees. Now the lawyers have had a lot of fun here over the last year. They've made a lot of money. We're talking in the hundreds or tens of millions. Well over $100 million that lawyers have made over the last year. But it's time for an adult to come in and clean this mess up because we don't have the money to do this again. And so, I can understand why Mr. Eiland is so passionate about this but let me just tell you, the other statement is talking about coastal people being second class citizens. The last thing I want to get into today is trying to divide the state between the coast and off coast. This is a statewide issue and we're all in this together. But let me just say. Don't talk for a minute about second class citizens because first of all, if you'll read the insurance code on the rates that coastal people pay for TWIA insurance, I wish I had those protections. They're rates can't increase more than 10 percent a year. We don't have that protection. Even in this bill, in the typical HOV policy that you and I have we have an appraisal provision. That appraisal is binding on me, I can't get to the courthouse. The Supreme Court issued an issued on that last week, but TWIA policyholders can still go to the courthouse. Originally we didn't have a jury trial in here but we've negotiated and put a deal in here to get jury trial in your home county and we had some concessions on the other side and this is where we ended up. But we've got to change the system. And so, members, defeating Mr. Eiland's amendment to the amendment is essential if we're going to save TWIA and be able to provide funding. And I yield, Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Representative Smithee, I just want to make sure that I understand what we're considering. Representative Eiland's amendment to the amendment, as I look at, simply changes the amount of court costs -- reasonable and necessary attorney's fees in the interest on any recovery award to the claimant, correct? It doesn't change the judges?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: What it does, first of all, attorney's fees and cost to court are already in the bill. They're already in the amendment. In other words, that's not adding anything, he just kinds of rephrases that. They're all already in there.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: So, the only real impact of Representative Eiland's amendment would be interest on any recovery awarded to the claimant. That's the only real change he's making with his amendment to the amendment; is that correct?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: That's right. And the other -- well, the other change he's making is that he is taking out the provision about the assignment of a judge from a tier 1 county.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That's right. Okay. That's what Section 3 is which is on page 3 strike lines 25 through 32. So his amendment would have you have a judge in the home county that the loss occurred in.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Okay. So, it simply speaks to really technically adding interest on an award that you're provided through this system.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Which we already no, you're right.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: The interest and then giving you a judge in your home county.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: That's right.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Would that judge be selected? How would that judge be chosen?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: The same way that a county judge is now for --
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Normal selection of case.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Different counties do it different ways.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That's the only thing he's doing with amendment.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: That's what he's doing.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, I yield.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Can you elaborate some more on how the rest of the state is impacted? Is on the hook?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, I mean, it's true that up to the first billion dollars theoretically the coast, TWIA policyholders will be liable for those, if it works. And right now, we can't. This system can't work but we're trying to make it work. The next billion dollars, you know, next billion dollars falls on insurance companies, who then assess coastal residents to get their money back. All tier 1 counties whether they're TWIA policyholders or not. Hits a lot of Mr. Hunter's constituents who are not TWIA policyholders. They're on the hook here but --
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Who are the tier 1 counties?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, tier 1, it's the first layer counties. First layer off the coast. Fourteen counties. There are a few pieces of tier 2 counties that are in TWIA as well. But most tier 2 aren't in there. But, beyond that, beyond that the 2 to 2.5 billion range the entire state is on the hook. Because the TWIA will assist insurance companies. Those companies then access their policyholders in San Antonio, in Lubbock, in Dallas, Amarillo, everywhere else. And so, we do have a stake and that's the only way we can ever make TWIA work is to do that.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Is it a fair critique to say that we never have reached the $2.5 billion mark. I mean, if it's never been in our history, isn't that a valid argument to say that the rest of the state is insulated.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: No, not really because I mean with inflation you know 2.5 billion isn't what it was a few years ago but let me just say on Ike.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: What's the highest damage we've ever incurred.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I'm sure Ike was -- we had Alicia back a number of years ago and Alicia was a bigger storm but in those dollars it was probably lesser amount of money. Ike think was probably, I'm guessing the biggest loss we've ever had. We're well over $2 billion with Ike now and we're still paying claims off of Ike. And the thing about Ike, Ike was a very serious water surge storm but it wasn't a particularly big wind storm in terms of the categories of hurricanes. And so, it wasn't the big storm. It wasn't anywhere close to the big storm. And so, if we get the big storm we're going to bust that 2.5 -- the loss in Galveston county, is somewhere around 8 to $10 billion. Billion with a B. And so, we're talking about just -- I mean if we were an insurance company, a regular insurance company and you had reserves of 2.5 billion, which we don't even have, your president would be locked up and they would shut your insurance company down.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: The last question, we allow other disputes to be settled in, you know, where they occur, a home county, whether we like the judges or not. I mean is that change, that essential to your bill.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: As well I said a moment ago, perception is everything. Perception is everything when it comes to being able to access capital. Without capital, we can't pay anybody's claim. It won't do any good to argue about interest because we won't have the money to pay it.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler raises a point of order, the gentleman's time has expired. Point of order well taken and sustained. Excuse Representative Anchia and Strama because of important business in their districts on the motion of Representative Gonzales. Is there objection? Chair hears none.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Members, I'm going to make a motion to table and allow Mr. Eiland to close.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I want to make sure everybody understands I support all of the things that we're doing to correct TWIA. On Wall Street and in Washington this would have been a fairly easy fix early on. When a -- when you have a company that acts this bad the first thing you do is fire somebody and the second thing you do is change the name and rebrand it, right? Well it took them two years to fire anybody and they finally fired the executive director and the claims department. The claims department is where all the problems were that caused all the wrongful denials. So that part is fixed. I support. We put a whole lot of sunshine and that kind of stuff in it and that will solve a lot of problems. If it hadn't been for the wrongful denial of claims wouldn't have had all these problems. And Ms. Riddle I know in your area, this hurricane was a big deal and y'all had significant damages, 60 miles from the coast. And so, I want to make sure everybody understands I'm not against this whole bill. I'm just against the parts of the bill that make coastal residents and homeowners and business owners second class insurance citizens. And so with that, I would ask that you not table and let coastal judges judge coastal claims. Because the other thing I would like everybody to think about, if they can do this to us, they can do it to you. And if the insurance companies and these people that want to change the law on coastal people do it to us this time, they can come do it to you next time and they'll use us as the example. So be careful what you vote for because you might get your own self someday.
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, do you yield?
REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Representative Eiland, is there any evidence to support Representative Smithee's claim that the perception of having a local judge inhibits a company from raising capital?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: No. These are the same judges that are judging every cases in all 14 counties every day. Whether it's a hurricane, whether it's a plant explosion, whether it's a car wreck, whether it's a fire. They're all the judges they're all the same and they're in all 14 counties. You know I've got one Democrat judge left in Galveston County. Jefferson county is now Republican. I guess maybe they don't like Republican judges because there's very few there's very few -- there's no Republican judges in Brazoria county. I don't know about Nueces. But these -- it's -- the judges are not the problem. TWIA was the problem and the fix is to reorganize TWIA, get them straight which we've been working on. The TDI is in there running it right now and fix that. The answer is not to take away rights of coastal people. We don't have the opportunity to fire our insurance company. We can't say Farmers you didn't handle my claim well, I'm going to go to Allstate. We are stuck with TWIA because the state has allowed the insurance companies to refuse to write on the coast. And so, please vote no on the motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Representative Eiland, I want to respectfully make sure everyone understood what you said. I don't know if I heard you clearly or not. But we have absolutely nothing but Republican judges in Brazoria county. It's all we have at our courthouse anymore.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: I'm sorry about that.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: No, no, that's okay. It is only Republican judges.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: They were thinking about changing sign on the entrance to the courthouse that you must be a Republican to enter, but it is only Republican judges at the Brazoria county.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: And there's all but one in Galveston County is Republican and Chambers county and Jefferson county. So, I don't think that we need to discriminate against our local judges. If they can handle divorce cases, if they can handle murder -- capitol murder cases where people are going to be put to death they can handle a roof claim. Vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment to the amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Eiland voting no. Representative Taylor voting no. Have all voted? Show Representative Giddings voting no, show Representative Keffer voting aye. Have all voted? Being 87 ayes, 51 nays motion to table prevails. We're back on the Smithee amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Move for adoption, it's acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is better than the bill as it is. I'm still opposed to it which I feel relatively comfortable that you will now pass and adopt it. But at the end of the day as Mr. Solomon's would say, when this amendment goes on we are creating a bigger bureaucracy for a homeowner to get through a maze so they can get their claim heard in a court of law. They are going to have to hire a lawyer and the reason is if you look at the amendment, it says on page 3 the only evidence that may be admitted in a trial de-novo is evidence that was admitted or presented in the appraisal process or in the independent review process, the Texas rule of evidence governs whether the evidence presented during the appraisal process or independent review process is admissible in a trial de novo. So what does that mean in normal people's talk. That means you've got to hire a lawyer to go through this review process, this internal process, so you're not getting lawyers out of the system, you're getting lawyers in the system earlier, you're making it more cumbersome and bureaucratic. So vote -- y'all vote to accept the amendment. I'll vote no.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee to close.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Most adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. There is objection. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk ring the bell. This is on the Smithee amendment. Show representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Burnam voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 93 ayes and 44 nays the amendment is adopted. Madam doorkeeper?
DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of House.
THE SPEAKER: Admit the messenger.
THE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the senate has taken the following action.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Excuse Representative Farrar because of business in the district on the motion of Representative Burnam. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members. This is a technical cleanup amendment in the original bill we had arbitration instead of a jury trial. We're just taking out all references to arbitration and I don't think -- it's acceptable. I don't know there's any problem with this one.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, I don't think there's going to be any controversy with this one. One of the problems that we had with the operation of TWIA is that the board would go into executive session to discuss some of these very serious problems in executive session and as a consequence nobody would ever no about them and they couldn't get fixed. What we've done is allow the Commissioner of Insurance or his representative access to those closed door executive sessions which is something that I think is good, but there was some concern -- I don't think it's going to be a problem but that the commissioner would keep that confidential if it involved a confidential communication lawyer client. It's essential that we protect the lawyer client confidentiality in those situations and so -- as I say I don't think there's any problem with this one it simply requires the commissioner to keep these communications confidential. I'd move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, this is amendment that Mr. Taylor and Mr. Hunter and a number of -- Mr. Torres, a number of coastal members have worked on. Right now, TWIA is the hardest policy in the world to get, for the agent because the agent has to -- the agent has to fill out all these forms and go through all this paperwork that is really living back in the 1960's. So we're trying to get TWIA up to date operating like other companies and this amendment provides for an automatic renewal with certain restrictions on it. And we're also realizing that when a policy is automatically renewed the agent shouldn't be entitled to the same commission that when they do all the work. So we're going to have the commissioner go in and adjust the rates. Now for legislative history I need to make clear, we're not requiring or authorizing direct writing here. We're just trying to make it easier for agents to get their policyholders their policies renewed on an annual basis. So, with that I would move for adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: This I don't think there's any real controversy to this amendment. We're requiring TWIA to develop a catastrophe plan in advance. When they got hit with Ike totally offguard in regards to being able to address these claims. To deal with the claims. So, we want them to plan in advance instead of after the storm hits and so that's already in the bill, but we combined a couple of sections to make it a little less cumbersome. So, we'll at least have a catastrophe plan in place and I would move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I don't think there's any problem with this. It just sets out -- clarifies who is responsible to pay the appraisal cost when there's disagreement on the cost to repair. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: This is a good provision because it allows mediation to occur at any step of the claim process and it will toll all the deadlines so they can just take a time-out and try to mediate and get the case resolved. It's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: There is some language in the bill that Mr. Eiland asked me about and I couldn't give him a good explanation why it was in there. So we'll just yank it out of there. It's -- this just deletes the provision that doesn't appear to have any relevance to the bill. So it's just a technical correction. Acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Once again this is a technical amendment to make sure that we're not limiting the information that's available under the open records act. No controversy here. I had -- it's acceptable. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. Amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment adopted. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: One of the things the bond lawyers told us is that they are concerned that TWIA might file bankruptcy and affect their debt -- we don't want -- I don't think they can anyway but we're the going to put it in there clear that TWIA, the association cannot declare bankruptcy as a debtor. And so, it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, this is something that kind of came up. We worked together on it and it's one of the things I'm most proud about in the bill. We're going to provide for realtime audits of these claims as we go along. We didn't have an audit of any of these claims until 2 1/2 years after the fact. The audit showed a lot of problems, a lot of difficulties, and so we're going to put the audit in there. If we got a problem we're going to find out what the problem is. So it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Martinez-Fischer, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'd like to raise a point of order on this bill under Rule 5 -- excuse me, Rule 8 Section 5B.
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. House will stand at ease for five minutes. Mr. Martinez-Fischer raises a point of order pursuant to Rule 8, Section 5. Chair respectfully overrules the point of order. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gutierrez, for what purpose?
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: A point of order filed, I believe, is Rule 11 Section 2; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: No, I don't believe. Rule 8 Section 5.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Rule 8 Section 5. Can we understand the nature of this point of order.
THE SPEAKER: You may discuss with Mr. Martinez-Fischer the reason for raising the point of order.
REP. ROLAND GUTIERREZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment allows the commissioner to make board appointments on a short-term basis to fill in temporary vacancies and is acceptable. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Members, one of the things that some of the members on the committee that have worked with this wanted to do was to look -- do an interim committee to look at different ways to provide or help provide insurance on the coast. This sets up an interim study committee. It's really an issue whose time has come that we need to examine this. So, it's acceptable to the author and I would move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is what we talked about awhile ago when the first thing that they do on Wall Street or Washington when there's a big problem like this is they fire people and change the name. And so, that's what we do with this amendment. We're changing the name from Texas Wind Storm Insurance Association to Texas Coastal Insurance Plan. And so, Texas Coastal TCIP. TCIP, TCIP we will add some language on third reading to make sure we lawyer it up to say that unless somebody else has got this trademark or register the name and all those type of things, we had a ton of names submitted by TWIA and the committee picked this name.
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Mr. Speaker.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Otto, for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: Will the gentleman yield? Did I hear you refer to something as TCIP.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE OTTO: You're not trying to garner any Aggie votes are you.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: No, I don't want any votes for this bill. Okay. Anything I can do to make you not vote for this bill come tell me, please. But this amendment is good.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: My name change that I preferred was Eiland care but that didn't go over so well. So I think the TCIP probably is the way to go. We do have some legal issues, you know, we've got to do some checking to see if there are any legal issues involved. Craig has agreed to continue working on this as it works its way through the process. So the amendment is acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, there's a provision in the originally filed bill that said that someone who is a TWIA policyholder could thought be involved in any of the processes and unfortunately in our area almost everyone is a TWIA policyholder so this would preclude anyone from our area being involved in the process and I move passage and I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes representative -- chair recognize Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply strikes the language that prohibits anyone who is insured by TWIA from presiding over any matter or action to the association as a party because hundreds of thousands of coastal residents and business rely on TWIA insurer of last resort. The bill --
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative -- Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment one of the negative consequences of this pretty much the process particularly with 2003 I can't and how the claims -- claims process went about and how the reporting of fraudulent behavior by 2003 I can't and they are policy the claims ad justers one of the things that was important was to that head like on those folks on the bad actors and what this amendment would do would simply require that a person who recently suspend specs fraudulent behavior to have occurred report that behavior to the Travis county district attorney and TDI if we're going to make it harder for these type of claims or exposure thank you. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection. The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Thank you, members. And I'm trying to help chairman Smithee write this bill on the floor. This bill is acceptable to the author and what the amendment does is it authorize TWIA to sell bonds before a catastrophe and also defines a catastrophe. All this does, members, is authorizes.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hancock sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Mr. Hunter, for what purpose?
REP. TODD HUNTER: Will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Hancock, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Yes, I will.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Hancock, just so everybody knows this authorizes; this doesn't mandate.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY HANCOCK: Correct.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hancock sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Vo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Vo. The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez.
REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment makes a necessary extension for 501C3 nonprofit charitable organizations from having to comply with certain onerous and burdensome requirements under this bill. So, as you well know charitable organizations are on the front lines when disaster strikes and along with our churches and religious organizations they are the first to get to communities and provide assistance. So, they are the first to begin the rebuilding process and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Members, I'm going to have the oppose this amendment. We've got a number of these exceptions that try to create exceptions to a provision that we put in there and that is you've got to notify TWIA within a year of your claim. But we also put a good cause that if it's a little longer than a year if you couldn't have found it or there was a good cause the commissioner can grant an extension. We're trying to avoid any gotchas in here. But we've got to get these claims in and resolved as quickly as possible. And so there's going to be a number of these carve-outs. I'll tell you, the charitable organizations, they'll be in better shape -- the ones I'm really concerned about are the small families who have damage claims, having trouble getting somebody out to look at their house. That's who we made primarily the good cause exception but still a year. You should know if you've got damage in a year and you should notify TWIA. Now you may not know the extent of your damage but you should know that you've got some damage. And so I would move to table the Martinez amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognize Representative Martinez.
REP. ARMANDO MARTINEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I urge you vote to for this amendment because it's the right thing to do for our communities. The helping non-profits to do their work. They're doing is one of the most productive ways we can help them rebuild. And I move to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Martinez sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. The clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Mr. Martinez voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 103 ayes and 36 nays, motion to table prevails. The following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. Mr. Farias.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment makes it necessary exception for educational entities from having to comply with certain onerous and burdensome provisions of this bill. We're taking -- we're talking about public schools, private schools, charter schools, even property a family uses for home schooling. Schools are the center of a community. After a disaster what may have been a very traumatic event for children one of the best ways to restore normalcy and routine is to get back to school. If a school is waiting on a claim to resume instruction children lose valuable learning time and we found that during the last few hurricanes. And we still expect them to compete with the students in the rest of the state on standardized testing. What kind of implications does that have for a district's rating when they're trying to recover? It's wrong to make them jump through hoops to get a claim filed with TWIA so they can repair the damage. We should make it easier not harder for schools in coastal communities to get the claims they are owed through this program while they're rebuilding they shouldn't have their ability to file legitimate claims to be further restricted. My amendment would have -- would give them a little more time under the law to file a claim or a suit. It would ensure that the rates and premiums do not increase arbitrarily and would make sure that they have a fair process in filing their claims than what is envisioned in this bill. Members I urge you to vote for this amendment because it's the right thing to do for our coastal communities that have already suffered so much in hardships. Remember that schools provide so many jobs and can be the biggest employer in some small towns. People rely on them and we shouldn't be in the business of making it harder for schools to operate. And if y'all have been around a school or a member of a school board, whenever there is a fire or destruction to a building it takes school districts quite some time to file the claim and get the school back in order and where do we put all these students? So we're hoping that -- I'm asking that y'all support me on this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, Mr. Speaker, I take no pleasure in oppose desk mate and one of the best San Antonio Spurs fans in the House but I'm going to have to oppose him. It's another carve out. You know these claims are important not just to schools but to everybody, particularly to families. And so, that's why we put the one year, we've got the good cause exception. That shouldn't be a problem for anybody. If there is an unusual case they can get a good cause extension. So I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to close.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I hope there's a couple things I'm asking pay special attention to and maybe not vote party lines. I represent two school districts for their Hurricane Ike claims, not against TWIA. I can't imagine how convoluted this new process would be for a school direct to try to comply with given the attention that they are first required to give to restoring the school so they can have classes and then the attention they have to give to maybe adjusting their claim or work on their claim simply in the summer months. When you think about this new process that they're going to require everybody to go through, homeowners, businesses, school districts, filing a claim, going through this independent panel review, going through this technical committee review, going through this appraisal process, it is going to be a nightmare. Most of your -- all your school districts that I know of will have a -- if they have a TWIA claim they're going to have an excess policy above those TWIA layers. And so, for every individual building you have, you're going to have an excess policy above. And so you're going to be -- it's going to be a nightmare and if you're going to impose it on coastal residents, please, don't impose it on coastal school districts because it's going to be terrible.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Farias, for what purpose?
REP. JOE FARIAS: Will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland do you yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes, I yield.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Representative Eiland, do you know where I live, where I'm from?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: San Antonio.
