JOE STRAUS: The House will, please, 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 Beck to introduce our pastor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE MARVA BECK: Mr. Speaker, members. I'd like to start this morning by saying that this is a day that is both joyful and sad. We are joyful that 9/11 has been put to rest with the capture and execution of bin Laden. We take a moment for the solitude to remember the people that fell on that day. To be grateful for the firefighters, the police, everyone that fought in that to pull survivors out and that died themselves. It is my pleasure now to introduce the pastor of the day. She is my pastor Reverend Joy Richards from the Centerville First United Methodist Church. Thank you.

PASTOR JOY RICHARDS: Thank you. Come holy spirit, Father, God we're so thankful for this group of people. We're so thankful for our state. We're thankful for all the gifts that you have showered upon us and those that are yet to come. I ask blessings this day upon our state and all that it represents, all the people. I ask blessings upon each representative gathered here. I ask further Lord God that you bring angels and that you protect them and that you guide them, that you actually instruct them so that they may align themselves with you Lord, God. So that your kingdom really does come to earth and that it begins right here, this day. And that we know that we know that we're a part of that. That we can celebrate that and that we can know that you are God. I ask blessings upon blessings, grace upon grace, protection, wellness in Christ our Lord. Amen.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter to lead us in the pledge.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Members and guests will you join me in the pledge allegiance to the United States flag and to the Texas flag.

(Pledge allegiance to United States flag and Texas flag.)

JOE STRAUS: Excuse Representative Kuempel because of important business in the district, on the motion of Representative Hochberg. Excuse Representative Harless because of important business on the motion of Representative Raymond. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King to introduce our doctor of the day.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Members, please, join me in welcoming Dr. Kelly Tibbles. He's practiced for decades and decades in Wise county in Decatur. He is a great asset to our local community up there. And he has come down and served us as doctor of the day before. And he tells me that he is fully equipped and offer a 50 percent discount on all his fees that he would normally charge today. And with that Dr. Tibbles thank you and please join me in welcoming him.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Ritter moves to suspend the reading and referral of the House bills until the end of today. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members we have a number of memorial resolutions this morning, please, take your seat. Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown for a motion. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'd like to suspend all necessary rules to bring up House Resolution 1446.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution.

CLERK: HR 1446 by Harper-Brown. WHEREAS, The untimely passing of Robert Kenneth Rives of Dallas on March 9, 2011, at the age of 36 has brought deep sorrow to The family and friends of this vibrant and caring young Texan; and WHEREAS, Born in Elkhart, Indiana, on June 27, 1974, Robby Rives was the son of William and Malinda Rives; he attended Cistercian Preparatory School and graduated from Duncanville High School in 1992; after continuing his education at The University of Texas at Arlington, he eventually went on to work as director of Operations for the Miers Group, LLC; and WHEREAS, Mr. Rives had a great love for music and was a gifted Guitarist; bright, witty, and engaging, he brought joy to countless People through his sense of humor, and he was remarkably kind; his Courage and strength of will allowed him to overcome tremendous Challenges, and in surmounting them, he demonstrated grace and true Compassion for others; and WHEREAS, A man of many interests, Mr. Rives liked to keep up With current events and was a fan of Star Wars and the Texas Rangers; he enjoyed spending time with his loved ones most of all And he and his father formed a particularly strong bond as fellow Rangers devotees, watching innumerable games together and sharing The excitement of their team's long road to the World Series; and WHEREAS, Robby Rives cherished his family and friends, and Those he left behind may find comfort in remembering the myriad Times he brushed away his own shadows to brighten the lives of Others; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the life of Robby Rives and extend Sincere sympathy to the members of his family: to his parents William Kenneth Rives and Malinda Land Rives; to his sisters Kimberly Rives Miers and her husband, Harris Wood Miers III, and Jennifer Leigh Chandler and her husband, James Scott Chandler; to His grandfather, Chester A. Adams; to his nieces, Megan Leigh Miers, Brooke Armstrong Chandler, and Harper Leigh Chandler; to his Nephews, Harris Wood "Dru" Miers IV and William Wyatt Chandler; to His fiancee, Amy Stover; and to his many 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 Robert Kenneth Rives.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. As you just heard Bobby was an outstanding young man who had an incredible impact on the lives of many. And I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Robby's family is here with us this morning as well on the dais, please, recognize his parents Ken and Malinda Rives and his sister Jennifer Rives Chandler. And sorry -- and Mr. Speaker, I would ask that when we adjourn today or when we recess that we do so in honor of Robert Kenneth Rives. Thank you members.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you have heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So order.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members, representative Legler moves to add all names to the previous resolution. Is there any objection. Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Jackson in the House? Chair recognizes representative Jackson for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to bring up and consider HR 1669.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 1669 by Jackson. Congratulating Christina Yampanis of Dallas on her receipt of a 2010 Director's Community Leadership Award from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Jackson.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM JACKSON: Members, Tina Yampanis better known as Tina but Christina Yampanis did receive the Directors Community Leadership Award from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in a ceremony in Washington D.C. on March the 25th. She has number roles in the Dallas area community and volunteerism and this is just to recognize Tina for her work. And she's with us today and Tina Yampanis is on the south side. Stand up and be recognized Tina. Please, help me welcome Tina to the House. With that I move adoption.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Doorkeeper -- madam doorkeeper.

MADAM DOORKEEPER: I have a messenger from the Senate to the door of the House.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Admit the messenger.

SENATE MESSENGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House --

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen for a motion.

