REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Members, please register. Have all registered? Quorum is present. The House and gallery, please rise for the invocation. And the Chair recognizes Representative Isaac to introduce our Pastor of the Day.
REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, distinguished guests in the gallery; I would like to introduce our Pastor of the Day from First Baptist Church in Dripping Springs, Craig Fallon, his wife or -- I'm sorry, Craig Curry and his wife, Fallon, is with us today. Please give them a warm welcome.
PASTOR: Thank you. Will you pray with me? Dear Heavenly Father, I thank you for the opportunity you have given to us to live in the United States of America and the great State of Texas. Thank you also for our leaders for whom we are grateful for their service. I pray a special prayer for the leaders of the Texas House of Representatives, that you will guide each one in every way and that you will bless them and their families for their willingness to serve. Help all of us to be mindful of others, help us to recognize when someone is down, discouraged or weak, so that we that might be able to reach out and help. Help us also to have the kind of love, compassion and forgiveness that you have. Also lift up to you this legislative session today. I pray for a spirit of unity throughout the dialogue of the session and as decisions are reached. May your presence be here in this place leading, guiding and directing every leader that is present. Lift up this prayer in your name. Amen.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby to lead us in the pledge.
REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you members, distinguished guests. Will you honor me today, and honor this House, by pledging allegiance to our great State of Texas and to the United States; first by the pledge of the United States of America flag.
(Pledge of Allegiance to the United States flag). Honor the Texas flag.
(Pledge to the Texas flag).
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Huberty because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Schwertner. Excuse Representative Munoz because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Raymond. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Alonzo to introduce our Doctor of the Day.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, it's my pleasure to welcome our physician of the the day, an important person to all of us. As you know, Representative Lucio always talks about our health, makes sure we take care of ourselves. This is Dr. Thomas Fred Shima. He's in the best part of the the state, he lives in Winwood North, correct? And about a couple of blocks from my House. He's an undergraduate from Bethel College in Kansas, Medical School, was at University Health Science College of Homeopathic Medicine in Kansas City and, of course, he did his family practice residency in the best part of the state, which is Dallas Southwest Medical Center, which is also in my district. He has honors from -- Because he's the district vice president, has been the district vice president for the Texas Osteo Medical Association, and not only that, he's also been a coach for elementary medical school -- middle school basketball. Members, please help me welcome Dr. Thomas Fred Shima who will be our physician of the day and is going make sure he takes care of us. Please give him a big round of applause. Thank you, members.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the the House:
THE CLERK: HB205, HB328, HB1254, HB1450, HB1789, HB1936, HB2002, HB2067, HB2403, HB2468, HB2936, HCR127, HCR135, HCR154, HCR155.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Pursuant to House Rule 13, Section 9, Chair announces the introduction of HR2020, suspending limitations in the conferees for SB14. Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR1368, congratulating Mr. Herbert A. Miller Jr. of Austin on his receipt of the the 2011 Texas Exes Teaching Award.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1368. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR1368 by Lucio. WHEREAS, Herbert A. Miller, Jr., of Austin has received a 2011 Texas Exes Teaching Award in recognition of his outstanding record of achievement as a member of the faculty in the McCombs School of Business at The University of Texas at Austin; and WHEREAS, A senior lecturer in the Department of Marketing Mr. Miller brings to the classroom 25 years of corporate experience, including a stellar 21-year career with IBM; it was during the latter, in the mid-1980s, that he accepted his first assignment at UT--a year's appointment as an IBM Executive Faculty Fellow and as assistant to the dean of graduate business studies; and WHEREAS, Mr. Miller retired from IBM in 1994 and joined the business faculty at UT that same year; he currently teaches in both the marketing department and the Texas Executive Education program; during his tenure at the university, he has helped to develop the new undergraduate business curriculum, created a mandatory internship program, and established a mentor program; he also serves as liaison between the School of Business and a marketing consultancy, EdVenture Partners, which helps undergraduate students obtain real-world experience working on marketing campaigns for clients such as Honda, Wells Fargo, and the U.S. Department of State; and WHEREAS, Concerned for his students as individuals, Herb Miller cares as much about their success in life as their success in Business, and he believes that efforts in behalf of the greater good Play an important role in attaining such a goal; his own life is a Notable example of how to take one's skills and expertise and give Back to the community; Mr. Miller has chaired the boards of both the Travis County Adult Literacy Council and Believe In Me, an Organization that promotes values and character education in the Austin public schools, and he currently serves on the board of Directors of the Austin Downtown Rotary Club and the Austin Chapter Of Boy Scouts of America; and WHEREAS, The recipient of numerous accolades in both Education and business, Herb Miller has been named U.T. Marketing Professor of the Year by the American Marketing Association and Most Outstanding Professor in the College of Business by Alpha Kappa Psi, a professional business fraternity; he has also garnered The Coach John Wooden Award for Marketing Management Excellence IBM Divisional Award for Excellence, IBM Excellent Manager Recognition, and several IBM Big Thinker Awards; and WHEREAS, Mr. Miller holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Hartford, and he has pursued graduate studies at the University of Detroit and The University of Texas; and WHEREAS, Herb Miller's passion for his field and his deep Commitment to helping launch his students on productive and Fulfilling careers have won him great esteem and goodwill in the McCombs School of Business, and he is indeed deserving of this Prestigious honor; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby congratulate Herb Miller on his receipt of a 2011 Texas Exes Teaching Award and extend to him sincere best wishes For continued success in all his endeavors; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be Prepared for Mr. Miller as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Chair recognizes Representative Lucio.
REPRESENTATIVE EDDIE LUCIO III: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, with us on the House floor today we have professor Herb Miller and his wife, Joy. Professor Miller is a senior lecturer at the UT Department of Marketing the Macomes Business School, as we heard; and he is the recipient of the 2011 Texas Exes Teaching Award. As a former student of Mr. Miller, I could not think of anyone more deserving of such a recognition. I have always admired his noteworthy career and his passion for education. He played such an influential role in my own development as a business undergrad, and I'm extremely thankful for his mentorship and friendship. Members, please help me welcome to their State Capitol, Herb Miller and his wife, Joy. Thank you so much.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you have heard the motion to adopt the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, I move we suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1466, which honors the Texas Teen Safe Driving Coalition.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. Motion is granted. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR1466 by Naishtat. Honoring the Texas Teen Safe Driving Coalition, commemorating May as National Youth Traffic Safety Month, and recognizing May 16th, 2011, as Texas Teen Safe Driving Day.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, you need to know that May is National Youth Traffic Safety Month. And the 16th, which is today, is Texas Teen Safe Driving Day. I want you to look to the east gallery, a lot of these young people are wearing red. The Texas Teen Safe Driving Coalition is a project to engage, educate and empower communities to end teen crashes, injuries and deaths on Texas roadways. The coalition is made up of concerned individuals throughout the state, including teens, parents, highway safety and injury prevention professionals, educators and community members. In the east gallery -- And would you, please stand up and be recognized? We have family career and community leaders of America, state officer, Raymond French, Sharon Videl Pierce, state adviser and Texas Teen Safe Driving Coalition Leader. John Brady, Texas Alive Teen and Texas Coalition, Joe McCormick representing the Oil State Foundation, and a lot of good young people who care very much about this issue. Let's recognize them. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I would like to suspend all necessary rules and bring up HCR163.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HCR163 by Pickett. Convening a joint memorial session to honor Texans killed while serving in the global war on terrorism, commemorating Memorial Day, 2011, and paying tribute to all those who have died in the service of the United States.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Pickett moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members if you would, please give your attention to Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, this is a notice of our biannual ceremony that we will be holding here on the House chambers on the 28th, that's the Saturday before signee die. The Senate and the House will be here. A lot of your offices have been contacted and tried to get information back to us because we are inviting the families of the Texas fallen to be here for the ceremony. It's extremely important that we do hear back from as many as possible. I know many of you are still trying to help us locate some of our families who have lost Texans in the war on terrorism, but we have a joint memorial ceremony at 10:00 o'clock, Saturday the 28th, here in the House chambers. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: I request, Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session, at 11:40 a.m. today, May 16th, in 3W15, to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: 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 11:40 a.m. on May 16th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like the clerk to read aloud the resolution that we've already passed, house Resolution 1729.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Clerk will read the House Resolution 1729.
THE CLERK: HR1729 by Ritter. WHEREAS, Members of the Lumbermen's Association of Texas and Louisiana are celebrating the organization's 125th anniversary at their annual conference in Fort Worth from April 7 to 9, 2011; and WHEREAS, The Lumbermen's Association of Texas was founded on May 15, 1886, to foster a spirit of cooperation among lumber dealers across the state; and WHEREAS, Along with the population of Texas, the association has grown significantly since that time and today represents approximately 600 lumber and building material suppliers from every county in the state, and it has also expanded to include dealers from Louisiana; and WHEREAS, One of the largest regional organizations of retail lumber and building materials dealers in the nation, the Association works on legislative and regulatory matters and Provides its members with educational seminars and other essential Services; the group is affiliated with the National Lumber and Building Material Dealers Association; and WHEREAS, For the past 125 years, the Lumbermen's Association Of Texas and Louisiana has played a vital role in the growth and Development of the Lone Star State, and this noteworthy milestone provides a fitting opportunity to recognize its longstanding Tradition of service; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby commemorate the 125th anniversary of the Founding of the Lumbermen's Association of Texas and Louisiana and Extend to the organization's officers and members sincere best Wishes for continued success; and, be it further RESOLVED, That an official copy of this resolution be Prepared for the association as an expression of high regard by the Texas House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, today we have Representatives here from the Texas Lumbermen's Association as they celebrate their 125th anniversary. A 125 years ago almost, I believe, to the day a group of men in the lumbermens across the state met at a theater in Austin, Texas, that is now called the Austin Club, and formed what is now one of the oldest associations in the Texas. Members, on the dais I'd like to recognize the current LAP President, Mr. Robert Archer, and current vice president, Rufus Duncan. Joining them is Barbara Douglas, Barbara is the executive vice president to the association and a long time friend of mine. My family has been working with the Lumbermens Association for as long as I can remember, I think about 60 years now. And I'm honored to have them here today at their Capitol. Members, please help my recognize these folks, these fine folks here today in their Capitol.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Mallory Caraway.
REPRESENTATIVE MALLORY CARAWAY: Members, I move that we suspend all necessary rules to bring up House Resolution 1986.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR1986 by Mallory Caraway. Congratulating Amber Pickens of Dallas on her acceptance to the Julliard School.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Mallory Caraway.
REPRESENTATIVE MALLORY CARAWAY: Yes, members, Ms. Amber Pickens will actually be performing today at 12:00 noon in the Capitol rotunda. She is a product of Dallas Independent School District. And she's also going to be presented with a Senate Resolution by Senator Royce West, but Miss Amber Pickens will be attending the Julliard School this fall, and she is one of 12 females accepted into the Julliard Bachelors of the Arts Dance Program and represents the sole 2011 Texas high school graduate accepted for the upcoming academic year, 2011-2012. She's a graduate of Booker T. Washington High School for the Performing Arts, where she studied dance and repertory dance company under the direction of Lily Wise. And, congratulations. And, by the way, Amber Pickens is also 2008 class of the Texas Young Masters Program. So congratulations to Amber Pickens, and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Orr for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, I am honored to have an elementary school from my home district, Burlson, Texas. Clingscale Elementary. I knew Mrs. Clingscale when I was a child. A lot of people don't even know who she is. But anyway, would y'all please stand? They are taking a tour of the the Capitol today. Thank y'all and welcome to the Texas House of Representatives.
REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst for an introduction.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, what a great way to kick off Monday morning, by having a group from Huntsville High School joining us over here to my left, to you-all's right out on the floor. Stand up and let us welcome to your Texas House of Representatives. This is the superintendents counsel that meets with the the superintendent regularly. They are leaders of Huntsville High School. We are real proud to have you in your Texas House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we have a memorial resolution. Please be seated. Chair recognizes Representative Nash for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Mr. Speaker and members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR1488, a memorial resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: HR1488 by Nash. WHEREAS, Lawrence Alvin Allen, Sr., the husband of our esteemed colleague, the Honorable Alma A. Allen, passed away on March 28, 2011, at the age of 76, leaving his circle of loved ones to cherish their many happy memories of time spent in his company; and WHEREAS, Lawrence Allen was born in Needville on December 11, 1934, to Norman and Ardellia Allen; after graduating from Powell Point High School, he went on to earn degrees from Prairie View A&M University and Texas Southern University; and WHEREAS, Mr. Allen distinguished himself as a dedicated and inspiring educator and administrator for the Houston IndependentSchool District, which he served for 38 years; a man of strong faith, he was an active member of Mt. Hebron Baptist Church for four decades; and WHEREAS, In all of his endeavors, Mr. Allen enjoyed the love and support of his wife of 54 years, Dr. Alma Allen, as well as his three children, Patricia, Lawrence, and Beverly; moreover, he was blessed with five grandchildren and a great-grandchild; and WHEREAS, Lawrence Allen lived a caring and purposeful life devoted to his family, his profession, and his church, and he will forever be remembered with deep affection by all those who held him close to their hearts; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the memory of Lawrence Alvin Allen, Sr., and extend sincere condolences to the members of his family: to his wife, Dr. Alma A. Allen; to his children, Dr. Patricia K. Allen, Lawrence Allen, Jr., and Beverly Lawrence Allen Epran; to his grandchildren, Patrice, Lawrence, Ali, Alim, and Norman Bell; to his great-grandchild, Jaedis Brown; 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 Lawrence Alvin Allen, Sr.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Nash.
REPRESENTATIVE BARBARA NASH: Joining us here today are his children and his wife, Alma. And additionally, in the east gallery, we have friends and relatives. If they'd stand up, please? Thank you. And it's my honor to do this resolution for my deskmate. I was so thrilled to know her and to have worked with her these few months. We've become good friends. And I appreciate this chance to do this honor for her family. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. This is a memorial resolution. All those in favor please rise. The motion is unanimously adopted. Representative Thompson moves to add all members' name asks there objection Chair hears none so ordered.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Coleman for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE GARNET F. COLEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, today please join me in recognizing Alanna Little, her grandmother, Therese Little, her aunt and uncle, Elizabeth and James Casey. They drove in this morning from Houston. Young Alanna has a devastating disease that is a combination of muscular dystrophy, cerebral palsy, cystic fibrosis and cancer rolled into one. Her grandparents rely on Texas Medicaid to get Alanna the care that she deserves and needs. Alanna, you're an extremely brave young lady and thank you for joining us today. Welcome to your Capitol. Alanna, please wave so you can be recognized. And I believe she's up here on this side, right there. Her family is standing there with her. Thank you all for coming to your Capitol today, and thank you for being good Texans.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Public Education to meet while the House is in session, 2:00 o'clock, 2:00 p.m. in 3W15 -- 3W15 to consider pending business.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: And that's 2:00 p.m. today. Thank you. Okay, for anybody that didn't hear it, I request permission for the Committee on Public Education to meet while the House is in session at 2:00 o'clock today, May 16th, 2011, in 3W15. Dr. No will be there to consider pending business. Thank you.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: 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 Public Education will meet at 2:00 p.m. today, May 16th, 2011, at 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The committee on Public Health Will meet during lunch recess today, May 16th, 2011, at 1W.14 in the Ag Museum. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence will meet upon adjournment on May 16th, 2011, at the House Chamber, desk No. 35. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business. The Committee on Economic and Small Business Development will meet at 6:00 p.m. on May 17th, 2011, at 200 Lee Barton Drive, Austin, Texas 78704. This will be a work session.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: The Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: I move suspend all necessary rules to take up HR1929.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out HR1979.
THE CLERK: HR1979 by Pickett. Honoring James Perry of El Paso for his contributions to his community.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Move passage.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Representative Pickett moves to add all members' names to the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, thank you. Mr. Speaker, members, good morning. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to take up SCR45, celebrating the 88th birthday of Colonel Otto Scharth. Colonel Scharth is here on the House dais, here back behind us, representatives, here with his two daughters, Elizabeth Ann Ingersol and Cheryl Lamant and son-in-law Joe Lamont is here with us as well. Colonel Scharth served the nation with honor and distinction in the Army for 32 years, retiring with the rank of colonel. Following his retirement from the Army forces in 1975, he served as a director of Military Affairs University of Bailor. Colonel Scharth is a respected member of the the City of Temple, and known for his courage in others. And, Colonel, we want to wish you happy birthday and we will read the SCR45 here in just a moment.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.