REP. JOE FARIAS: San Antonio. We don't get hit by wind storms or hurricanes. We receive the people that come in from the coast and make available the areas where they can stay for some time. But could you tell me how many students are displaced when these schools are knocked out? Do you know the number of students within your school district?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Well, I know that after Ike, there were several schools that I know in Galveston the school district was closed for about three months and those students were disbursed to Texas City, La Marque. Some of them didn't go to school at all and I think there was a few schools that were closed over in Beaumont. And all schools had damages but they all tried to open as quick as they could. Some of them within three to four weeks. You got to remember we had no power for a while. So the focus of their efforts is not on recording their insurance claim it is get the schools where the kids can come back.
REP. JOE FARIAS: I've only experienced one time, Representative Eiland, where we rebuilt the school on voluntary base reconstruction. We actually had to build a portable school with portable school buildings that we brought in. And it is a lot of work and effort that it takes from the community, the children to sacrifice that they're going to be in the classroom. So, I hope that this amendment will be accepted by the membership.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Members, La Porte ISD where Senator Jackson lives they lost their entire school and they had to actually build a new school within about six to nine months. And so, they were not concerned about working on their insurance claims they were concerned about having places for kids to go to school. And requiring these burdensome processes of going through these internal reviews and technical committee and appraisal process before they could bring a claim that involved their access carrier it is going to be a cumbersome, cockamamy nightmare and we shouldn't impose it on our school districts. Vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farias sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Farias voting no, Representative Walle voting no, Representative Johnson voting no, Representative Smithee voting aye. Representative Burnam voting no. Have all voted? Being 100 ayes and 38 nays the motion to table prevails. Follow amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Members, as you well know into 120 some days into the session that my position is always with veterans in trying to assist our military forces and these next two bills or amendments address the issue with our military personnel, especially with the naval installations that are down along the coast. And so, this amendment makes necessary exception for members of our Armed Forces for having to comply with certain onerous and burdensome provisions of this bill. Members of the military are actively serving in our country it is wrong to make them jump through hoops to get the claim filed with TWIA so that they can repair damages to their homes. And this is basically the same thing as the other amendment except it affects military personnel that are active duty at this time and with that, members, I move that you support me on this amendment for our military forces.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Once again this is another carve out and members just to make clear. The storm occurs and you have your logs you have a year and all you have to do is just tell TWIA, hey, I may have a claim. You either call them, you write them, you do it on the Internet just lets them know. The problem is if you extend it beyond -- too much beyond that, there can be other causes. There can be more wind, there can be hail storms, there can be a lot of things happen. So we need to get these claims in. A year is a very reasonable time. Once again if is someone is on active duty military they're out of the country, they don't get their claim filed timely, that would certainly in my judgment qualify as good cause to enable a late filing under the statute. They don't have any problem with that. It's not a problem that exists. So because of that, members, I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farias to close.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Again, members, this is always about veterans in the military that we all should be supporting. So I hope that y'all stick with me on this amendment and help our military members -- members was military.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farias sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Smith voting aye, Representative Eiland voting no, Representative Farias voting no. Have all voted? Being 98 ayes, 41 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farias.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.
REP. JOE FARIAS: Members, this is the same thing. Military personnel and their families. Now we're going to talk about the members that are away in Afghanistan or Iraq, in a battle zone that are not friendly to -- their spouses are here by themselves trying to take care of business with their families. And so, this will only affect military personnel that are overseas in a combat zone. Members I again implore you to, please, support our military personnel who are way protecting our rights.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Once again, members, this is exactly the reason we put the good cause exception in there. If you're overseas, you're going to have good cause for late filing. The good cause provision is to be applied literally. We don't want any gotchas in this bill. We just want to try to get the claims in. And so, I'm going oppose this as another carve out. Once again it's the classic good cause and with good cause they would have an exception. They would you be able to file past the one year.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Ask a question of Chairman Smithee. Okay. So I want to be abundantly clear. This amendment is unnecessary for someone, let's say, serving in Iraq or Afghanistan.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And at the 18 month period, they come home and they say I need to file a claim, the bill already covers them in the good cause to be able to still file that claim; is that correct?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Dennis, this is the classic good cause. I mean if someone is disabled, if they're overseas, I mean that's classic.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Is there a limit on good cause?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: A time limit. I'll look and see. I don't know if we have a time limit on that. I can't remember. I don't think there is a limit. It's up to the commissioner. Therefore, it's not TWIA that's granting it. It's the Commissioner of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: So, I want to go on record then so if any active duty military person for some reason is not given a good cause exemption, I would hope they would contact their state representative and would help them with that matter.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: They can. And you know I really we could do this a little different way we could say overseas is considered, you know, we can do it. Thank you. I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farias to close.
REP. JOE FARIAS: The intent of the amendment is to make sure that we protect our military men and went and their spouses. That's the intent of this amendment, especially when they're overseas and they have their spouses back here and they found out there's a hurricane that hit their homes. Now their homes are destroyed. I just want to give them some peace of mind while they're over there. So I ask you to, please, vote no to table, please.
REP. RANDY WEBER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Weber, for what purpose?
REP. RANDY WEBER: I make a motion that the exchange between Representative Smithee and Bonnen about good cause be reduced to writing and put in the journal.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Farias sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Farias voting no, Representative Eiland voting no, Representative -- show Representative Walle voting no. Have all voted? Being 98 ayes and 42 nays the motion to table prevails. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, members this is another carve out amendment. I want to give you all the opportunity to vote specifically against the churches in our community. What it does is it only provides the carve out and the exceptions we've been talking about to churches. The churches play a major role in disaster relief. They need the exception that I've offered them today. I move its adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Once again, members, here's the problem with these carve-outs. We consider every TWIA policyholder important. And the churches are very important, but so are the elderly families, the single mothers, who are very likely going to have as much -- as much trouble meeting the deadline as anybody else and that's why we have good cause in there. It is -- if we start carving out one group we end up carving out everybody. And the deal is we need to get the claims we need the encouragement to get it in. Like we say we don't want the gotcha in there but we do want the claims filed so they could be resolved. So I would respectfully move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Our forefathers established the first amendment clause and talked about the ability to tax our churches institutions. They did not fully anticipate what would come of the 21st Century and insurance and cost of buildings et cetera. This is simply to provide churches a carve-out.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REP. LON BURNAM: One moment, please. It provides churches a carve-out so they can address the emergency needs that the state's not prepared to meet for the people when things happen in extraordinary examples. Give the churches the right role that they have and give the churches the protection they deserve. The right role is to meet the immediate needs of the people which the state clearly is not willing to do. They'll step in the breach. Give them the opportunity to recover by giving them this carve-out amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.
REP. LON BURNAM: I'll gladly yield.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: What is this again.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Bonnen, what are you asking? This is on Page 10, Line 8 between Section 1 and C.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: What's it do?
REP. LON BURNAM: It provides a carve-out. I'll be glad to explaining.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: No, no, no what does Section 1 do.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: The one that you're amending.
REP. LON BURNAM: I'll be glad to explain to you. First it extends the deadline for filing.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: No, no, no, no. I'm asking what your amendment does. I'm asking you the section you're amending, what does it do?
REP. LON BURNAM: I'm sorry, Mr. Bonnen I can't answer that question. I can tell you what this amendment does.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That's fair. I thought that might be the answer. How many hurricanes have you been through on the Texas coast.
REP. LON BURNAM: Mr. Bonnen, you know, living in Fort Worth I mainly avoid hail storms and tornadoes.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: That's what I thought. So are you aware that usually when a hurricane comes through, if a church is in need, usually the community will come together and support them. But they are not usually the location in, say, quote, unquote, a hit zone that we would choose to try and gather and provide relief. It's usually not the church that has been harmed or damaged where the relief --
REP. LON BURNAM: Well, it depends on your church infrastructure.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: -- quite frankly.
REP. LON BURNAM: Within the context of the Catholic diocese you've got all sorts of service delivery systems. In Fort Worth like I suspect in your community the Catholic charities those are part of church institution.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I understand but those are significantly different than what your amendment speaks to, Representative Burnam. The amendment doesn't speak to -- it speaks to. It speaks to a specific church who has physical damage at a specific location.
REP. LON BURNAM: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: And I want to be very clear. Those churches are always supported and helped and more importantly they are not the location that most people go to. We are asked to evacuate and to some extent I'm becoming offended at these amendments that are being offered because they're sending a message that we spend a lot of time and a lot of energy working on the Texas coast which is when we say there's a hurricane coming and your county judge has asked to evacuate or your mayor has asked you to evacuate we would ask that you, please, do that. And suggesting that we need to be concerned about the local church because that's where people need to be going for relief and is an irresponsible message to be sending, Mr. Burnam.
REP. LON BURNAM: Clearly you don't understand the amendment. There's all sorts of things during the process of dealing with a hurricane, the immediate affects and the after affects which the churches respond to. Move its adoption. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. Excuse Representative Cook because of important business in the district on the motion Representative Driver. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Represent Burnam sends up an amendment. Amendment Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Smith voting aye, Representative Burnam voting no, Representative Eiland voting no. Have all voted? Being 102 ayes, 35 nays, motion to table prevails.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I told Mr. Deshotel that if he was not back from his engagement that he would present this for him. The bill strikes -- the bill says that TWIA cannot insure casinos or sexually oriented businesses and so Mr. Deshotel's concern is that if you have a shopping center and one of the businesses in that shopping center is a sexually oriented then you would not be able to buy insurance on your building. We had testimony in committee that this would be challenged constitutionally immediately and so y'all do whatever you want to. Personally, if we ever pass casinos and the casino is not big enough to go get their own insurance package I don't want them in Galveston. Y'all can have them because we can only insure under TWIA up to $4 million and any casino that I want is going to be a whole lot more expensive than that and so --
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Will the gentleman yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: You mention casinos but what does it say 1 through 3, line 1 through 3 on the next page.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Sexually oriented businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland, do you yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes. I'm yielding for Mr. Deshotel this is his amendment.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Super. So maybe the moral of the story is, Craig, we don't want casinos or SOB's.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Maybe.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, this isn't intended to be a gambling or anti-gambling amendment. It doesn't have anything to do with that. What the problem is we've got a couple -- at least we did within the last few months a couple of sexually oriented businesses that are insured by TWIA and I know a number of members that have had some issues with that. We don't have any wind turbines yet that I know of but there has been some discussion about TWIA coming in and insuring wind turbines. We really can't get into that business. I mean I love wind turbines as much as anybody and this isn't anti or for wind turbines but that's not what TWIA was set up for. The other thing is casinos and those are typically large buildings and we -- there were a lot of members that had a problem with TWIA with the subsidized type insurance coming in and underwriting the insurance for casinos. There's no social comment intended here it's just these are three classes that we had kind of picked out that TWIA really didn't need to be writing. The casinos which there are none right now, sexually oriented businesses and wind turbines and I'll leave this amendment to --
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Bonnen, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Gentleman, yield for a technical question.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Let me ask we have a significant problem in my county with the video slot machines, the 8 liners, 8 liners, would this amendment or the current bill apply to them.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I don't know Dennis.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: I mean, it's gambling.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: A casino or not. The answer is I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: There are many casinos and they're really bad and we need to get rid of them. Maybe we could have a specific hurricane called the 8 liner hurricane that could go take them out. All right. So this bill does not impact the 8 liner casinos.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I can't say that does or doesn't but I would say that probably since gambling is illegal in Texas right now, in that form, I would say that my guess is that no, it doesn't prohibit insuring those?
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Thank you.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: And so, I would --
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I'll yield.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Does the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Smithee, do you yield?
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Smithee, I just want to be sure. I don't think there ought to be insuring SOB's, so a vote for this amendment be a right way or against it.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, if you don't want to be insuring sexually oriented businesses you should vote for the Deshotel amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Against the SOB's.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: The Deshotel amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: So this would be a vote against SOB's if we voted against the amendment.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Yes, you would vote against the amendment if you don't like the sexually oriented businesses.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: You're not going to move to table.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I hadn't planned to. I was going to leave it to the will of the House to vote up the amendment but --
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Could you tell us how you're going to vote? That's a bad question.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: I will vote no on the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Deshotel sends up an amendment. The division vote has been requested. Vote aye, vote nay. Being 9 ayes and 108 nays, the amendment fails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smith of Harris.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smith.
REPRESENTATIVE WAYNE SMITH: Members, what this amendment does is say that the Texas Board of Professional Engineers has the enforcement authority and oversight over licensed engineers and the TDI process and I think it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smith sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Members, this does several things in this amendment. We had a section in the bill that had to do with territorial rating, we're taking that out, repealing the section regarding premium surcharges for non-compliant structures and we're also creating an adjustor advisory board to recommend professional standards for professional adjustors. This is the hunter take the rates out of the bill amendment. I move passage and it's acceptable to the author, I believe.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker, thank you. And what we heard in committee and I actually had this provision in my TWIA reform bill as well. But once we streamlined the process for agents to renew the policies or policyholders to renew the policies and the agents commissions were -- there was a reason why they were 15, 16 percent. So what this amendment would do is once we streamlined the process and you have annual renewals that you would bring down the actual agent commission to 10 percent, and with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, I move to table the -- we are changing the process by which these policies are issued and renewed and there is a provision in the amendment that the commissioner address the rate accordingly. What this amendment does is put a hard cap of 10 percent, I honestly don't know what that commission should be. TWIA pays at or near the top of commissions of any of the companies, but yet it's the hardest application to turn in because we're still living in the 60's. And we're going to try to get on up somewhere in this century and hopefully we can get the commission rate down. But really the commissioner ought to be making that determination instead of us here on the House floor. So I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, insurance agents shouldn't be granted a windfall for this process and I would move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle sends an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote nay. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Walle voting no. Have all voted? Show Speaker Craddick voting aye. Have all voted? There being 107 ayes, 29 nays, motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Reynolds.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Sheets.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Sheets.
REPRESENTATIVE SHEETS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The current bill requires that the board whenever there is -- they don't purchase reinsurance if that they have to file an actuarial plan. This amendment just clarifies what the actuarial plan must contain. I believe it's acceptable to the author. And there's no rates involved.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Sheets sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee -- acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is probably the best idea that was brought to us to try to reform TWIA and prevent this fiasco from happening again. Every homeowner on the coast who has a TWIA policy also has a homeowner policy from some company. Most of them would be State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, you know, USAA, et cetera. And all of those companies have adjustors and programs to come in after a storm. And so, what this bill would do would be similar to a National Flood Insurance Program is that those companies would adjust the claims. They've got storm teams that come in, they are prepared. The problem with TWIA is they don't have 1,000 adjustors just sitting around for three years waiting for a storm to hit. They go out and contract with people. Well, the standard market has these catastrophe teams and they deploy them to catastrophes all the time. And so what this amendment would do is say, whoever your homeowner carrier is they're going to adjust your claim. And TWIA will pay the claim and will pay the company to adjust the claim. It's a very simple and we should have been doing this for a long time. This is called Similar Adjustor Program. There's a few companies that do this in floods. Where they adjust the flood claim and the homeowners claim but we need to do this for the wind claim as well. That would cut out TWIA having to go out and contract with all these groups. And so, I think this is the way to go. It would solve a lot of our problems. The problems that we have right now, I don't want TWIA as my hurricane insurance. I'd like to have Farmers or Allstate or somebody like that but I can't get them. Well, this way, because if TWIA screws me up on my insurance claim, I can't fire them. I can't say I'm not leaving TWIA and going for a deal. There the only one. They're the carrier of last resort. At least this way if Farmers did a bad job on adjusting my claim I could say, hey, pal guess what? I'm taking my life, my car, my home, over and my business insurance over and I'm going to go to State Farm because you didn't adjust my claim well. So that's at least a little bit of a remedy. And so to me this is a very logical thing to do it. It solves TWIA problems with adjustors. The insurance companies will get paid for the work that they do and we at least have some ability to shop around and keep these companies to at least TWIA, to pay claims honestly.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: Will chairman Eiland yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Eiland yield?
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: What you're trying to do, Chairman Eiland, is try to streamline the process because, obviously, during committee we heard the just the outright -- a lot of our views criminal acts that they were doing. What you're trying to do is just clean up the process so that there is --
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Yes.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: -- fair process for folks.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: And best thing is if you could get it when those companies also adjust the home claim because as a homeowner you think you're fully covered. I've got all the insurance that my agent wanted to sell me. And you go after a storm and you file a claim. Well, the first thing that happens is here comes a wind adjustor and a flood adjustor and they come -- that's only if you live on coast. If you live in Houston or Dallas, you get one adjustor that says it's flood, it's wind and then they pay the claim. You don't care which one it is you've paid your policy, you've paid your premium, you just say give me the money to fix my house. I don't care how much of its floods I don't care how much of it's wind. It's my house, it's damaged, I want to fix it. And if we do this, we can at least start moving that direction have a single adjustor come in and adjust all the damage.
REP. ARMANDO WALLE: And with the National Flood Insurance Program when we had tropical storm Allison in Houston that was devastating because the flood. There was a lot of adjustors that came in and relatively, it -- the response was a little bit better from my experience where they brought whole teams in and folks that could do the job and do it better than what was done.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: What this would do is say, if I have a fire I call my company and they send the adjustor, if I have a wind storm I call my company they send an adjustor. If I have a theft I call the company they send an adjustor. And we would solve TWIA from having to ramp up, ramp down, ramp up, ramp down all time. So I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, I have to oppose this amendment. I don't know what Mr. Eiland's motive in filing is but I can tell you what the effect is. It will create a deep pocket to sue on these claims. They will sue the adjustors for these large insurance carriers. And right now the adjustors are getting sued and it's caused a real problem with these adjustors. They're having a hard time getting insurance. And so, that is the main thing. The second thing is we're going to require insurance companies to do this. They don't want to do it. Not that insurance companies can do whatever they want to do but it concerns me that we're going to require a business to do something it doesn't want to do. And I'm not sure that's good for the claimants on the coast to have somebody that really doesn't want to be doing this and requiring them to do it. I'm not saying this is something we can't do in years future but it's going to require a lot of thought, a lot of work, and a lot more bill writing than a two page amendment. So I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, remember y'all took away our Chapter 541 and 542 rights earlier today. So that now we're second class citizens. So that's an invalid argument that Mr. Smithee just made. We don't have any rights about treble damages or extra damages, period, none they're gone. So that is not in this bill and if you would actually read the amendment on the second page, we say the commissioner shall adopt procedures including penalties to insure that the insurance performs the functions required by the section of property in an equitable manner. So we put it to the commissioner to decide how -- if there is any penalties which under the bill as it is now they're not. The only thing that a coastal person can recover after a storm is their actual damages. And if they go to court, attorney fees and costs period, nothing else. And so these -- these insurance companies that refuse to write wind on the coast. All they're asking them is adjust the claims. You'll get paid. And the commissioner will determine how much they get paid so they don't lose money. This is what they do. After a storm, they're all down there adjusting the non TWIA policies. All they got to do is adjust the TWIA policies for their own insureds. So vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Representative Smithee voting aye, show Representative Eiland voting no, Representative Sheffield voting aye. Have all voted? Being 100 ayes and 40 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is another part of this bill that is bad for coastal people. In every policy in the state, including TWIA policies has an appraisal option in it, either party can request appraisal. What an appraisal is when there's damages to your house or your business and the insurance company and the homeowner or business owner agree, yeah, the roof is damaged. We have to replace the roof. And there's a dispute about how much it costs. Does it cost 15,000, does it cost 25,000. If you disagree -- if you agree to the damage, you disagree to the cost you go to appraisal. All right. An appraisal, the insurance company hires an appraiser, the home homeowner hires an appraiser, if they don't agree on a price, then they hire an up umpire and the umpire decides. We'll come back it's the wrong one.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Now we're on the right amendment about appraisal. So you have appraisal like I was just describing. You have -- your policy has it, my policy if you live in Dallas, Amarillo, Texarkana you have it. Only about 80 -- with the testimony was 80 to 85 percent of the time appraisal is not invoked by either party. Okay. Not, invoked by either party. It's available to both parties. So there's obviously 80 for 85 percent of the time a very good reason not to go to appraisal. Either it's not going to solve the issue or it's not going to solve all the issues. Well, guess what y'all do to us in this bill? You require appraisal. If an item can be appraised it must be appraised. And we have to do that before we can get access to a court with some judge from someplace else. So all I'm asking is do not require appraisal every time. If the homeowner wants appraisal they can ask for it. If TWIA wants or TCIP wants appraisal they can ask for it. Both sides don't think it's going to do them any good, don't require it. This is stuff we're imposing -- this is part of this regulatory un -- not thought out thoroughly idea that you're imposing on our businesses and our homeowners and this is another -- this is one of the bad ideas where you force us to go to appraisal. Where you in the rest of the state will choose not to do it 80 to 85 percent of the time. Please don't force this on us.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Well, I oppose this amendment. Appraisal is one of the cornerstones of this bill and it's something that I would venture to guess every member in this house has in their policy if you have and HOV form. There's an appraisal provision. And what appraisal is, is the homeowner selects someone, the company selects someone to agree on cost of repair. In most cases, the vast majority, the two of them can get together and agree because this isn't rocket science. In the unlikely event they can't agree. Then they jointly select a third referee or umpire who then decides that dispute. Now, in our bill it doesn't apply to all disputes it just applies to disputes over the cost of repair. Those are very easy, you're just talking about the cost of shingles, cost of labor. And those can be very easily decided. This is a great way to do this. You don't have any governmental intervention and you don't have any lawyers involved, you don't have a courthouse. The parties gets together and resolve the difference. This has been very successful, just last Friday the Supreme Court reaffirmed its commitment to the appraisal process and how well it works. If there are any legal issues involved like causation or coverage, those are decided outside the appraisal process through an independent review panel. So, this will work. It will reduce the trips to the courthouse, and it will reduce the expense for both the policyholder and TWIA and ultimately all the policyholders in TWIA. So I would move to table the Eiland amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, the only thing the Supreme Court opinion did last week was talk about waiver. That if you waive -- that you cannot waive appraisal unless you do it intentionally. You can't delay and not wave by a time. So that has nothing to do with this amendment. If it was so good for the rest of the state y'all would be doing it 100 percent of the time. Instead of 15 percent of the time or 20 percent of the time. You shouldn't be mandating appraisal on our coastal businesses and homeowners if you don't want to do it yourself. There's valid reasons not to go to appraisal and obviously the rest of the state has that right and we had like to keep that right, too. Vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland, sends up an amendment. Representative Smith moves to table. This on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Eiland voting no. Have all voted? Being 101 ayes, 39 nays, motion to table prevails.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is -- the amendment is withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment temporarily withdrawn. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Bonnen.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Bonnen.