REP. RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Concurrent Resolution 47 which honors the life of U.S. Army Private First Class Ira B. Laningham, IV of Zapata who was killed while bravely serving in Afghanistan, January 7th, 2011.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN HUBERTY: Members, this is a memorial resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution the clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HCR 47 Guillen. WHEREAS, Words cannot express the heartache felt at the loss Of U.S. Army Private First Class Ira Benjamin Laningham IV of Zapata, who died in Afghanistan on January 7, 2011, at the age of 22; and WHEREAS, Private Laningham enlisted in the army in November 2009, deploying to Afghanistan in October 2010; he bravely served His country as a member of the 2nd Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 10th Mountain Division, and his Courageous actions earned him the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, and the National Defense Service Medal; and WHEREAS, Born in Greenfield, Massachusetts, on September 1, 1988, Ben Laningham graduated from Zapata High School, where he was trumpet section leader in the marching band and Lead trumpet for Mariachi Halcon; he enjoyed playing his guitar and Video games and spending time with his family and friends; and WHEREAS, Americans owe a profound debt to our nation's Servicemen and servicewomen, whose courageous efforts and enormous Sacrifices are deserving of their fellow citizens' deepest respect And gratitude; through his unwavering dedication to duty and honor Ben Laningham embodied the highest ideals of the United States Army, and memories of his love and friendship will forever be Cherished by all those who held him dear; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas Hereby pay tribute to the life of U.S. Army Private First Class Ira Benjamin Laningham IV and extend deepest sympathy to the members of His family: to his parents, Norma and Enrique Cantu; to his Siblings, Private Joseph Cantu, Enrique Cantu, and Amanda Cantu; to His grandparents, Lauro and Olinda Guerra and Humberto and Felicitas Cantu; and to his other relatives and many 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 and Senate adjourn this day, they do so in memory Of Private Ira Benjamin Laningham IV.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: I move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Members, fallen servicemen like Ira Laningham and the families and the loved ones they leave behind deserve the gratitude of every citizen of this nation for their devotion to their country. Private Laningham was in school in Zapata when the jetliners flew into the twin towers and into the Pentagon and as the passengers of Flight 83 refused to be turned into a flying bomb to kill their fellow Americans. He saw as we all saw innocence killed. The threat of terrorism and the need to oppose it. His faith in America, the character he developed growing up in a free country, the moral code he learned from his family lead him to join the army after graduating from high school. Like many of our forces Private Laningham was sent to Afghanistan. His efforts were part of the military strategy that forced al-Qaida to the hinterlands of Afghanistan and their leader bin Laden to flee Pakistan. Over night we learned that the safety of Osama bin Laden -- that Osama bin Laden came to an end yesterday and that he's dead. Private Laningham sacrificed and his families pain is now part of the price paid to bring the 9/11 mastermind of the attacks on New York and Washington D.C. to his just end. It is vital that future generations know Americans will not allow their fellow citizens to be murdered without sure and certain retaliation. The honor we bestow here today preserves the memories of his and so many others. His courage and sacrifice. He was a good student, a boy who was always willing to help a friend, a young man who volunteered to serve and protect his country. He was the true citizen, soldier, patriot. Our families and his are safer today and we're very grateful. Members, please, join me in welcoming Ira's family this morning on the dais his father Enrique, his mother Norma, his brother Enrique, and his sister Amanda and in addition I'd like to ask his relatives and friends that are up in the gallery to, please, stand. Members, please, join me in honoring the memory and the family of a true American hero Ira B. Laningham, IV.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Representative Riddle moves to add all names to the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat for a resolution.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, I move we suspend all necessary rules and take up and consider House Resolution 1346, regarding Mental Health Awareness Day in Texas.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 1346 by Naishtat. Commemorating National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day on May 3, 2011.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, I would like to direct your attention to the southeast gallery where we have a long list of local partners who will be holding a day of community engagement and education on the creativity, courage, and commitment needed for children to thrive at home, at school, and in the community when faced with life's challenges. This will be held at Seeton administrative offices and I would like to recognize the group that's in the southeast gallery. They are all part of the Child and Youth Mental Health Planning Partnership, please, stand up and be recognized. Thank you very much and let's never forget the importance of mental health awareness. Thank you.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: We excuse Representative Hernandez-Luna because of important business in the district on the motion of Representative Walle. 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 935 which recognizes May 1st through May 8th as the Holocaust Days of Remembrance.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 935 by Naishtat. Recognizing May 1st through May 8th, 2011 as the Holocaust Days of Remembrance.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Naishtat.

REPRESENTATIVE ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Members, today is the first day of Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day and beginning at 9:00 a.m. and lasting until 7:00 p.m. tonight. Names of victims of the Holocaust are being read by people like you and me in the outdoor sunken rotunda. It's a very moving experience. I would encourage you to take a few minutes to stop by, listen and perhaps read a few names of victims of the Holocaust. In the north gallery Mike O'Krent, president and founder of Life Stories Alive, the chairman of the Yam HaShoah, the Jewish Community Relations Counsel Committee of Austin is with us today. Let's thank him for being here. Thank you very much.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up House Bill 1659.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. There any objection? Chair hears none. Chair lays out. The following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 1659 by Gonzalez of El Paso. Honoring Henry Kellen, a Holocaust survivor and founder of the El Paso Holocaust Museum and Study Center.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE NAOMI GONZALEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This House Resolution honors Henry Kellen an El Pasoan who had the courage to tell his story of survival of the Nazi Holocaust with our community. Turning an atrocious and tragic experience into a legacy that ensures that such malevolent acts will never again be tolerated. Mr. Kellen cannot be with us today but it is fitting that we share his story and his honor and contributions to mark the beginning of Holocaust Remembrance Week and recommit ourselves individually and as a body to stand against hatred, prejudice, and injustice. Mr. Kellen's story acts as a living reminder to the rest of us what happens when governments are allowed to practice hatred, prejudice, and injustice. I would ask members for a moment of silence for all of those who lost their lives at the hands of Nazi government and Nazi collaborators throughout Europe. Thank you members. Never forget never again and with that I move passage.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Representative Naishtat moves to add all members' names to the prior two resolutions. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative King of Taylor.

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 565.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members this is a memorial resolution. Following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 565 by King of Taylor. WHEREAS, The people of Abilene lost a brave and highly respected public servant when police officer Rodney Holder was killed in the line of duty on April 29, 2010; and WHEREAS, Rodney Holder was born to Worth and Lillian Holder On April 18, 1960, in Auburn, Alabama; in 1963 he moved with his Family to Abilene, where he graduated from Cooper High School in 1978; he enlisted in the United States Army the following year and Served with the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; and WHEREAS, His term of enlistment completed, Officer Holder Returned to Texas and joined the Abilene Police Department in September 1982; after graduating from the police academy on January 7, 1983, he began his first assignment with the patrol division and Quickly began to distinguish himself through his dedication and Professionalism; in addition to working as a patrol officer, he Served as a member of the SWAT team and as a detective with the Criminal investigation division; he became a motorcycle officer With the traffic division in 2005; and WHEREAS, Officer Holder was predeceased by his first wife Robin Johnson Holder; fortunate to find love a second time, he Married Annemarie Rankin on June 4, 1994; this devoted husband was Also a caring father to his two children, Hilary and Kyler, and he Took great delight in his twin granddaughters, Reese and Rylee; and WHEREAS, Throughout his career, Rodney Holder upheld the Highest standards of his profession, and those who were privileged To share in the warmth of his affection will forever hold him close In their hearts; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the memory of Officer Rodney Holder and extend sincere sympathy to the members of his family: to His wife, Annemarie Holder; to his son, Kyler Holder; to his Daughter, Hilary Holder Erfurt, and her husband, Scotty; to his Granddaughters, Reese and Rylee Erfurt; to his mother, Lillian Holder; to his sister, Jennifer Holder Rowley; 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 Officer Rodney Holder.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative King.