THE CLERK: SCR45 by Fraser. WHEREAS, The Legislature of the State of Texas is pleased to recognize Otto P. Scharth on the occasion of his 88th birthday; and WHEREAS, This distinguished gentleman served the nation with honor and distinction in the United States Army for 32 years retiring with the rank of colonel; and WHEREAS, Mr. Scharth enlisted in military service in 1943 and served as a combat infantryman in the European theater of operations during World War II; he went on to lead a special operations unit during the Huk Rebellion in the Philippines, to serve as a heavy weapons company commander in Korea, and to work as a senior logistics planner during the Vietnam War; and WHEREAS, Following his retirement from the armed forces in 1975, he served as director of military affairs at the University of Mary Hardin-Baylor, where he worked with diligence and professionalism to ensure that soldiers and their family members could pursue a college education; and WHEREAS, Mr. Scharth has been a leader in the Belton community, organizing and leading the Belton Kiwanis Club and the Fort Hood chapter of the Military Order of the World Wars; he has made numerous educational presentations in area high schools and before civic and church groups throughout the region; and WHEREAS, A beloved and respected member of his community, he is known for his courage, his compassion for others, and his enthusiasm for living each day to the fullest; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commend Otto P. Scharth on his exceptional service to the nation and state and extend to him best wishes for a memorable 88th birthday; and, be it further RESOLVED, That a copy of this resolution be prepared for him as an expression of high regard from the Texas Legislature.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Members, thank you. And please join me in wishing this fine American his 88th birthday, and I move passage.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So passed. Representative Pickett moves to add all members' names. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So moved. Members, if you have any announcements bring them down front. Members, it's the Chair's intention to take a lunch recess until 1:15 p.m. If there are no further announcements, the House stands in recess until 1:15 p.m. this afternoon.
(The House stands in recess).
JOE STRAUS: The House will come to order. Excuse Representative Anderson because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Kleinschmidt. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Davis for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, members, members, I would like to suspend all necessary rules to take up HR1605.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.
THE CLERK: HR1605 by Huberty. Welcoming members of the Northeast Christian Academy to the Capitol today, May 16th, 2011.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.
REPRESENTATIVE SARAH DAVIS: Thank you, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is Mr. Branch on the floor of the the House? Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request for the Committee on State Affairs to meet while the House is in session during reading and referral of bills, May 16th, place 1W14, to consider SB669, SB760, SB119, SB1273, SB1907, SB1743, SJR26, SB1605 and pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Cook.
REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend the following rule, the five day posting rule, to allow the Committee on State Affairs to consider SB669, SB76O, SB1219, SB1270, SB1907, SB1743, SJR26, SB1605 during reading and referrals. May the 16th, 2011. Place, 1W14, and also to consider pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement, the clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on State Affairs will meet during reading and referral of bills today, May 16th, 2011, at 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB669, SB760, SB1219, SB1907, SB1743, SJR26, SB1270, SB1605 and pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, we're about to go on the calendar. But before we do, I know a lot of members seem to be a little winded from last week, and I wanted to just take a moment to speak with you as we have just two weeks remaining in this session; which has been an extraordinarily difficult one. First, I want to thank each of you for your hard work, for your tenacity, for your patience. Especially last week, as we reached the critical deadline for passing our House bills. We've already done a great deal of work, we have, in many ways, the most important work we have still lays ahead. Conference committee meetings. The House and Senate are trying to reach a consensus on a budget, sunset legislation and many other important measures have already passed this session. So as this session winds down, and we face more deadlines, every day as a legislative calendar becomes precious. I hope each of you will take the opportunity over the next two weeks to collaborate whenever possible, and when it is not possible to communicate openly and civilly when you disagree. In the limited days remaining, I encourage you to bring your amendments, your points of order or your questions forward early, and to be respectful, to be respectful of each other, to be respectful of our parliamentarian, and to the rule of the quorum and the civility embodied in our House rule. No matter how difficult the issue or how passionate our views, I want us to continue to find ways to work together as we have done, between members of both parties back at my office and here on the House floor. And as we move to the end of this session remember that my door is open to each of you to help resolve the issues and to get our work done for the people of Texas. Chair lays out as a matter of postpone business Senate Bill 420. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB420 by Deulle. Relating to determining eligibility for indigent health care.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, Senate Bill 420 is the House -- is the Senate Companion for House Bill 655, which would allow counties in Texas who have an indigent health care program to be able to deem, that is to say take into account the income and assets for U.S. citizen sponsors for resident legal aliens. U.S. citizens have a privilege to be able to bring foreigners into this country, and when they sign an I.864 or an affidavit of support they are promising to pay for the health care for the resident illegal aliens they bring into this country. And, as such, they have signed a binding, legal, federal contract with the U.S. government promising to pay for the health care of resident legal aliens. This is a very common practice across the State and around the country. Our counties should be able to commit the same practice consistent with federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Will the representative Taylor yield for a few questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, do you yield.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield to my distinguished colleague from Harris County.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Thank you, Representative Taylor. What are we trying to accomplish with your legislation?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Federal law very clearly allows government, local governments, state government, to deem income and assets for the U.S. of the U.S. citizens for resident legal aliens for determining eligibility for government assistance programs. This law simply explicitly states that county indigent care programs can do what they are already can do by federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: So these are folks that are here legally then?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: This deals -- This bill is only dealing with legal immigration? So -- I'm assuming this came out of an issue in Collin County. How do we -- How do we fix the fact that this is something out of your county? Is this something that is happening county wide or state wide in other counties, or how do we try to distinguish what is happening in your county and apply to it the whole state?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: True. Well, first, if I'm not mistaken, Harris County does not have an indigent care program, do they?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Well, we have Gold Card, which the hospital district runs. A lot of those folks pay into the system through our local property taxes and our local sales tax that is assessed to everybody that purchases something in Harris County.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: So this law has nothing to do, I believe, with your county, because it deals only with indigent care programs for counties that have indigent care programs, such as my county, Collin County.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: What other counties have indigent health care programs?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: There are several, if I'm not mistaken. The majority of the counties in Texas do not have hospital districts, they have indigent health care programs in their counties.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. And if you follow me, how would the Collin County be able to identify paperwork from the federal government, or any kind of documentation? Do they receive some type of training at the federal level, or how does that work?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Typically, it's done by the county, asking the person applying for the indigent care program. They specifically ask them what is your immigration status, and through that process, determine if they are a legal resident, legal alien. And, in turn, they would say do you have a U.S. citizen sponsor? Most foreigners in this country who are here on a permanent or semipermanent status do have a U.S. citizen sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. So how many folks are we talking about in Collin county?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, you know, hundreds maybe, in the low thousands --
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. So --
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: -- of foreigners living legally in --
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Right. What I'm getting at is how many folks to your county officials determine that are in the indigent care program at the same time they're being sponsored by somebody else to be in the country legally?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: We're talking about folks that are here legally.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure. Okay. So last fall our county determined of the 300 people under the indigent care rules, a 158 were resident legal aliens. All of whom had U.S. citizen sponsors that, upon deeming their income and assets, a hundred percent of them could afford pay for their own care.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Okay. Let -- Follow me on this, on this scenario, on this hypothetical. Because obviously we have a large undocumented population in Texas. We also have a large document population in Texas. We have a lot of immigrant families that live across the state. And what I'm concerned about is if you have somebody that's being sponsored by somebody, and I'm familiar with your forms that you're talking about, very familiar with those. But if you have somebody that is being sponsored here, they don't have work authorization; is that true?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Typically the I.864, there are some very limited circumstances where someone who is here for work would have a U.S. citizen sponsor on the I.864. But as -- Almost all of the people who are here with that form, I.864, are not working. If they are working, typically their income would take them immediately out of being eligible for the indigent care program in most counties.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: So is it your view that this programs would kick folks off the rows?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, actually, no. For instance, in Collin County, once we contacted the sponsors for resident legal aliens, several of the sponsors, eleven, to be specific, decided that they would continue to have the resident legal alien whom they were sponsoring to continue to receive care from the county indigent care program. But, at the same time, they would pay the bill. They would actually write a check to the county paying for the care that was consumed by that resident legal alien.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Would it be on the -- the sliding scale or would they have to pay in full? Let's just say hypothetically you have somebody, and let me understand that -- I want you to understand, this will happen -- this happens all the time where you have somebody. It doesn't have to be somebody that's legal or illegal, somebody that's working here, building your roads, washing your dishes, doing your yard. Folks such -- and those are the folks that I'm talking about, they live in the shadows, right? They live in the shadows. And at the same time they may participate -- And they are not working, right? They're getting paid under the table, they're getting paid in cash because that's the reality. There wouldn't be any houses built in suburban Texas without those folks that are working here under the shadows, laying the concrete in your homes and your subdivisions, putting in these sprinkler systems, putting in the plumbing, putting in the electricity. The roofers, the framers, the carpentry guys, the cabinet makers, the painters that are there. So a lot of that work is being subbed and sub contracted from the general contractors, when they're building these subdivisions or they're building these highways. And you may have somebody that may participate in this indigent program, because that's the safety net, right? That's the safety net for particular counties. And for a lot of counties. And say that person gets hurt or say that person has an injury, how do we -- Are we going to end up paying more with our local tax dollars if that person gets hurt, or that person gets sick at the local level?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: You've given a whole series of hypothetical. But let me try to throw some facts out there. So, again, if -- You know, Collin County has a very generous -- has a very generous county indigent care program. We do it a hundred percent of the -- the federal poverty level. Most counties have a substantial lower level. To qualify for indigent care in Texas you really, truly are indigent. You don't own a home, you don't own a car, you're missing meals, your not getting -- you're lucky if you're sleeping on a couch or you're probably sleeping under a bridge. So it's really, truly for the poorest.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: The poorest people. I guess this is my concern, Representative Taylor, is that we've had a lot of anti immigrant bills in this session filed, we've had a lot of bills that are really trying to attack a certain segment of our population that lives in the shadows. And, for me, it's really discerning because -- and disturbing as well, because what we're here to do is try to make public policy that affects all of Texas and not attack a single, particular community. And that's what I'm concerned about, I'm concerned about the health care of folks -- all of the the health care of folks across the state, and the to try to backdoor a way to kick people off the roads is really something that doesn't sit well with me. And I hope that folks on this floor, from here on out and in the future, for future session, that the immigrant population in Texas, undocumented or document, we need stop this bashing. And I hope that we can agree that we need stop all these backdoor ways to attack a particular community, which is a community that lives in your part of the state as well as mine. And that's just my concern. And I'll let my colleagues ask more questions.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure. Well, I mean, just -- I mean, you know, this bill doesn't affect your county directly, or really even indirectly. But what it does do -- But since 1882, the United States has had a law or the legal principle in place that foreigners that come to this country should have a U.S. citizen to back them to make sure that they don't become a ward of the state. I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Spe aker, yes, will the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, do you yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Tay lor, when the bill was heard in committee I remember there were a couple of versions of it.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Sure.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: One of the the versions that had caused concern that I had questioned you about, was whether or not if you have a county person that provided indigent care, and somebody happens to show up there that has a sponsor but they haven't revealed that they have a sponsor, and the person doesn't ask and it falls through the cracks, they don't ask them about the sponsorship; is the county going to be denied indigent care funds because the person, one of their employees, made a mistake? Is this the version of the the bill that would have allowed for funds to be cut and not provided to the county?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: No, it is not, Madam Chairwoman.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: So this is the one -- This is after the substitute, where we're not -- I think your substitute was the one that was the most offensive, I guess, to us. And then you went back to your original investigation; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Correct. This is the version as filed, and was passed out of the Senate out of calendar, under bipartisan support, that has nothing to do with funding for indigent care programs. It merely empowers indigent care programs for counties that have them to decide for themselves if they want to deem the income and assets for U.S. citizen sponsors for resident illegal aliens for eligibility purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. And the other concerned that had been raised were whether or not they are already authorized to do this, because federal law and the form that they sign says if you are a sponsor you're agreeing to provide for the person you're sponsoring, for the immigrants you're sponsoring. And so if federal law already has that in the contract between them, whether or not that's already applicable to the county.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Right. Well, there is a question, as you point out. And this law puts that question to rest, that says absolutely, the counties have the right to do this. And I think you and I have both had conversations on this, in public and in private about this, and there is some -- You know, it is my belief that should the State of Texas choose, it could say, it could tell counties they could deem the income and assets for residents legal -- for U.S. citizen sponsors for resident legal aliens. But this law, I think, is more consistent with what the federal government intended in 1882, and was updating to their laws, that U.S. citizen sponsors are indeed responsible for the health care of the people they bring to this country. And I would submit that is not only a legal admission, I certainly documented it in the affidavit of support, but it is a moral obligation. If you're going to bring someone in this country sponsor them and be responsible for them. I think it is incumbent on that U.S. citizen to truly be responsible for them and not let them try to have go fend for themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Well, I'm not trying to say that if you've agreed in a document to do so that you shouldn't do so. My concern is that we, as Representative Walle was mentioning earlier, we don't want people that are truly indigent to not be able to get care that they need. I know that there are some exceptions, I think even under the contract, that you can't deny certain things to people -- certain types of care. But we don't want people who are truly ill to not be able to receive the care that they need, because of -- there's going to be a requirement, they're asked for documents as to whether or not they've been sponsored. Another point -- another question I wanted to ask is the -- only the person that signs the sponsor form, their assets would be looked at, right? Not the spouse?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: That's correct. And so some resident legal aliens have multiple sponsors, and so every sponsor would then be -- could be deemed by the county -- Again, if the county wants to. We're not telling the counties what to do. We're allowing them to do something that they can almost certainly do by federal law.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. And again, for intent purposes, there is no punishment aspect here that the county is going to lose funding; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: There is no reference to any funding in this bill.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Madam Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Mr. Spe aker, I ask that the statements between Representative Taylor and myself be reduced to writing and placed in the journal for intent.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Berman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Taylor, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LEO BERMAN: You know that the money that comes from this bill comes from the county, it's county money that takes care of indigent health care. If you're illegally in the United States you're entitled to two benefits: You're entitled to EMTELA, which is the emergency medical treatment and active labor act, which says that if you're illegally in the United States you can use emergency rooms in every hospital in the United States. That's where they're treated. This bill deals with legal aliens or legal immigrants in the United States who generally have a sponsor. So in response to Mr. Walle's question, if you're illegally here and you get hurt, there is an out. There is an emergency room in hospitals. But it's not using state or county money, because if you're illegally here you're not legally allowed to use state or county money. Period. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Will the gentleman yield for a couple of questions?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: I yield to the Dean of the the Collin County Delegation.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Van, thank you. This bill was brought to us by Collin County, as a matter of fact, was it not?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes, it was. This is something that was important to Collin County and, based on the conversations that my staff has had with numerous county indigent care programs, this is actually something that is important to many other counties.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: This is actually going to be a favorable piece of legislation that would help our counties deal with the legal immigration and funding for indigent care that could be done specifically for those people who are here legally?
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Absolutely. This piece of legislation we think should save Collin County about a half a million dollars a year on a hundred million dollars a year budget. So this is a very substantial fiscal impact, and really is a fiscal impact in the best possible way. I mean people that can afford to pay for their own care shouldn't be able to access our indigent care program, which is really designed for the most destitute people in our state.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: And this is big help, or could be a big help for many of our other suburban counties that is maybe not have hospital districts of their own that provide indigent care, but maybe like Collin County that are dealing with other contracts and maybe very positive for each of them, also. If you have, you know, the amount that you say for Collin County, and multiply it by those other counties, you've got several million of dollars of savings for the taxpayers.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Yes. Yes. And, again, we're just doing the right thing here and asking U.S. citizens that sponsor resident legal aliens to be responsible for those resident legal aliens and not try to ask the tax payers to pay the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: I appreciate your work and it's a good bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Zerwas because of Conference Committee on HB 1, on the motion of Representative Hamilton. Excuse Representative Smithee because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Keffer. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 420? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 420. All in favor say aye. All those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 420 is passed to engrossment.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, could we get a record vote on that?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Burman, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Could we get a record vote on the bill that we were just voting on? I was I was yelling from the back.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam, I didn't hear your request.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I understand you didn't hear me. That's reason I came to the mic.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Burnam has asked for a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Ritter voting aye. Showing Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 100 ayes, 37 nays, Senate Bill 420 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business Senate Bill 652. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB652 by Hegar. Relating to governmental entities subject to the sunset review process.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Ritter.
REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to postpone Senate Bill 652 to tomorrow, May 17th, at 9:00 a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: 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 Senate Bill 1338. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB1338 by Eltife. Relating to the membership, powers and duties of the State Preservation Board.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. 3132 will help streamline the management of the the State Preservation Board and give the board more flexibility in recovering cost increasing investment income and increasing donations. There is an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, the amendment actually strips out the ability of the governor and the speaker and the lieutenant governor to appoint a substitute to take their place on the Preservation Board when they can't be there. It makes them serve as well as the other members. And it's acceptable to the author.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Geren sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 1338? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 1338. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 1338 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out as a matter of postponed business on second reading Senate Bill 5. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB5 by Zaffirini. Relating to public institutions of higher education, including the administration and operation of financial management and reporting requirements of those institutions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: T hank you Mr. Speaker. Members, this is the reduction in red tape for our higher eds, and we have few more amendments that are being worked on. And so I'm going to respectfully move to postpone until 9:00 a.m. May the 17th, tomorrow, a.m.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session at 1:50 p.m. today, May 16th. Place, 3W9, to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 1:50 p.m. today, May 16th, 2011, at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer for a recognition.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I have a group of students from my home county, Eastland, from the great city of Rising Star, the E.I.S.D.U.I.L. debate team who have qualified for at least one national debate competition still to come this year. In fact, the two seniors have already won state championships in the U.I.L. 1A cross examination debate. I would like to recognize their debate coach and superintendent, Max Thompson, along with his students that are visiting our Capitol today. Please help me welcome them. They are the Rising Star U.I.L. Debate Team.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House.