REPRESENTATIVE BONNEN: Mr. Speaker members, this amendment is crafted. The questions I asked chairman Smithee earlier about the sexually oriented businesses and the casinos, this closes the loophole to make sure that the facilities that are housing the video lotteries, video slot machines also would have the same issue. I move adoption. It's acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Bonnen sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment. Mr. Rodriguez. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment just makes sure that if TWIA needs to request more information from the policyholder that they do so in a reasonable time period. The bill contained no such time limits. This amendment insures bill processing claims because they claim to need more information. If they need more information they must request it promptly.
THE SPEAKER: Rodriguez amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment was drafted to insure transparency and accountability in government. Specifically this amendment says that the technical panel appointed by the Texas Department of Insurance Commissioner shall conduct open meetings. Meeting dates, times, and locations would be posted on the TDI and TWIA website. Also meetings would be streamlined live from the TWIA website. This can insure that the panel is accountable. I'm not sure if this is acceptable to the author, but with that I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm going to have to have move to table. As with the last amendment with Mr. Rodriguez I'm going to work on him with a third -- work with him or on him, whatever, for a possible third reading amendment. The problem that we have with this is we really don't know exactly how this technical review panel is going to function, the mechanics of it. We're still looking at it. It was really Mr. Taylor's idea and we're kind of copying after the review panels that we do in health insurance. We're going to have technical experts getting together and trying to make these decisions in an unbiased atmosphere as possible. And so what I'll do is work with him. The commissioner already has the power to order this, if it's in the best interest of the process, and so I would move to table at this time and I will commit to work with Mr. Rodriguez on the issue. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker, members, I know -- I mean, I think this is a good amendment, obviously, and I will work with the chairman to try to get this in maybe in a third reading. But I think this is important. We need to make what happens here as open as possible to the public. This is all this is. This is good government. I know we say that a lot but this really is about making it open to the public, having the meetings, the meeting times up there, having it on the websites and just having as much information out there as possible. I know that the chairman has moved to table I think this is a good amendment I will work with him to get that done maybe on a third reading amendment but with that members, please, stick with me for open government. Move no to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Rodriguez sends up an amendment. Representative Smithee moves to table. This is on the motion to table. Clerk ring the bell. Show Representative Smithee voting aye, Representative Rodriguez voting no. Have all voted? Being 96 ayes and 42 nays, the motion to table prevails. Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Members, this amendment simply says that although House Bill 272 contains language that applies few standards to both the employees and the board of the Windstorm Insurance Agency these standards of conduct in response to some big important considerations. The amendment you have seeks to apply the same standard to the conduct of the Legislative Oversight Committee. This has the affect of creating the exact operating standards that all three of the primary operators, its employees, its boards, and its Legislative Oversight Committee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REP. JOHN SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, one of the important things we did in this bill some something that hasn't been done before and that is we applied the same policies to TWIA employees as we apply to state employees, as far as accepting gifts, things like that. The standard that right now applies in current law for legislators is higher than it is for state employees. We're subject to more restrictions, we're subject to more reporting. And so, in a way, if you pass this you're going to be invoking even a lower standard. Now, what I will do with Mr. Alonzo I'll look at specific issues that may have -- may -- could arise or may have arisen and try to deal with those on third reading. But I don't think this fits because you're going to be employing a state employee standard to an elected official. And I do think elected officials need to be held to a higher standard. And so, because of that I don't think it does really what Mr. Alonzo is wanting to do. And I'll visit with him some and we certainly want the highest ethical behavior on these committees and I'm committed to doing that but I would move to table because of those concerns.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REP. ROBERTO ALONZO: Well, members, in the spirit of working together and I appreciate the chairman wanting to tweak this amendment for the third reading I'm going to go ahead and pull this amendment so we can fix it up and it will be acceptable to the author once we have a good conversation. So I'm going to pull this amendment. Thank you, sir.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. Following amendment. Clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes representative -- the amendment is withdrawn. That's all the amendments. Anyone wishing to speak for against the bill. Chair recognize Representative Eiland in opposition.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you for the time today. I just want everybody to know I appreciate. This was a terrible bill coming out of committee. It still really bad. Maybe it will get better in the Senate, I hope, because what is undisputed is that TWIA treated coastal people terribly. They cheated them on their claims. They made them hire lawyers and eventually everybody is getting paid what they should have got paid two years ago. And because of that, we have this bill. And because of that, what we've done today is we've taken away the rights of coastal people that everybody else in the state has. We've have imposed a regulatory cumbersome process on homes and business people and members, I think that you are going to hear from business people and homeowners and vacation homeowners that live in your district eventually about this bill once they have to go through this cumbersome process. There's one more amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment. The clerk read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I'm sorry, members. This was -- I don't know what happened to it. But basically we have a program right now in the windstorm pool that if your insurer drops you even if you don't the windstorm inspections the WPI's those types of things you can still get in the windstorm program. And that provision is going away by the bill we passed last session and in this amendment I'm just continuing that program on for the future. For future homeowners that may have insurance today with a carrier, if that carrier drops them in the future they will be able to get in the wind pool. And I move passage. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor send up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland in opposition.
REP. CRAIG EILAND: Just to finish, members. As a result of TWIA's actions we've taken away rights of coastal people that you have in the rest of the state. We've imposed a cumbersome regulatory burden upon our businesses and we've taken away the right for locally elected judges to hear local cases. And so please, vote no on this bill.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee. Chair recognize Representative Taylor?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'll try to be brief. This has been a long process for me and my district. Many of you know I've had a lot of issues since this arose when it started asking some questions back in September of last year. And I felt like and I asked some questions took about 3 1/2 months in court to get the information. We finally got the information, it was pretty startling. I was disgusted with some folks. Just for example, there's a global class -- a global settlement and a class action settlement. Let me just tell you real quick. We paid $101 million for policyholders to pay $101 million to policyholders we paid 55-1/2 million dollars in attorney fees for the plaintiffs and we paid another $5 million for the defense costs. So we spent $60 million in legal fees to pay $101 million to our homes -- to rebuild homes that were damaged during Hurricane Ike. And this was after about two years. So what you see before you today is not designed to punish anyone, it's not making anyone a second class citizen. It's giving people the opportunity to get their claims paid quickly and fairly with an independent process that takes care of that. But at the end of the day if they're not happy with that process we set up for them they still have the ability to go to court and have their day in court. And so, this is not about punishing anyone. We have to take care of this program. We have a program right now that has reserve trust funds right now of about $75 million. I've already told you we spent $60 million just on these 2500 claims. There's another 2500 claims out there. So, I don't even know what the legal fees were on that but I can assure you it's going to be very high. So this is not about punishing. This is about making a system that will work and will take care of the TWIA policyholders because they did pay those costs. When we take out the punitive damages as Chairman Smithee said you're not punishing the employee who acted poorly, you're punishing the rate payer who paid the premium for TWIA. We're trying to take care of TWIA policyholders so they can afford the buy this insurance in the future and be able to have the economic development that we have in our area and to keep our economy moving. And that's why we're doing this bill. It's not -- I'm trying my best to take care of the constituents.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Will the gentlemen yield?
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Taylor, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I'll be happy to yield.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. Representative Taylor, I've been trying to follow this and this is I think over a lot of our heads exactly what's going on. It seems to be really kind of an issue between lawyers and insurance and --
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Well, let's be clear. This isn't insurance.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: But TTLA and --
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Profits for insurance companies --
REP. DONNA HOWARD: This is my question. I just want to know if there's anything in the bill that actually addresses the structural issue we have here. The problem of actually funding TWIA. It seems to me we're talking about trying to treat a symptom here but we're not actually addressing the underlying issue of how do we fund this in the first place. Is there something in there that address that --
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: We did that last session. We have a funding structure right now that will fund up to about $2.6 billion. Now Hurricane Ike right now is about is about 1.6 billion, I believe, is where we are now with TWIA -- with Ike. And that was a very large -- the largest we've ever had. We have a funding program in place House Bill 449 last session that will go up to about $6.2 billion. We're not covering the worst case scenarios because we couldn't get enough agreement out of this body to pass a bill. So what we were able to cover last session was the largest expectable type storm. Not the perfect storm or the worst case but we've done a pretty good job with that and it's not perfect but it's the best that we could do. Like I said --
REP. DONNA HOWARD: So what we're talking about in this bill is really not addressing the kind of issues that we still need to be talking about in terms of how do we pay for people living along the coast when there's a huge part of Texas that doesn't. And how do we deal with an equity issue there and all of that. That's not what we're talking about here.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: That really was Representative Howard our issue last session.
REP. DONNA HOWARD: That's all I wanted to know. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: I've too been trying to follow this through a layperson's eyes and I appreciated the numbers that you offered, the -- can you just repeat those?
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Yeah, just real quick there was a global settlement for about.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Just in aggregate how much went to the property owners.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Let me tell you real quick. I think it was 2500 homeowners total included in the global and class action. There were two areas. Total between the two for those policyholders we payed $101 million. The plaintiff's attorneys on the reports I received, received $55.5 million. Then we got the information from TWIA how much they paid for their defense counsel and that was another 5.2 million. So we paid attorneys $67.7 million to litigate to pay $101 million for 2500 homeowners.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: How much was paid in insurance premiums by the property owners.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: I don't have that information right in front of me. I know per year TWIA takes in about 300, $350 million in premiums.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Move passage. I'm sorry it's not mine to move passage. But I appreciate the opportunity to have this and to have the opportunity to present it to you today. Hopefully we'll be able to make the TWIA program work in the future. We are trying to do the whole program differently but you can't just flip a switch and do that. And we'll be working in the interim to try to find other ways to do this program and with that I'll move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 272. All those in favor say eye, all those opposed say nay. Ayes have it House Bill 272 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REP. TODD HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while will the House is in session, 7:05 p.m. today, place 3W9 to consider a calendar.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. Clerk read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 7:05 p.m. on May the 10th, 2011. At 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend the five day posting rule and all necessary rules to allow the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to consider Senate bills 144, 158, 159, 167, 348, 377, 462, 496, 779, 838, 1010, 1066, 1273, 1522, 1551, 1681, 1701, 1702 and any pending business. The committee met this morning but didn't finish and since we're recessing for local and consent calendar I need to repost essentially what we didn't finish earlier. So that's what this -- these numbers cover. So again I'd move to suspend the five day posting rule and these necessary rules so that the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence can hear these bills.
THE SPEAKER: Following announcement. Clerk read the announcement. Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection. Chair hears none. So order.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence 8:00 a.m. on May 11th, 2011 at JHR120. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 144, 158, 159, 167, 348, 377, 462, 496, 779, 838, 1010, 1066, 1273, 1522, 1551, 1681, 1701, 1702 and pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Parliamentarian told me I didn't put the time or date of 8:00 a.m. on May 11th in the Reagan room 120 in my previous motion, so I'd move to suspend the following -- the five day posting rule and all necessary rules to allow the criminal -- the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to hear the bills that we previously talked about at 8:00 a.m. May 11th in Reagan room 120.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there injection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes representative Gonzalez for a motion.
REP. VERONICA GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Border and Governmental Affairs to consider SB 1364, SB 1462 and HCR 146 at 8:30 a.m. on May 11th, in E1010.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there injection. Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcements. The clerk read the announcements.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet at 8:00 a.m. On may 11th, 2011 at JHR120. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 144, 158, 159, 167, 348, 377, 462, 496, 779, 838, 1010, 1066, 1273, 1522, 1551, 1681, 1701, 1702 and pending business. The committee on Border her and Intergovernmental Affairs will meet at 8:30 a.m. On may 11th, 2011 at E1.010. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 1364, SB 1462 and HCR 146.
THE SPEAKER: The chair recognizes representative Kolkhorst for a motion to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 2036 -- House Bill 3036.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Member s, I move to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 3036 failed.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're now going the layout 3036. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3036 by Alvarado. Relating to the municipal sales and use tax for street maintenance.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alvarado.
REPRESENTATIVE ALVARADO: Thank you, Mr. speaker, members. I move to postpone House Bill 3036 till tomorrow morning than at 6:59 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse Representative Tracy King because of calendar committee meeting on motion of Representative Raymond. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading -- on third reading Senate Bill 250. Clerk read the bill SB 250 by Zaffirini. Relating to protective orders for stalking victims.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is stalking victim protective order bill that we passed yesterday on second reading. It was postponed to today, to this hour and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 250? Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 250. It's a record vote. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Show Representative Anderson voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Davis voting aye. There being 142 ayes and zero nays Senate Bill 250 is finally passed. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.
REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Move to suspend the following rules. Five day posting rule to the allow the Committee on Human Services to meet to consider SB 71, SB 223, SB 264, SB 426, SB 436, SB 1178 and pending business at 8:15 a.m. on Thursday, May the 12th in room E2.030.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Human Services will meet at 8:00 a.m. May the 12th, 2011, at E2.030. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 71, SB 223, SB 264, SB 426, SB 436, SB 1178 and pending business.
THE SPEAKER: Members, the House will stand at ease until 7:20. Mr. Rodriguez. Chair lays out on second reading as a matter of postponed business House Bill 3308. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3308 by Rodriguez. Relating to the operation of plug-in electric motor vehicles.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Rodriguez.
REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, members. I want to postpone this bill to a time certain 8:00 a.m. tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2746?
THE CLERK: HB 2746 by Martinez-Fischer. Relating to liability for the additional tax imposed on land appraised for ad valorem tax purposes as qualified open-space land in the event of a change of use of the land if the land is transferred to a charitable organization for purposes of building housing for sale without profit to a low-income individual or family.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to postpone until 7:37 p.m. today.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, Senate companion to House Bill 129 is over and eligible accordingly the chair lays out Senate Bill 1125. The clerk will please read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1225 by Carona. Relating to the energy efficiency goals and programs, and the participation of loads in energy markets.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Senate Bill 1125 improves upon the state energy efficiency plan and -- or program rather and I believe there is an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment. Clerk will read it. Please excuse Representative Schwartner because of important business in his district on a motion by Representative Price. So ordered. Following amendment. The clerk will, please, read the amendment?
THE CLERK: Amendment by Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, members, this just allows them to do the installation of variable speed air conditioners and other things to make these buildings more efficient.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Chisum offers up the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objections? The chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia to close. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speakers, members before I close I believe I have some legislative intent questions from Representative Hardcastle. Representative Hardcastle, if you'd like to go and ask your questions.
REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Would the gentlemen yield?
THE SPEAKER: He does.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I do.
REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you Mr. Anchia. In section one of the bill it added section 39.095, A, 3A, and B where there revisiting an energy efficiency goal; is that correct?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yes. That's correct. We're revising the goal on energy efficiency from 10 percent to 30 percent on annual growth and beginning in 2013. We're also including a transition period for moving to a goal based on percent of peek demand, metric, for those utilities who receives actual reductions of 4/10ths of 1 percent of their summer weather adjusted peek demand.
REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you and could you explain then the intent behind the transition period?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: You bet. Under this bill the intent is that the electric utilities goal will not change from the growth in demand goal to the percent in peek demand goal until that actually hits 4 10ths of 1 percent of its summer weather adjusted peek demand. Once that happens to a utility it will transition to a goal of 4/10ths of its summer weather adjusted peek demands.
REP. RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you. Mr. Speaker I would move that the remarks between Mr. Anchia and myself be reduced to writing and put in the journal.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Gentlemen yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Gentlemen gladly yields for a question.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: I was going to ask Warren this but I guess you accepted the amendment. So maybe you can answer but it looks like we've added the behavioral changes into the bill. Do you know what that would be?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: If you'd like I'd like to I could have the author of the amendment come up?
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Okay. Always interested in behavioral changes.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yeah.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My interpretation of that is that a change of hours from work and those sort of things that would be more energy efficient. So that's --
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Well, behavioral changes.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: That's right when you go to work. What part of the days you work.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: You're going to change our work schedule?
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Yes.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Wow. Okay. Good luck.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I think, Mr. Hartnett it also deals with changing peoples behavior with the consumption of electricity just to reduce overall demands. That maybe what Mr. Chisum was also trying to get at.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Like what?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Leveraging of technology, for example. So it -- you see in your home that you have peek usage demand at certain hours while you're using certain appliances or your air-conditioning system that you would change behavior. I think that's the reference to behavior. It also includes I think educational component.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: So, this is changing when I run my air-conditioning and when I run my washing machine and --
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I believe it doesn't change that but it gives you information to be able to make changes in your behavior. But it's not mandated clearly.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: But we're encouraging it though. Right. That's the purpose of this bill.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Sure I think we want to encourage energy efficiency, that's right.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Solomons for what purpose?
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Will the gentlemen yield?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I will yield.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Okay. When you start talking about that you're into demand response.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Different concepts.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Well, you're talking about behavioral changes about when you're going to do certain things.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Demand response is different that's where people sign up for a program that allows their consumption to be completely taken off the grid, right? In order to deal with spikes and demands. Typically it happens in an industrial context. There is a -- there are talks about doing it in a residential context but that's not what this bill does.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: I know your bill doesn't do that but there is a clear indication from my dealings with the electricity industry and if they are trying to move residential customers about in into programs that will in the name of saving electricity, which may or my not be a good thing, but almost to the point of insisting that you're going to pay two or three times more per kilowatt hour if you'll wait to do; for example, your dish washing after 11:00. Well, that maybe fine but some people, you know, can't do that but the whole process of behavioral changes and trying up energy consumption is a laudable goal. As long as it's not mandated in such a sense that we all really know that there are no real options for; correct?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And you could tell from this bill that there's no mandate in here. Demand response for residential consumers is a different subject. Although I carried demand response bills in the past, this is not that.
REP. BURT SOLOMONS: Well, your bill doesn't do it but for the benefit of the members, when we get did smart meters it was really stuck in a bill that was sort of similar in context. It was just the idea that we moved in that direction we never had a true debate on that issue. So, obviously some members are cautious about all of this with energy because we want to do the right thing. We want to conserve and I know that's where you're headed. You know, trying to do it responsibly but we need to be careful about getting things in law that some how move us in a direction that maybe we're not having a full debate on. That's my only point.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Sure. And I appreciate that Burt. And keep in mind Senator Carona worked this bill on the Senate side. There was no intention to put demand response on there. We've taken all of Senator Carona's language and Representative Chisum's bill was vetted on the Senate's side -- or I shouldn't say bill.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Chairman.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: What. Vetted on the representative side as well.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Chairman would the gentlemen yield?