REPRESENTATIVE SUSAN KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Today seems a day that we honor heros. Those men that found the place in Pakistan, who removed someone from this world that many believe was a source of great suffering and evil. Today as we honor first responders in a memorial service but today for me it's a little more personal. A lot of things happened in the interim and one of the things that happened in our town, Abilene, Texas was a loss of a very highly loved and revered officer. You saw him everywhere because he was one those good looking motorcycle cops who had to wear black leather and ride around the town. And yet one day when his family told him goodbye they did not know it was the last time. Today on the dais his family is here. I would like to introduce them. On the far left to my right or audience right, Jennifer Holder, Rodney's sister, Kyler would you step forward just a little bit. Kyler is Rodney's son and you see he's highly decorated. Everyone wants to honor Kyler because he's unique for someone his age. He's outspoken, he's articulate and he has a lot to say. He told me once, Ms. King, why can't everybody do what they should do, be honest and get along with others. That's a high order, isn't it Kyler. And Hilary Rodney's daughter, the mother of the twins who are not here today. And finally but not last Annemarie Holder who is a great educator and counselor in one of our school districts. All of these brave people you've never been to a funeral service lining the streets with American flags and thousands and thousands of people. It's a pretty amazing sight. Even for a small town like Abilene, Texas. Please, keep this family in your prayers as we will keep all the families today in our prayers who have lost someone in our country and our state as we move forth in peril of these times. Thank you for honoring this family today. Mr. Speaker I move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Riddle moves to add all names to the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1045.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out the following resolution. The clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HR 1045 by Isaac. In memory of Dr. Bonnie Ann Powers-Prather of Arlington.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Isaac.

REPRESENTATIVE JASON ISAAC: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. The Prather family joins us in the gallery today. Please, join me in welcoming her husband Val. Please, rise. Son Jude and his wife Cathy, son Joe, daughter Sarah Chiles Garrett. Bonnie and her husband were married for 30 years. Their son Jude is a city counsel member in San Marcos, in the district that I serve. Bonnie Ann Powers-Prather lived in Representative Patrick's District and taught at El Centro Community College which is in Chairman Branch's District. She spent nearly three decades in nursing education at the college. The computer Testing Center will be renamed in her honor. Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn today in memory of Dr. Bonnie Ann Powers-Prather. Thank you for being here today. Move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Sheets moves to add all names to the resolution. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're about to begin a memorial resolution. Chair recognizes Representative Burkett.

REP. CINDY BURKETT: Mr. Speaker, members I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider HR 1458.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, please, take your seats.

CLERK: HR 1458 by Burkett. WHEREAS, On November 22, 1963, Officer J. D. Tippit of the Dallas Police Department made the ultimate sacrifice in behalf of His fellow citizens; and WHEREAS, Officer Tippit was on patrol that day when President John F. Kennedy was assassinated; he responded to the all-points Bulletin that followed, spotted and was attempting to question or Arrest Lee Harvey Oswald when the officer was shot and mortally Wounded by the suspect; and WHEREAS, Dallas police were soon alerted to the shooting of One of their own, and Lee Harvey Oswald was subsequently arrested; And WHEREAS, Officer Tippit left behind a wife of 17 years Marie, and their three children, Charles Allen, Brenda, and Curtis; And WHEREAS, J. D. Tippit was a dedicated and courageous police Officer who gave his life in the line of duty; his heroism remains Vivid in the hearts of those who cared for him and in the minds of those who remember the tragic events of that fateful day; now Therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the 82nd Texas Legislature hereby pay tribute to the memory and service of Officer J. D. Tippit; 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 Dallas Police Officer J. D. Tippit.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Chair recognizes Representative Burkett.

REP. CINDY BURKETT: Members, today we are honoring the memory of J.D. Tippit of the Dallas police department. Officer Tippit gave his life in the line of duty on November 22, 1963 due to his response to the all points bulletin issued immediately upon the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. His great courage will forever be remembered. Joining us on the floor today we're honored to have Marie Tippit, widow of officer J.D. Tippit up on the speakers dais. And accompanying her is her friend Dallas police officer, Rick Janick and I believe we have Teresa Lozada up in the gallery. I'd like us all to join me in welcoming them to the House of Representatives and Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, this is a memorial resolution. All those in favor, please, rise. The resolution is unanimously adopted. Representative Riddle moves to add all names to the resolution. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. CINDY BURKETT: Members, come by and welcome the widow, please.

REP. DAN HUBERTY: Members, as many of you know today is the Fallen Heros Memorial Services that are going to be held on the south steps of the Capitol and it starts at 11:00 o'clock. It's the chairs intent to recess the House until one p.m. House stands recessed until 1:00 p.m. The House will come to order. Chair announces the signing of the following in the presence of the House. HB 314, HB 367, HB 861, HB 1409, HCR 140. Following bills on first reading and referral.

CLERK: SB 811 by Duncan. Relating to state fiscal matters referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

JOE STRAUS: Chair lays out on third reading and final passage SB 1420. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: SB 1420 by Hinojosa. Relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Department of Transportation; providing penalties.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is the sunset bill for TXDOT that we heard Friday. I believe there are a few amendments. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pickett.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. If you remember I put some dates on there on the CDA's on the time limits for the environmental panel. It was too short a time. This makes it August of 2013. Also there was a report that they had to do on the financial, we didn't have any date. This says that the report is due by December 2012.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Pickett sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Eissler.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Eissler.

REPRESENTATIVE ROB EISSLER: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment amends amendment No. 50 by Hildebrand and adds Montgomery County. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Eissler sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Callegari.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Callegari.

REP. BILL CALLEGARI: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment that authorizes a study to look -- for TXDOT to look at where the index in commodities at this time might be appropriate and it is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Callegari sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Laubenberg.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: This corrects an amendment that has Houston involved in it and this is only for north Texas. This amendment corrects it. I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Laubenberg offers up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Representative Davis, for what purpose?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: May I ask Representative Laubenberg a question, please.

JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Laubenberg, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes, I do.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Representative Laubenberg your amendment does what?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: It allows the north Texas Toll Authority to chose whether they would like to have a state audit or go through the sunset process without being abolished.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But the amendment that you just put on --

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Oh, this amendment. I'm sorry. This amendment takes out Houston because my first amendment --

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Why did you take out Houston, Representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Because they already do something down there. They already do their own thing.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. Are you aware that NTTA also already does their independent audit --

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Outside audit.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yes, outside of NTTA. They have passed resolutions to provide for an independent audit outside of their in house audit. Are you aware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I wasn't aware of the resolution but this makes it more permanent and they can change their mind on a resolution.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But this -- this what you're doing to NTTA is different than what you're doing for the other tollway.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I'm sorry I meant to say Harris County. I apologize. They corrected me. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: So, what you're doing is you're treating NTTA -- you're attempting to treat them differently than what you're doing in Harris County Toll Authority.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes, I am.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: But you know Harris County as well as NTTA both have passed resolutions to do independent audits. So it is your intent to have the State auditor or Sunset Commission review and so why is that not good for all of them then.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I'll let Harris County take care of Harris County. I'm just going to focus on north Texas.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I said I'm going to let Harris County take care of Harris County. I just wanted to focus on north Texas.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So what you're amendment does is they've already passed that. You're ware of that.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: You want the State Auditors to office and or sunset -- what's the cost for the state to do that.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: The State would have to determine that. But it wouldn't be a cost to the State, in the first amendment the cost would be borne by the north Texas Toll Authority.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Okay. So now the State is going to get into private auditing for entities that are going to be paid by the private entity.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well, they're not really private because they still use state funds.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Yeah. But you're going to have the auditor -- the State auditor to now subcontract with us, with NTTA, to do -- and you think that makes -- I guess I'm trying to understand why you want to treat them differently. Are you upset with the NTTA.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Well, I'm in Collin County and we just had few issues. So we think transparency is a good thing.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Anchia, for what purpose.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker, would the gentle lady yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mrs. Laubenberg, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes, I will.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Now, as I understand your amendment it is fairly straightforward just want to make sure -- you're original intent with the amendment on Friday was that NTTA be able to chose either a state auditor's audit or a sunset review, correct?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Right.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And this just makes it clear that Harris County is not affected.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: A part of that --