THE CLERK: SB198, SB250, SB279, SB529, SB551, SB748, SB758, SB1024, SB1107, SB1478, SB1505, SCR45, SCR46, SCR52, SJR28.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 118. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB118 by Uresti. Relating to a court's authority to order a proposed patient to receive extended outpatient mental health services.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Menendez.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this bill applies to people for whom a judge considers appropriate to extend voluntary outpatient mental health services. SB118 would change the requirement for the person having had at least 60 consecutive days of court ordered inpatient health services withing the preceding 12 months, to the person having had at least a total of at least 60 days during the proceeding 12 months. It ensures that a judge who is dealing with a patient who is frequently assigned involuntary inpatient mental health services, is able to assign lower cost extended outpatient mental health services if deemed appropriate. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 118? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 118. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 118 is passed to engrossment. The Chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 156. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB156 by Huffman. Relating to health care data collected by the Department of State Health Services to access certain confidential patient information within the department.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Members , this data registry bill will allow de identified patient data to be shared with Dish and HHSC, which will improve patient treatment, advance research and ultimately the goal is to save lives in Texas. Most states already have data sharing as a standard practice. This bill protects the confidentiality of the patient and physician. Identifying data safeguards are in place through HHSC and Dish. They will continue to apply. And there are a few amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, this amendment is based on HB574 which passed out of the House Public Health Committee and was sent to the Calendars Committee last week. The amendment would make the state immunization registry, which is known as MTRAC, an opt out registry, as are the immunization registries in 45 other states. This improvement will help our state agencies and health care providers administer the registry more efficiently, allow for less expensive software purchases and will better ensure the privacy of those who chose to opt out of the registry by never including their data in the MTRAC database.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker ?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Callegari, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Will the lady yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Certainly.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Representa tive Howard, Harris County added Judge Ed Emmet compressed support for your amendment before it was voted out of the Public Health Committee. Can you explain the role played by the Immunization Registry in preparing the Texas Gulf Coast for hurricane or other manmade disaster?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you for the question, Representative Callegari. We absolutely had huge benefits during the Hurricane Katrina in particular, where we had an immunization registry that allowed us to save money, not duplicate vaccinations that already had been done. It avoids duplicative immunizations, prioritizes scarce resources and Judge Emmet argued repeatedly that this amendment is critical to protecting hurricane vulnerable Texas communities.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Well, as I said, I know that the Harris County Judge is very supportive of this effort. Another question, I think many members of this House were moved by the story of Nicholas Williams, the Texas A&M student who died from meningitis during this session's legislature. What impact will your amendment have to stop -- have on efforts to stop these unnecessary deaths from meningitis?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: A robust immunization registry is a critical tool for ensuring that Texans get the immunizations they need against a wide range of infectious diseases. More and more diseases require multiple shots, making registries more important to maintain shot schedules and prevent duplicitous vaccinations.
REPRESENTATIVE BILL CALLEGARI: Great. Thank you very much. I think this is -- Certainly with a grandchild at A&M I was particularly concerned when that happened. And we thank you for this amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. I appreciate it.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Members , I agree with the policy that's being promoted by Representative Howard in her amendment, because actually, for those of us who have seen disasters in our areas, especially in the coastal communities, this would allow the agencies to have your information much more accessible. But this is Senator Huffman's bill so, for that reason, I will leave it to the will of the House. I just wanted everyone to know that I think the policy that is being promoted by Representative Howard in this amendment is a good one.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Simpson, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: To ask a question.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Do you yield, Mrs. Gonzalez?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Yes, of course.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Why are we not asking people to opt in, instead of opt out with their private information?
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: This is on Representative Howard's amendment, you're asking?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: I will allow her to answer that for you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you. I'm sorry, I was visiting with another representative. What did you ask?
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Why are we asking people to opt in, I mean to opt out instead of opt in with their private information?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Let me just try to explain to you, because it gets kind of convoluted sometimes how this works. But basically the system we have now, which is an opt in system, requires -- we require all the providers to send vaccination information to the Department of State Health Services to our MTRAC registry. So all the data essentially comes in the front door, sits on a porch and waits for us to make sure by going out and validating who actually wants to be in, who we're going to let in the next door; and who we're not. With an opt out system, they never even get on the the front porch, because when you -- when you are initially given the inspection about the registry you can specifically at that point request to not be in it. So you're information will never, ever even enter the system. Right now we're expending resources to follow-up on the 95 percent of the the population who are okay with their information being a part of the registry, rather than processing the 5 percent who don't want their information in the system. So it's more of a efficiency bill here, an opportunity to save money. The other thing is that we're going to be replacing our software at Dishes to work with this, and the software the we would require with an opt in system, which only five other states use, will require us to get more expensive software, rather than being able to get something off the shelf that will be similar to the other 45 states who have an opt out system.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And the patient is given the choice, absolutely. Thank you. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Simpson raises a point of order pursuant to Rule 11, Section 2, and Rule 8, Section 3. Representative Simpson temporarily withdraws his point of order. Representative Howard temporarily withdraws her amendment. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by King of Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Members, this is an amendment I'm adding, or would hope to add, to Representative Gonzalez' bill. It has to do with private information. Currently, private information from patients is submitted to inpatient and outpatient facilities. It is sent to a vendor in Virginia, it is de-identified and sold, and it is not, underlined, not disclosed to patients that is this is happening. My original bill, which was voted out of Public Health Committee said that we would opt out, we would have the hospitals opt out. I believe that was a point of contention. So now this amendment simply says that ambulatory surgical centers will not be in this data collection. It is very important because it's an unfunded mandate. It requires people to disclose information without the patient's knowledge, and it is sold by the State of Texas. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Members , we heard Representative King's bill in committee, in the Public Health Committee. I voted for her bill. I'm not against it, but again, this is Senator Huffman's bill and I'm going to leave it to the will of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative King to close.
REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you Representative Gonzalez and members, this is an important bill for safety of very important patient information. It has no impact on the hospitals. It is a line for ambulatory surgical centers to not be involved in this data collection, which is a very different type of population. So I move adoption. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative King sends up an amendment. This is on the adoption of the the King amendment. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 139 ayes and 0 nays, the amendment is adopted. Members, we have an amendment that's being redrafted. Mr. Sheffield? Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield for a motion.
REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, I would like to suspend the following rule, the five day posting rule, so the Committee on Defense and Veteran's Affairs can consider Senate Bill 1493 and Senate Bill 1737 tomorrow, that's May 17th, 2011, in E2016.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Defense and Veteran's Affairs will meet at 9:00 a.m. on May 17th, 2011, at E2.016. This will be a public hearing to consider SB1493 and SB1737.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, today I'd like to recognize the winners of the the HEB Excellence in Education Award. All over the state students, parents, teachers, principals and other school staff are working hard. We need to work just as hard here at the Capitol to provide them the funding and support they need to continue their excellence in education. We need to pass a budget that honors them, don't you think? The winners of the the awards are here in the gallery today. Join me in welcoming Lindsay Richard, Dr. Kneehigh. And would you stand, Lindsay? You here? All right. Dr. Kneehigh, Jimmy Lynn Walker from San Antonio, Rachel Grace, Richard Landman, Yolanda Hernandez, Galen Huffstead, David Gonzalez. Representatives of Splendora ISB, representatives of Harlandale ISD from San Antonio. Thank you so much. Members, help me welcome these educators to our House and their House. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Howard of Travis.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, we're back on the amendment to change our immunization registry system from an opt in to an opt out, in order to have more efficiency, cost effectiveness, to be in sync with the vast majority of the the United States of America, to make sure that we have the information we need to be prepared for disasters and emergency preparedness response; this is something will help the Department of State Health Services and I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Spea ker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Laubenberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: To ask a couple of questions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Howard, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Of course.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Representative Howard, so you're -- The immunization registry that is in place now, that was a little contentious to even get that thing started, and the reason we did it -- I mean the way we were able to get it done was to require opting in, and now you're wanting to go change that to opt out. So what would the parent have to do to opt out of this system?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: It's the same that currently do. When you have the vaccinations administered, when your first -- have the birth certificate information obtained at the delivery, and/or when you're at the provider having vaccinations administered, you are then given the opportunity right now to opt in to the system. And that information is forwarded to the Department of State Health Services, along with all the vaccination immunization information. So what happens when it gets to the State Health Department is it is entered into the system, and essentially sits on the front porch waiting for the Department of State Health Services to follow-up with everybody to find out if they've actually opted in. And then they send it to that second door that really actually gets it into that full system. What we're proposing now, is the exact same procedure would take place in terms of when you're getting your certificate information, or when you're getting your vaccination, the provider would find out if the patient or, obviously, the parent of the child, the infant, agreeable to having the information and they are given the opportunity to opt out so -- Let me just finish the one point. If they opt out, then their information is never even sent to the front porch of the Department of State Health Services. So you're actually providing a greater opportunity to keep that information private than currently exists.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. So my question is, what process will the parent have to go through when the -- when the child is born, this is -- when this is set up, and so now the responsibility is placed on the health provider to notify the parent. And so now is the parent going to be given something, they have to take it home, they have to go through the state computer and get in there and pull up -- Their child will automatically be in this unless they go to -- what -- How many steps, what process?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, right now --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: No, no. I want to know what your amendment is going to require.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I was going to say that right now there is additional steps required that won't be required.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: What does your amendment require the parent to do?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: All it requires the parents to do is opt out of having their information --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: How?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes. They say I do not want my child's information put in this system. The registry is notified of that. And that is set up such that they will never accept any information on that child.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Who do they tell this to?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: To the health care provider.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: The day that baby is born?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Which is what we do right now. Or if you don't do it the day the baby is born, you do it when you're doing your first immunizations.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: So it could be when they go to that doctor, you know, to get the first shots for school, and the doctor could forget to tell them that oh, by the way, when I give you -- your child these shots, you are going to automatically be in the system. What if the doctor -- What responsibility are we now placing on the doctor to tell the parent? What if they forget?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, we have the same responsibilities in place that we have now that we would have with this amendment. And, you know, the fact is that obviously there's potential places along the system where something could happen. Right now, because the information is sent into the data system prior to getting the permission, it's already there poised to accidentally be included in the system. So we are protecting more from that particular error happening.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And this is going to be for every single child in this state?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, ma'am.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Now you know, are you aware, I mean you probably are aware of the whole lawsuit the state went through because the state was collecting genetic DNA information on babies without parents' knowledge?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Because you know, good cause, but they were not being told. And, again, privacy issues where the state got sued and had to destroy a lot of these blood spots. Were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I was. And I think in that case there wasn't a standard operating procedure for informing the parents what was going on with the blood samples. In this case, this is standard operating procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: What will be the parent be given at what time? You said once when it's born, once when it's in the doctor's office. What -- Can you -- Do you have a form?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Actually, every time, just like when you go to the doctor and you have the HIPAA forms, every time you go, you think I've done this, I've done this, I've done this. You do it every time. It's because you do these things every time to make sure that there aren't any errors.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: So who is going to be getting this?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: You will be asked, every time, whether or not you want to have this information, you want to opt out of doing this. And if you chose to opt out at anytime you can opt out.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But when will the parent fist be notified? Is it at the --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: The first time you are notified is at birth, when you fill out all the information for birth, for your birth certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: So this is going to be another form that they're going to be given?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: It will be part of the -- the same form. But what they currently do -- There's no difference --
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: What form are they given now?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: There's no additional form.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Now, if they want to opt in, they have to go to the state, go to the state computer, go to the state system and have the state send them a form, fill it out send, it in; and that puts them in the system?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: And this actually allows us to be more efficient and not have to go through another step.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Nothing -- Nothing -- Well, you just told me it's the same system that's in place now, and now you're telling me that it's something different --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: No, it's the same system. They just don't -- the State Health Department will not have to follow-up with the 95 percent of the the people they currently follow-up on who are okay with having their information in the system. They'll only have to follow-up with the 5 percent who say they don't want to be in the system, to confirm with them.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: It's just less paperwork.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. So you are -- Right now there is no paperwork when that child is born, there is no paperwork given to them. They are told they can go to the state website, request the form -- I know this because I did it. They can go to the state website, request a form, fill that out, send that in. So now you're saying that's exactly what they're going to have to do to opt out, instead of opt in. Am I misunderstanding you when you said --
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: No. Whatever the system is now is going to be the same one in place.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. So right now there are a lot of problems, and that's why you want to opt in as opposed to opting -- I'm sorry, why you want to opt out as opposed to opting in, because they are feeling like there are not enough parents in the system; is that the reason why you're doing this?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I'm sorry, what?
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Is the reason why you want to change this because the state feels like there are not enough parents in the system?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Well, actually, the data bears this out. Only about 5 percent do determine that they want to opt out of the system. The focus on verifying would be with the 5 percent who want to opt out, rather than getting the consent from the 95 percent who are okay with the information being in.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well, could it be that the parents are just not given enough -- given enough information in the beginning? I don't feel like they're going to be given any more information, from what it sounds like on your amendment, because you say they're going to be -- it's going to the same procedure.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I think this is just like any kind of medical procedure, intervention treatment. You know, there's standard operating procedure that physicians, nurses and other health care personnel follow when they inform the patient of what they're doing. That's not going to be any different. We will continue to inform patients of what we're going to be doing.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: So do you realize that your amendment now takes the parents rights away, takes the right away from the parents to make that choice on whether they want to be in the system, they no longer have that choice?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Yes, they do.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: They have to take the steps, they now have to take the steps to get out of the the government system.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: They take the steps to get out of the the government system, as you're saying it. But they're still -- The parents are still being given the choice. There's nothing changed about that. There's still parental consent.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: But wouldn't you agree the burden now falls more on the parent to do this than the state to provide information?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: The state will be following up with those parents who chose to opt out, just like they do now with those parents who chose to opt in.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Do you think the state is doing a very good job in providing information about transparency?
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: I think the State has done an excellent job with the AMTRAC system, and it has saved us millions of dollars with Hurricane Katrina to have systems like this in place --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield raises a point of order. That the lady's time has expired. The had point of order is well taken and sustained. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Howard amendment? Mr. Dutton, for what purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, my main man is here again. And he wants to know --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Oh, good. Admit the main man.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Here he is.
SPEAKER FROM THE SENATE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following actions. The Senate has passed --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Simpson in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID SIMPSON: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, we shouldn't require individuals to opt out. They should be required to opt in to share their private, personal health information. Our government has not done the best job protecting personal private information, and we should not be mandated to share that information. We're going to be sharing this with other departments; PHS, HHS. And we're -- Even the information when we opt out is just going be kept in a database, but not shared at least, hopefully, with others. I urge you to vote against this amendment, against our privacy rights. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Zerwas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN ZERWAS: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I rise in support of this amendment and I rise, primarily, because of a public health issue. I think the regulation of immunizations is a vitally important part of us securing the public health's interest. We don't recognize it necessarily every day, but in times of emergency, such as Hurricane Ike in the Houston area, that is a very valuable piece of information. We had an incident related recently at Texas A&M, and we saw a child die from meningococcal septicemia. Now I'm not saying that the registry would have been critically important, but it certainly would have brought a greater awareness around the importance of immunizations. I think it's a good policy. It's not republican verses democrat. I think that this is something that is in the best interests of the the public, and I would urge your support of Representative Howard's amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Members, I understand, you know, it's always nice to be able to have as much data and information on every individual as possible. But we are having the government store this information. We know what's happened with a lot of our information, just recently. We know what has happened with our information from last session, and the data that was collected on the the newborns. And this program, you know, schools already require certain immunizations. My kids were pincushions, they got every vaccine that was out there. And I had to prove to the school, this is why we require these vaccine is to prove to the schools that your child immunized for the health and safety of others. But why is the government collecting this? Okay? If the government -- If you are accepting government health care perhaps they want it to track and keep data and keep statistics. That's fine. But this is not just for government health care, this is for every single individual out there. For every parent out there, who some are perhaps a little leery of government just continuing to collect more and more data on their kids. If they want to opt in to this registry, then they can do so. And the burden should be placed on the government to explain why this is a good thing, why this is a good system; not on the the parent to have to fight to get their children out of a government system. It is not going to release the responsibility of the parent to have the immunizations, it is simply another data collection system in place that now is apparent. I want to have the right to have -- whether or not my child's information is sitting in a database in state government. It has nothing to do with requiring or not require immunizations. Totally separate issue. For the sake of privacy, for the sake of let's not turn our children over to the state, I ask you to vote no on this amendment. This registry was set up in an contentious way, the only reason why it got passed was because it had the opt in provision. Let's not change that. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Howard to close.