THE SPEAKER: Do you yield.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I do.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Hi there.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Hello.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Since we are talking about changing behavior do you think it might be a good idea to start right here at home and not keep a our House chamber so doggone cold.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I have heard that you are not the only person that I've heard that complaint from.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Do you think we could it save us just a little bit of money right here.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I know from many of the members that sit around me that they have to bring blankets to the House floor because they -- they're pretty cold?
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: I think the ladies would really appreciate it.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: That's right.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker will the gentlemen yield.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Anchia will you yield?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Rafael would you be acceptable -- amenable to postponing this bill until 76-degrees.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Jackson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Will the gentlemen yield.
THE SPEAKER: Gentlemen do you yield?
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: After last session some of my folks were a little unhappy with the smart meter charges and if you look at what happened to the -- the electric companies were saving a lot of money by not having to have meter readers. But the -- as you recall we had smart meters that weren't good and we had to pay for them and we had to come back and add on for other -- in talking to the electric folks about it they told me well, you know, the legislature told us to do this. They told us we could charge your customers for it. Now, there's nothing in this bill that I'm going to talk to them about four months from now and they say, well, you guys told us we could do that. You told us we could put a charge on your customers for that.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Yeah. Just by way of further background they installed smart meters in the district that I represent. It was one of the first smart meter programs that was rolled out and the constituents that I represent were very concerned that all their bills went up after the smart readers were installed. We had our TDU come out and install side by side tests and talk to constituents about that because that was a big concern. I think it was 3 to $4 on peoples bills related to the smart meters. So that was a big jump. This I -- the energy efficiency program that Speaker Strauss, I think, passed back in 2007 when he was a member that Senator Carona has worked up on the Senate side might add 30 cents.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Let me ask you this. There is nothing in this bill with the intent that we, the legislature is authorizing an additional charge of any kind.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: No. The energy efficiency charges -- there's nothing in addition to those existing charges. No.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: So when I go talk to them in six months from now --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Legler raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.
REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I appreciate the questions. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1125. Record vote has been requested. Record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Hardcastle voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 77 ayes, 56 nays, Senate Bill 1125 is passed to engrossment. Representative Anchia moves to lay House Bill 1620 on the table subject to call. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2746. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2746 by Martinez-Fischer. Relating to liability for the additional tax imposed on land appraised for ad valorem tax purposes as qualified open-space land in the event of a change of use of the land if the land is transferred to a charitable organization for purposes of building housing for sale without profit to a low-income individual or family.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a bill that Habitat for Humanity has when they buy land. Often times it is bought on ag exemption and then when the land is developed the appraiser has the ability to do a five year look back. People like Habitat are exempt from property taxes when it is done for a charitable purposes. But this has to do with the look back it involves the ag exemption so I -- I know Representative Chisum has some questions on intent. And there is an amendment that the Governor's office was wanting to make sure that school districts in addition to the commissioners courts are notified. So, I'd be happy to yield if there's any questions.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Gentleman yield, Mr. Speaker.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Yes, sir.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Trey, I was looking at the list of witnesses and I saw that the Association of Counties testified against the bill.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: They did.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Do you know what their concern is.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Their concern is they want the commissioners court to approve the waiver of the look back and so, what we did is we amended the substitute to make sure that now when a group like Habitat comes in to seek the prohibition of the look back the commissioners court will be in agreement with that. So I'll be doing an amendment on the similar lines for the school districts. That was requested by the office of the Governor.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Are they okay with the bill now?
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I believe they are. We committed the substitute before we could get it out of committee to take their language and that's their language.
REP. WILL HARTNETT: Thank you.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Riddle, for what purpose?
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Will the gentleman yield?
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'm not real familiar with your bill. Would you help me a little bit with it? Does this have anything to do with the *SHODOS.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: No. This is a bill that was brought to me by Habitat for Humanity and what happens is they buy open space, lots of times to build their affordable housing. And often times they buy that open space land it's on some sort of ag exemption.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: You said they build the affordable housing. And I think Habitat for Humanity is real good because the people come in to help build their houses. However, I did find out that they have another arm of it which does link up with the Federal funding and the state through the *SHODOS. So this has nothing to do with that?
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I didn't ask that specific question, Representative Riddle. I know that the people I've been working with in San Antonio say they do this for Habitat versus building their flood equity homes it involves the home builders and they do the volunteers and the community comes together. No discussion if this applies to the community home organizations. I didn't know that Habitat has an extension or affiliation. The representation that was made in committee was strictly on Habitat when they do the flood equity projects for low income housing and the effect of how if you were to impose a look back how it makes it unaffordable for folks that are trying to buy a home on a limited income.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Are the property taxes being exempted?
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, the property taxes are already exempt on real property for charitable organizations like Habitat. The issue is the ability to look back five years. The appraiser -- when you change the use of the land from let's from ag to residential --
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: I know they are exempted at that time. We had a bill a little bit earlier and the taxes were going to have to be repaid at that time. I'm curious as to the relationship between the two bills.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I don't recall the prior bill but I'd be happy to talk to you about it. But the specific focus on this is to be --
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Actually Eddie's bill.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Well, I'm sorry. We do have an amendment. I can lay out the amendment. I know Warren has some language about the ag exemption. Maybe I'll get to learn about Eddie's bill.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. But you are unaware -- I was also surprised that there is. apparently a direct link between Habitat for Humanity and SHODOS.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I'm unaware and I'll take you at your word. I was unaware of that prior to you mentioning that.
REP. DEBBIE RIDDLE: I found that out from Eddie. Okay. Thank you.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Chisum. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez-Fischer.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is the amendment I told you we worked with the office of the governor. In addition to having to have permission from the commissioner's court we now have to have permission from school districts as well since property taxes effects them. It's definitely acceptable to me.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Martinez-Fischer sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection. Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Martinez-Fischer.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Thank you. I yield to Representative Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker does the gentleman yield?
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Fischer, I just want to establish some legislative intent here. We're taking ag land which is under ag exemption and moving it to a charitable organization, in this case being Habitat for Humanity, but it is not your intent in this bill to change the criteria for ag exempt land in the transition. The transition is completely separate from the ag exemption on the rest of the land.
REP.TREY MARTINEZ FISCHER: Absolutely not. I don't want to interfere with the ag exemption. It will exists as it is. This just prevents a look back when the property is changed for affordable housing for Habitat.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker I move that the conversation between Martinez and myself be reduced to writing and placed in journal.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2746. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. Ayes have it House Bill 2746 passes to engrossment. Members, the Senate companion to House Bill 234 is over and eligible. Accordingly chair lays out the Senate Bill 551. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 551 by Williams. Relating to liability for interest on ad valorem taxes on improvements that escaped taxation in a previous year.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Thank you, members. This Senate Bill 551 simply replaces House Bill 234. This insures that a property owner is not subject to paying interest on previously omitted improvements to real property. If the appraisal district has actual or constructive notice of improvement in the year in which the improvement escaped taxation the land on which the improvement is located does not actually escape sanction for the year, but it allows the taxpayer to pay the back taxes within 120 days and the interest is forgiven. So, with that I move to engrossment.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 551. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed nay. Ayes have it, Senate Bill 551 is passed to engrossment. Representative Darby moves to lay House Bill 234 on the table. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes representative -- chair lays out as a matter of postponed business and second reading House Bill 3790. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3790 by Pitts. Relating to certain state fiscal matters; providing penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. I move to postpone House Bill 3790 to a time certain 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, May 11th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading House Bill 3640.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3640 by Pitts. Relating to the remittance and allocation of certain taxes and fees.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to do the same thing. To postpone House Bill 3640 until a time certain 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning 5/11.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business House Bill 3665. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3665 by Otto. Relating to state fiscal matters related to general government.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker, members, same thing House Bill 3665 I move to postpone until tomorrow 8:00 a.m. on May 11th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed House Bill 3639. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3639 by Pitts. Relating to state fiscal matters related to public and higher education.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Much as I'd like to my school finance bill on this I move to postpone House Bill 3639 until a time certain tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m. May 11th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business second reading House Bill 3648.
THE CLERK: HB 3648 by Otto. Relating to state fiscal matters related to the judiciary.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hochberg.
REPRESENTATIVE HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to postpone this bill also until 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, May 11th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business second reading House Bill 3418.
THE CLERK: HB 3418 by Darby. Relating to certain state fiscal matters related to natural resources or the environment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. Move to postponed to a time certain 8:00 o'clock a.m. on May the 11th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading as a matter of postponed business House Bill 3132. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 3132 by Geren. Relating to the membership, powers, and duties of the State Preservation Board.
THE SPEAKER: Senate companion to House Bill 3132 is over and eligible. Accordingly chair lays out Senate Bill 1338. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 1338 by Eltife. Relating to the membership, powers, and duties of the State Preservation Board.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to postpone Senate Bill 1338 until Friday the 13th at 8:00 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading House Bill 400. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 400 by Eissler. Relating to flexibility for public schools to administer primary and secondary education efficiently.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Davis raises a point of order pursuant to Rule 6 and Rule 8 there's a printing error. The point of order is sustained. That returns the bill to be reprinted and sent to the calendars committee. Chair lays out on second reading as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2233. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB 2233 by Huberty. Relating to certain contracts entered into by school districts for another entity to provide food services at one or more district schools.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Huberty.
REPRESENTATIVE HUBERTY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone this bill til May 11th at 7:00 a.m. as we (*inaudible) consent bill. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1950.
THE CLERK: HB 1950 Taylor of Galveston. Relating to the continuation and operation of the office of public insurance counsel.
THE SPEAKER: Members, the Senate companion to House Bill 1950 is over and eligible. Accordingly the chair lays out Senate Bill 647. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB 647 by Hegar. Relating to the continuation and operation of the office of public insurance counsel.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I move to postpone this bill until tomorrow morning at 8:00 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1951. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1951 by Taylor of Galveston regarding the continuation of operations by the Texas Department of Insurance and the operation of insurance programs with administrative penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE TAYLOR: Postpone until time certain 8:25 p.m. May 10th.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HB3647. Clerk read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB3647 by Taylor regarding appropriations of revenue of certain information technology projects.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is one of the bills coming from the appropriations committee. In the ordinary course of state business, the comptroller pays claims under authority by section 403.1474 of the government code. However, the comptroller does not have authority under section 403.1474 to pay claims that are more than eight years old or that are more than $55,000 in amount. The bill before you are those claims that have gone through that process and have been approved for payment, and that's what HB3647 does. The maximum amount as listed is about $459,000 from GR, the rest comes from the state highway fund of about 2.7 million and then 185,000 from hazardous waste. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wish to speak for or against the bill? If not the question occurs passage to encroachment of House Bill 3647. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. House Bill 3647 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 13.
THE CLERK: House Bill 13 by Kolkhorst regarding Medicaid services and all (inaudible) and persons in the state.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I want to lay out House Bill 13 fairly quickly. The goal of HB13 is to allow Texas to seek a global demonstration waiver from the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid in order to best meet the healthcare needs of our state and to demonstrate to the federal government a better way -- we think we can even cover more people through the Medicaid program. As most of you remember SB10 in 2007 to obtain 1115 waiver under President Bush's administration. We were not successful in obtaining that waiver. One of the things that we learned from that is that it was a pretty prescriptive waiver. And so when I first wrote House Bill 13, it was a little prescriptive too and I backed off to do a little broader approach and try to give the Health and Human Services Commission of Texas flexibility as we begin a conversation with CMS on some flexibility in our Medicaid program. HB13 seeks a global demonstration waiver that would essentially ask for a consolidated way of our funding stream for our Medicaid dollars to the state to allow Texas five years to demonstrate ways to improve the Medicaid program. Most demonstration waivers have to demonstrate that it will cover more people, that it will do more with the money. It directs the executive commissioner with HFC to seek this waiver under section 105 of the federal Social Security Act. The legislation states the goals of the waiver is to give the HSSC a small amount of negotiating power with CMS. It seeks flexibility to determine eligibility. I do have an amendment to clarify that. It also seeks flexibility to design Medicaid benefits that meet the demographic public health clinical and cultural needs of Texas and our regions of Texas and encourages the use of private health benefits, coverage, market rather than just public benefits systems and encourages people that have access to employer based benefits to obtain or maintain those benefits, it seeks to create a potential that we could do some copayments and also use some vouchers and we could use some health savings accounts, it seeks to consolidate federal funding streams including some of the questions y'all have asked about UPL and disproportionate shares for hospitals. Basically it allows looking at flexibility, it allows for redesign of our long-term care and support services and --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Coleman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Oh, I'm just waiting for her to lay out her bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: And finally it creates the Texas health insurance virtual marketplace. Of course, members, none of this CMS happens unless CMS says it can happen. And I call this the permission bill to see if we can work with CMS to find a common ground in trying to cover more and see if we can have a little more flexible program so we might meet the needs of Texans. I do have three amendments that are clarifying. Would you like for me to add those, Mr. Coleman?
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Yes. Go ahead and -- yes.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Members, this amendment has to do with our mental health dollars and what this will do is it will seek to allow us to seek federal matching funds for unmatched county and municipal dollars spent on mental health in Texas that benefit Medicaid recipients. This amendment would require HSSC to request from CMS the fees federal match and allow Texas to provide additional mental health services to current populations in Medicaid. I move passage unless there are questions about that.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none, the amendment is adopted. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Members, this amendment would provide a guarantee that the waiver that Texas is seeking would not seek to violate the MOE or the maintenance of efforts requirements for providing Medicaid services to current populations. This amendment would require HSSC in developing the waiver to seek flexibility in eligibility categories and income levels that are consistent with the federal law. This means that in no way does this waiver seek to lower the eligibility levels to remove any currently served populations from the rolls. That came up during the hearing and I think that was a great point made by CCCC in the section that we were seeking flexibility. It didn't define that we were going to try to go lower than any of the federal levels. Of course patient protection and Portable Care Act sets the MOE at 133, we'll actually be raising some of our categories and leaving our other categories at the snapshot take when the MOE went into effect. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Ms. Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: And finally, members, this was a mistake, a typing error and it strikes patient centered and substitutes person centered and again that came up and I'm glad that was caught in the committee hearing. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Representative Coleman for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Will the lady yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Yes, of coures, I yield to my colleague.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: You know in pursuing this that some of the other language in the bill deals with copays and again a redesign of the long term care system but doesn't say what's contemplated and also the use of a public private system of healthcare, private purchase of healthcare. Do you have an idea how those three things are going to be carried out?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Sure. Let me address the first question which is long term care. You know better than the rest of us that the disabled take up -- consumed about 58 percent of the Medicaid budget. One of the goals in that would be in long term care it would be an all or nothing. I don't get to do Richard Raymond's committee health and human services, one of the concerns has always been if you don't meet that level, that's it and we see that elderly people struggle, we have a system right now that we actually seek waivers for our homeless community based system. So in looking at that one of our goals would be to say that --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Would you tell everyone in the room what you have to be eligible for to actually get a community based alternative (inaudible)?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Well, it's pretty difficult, we have a waiting list right now, so --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: But you must be eligible for a nursing home bed in order to get a community based alternative block.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: That's correct. And then you have been a part of seeking some of those waivers and we have done a yeoman's job I would say in the last six years, hasn't it been, Mr. Chairman, and even beyond there where we've tried to increase those slots. So one of the things that I think we see our struggle today as our budget sits is we have pretty severe cuts. And as I talked to Chairman Zerwas, I think things are going to improve on our reimbursement rate to --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: But there's something being left out. Because of that, wouldn't you agree that the residents in nursing homes are more frail than they ever have been because they've been in the community longer with services that have kept them in their homes, so by the time they get to a nursing home, they are extremely frail. And I don't know what kind of alternative you would have to those extremely frail individuals --
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: I think what we're looking at is those waivers and so many people are not -- the potential way they qualify today is you have to almost not have any money at all as you well know so I'm looking at flexibility there to say you could buy into a program. Why is it all or nothing? And I understand that some of it's cost savings but in no way -- I mean, my mother just died in October. And by the grace of God we had a long term care policy for her. It was very expensive. I spent a lot of time in the last 11 years in nursing homes. And we do have a lot of frail people there and this is not about keeping people from getting services. It's actually about finding ways so we don't wind up in the current situation we are with 34 percent cuts.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: And I understand that. But there's no way to save money on that frail population that is residing in nursing homes. This isn't like the way it was before, Cocoon
(inaudible) with a bunch of eggs and big old oysters come out of space.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Say that again, I didn't --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Oysters from out of space. You know, the movie Cocoon --
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Where they went swimming --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: -- where they went swimming at the house next door. And they did all that and they had the big oyster looking things that gave them energy. But the people that go into a nursing home now --
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Sure. And one of the things that would be nice if we could add a sliding scale where we could let people who have some means could be in our long term care facility.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Go to the next piece, the next piece had to do with someone's ability to do copays because under your bill it requires copays because as you say in here, people have to personally be responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Okay, let me give you a couple of examples on that and I think that dovetails into the use of health savings account which I think Indiana is currently doing and doing somewhat well. On the copayments some of that is in federal law and that was my clarification on one of the amendments. We're not going to in any way violate the federal law. But one of the examples would be that I had a lady that came in and her child is disabled. And even though she's a professor at the University of Texas and has healthcare there, you know, now her child is on Medicaid. And one of her encouragements to me was I am capable of paying a copay for my child, and if I were able to do that, ya'll could use that money in turn to cover more people that weren't able to. And so again I look at that kind of sliding scale --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: This isn't stopping her from writing that check now, is it?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: I don't know. I'm just keying off of some of the conversations that we've had.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: But if she wanted to make a donation to the state of Texas, she could, couldn't she?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: She could. I don't know if we have a 501(c)(3) but she could.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: We do.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: She could. But that's one of the examples we could use on that.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Well, you also go to a private market. (Inaudible) and I had this discussion about this picture being of this storefront somewhere off in the rolling hills of Texas with I have health insurance for you here. And you can buy it individually, when most health insurance right now is done through health plans; is that not correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: When most --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Most health insurance is done through some form of group health plan and through employers; is that not correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: So the challenge for the individual who works at Target who can't afford that plan is going to try to find a plan that's in no group. It's not a group plan, they're actually buying an individual family plan, how does your private market solution make up for the lack of product in a bunch of different areas?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: One of the things that would be potentially approved by CMS, we would like to consider, I would like to consider and health and human services is taking together groups where we have huge TRFs, we have huge groups that we could narrow --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Really? Like a high end program like we proposed for CHPs last year that the governor was going to veto?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Maybe.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Maybe. Okay. I said we'd do better if you were actually the queen of Texas. Those pooling of assets is actually a decent idea, but (inaudible) that shouldn't be a way we government.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Well, the government is certainly involved in ERFs and TRFs.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Well, no doubt about it. Thank God for them. I'm going to feed my family.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: And the University of Texas has their own program.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: And I think that could have -- I think that could work but the market itself doesn't work. And then the last thing you said -- is not there. And the last thing you talked about was the idea of what a waiver is and let's be really clear, the state of Texas asking the federal government to approve through a negotiated proposal back and forth the provisions of that request and it requires the state of Texas to actually answer questions; isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: It does. It's a give and take. We send up a document and then we begin a discourse with CMS.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Well, it seems as if we didn't do that when President Bush was president when the Senate Bill 10 from 2007 is actually sent up and then when the governor said President Obama denied his waiver, it was actually President Bush that denied the waiver through CMS then --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor raises the point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for or against?
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Can I ask that the lady's time be extended?