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: You're not part of the Harris County delegation. You didn't want to put that on anybody. Part of the north Texas Delegation this is a concern.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: That's correct.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Correct. And, in fact, the NTTA was created by state statute was it not?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes, it was.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And it has not undergone either a state auditor's review or a sunset since 1997 when it was created, correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: And what you care about is transparency and openness in government; is that not right?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Right. That's all it is transparency and we're giving them a choice local control.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: I think you've got a great amendment. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Thank you. I move passage and it's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to speak in opposition of the amendment.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. And members, I hope you'll listen to this a minute. This amendment that Ms. Laubenberg put on pulled Harris County out of the review process. Her amendment on Friday put Harris County Toll Authority and north Texas Toll Authority to be audited either by sunset or the state auditors. We have already had this legislation in the Transportation Committee. The independent audit that was required or requested is a result of some issues at home or the four regional -- four counties that make up NTTA have passed resolutions indicating they were going to do an independent audit. They already have transparency. They put their records on the internet. Their checkbooks are on the internet. This is punitive at best. It's not consistent with what we as a delegation have discussed with regard to the overall impact. What we had said is, we will respect the various county judges wishes or the counties who make up NTTA to ensure that they could take care of their issues at home. And to come and put an a amendment on the sunset bill to interject the State Auditor and or the Sunset Commission is just disingenuous. It has to effect someones personal agenda versus the regions issues. And I would ask members to pay attention because this is not what we ought to be doing here. And I ask you to vote no on this amendment because it is punitive to NTTA. It is a personal agenda and it has nothing to do with what we ought to be doing on this sunset bill. We ought to make sure that we treat entities fairly. With that, members, Mr. Speaker I ask you to vote no on this amendment.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes representative Laubenberg.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Okay. Members, it's really not that complicated and you know like I said, this amendment was to correct what passed last week to take out Harris County because we don't want to get into Harris County's business. But we do need some transparency up in north Texas and I think anytime that you open up taxpayer funded books that's not a bad thing. And a resolution is not a requirement. Resolutions can change go by the wayside and never get done. And in all due respect, because I have a lot of respect for Representative Davis. The bill that she is referring to may or may not make it. You know how things work down here. All I'm asking is that you allow us an opportunity to have some local control, to have some transparency, and I would ask for your support on this amendment. Thank you.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Just ask one question.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be very clear. This amendment for the members of the Harris County delegation that are listening. This amendment is to take Harris County out of the bill because we did get some feedback that they didn't want HECTRA in the bill. So this is consistent with that request from the members of the Harris County delegation and others. This takes Harris County out correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: That is correct. And if we don't take Harris County out. The amendment that passed will include Harris County --

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Will stay in the bill. Right. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yeah, I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Laubenberg sends up an amendment. This question is on the adoption of the Laubenberg amendment. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Ms. Laubenberg voting aye. Have all voted? Have all voted? Being 135 ayes, 8 nays, three present not voting. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Pickett.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Pickett.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE PICKETT: Mr. Speaker, what this amendment does is just make it an immediate effect, if there's two-thirds vote, instead of September 1st on those projects, so that they could get started if this is passed by the body.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Pickett sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This is an amendment that basically takes Dallas out as we did Houston. So that it's not treated differently. And I think it is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Davis sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendments.

CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I want to explain this amendment. Chairman Phillips put on an amendment that was about the State Infrastructure Bank. We have had the State Infrastructure bank since 1997. He improved on it in 2005. If you look at where we are with that bank. It has never loaned to a private entity. I worked with chairman through lunch and I also talked to the Texas Department of Transportation. We're going to strike the private entity in there and say that the State Infrastructure Bank will only be used for our public entities. And I think that that's a wise thing, members, because most of these private equity deals, the public doesn't think that they're using our taxpayer dollars to make the deals work. The reason you do private equity deals is to use their money and then they can recoup their money over the next half century which is what most of these deals are. So I do believe this agreed language with Chairman Phillips. And yes, I do yield to my colleague, Representative Davis of Dallas.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you Representative Kolkhorst. Is it your intent just to make sure that the SIB is doing what we want it to do utilizing public -- private money and not having our private money going through -- using a public money, as a public entity, right?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That's right.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Because the amendment went on Friday it actually would let private ventures, private companies use public money; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: That is correct and it's actually been there for quite sometime but I think this is a great clean up opportunity. Representative Phillips put one of his bills this. This is one of his bills that he had in committee and it does expand the power of the state Infrastructure Bank. But we want to do that for those counties and for those cities and also since we've expanded RMA's and their ability to use that and I think this is a good use. So I move passage.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you Representative Davis for your help on this amendment.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Kolkhorst.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kolkhorst.

REPRESENTATIVE LOIS KOLKHORST: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This strikes the sovereign immunity of the State Infrastructure Bank that Chairman Phillips had put in there and there's some concern that that would open us up to lawsuits for your cities and your counties for RMA's. I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Kolkhorst sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Anchia for a motion.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members. I move that we reconsider floor amendment No. 6 by Davis.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you're heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Members, we're back on the Davis amendment. Chair recognizes Representative Davis.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker members. The amendment that I have before you was an amendment to remove NTTA from the sunset and audit, in them having the right to audit them because the county judges from all of the counties accept one came and indicated that they are requested the opportunity to do an independent audit from the local area having control -- local control over the issue. Now what they tried to do today -- yesterday Ms. Laubenberg's amendment would put HECTRA and NTTA in the bill to allow them to be audited by either sunset and/or our state auditors. My amendment was simply to remove NTTA and treat them the same as we're doing with HECTRA and that they have already indicated that they were going to do independent study and audit. And so my amendment was simply leave them the way we told the county judges we would leave them which is to allow them to handle it with an independent audit in a local area. And so that's what this amendment does.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield?

JOE STRAUS: Does she yield.

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: I will.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Representative Davis, just so we can recap what we've done today. Representative Laubenberg earlier had an amendment that took, HECTRA, Harris County, out of the need for either state auditors or a NTTA review, correct?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And then your amendment removes NTTA, correct?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: That's correct.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And so, there would be essentially at this rate Representative Laubenberg's amendment from Friday so that NTTA would not be subject to the sunset review or state auditor's review, correct?