REPRESENTATIVE DONNA HOWARD: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, let me just clarify that for one I appreciate Representative Simpson and Representative Laubenberg's concern here, and I think they are right to be concerned about the protection of private information. We all need to be cognizant of that whatever we develop here in policy. But in this case we're not talking about changing one bit the information that is contained in the system. Nothing at all will change. The only thing that changes is how much work the Department of State Health Services is going to have to go through in order to verify the information that's in the system. We will still be putting in 95 percent of those who are vaccinated. That information will be in the system just as it is now. But, rather than following up to get the consent from those 95 percent, who will be informed at the time of the vaccination, will be following up with the 5 percent who do not want their information in the system. And, as it as exists now, will exist then, that information will be kept out and we will even have better controls to keep it out with this system. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Howard amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Howard voting aye. Show Representative Laubenberg voting no. Have all voted? There being 56 ayes and 86 nays, the amendment fails adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Yes, sir. I request permission for the Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism to meet while the House is in session at 3:00 p.m. today, May 16th, 2011, in the Ag Museum, 1W14, to consider Senate Bill 252 and Senate Bill 1841.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? The chair hears none, so ordered. The following announcement, clerk will read the announcement:
THE CLERK: The Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism will meet at 3:00 p.m. on May 16th, 2011, at the Ag Museum, in 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB252 and SB1841.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 156? If not, Chair recognizes Representative Gonzales of Hidalgo to close.
REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I know this took some time but I did want to give people an opportunity to try to put their amendments on. We got the King amendment on the and Howard amendment that did not go on. And, again, this is simply a data registry bill that I allows the information to be shared within DISH and AKEC. It's not new information. It's information that's already there. This is an 11-0 vote out of committee and I move for passage.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: The question occurs on the passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 156. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed, nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 156 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter for a motion regarding a calendar rule.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: M r. Speaker and members, let me make sure you all pay attention. On Wednesday we will be taking up three calendar -- three fiscal matter bills. The calendar's committee on request of the Chairman of Appropriations has passed a calendar rule so that amendments must be filed on these three bills by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. The calendar's committee has voted that calendar rule. The calendar rule is a six hour layout. So the calendar rule is not eligible until 6:00 p.m. tonight. So, I'm going to make a motion, and it will be the will of the House, that we can suspend the rules so you can start your calendar rule at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, or we can -- when we finish recess and come back at 6:00 p.m. today to vote on the calendar rule. If you have questions specifically on the three fiscal matters, Chairman Pitts is here and he can answer those questions. So, I move that pursuant -- No, I move to suspend all necessary rules to -- that pursuant to House Rule 3, Section 52, and House Rule 6, Section 16F, that the House has the following rule governing floor consideration of SB1811. Each original amendment of the committee substitute of Senate Bill 1811 that will be offered during second reading, consideration must be filed with the Chief Clerk not later than 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 17th, 2011. Again, to suspend to take the calendar rule up now, so you can get your amendments in by 2:00 p.m. tomorrow. If you don't, we will recess and then bring it up at 6:00 tonight.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speak er, will the gentlemen yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y es.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: If we do not suspend this rule and we are -- we end up having to recess and come back after 6:00 to adopt this calendar rule, will there be no affect on the timeline, the window of opportunity to file amendments?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: W ell, if we pass the calendar rule it will be 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, whether we pass it now or 6:00 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Whether we pass it now or at 6:00 p.m. it's going to have the same -- it will be the same proposal on when amendments are eligible to be filed?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: T hat's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: -- to be recognized in debate?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y es, that's all it is. It's expediting. Since we have a six hour rule, the only suspension since you take it up now that it was 2:00 clock rather than 6:00.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: So if you vote no, you're just voting to come back at 6:00 to do this?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y ou're correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Will the gentlemen yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y es.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: The gentlemen yields?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y es.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Representative Hunter, I haven't seen a copy of the calendar rule. Does it say anything other than the requirements that amendments be filed by 2:00 o'clock tomorrow? There's not a fiscal constraining rule or anything like that?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: No , it's 2:00 p.m. tomorrow just to get your amendments in so everybody knows. That's all it is.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speak er?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I don't know if this question would go to Chairman Hunter, whether or not the question will go to you, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Senate Bills on fiscal matters, and generally the Senate's interpretation of germaneness is considerably broader than that of the Texas House. My question then, I guess, to you, Mr. Speaker, or maybe to Chairman Hunter, whoever, is whether or not we are going to proceed based on the Senate's version of germaneness, or whether or not we are going to proceed on the house version of germaneness, as it applies to the Senate rules?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: The House has always strictly applied its rules on germaneness in dealing with Senate Bills in the hopes that the Senate will extend the same courtesy to House Bills when they're in their chamber.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I appreciate that response. We are dealing with fiscal matters bills, and I know that has a broad window. Fully understanding that, my question is, is there -- will any bill or any amendment that is offered by members of the House be considered germane to the fiscal matters bills? And if the answer is no, then what are the basic restraints or constraints or the limitations as it relates to amendments that can be offered?
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: The Chair cannot deal with hypothetical, we can only deal with what's actual amendments and what's in front of us.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The Senate Bills have already been filed with Senate amendments that have already been attached, will the House or the Chair go through the Senate Bills that have already been filed with Senate amendments attached, review the Senate Bills that have been filed and strip away any amendment that the House considers to be non-germane? Or are we to assume that the Senate Bill that came from the House that the amendments that are already on the bill, the House has already concluded are germane, that will save a lot of time and, Mr. Hunter, that will save some amendments of mine.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: There are a number of constitutional challenges that can be raised at any time. They certainly could be raised in this chamber relating to amendments that were added to the Senate bill by the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Then point of inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I have reviewed some of the bills that is have come over from the Senate, as it relates to fiscal matters. There are amendments placed on the Senate Bills on fiscal matters that are not germane to fiscal matters. When would be the appropriate time to ask the House parliamentarian to review the amendments that are already attached to the rule before we even start on Wednesday on their germaneness? Or to ask the House Speaker, the House parliamentarian to strip those bills of any non-germane amendments? In the past, the House parliamentarian, along with the Speaker, have automatically stripped bills coming from the Senate with non-germane amendments. Will that practice be utilized for these bills?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Turner, if I heard your question correctly, if there are amendments that you believe are not germane, you're welcome to come down and visit with the parliamentarian. We can discuss which ones to strip out.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Madden, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Will the Speaker yield for questions?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Hunter, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: Y es.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Mr. Hunter, there were three fiscal matter bills that were placed on our calendar for Wednesday. Your motion is only for one of them.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: No , I just made the first motion.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: All right. You have some additional motions to make?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: L et's make it clear, Representative Villarreal is correct. I'm going to make three motions to suspend. All we're talking about is taking it up now or at 6:00 o'clock, the same rule.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you. But the motion to suspend is for all three?
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: No , no, the first one is for 1811. I have to do all three bills.
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: All right. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Villarreal, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Parliamen tarian inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: S tate your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: In times past, when Senate Bills come over that violate the two subject rule, that bill has been sent back to the Senate. The House does not strip out the violating amendments to consider the Senate bill. Will that be the practice?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Villarreal, that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: A ll right. Mr. Speaker and members, again, I'm moving on SB1811. All this is is adopting the calendar rule now rather than 6:00 p.m. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M embers, it's a record vote. Record vote on calendar rule. Clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Geren voting aye. Show Representative Strama voting aye. Representative Deshotel voting aye. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 0 nays, calendar rule is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: M r. Speaker, members, I'm going to make two more motions. We have to do a separate vote. It is the same thing, it's just that we're dealing with separate bills. I move that pursuant to House Rule 3, Section 52, and House Rule 6, Section 16F, that the House has the following rule governing floor consideration of SB1581: Each original amendment of the committee substitute for Senate Bill 1581 will be offered during second reading. Consideration must be filed with the Chief Clerk not later than 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 17, 2011. And I'm moving to suspend the rules to take this motion included for today rather than wait until 6:00 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Eiland?
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: S tate your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG EILAND: On all three of these, or however many fiscal matter bills there were, the previous calendar rule requires that we prefile amendments. We prefiled amendments. As I understand it, when the Senate Bill came over, we substituted the House Bill for the Senate Bill so that it would be line for line, word for word, still the same. And so are we going to have to refile our prefiled amendment that is we previously filed on the House Bills?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Eiland, since it's a different bill, the answer would be yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: A gain, members, we're suspending the rules and taking up the calendar rule for 2:00 p.m. tomorrow, instead of 6:00 p.m. I move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M embers, you heard the motion. This is a record vote. Clerk, ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 142 ayes and 0 nays, calendar rule is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Spea ker?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Turner, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'm sorry, parliamentary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: S tate your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Since we -- Should we assume that if we proceed forward on Wednesday with all of these bills, that the parliamentarian has operated rules on the germaneness of the amendments that are on these bills? Because it is my belief that at least one of these bills is carrying non-germane amendments, so will that bill automatically be, assuming that my view is the House parliamentarian's view, which ultimately becomes the Speaker's view; and I know the Speaker, with his infinite wisdom, will agree with me, then to save us time for preparing amendments will the Speaker kindly ask the person, the carrier from the Senate, to come and take at least one of those bills back to the Senate?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Turner, the Chair can only deal with a point of order when the point of order is raised.
REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: M r. Speaker and members, the final motion is I move to suspend all necessary rules, and that pursuant to House Rule 3, Section 52, and House Rule 6, Section 16F, that the House have got following rule governing floor consideration of SB23. Each original amendment to committee substitute SB23 that will be offered during second reading, consideration must be filed with the Chief Clerk not later than 2:00 p.m. Tuesday, May 17th, 2011. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Gallego, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Parliamentar y inquiry. Very quickly. When we did the House version of the bill, the only bill that had the calendar rule was the main bill right? The other bills didn't have a calendar rule. And so, essentially, what we're doing is putting the same calendar rule on all the fiscal matters bills? That's technically what's going on, right?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: T hat's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PETE GALLEGO: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Y ou heard the motion. It's a record vote on the adoption of the calendar rule. Clerk ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 143 ayes and 0 nays, calendar rule is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speake r?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Hochberg, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Parliament ary inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: S tate your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker there was some discussion during the discussion on this motion about Senate amendments and House amendments and House Bills and Senate bills and germaneness, and so I'd like to reask a question that I asked the other day that was not answered at that time, because y'all were still thinking about it. We have in the past dealt with non-germane Senate amendments to House Bills in a couple of different ways. In some years it seems that the parliamentarian doesn't allow us to attempt to accept a non-germane Senate amendments, in other years we're handed the bill and, come what may, on the floor, and we can either go to conference or not. But we're subject to a point of order. Has the Chair come to any decision on how we're to handle Senate amendments that are -- non-germane Senate amendments to House Bills during the next two weeks?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: M r. Hochberg, before we lay out the first Senate Bill that has non-germane amendments we'll be visiting with the members about that.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: You'll be visiting with the members as a whole?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: A ll the members who have concerns, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: So if there are items on the items eligible calendar that may fall into this category, we can presume that they will not be brought up for discussion until that discussion's been had with the membership in general?
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: T hat's a fair assumption, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: C hair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 322. Clerk, read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB322 by Carona. Relating to the requirements for reinsurance contracts covering title insurance policies issued in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: C hair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 328 deals with -- Okay, I'm sorry, Senate Bill 322 deals with reinsurance with the title industry. We passed this bill by attaching it to the TDI Sunset Bill on -- And I have one amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: F ollowing amendment. Clerk, read the amendment.
THE CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: C hair recognizes Representative --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you. This amendment deals with title insurance, creditors' rights. It was also put on the TDI bill without objection and negotiated with TDI and not that lack of confidence that the senate's going to pass the TDI bill but another vehicle. I'd like to move that we adopt this bill. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: R epresentative Deshotel sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, the amendment is adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: D oes anyone -- Mr. Branch, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: W ould the gentleman yield for one question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: M r. Deshotel, can you tell us, sir, in summary fashion how this changes the title insurance statute in our state? The bill, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: The bill as amended deals with two areas. There is one, reinsurance. Title insurance industry can buy reinsurance if their insurance is a product that is valued over 50 percent of their value, regarding purchase reinsurance. Currently reinsurance -- insurers are required to either be licensed in Texas, if they're not licensed in Texas there is a complicated procedure by which the title insurance and the reinsurer would have to go through TDI. This would allow them to not have to go through that procedure if the value of their company is over twenty million dollars and notice is given to the Commissioner of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: A nd I believe you said this was agreed to by those --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: By the Texas Department of Insurance and the title industry.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: T hank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against Senate Bill 322? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 322. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 322 is passed to engrossment. The chair lays out on second reading Senate Bill 3238. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: SB328 by Carona. Relating to notice of a hospital lien.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 328 deals with the property code as it relates to hospital liens. Currently, if there's emergency service done, or if a hospital performs services, they can file a lien against an individual who received the services, and also against any lawsuit that may be filed on behalf of that individual; to collect their fees. Senate Bill 328 simply states that five days notice would be given to the individual that a lien has been filed against them and their proceeds, and it does not attach to their real property.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Woul d the gentleman yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Deshotel, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: I do.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Yeah , Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding right now that the way the law currently works is a hospital in this situation simply files a lien and sends notice, if there's an attorney, to the attorney handling the particular case. And your -- this bill, though, changes that somewhat. Because now it appears that's what going to happen is the hospital is going send notice to the patient; is that right?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And even if the patient doesn't get the notice that's not a defense to nonpayment of the the lien, as I understand the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay . And --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: They would still owe the money, whether or not they got the notice that the lien was filed or not, but there was some confusion that it attached to their real estate and this was to help clarify that one, it did not attach to their real estate.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: That was my next question. So in this bill, though, it limits the application of that lien to simply the proceeds from any lawsuit that may or may not be filed?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: That's correct. That's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay . Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 328? If not, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of Senate Bill 328. All those in favor say aye, those opposed say nay. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 328 is passed to engrossment. Members, we're going to do some items on the items eligible. Mr. Phillips, Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Price and Mr. Branch. Chair lays out House Bill 1112 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB1112 by Phillips. Relating to the authority and powers of regional ability authorities.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I would move not to concur. They didn't like one of Representative Pickett's amendments on there, and we're going fight them and get that thing resolved. So I would ask not to concur and ask for a Conference Committee to be appointed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion not to concur on Senate amendments, and request appointment of Conference Committee. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Are there any requests for instructions in Conference Committee? Chair hears none. Chair announces the appointment of the following conferees.
THE CLERK: House Conferees Conference Committee on HB1112: Phillips, Chair, Fletcher, Harper-Brown, Lavender, Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out House Bill 1956 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB1956 by Thompson. Relating to an appeal of an order of the the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission, or commission's administrator refusing, canceling, or suspending a license or private club regulation permit.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Sp eaker, members, I ask for the Conference Committee to be discharged and be permitted to concur in Senate amendments, which is to allow the appeal process to be not ten days but twenty days. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion to discharge the conferees and to concur on Senate amendments. Members, this will be a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Showing Mr. Branch voting aye. There being 142 ayes and 0 nays, House bill 1956 finally passed. Members, the Chair is going to recognize Representative Price for the appointment of a Conference Committee on SB313. Chair recognizes Representative Price. REPRESENTATIVE WALTER "FOUR" PRICE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. On SB31, on the House floor, we had an amendment that was changed in the Senate. So I would move not to concur and appoint a conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none and the conference committee is appointed. Are there any instructions for the conference committee? If not, the Chair announces the following conferees:
THE CLERK: House conferees committee on SB313. Price, Chair, Ritter, Miller of Comal, Lucio, Beck.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.
REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I move that we concur in the request of the Senate to appoint a conference committee on SB28.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, is there any objection? Chair hears none. Are there any instructions to the conference committee? If not, the Chair announces the following conferees:
THE CLERK: House conferees on SB28. Branch, Chair, Hunter, Villarreal, Howard of Travis, Patrick.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to grant the Senate request for conferees on Senate Bill 1420.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Is there any instruction for the conferrees? If not, the clerk will read the following conferrees:
THE CLERK: House conferrees for the conference committee on SB1420: Harper-Brown, Chair, Phillips, Pickett, Bonnen, McClendon.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up House Bill 699 with Senate amendments.
THE CLERK: HB699 by Deshotel. Relating to the port authority advisory committee and funding of port security, transportation, facility projects and port studies.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has to do with port security and funding and application for funds, and I would like to concur Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Representative Chisum voting aye. Representative Smith voting aye. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes and 1 nay, House Bill 699 is finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 2035 with Senate amendment.