THE SPEAKER: The lady is going to be closing in just a second. The chair recognizes Representative Coleman.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Members, I'm not going to speak against House Bill 13, I appreciate the chairwoman adding one of my ideas to the bill on mental health. Although, Madam Chair, the governor doesn't think I should have that in one of my bills. He asked me to remove it. The most important thing to understand, members, is when we do a waiver or we look at -- any of us look at the Medicaid program. Just remember that these are people at 100 percent of the poverty or below or at best 185 percent and that will be a mother who is about to have a baby -- a baby that the mother had. These are not wealthy Texans, these are Texans that have a need because they have a very low income. Also as Chairwoman Kolkhorst said, somebody about 60 something percent, maybe 70 percent of the people in Medicaid, 10 percent of the cost of Medicaid are the age and disabled and blind. And these are people that are not, you know, skating on one of those rolling things on the ground like Eddie Murphy in -- what was that movie he was in where he was rolling in -- these are truly people who are disabled both physically and intellectually and otherwise and they'd require a lot of help. One of the things that flexibility means to a lot of people means cutting the benefit and cutting the service and I'm glad to see that Chairwoman Kolkhorst has put in provisions that follow federal law. But I am concerned about the products that have to be developed with the population that are discussed in the bill because there are not any products now, and if they were profitable, they would be on the market as we speak. So I just want to give those comments to the bill. She's getting it together, it's not quite right yet. And I know you're waiting for Representative Kolkhorst, so.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Ms. Giddings?
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Would the gentle lady yield for questions, please?
THE SPEAKER: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: I do.
THE SPEAKER: The lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Thank you very much. In looking at your House Bill 13 and in particular I've looked at the HRO report, and I want to ask you about some of the comments that perhaps are offered by what is termed opponents of the bill. Is there anything in House Bill 13 that would offer protections of the level of care that is provided today to the clinically ill of Texas?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: I actually just put on an amendment that in essence just said -- it kind of creates the floor of where we are today. So that we abide by federal law and the maintenance of effort established through the patient section of the Portable Care Act so that clarifies that.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Thank you very much. I've been here at the podium waiting to ask you a question, so I haven't actually seen the amendment that you just put up. Again, turning to the documents that I have before me ask you some of the propositions that have been offered up here. The federal government does not currently require a waiver (inaudible) change the eligibility criteria, increased coverage for the state nearly 6.5 million uninsured people. So can we then assume that the waiver that you're seeing would then lower the threshold and deny coverage to Texans for some of the programs and services offered today?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: No, ma'am. In fact, that again was one of the clarifications that I put on one of the amendments. I think that was one of the first or second ones. Second one.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Okay, thank you. I believe that Chairman Coleman asked you some questions, and I think I have the answers to these. But let me go ahead and be doubly sure. As I understand it, federal law prohibits the enforcement of copays. Does House Bill 13 put in place a methodology or a system of copays?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: No, I think the clarification that I'd like to give there, Representative Giddings, is that we were looking at -- that I was looking at potentially -- I say we because my staff has worked so hard on this with me that I give them buy in to this but the potential for having a sliding scale into Medicaid. Again, we set minimum levels. We're slightly above that in some levels. You know, pregnant women, we're a little bit above, you know, and we have the infants still a little above that. And we have different scales. But the idea there would be if the child was on Medicaid, could the family potentially buy into this and have sliding scales that might require copayment. Maybe not for the child in Medicaid but there could be a buy in potential there. What we're looking to do -- and I keep saying we because of the work that we've put into it as a team was to see -- and I truly predict -- and this was one Republican that I say we don't control costs in Medicaid by throwing people off the Medicaid rolls because they end up in our system and they end up sicker than they do any other place. Right? The goal was to actually maybe cover more people by allowing them to buy into -- they may not qualify for Medicaid in our current rolls but if we create a flexibility say they could have a buy in, a sliding scale, allow them to be part of the program, then they might be required to have copays, but that was the idea there in working with Health and Human Services Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: I think all of us in this House want to do away with any kind of waste or any kind of unnecessary spending but if we increase out of pocket costs, that might be the wrong way to go about it, don't you think, because the person might put off what might be preventative care because of the upfront cost, the out of pocket cost.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: We do not want them to do that and obviously one of the troubles we have right now is the reimbursement rates that we have to doctors and so our concern is -- my concern -- the committee's concern has always been how do we get -- and we had eloquent testimony of how we do get more doctors to see our patients and many of them -- although I think it's 42 percent of the physicians today see Medicaid patients. Of the doctors asked them how many do they see in practice. They may only see five or see Medicaid patients and they get into that 42 percent. So the idea would be to create a better system where patients could see reimbursement rates are better and I know that we'll be following up with some more bills here to look at. We're going to start looking at paying on an outcome basis. And trying again to look at how we pay our doctors and hospitals so that we could potentially one day pay them better rates and keep a better network for our Medicaid patients.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Well, I know that you haven't served on appropriations, understand it, as I do. This is one of the areas that we feel we have to control costs. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Correct. I was reading an article and you can see it in the pink box that 1 in $4 is spent in our general revenue on Medicaid right now and that's Health and Human Services. So we are doing our best. I'm being accused of chubbing, but I don't think we're chubbing. Are we?
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: I certainly don't intend to be chubbing. These are very serious questions for me because I'm very concerned about the low income, the chronically ill in our communities and I know what you know. That we either pay now or pay later. And just because we don't do it at the state doesn't mean that it doesn't get taken care of. Would you agree it gets passed on to county hospitals and other places? These people wind up in emergency rooms as their primary care physicians, right?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Also in our government and other places for all of us, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: So it just makes sense for all of us at the county, at the state, wherever to work together and try to control these costs as best we can. Wouldn't you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE GIDDINGS: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Coleman for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: Yeah, just one last question. Madam Chair, just as you and me and Ms. Giddings and a lot of people in here have appropriations experience, at least they thought they had, if we did short Medicaid in this two year budget by five months and we came in to do the requisite supplemental budget in 2013, would it be that we're short on paying Medicaid because Medicaid outgrew itself or would it be because we didn't fund it appropriately to the caseload that was indicated?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: You and I both know the answer to that. Which is if we did not intentionally pay for five months, then we would owe those five months --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: -- because it's an entitlement program --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: And this legislature has done so continuously, oh, since 2001 or maybe '99. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: You know, I think you can recall better than I. I think in 2001 we delayed the 24th payment and then we --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor of Collin raises the point of order the gentleman's time --
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: (Inaudible) --
THE SPEAKER: -- the point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE COLEMAN: -- because we delayed the payment of those services. We don't do that with public education.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: And point well taken. Obviously the growing need, this is asking permission from the federal government for some flexibility and work together. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone else wishing to speak on, for or against HB13? Chair recognizes Mr. Villareal. The question occurs on passage to engrossment House Bill 13. All in favor say aye, opposed say no. Ayes have it. House Bill 13 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3517.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3517 by Branch relating to the administration and business affairs of public institutions of higher education.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to move to postpone House Bill 3517 until 6:50 a.m. tomorrow, May 11th. Again, 6:50 a.m. May 11th, 2011.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HCR109.
THE CLERK: HCR109 by Orr proposing a constitutional amendment to clarify references to the permanent school fund and to allow the legislature by general law to direct the General Land Office to distribute revenue derived from permanent school fund land or properties to the available school fund.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Flynn.
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd like to postpone HCR109 to a time certain this evening.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: Please state your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I noticed that we're getting back into the habit of postponing a lot of bills and is there a particular reason -- we're not waiting on a Senate bill on the constitutional amendment.
THE SPEAKER: We'll let Representative Flynn answer that question.
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Representative Gallego, Representative Orr asked us to postpone it so that he could complete some of the information he needed to have for the bill when he lays it out this evening.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So he postponed it for an hour, more or less?
REPRESENTATIVE FLYNN: Yes, sir.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HB3055.
THE CLERK: HB3055 relating to the penalty for providing false information on an application for a ballot to be voted by mail.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Pena.
REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently it's a state felony for individuals to provide false information for a mail in ballot --
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I raise a point of order against further consideration of HB3055 under Rule 4, Section 20(a)(1).
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Farrar temporarily withdraws her point of order. Chair recognizes Representative Pena.
REPRESENTATIVE PENA: I will postpone the presentation and further discussion of this bill until 9:00 p.m. tonight.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HB3498. Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.
REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: Members, this particular provision that I'm trying to take care of here --
THE CLERK: HB3498 by Aliseda relating to the penalty for illegal voting.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Aliseda.
REPRESENTATIVE ALISEDA: This particular bill is trying to amend the election code and it's already part of the voter ID bill. So I'm going to move to postpone subject to call. I move to lay it on the table subject to call.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion, is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading HB2194.
THE CLERK: HB2194 by Taylor of Galveston relating to the conduct and administration of elections.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker and members, (inaudible) of the election code to allowed continued participation of the countywide polling program and it withholds the unofficial release of election results until the last voter has voted and an exemption (inaudible) of temporary election workers. And I will have an amendment on third reading (inaudible) conventions either in June or July.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Larry, what were the different provisions or the different things that the bill does again?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Well, there's the super precinct thing that's a pilot program, I believe there's four or five things we're doing that allows those four or five counties if they choose to to continue on in that program.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Is that for early voting or for election day voting?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: It's early voting to have one election place -- a polling place for the whole county. That they can vote anywhere within the county.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: I see. Okay. And what else does the bill include?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: It allows that they cannot release election results until the last voter has voted --
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: I'm sorry, they can't what?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: You can't release any election results until the last voter has voted.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: You mean for like a whole county?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Right. And then the final thing is getting election workers to work. A lot of times it's husbands and wives. In one county they've interpreted some laws to include election workers. And we're just allowing husbands and wives and family members -- you know, mothers, daughters, fathers, sons, whatever can be election workers. You know, it's very difficult to get election workers. They're there for long hours. You know, if we have a couple of election workers -- I know in my hometown we have a number of couples that have been doing this for many, many years and this just means that they don't apply the nepotism law to the election workers.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: I noticed in the HRO report there were different groups that supported the bill but then a few that testified against it including the AFLCIO, the Democratic party and the ACLU. Do you recall what their objections were in the committee testimony?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Well, in the original bill there was a section 1 that had to do with looking over people's shoulder. I have taken all of that out of this bill as part of the observing assistance, the first part of the bill and I have taken that out of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: And on the super precinct provision, that would be permissive, not mandatory; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Let me take that back real quick. The amendment I just read, line 1, page 4 (inaudible) -- yes, I'm sorry, I do need to file this amendment because what I just told you is not correct with the bill as it is right now.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: And the amendment is up right now, so let me --
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: That's what the problem was, observing voter assistance and I've stricken all of that language out of the bill, so now it's just a real simple part. And I've taken the objectionable parts out of that bill. I'm sorry.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: I just have one more question. But the super precinct part, that's a permissive provision, not a mandatory provision.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: It is. It's only for those not expanding, it's only for those counties that are already doing it, if they want to continue in the program. It was a request from my county, Galveston County.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I'm sorry, members, this is the amendment I talked about. It struck all the part about observers observing voter assistance and there was controversy on this and I wasn't trying to do that. So we struck that portion of the bill. And the parts that I talked about, the county wide programs, the unofficial election results being release and the exemption of the nepotism law for certain workers. And the adoption is acceptable to the author and I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for or against the bill? House Bill 2194. If not, Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to close.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, the question occurs on the passage to engrossment of HB2194. All those in favor say aye, opposed nay. The ayes have it. House Bill 2194 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2589.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2589 by Pena relating to the delivery of a voter registration application to the registrar by a volunteer deputy registrar; providing a criminal penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Pena.
REPRESENTATIVE MARTINEZ: I raise a point of order on House Bill 2589 that it violates Section 18(b).
THE SPEAKER: You can bring your point of order down front, Mr. Martinez. Representative Martinez temporarily withdraws his point of order. The Chair recognizes Representative Pena.
REPRESENTATIVE PENA: Members, we seem to have a little bit of game-ship going on here, so I'm going to postpone HB2589 until 9:15 tonight, p.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Hearing none, so ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2190.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2189 by Elkins relating to the deadline by which provisional ballots must be processed for certain elections.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I do have an amendment that I need to do a technical cleanup with.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Elkins.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. The floor right here says -- it talks about general election. General election to include all elections on the date of election pursuant to section 67.012(a) of the election code giving the governor three days to conduct a canvas since we moved the date three days for the county to canvas the vote. It's acceptable.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Castro?
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Just a question whenever Gary is done laying out his amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Elkins sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Well, what House Bill 2190 does is just help deal with the logistics in a general election, it only applies to a general election. Last year in 2008 Harris County had seven provisional ballots and it just created a problem and they had three days to get all the provisional ballots, a very manual process. What this does, when we passed the voter id, it created a way for people to clear up -- to prove their identity. This is just trying to conform what is going on with voter id six days and to give the registrars in the largest counties time to manually process these ballots. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: And so, Gary, you're giving the voter basically those days in that six day window -- the voter has six days and so now you're giving the official those six days, I guess.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: This is a provisional ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Yes. This gives them more time because it's a very manual process. There's no way to automate it. They have to go get -- like in Harris County, they have to go get 7,000 votes last time.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: And then identify them by precinct and then go in and then each person has to go in and manually search four or five days because it's a very time consuming process and just logistically they could not accomplish the task in three days. It has resulted in a lawsuit and the taxpayers are out money as a result. This is just trying to solve a logistical problem and it is only to general elections.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Do you recall in the committee testimony if there was any opposition to it or --
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: People did turn in a witness affirmation being opposed but no one was there to answer any questions and we asked the committee and no one voted against it in committee but I did talk to Representative Veazey and Representative Farias about this bill. In fact, they called your registrar in San Antonio as well and they're okay with it.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Okay, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose, Mr. Madden?
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Will Representative Elkins yield for I think it's just one question?
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Gary, does this affect the canvas that has to be done after any election in any way? Do you have enough time in there --
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: It moved to 33 days. That's what the amendment did, it moved it from 15 to 18 and 30 to 33.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Okay, very good. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE ELKINS: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Elkins moves passage of House Bill 2190. All those in favor say aye, opposed no. The ayes have it, House Bill 2190 passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2359.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2359 by Hopson relating to direct campaign expenditures.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hopson.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. House Bill 2359 relates to direct campaign expenditures. The Supreme Court in
(inaudible) included that it was unconstitutional to prohibit a corporation from making a direct campaign expenditure. Yes, sir.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Of course.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Hopson, as you remember, I used to carry a lot of the campaign finance bill so it's a scenario I know well and I'm somewhat passionate about. Your bill removes the prohibition against the corporate and labor organizations making contributions. So now whether it be some local corporation or someone as big as Exxon Mobile could contribute directly to a -- well, let me back up. Because originally if a corporation wanted to make campaign contributions that corporation had to form a PAC in order to make those contributions; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: That is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So under your legislation it is no longer necessary for a corporation to file a PAC but they can make that contribution directly to a candidate for a cause.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Mr. Chairman, they cannot give it directly to the -- under this bill and under the Supreme Court ruling, they can't give it directly to the campaign but they can make a political expenditure, and that expenditure is defined as part of the freedom of speech and if a corporation, any corporation, decides to support candidate X over candidate Y, they can make direct contributions or direct campaign expenditures, take out ads, take out television, take out whatever but they cannot do it in coordination with the candidate.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So they can make a -- let's use an example, they can't write a contribution directly to the Chuck Hopson campaign.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: That's absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: They can put up billboards that say Chuck Hopson's a great guy, vote Chuck Hopson.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: But the limitations are if they see you're coordinating it with them, if your signs look just like your political signs, they have the same logo, they have the same colors, and all that, they can't do that.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: What's the penalty?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: The penalty is -- well, there's several different ones. I'm sorry, Mr. Gallego, I'm having to look.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Because what I see in the HRO report is some of the requirements, but I don't see anything that indicates what happens if you violate the law.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: You know, it's just exactly like our law is now. And the penalties are such that if they were making an illegal campaign contribution, that's the penalty. I mean, I don't know what the penalty is right now.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So, for example, the issue when Governor Perry and the National Governor's Association, where Perry's campaign had to pay I think it was three times the amount of the money that was expended, so that penalty is not changed, it would still be three times the amount of the benefit received?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Mr. Gallego, I don't know.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So you're not doing anything with respect to changing the penalties, you're changing the mechanics.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Yeah, all I'm doing is changing the wording. Currently it says contribution and expenditures are prohibited, we're leaving that contributions there, and it'll make it contributions are prohibited but expenditures would not be.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: There's a paragraph in the HRO report that says "A direct campaign expenditure consisting of congressional travel expenses incurred by an individual could be made without complying with the reporting requirements." What does that mean?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Well, what it means now is that under this thing a corporation makes a political expenditure, they have to report it just exactly like they were an individual or a PAC giving you money. And they free it up under this one so you as the candidate don't have to report it but they have to report it themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So in other words, they could pay my travel to -- or your travel to go speak to one of their groups and it would be reported by them but it would not be reported -- you and I would not report it -- would not have to report it on our form.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: What it says is that under this one, the donations or the expenditures -- the contributions are prohibited but expenditures are not and what we're addressing here is that if a corporation decides to maybe take out a billboard, take out a TV ad, take out a paper ad, then they're allowed to do that. But they can't make a political (inaudible). So we're really not addressing that one in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: That's my only question really. I understand the idea about the billboards or whatever, but when it talks about travel expenses because as you know travel expenses has been occasionally somewhat difficult for members of the legislature to understand what the rules are with respect to travel expenses -- and if you don't mind having a conversation with me offline about what that means, direct political expenditure concerning personal travel incurred by an individual, would that individual be a candidate? Is that what we're talking about?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: I don't think so. And under this bill we're not addressing travel or lunches or anything. We're simply addressing the ability of a corporation or a labor union to make a campaign expenditure in their behalf.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I appreciate that, Mr. Hopson. Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Thank you very much. And move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Christian, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Of course.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Chuck, I'm just wanting some clarification on some of us in small, rural areas and the talk has been -- and I just want to clarify it. Say the people give you
(inaudible) and say they're out 100, $200 for that, are they going to be required to report anything at that low a level?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: This one doesn't cover that one at all. This one is strictly about corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Corporations. So this doesn't hinder anything that individuals in campaigns do as far as local clubs, Republican, Democrat, local clubs, volunteers, anything like that?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: This doesn't cover the Rotary Club having you speak, buy your lunch, it doesn't cover any of that. It just covers profit and nonprofit corporations.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Okay, when you mention nonprofit, that would be like a charitable organization that might want you to come and speak somewhere and were to pay your hotel room overnight or something like that?
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: No, this doesn't deal -- this is simply where a corporation makes an expenditure and they could be against you or for you, they can take out billboards, they can take out ads, they can print out flyers and mail them, but it has nothing to do with that stuff.
REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTIAN: Okay, thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE HOPSON: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against HB2359? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of HB2359. Record vote has been requested, record vote is granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Aliseda voting aye. Show Representative Raymond voting aye. Representative Bonham voting aye. Representative Gonzales of Willen voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Being 109 ayes, 28 nays, House Bill 2359 is passed to engrossment. Representative Miller for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Members, the committee on homeland security and public safety, we are canceling our meeting for tonight. We will not meet.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out House Bill 804 on second reading, the clerk will please read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 804 by Lewis relating to the offense of illegal voting by a person who is not a United States citizen.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. House Bill --
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Alonzo, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to raise a point of order on this bill.
THE SPEAKER: Please bring your point of order down front. Representative Alonzo respectfully withdraws his point of order and Representative Lewis for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move to postpone further consideration of House Bill 804 until 9:30 this evening, tonight.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 628. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 628 by Callegari relating to contracts by governmental entities and related professional services and to public works performance and payment bonds.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CALLEGARI: Members, this bill consolidates (inaudible) into a single chapter of the government code.
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE CALLEGARI: This is similar to the legal approach of the procurement of legal services --
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: I raise a point of order Rule 4, Section 11 and Rule 4, Section 12.
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order down front. Representative Burnam temporarily withdraws his point of order. Representative Callegari for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to postpone this bill until 9:30 p.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members, (inaudible) House Bill 889 is ineligible. The Chair lays out 1505, the clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB1505 by Uresti relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of a real property interest in oil or gas in place.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Lewis.