REP. YVONNE DAVIS: No. In fact, that's what the county judges in the local areas came and testified in transportation that the three counties had already come together, Tarrant, Dallas, Tarrant, I think Denton that had indicated that they would be passing a resolution in Denton -- Tarrant, Dallas -- that they would be passing a resolution to do an independent audit as was requested. And what --

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Just to be clear your amendment is completely opposite to what Representative Laubenberg was trying to do.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: No, no. My amendment -- well, on Friday yes.

REPRESENTATIVE RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Okay. That's it.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Again, members, this attempt was to treat NTTA as we have treated HECTRA and that we're allowing that entity and county judges have oversight of that entity to have an independent audit without having to interject a state audit and the State Sunset Commission. As you well know the Sunset Commission has overwhelmed with its own work responsibilities. To give them another area of responsibility when in fact we've already got an independent audit plan regional area. It makes no since. So this is to treat them the same as we're treating HECTRA. I move adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Laubenberg to speak in opposition.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Members, we passed on Friday an amendment that was intended to bring transparency to a taxpayer funded entity. It was created by the State, the North Texas Toll Authority. My amendment today takes out Harris County.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Will the lady yield?

JOE STRAUS: Ms. Laubenberg, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: So, basically your amendment on Friday was all about accountability and transparency for an entity that receives some state funds?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: That is correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: And what would be the possible downside of not leaving that amendment on as it was.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: I can't think of any downside.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Any reason?

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: No.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Thank you, I think you have a very good amendment. I think we need to take this off.

REPRESENTATIVE JODIE LAUBENBERG: And members, I ask that you would continue to support us, please, vote against Ms. Davis' amendment. Please, vote no. Thank y'all.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis to close.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you. And again, members, this is simply treating one like you're treating the other. These entities have all agreed to have independent audits. There's no reason for us to take a swipe at an agency that we're trying to have sunset and or the auditor's office to treat them differently at NTTA. They're already proposed. They're already on check-line. They are already transparent and this is intuitive and should not be in this bill. And I ask you to vote for this amendment, so we can treat one NTTA just as we did HECTRA. With that I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on the adoption of the Davis amendment. Vote aye. vote nay. Showing Representative Anchia voting no, showing Representative Davis voting aye, showing Representative Laubenberg voting no. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Lucio voting no, showing Representative Deshotel voting aye. Have all vote? There being 20 aye, 119 nays the amendment fails to adopt. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Davis of Dallas.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Davis. The amendment is temporarily withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, members, in our haste last week Chairwoman Linda Harper-Brown offered an amendment to the amendment. It's No. 15. Basically there's some confusion as to what the amendment said. We're simply restoring it back to the original amendment and I think it's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Phillips.

REP. LARRY PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. What this is this is an amendment regarding the rail that we had the other day we took off and put the restrictions that Ms. Davis talked about which says they can't adopt any standard unless the department has developed a high speed rail plan and I believe it is acceptable to the author. It is.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Phillips sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against Senate Bill 1420? Question occurs -- Chair recognizes Representative Davis to speak on the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE YVONNE DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Members, I'd ask for your attention just a moment. I know everyone is really busy -- thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I'd just like to take a couple of minutes to mention what we've done here. I'm not speaking against this bill. I want to speak on it because it speaks more about where we are as legislature. First of all I want to tell you the sunset bill as I see it ought to be about the business of the agency. It ought to be about how we make sure agencies are providing the services and the support to the constituents of their state and do the business that we expect that agency to do as it relates to transportation. It would be having a strong Department of Transportation. It should not be about all of these agendas that we put on the sunset bill. I know and there's no question that there is issues that we need to have as it relates to our relationships with the industry, private sector, funding mechanisms, all of that. There is some need for that. But when we talk about a sunset bill, when we talk about an agency we ought to be talking about the way it does its business so that when people come to our department they have some sense of what to expect from the agency. We have some sense of what kind of services they provide to the citizens of this state. What we've done is merge the two so there is no clear delineation of what the agencies responsibility and what's the industries responsibility. And I just want us to be aware that that is a function of us not doing our job as a legislature. We should be clear that we ought to be giving clear direction what we expect of our agencies. How we want them to interact and what kind of programs we lack and what kind of safeguards to make sure that it is representative of what we would like it to be representative of. Instead this bill has become a bill about an industry. This bill has been about particular projects not whether or not there's a fairness of why those projects can be implemented. This is about political wishes versus what we ought to be doing about government? And I just submit to you as we move forward this last 30 days I would hesitate to think that we're not going to govern any better that we're doing. And I know everybody figures that they don't need to listen that this is about a particular bill but this is more about a particular approach for how we're going to govern. You know I'm saddened to think that this agency as big as this agency is and what the amount of impact it has across the state has been given such little consideration in terms of what we're implementing today. And so I just want to caution us on what I think is important we reauthorize a department. I always think it is equally important to think about what we're reauthorizing to do. And I don't think any of you on this floor have a clue about that. And I think that's the tragedy today, is that we're going to pass this bill and everybody is going to go home and say did I do that. And let me speak to a couple of things. You know Friday I talked about the whole issue with high speed rail. And I said it makes no sense for us to implement a high speed rail safety plan and we don't even have high speed rail and the department was not even reviewing it. So today Larry amended to make sure that at least the department has some notion of what high speed rail is and to the extent look into it before we put safety standards. We just had an amendment to take HECTRA out of being audited because they didn't want to be audited and we left NTTA in because of somebody's political and just to show punishment to somebody. We can't be a state to govern an agency when we're using it for our own political agenda. So I would just caution members when you go back and figure out what it is you're voting for it could go a step further and look at all the stuff you voted for because it is beyond the government and providing a good agency to do transportation. It's about political agendas and industry. And I submit to you that we're all going to be worse off because of that. With that, members, I ask you just to consider your vote. Just consider your vote. While I expect you-all to vote for it go back home and go back home tonight to your office and read and see what you voted for. You'd be surprised. So it's just not representative of government. It's representative of industry. This bill has little to do with the agency and much to do with special agendas.

JOE STRAUS: The chair recognizes Representative Harper-Brown to close. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I didn't want to take very much time Friday because I knew everyone wanted to go home. I'm not going to take much time this morning because we do have a long calendar today but I do want to tell you that the one point I disagree with Representative Davis and I do respect the idea and the thoughts that she's put forth because I too wanted to keep this sunset bill as a true sunset bill. However, as my dear friend and joint author, Representative Pickett, reminds me it's my bill until it gets to the House floor. And once it gets to the House floor it belongs to everyone. And you had your wishes on this bill. You've put what you wanted to into this bill. And I'm asking you to, please, vote yes on the bill. You get another bite at the apple when it comes back from the Conference Committee. I want thank you members. And I want to thank the sunset staff for all their hard work and the speaker staff, too, for all their hard work on this. Especially through all these amendments. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, members, I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on final passage of Senate Bill 1420. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all members voted? Have all voted? There being 121 ayes and 24 noes, Senate Bill 1420 has finally pass. Chair lays out on third reading, final passage House Bill 1390. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1390 by Deshotel. Relating to retainage under certain construction contracts.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. This bill is one we worked on Friday having to do with the retainage. There is an amendment to the amendment.

JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Deshotel.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members, this amendment is just coming back from alleged counsel with a little bit of clean up on the language. Nothing substantial on it. Move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Workman sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Workman.

REPRESENTATIVE PAUL WORKMAN: Members move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 1390. Question occurs on final passage of House Bill 1390. It's a record vote. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Fletcher vote aye. show Representative Workman voting aye, showing Representative Menendez voting aye. Have all voted? Being 139 ayes, 7 nays House Bill 1390 has finally passed. Chair lays out on second reading as a matter of postponed business House Bill 2494. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2494 by Legler. Relating to the recovery of fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Members, speaker, members this House Bill 2494 is the intent of this bill to provide TWC with additional tools to recover unemployment benefits that are obtained by fraudulent means. To insure that the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund is preserved for those who have legitimate unemployment benefit claims. Again, Mr. Speaker, members, I'm here to lay out House Bill 2494 the enabling legislation. This is enabling legislation for House Joint Resolution 122 which will come up later on the calendar today, hopefully. And will allow the voters -- I'll make sure you understand, will allow the voters if garnishment is proper. This authorizes Texas Workforce Commission to recover moneys paid in fraudulent, I repeat that, fraudulent collected unemployment benefits and wages if they are found guilty by a court. Speaker, I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment -- Representative Castro, for what purpose?

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker, before we get on to the amendments, would the gentleman yield for a question.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Legler, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I yield.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Legler, could you describe what would be exactly considered fraudulently obtaining a benefit here.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Actually, it is defined by the system already under Section 214001 fraudulently obtaining benefits or other payments.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Now, that is not on the text of the bill; is that right? That section is not included on the bill, right?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: On the bill it basically states -- refrains to what is fraudulent, yes.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: What is the definition? I don't see it on the face of the bill that's why I ask.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: The base of the bill, again, it states fraudulent. And the fraudulent refers right back to what is under the code already.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So what is -- you're right. It basically in the bill it refers to another definition that's not in the bill, right? Not in the text of the bill. So I'm asking -- because as the author I know you've done a lot more research on this than probably anybody on the floor. So, in the bill it says, quote, unquote, fraudulently obtained benefit means a benefit obtained by a person through the commission of an offense under Section 214.001. So I would ask you, what is an offense under Section 214.001?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: It's what it states -- what it states under 214.001. I have here fraudulently obtaining benefits or other payments.

(A) A person commits an offense if to obtain or increase a benefit or other payment either for the person or other person under this subtitle. The employment or compensation law of another state or any act or program in the United States that is managed by commission. The person, one, makes a false statement or representation knowing it to be false, or, two, only fails to disclose a material fact.

(B) An offense under this section is a class A misdemeanor.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. My question is I guess -- one of the threshold questions here is, if somebody receives unemployment benefits by the mistake of the work force commission, a state agency, will their wages still be garnished under your legislation.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: They have to be found guilty by a court.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So, that means if it was TWC's mistake then they wouldn't be liable.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: If a court says that it's not the persons mistake. If the court says it was not fraud. Then it was not fraud. The Court will have to find it as fraud.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Well, I guess, that's what gives us many of us a lot of heartburn is that the idea that there could be -- it could be an agencies mistake and an individual still pay the price for that is unsettling.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Even if they came back and had deferred adjudication that could not be considered garnishments. The Court will have to prove it as fraud. And you lawyers know that a lot harder than I do. It's a lot harder to prove things as fraud. So it's got to be actually proved as fraud.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And I guess I have a follow up to that. At what point in the process could the garnishment take place. In other words, does there have to be an adjudication by the court first or could the Workforce Commission take action before the court is adjudicated.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: They have to be found guilty. They have to be found guilty first.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: And then garnishment can take place.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Correct. That is -- that is if the citizens of Texas -- remember, that is if the citizens of Texas approve this.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Right. And you've got on accompanied HJR don't.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I do.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Okay. All right. Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I yield.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Legler, is it correct that people who fraudulently file unemployment benefits to obtain monies from the trust fund effect the lives of other people?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Definitely, definitely it does.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Such as, is it correct that employers will end up paying a higher tax because of that?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: So that hurts small business?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Definitely hurts small businesses.

REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: And, Mr. Legler, is it correct that also -- that when people fraudulently obtain these benefits that another group of people that they effect are those who are legitimately applying and are eligible to collect benefits.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That is probably the hardest things for anyone to accept. The ones that are really hard and deserving and doing it they are going to be effected by the ones fraudulently collecting.

REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: So, Mr. Legler also let me make sure I understand this clearly, that before someone is put in this position where they are being asked to payback. They must be found guilty in a court of law.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, they must be found guilty.

REPRESENTATIVE RAUL TORRES: Mr. Legler, I think you've got a good bill. Thank you, sir.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you very much.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose?

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I will.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. Since you're away from your desk and can't vote me today, I thought I'd ask you a question about your bill.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Is it only unemployed -- is it only former employees who commit fraud in dealing with unemployment benefits or do employers ever knowingly provide incorrect information in order to avoid chargebacks.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I don't know that per se. I don't know that answer. I am not advised. I know if anybody found -- if this was concerning unemployment insurance and whether it can be fraudulent or not. I don't know the answer for sure the answer to that question.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Because it seems to me that you're setting up a situation where the employee can get that money recovered but if an employer says, oh, no we didn't lay that person off. They just didn't show up and that is found later to be fraudulent and false there's not a comparable penalty that you're adding for the employer. And I guess in my experience it's -- you know sometimes it happens one-way and sometimes it happens another.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Scott, I'm not advised. If it is on that I did not look at that way or not. I don't know.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: But your bill doesn't do anything on the employers side. Its only on the employees side.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: The only one I have on here is on the employees side because on the fraudulent side on Section 2414.001.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: You're welcome.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Solomons, for what purpose?

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I do.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: All right. Thanks. I appreciate it. I think you and I just had quick conversation about what you're trying to do with this bill and this is the enabling statute. And you're aware that I'm going to file an amendment to your constitutional amendment to ensure that the finding is by fraudulently. So it's clear in the constitutional amendment you would have to have a court involved for the expressed purposes of finding fraudulently obtained work unemployment benefits.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That's correct.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: So, that's how you're going to get to how you determine fraudulent or not.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Correct. Courts is going to have to determine if it's fraudulent or not.