THE CLERK: HB2035 by Hamilton. Relating to the temporary relocation of an alcoholic beverage distributor or wholesaler's premises during a period of emergency and delivery or alcoholic beverages to distributor's or wholesaler's premises.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, this is basically the bill that we could locate a different distributorship over in case a hurricane came on. Basically all that happened was the senators put on an amendment in the committee, and then they took it back in the regular session. And so the bill came back as it left here. So we just move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? It's a record vote, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 142 eyes and 1 nay, House Bill 2035 is finally passed. Chair lays out House Bill 1674 with Senate amendment. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB1674 by Jackson. Relating to procedures for establishment, modification and enforcement of child support obligation.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, I move to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 1674, it creates an incentive program for people to pay their child support.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Mr. Phillips, for what purpose? Motion is on -- The question is on the motion to concur with House Bill 1674 Senate amendment. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes and 0 nays, House Bill 1674 is finally passed. Mr. Anchia?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Geren, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Parliamenta ry inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: State your inquiry.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Speaker , would you mind asking the members, as they ask us to concur with Senate amendments, to tell us what the Senate amendments do, please, sir?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Be happy to.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out House Bill 2271 with Senate amendment.
THE CLERK: HB2271 by Anchia. Relating to the continuation and functions for the Texas Racing Commission, the abolishment of the Equine Research Account Advisory Committee, and the authority of Texas AgriLife Research; providing an administrative penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. And, members, this is this Racing Commission sunset bill. There are three material changes to the bill that I will go over with you at this time. The Senate stripped the requirement that not all active -- not all -- that all nonactive tracks need to race within three years. If you recall, members, Representative Hartnett put an amendment on the bill that created a hard top after three years. The sunset bills creates a mechanism in which by all inactive tracks go through sunset on a yearly basis. The Senate stripped out the three year hard top. So currently a nonactive track would be going through the one year -- the one year review on a regular basis. The Hartnett amendment created a three year hard top and the Senate stripped that. The Senate also added a provision that requires the commission to provide guidance on what constitutes good faith efforts. Members, you'll recall we had a variation of this with respect to Representative Coleman' amendment. But with respect to the one year review that the nonactive tracks go through, they are required to make a showing of good faith efforts. The Senate added the provision that requires the commission to adopt rules to flush out what good efforts mean. And, finally, the Senate also added a provision, and this is an amendment to the Hamilton amendment which requires the commission to notify the applicant when it has satisfied all of the requirements for licensure. You recall that the Hamilton amendment on the House side said that the commission needed to act within 120 days. There needed to be some clarification there. That tolling period, that 120 day tolling period only begins after the commission notifies the applicant that it has satisfied all of the the requirements for licensure, for the license application, I should say. So only at that point does 120 day window begin to toll. So those are the three material changes of the bill as it left the House. And, members, I move to concur with Senate amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, Representative Anchia moves to concur with Senate amendment. It's a record vote, members. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Branch voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 120 ayes, 20 nays, 2 present not voting; the motion does pass. House Bill 2271 is passed. Chair lays out House Bill 908. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB908 by Thompson.. Relating to the division of community property on dissolution of marriage.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Chair recognizes Representative Thompson to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Sp eaker, members, when this bill left here -- This is a bill -- This part of the the bill deals with a fraud on a community when the person gets a divorce. Like one party goes and decides during the divorce, before it's finalized, I'm going go clean out the bank account. If that fraud happens, what this language that the Senate put in would clarify what is a fraud on the estate, and what the court can take into consideration an awarding to the not -- to the innocent party that portion of the the community estate that has been fraudulently taken during the process of the the divorce. I move to concur in the Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, Representative Thompson moves to concur with Senate amendment on House Bill 9098. It's a record vote, members. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Mr. Anchia voting aye. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes, 0 nays, 2 present not voting; House Bill 908 is passed with Senate amendment. Chair lays out House Bill 1380 with Senate amendment. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB1380 by Truitt. Relating to the graduate medical training requirements for certain foreign medical school graduates applying for a license to practice medicine in this state.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Representati ve Truitt? Chair recognizes Representative Truitt to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to concur with Senate amendment for House Bill 1380. It just restores the bill to its original form.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Members, Representative Truitt sends up a notion to concur on Senate amendment on House Bill 1380. It's a record vote, members. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes, 1 nay, 2 present not voting; House Bill 1380 is passed. Chair lays out Senate amendment to House Bill 843. The clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB843 by Geren. Relating to the use of electronic needs for the delivery of ad valorem tax bills to certain property owners and agents.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Chair recognizes Representative Geren to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, the amendment the Senate put on were some clarifying language that the comptroller needed in order to make some notifications -- to make sure that she notified the tax assessor and collector properly. And I move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Representati ve Geren moves to concur on House Bill 843 Senate amendment. It's a record vote, members. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 137 ayes, 40 nays, 2 present not voting; House Bill 843 is passed. Chair lays out House Bill 2376 with a Senate amendment. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB2376 by Hamilton. Relating to the regulation of plumbing.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, this is the plumbing bill we passed out on Local and Consent Calendar. The Senate added some amendments to it. The first one is a bill that would create more efficiency in the dispute resolution process, where the board administrator would not allow the board to investigate a complaint in which a person filed the compliant, and the person who is subject to the complaint are engaged in litigation. It also, the bill strikes plumbing contractor and replaces it with reasonable master plumber or agent of a reasonable master plumbing. This clarifies and updates the statute by matching terminology that this statute already has in existence. It also -- Senator Watson put on the change and make it permissive as to whether the board may or may not investigate a complaint. Instead of not allowing them at all, it also rewords existing language and places it with a clearer definition that was eventually done by the legislative counsel. Move passage.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Representati ve Hamilton sends up a motion to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 2376.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: For what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Does the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Hamilton , do you yield? He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Chairman Hamilton, I'm looking at my analysis of that, and they say they greatly expand the regulation on plumbing. Is that your thought, that's what this Senate amendment did?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: They didn't expand on them, they clarified them and they put them also into the terminology that the statute already existed, so that may be what they are talking about when they expanded some of them.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. And in your analysis of that, the Senate amendment didn't expand the regulation of plumbing or make it harder to become a plumber?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: It just mostly changed up the terminology, and it dealt with the complaint the -- mainly the complaints that if one person -- In other words, if both sides were in a complaint and had a litigation, that the board couldn't get in the middle of it.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Once again --
REPRESENTATIVE DOUG MILLER: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield, please?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Miller, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Question for the author of the the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Hamilton , do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He yields.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: I just want to make a quick question, I hadn't had a chance to review the complete Senate amendment. Would this require a licensed plumber in every small town in the state or is that part of this?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: No, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: All right. Thanks. What about insurance?
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: It makes the ones that are master plumbers, they have to have insurance requirements that are already induced by the State.
REPRESENTATIVE SID MILLER: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Would anyone else like to ask a question from a back mic? Mr. Hamilton moves to concur with Senate amendments on House Bill 2376. It's a record vote, members. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Final vote of 105 ayes, 37 nays, 2 present is not voting; House Bill 2376 is passed. Chair calls up House Bill 1405 with Senate amendment.
THE CLERK: HB1405 by Smithee. Relating to the provision by a health benefit plan of prescription drug coverage specified by formulary and to modifications of that coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Hardcastle ? Chair recognizes Representative Hardcastle.
REPRESENTATIVE RICK HARDCASTLE: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I would move to call up House Bill 1405 by Smithee, with Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Members, this is a record vote to concur with Senate amendments to House Bill 1405. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? There being 142 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 1405 is finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 2360 with Senate amendments. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB2360 by Schwertner. Relating to the creation of the Corn Hill Regional Water Authority; providing authority to issue bonds.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The one Senate amendment further defined and deliniated and limited the general powers and duties of the regional water authority that was established by this bill. I move to concur with the Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I thought we agreed to have parliamentary inquiry. I thought the speakers were going tell us what these amendments were if they wanted us to concur. I mean, we're voting blind down here.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: We're in the middle of a vote. Have all voted? There being 130 ayes, two nays, House Bill 2306 finally passes. Mr. Howard, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Yes, sir. I thought Mr. -- Representative Charlie Geren came back to the back mic and asked the speakers to tell us what the amendments were when they wanted to concur with the amendments, Senate amendments. We're voting blind down here and we're responsible for these votes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Howard, I believe Mr. Schwertner did explain the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: He would be happy to explain them again.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I would just like to know what they are when every person that comes up there says they concur with the Senate amendments, we would like to know what the Senate amendments are. I mean --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: I mean they're a reflection of the the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Schwertner.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE HOWARD: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE CHARLES SCHWERTNER: Yes, Mr. Howard. This amendment, essentially, just further delineated and limited had defined the powers that the the regional water authority that was going to be established -- that is being established by this bill had. It further limits it and defined those powers. That's all this does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair calls up House Bill 1061 with Senate amendment.
THE CLERK: HB1061 by Otto. Relating to the expiration of certain investment authority of the the Teacher Retirement System of Texas.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Otto.
REPRESENTATIVE ROB ORR: Mr. Speaker, members, one Senate amendment was put on this bill which essentially was a House Bill that we took up and passed last week, that set the cap on a hedge fund at 10 percent investments for TRS. So I move to concur with Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any questions for Representative Otto? If not, the question is on the motion concur with House Bill 1061 Senate amendment. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Eiland voting aye. Have all voted? There being 141 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 1061 has finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 563 with Senate amendments. Clerk will read the bill. Clerk: HB563 by Pickett. Relating to the purposes and designation of a transportation reinvestment zone. Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, Mr. Howard. The Senate put the identical House Bill 629 onto this and the one amendment that we had to that that required a 30 day notice, so the bill came over exactly as we passed to out of the House. And I move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , would the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentleman yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Mr. Speaker , I'm reading this. Did we change an ad valorem tax to a sales tax?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: No, sir. What the Senate did was put the bill, which was the same one we put out, House Bill 629; which also includes sales tax in a reinvestment zone if they chose.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Sales tax and property tax?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Yes, sir. On the value of the the increased property value in a reinvestment zone. Yes, sir. Move to concur.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Are there any other questions for Representative Pickett? If not, the question occurs on motion to concur of House Bill 563 with Senate amendment. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Being 143 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 563 is finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 1829 with Senate amendment. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB1829 by Naishtat. Relating to transfer to mental hospital of a person that is submitted to a facility for emergency attention.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Naishtat? Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.
REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, this is the bill that passed the House. It would provide a peace officer paralegal authority to transfer a mental health patient being held for emergency detention. One amendment was added in the Senate that provides a judge or magistrate to transmit a warrant electronically, with a digital signature attached to the document. I move to concur with the Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any questions for Representative Naishtat? If not, the question occurs on concurrence to Senate amendment of House Bill 1829. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? Being 141 ayes, 0 nays; House Bill 1829 is finally passed. Mr. Taylor? Mr. Taylor of Collin? Chair calls up House Bill 3487 with Senate amendment.
THE CLERK: HB3487 by Taylor of Collin. Relating to regulation of certain service animals; providing a civil penalty.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Taylor.
REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, members, this bill passed on Local and Consent. It helps search and rescue dogs. This is the one where rescue dogs find lodging during hurricanes. The Senate changed the penalty for
(inaudible) that did not allow this to a Class C misdemeanor, to a maximum of a two hundred dollar penalty. I move concurrence of the Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any questions? If not, the question occurs on motion to concur Senate amendment of House Bill 3476. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Taylor voting aye. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 3476 is finally passed. Chair calls up House Bill 848 with Senate amendment. Clerk will read the bill.
THE CLERK: HB848 by Guillen. Relating to an agreement authorizing certain persons to make decisions regarding a child during an investigation of child abuse or neglect.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, HB848 ensures that a relative or other person who agrees to accept a child in their home through a parental child safety placement agreement has the authority to perform all necessary tasks to take care of the child. There were two Senate changes: Number one is the termination of the authorization agreement when this department terminates the parental/child safety agreement, or the parental/child safety agreement expires. Number two, it represents current law under Chapter 34 for clarity purposes. The changes are in line with the intent of the bill and I move to concur with the Senate amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, are there any questions? If not, the motion to concur House Bill 848 Senate amendment -- Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? There being 143 ayes, 0 nays, House Bill 848 is finally passed. Chair lays out HR2020.