REPRESENTATIVE LEWIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. House Bill -- what this bill does is it resolves an issue that was had regarding the appraisal of oil and gas properties in Texas for some years. Everyone has -- it's a difficult thing to do, appraise these properties for ad valorem tax purposes. Everyone's gotten together, worked on this hard and the bill before you resolves the issue and
(inaudible) to determine the market values of these proprieties for ad valorem tax purposes.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1505? The Chair hears none. The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1505. All those in favor say aye, opposed say no. The ayes have it, Senate Bill 1505 is passed to engrossment. Representative Lewis moves to lay House Bill 889 on the table subject to call. Is there objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1766, the clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1766 by Crownover relating to the creation of a voluntary consumer-directed health plan for certain individuals eligible to participate in the insurance coverage provided under the Texas Employees Group Benefits Act and their qualified dependents.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Crownover to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This bill is (inaudible) for TRS members to have a health savings account. And I have two amendments that are clarifying. Mr. Anchia has one and I have a second one.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Crownover sends up an amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Anchia.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. In response to concerns from professional organizations, we are going to be sunsetting this program in 2017 and I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Anchia offers up an amendment. It's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes, it's acceptable, and I think it's a nice safeguard. We want to make sure this program works --
THE SPEAKER: Are there any objections? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Crownover for an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Representative Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Will the gentle lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Yes.
THE SPEAKER: She will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you, Representative Crownover. This second amendment that you put on related to concerns about adverse selection in the pool and your amendment deals with that, right?
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Well, it's not up there and they've said they will not lift the risk pools. So do you want me to offer it?
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: No, that's okay. I was just a little confused about what was going on.
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: I'm confused too because it was filed.
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Maybe we'll do it on third reading.
REPRESENTATIVE CROWNOVER: Happy to. Thank you. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speaking for or against House Bill 1766? The Chair hears none. The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1766. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it, and House Bill 1766 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1205. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1205 by Turner relating to the procedures for reducing or terminating community supervision and the establishment of certain time credits through which a defendant's period of community supervision is reduced.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Turner to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Madam Speaker and members, HB1205 implements a system of incentives and encourages the completion of behavioral milestones on probationers. Specifically this bill will establish credits for community supervision sentences and it must be approved by the judge. Who is not covered. Anyone with a first degree, second degree and those offenses and 3G violent offenders are not included, sex offenders are not included, those guilty of family violence and DWIs are not included. The bill has been worked out with DA's, has the support of various groups and I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE CARTER: Hi, Madam Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CARTER: I'd like to raise a point of order.
THE SPEAKER: Bring your point of order to the front. Representative Carter temporarily postpones her point of order. The Chair recognizes Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: Move to postpone until 9:45 p.m. on this date.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2707. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 2707 by Burnam relating to the holding of an interest in certain alcoholic beverage licenses, permits, or premises by certain persons whose alcoholic beverage license or permit has been revoked.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This is the (inaudible) bill that has been voted out of committee unanimously. It gives the TABC a tool to use in deciding whether or not bars should be or not reissued licenses after there has been a violent act there, murder, stabbings, shootings. Move this to adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gerren for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: I will gladly yield to a supporter of the bill.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Burnam, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: I will yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Mr. Burnam, is this an attempt to keep a problem location from getting a new permit, a new permit, a new permit after TABC revokes, revokes, revokes?
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: That's exactly what this is intended to do.
REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: So we're trying to keep bad locations where alcoholic beverages and bad behavior, we're trying to cut that out? Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: That's exactly right.
REPRESENTATIVE GEREN: Thank you, sir. It's a good bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BURNAM: Thank you. Move to adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against the bill? Chair hears none. The question occurs on passage to engrossment. All those in favor say aye, opposed say nay. The ayes have it. The Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 1228. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1228 by Dutton relating to foreclosure of a property owners' association assessment lien.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This bill essentially comes by way of the fact that homeowners associations when they foreclose on a lien, sometimes they are the second position lienholder. Not to them in the primary position.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: Madam Speaker and members, there are some liens by homeowners associations that are primary and some are secondary. what this does is fixes it so all of those liens that are secondary requiring them to give notice to the primary lienholder. I move adoption of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Dutton sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, it is acceptable. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Dutton.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Dutton on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DUTTON: I withdraw this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Menendez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. What this amendment does is it simply puts in the statute commonsense and fairness. If the homeowners association makes a mistakes and puts a lien on a property in error, they should accept responsibility and take prompt action to remedy their mistake once the error has been determined. And it is acceptable to the author. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Menendez sends up an amendment. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 1228. All those in favor say aye, opposed say nay. The ayes have it, House Bill 1228 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 3001. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 3001 by Thompson relating to the electronic monitoring of certain high-risk sex offenders; providing a penalty.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to explain her bill.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a bill that puts monitors on high risk sex offenders if there's not a court order or civil commitment on these individuals. I think there's one amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Thompson.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Madam Speaker and members, there was a clinical error made in the bill and this corrects that error.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Thompson offers up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Thompson.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Members, this is the amendment I just explained. It corrects a clerical error in the bill. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Thompson offers up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Villareal.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Villareal.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: You know this is not an acceptable amendment. What are you doing sending this amendment up here?
THE SPEAKER: Is Representative Villareal on the floor of the House? The amend is withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Madden.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Madden.
REPRESENTATIVE MADDEN: Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment we've worked out with the governor's office specifically dealing with sex offenders and using electronic monitoring on them. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Madden offers up an amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to close.
REPRESENTATIVE THOMPSON: Madam Speaker, members, I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, is there anyone wishing to speak on or against House Bill 3001? The Chair hears none. The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of House Bill 3001. All those in favor say aye, opposed say nay. The ayes have it, House Bill 3001 is passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out on second House Bill 1951. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1951 by Turner of Galveston relating to the continuation and operation of the Texas Department of Insurance and the operation of certain insurance programs; imposing administrative penalties.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to explain the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. This is a sunset bill for the Texas Department of Insurance. We've got about 66 amendments. Maybe I should save my comments for the end. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chair. I've got two amendments here. The first amendment has to do with TWIA. We haven't heard much about that today. But these are several items that have to do with how TWIA is handled, basically it's direct billing, provides the department greater enforcement authority over engineers and qualified inspectors. Subject TWIA to Open Meetings and Open Records Act, requires all board meetings to be broadcast live and archived no less than two years, authorize the commissioner or commissioner's representative including closed board meetings and reduces the (inaudible) required from 180 days to 90 days. That's pretty much amendment No. 1.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hunter, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: For the record, Larry, does this have anything to do with rates?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Absolutely not. This is all about process of how they do things within the system. I guess the direct billing if that ends up being a cost saver to the whole system, it could reduce rates.
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: So basically this amendment and the amendment that you know of and that you're putting on has nothing to do with rates as to TWIA?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm very curious to the thought behind archiving or having to keep things for two years. And I wonder -- not to take up the body's time but if you'd be amenable to doing at least five years. I've found that a two year extension -- a two year period of time is a very short period of time --
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: It is no less than two years. It doesn't prevent them from keeping them longer.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I understand that, but I'm wondering if we can do something like five on third reading, if that's okay with you.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: That doesn't bother me.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So rather than take up the body's time with an amendment to the amendment, if we can just do that tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: That's fine.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Once again, move passage of the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Representative Taylor sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, I'm trying to make this process quick for us. What this would amendment would do is strike the enacting clause and then if that goes on, I have an amendment to redo sunset next year. And the reason for this is because of the separation of powers. And it's not the governor's fault necessarily. But at the beginning of this session, the insurance commission Mike Deason announced that he was not going to seek reappointment and therefore there's a vacancy. Obviously the governor has not nominated an insurance commissioner to take his place by now and there's going to be an interim appointment of the commissioner and therefore not be subject to Senate confirmation. So my thought is since we're going to have an interim commissioner, we should have an interim TDI. And then next session when the insurance commissioner goes through confirmation through the Senate, we can redo TDI at sunset and save us a lot of time. I know that the governor has looked, has interviewed people but they have not found someone to put up for nomination. So I think to keep our powers equal and separate, we should sunset TWIA -- I mean, not do TDI and get it in two years and at the same time do the commissioner. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I'm going to have to, on behalf of the sunset commission, this is the second session in a row they have done the Texas Department of Insurance sunset, I don't think they're looking forward to doing it again for the third time in a row, so as far as having the new commissioner, this is about the agency, the department, it's not about who the commissioner is at the time, the process will be set up, we will be having a new leader but it doesn't affect the process. I would move to table the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to close. He closes. Mr. Eiland sends up an amendment, Mr. Taylor moves to table the amendment. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Eiland voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? there being 101 ayes and 42 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This second amendment has to do with the public adjustor advisory board. The board will be comprised of mainly private adjustors but also includes stakeholders from the insurance community as well as public members. (Inaudible) for public adjustors, claims handling, catastrophic (inaudible), etc. The board will increase levels of professionalism across the state. The amendment is acceptable to the author and I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Mr. Taylor sends up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 6.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar. Representative Farrar. Representative Farrar temporarily withdraws her amendment. The amendment on page 7 is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 11 of the packet. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to explain his amendment. Members, the amendment on page 11 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 13 is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 15. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Darby.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This amendment to HB1951 is offered due to feedback and responses from the Texas Department of Insurance and includes technical changes for the title insurance industry to which the parties involved have agreed upon. I think there is an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Orr.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, this takes two amendments -- two addendums off of the title policies to pay $50. I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. The amendment is acceptable to the author, is there any objections? Chair hears none, so ordered. The amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Hughes.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. This amendment to the amendment offered by Mr. Orr clarifies mineral estates and exceptions in title industries. It is acceptable to the author. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. The amendment is acceptable to Mr. Darby. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Anderson of Dallas.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Anderson of Dallas.
REPRESENTATIVE ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is an amendment that allows the Department of Insurance to participate in educational activities provided by the Association of Title Insurance.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Anderson sends up an amendment that is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Now, on the Darby amendment as amended. Chair recognizes Representative Darby.
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: I believe the amendment is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Howard for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Absolutely.
THE SPEAKER: He does.
REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Representative Darby, I thought I heard you say this is a negotiated amendment with the title industry. Is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Thank you. Acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? The Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, the amendment on page 27 is temporarily withdrawn. The amendment on page 30 is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 33. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez Fischer. Is Mr. Trey Martinez Fischer on the floor of the House? The amendment is withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. We're on page 34.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gutierrez. Is Mr. Gutierrez on the floor of the House? This amendment is temporarily withdrawn. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, the amendment on page is withdrawn. The amendment on page 41 is withdrawn. The amendment on page 43 is temporarily withdrawn. Is Mr. Smithee on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 44 is withdrawn. Is Mr. Walle on the floor of the House? Members, we're on page 69. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In order to make competition work and increase transparency for policyholders, they must be given relevant information in a usable format so they can easily make informed decisions. This amendment simply provides consumers with valuable information including specific information about policy increase and description of any coverage and TDI resources that can help them shop around. In addition, this amendment requires insureds to list percentage deductibles in real dollars. This amendment does not require any new notification, it simply requires insurers to display information on current notifications that will help policyholders understand what they are paying for. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We're trying to go on these like bills, they were kind of herded through committee process and voted out and this is not one we've done that with. We held it up in committee, and I move that we table the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Again, this is just about transparency for consumers. It's a good bill, doesn't require any new notification and I move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle sends up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table the amendment. The motion is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, the clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Walle voting no, Representative Taylor voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? Show Representative Burkett voting aye. Have all members voted? Show Representative Branch voting aye. Have all members voted? With a vote of 96 ayes and 45 nays, the motion to table prevails. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Zerwas.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas. Members, we're on page 71.
REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This is an amendment that would establish guidelines to be administered by the Texas Department of Insurance for the establishment of a marketplace for qualified health plans. Everything is permissive in this amendment. TDI may take these guidelines but is not forced to create such programs. And I think we have an amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Zerwas.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE ZERWAS: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This amendment simply recognizes the three share or tri share programs that are around the state as being recognized as a possible qualified health plan under this scenario. And it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Zerwas sends up an amendment to the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Now we're back on the Zerwas amendment as amended. Representative Zerwas' amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members, the amendment on page 72 is temporarily withdrawn. Is Representative Farrar on the floor of the House? The amendment on page 75 is temporarily withdrawn. Members, we're on page 79. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Burkett.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Burkett to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE BURKETT: Members, this amendment applies only to the property insurance policies that already contain alternative dispute resolution procedures. And it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Burkett sends up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Are there any objections? Does anyone wish to speak for or against the amendment? Members, this is objection to Representative Burkett's amendment. Question occurs on Representative Burkett's amendment, vote aye, vote no. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Murphy voting aye. Show Representative Burkett voting aye. Show Representative Taylor voting aye. Show Representative Branch voting aye. Representative Eiland voting no. Representative Walle voting no. A reminder, you all have desks. Has everyone voted? With a vote of 99 ayes and 42 nays, the amendment prevails. Members, we're now on page 82. amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Rodriguez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. This amendment protects businesses and families alike from being abused by insurance companies. Policyholders pay their premiums and they rightly expect companies will in turn uphold their end of the deal by paying verified legitimate claims in a timely manner. My amendment adds to the list of unfair claims settlement practices and offering up financial incentives for insurance executives, employees or contractors to deny or delay claims or cancel or renew policies. Basically, members, this says you can't incentivize delays or denial of claims in their compensation package. I think this amendment is fair to the consumer, and with that, members, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to speak in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: With all due respect to my colleague, Mr. Rodriguez, this is kind of a vague new description of an unfair settlement practice. It appears (inaudible) to delay payment of claims, (inaudible) and encourages additional lawsuits. I'm going to move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Rodriguez on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker, members. We've all heard about this, heard that there's an incentive by some insurance companies, maybe a lot of insurance companies to deny claims, to make these claims last longer. We know it's happening and we've seen reports of it, you know what I'm talking about. What this is saying is we're prohibiting this from happening. We're saying we paid our premium and in turn they're going to pay the claims in a timely manner and not go through the process of delaying or denying claims, and actually sometimes have compensation packages for folks to do that. We need to stop that from happening, and I ask that you vote no on the motion to table. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Rodriguez sends up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table the amendment. The question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Taylor voting aye. Show Representative Rodriguez voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? With 95 ayes and 48 nays the motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Chairman Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Madam Speaker, members, I request permission for the committee on calendars to meet while the House is in session at 10:00 p.m. today May 10th, place 3W15 to consider our calendar.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. The following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The committee on calendars will meet at 10 p.m. on May 10th, 2011, in 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to set a calendar.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we're on page 84. Chair recognizes Representative Eiland to speak on the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Temporarily withdraw.
THE SPEAKER: Members, the amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. The amendment on page 86 is withdrawn. Members, we're now on page 89. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock to speak the amendment. Mr. Hancock. The amendment is withdrawn. Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
THE SPEAKER: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Can I ask procedurally with respect to the calendars committee meeting and setting House Bill 400, as I understand, the last calendar has to be distributed today; is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: It needs to be distributed 36 hours before it is considered.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: So assuming -- well, hold on. As I look at this chart, Mr. Speaker, I guess that's provided by the legislative counsel, it says with respect to today by 10 p.m. the last daily calendar of HBs and HCRs must be distributed by 10 p.m. this evening. Is that correct?
THE SPEAKER: Yes, Representative Gallego, but if you'll notice Note No. 2 says the House rules do not have the express deadline for distributing calendars on the 122nd, the 123rd, 128th, 132nd and 133rd day. So if you'll read No. 2, I think that's printed up there on the 120th day, Tuesday the 10th it says see note 2.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I understand it says see note 2 but that relates to Thursday as opposed to a calendar that's being distributed today? I guess I'm not sure there's not a 36 hour -- it shouldn't say by 10 p.m. because that's not correct. is that accurate?
THE SPEAKER: I believe that would be accurate. And it says by the 22nd which is Thursday but it means in reference to the calendar that is set today for being the 22nd which would be Thursday.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I'm just curious if House Bill 400 is set if the calendar is set at 36 hours, at what time would House Bill 400 become eligible for consideration on Thursday? Would it eligible for consideration Thursday morning --
THE SPEAKER: 36 hours from when it's set.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: 36 hours from tonight's calendar meeting until the calendar is printed and distributed?
THE SPEAKER: That sounds fairly accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Thank you, Representative Gallego. Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock. We're on page 92. Representative Hancock to explain his amendment. Take your time. The amendment on page 92 is withdrawn. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Representative Walle, page 95.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment would simply ban the use of credit scoring for auto and homeowners insurance policies. Credit scoring is the practice of using credit history to set insurance rates. Credit scoring hurts families suffering with this economic crisis. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Yeah, members, we've had this discussion on credit scoring over a number of sessions. When we enacted insurance reform in 2003 we included a lot of protective language that was also later updated in 2005, credit scoring has proven to be an ineffective predictor of risk. In fact, if you look at our auto market in Texas, it has become much more competitive since the emergence of credit scoring, being able to use that for risk prediction, and we have a lot of competition in the marketplace. And there are some carriers that do not credit scoring at all. So there are options out there. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Solomon.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Would the gentleman yield for a section?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: I know that we've had this issue before on, I don't know, two or three other occasions in one form or another, and I understand there are some statistical information and you said some insurance companies use it and some insurance companies don't. Are you able to delineate what companies -- is TDI able to delineate which companies use credit scoring for auto insurance and which companies use credit scoring for homeowner insurance companies and which do not? Is it posted anywhere?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I've heard it advertised on TV on (inaudible) TV. I have that information --
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: Well, I haven't heard it advertised. I'm asking you, Mr. Taylor, if in fact TDI posts which companies use that information and which ones do not. I have a personal friend back in my district who's a constituent, who's losing her house over raises in insurance and over the fact solely because of her credit score over disputed matters. Now, the problem that I have is I don't have a problem with the marketplace, I don't have a problem with companies using credit scoring if they want to, but in fact is there any distinguishment in the state of Texas where one can go and say that you said, basically, that some insurance companies uses it and some do not, others use it and other do not, is there anything in your bill, is there anything that TDI does, is there anything in Mr. Walle's amendment, is there any place anybody can go and find out who doesn't, so it's easily identifiable and people that have credit problems might be able to get some help.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I believe TDI does have a website that has that type of information on it. There are companies that don't use credit scoring, so that is available as an option.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: They may, but, you know, I'm just telling you, she's going to lose her house over this.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: We've got some TDI folks back in the back, so we'll get that information from you if you want to withdraw this amendment for a moment and get back to you.
REPRESENTATIVE SOLOMON: It may be amendable -- if it's not published by TDI where people can go online and find out what companies use credit scoring and if there's a reporting mechanism and who's not so that people can have a chance both for auto insurance and for homeowners -- I don't care -- you know, it's marketplace. But at least someone has got to be able to find without making 25 phone calls maybe to find somebody.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: We'll get that information for you, Mr. Solomon. We'll hold the amendment up. Do you want to know the information or hold the amendment up? It's definitely on the TDI website.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: If Mr. Solomon can come back, I can show him on the TDI website where it shows.
THE SPEAKER: You're extremely helpful. Thank you. Excuse Representative Gonazales because of illness on a motion of Otto. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Excuse members of the calendars committee because of a calendars committee meeting on a motion by Representative C. Anderson. So ordered. Representative Walle respectfully temporarily withdraws his amendment. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this amendment will be found in your books on page 99.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Howard of Travis to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE D. HOWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is not quite what the last amendment talked about but it is still about informing consumers by TDI posting to their website information about how to access their credit history or their claims history reports because there are sometimes errors there. This would give them the opportunity to correct those errors since those are used sometimes in looking at and evaluating policies and determining prices.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Will the lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Will the lady yield? The lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Representative Howard, I appreciate what you're trying to do. I think it's important for people to access and get this information because I know in my own history there have been people who have claimed -- have just made an inquiry and a claim was set up on them and then once they found that out, they were able to make that correction. But the question that I have is do you understand that the insurance score is not the same as their credit score? There is a difference between the two.
REPRESENTATIVE D. HOWARD: Yes. All this is doing is just giving the consumer information so that they can access their credit and claims history report to correct any errors there in those reports. It had nothing to do with the insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Right. And yu understand those are just factors that go in to make up the insurance scores.
REPRESENTATIVE D. HOWARD: But it's just to give them information so they can make sure the information is accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: I think that's admirable.