REP. BURT R. SOLOMONS: Right. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you, move passage.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members, I hope you will take an opportunity to look at the bill and look at the -- look at that amendment because this is the enabling legislation that soon we'll be dealing with the constitutional amendment. There are only two instances where garnishment is allowed in our state constitution. One is dealing with child support and the other one is dealing with spousal maintenance. Those are the only two provisions that are allowed in our state constitution. This bill will add third. And I'm not here to defend anybody who fraudulently has taken advantage of any type of benefits. That's not my point. The point is whether or not we want to raise this to the level where we are placing it within our state constitution. And I have problems with that. There are only two times in our state history that we have allowed garnishment. Spousal support and child support. This adds a third. And the question is, if we allowed this precedence to take place then where do you draw the line. For example, if people don't pay their credit cards, should we allow that to be placed in our state constitution. Or if people don't pay their mortgage. Should we allow that in the state constitution. And so the line goes on and on and on. So in irrespective of how you feel about this, if people are fraudulently taking advantage of benefits that they should not be receiving the present law takes care of that. You can file a criminal charge against them and they can be prosecuted and if they are fraudulently abusing the system they ought to be prosecuted and the law allows that right now. Or you can file a civil lawsuit against people and they can do that right now. The question ultimately is do we want to raise this particular item to the level of child support and spousal maintenance and put it in the state constitution. I think it's bad precedent. I think it's difficult to draw the line and it's a debtors prison so to speak and so whether you're conservative or liberal or it doesn't matter. The point is we're dealing with the State constitution and I think that the level should be much heightened than what we have here. This amendment simply takes garnishment out of the bill and does not allow it to be placed in the constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Menendez, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: I'd like to ask the gentleman a question?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Turner?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Chairman Turner, in your opinion, by allowing government to garner these wages would this be a greater intrusion of state government into peoples' lives.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, there's no question. I think that's the reason why we have only allowed garnishment in two instance and that's for child support which I support; spousal maintenance which I support but I think to add -- when you start adding things like this where do you draw the line. Should it be credit cards, should it be mortgage payments. I don't think that makes this one any greater than a number of other causes that are out there.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So, for a hard working person out there who maybe what if they accidently get caught. Not caught doing something wrong but caught making a mistake. You're on State Affairs. We've heard that E-Verify is not a hundred percent accurate. What if it was an accusation and something happened and maybe there was a mistake made. Now a hard working persons wages could be garnished and maybe their family is going to have to make some difficult choices between food and rent and other things.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: The question now are there remedies that exist right now, Representative Menendez? And there are. If someone is fraudulently abusing the system you can actively and aggressively prosecute them which is taking place now. Or you can file a civil lawsuit against them, which you can do right now. I don't see why we want to raise this particular item to the level that we are inserting it within our state constitution.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: So, this by passing this we're making state government larger, more intrusive into our lives; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker or madam speaker.

WOMAN SPEAKER: For what purpose?

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to.

WOMAN SPEAKER: The gentleman yields.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you, Mr. Turner. Who actually does the work of capturing the employees wages? Who has to do that? Is it the State that does it or is it the employer that the person is now working for who has to do that?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It's the employer.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: It's the employer. So this bill would actually get -- force employers to do the work of the state in prosecuting these cases.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Do we pay the employer to do this for us.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: No, we do not.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: We're just going to mandate every employer, every small business, every business of any size has to do the State's work and go out and be a collection agency for the state.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: It is a mandate, Representative Hochberg. I just don't think it's prudent. I understand what Representative Legler is trying to achieve. I understand that, I don't question the motivation. I just don't think this is best mechanism to do that.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you. I wouldn't want to put this burden on small businesses, they have enough to do.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Right. I would agree.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members, I would ask that you vote for the amendment that's before you.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you, sir. The amendment is not acceptable to me. No. 1, courts are going find the difference. No. 2, more importantly the people of Texas will make this final decision if they think it's important enough. Not me, not you, not the senate, not the governor but the people of Texas will vote to make that final decision.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Hochberg, for what purpose.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Would the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I yield.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Ken, would you respond to what I asked Silvester. Who pays the employer for the doing the State's work on this deal.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Actually, as a small business owner I collect for garnishment of wages now. The State of Texas doesn't pay me. I collect them and a small business owner pays for it. Just like -- I'll be paying as a small business owner along with everybody else and large business owners are paying for collection of any wages. Are you talking about collectment of Texas Workforce Commission.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Right. This is Texas Workforce Commission duty and they are having you and I and small businesses --

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: And I as a small business will do that here. And that's exactly why NFIB actually came out in favor of this, National Federation of Independent Business, and TAB came out in favor of this.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Because they want their small businesses to do -- to actually have to this extra paperwork without any compensation.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: They will believe and I believe that this will put the benefits where they belong. To the people who needed them and will save the businesses money.

REP. SCOTT HOCHBERG: Okay. Thank you.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mrs. Thompson, for what purpose?

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I will yield, yes.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Mr. Legler, did I understand you to say that you believe that issues like this should before the people and the people should be able to make decisions.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: On the garnishment of wages, yes, I do.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Okay. And evidently the gravity of the situation brought you to this point.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, yes. Actually the fraudulent of the -- this effects every business out there, especially small businesses effect them tremendously.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: And I thought it must have had an impact on the State's issue. You said you felt like the State would be able to recover something.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Well, we have to go through the State to recover. Because it has to go through the court system which is the State.

REP. SENFRONIA THOMPSON: Thank you so much. And I just want to make sure that I understood your answer.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, ma'am.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Taylor, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: The gentleman yield for just a couple questions.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I will.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Now, we heard a couple of things here on this back microphone. Why don't we garnish for credit cards and mortgage payments. What's the difference between credit card payments and mortgage payments and what we're talking about here.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That's a voluntarily and natural thing and nothing -- you're not fraudulently doing anything.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: And that would be us collecting for a private entity. This is actually a state fund, is it not?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: This is a fund that the State collects, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: And this concern about the employer having to deal with having to come up with and having to deal with the garnishment of the wages on it. Who pays the unemployment insurance premiums.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Actually and you really get down to the bottom line, it's the workers.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: The workers. It goes through the employer and they already pay that and send it on.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Okay. So would it be an advantage to the employer or the employees having people taking money out of the system unnecessarily or fraudulently.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: No. It hurts the employee and the employer.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: And it effects the rate as an employer. Your rate that you pay for unemployment insurance is based on your losses, is that not correct?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: So, if you have someone out stealing money out of the unemployment fund. Does that not effect the rate that you end up paying and your employees pay.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That effects the rate. And so, those employees will pay actually more than the employer.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: So, I think to go after people who have fraudulently they have to be convicted of doing this. This isn't just a mistake or clerical error, if they fraudulently and knowingly and willfully stolen money from the unemployment, your bill says they are going to have their wages garnished in the future to pay that back.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Correct. Anybody fraudulently.