THE CLERK: HR2020 by Harless.. Suspending limitations on conference committee jurisdiction, S.B. No. 14. Fraser? Harless?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members, this is the resolution to allow the Voter ID Conference Committee to go outside the bounds to make clarifying corrections. The Conference Committee report creates a separate free photo ID for voting purposes, called an election identification certificate. The election identification certificate mirrors existing law and is essentially the same as a DPS personal ID card, except that an election ID may only be used for voting purposes. Election IDs issued to voters 70 or older do not expire. The added language ensures that the free ID issued by the DPS for voting will not impact the Texas mobility funds. Although TexDOT stated that the original language in SB14 would have not materially or significantly reduced the revenue to the mobility fund, the Conference Committee made this clarification to eliminate any concerns. The Conference Committee report also clarifies that a voter claiming religious exemption to show photo ID must have consistently refused to being photographed for any governmental purpose. This is to ensure those claiming this exemption are doing so for a legitimate reason. I move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Harless. She yields.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you. Ms. Harless, is this the privileged resolution that was placed on our desks first thing this morning?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And did you just give a thorough reading of what it does?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: May I ask you a few questions about that for clarification, and then may I ask that your comments and my comments be reduced to writing, including your opening statements?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: On line 15 you make reference to identification without a fee. Can you tell me how you're going assure that there will be no fee, and how it will be funded?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Okay. Line 15, on page one of the the resolution or --
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Correct.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Okay. DPS has said that there would be no fee in the bill itself, in the Conference Committee report. Representative Anchia offered an amendment, which we have kept the provisions in the bill saying that any replacement fee -- any replacement card would be free of charge. Any original or replacement.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And where did you say it's funded now?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It's not funded now because it's a new form of ID.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the answer. Would you repeat it?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It's a new form of ID. It's not something that has been in the transportation code in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Okay. So how is it going to be funded?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: There's no fee for it.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: No, no. I have legislative oversight on that committee. How is DPS going to pay for this?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised of that.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: So there like tens of thousands of new IDs that DPA is going to be required to provide, and we have not identified the funding source to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: All the testimony in the twelve hours of communication that we had on the floor on this bill stated that the process is that this population is very, very small. This only applies to the people that don't have one of the the proved forms of identification, which is the driver's license, an ID card, a passport, citizens' certificate with a photo ID.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. Thank you. Could you move on now to line 16? And I realize, because this is a privileged resolution I can't offer an amendment, but I was perplexed by your word choice on line 16 when you refer to the would be, want to be potential voter, as someone who is when offering to vote. Don't you mean to say they are attempting to vote?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: This wording was done by the LBB, and I assume that's what they meant. Offering attempt to vote.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Well, I would suggest that a more accurate portrayal, although maybe this is acceptable to the author, would be when voters are attempting to vote and they are on the verge of being declined the opportunity to vote. On line 17, present a form of identification that will not be sufficient. Would you describe what will not be sufficient that has in the past been sufficient?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It's my understanding that if they don't have one of the form, the approved forms of identification that I mentioned previously, your driver's license, ID card, concealed handgun, passport, citizenship paper with a picture, and a military ID.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Then moving right along, thank you very much for your answer. Page two, line two is, I think, the first reference to election identification certification. There's an entire chapter on that, beginning on page three, line 18. Once again, I assume that you mean on line twenty that the the department, shall you mean -- you're referring to DPS?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Um, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: And while you maintain that the fiscal notice to the amendment, there is nothing available attached to this privileged resolution. Why is that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I guess they assume that there's not going to be a significant cost to the department.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Okay. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I would like to have all of her comments in laying out the resolution and our exchange just now put in the House Journal.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Chisum, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Will the lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Harless yields.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: I'm just a little bit concerned. On page two, line 16, where it talks about religious objection. Can you tell us someone that has a religious objection of taking their picture?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Right. The religious objection has been added back, and the requirements are that they have consistently refused to be photographed for any governmental purpose. When they show up at the polls, it is my understanding, that if they claim they have religious exemption for not showing a photo ID they will cast a provisional ballot. They will have to go back within the six day tier period, provide documentation and sign an affidavit as to the reason why they are claiming religious exemption, and they must not have been photographed from the time that they claim this exemption by any government entity.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: So if they've never ever, ever had a photograph taken then they can claim it, I guess, basically?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: If they consistently refused to be photographed for governmental purpose from the time the voter has held this belief.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: What about when they go through a toll gate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE WARREN CHISUM: Okay. Is there any particular religion that you're aware of?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No, I'm not.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker , will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you. Mrs. Harless, as I read the privilege resolution, the concern that I have, it says here the identification will be provided without a fee. Is it not true that the Department of Public Safety, along with every other state agency, has had a budget cutback; is that not the case in all of our state agencies? They are suffering budget cutbacks due to the budget deficit that we're experiencing?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I don't serve on Appropriations, but that has been the testimony on the floor, from what I understand.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So my understanding is that when we get renewal of our driver's licenses, that every Texan pays approximately $20 to have their license renewed, and there's no additional expense to DPS other than issuing the plastic and taking our picture, is that not true?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No additional expense other than the $25 or --
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Well, when we get our licenses renewed, when one of your constituents, yourself, myself and we've already been tested, and we're just getting a routine renewal, don't we pay $20 to get that license renewed; is that not, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think that was testimony, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So if we're paying DPS to have them issue a license, a piece of plastic with our photograph, but now they're going to issue an election certificate for free; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: If you do not have one of the other forms of identification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So the rest of our constituents, the rest of the citizens of Texans that are paying for their photo ID, we're going to be subsidizing for those folks that don't have one, we're going to subsidize this new card?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: If you do not have a current form of photo-identification used for voting purposes, no driver's license, ID card, passport; all the approved forms, and you request a voter's certificate identification card, then yes, the department will provide this. All the testimony that we have heard in committee, and throughout the twelve hour debate that we had on the floor, was that we are not sure what this population will be, but we assume that it will be very very small.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I just want the body to be clear, and those folks back home listening, that what we're doing, or what you're asking, or the folks that are proposing this legislation; is that every Texan that pays for their driver's license subsidizes those people who don't have a form of ID and requests one, that we pay for them because they don't have one; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I don't think that it's a subsidy. I think it's part of what the department does already.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: But the Department of Public Safety, isn't it funded through tax payer dollars?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It is funded through taxpayers dollars and fees to customers, and this is not something that we don't already do on occasion. I know that that bill that passed out of the Senate that would provide for twenty thousand free IDs for some homeless people in Austin, and that was offered by Senator Watson. So I know it's something that is in the normal scope of what the legislature does.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I don't disagree with that statement. I think that it's somewhat ironic that in this time of budget uncertainty and budget shortfalls that we're creating the need through this voter ID program to provide for more free IDs for people who don't have them, all in the name of solving a problem that may or may not exist. And I think it's somewhat ironic, and it's interesting. And it's important to me and my constituents that they get the full story. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Ms. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentle lady yield for a question, please?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. Representative Harless, on the report back I noticed that they stripped or changed the amendment that we put on with regards to counting the provisional ballots. And it went back to the language that talked about it didn't accept it.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm happy to discuss all of those as soon as we pass the resolution to go outside of the the bounds, and then I'll bring up the conference report and go into each one of those.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. But my question has to do with the resolution as it relates to that part of the the bill, because I want to make sure that if, in fact, this is the language that is going to be contained, we need new language to discuss how provisional ballots will be accepted -- will be counted. And does that need to come within this resolution? Because certainly there is an interpretation of whether counted is accepted is the same language. And if it's different, then maybe it has to be something we do outside of the the bounds with regard to the resolution. And if that's not the case, I'm happy to discuss it then. I just don't want to miss an opportunity to bring that back to where we are, so if we need put some new language in we have an opportunity to do that.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm happy go into that in more detail. We did keep your amendment in there, the provisional ballots will be counted is how the word said. The thing that they added is that you had to be eligible to vote. It was my understanding that your criteria, or the things that you wanted to make sure that they showed up with their provisional ballot, cast their provisional ballot, and showed up within the cure period, that their ballot will be counted. And we made sure of that. We added that they were eligible to vote, that they were voting in the correct precinct and then we put in there the provisional will be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Also, there might be some discussion with regard to other ways that you might end up with a provisional ballot, not just the ones you identified, because there are other ways that people might be carded through the provisional ballot process and just as long as we don't limit ourself to discussing that. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Harless yields.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hank you Representative Harless. Why are we going outside of the the bounds?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We are going outside of the the bounds for two reasons. One, to make sure that that is good clarification on elimination of any concerns that the free photo ID for voting purposes is actually an election identification certificate card.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W here does that concept come from, the voter identification certificate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The term or the --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T he concept.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The concept?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: B ecause it didn't come out of a House Committee, did it?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: D id it come out of a Senate Committee?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think yes, it did come out of the the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W as it in the Senate Bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It was not originally in the Senate Bill. We called it a free identification card during the twelve hours of debate on the House floor. There was some discussion about would that free voter ID card for people that didn't have one of the the approved forms of identification, would that effect the mobility fund? We wanted to make sure that that was very clear.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So , to be clear, the concept of the voter identification certificate was not in the Senate Bill, was not vetted by the House, was not voted on by either body, correct and that's why we're going outside the bounds?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, sir.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. What was the problem with the Texas mobility fund, because we raised that issue here on the House floor and said when you have a free ID, and I think it was raised a point of order up front, when you have a free ID, a state driver's license or a state ID, it was going to hit the Texas mobility fund. And that, in fact, was constitutionally protected right? That was what we argued on the House floor, did we not?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: During your very eloquent debate on what we were doing and making sure we were doing it right, and listening to all your objections, we went back and decided we wanted to make sure there was clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: A nd who decided that? Where did this concept come from? Who brought it up?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: You brought it up on the the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I didn't sit on the conference committee, right? So who in conference committee brought it up?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think we were talking about the debate of what happened in the House, and some objections that were raised, and in the conference committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o the conferees were talking about this, okay, and did you deliberate in public?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It was Senator Fraser and I and conversations. He sent a letter to TexDOT and TexDOT sent a letter back.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o you said earlier, though, that the conferrees were talking about this subject. But did the conferrees actually meet in public?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No. This was Senator Fraser's staff and my staff talking about what we needed to work on making sure that was clarified.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o it was the House sponsor and the Senate sponsor? But just so we're clear, the House and Senate conferrees never met in public, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hy not?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We never actually had a formal meeting --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hy not?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: -- to discuss the issue. Because we were pretty much in agreement on most of the the things that we needed to change.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: H ow did y'all know y'all were in agreement without deliberating as a group?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Senator Fraser and I discussed a number of issues.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. So the two of you were in an agreement, and there was no need hold a public meeting, in your opinion?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. So then out of these private -- secret meetings, right --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Secret meetings? I don't think so.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hey were secret meetings. They weren't noticed, they weren't openly public --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: They were on the Senate floor, most of them.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o suddenly we have a new concept that comes to the floor, which is this voter identification certificate. So I have a couple of questions about it, if that's okay. I just wanted to figure out how we got here and where we're going outside the bounds. Do we know what security measures the new ID will contain? That is, as you have in the past said, this is about integrity of elections. What security measures are going to be included in the voter identification certificate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It references --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I s it spelled out in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes. It references the transportation code, that's the same as the driver's license and the ID card. If you buy a Department of Public Safety -- and the only difference is the distinguishable color.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. So the security features will be the same as the driver's license? How much does it cost to produce one driver's license?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think the testimony in committee was about a $1.65.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. For one driver's license all --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: P retty much all in? I don't remember it and I thought you might. So this new voter identification certificate will cost -- and contain the same security features as a driver's license, it will cost, let's say between a dollar and two dollars, to be fair. You said earlier -- you said earlier this will be a small universe of people who will be eligible for this. What is the size of the universe?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I don't think we have an exact number in all the testimony that we had.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o what is small?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Small.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So you don't have a number?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Well, out of 25,000,000 citizens, you know, I think it's a very small universe. I think the testimony that we heard, I think there's about 698,000 people that --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I s that small?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: -- that had identification cards. And compared to how many of those are actually registered to vote, and will vote, I'm not sure what that will be.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o you don't know? The number could be small, could be big?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think it will be very, very small.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: B ased on what?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Based on the numbers that we heard, the committee, that was the same that will be heard from the director of DPS.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I think I was present for that testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: You were.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: A nd DPS said she didn't know. I don't think it was the director, but it was the representative of DPS said she didn't know. Would you agree with that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, and they also said had the they thought the universe was very small.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o how much is this going to cost --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cain raises a point of order. That the lady's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: M r. Speaker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Madam Doorkeeper?
MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Admit the messenger.
SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform House the Senate has taken the following --
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill the gentle lady yield for a couple more questions on this new concept?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia is requesting an extension of time. This is the first extension.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I will yield.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hank you. Representative Harless, do you believe the DPS has the necessary expertise in electoral law to develop the parameters for this voter identification certificate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Could you say the first part again?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I apologize. Does the DPS have the requisite expertise in electoral law to develop a voter identification certificate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think they have the expertise to develop an identification, which this will be an election identification certificate. I don't think it has to do with the criteria of actually voting, but providing additional ID to be used for voting.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: N ow the bill says that this can't be used for identification, for anything but voting. So I guess the question goes to the issue does DPS have the requisite electoral expertise to develop this type of voter identification certificate? Above -- They're good at laying out driver's licenses, right, developing those. But do they have the requisite electoral experience, in your opinion?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: In the bill that we debated for twelve hours we talked about a free identification that DPS would offer. This is a very substantially similar identification, and I do think they have the expertise to issue that type of identification.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hat are some of the the disqualifications for getting an ID? For example, if they have outstanding warrants, speeding tickets, et cetera?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised of that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill they still be able to get IDs?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So , clearly, you don't get an ID, a voter identification certificate, if you have a driver's license or state ID. But what if you show up and you have an outstanding ticket, will you be disqualified?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill they require proof of insurance?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill the DPS maintain a database of election identification or voter identification certificate holders?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It's my understanding that they will.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I s that in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It is in the the Transportation Code that is referenced in 21 -- 521.0101.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill it share that database with the Secretary Of State? Is it authorized in the bill to share it with the Secretary of State?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W ill the DPS -- Is the DPS authorized in the bill to share the information with local election administrators and election officials?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. I just want to make sure I understand this. You're coming to the House and asking to go outside the bounds on a new concept that was not debated in the Senate or the House. Was not discussed in a public conference committee meeting. And we don't know some -- I think some very important questions, we don't know answers to some important questions. Do you know if the Conference Committee consulted DPS when it decided to add voter identification certificate to the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I was not part of that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W as it just Senator Fraser's office?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I assume that it was. This was -- And I want to correct something you said, when you said that you wanted to discuss going out of the the bounds for a new concept. I don't think this is a new concept. I just think it's got a new title on it. It is basically the same free photo ID for voting purposes, but it's just being renamed as an election identification certificate.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hat was it called in the prior bill?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: They called it free photo ID
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: B ut it was a state ID, right?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Right.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I t was a state ID?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: In this election identification --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I s it going to be identical?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It will be -- No, we have already discussed it's not going to be identical.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: So , it's different? All right --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: But it's not a new concept. It's not a new concept.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Y ou're saying it's similar but different?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Kind of. That sounds good.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. Okay. I just want to be clear, because I believe the concept is new. I believe what we debated on the House floor was free state identification, or a free driver's license for a person if they said it was going to be used for voting purposes, right?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No, I don't think we ever said a free driver's license --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I think you're right. It was just a state ID
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It was a separate identification.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: A state ID that someone would get currently, under current law. So this is a new --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T his is a new piece of identification that DPS is going develop, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It was always going to be a new piece of identification. It was going to be a identification used specifically for voting if they did not already have an identification card or a driver's license.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: C orrect. But it was going to be a state ID?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: And this is going to be a state ID as well.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I think we disagree on this. I see this as a completely new provision, and a new form of identification that DPS is going to put out. If not, you could have done it within the same bill and just changed the dedicated revenue stream from the mobility fund or to the mobility fund. That would have also made it constitutional. Did you think at all that giving free IDs was going to put a hit on the mobility funds?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Did I think at all under the original --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Y eah, under the original bill, like after we raised the issue, that it gave you cause to think about it? And maybe we raised some concerns that you considered in the Conference Committee, and the reason you moved it away from the mobility fund is that you thought there might be a hit on the mobility fund from the free IDs?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I never said that.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I never said that we moved it away because I thought it would be a hit. We wanted --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hat did you think would be the impact on the the mobility fund?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We wanted to make sure there was a clarification so that there was no misunderstanding after the debate on the floor to clear up any my type of questions that this might bring. And I think the universe is so small that I don't really know.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o why didn't you keep it in the mobility fund then, keep the free IDs?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Because you ask such good questions and I wanted to make sure that there was no -- no misinterpretation of what our expectations were.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: B ack to the Texas mobility funds. What -- Did you think there was a consequence to the mobility fund from the way the prior bill was structured, and that's why you needed to change it? Because it doesn't seem like it's an issue of clarification, what you're going here. This is a new approach. So because -- There were a couple of options under the mobility fund, you could have just placed another dedicated revenue stream to replenish the fund so that state bonds wouldn't be downgraded. And why did you not choose that approach?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think when you started your statement, after the extension of time, that we disagree on this. I disagree on that. I think this was just for clarification purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O kay. Did you consider the approach of a dedicated revenue stream to replenish the mobility fund?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I considered making sure that the election card that will be issued by DPS for the right to vote to be as clear as possible and not up for any interpretation so that --
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S o you were saying it was unclear on whether the mobility fund would be jeopardized by a prior approach, if you were concerned that something was unclear by a prior approach and you wanted to clear it up here what was the point of confusion or lack of clarity?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Well, I think the lack of confusion was your question on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: M y questions were clear. Maybe the answers were confusing.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We just wanted to make sure everybody knew what we were talking about, and there was clarification with the department so they new what was expected.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: O bjection. Nonresponsive. But thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Walle, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ARMANDO WALLE: Mr. Speaker , I'd like to raise point of order under Rule 13, Section 9G5.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. The point of order is respectfully overruled. Is there anyone wishing to speak for or against HR2020? If not, the question occurs on the adoption of HR2020. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against HR2020? Chair recognizes Representative Anchia.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hank you Mr. Speaker and members. I rise in opposition to the motion to go outside the bounds with respect to the Senate Bill No. 14. I appreciate the dialogue that Representative Hartnett and I -- excuse me, Harless and I had just a moment ago. When you look at the -- Let's back up for a second and remember how we got here. Initially, the Senate Bill came to this body with a free ID component that was keyed to issue state IDs when a person met certain thresholds, either had some religious objection to being photographed, 70 years old, was indigent, according to federal law definition. And at the time that the legislation said if you meet certain criteria you get a free ID. The problem with the structure of the the bill at the time is that it was keyed to the Texas mobility fund. Now we raised these concerns on a number of occasions, including a point of order during the lay out of the bill and consideration of the the bill. The concern we raised is that the Texas mobility fund, which is used to backstop the bonds that we float in order build infrastructure projects in this state, it's constitutionally protected. And by giving people free IDs we, in fact, are going to be putting a hit on the Texas mobility fund, which is going lower the credit worthiness of those bonds, lower the credit rating, and have a possible impact of causing our money, to put it simply, to be more expensive when we went to the bond market. So it turns out that without any public meeting, and without any public discussion, and without the concept being vetted by either the House or the Senate, the House sponsor to the bill comes to this body and asks us to go outside the bounds to let them adopt a new voter identification certificate, which would be given to people who met certain criteria. The real interesting thing about this discussion is that this author, while initially saying that she thought it would be a small universe, admitted that she didn't know what the universe would be, citing the undetermined universe that was in committee by the Texas Department of Transportation. The bottom line is we don't know. Now there are other states that have given out free IDs and they budgeted ten, five, ten, $15 million in order to implement the program. But ironically, the legislative budget board gives us a fiscal note that says the fiscal implication of this resolution cannot be determined at this time. I'm not sure how they got there, other than echoing the party line and saying we just don't know. Well, the irony, though the LBB back in 2005, Representative Mary Denny's bill did give us a fiscal note for photo IDs, for free photo IDs. But fast forward six years later, and suddenly they can't determine it. They can't work with DPS, apparently. The leadership of DPS has changed and now DPS can't come up with a number so the LBB can't make a projection. I think we're in uncharted waters here, members. I think not knowing is a problem. When we tried to get an amendment on this House floor to just restore nominal amounts to fundamental programs like libraries, like health care, we are being asked to take leap of faith here, members, and go outside the bonds on a universe that can't be determined; and with an LBB fiscal impact that says that it can't be determined. And I think that's a problem. We have tried to be very exact with our budgeting here on the House floor, members, and we are being asked by this motion to go outside the bounds to deal with this new subject that was never voted publicly, that was done in private meetings, and you heard it from the House sponsor, to spend an amount that we just can't determine. I think it's irresponsible, I think it's not fiscally irresponsible and certainly not fiscally conservative, members. So I would ask that you vote against this motion.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, will you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Mr. Anchia , I guess my question is would you rather us not have any other additional IDs, just only allow the driver's license ID and the other exceptions? Would you like us to not have this option for voters?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: F rankly, I think this option is entirely too limiting. We brought forward a well reasoned proposal that would allow someone, if they did not have a state ID or driver's license, to issue an affidavit that would be permissible in court to identify themselves, along with the current form of voter ID, which is their voter registration card. I think that's a much better approach. We even agreed to have a signature match, just like we do mail in ballot voting. And those were rejected. So my view --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: That's not an identification of photo ID, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: S ure it is.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: You're offering up a non-photo ID alternative.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: B ut, keep in mind, in your current bill you have a non-photo ID alternative as well. There's a bypass mechanism that was included in the Senate Bill that we fixed here in the House, that then when it went back to the Senate it was stripped out. So just to be perfectly clear, Chairman Phillips, there is component of this bill that is also a non-photo ID
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: It's a small component. Let me ask you something, I'm having hard time -- you're not saying this is going to cost the mobility fund; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: No longer. I think the important Senate Bill was going cost the mobility fund, and I think that's why they took it out. We raised those objections on the House floor --
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: I just want to make sure that you're clear that you're not saying it's going cost the mobility fund.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: J ust to be clear, thank you for raising the point, if there's any confusion, Chairman Phillips, the only Senate Bill we thought created a significant hit to the mobility fund, because it required new IDs, okay? And our estimates were $14 million over the biennium. We also thought it would jeopardize some of the bond covenants related to transportation funding or transportation bonds and infrastructure bond. So we raised that concern. That has been taken out. But the dialogue that I had with Representative Harless is that why was it taken out? Did you agree that it was going to be unconstitutional and then you replaced it with a completely new approach that says -- and, to be clear, does not touch the Texas mobility fund, it does not put a hit on it; but creates some other expense that is not in the bill?