REPRESENTATIVE D. HOWARD: Thank you. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Miller of Travis
(sic) sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, so ordered. Members, we're going to go back to Taylor amendment 1 on page 1. Mr. Taylor moves to reconsider the vote by which amendment 1 on page 1 was adopted. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. We are back on the Taylor amendment on page 1. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Taylor of Galveston.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to do the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Members, this was an amendment I did earlier. Unfortunately it was a five page amendment, I didn't scan all of it. Everything that I mentioned earlier -- the three pages weren't there. I move passage. It is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Members, it was a scanning error. Representative Taylor has offered up an amendment to the amendment. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. The amendment as amended is before us. It is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment as amended is adopted. Members, we are on page 100. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment simply requires insurance companies to tell consumers how they can improve their credit score under the insurer's specific methodology. The methodology used by insurance companies is different than what is used by creditors and each insurance company has a unique methodology and that is why it's so important that the consumer be given information as to how they can improve their credit under that specific methodology. My intent here is just to give consumers information they need to give good decisions when purchasing insurance.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Walle offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment. Members, back up, I apologize. There's an amendment to the Walle amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Alonzo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Just a moment, members, I want to talk to Representative Walle real quick.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo.
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: Yes, Mr. Speaker, members, while Mr. Walle is reviewing the amendment, if you will look at the screen, members, basically what this amendment says is that there will be no discrimination based on sexual orientation.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ALONZO: I close, members.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Alonzo offers up an amendment to the Walle amendment, Mr. Walle is opposed to the amendment. This is a division vote. A record vote has been requested, a record vote is granted. All those in favor of the Alonzo amendment vote aye; those opposed vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Mr. Alonzo voting aye. Mr. Taylor voting no. Show Mr. Walle voting aye. Show Mr. Torres voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 23 ayes, 98 nays, three present not voting, the amendment to the amendment fails to adopt. We're now back on the Walle amendment, the Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to close. Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor in opposition to the Walle amendment. Mr. Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: Parliamentary inquiry. Can we get the Walle amendment back on the screen. We've still got the amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Possibility, Mr. Howard. We'll ask them to get that done for you. It is on page 100. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor of Galveston County against the Walle amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What Mr. Walle is asking for as far as consumer information is already available on the Texas Department of Insurance website. He also goes beyond that where every insured or every person that applies, the insurer would have to tell that individual person how to improve their particular credit score, and that particular information is not always available at that time. It would provide a lot of increases, a lot of administrative costs, and for that reason I would have to move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Would this gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield, Mr. Taylor?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Taylor, are these a kind of trade secrets or a way insurance companies are able to effect a lesser charge to some than others?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Yes, sir, and that's how they compete.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: That's how they compete, and so that takes it away from them basically.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: You could actually compromise consumer privacy the way the company knowing that much detail about each individual consumer --
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: So it gets in the privacy of each individual consumer and violates that --
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Exactly. That's why I'm moving to table.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Representative Taylor, Chairman Taylor, isn't it also a fact that this information is proprietary to each company that they spend literally hundreds of thousands and sometimes millions of dollars developing their rates and figuring out what portion of a person's background is what meets their profile for a customer?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: You're absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: So that goes again to the privacy issue that you were talking about a minute ago, doesn't it?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Okay, I support your motion to table.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Walle to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Representative Solomon was earlier talking about, one of the -- probably a (inaudible) member or a constituent member that he has in reference to her credit score, this is important so that she has the ability to at least make sure that she could do something better or have an option in improving her credit score so their insurance premiums aren't so high. And one of the things that we need to realize is that with this economy, there are a lot of folks that through no fault of their own are having their credit scores being affected when you have three different credit scores from three different companies that tell you very different things. We've heard a lot of testimony in committee about that, and actually the idea for this amendment came after a very long discussion in committee late at night where Representative Sheets made -- particularly on notification and how we could notify folks. And the goal was not so much to get the insurers to divulge any kind of trade secrets or any kind of that nature but how they could better their score so they could pay less in premiums. And I think this is a good amendment that is very helpful to working families that have a tough time right now with their credit scores being affected. And I move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table, division vote. All those in favor of tabling the Walle amendment, vote aye; those opposed vote no. Representative Taylor is voting aye. Representative Walle is voting no. Have all voted? There being 83 ayes, 32 nos, three present not voting, the amendment is tabled. The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, this is on page 101.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Vo.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Vo.
REPRESENTATIVE VO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this amendment does is prohibit the insurance companies from reporting inquiries to the claims database. I believe it is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Vo offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Is Mr. Gallego on the floor of the House? Mr. Gallego. The amendment is withdrawn. Members, we're on page 105. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Torres.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Torres.
REPRESENTATIVE TORRES: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is a very simple one. What it does is update existing law to acknowledge even practices with regard to the prompt pay standards for pharmacy benefit managers, and this is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Torres offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Page 112 of your booklets.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Coleman.
THE SPEAKER: Is Mr. Coleman on the floor of the House? Amendment's withdrawn. Amendment on page 115 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 118. The Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: State law requires employer to provide coverage and others in the group market getting notice 60 days in advance so they have time to shop around. This notice simply requires that a notice of rate increase in the individual market be sent 60 days in advance matching the current requirement in the group market.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Members, the amendment is on page 133. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Martinez Fischer.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Martinez Fischer. Amendment on page 133 is Martinez Fischer's. Amendment is withdrawn. Members, page 140. Chair lays out the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a bill that we filed at the request of TDI and it deals with retained asset accounts and we have an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: This amendment makes the provisions opt in -- opt out instead of opt in and it's acceptable to the author, that's me. The amendment is acceptable to Mr. Taylor.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland offers up an amendment to his amendment, it's acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment to the amendment is adopted. Representative Eiland offers up an amendment to the bill, the amendment is acceptable to the author, Mr. Taylor. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment. Members, we're on page 158. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Christian.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Christian has withdrawn the amendment. Members, we're on page 160, the Smithee amendment. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker, members, I think this amendment is acceptable to the author. It just prevents from making an optometrist from participating in two separate plans to be able to participate in one.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, page 162. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a bill we've been working on. The amendment is acceptable to the author. It deals with physician and hospital contracts and makes people notify the physician and has the right to take a discount. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Page 175, Amendment by Smithee. the Chair recognizes Representative Smithee to explain his amendment. Members, the amendment is withdrawn. Thank you, Dr. Zerwas. The amendment on page 179 is withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Eissler for an amendment. Public Ed members, please pay attention. Announcement and an amendment, same difference.
REPRESENTATIVE EISSLER: Public Ed meeting for this evening is canceled and will be rescheduled later. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Members, the amendment on page 196 is temporarily withdrawn. Representative Keffer. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment on page 219. Mr. Keffer.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Keffer.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is withdrawn. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment. Page 220. Clerk, one moment. Members, we're going to temporarily hold off on the amendment on page 220. Members, the amendment on page 220 is not withdrawn, we're temporarily holding it as they work on it. Members, we're now on page 221. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Davis of Dallas. Representative Davis temporarily withdraws her amendment. Mr. Veasey. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we're on page 224. The amendment is withdrawn. Amendment on page 226, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hernandez Luna.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hernandez Luna to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment requires that insurance companies provide crucial coverage when policyholders are displaced from their homes. This coverage would cover additional living expenses, ALE. ALE and homeowners policies reimburse the cost of living at a temporary location until you can return back to your home. Additional living expenses include items such as food and housing costs. The coastal region has had several mandatory evacuations in the past two years because of Hurricanes Rita, Ike and Dolly. During Hurricane Rita there were mandatory evaluations followed by weeks without electricity. Thousands of people were asked to leave their homes and for weeks following the hurricanes. This amendment requires insurance companies to provide this additional (inaudible) coverage if there is a natural disaster. The commission by rules will determine the terms and conditions for the required payments, and I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Miller.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Will the gentle lady yield?
THE SPEAKER: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Representative, isn't there already a provision in the homeowners' policy that would address this issue?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: That is correct, but there is no provision requiring the insurance companies to pay these claims.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Okay. But wasn't there a study done several years ago or information put out about the effect of what your amendment would do to the cost of insurance and driving the cost up?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: I'm not aware of this study. But what my amendment intends to do is encourage people to follow those mandatory evacuations in the coastal communities when you have massive hurricanes coming to the coastal communities. We don't want them to stay at home because they can't afford to pay for a hotel or gas to evacuate.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: So you're expecting the insurance company to pay all of their costs when they have to evacuate?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: I'm expecting the insurance company to cover the claim for which the insured is covered.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: There's a difference between a claim and a -- a claim would be an accidental occurrence, wouldn't that be what a claim is?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: No, I mean a claim for loss of use for having to evacuate for additional living expenses and additional coverage under their policy. An insurance company would deny these, for instance, if there's no damage to the home. But they're required to evacuate.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: Are you saying this only applies to homeowners insurance?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: So would not apply to an automobile policy? So what if a person doesn't own their home?
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: Correct. This is for homeowner policies.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLER: I believe -- and I appreciate your intent but I believe there was a study done and there was some major problems with this. So I would be in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I'm sorry to my vice chairman on this one, but this would significantly increase costs even if there was no damage to the home for any time government requested an evacuation. And obviously if you increase the losses it's going to increase the premiums and make the homeowners' premiums that much more expensive. With that, I would have to move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hernandez Luna to close.
REPRESENTATIVE HERNANDEZ LUNA: Members, I respectfully disagree with my chair in that this is not going to increase cost, this is something already in their policy, something that they're paying their premium to the insurance company to cover, it should not be denied whenever they're following mandatory evacuation orders.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hernandez Luna offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table that amendment. The question occurs -- a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. All in favor vote aye; opposed vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Hernandez Luna voting no. Show Representative Taylor voting aye. Mr. Miller voting aye. Have all voted? Show Branch voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes, 42 nos, three present not voting, the amendment is tabled. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Excuse Representative Gerren because of House administrative affairs on a motion by Chairman Smithee. Any objection? Chair hears none. The following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Smithee.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Smithee.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, this would apply, the same basic thing we just did with TWIA to the fair plan. The fair plan is an assessment to insurers and it affects all of our rates, and I would move passage. I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Smithee offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment. We're on page 234.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Harnett.
THE SPEAKER: Is Representative Hartnett on the floor of the House? Chair recognizes Representative Hartnett.
REPRESENTATIVE HARTNETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is a bill that passed out of the insurance committee without any objection. It just makes clear that public filing information is subject to open records with the same rights and the same private protections. Focuses in particular on trade secrets,this lets the filer protect their trade secrets if there's any effort to break that. Move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hartnett offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we're on page 237. Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Currently Texas law requires approval of certain reinsurance done with title insurance. This bill would remove the TDI requirements of the approval of reinsurance and it's been bedded by TDI.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Deshotel offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. The Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hancock.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hancock to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE HANCOCK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment simply prohibits a period ending earlier than the two years from the date the insurer rejects or accepts the claim or three years from the date of loss of the claim. It's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hancock offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Members, we're on page 242. Representative Eiland.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Page 242. Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Speaker, members, this is a good amendment. But I don't think it's going to be acceptable to the author at this time. This is a standard form policy bill -- or amendment requiring the commissioner to adopt a standard form that all insurance companies use so that when you're shopping your insurance, you could have apples to apples and oranges to orange comparison. It seems like it would be pretty logical instead of using one form for one company and another form for another company with the deductibles and exclusions and you never know exactly which one you're getting and which one is cheaper. and so this would simply be a standard form policy.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Eiland offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Told you it was good.
THE SPEAKER: Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Page 245.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Truitt.
THE SPEAKER: Chair explains Representative Truitt to explain her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment simply changes the minimum amount required for surety insurance policy from 100 to 1 million -- 100,000 to 1 million and changes the requirement for qualifications from holding both a federal authorization and a Texas authorization to a requirement that the reinsurer holds either and I believe it's acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Truitt offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. Amendment on page 246. Clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Torres.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Torres. Is Mr. Torres on the floor of the House? We see him.
REPRESENTATIVE TORRES: Mr. Speaker, members, this is a public adjustors amendment acceptable to the author. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Torres offers up an amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection -- back up, members. Representative Eiland may have a question. Mr. Torres, return to the front mic, please. Representative Eiland in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Speaker, members, this applies to you, not just the coast so you might want to listen up. This is a bad bill. TDI put in their report to the legislature requesting us to fix a problem and this goes the exact opposite way of what TDI found and was asking us to do. So let me make sure you understand what you've voted for if you vote for this because this is going to be bad for you and your constituents. When you have a storm, I come in -- or any -- a fire, no matter what it is. You have a claim, if you go to your insurance company and your insurance company says, okay, here's $10,000, all right, thank you. And then maybe a public adjustor knocks on your door and says, I think I can get you some more money, all right. How much do you want? I'll take 10 percent of your claim. Okay, fine. I've already got $10,000 in my pocket, I've already spent it maybe on some of my repairs, so the public adjustor helps you out, he goes and gets you another $10,000. Yay, right? Well, the problem is you think you owe that public adjustor $1,000. He's got you $10,000 more dollars, and you're going to give him 10 percent, that's $10,000. No. You signed a form that said you'll give him 10 percent of your claim. Whether or not you already got it on your own and put it in your pocket. They claim they get 10 percent of the claim even though they didn't help you earn the percent you got and put in your pocket. What this bill does is it doesn't fix the problem it makes it worse. It says they get 25 percent of what they recover. So instead of getting the original $2,000 they originally thought they were going to get from you, now they're going to get 2500. This goes exactly opposite of the problem TDI was trying to fix. Hello. Move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: I have a question for Representative Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield, Mr. Eiland?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes, I yield.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: So just so I understand. If I have a claim and I get paid $10,000. Public adjustor comes by and says he believes he can get me more money, it's another 10,000, charges me 25 percent, I think I owe them $2500, I owe them $5,000?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: No, no. You get $10,000 on your own.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: They come along and you sign up after you get your money, put it in your pocket, put it in the bank.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: They come along six months later, they're able to get you another 10,000. You signed the contract where you said you'll give them 10 percent of the claim, right?
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: And that's by statute 10 percent, they can't go any higher than that. Well, you think if they get you $10,000 more, you're going to owe them $1,000. 10 percent of the 10,000 they got you. Fine. Except that they claim they can charge you 10 percent of what they got you and what you got you on your own and that's not okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: I understand that. But the amendment changes it to 25 percent?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: This amendment says they get 10 percent or 25 percent of what they recovered for you. And in this instance it would be $2500. 25 percent of the 10,000 new money.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: Bad deal.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yeah, it is a bad deal. And what happens is they go back to Florida, the city of the insurance company, and this is not just TWIA, this is Allstate, State Farm, Farmer's, this is west Texas, east Texas --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Driver.
REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Could I ask the gentleman a question?
THE SPEAKER: Gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: I do.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: Representative Eiland, didn't we take care of this public adjuster's situation several years ago?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: We did, and we standardized they can earn 10 percent. This is an area that we eliminated some gray area and they think it's 10 percent of the whole claim instead of 10 percent of the new money. Now, we may be able to fix this, we may be able to -- but this is not the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE DRIVER: This is not the answer, I agree. Thank you, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: One question.
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Chairman Eiland, it's my understanding that they could be double dipping.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Okay.
THE SPEAKER: Not yet, members. Chair recognizes Representative Torres to close on his amendment. Torres. Representative Torres in favor of his amendment. The amendment is withdrawn. The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Lucio.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Lucio. Members, we're on the amendment on page 248. The amendment is withdrawn. The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will please read the amendment. Members, we're back on page 6. It's a good thing. The clerk lays out the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment on page 6 is withdrawn. Chair lays out the amendment on page 7. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Farrar.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment requires the prior approval of TDI before an insurance company sets rates for residential property insurance or for automotive insurance. Homeowners insurance rates in Texas are among the highest in the nation. Nearly double the national average. The average homeowner pays a crippling $900 a month for insurance. Under current law insurance companies don't have to seek approval of the TDI before raising insurance rates on consumers unless the (inaudible) emergency exists or the commissioner determines their rates need supervision. This amendment gives the commissioner the power to protect Texans from unreasonable rate increases. It is prospective, it does not change the terms of any of the existing insurance policies. It's limited, it's narrowly tailored to help working Texans defend against rate increases.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to object to this amendment. The prior approval for homeowners particularly is really where we kind of are in today's regulatory environment. But we're trying to get more towards the usages of what we're seeing in auto insurance. And as you can tell, the auto insurance market is very competitive in the state of Texas, but we're trying to move towards that more in the homeowners market, take a step back to where we were before the mold crisis in 2003 when insurance was unavailable and we couldn't get rates approved in time for people to stay in the market, and people were unable to get insurance period. So I'm going to have to move to table this amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close on her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Speaker and members, without this amendment what happens is TDI has to investigate the financial records as well as the rating practices to determine if an insurance company should be required to file under current statutes. They basically have to find out if they have enough grounds under the statute to do so. This amendment would protect consumers. I ask you to vote against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table the amendment. A record vote is requested, a record vote is granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Taylor voting aye, show Representative Farrar voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 92 ayes, mays, three present not voting and 10 absent the amendment is tabled. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Members, this is page 13. Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Mr. Speaker and members, this is an amendment that is part of the Senate bill, Senate companion bill, sunset bill. And what it tries to do is it tries to change the procedure when the company rates are deemed excessive or discriminatory. It states that if the Department of Insurance provides an insurer with a notice of excessive or discriminatory rates, the insurance company will essentially have two options. First the company can take corrective action that's approved by the Department and pay refunds with the lower interest rate which would be 6 percent plus prime or do not take corrective action or take correction action that is not approved by the department and pay refunds at a higher rate of 18 percent. So the purpose of this amendment is to give insurance companies, once we have established that they have discriminatory policies, get them to settle up with their customers faster. And I mention that this is part of the insurance bill that's coming from the Senate that's already part of the bill. Some of you may have already seen, I think I circulated the letter that I sent to State Farm, which effective June 1st, I'm canceling all three of my policies. I have two automobile policies and a homeowners policy with State Farm, but since 2003 they have owned the people of Texas $350 million which they still have not refunded to their policyholders. And it's practices like that which I think give the insurance industry a bad name in Texas. And it's practices like that that this amendment is intended to help correct. I don't know what the author is going to do with the amendment, but I would move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Once again, members, (inaudible), we'd like to be there but we're not there. This creates a penalty that is going through due process, that going the process, negotiating with the Texas Department of Insurance (inaudible) rates, interest will be charged on the fall rate and the final rate and most importantly it's going to inhibit us from having
(inaudible) competitive marketplace here in Texas where we know Texas consumers will benefit in most competition, and I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro to close.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Well, again, members, I would point out that it is in the Senate version, so it's coming over. I would imagine this will be an issue in conference. But, you know, I think it's important to remember that under current law the amount of interest added to the premium discount is the lesser of 18 percent or 6 percent plus the prime rate. So there's some flexibility right now that the commissioner has in assessing these penalties, but this amendment would give some structure, some incentive structure to that to give some companies to essentially settle up in a quick way so that we don't have more instances like State Farm. Bear in mind that we have, especially among homeowners rates, the highest rates in the nation. We have the highest homeowner rates in the nation and I know that like many of you when I meet people in my district and during my campaign, that was always one of the biggest issues that people would complain about is the high insurance rates. You know, sometimes people complain about the high automobile rates but it was mostly homeowner rates. And for that reason, I think we need to create this incentive for insurance companies to be as fair and honest as possible and when they do mess up, they do take corrective action as quickly as they can. So I would ask that you move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Castro offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor has moved to table the amendment, a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Castro voting no, show Representative Taylor voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being ayes, 46 nays, three present not voting and 8 absent members, the motion to table is successful. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 11.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Castro.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Castro.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment would give stiffer penalties to companies who charge excessive rates. Now, remember, these are companies that are clearly charging excessive rates. That's who we're dealing with now under this amendment. It would increase penalties for insurance companies found by the Texas Department of Insurance to be charging excessive or discriminatory rates for Texas policyholders. It would do this by requiring rather than allowing the commissioner of insurance to provide an insured a refund plus interest. Any be requiring an insurer to pay an administrative penalty of $100 for every policy. Currently the commissioner of insurance has the ability but not the requirement to order an insurer who has charged an excessive rate to provide refunds to affected customers. Right now there's no requirement if somebody has charged an excessive rate that those customers be provided a refund. Current statute also provides for the refund of excessive premiums to a future policy of a policyholder if that policyholder renews. This amendment would remove the possibility to do that. In other words, we're saying not to apply it to a future policy, it's given here and now. This amendment is for stronger consumer protection of stronger hardworking Texas families. We all know that the cost of insurance is one of the highest costs that any family bears on an annual basis. I know that what I pay for my automobile policies and my homeowners policies certainly aren't cheap, and I can only imagine what it is for a middle class family with two kids or maybe three kids that are starting to drive, that own a home in a nice neighborhood somewhere. The cost of insurance is high. And so when an insurance companies violates the trust of its clients and its customers, we need to make sure that its policies -- that the penalties that are set up in law that have real teeth. And this amendment would help do that. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to rise in opposition to this amendment. Two things, it makes refunds mandatory even if the amount is diminimus. You could be talking about a dollar, 1.50, you could be spending more to get the refund back than to get the actual refund. The other thing that is egregious to this is the mandatory per policy penalty. If you're off $2 and you have to pay $100 penalty per policy times all the policies, obviously the ratepayer is going to wind up paying that and that is adverse to exactly what insureds are going to wind up paying for their policies. And I would move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Castro to close.