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Let me make clear for the record that the mobility fund is not going to be cost anything from this.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: A greed. Agreed.
REPRESENTATIVE LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you very much.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Representative Anchia, I just wanted to make sure I understand. When you raised the concern about the threat to the mobility fund in the original bill, that concern has been addressed, and now what we're concerned about is we have no idea what this bill costs; is that the concern you're raising?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: R epresentative Strama, if you or I walked up to this front mic with a policy proposal and we said we had no idea what it was going to cost, just don't worry about, we would be lit up with 140 votes on the thing.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Right. Could you read to me again inside the box what's on the fiscal note?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T he Legislative Budget Board says the the fiscal implications of the the resolution cannot be determined at this time. If you and I walked up with this piece of paper and tried and had said hey, members, just trust me, it's okay. Don't worry about it. I'm sure it will be fine. I think it's a small universe, not sure. Admit on the the microphone that I really don't know at all, and say we just don't know, but let's do the fiscally irresponsible thing let's not be conservative here and let's go ahead and let it rip and see what happens later, we would be laughed off this microphone.
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: I have to say I agree with that. I can't imagine bringing to this floor something that I didn't know what it was going to cost in this political environment and this budget environment especially. Let me ask you this: it seems to be that the universe, the cost universe we're talking about, is -- the equation would be something like that one to two dollars per card, multiplied by the number of people who require this card. Is that what the dialogue before lead us to believe?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: C ertainly. That's what we were trying to get at --
REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: But I just have a thought on that, and that is if you're creating a new kind of card that is substantially similar to, but not the same as the current cards issued by DPS for state IDs or driver's license purposes, it doesn't follow, does it, that it's going to cost the same to start producing a new line of cards as the unit cost of the existing line of cards, for which the fixed cost and the capital investment has already been made. The first Ford truck to come off the assembly line cost a billion dollars. Every one that comes after that cost a thousand, but you got to create the infrastructure, manufacture the first one. And the cost of that could be much more substantial than one or two dollars multiplied by the number of people who need this card, isn't that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Un doubtedly. There's start up costs, there's administrative costs in setting up this new card. To be clear this is a third card. The first card would be driver's license, we have those. The second card is the State ID
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cain raises a point of order, that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained. The question occurs on the adoption of HR2020. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Davis voting aye. Showing Representative Riddle voting aye. Showing Representative Torres voting aye. Have all voted? Showing Representative Howard voting aye. Have all voted? There being 99 ayes and 45 nays, HR2020 is adopted. Chair calls up Conference Committee Report for SB14.
THE CLERK: Conference Committee Report for SB14.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harless.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I'm going spend some time going through all of these specifically, and I would ask that you bear with me until I get through with all of them before I answer any questions. Thank you for that consideration. I would like to call up the conference committee report on SB14. After eleven hours debate on the bill, I think everyone is very familiar with the provisions in the voter ID bill, so I would like to touch on the major points of the conference committee report and then discuss the differences as compared to the House version. The conference committee report to SB14 required voters to show a photo ID, except with certain disabled people may continue to vote with just their voters registration card. Acceptable forms of photo ID included a driver's license issued by DPS, an ID card issued by DPS, military IDs, passport, CHL, a citizen's certificate with a photo. Required DPS to provide a free photo election ID to any registered voter who requests an ID. It allows for voters to cast a provisional ballot if they do not have a photo ID, and return within six days to have the ballot counted. Provides that a provisional ballot will be counted if the voter shows an acceptable photo ID or signs an affidavit that the voter has ha religious objection to being -- religious objection to getting a photo taken or lost their ID during a recent disaster. It requires the Secretary of State and Vote Registrar to educate the public and train election workers on the new requirements, including mailing notices to each voter and posting notices outside the polling place. It increases the criminal penalties for illegally voting from a third degree felony, which is two to ten years, to a second degree felony, two to twenty years. A penalty for attempting to fraudulently vote is increased from a Class A. misdemeanor, to a state jail felony. The difference between the conference committee report and the House passage, before I talk about what is not in the conference committee report, I'd like to mention that out of the the 15 amendments added on the House floor, eight were kept in this legislation in some form. Those included amendments by Representative Anchia, Representative Yvonne Davis, representative Bonnen, Representative Hochberg, Representative Eiland and Representative Dukes. Provisions that were removed: Exemptions for voters who had their ID stolen, exemptions would result in more paperwork, which would -- which election workers may not be familiar with. The section of the the penal code that was named in the amendment in the exemption applies to all forms of identity theft, not just the actual theft of a person's ID. The Senate felt strongly that these provisions, that this provision should be removed. IDs approved by the state are removed as an acceptable form of ID. There were concerns over the language being too broad. What is a state approved ID? It could be anything. We believe that types of photo ID in the conference committee report are more uniform and less confusing. These documents have a standardized form, are simpler for voters and election poll workers to recognize. Tribal IDs are removed as an acceptable form of ID. Tribal IDs do not have a single standardized form. Census data shows that there are less than five thousand tribal members in Texas. There is no evidence that this number of voters do not already have one of the the other forms of acceptable ID. The report removed the floor amendment regarding temporary photo ID. According to the DPS, the language would have shut down DPS Online renewals because the requirement of the temporary ID to have a photo, that would mean that you could not renew your license online, you would have to go to the DPS, which would require people showing up to renew their license and increase lines and more resources for DPS driver's license office. Language which would have allowed provisional affidavits to be signed at the polling place was removed. That language creates a loophole and it effectively removes the cure process that the Senate felt very strongly about that provision being removed. The report removes the requirement that the Secretary of State educate efforts to target low income and minority voters. The language was not necessary, because the Conference Committee report provides for education of all voters. The report returns to original definition the early voting ballot board. This change was not substant and the the drafters would have needed to add many cross references throughout the entire election code, which were not contained in this bill, to correctly draft the name change. Notable provision that were kept and or modified: Representative Eiland added an exemption for natural disaster. This exemption remained in the bill but was modified. Provisional voters that claim this exemption can return within six days and sign an affidavit. This exemption may be claimed for only 45 days, which is typically the longest timeframe to get a new identification after a disaster. The exemption applies only to disaster which destroys or causes an inability to access IDs. It excludes heatwaves and droughts. We kept this provision in because of the potential to impact a large number of voters, if a storm such as Ike had come again. Representative Harper Brown added an amendment which removed indigent and religious exemption. The Conference Committee report added back in the religious exemption. The religious exemption is part of the the Indiana law, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. Representative Anchia's amendment regarding fees for duplicate IDs was moved to a new section regarding DPS election ID certificates. It remains that duplicate IDs will still be free. The conference committee report created a separate free photo ID for voting purposes, called an collection identification certificate. The election identification certificate mirrors existing law and is essentially the as the DPA personal ID, except for the election ID may only be used for voting purposes. The election ID issued to voters of 70-years old and older do not expire, and added language to ensure that free IDs issued by DPS for voting will not impact the Texas mobility fund. Although TexDOT stated that the original language in SB14 would have not materially or significantly reduced revenue to the mobility fund, the conference committee made this clarification to eliminate any concerns. Yvonne Davis offered an amendment on provisional ballots, and said that they will be counted if they met the criteria. This was kept in. And with -- saying that the person is eligible to vote and has voted in the correct precinct. And it says the provisional ballot will be counted. And I am happy to yield.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Davis, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Will the gentle lady yield for a question?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I will.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Gentle lady yields.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Representative Harless and I want to revisit with you about the provisional ballot, because I'm concerned that we're going to have ballot that won't be counted. And you indicated that -- that the language stays the same; is that right? But it looks like they said it would be accepted in the bill, verses counted. Am I looking at it incorrectly?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: No, you're looking at it correctly, but accepted and counted and their mind were same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But in fact it's not, because a provisional ballot can be accepted as a provisional ballot, but never get counted, based on the the way this bill is written. And we wanted to make sure, having worked with Chairman Madden and all, making sure that we all constructed a way to indicate that after meeting all of the the stipulations required with provisional ballots that -- and that it was a good ballot, it would be counted. And acceptable doesn't meet the same level, in my judgment, as whether or not that ballot is going to be counted or not. And so I want to make sure we clear that up, because why would -- if it was the same, why would they need to change it?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: This was the Senate's recommendation. They were very insistent on they wanted to take out your provision, your amendment. And I said you were my friend, that we needed to make it work, and this is what we agreed on.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. You agreed on what?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: On the the way that it was worded, saying that -- I have to get back to it -- that will be counted if they are eligible to vote, voting from the correct precinct, says the provisional will be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Let me let me -- If you look on page six --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Of the the bill or the conference?
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: This is Conference Committee report.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Okay.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And it appears that they changed the language to will be accepted. And if I'm reading it wrong please correct me, but on my page six it doesn't have counted, it has will be accepted. And, to me, that's not the same level of commitment in terms of whether or not that ballot will be a good ballot or not, if it's not going to be counted. It could be accepted as provisional but if they're not counting these ballots we could still have provisional ballots that are getting thrown out, and the people's right to vote will have been impacted.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: If they've met all the criteria, they will be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Look at page six.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think page six.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: On the Conference Committee report it says page six, line 158.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes, accepted. But your amendment was added under --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: It was under the provisional ballots. That was where my amendment was added in.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Just one second. You were under section nine --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: That's right. That's section nine, under the original bill. But if you look at the Conference Committee Report, that's what we're working off of now, and that language is not in there. And that's huge problem, because we're not telling people that could have a provisional ballot, and we're not saying that if they meet all of the stipulations that's required to be an eligible voter --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: If you look down on page six of the the bill, under section eight -- actually, it's section -- let's see -- section D, and it says include notice of -- that if all procedures are followed and the voter is found to be eligible to vote, is voting in the correct precinct, the provisional ballot will be accepted. You're right, they're using the word accepted.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: It says accepted, it doesn't say counted. That's what I'm saying. So that's a big difference, because now people can have an accepted ballot that will not be counted, and we don't want to take people's right to vote, as much as we talk about voting integrity, we also must protect ones right to have their vote counted. This language saying accepted clearly indicates or clearly suggests that it doesn't necessarily -- that it will not necessarily be counted and, therefore, people will have --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: It's my understanding that accepted and counted are the same thing.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But you know, in fact, accepted is not the same as counted because on a provisional ballot could be accepted and meet the qualifications of all this stuff and be put in a different box, that we accepted a provisional ballot, the voter voted on a provisional ballot, but it has nothing to do with whether you're going to count that as a ballot that should be counted in this election. So, in fact, they're not the same thing. That's why we want to specify that the voter had a right to have his vote counted if it adheres to all of the requirements that warrant him to have a provisional ballot. But in no way did we intend to take his vote away. And by saying accepted suggests that it's not always going to be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: This was the language that was worked out with the Senate and the Secretary of State.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. The Senate -- What did the House do? Did the House fight for this? Because we want to leave the House saying that folks will not have to worry about whether or not their vote is going to be counted, and so did we make the argument that counted is not the same as accepted? And did we understand that the House, by putting that provision, and having worked with Chairman Madden and others, who wanted to make sure that we correctly stated that after all of the steps have been complied with, that it would be a good ballot that should be counted. And we go back to language that says acceptable? It appears to me like we're not going count these ballots.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Well in the -- prior to you offering your amendment, it had nothing in there that said if they showed up and followed the procedures, it was silent on that.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I know, but --
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We added that if they showed up and followed the procedures and the voter was found to be eligible, that was what you argued, that their ballot would be counted. And we agree to accept it in -- on the House --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But is counted the provision that takes it from being a counted ballot to an accepted ballot does not lend its support to that vote -- vote is always going to be counted. And as a voter who might vote with a provisional ballot, they will have no assurance that their vote is going to be counted. It can be accepted but it won't necessarily count. And I don't think we, as a legislature, would like to infringe on one's vote being counted. And to leave the language unclear with some term called accepted, nowhere in election politics do we consider ballots acceptable, we consider them to be good ballots that you can count the vote or we don't. But to just say that's the same is unacceptable. So I just want to tell you that that's a problem. And I will join in with my colleague, Representative Anchia. We need to have some public discussion and hearings if the Senate doesn't understand the difference between accepted and counted, because that's a major difference in that term and how it can be interpreted. So I want to raise that with you. The second thing as it relates to this, the fiscal issue. I'm not sure what your response is, so I need to redirect the question as it relates to whether or not DPS was there to give some indication they could absorb this new activity -- activity that we're giving them as it relates to this ID. Have they indicated they can absorb that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The ID card is not a new concept. It was the same thing --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, no. I'm not talking about the ID card concept now. I'm talking about the cost. Are you aware of what the -- the many complaints that came up with regard to DPS being able to meet the responsibilities that they currently have with the budget that we've given them, are you aware of that budget deficit that they've already identified in terms of meeting their responsibility?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: They had no concerns with having the ability to meet with requirements of the --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I know. Let me restate it. Are you aware that when we had hearings in Transportation with regard to DPS and their licenses, that there were numerous clients because they didn't have enough staff and/or enough time and resources to meet the needs for the citizens of the State of Texas. Were you aware of that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I don't serve on Transportation.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, no. Are you aware, since you are giving them additional responsibility, I want to understand are you aware of what kind of complaints they've had as it relates to their financial -- their inability to meet their obligations?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The testimony we had in committee on the voter ID, not in Transportation with the Department, Rebekah from DPS said they did not anticipate any additional problems with complying with the free election certificate or photo ID.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Did we ask them they had a cost to provide this additional ID? Did they indicate whether they thought -- what the cost would be internally?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The testimony was that the cost for an identification or driver's license is a $1.65, approximately. If my memory serves me. So we didn't know what that universe would be of people who already didn't have a driver's license or an identification.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And I understand that you might not know what the universe is. I want to be clear. Did they indicate to you that they have the resources to do this without additional revenue? Because we've been told, we've heard countless legends of there needing to be additional funds for DPS to at least get to the level of service that we're requesting for our various offices in the district.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: There was no testimony to known costs, because the universe was unknown and we had no way of knowing.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Representati ve Harless, you got to know. Just because we don't know the number of the the universe doesn't suggest that there is not a cost. You can't be saying to us because we don't know the number we just don't know how big it is; is that correct? Mr. Branch, I don't need your help. I need her to answer my question about the cost, as it relates to the numbers. So even if we don't know the number, we do have a sense that there is some additional cost. Would that be true?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: The cost is unknown.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. And so in your mind, as we start deliberating the the Fiscal Matters Bills on Wednesday, how do we interject what this cost would be as it relates to us trying to balance the budget? Are you able to do that?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think the cost is unknown. There's no way to debate it on the fiscal matters.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: So based on -- What you're suggesting is an unknown cost, therefore we would not be able to balance our budget, because we don't know what expenses we are putting into the budget that they are not aware of? If we follow what you're saying, would that be accurate?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think it's part of what the department already does.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But they have already taken a cut. Are you aware of how much they've taken a cut in this session?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I'm aware of what you just told me, that this testimony in transportation was.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Well, let me ask you my final question as it relates to the budget issues as well as the regarding whether or not votes will actually be counted. Tell me what you perceive your role, or the role of the House members during the deliberations, because I think we need to, as members, have some assurances that people are fighting for this.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Representative Cain raises a point of order. That the lady's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady's time be extended? Can it be extended?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: This is the first extension of time. Is there objection?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Continue.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I'm wanting you to answer the question in terms of where you see the conference conferees as it relates to the issue on counting votes, and on the cost of the ID. And I think it's critically important that House members have some assurance that we want to count votes. If people are eligible to vote, and vote in good faith, they can be assured that we're not passing legislation that will prevent their vote from being counted. Number 1. Then number 2, I would like to have some notion of whether or not the conferrees will recognize that we're doing the fiscal matters and budgets at the last couple of weeks because we're trying to figure out what holes we have to cover. And it just makes no since that we would be passing bills without knowing what the fiscal implications would be to the overall budget. I mean, so are you all, as conferrees, prepared to address those issues and/or advocate a position that's consistent with what the House has indicated? We'd like to know.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: We talked about -- You've asked so many questions I'm just going to say that during the conference committee the report, we adopted eight of the amendments of the fifteen amendments that were added. We tried to make sure that --
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: But, madam, madam, I appreciate it can be 15, but if you're not counting votes it doesn't really matter if you adopted 15 or 16, and then you failed to count the voter's vote, it doesn't really matter what you do. So I don't want us to get caught up in what we did, I want to talk about the fact that we have the potential legislation -- potential legislation that might not count votes, that's what I want us to be focused on. And, certainly, it is not our intent to deny one's right to vote. And if but don't count that vote, that's what you would be doing, number one. And then the other question, just simply how do you bring a bill to the floor that has a cost on it and you don't have a clue what the cost is? We don't know if the department we've been told that the department has a great financial need, and we're giving them additional burden. How are we going resolve that? So those are the only two questions, is whether or not you're going to look at counting votes, and you're going to figure out how we're going pay for that. And I guess the third thing I will add is that are you-all going to have a meeting? Are you going to do one of these deals where you kind of talk? And I think that is the problem, not having a formal meeting with something so important as this. Because I mean it would be very difficult go back to the district and say we passed legislation, or you-all passed legislation that does not assure you that your vote will be counted.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think that this legislation does ensure that the vote will be counted. I think after everything is said and done we will increase voter participation in the election by improving the integrity of the election.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Veasey, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Will the gentle lady yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Harless, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: On the last thing that you just mentioned, do you think that you will also increase minority voter participation?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think the participation in elections will increase for all voters.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Including the ones in minority districts? Including ones in the minority groups only?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think the participation in the election process will increase for all voters.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Well, I know. Because this legislation has the potential to be pretty riveting anti civil right legislation. I just want to be certain that you think it could increase among minority groups. And I'm specifically asking you about them, and not all. But, and to be specific, black and brown voters.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think we will increase participation for all voters. This legislation was crafted on the Indiana -- similar to the Indiana, as we discussed during the twelve hours of debate that passed the U.S. Constitutional requirements and Georgia legislation that passed preclearance. I think we will increase participation for all voters.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: So, I see you don't want to answer my question directly, so let me ask you the next one that I have. How many -- How many democratic members were on the conference committee in the House?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: On the House side?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: On the House side, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think there was one on the House, you, and one on the Senate.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. And was the Senate member a minority member, also?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think the Senate was Representative Van de Putte, or Senator Van de Putte.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. Senator Van de Putte? After the report was finalized and you delivered it to my office as the only member -- as the only minority member of the the committee, how long did you give me to review the Conference Committee report?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I gave you the one hour, and if you were willing to sign on it I told you I would extend the time.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Do you know how long Senator Van de Putte received?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I was not advised.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. With this legislation being so controversial, and being the big deal that it has become, particularly because it may result in some pretty (inaudible) civil rights legislation, probably like we haven't seen before in the last 40 years, don't you think I should have had more time to review the report?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: I think that we debated this legislation, and we all knew what was in it, and there was plenty of time to see what the Conference Committee report included.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: How many pages was the report?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Excuse me?