REPRESENTATIVE CASTRO: A $2 overcharge is not the problem we're having with insurance companies in Texas. You know, the State Farm situation may be on the high end of $350 million but it's certainly not the only example of excessive, companies overcharging and right now our policies don't have enough teeth so it's no surprise that companies feel that they can get away with overcharging the people that we represent. For that I would ask you not to table the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Castro offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor has moved to table, a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Taylor voting aye, show Representative Castro voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 93 ayes, 44 nays, three present not voting and 10 absent, the amendment is tabled. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 27.
THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar.
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment would give TDI additional oversight of loss adjustment and of claims settlement practices that involve outsourcing of data collection and loss evaluations of nonlicensed third parties. This oversight would ensure that the data being collected, being obtained and provided for claims settlement purposes is relevant, and provides an equitable claims resolution process for the insured party. It aligns with recommendation 1.5 in the July 2010 sunset decision report at page 19 that says "require the department to develop and implement a plan to collect from insurers and collect information for the processing of personal automobile and residential property claims." Under presence practice, some automobile insurance carriers in the State of Texas are outsourcing substantial portions of (inaudible) functions. These loss of service evaluation providers fall outside the scope of the Texas Department of Insurance oversight or licensure. Although the adjustors in Texas for the work that they do. Some of those third party service providers do not have offices in Texas and are geographically removed from state oversight as well. If the oversight delegates too much responsibility to them for work that would ordinarily be done by the company's loss adjustors. Then the work being done by a nonlicensed loss evaluation service escapes administrative oversight and licensure by TDI. This amendment would give TDI the authority to regulate this process of outsourcing these loss evaluation data collection and analysis including the authority to impose administrative penalties for resulting violations of fair claims settlements, practices concerning automobile damage claims and loss payments. This amendment would allow TDI oversight on the data being used to write and collect policies, determining auto insurance rates and detecting fraudulent claims. By adopting this amendment we would improve transparency of the current practices by imposing accountability on these third party service providers to the state, to TDI and to Texas policyholders. With this amendment, the insurance company doing the outsourcing will be required to file reports to improve accountability in the state.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry we're having trouble finding the part about adjustors, I don't believe that part's in the amendment. But as far as the data mining, the Texas Department of Insurance did a biennial report that included data mining study. The commission already has (inaudible) rating variables, and even today companies are researching new technology being utilized by those companies, but this change if enacted, would deter these companies from researching new technology which could benefit consumers with better prices. With that, I'll move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar to close.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
THE SPEAKER: Would the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: I yield.
THE SPEAKER: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Taylor, I would just like some clarification, I understood you to say that the current law is prior approval for rate.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: No, it's a hybrid right now. We actually passed a (inaudible) back in 2003. Obviously there were some missteps out of the gate with the State Farm situation and some of those other things. The companies today are afraid to file in use. They are basically filing -- they call it file and haggle. They don't want to get too far out there by filing (inaudible) and coming back later and find out they're excessive and having to issue a lot of refunds and all that and they're not filing and they're waiting until they're finally approved to do it, so we're not having the file in use like you see it.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: I went on the website for TDI and indicates that effective December 1st, 2004, companies file their rates with the Texas Department of Insurance but do not have to wait for prior approval to implement them.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: They don't have to wait, but they are waiting for fear of the excessive premium designation a year or two down the road and having to go back and pay excessive penalties and those types of things. They're not using what's available to them because the way the system is set up right now, they don't feel like there's a real solid time when they can start raising the rates without fear of retaliation and retaliatory penalties.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you. Motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Farrar to close.
REPRESENTATIVE FARRAR: I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Farrar offers up an amendment with Representative McClendon, Representative Taylor has moved to table the amendment, a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Farrar and Representative McClendon both voting no, show Representative Taylor voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 93 ayes, 45 nays, three present not voting and 9 absent members, the amendment is tabled. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. This is on page 11.
THE CLERK: Amendment by McClendon.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The problem is that (inaudible) program to educate the public about health insurance options. However, TDI's funding for their program will expire in September 2011. This amendment would address the high number of Texans which is below 5 million which would create a health benefit plan innovative program within TDI. TDI reviews existing resources and staff to identify opportunities for uninsured Texans to address how to obtain affordable healthcare coverage without duplicating programs in place of other (inaudible). And I believe Representative Perry has an amendment to my amendment.
THE SPEAKER: The Chair lays out the amendment to the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Perry.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Perry on the amendment to the amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Perry.
REPRESENTATIVE PERRY: I have an amendment to the amendment that is acceptable to the author of the previous amendment. Basically what it does is allows TDI to do a study for small business employers, 100 employees or less.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Perry offers up an amendment to the amendment, it is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative McClendon to close on her amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCLENDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment to the amendment as amended is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment. I apologize, the amendment is withdrawn by Representative McClendon. Thank you. Representative Martinez Fischer, that amendment on page 33 is withdrawn. Amendment on page 75 by Representative Farrar is withdrawn. Representative Eiland, amendment on page 89. Chair lays out the following amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Eiland.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Eiland.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: That's not me.
THE SPEAKER: Page 84.
REPRESENTATIVE EILAND: Postpone to third reading.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is postponed until third reading. Pae 95, Mr. Walle. The Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Walle.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is just a ban of use on credit scoring in issuing automobile and homeowners insurance. I know we had a lengthy discussion but it's something that helps working families and helps consumers that could be in a tight spot through no fault of their own and these credit scoring mechanisms really are to the detriment of working families. And I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Members, we've already had this discussion, so in the interest of time I move to table again. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle to close on his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor has moved to table the amendment, a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Taylor voting aye, show Representative Walle voting no. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 94 ayes, 46 nays, three present not voting and 7 absent, the amendment is tabled. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment on page 102.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity offer the amendment which would prohibit practices related to dispute resolution. Essentially it would be to prohibit mandatory arbitration in these hearings so that an insurance policy or another agreement would not require the covered person to submit to arbitration. A dispute that's related to the coverage. So there would not be any mandatory arbitration, and in addition to that, there's a list -- if you look at the front page of the amendment, there would be a list of what the section would apply to a whole series of different kinds of insurance. In the interest of time I'm happy to answer any questions but if there aren't any -- the last thing is on the third page. It indicates if a person who is described by the section that issues an insurance agreement that violates this section is liable for either the actual damages sustained or $100 regardless of whether the actual damages are sustained or the covered person's attorney fees and costs to recover their money under that subsection. So, again, it's really resolution dispute practices and would prohibit mandatory arbitration and remember that arbitration is different than mediation where both parties meet. Arbitration is submit your cause to somebody else and somebody else gets to make the determination and it's not negotiable. So anyways, that's the amendment --
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Mr. Speaker.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Walle.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Would Chairman Gallego yield for just a few questions?
THE SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Yes, sir, Mr. Walle, I'm happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Chairman Gallego, could you just briefly so the members that are not attorneys -- arbitration to some could be anticonsumer.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Well, it depends on -- yeah, it is essentially -- the different between arbitration and mediation essentially is that mediation you and the opposing party get to sit down and you get to actually negotiate a settlement that each of you could live with. And a third party helps you mediate that. A third party helps you come to that. In arbitration you go to a third party and a third party chooses the winners and losers so the parties don't get to negotiate in that sense. They don't get to come together. In arbitration they seem to be a lot harsher in that sense for the people participating in it. There are winners or losers, where in mediations you can see something that both parties are happy with.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: And it's my understanding that when you go through a binding arbitration, are there fees associated with going through arbitration?
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Right. You have to pay additional costs for participating in that. And, again, you have to pay for it and the results are not necessarily something that you get the opportunity to participate in, in an active way that you would in a mediation.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Let's just say for instance that we have a dispute that's maybe $50,000 and there's arbitration fees that could drastically go into that $50,000, when you're trying to collect some type of claim.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And frankly, the idea here is to try to save people money and make people happier because people are a lot happier when they get to participate in the process than when some third party gets to arbitrarily make a decision. And "arbitration" is the root word there for that. The English major in me would tell you that.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Yes, Mr. Speaker, once again, this isn't something that can be mandatory, but it has an option for consumers
(inaudible) maybe a lower cost. This would not allow that, so it would restrict your market from providing different options for people. Alternative means to resolve claims disputes other than a courtroom should be allowed if people so choose to do that. And with that, I'll move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego to close.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: It is the issue. I don't mean to say that people shouldn't participate and that people shouldn't have options, but again the root word of arbitration is "arbitrary" and I don't appreciate being arbitrary when you go to an arbitration and essentially pick winners and losers as opposed to mediation where both of you get to participate and both of you get to come to some agreement that you meet in the middle. And so I appreciate Mr. Taylor's position but I don't agree with it and I'd ask that you vote no on the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego offers up an amendment, Representative Taylor has moved to table, it's a division vote. All those in favor of Mr. Taylor vote aye; those opposed vote no. Mr. Gallego votes no -- a record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Taylor voting aye, show Representative Gallego voting no. Representative Veasey voting no, Representative Walle voting no. Have all voted? Show Representative Kolkhorst voting aye. Have all voted? There being 92 ayes, 46 nays, three present not voting and 9 absent, the motion to table prevails. We're now on page 224. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Veasey.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Members, this amendment is simple. It deals with replacing a safety seat after a collision. A child's safety seat in a car, after a collision, it can have first row damage and it can make it unable to protect an accident. It's already standard practice for insurance companies to cover body and structural damage to a vehicle, but what this says is that if somebody has liability insurance, if the person that causes the wreck has liability insurance, that baby seat can be replaced. We want to make sure that when a baby is fastened into the car seat, it is put into the seat properly and that it is structurally sound. We don't want to take any chances when it comes to our children and our grandchildren. I hope that you vote for this amendment. And I will yield for the gentleman --
THE SPEAKER: Representative Gallego.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield for a question.
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Mr. Veasey, all you want to do is if a person is at fault in a wreck has liability insurance and they hit a vehicle -- you know, you see those vehicles that have signs that say baby on board, and so you hit a car with a baby on board and you essentially damage that car seat so you damage that car seat, all your amendment would do is to make sure that as part of that coverage that car is replaced.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely. All it would do is make sure that car seat is replaced and that it's sound. As you know, our children are about the same age. My son is about --
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Absolutely, they are the same age.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: And as you know, because we were joking around one day, we were in your Tahoe about how that car seat has to be positioned just right --
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And do you realize that most car seats are not positioned correctly?
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Most car seats are not positioned right. We cannot take any chances with the car seats. Not only do they need to be positioned right and placed right, but they need to be structurally sound. And I'll tell you if you don't have any money and you try to make ends meet week to week and your car seat is damaged in a collision, and it's a choice between feeding your family and feeding your baby or maybe making that car seat stretch out another week or two, you are going to make that car seat stretch out another week or two. And that'd dangerous.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And, you know, a lot of state agencies and others that have these little things where they teach parents, they actually give car seats to folks, at least in the district that I represent, you give car seats to people, because quite frankly, car seats are something that A, are very vital; but B, people don't know that much about them; and C, if we can figure how to get more kids covered and more kids in safe car seats, the world is a better place. Wouldn't you agree?
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And when your kids are safe and happy, you're happy.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: And I can't imagine even if one little kids loses their life as a result of an unsafe car seat where we could have the opportunity to make that difference.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely. And it's a very popular --
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: It's a great amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Thank you very much, thank you. I'm not sure if my friend from Friendswood is going to --
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Chisum.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
THE SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Absolutely, I yield for Warren C.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: I kind of agree that paragraph F on your second page, line 4 where it says, "regardless of whether or not the operator of the covered car was at fault." What does that mean?
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: No, my amendment is if someone has liability insurance and it's their fault, we want to make sure that it's covered.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: But it says here "notwithstanding any automobile insurance policy provided in a collision coverage shall cover the replacement of child passenger seat system damaged in the collision involved in the covered vehicle regardless of whether or not the covered vehicle was fault."
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Which line are you looking at again?
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: Page 225, line beginning right there -- if they wasn't at fault, how are they going to have cover it?
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: Hold on one second, let me take a look at this.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: It's like a no fault --
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: No, I think what you're thinking is the person -- if you hit someone and you have insurance, I think what you're thinking is that whether or not it's their fault or not, then they have to pay for the child safety seat. If you have liability insurance and you hit someone else's car, then you have to pay for that child safety seat, not -- I'm not trying to make it whether even if it's not your fault, where you're supposed to pay the child safety seat. Absolutely not. That is not the intention -- and I understand how you're concerned about the way it's written and if you would like to offer up an amendment to the amendment to try to make it sound a little bit better, but that's absolutely not the intention of the amendment at all. Absolutely not. The intention of the amendment is to protect babies, protect kids and to make sure they're safe in their child seats.
REPRESENTATIVE CHISUM: I tend to agree with you that if they were at fault, then they ought to have to replace the child safety seat that was damaged in a wreck but if they're not at fault, it doesn't seem like no fault insurance or something like that, so --
REPRESENTATIVE VEASEY: No. What I don't want is -- Warren, what I don't want -- I think that if I hit your car and it's my fault and you have some, my insurance should still pay for it. And that is what I am trying to establish. The person at fault needs to replace that baby seat.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor in opposition. Representative Turner.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I move to adjourn.
THE SPEAKER: Mr. Turner, if you had just waited a few short minutes, we'll recognize you for that.
REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: I'm getting sleepy.
THE SPEAKER: The amendment is respectfully withdrawn at the commitment of the author to work with him for a third reading amendment. Members, we're on page 34. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Gutierrez.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Insurance commissioner -- the insurance commissioner's duty is to ensure fair treatment of homeowners, drivers, patients, small business owners -- patients -- so the decisions that the commissioners make touch everyday lives of Texans on a daily basis. Electing a Texas insurance commissioner would guarantee that that person is looking out for the interests of Texas families, not just the insurance industry. Texas citizens should have the power to decide who will ensure they have a fair marketplace in which to buy insurance. 11 other states have elected insurance commissioners and elections guarantee accountability. Texas voters should have a right to say who should have the task of representing their interests in the Texas marketplace. Every citizen again is a patient, homeowner, driver or small business owner and the decisions impact their lives. So the commissioner should be accountable to all Texans. Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Mr. Taylor in opposition to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are 11 out of 50 states that elect their commissioner. Most of them are appointed. The issue at hand if you're running for election for the insurance commissioner, most people are going to be running on the basis of lower insurance rates. The problem is if you lower insurance rates, you take away the capacity to buy insurance. If you put people in the unfortunate position of trying to campaign for insurance commissioner that they can't follow through, you could wind up without an insurance market at all. And with that I move to table.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Walle to close.
REPRESENTATIVE WALLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, this is about accountability and Texans have the right to elect the person that is affecting their daily lives. With that I move against the motion to table.
THE SPEAKER: A record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. Representative Walle and Representative Gutierrez offer up an amendment, Representative Taylor moves to table that amendment. The clerk will please ring the bell. Show Representative Walle voting no, show Representative Taylor voting aye. Have all voted? Show Representative Lucio voting no. Representative Torres voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 94 ayes, 47 nays, four present not voting and 5 absent, the amendment is tabled. Chair recognizes Representative Taylor to close.
REPRESENTATIVE L. TAYLOR: My fellow Americans, I want to thank you for being here tonight. I have a big speech -- I'm sorry. I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Question occurs on passage to third reading on House Bill 1951. All those in favor say aye, opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1951 passes -- record vote has been requested, a record vote has been granted. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? All voted? How about now? There being 96 ayes, 46 nays, 3 present not voting and 5 absent members, House Bill 1951 is passed to third reading. House Bill 1355 is laid out on second reading, the clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 1355 by Orr relating to title insurance coverage for minerals and surface damage resulting from mineral extraction and development.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Orr.
REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, House Bill 1355 rescinds two endorsements from a title policy on surface damage on mineral rights. It will save about $50 on every title policy when home buyers go to buy a property.
THE SPEAKER: Amendment, Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Orr.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Orr to explain his amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, the draft only partly dealt with rescinding the endorsement. This does it for sure. Move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Orr offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair lays out the amendment, the clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Hughes.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Hughes.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment makes it clear that the commissioner will not require a title to an insurer for minerals. It's acceptable to the author. I move adoption of the amendment to the amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Hughes offers up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment to the amendment is adopted. Anyone else wishing to speak for, on or against House Bill 1355? Question occurs on passage of House Bill 1355. All those in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1355 finally passes to third reading. Chair lays out House Bill 2510 on second reading. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: House Bill 250 by Lavender relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of certain incandescent light bulbs from federal regulation.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Lavender.
REPRESENTATIVE LAVENDER: This bill deals with the manufacture and sale of light bulbs in the state of Texas. I believe we have an amendment.
THE SPEAKER: Members, we have an amendment. One minute. Marvin, please. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Beck.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Beck.
REPRESENTATIVE BECK: Members, the amendment just says if you are a resident and you're going to manufacture incandescent light bulbs that you will give notice to the attorney general's office first. It is acceptable to the author.
THE SPEAKER: Resident Beck offers up an amendment, the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Lavender on his bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LAVENDER: I move passage.
THE SPEAKER: Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE DESHOTEL: No.
THE SPEAKER: Sounds good back there. The question occurs on the passage to second reading of House Bill 2510. Anyone else wishing to speak for, on or against House Bill 2510? All those in favor say aye; all opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 2510 is passed to third reading. Members, if you have any announcements, we would appreciate your bringing them down front. Chair recognizes Representative Smithee for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: Mr. Speaker and members, the insurance committee was supposed to meet tonight. I think we've all had enough insurance for the day. So I think we're going to postpone the meeting until tomorrow. The bill's previously posted here tomorrow morning in the Reagan building. So I'm going to move to suspend the five day posting rule so we can move that meeting until tomorrow.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego for a reminder of a meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. A reminder that those of you who are on the house committee for criminal jurisprudence that we'll meet tomorrow morning in the regular meeting room in the Reagan building at 8 a.m. Criminal jurisprudence tomorrow morning in the Reagan building room 120 at 8 a.m.
THE SPEAKER: Members, Chair recognizes Mr. Smithee to redo his announcement. Members, please pay attention to these motions and these announcements.
REPRESENTATIVE SMITHEE: This is a motion to suspend the five day posting rule to take up tomorrow the insurance committee previously posted business with Senate Bill 1213 at 9 a.m. tomorrow, 511 in the JH Reagan Building. Move to suspend.
THE SPEAKER: Members, you've heard the motion for suspension of the rules. Is there any objection? Chair hears none, the rules are suspended. The following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The committee on insurance will meet tomorrow at 9 a.m. on May 11th, 2011, at JHR140. This will be a public hearing on the previously posted business and SB1213.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst for an announcement.
REPRESENTATIVE KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, the public health committee, we will be meeting at 8 a.m., Elliott, Vice Chair Naishtat, so we're on for tomorrow morning for two bills. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Phillips.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS: Transportation committee members, we're going to meet at 8 a.m. tomorrow morning. Thank you.
THE SPEAKER: Any other announcements, members, please bring them down front. Chair recognizes Chairman Jackson.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON: Just reminding the members that committee on judiciary and civil jurisprudence will meet at 8 a.m. at E2306.
THE SPEAKER: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of Hildago.
REPRESENTATIVE GONZALES: Members, this is a reminder that the committee on borders and intergovernmental affairs will meet tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. in E101.
THE SPEAKER: Members, any other announcements, please bring them up front. Members, the speaker's desk is clear. If you have any last announcements, please bring them down front. Members, any more announcements? Representative Murphy moves that the House stand in recess until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning in memory of James C. Box of Houston, Texas.
(Adjourned.)