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: How long was the report?
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: How long was the report? It was -- The side by side was ten pages.
REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Okay. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE PATRICIA HARLESS: Thank you. Move adoption.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Anchia in opposition.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I will be brief. The fiscal note on this bill does not include the fiscal implications for providing for the design of the identification card, reprogramming DPS databases and computers to manage the production and storage of data related to the new ID, including modifications and duplicates. Doesn't include training of DPS employees at the 300 plus DPS locations across the state to handle these new IDs, and it doesn't include the extensive rule making that will be required to implement these new ID provisions. On May 9th, 2011, Michael Terry, the deputy assistant director of driver's license offices at Texas DPS, in a conversation with our staff, indicated that the department is still in the process of determining the full cost of the requirements, the new requirements, in the CCR. Specifically, the department relayed that their vendors indicated that the cost of the -- designing the new card alone, just the cost of designing the new card, would cost approximately $100,000. These costs are not reflected in the fiscal note. The fiscal note I think has been consistently unreliable in this process. To put it in context, members, during the 74th Regular Session in 1995, the legislature passed the CHL -- the new concealed handgun license through the passage of Senate Bill 60. The fiscal note for that bill reflected an initial cost of $11,000,342 and that is net. The license fee revenue that was coming from the issuance of the CHLs, which was about 8.086 million dollars estimated for the first year alone. Members, the costs estimated in the fiscal note for the state to implement the new ID might be, and this is our best guess, about 3.256 million dollars. DPS is conducting the new analysis, they say it's already going cost a hundred thousand dollars just to design the new card, whether the new card is $500,000, 2 million, 3.256 million, the legislature needs to understand the full cost of this bill before moving forward. Therefore, members, I request you vote against this motion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Spe aker?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: For a couple of questions, please.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: Y eah.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Thank you, Mr. Anchia. Thank you for that information on the cost. But I want to know, I want to visit with you, I'm going ask you just in case there is no opportunity to ask anybody else. This is very big deal, a very big issue that is very big and important to the State of Texas. And although there's been a lot of comparison to Georgia and Indiana, we're not Georgia, we're not Indiana. In fact, although Georgia is subject to the Voting Rights Act, Indiana is different and Texas is as well. But the part I want to go to is this: We know we had public hearings, public debate on this issue, do you not believe, because this is such a big deal, that the discussions that go in conference committee should be, you know, in front of the the public?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: R epresentative Alonzo, you raise a good point. I was shocked. The Senate sponsor or the House sponsor of this bill said that there were discussions among Conference Committee members, they decided this and they came to the conclusion that it was their idea to implement this new voter identification certificate. And when I asked well, were they done in public? The answer was no, no, we didn't do it in public. No posting, no public hearing, no public meeting. The Conference Committee just met it private. And this is so important. Your point about this being a big deal, this is a really big deal. And I don't know what the level of threshold that people have for disenfranchising Texans. Is it a thousand people, is it ten thousand people? Is it okay if we disenfranchise a hundred thousand people? How about five hundred thousand? This is just -- The impacts are so far reaching, Representative, and you're absolutely correct about this; we shouldn't be having meetings in private to discuss this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: And that's why I'm talking about this, this should be in public. Because this is one of the biggest discussions we had this session, and this is continuous discussion that we had from last session and other sessions, that every single decision that's made on this bill should be open, even though certain decisions might be made, there should be no reason, no reason whatsoever that it cannot be made in public. There's no reason.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: W hen you're talking about people's votes and the sanctity of that vote, I agree with you 100 percent. I think we should have frank and open public discussions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROBERTO R. ALONZO: So if we vote on this bill, as we're going to, and if we're hearing -- and the people here, I think it should be incumbent that it's loud and clear that many of us spoke loud and clear that we want decisions, especially as it relates to this bill, to be made in public.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I agree. Thank you.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, do you yield?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I yield.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Let me raise a question with you, Representative Anchia, because I know you're familiar with situations like this and I just want to bring this front and center. I think members don't realize what we are talking about when we talk about a vote being -- a provisional ballot being accepted, verses counted. In a recount, when they do an election contest and someone has to go back and recount votes, there's also a discussion about the provisional ballots, whether you count them or they are not counted; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hat's absolutely correct.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And in many instance the outcome of the election is determined by those provisional ballots; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hat's right.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so now we're passing a law that says we'll accept them, but we're not distinguishing whether or not they can be counted; is that correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hat's right.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so when you change the notion of whether they're counted verses accepted, you have a situation where we're going confuse election boards. Wouldn't you say that's correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I agree.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And having seen some of those elections, isn't it always a question, and we end up in court with regard to which ballot should be counted; is that a fair assessment?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hat is perfectly fair.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: And so I want to reiterate to members, to leave this language, accepted verses counted, if you're in tight races it has the ability to change the outcome of an election; wouldn't you say?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I would agree. And there are probably a lot of members here who were, hey, they just want to vote for this thing. They don't know the consequences. But it could happen to them. We just had an election contest that was decided by four votes, and it could happen to anybody in this House.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Exactly. And so anybody that's counting or doing a recount during an election contest, would particularly be concerned about any ballots that have the ability to not be counted or not clear about whether there should be counted; isn't that, correct?
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: I agree with you.
REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: I appreciate your discussion on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL REPRESENTATIVE ANCHIA: T hank you. Please vote no.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Conference Committee report in SB14. It's a record vote. The clerk will ring the bell. Show Representative Lucio voting no. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Being 98 ayes and 46 nays, Senate Bill 14 finally passes. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.
REPRESENTATIVE TODD REPRESENTATIVE HUNTER: M r. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while the House is in session, during reading and referral of bills today, May 16. Place 3W9. To consider a calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative branch.
REPRESENTATIVE DAN REPRESENTATIVE BRANCH: T hank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I request permission for the Committee on Higher Education to meet while the House is in session, during reading and referral of bills, on May the 16th, 2011, at 3W.15, to consider pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announce.
THE CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet during the reading and referral of bills on May the 16th, 2011, in room 3W.9. this will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar. The Committee on Higher Education will meet during the reading and referral of bills on May the 16th, 2011, in room 3W.15. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Deshotel.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE DESHOTEL: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Committee on Business and Industry and the Committee -- and the Committee on Pension and Investments be allowed to meet while the House is in session, during the reading of bills, to our joint meeting, in E2026 today, to continue our previously posted meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. If there are no further announcements -- Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Just a reminder, the Committee on Civil Jurisprudence will meet at the 35 on adjournment.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE STRAUS: Are there any further announcements? If not, Representative Otto moves that the House stand adjourned, pending the reading and referral of resolutions, until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. The following bills on first reading and referral:
THE CLERK: HCR 160 (By Hughes), In memory of former state representative Dr. Bob Glaze. To Rules and Resolutions. HCR 162 (By J. Davis), Congratulating the Space Center Intermediate Band in Houston on its receipt of a 2010 Sudler Cup. To Rules and Resolutions. HCR 164 (By Smithee), Honoring Jean Hilfiger of Saint-Nabord, France, for his courageous actions in assisting U.S. military forces in France during World War II. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1958 (By Muñoz), Encouraging school districts to employ certified librarians in elementary schools. To Public Education. HR 1959 (By Muñoz), In memory of Border Patrol agent Eduardo Lee "Eddie" Vela of Mission. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1960 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Omar Ochoa of Austin on his graduation from The University of Texas School of Law. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1961 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Rolando Castaneda on his appointment as chief of the Edinburg Police Department. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1962 (By Castro), Commending Vice Admiral William H. McRaven for his distinguished service to the United States of America and congratulating him on his nomination to lead U.S. Special Operations Command. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1964 (By D. Miller), Congratulating Amanda Miller on her graduation from Texas A&M University. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1965 (By Menendez), Congratulating Eric Cooper, president and CEO of the San Antonio Food Bank, on his selection as the 2011 Executive Director of the Year by Feeding America. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1966 (By Flynn), In memory of the Reverend David Wilkerson of Lindale, the founding pastor of Times Square Church in New York City and best-selling author. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1967 (By Perry), Congratulating Dr. Patrick J. Hanford on the occasion of his installation as president of the Texas Osteopathic Medical Association. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1968 (By Gooden), Commemorating the dedication of the Terrell Veterans Memorial on Memorial Day 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1969 (By Gooden), Congratulating Billie Sue Squires of Terrell on her retirement from American National Bank. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1970 (By Huberty), Congratulating Richard and Maureen Huberty on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1971 (By Kolkhorst), Urging the nation's commander in chief, the executive branch of the federal government, and the United States Congress to assign top priority to alleviating the backlog of disability claims by U.S. veterans. To Defense and Veterans' Affairs. HR 1972 (By Craddick), Honoring Baylor University women's golf coach Sylvia Ferdon on her retirement. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1973 (By D. Miller), Commemorating the Gillespie County Fair and Festivals Association Barbecue Cook-off. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1974 (By Pitts), In memory of U.S. Army Private First Class Joel Ramirez of Waxahachie. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1975 (By Branch), Recognizing May 20, 2011, as GenTX Day. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1976 (By Branch), Congratulating James B. Bonham Elementary School in Dallas on its selection as a Blue Ribbon School. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1977 (By Button), Commemorating the 51st Biennial Chinese American Citizens Alliance National Convention to be held in Houston on July 27-30, 2011. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1978 (By Zerwas), Requesting the lieutenant governor and the speaker to create a joint interim committee to study the overall economic and systemic impact of Alzheimer's disease through 2017, including an inventory of public and private infrastructure and capacity and funds and systems to support and expand statewide planning and the activities of the Texas Alzheimer's Research Consortium. To Public Health. HR 1980 (By Legler), Honoring country music star Mickey Gilley. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1982 (By Sheets), Congratulating Sarah Mason Thomas, Ashley Stallard, Nicole Johnson, and Savannah Still of Faith Academy in Marble Falls on winning titles at the 2010 and 2011 TAPPS Tennis State Championships. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1983 (By V. Gonzales), Congratulating Rosendo Hinojosa on his appointment as senior executive chief patrol agent of the U.S. Border Patrol Rio Grande Valley Sector. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1984 (By Reynolds), Congratulating Constable Ruben Davis, who is celebrating 15 years of service with Fort Bend County. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1985 (By Bonnen), Congratulating Mike and Dorothy Kight on their 50th wedding anniversary. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1987 (By Truitt), Honoring the boys' soccer team of Carroll High School in Southlake on winning the 2010-2011 UIL 5A state championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1988 (By Eissler), In memory of U.S. Army Private First Class Kyle Matthew Holder of The Woodlands. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1989 (By Eissler), In memory of U.S. Marine Corps Corporal Jeffrey Warren Johnson of Tomball. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1990 (By L. Gonzales), Honoring the buddies and volunteers of the Miracle League of Austin. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1991 (By Hilderbran), Congratulating Kerrville Municipal/Louis Schreiner Field Airport on being named the 2011 General Aviation Airport of the Year by the Texas Department of Transportation aviation division. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1992 (By Margo), Congratulating Michelle Holguin, Diana Pahman, and Jarisma Rodriguez of El Paso Community College for having their scientific experiment selected for the final mission of the space shuttle Endeavour. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1993 (By Flynn), Congratulating country star and native Texan Miranda Lambert on her latest awards. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1994 (By Kleinschmidt), Congratulating the Round Top-Carmine Cubettes volleyball team on winning the 2010-2011 UIL 1A state championship. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1995 (By Hilderbran), Congratulating Clifton Fifer, Jr., on his receipt of an Outstanding Educator Award from the George Bush Presidential Library and Museum. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1996 (By Hochberg), Honoring Beckie Driver of Houston for her longtime service in the field of adult education. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1997 (By McClendon), Honoring Delores Ray Littlejohn George of San Antonio on her 75th birthday. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1998 (By S. King), Commemorating the dedication of the William G. and Shirley Swenson Home in Abilene as a Recorded Texas Historic Landmark. To Rules and Resolutions. HR 1999 (By Callegari), Congratulating Michael Callegari on his graduation from Strake Jesuit College Preparatory. To Rules and Resolutions. SB 270 by Uresti. Relating to newborn hearing screenings. To Public Health. SB 516 by Patrick. Relating to the exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the appraised value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran. To Ways and Means. SB 578 by Rraser. Relating to the testimony of children in criminal cases. To Criminal Jurisprudence. SB 1164 by Wentworth. To Pensions, Investments, and Financial Services. SB 1175 by Jackson. Relating to the Texas Enterprise Fund and the Texas emerging technology fund. To Economic and Small Business Development. SB 1402 by Willams. Relating to motor vehicles; providing penalties. To Transportation. SB 1424 by Wentworth. Relating to the issuance of cease and desist orders by the Texas Medical Board. To Public Health. SB 1441 by Ellis. Relating to the correction of an ad valorem tax appraisal roll. To Ways and Means. SB 1572 by Watson. Relating to the operations and monitoring of fusion centers in this state. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. SB 1643 by Uresti. Relating to mandatory dismissal deadlines and extended jurisdiction in suits affecting the parent-child relationship to which the Department of Family and Protective Services is a party. To Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence. SB 1652 by Watson. Relating to the implementation of new processes for the purposes of budget transparency, fiscal responsibility, and open government. To State Affairs. SB 1658 by Hinojosa. Relating to the duties of and investigations conducted by the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the administrative attachment of the Texas Forensic Science Commission to Sam Houston State University, and the accreditation of criminal laboratories by the Department of Public Safety of the State of Texas. To Homeland Security and Public Safety. SB 1826 by Gallegos. Relating to the definition in the open meetings law of the term "deliberation." To State Affairs. SB 1843 by Carona. Relating to investigations of certain offenses involving the Internet-based sexual exploitation of a minor; creating the Internet crimes against children account to support those activities. To Criminal Jurisprudence. SB 1926 by Lucio. Relating to the Colonel H. William "Bill" Card, Jr., Outpatient Clinic. To Public Health. SJR 14 by Van de Putte. Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a 100 percent or totally disabled veteran. To Ways and Means.
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The House stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning.
(The House stands adjourned).