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: I think you have a good bill.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Not over payment.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Davis, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Ken, are you aware of any other states that already do the garnishment of the wages.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, there are. There are actually some other states that do that. Such states as Oregon, Connecticut, Washington, Maryland, all allow for garnishment of wages to recoup on unemployment insurance overpayments.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Okay. They have been doing that now. Are you also aware in 2010 there were almost -- over 100 million in overpayments through unemployment insurance in the State of Texas and this would be just a tool to recoup some of those overpayments; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: This is actually a tool. An additional tool for that purpose, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN E. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: For what purpose?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: For a couple of questions?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Legler?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I yield.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: What amount of overpayments are you commenting that you're trying to collect here.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: From 2005, 2009 Texas Workforce Commission they detected $46,594,789 in fraudulent obtained unemployment benefit payments through internal investigations and legal proceedings.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Representative Sheets raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman point is well taken and sustained. Chair recognizes Representative Zedler.

REPRESENTATIVE BILL ZEDLER: Mr. Speaker, members, I would like to recognize the people from Trinity Baptist Academy from Arlington, Texas. We have the principal and a number of her students. Please, stand up. Welcome to the Texas House of Representatives we hope you enjoy your tour.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I move to table the amendment.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Turner to close.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Members, and again I hope you look at this bill and look at the amendment and if you could I hope you will separate the fact that I'm a D. and Representative Legler is a an R. because it goes to what's good or what's bad. What makes this more important, for example, than student loans. I think if people fraudulently apply for student loans, I think that's a serious problem. Why should -- why should this be placed in the state constitution above something else.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mrs. Giddings, for what purpose?

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Turner?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: Thank you, Representative Turner. You are not at all suggesting that a person who is guilty of some fraudulent act in terms of obtaining unemployment compensation go unpunished are you?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I am not advocating that. And I think they should punished to the full extent of the law. Whatever that is.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: And can they now be punished.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: They can be criminally convicted. Prosecuted and convicted and can possibly go to jail.

REP. HELEN GIDDINGS: And so we have no problem with people being prosecuted, convicted, and going jail but it seems to me that the real question is, does this one fraudulent act rise to the level that it should become a part of the Texas Constitution along with child support and spousal support.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct. We have only allowed garnishment for two times to be placed in the state constitution. Only two. Now let me just say this. We just had a debate on imminent domain about government taking. Taking real property. That was one concern. Now we're talking about allowing government to reach into peoples' bank accounts or take their earnings. For those who was all uptight about imminent domain. This is the same principle. It's big government stepping in and taking. And I don't, quite frankly, I don't see the difference in terms of policy. And that's why with regards to our state constitution we have always said no. When it comes to takings of this kind. Garnishment of this kind. Whether we are democrats or republicans we have always said no to big government reaching down and taking. And I don't think this anywhere important than students loans or anything else.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Castro, for what purpose?

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Would the gentleman yield for some questions?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: I'd be more than happy to yield.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He will.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Representative Turner, just so that the body is clear about the options that is already exist to getting this money back, those include as part of any kind of criminal finding, restitution.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That's correct.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: A civil judgment.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: So, there's already two huge hammers that the workforce commission or whoever may try to collect already has to go find -- to go get this money back; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: I'm also a little bit concerned about the definition of fraud in this bill. While it's not on the face of the bill, it's referred to in another section but in the exchanges that I heard earlier, I heard the term overpayment that's being used, which makes me believe even if it's not the mistake or the mal-action of the person or the worker that perhaps that definition is too loose a definition here.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: And I think that is a legitimate argument there or concern.

REP. JOAQUIN CASTRO: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Lastly members, again, the bottom line is why does this rise to the level that it needs to be placed in our state constitution. I think that we've said there are only two instances that should be placed in the state constitution. I think this opens the door and we are engaged on a slippery slope. I don't think it's good policy and I will respectfully ask that you vote no. No on the motion to table.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Turner sends up an amendment. Mr. Legler moves to table. The motion is on the -- excuse me, the vote is on the motion to table. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed vote no. Record vote has been requested and granted. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Mr. Legler voting aye. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? There being 94 ayes, 54 nays, two present not voting the motion to table prevails. Is anyone wishing to speak on or against the bill. On, for, or against? Representative Oliveira to speak against the bill.

REP. RENE O. OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, in 1985 -- I'm sorry it was '83 I carried the legislation on garnishment of wages for child support. That's probably the most important piece of legislation I ever touched. At that time the business community, the labor community, everybody was against it and they had all had different reasons. They thought the worker's paycheck was sacred. If you go back and really look at the history of all this and I did because people like Kay Bailey-Hutchinson and others had tried to do this before me. And what we found out was that this prevision in our Texas constitution is here for a reason. It was here because Texans at the time wanted to stop carpetbaggers. The Yankees were coming from up north with their carpetbags and coming up with all kinds of schemes and ways to get at the Texans paychecks. To get at their livelihood. They were bringing ideas from the northeast and even from England and talking about a debtors prison. So when we formed our great republic, our great republic decided that the paycheck, the earnings of the hard work of Texans, of men and women in Texas would be protected. This isn't anything I'm making up. It's in our history books. We debated it that day in the early 80's. And I was very proud to be the first one to be a part of changing the Texas constitution to allow garnishment of wages for child support. It was a big day for millions of children who didn't have a chance to get that support. The only remedy at that time was to put somebody in jail. They may own a big screen TV if they had them back then, I don't remember. Or they may have a big old fishing boat but what you did back then was you put somebody in jail, you took way their freedom and then nobody got any child support. That had been tried for almost 50 years. The community of Texas decided finally through their representatives and senators that they would allow for garnishment of wages for child support and nothing else. I had to make commitments at that time that I would not allow garnishment if the bill came up and somebody wanted to add Sears or Dillards or JC Penneys or anybody else. It wasn't going to happen on my watch. The reason I bring this up is there is a sacredness to this principal of garnishment of wages. There are so many remedies here. I know Mr. Legler is well intended and I know politically this sounds like it's the right thing to do but I want you to, please, go back in time for a moment with me and think about what the founding fathers of our great constitution were thinking about and it was protecting working men and women. There are good reasons to not be for this. And I know the catch of getting somebody that fraudulently gets benefits we can put them in prison, we can do ten times as many things to them as we could do back then when we're talking about trying to collect for child support. You know people get tired of hearing our constitution being a living, breathing document. Well, you're putting a spike in it with this bill today. Our founding fathers really thought a lot about the working paycheck of the working men and women. They thought about the farmers that worked very hard. About the tradesmen that worked very hard. And they said we're not going to let you take somebody's paycheck. That's why I respectfully oppose this bill on the constitutional principles and on our great history. We've never been a creditor state. And now we're about to be one. Now, is this going to open the door? Will amendments be added in the enabling legislation? Will we be look at more things? Whose going to stop Visa? Whose going to stop the credit card companies? Whose going stop everybody else who wants to get at that worker's paycheck. This is too sacred provision in our constitution and I respectfully ask you to vote no on this motion -- on this bill.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Representative Strama to speak against the bill.

REPRESENTATIVE MARK STRAMA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I didn't come here planning to get very involved in this debate and I wasn't really sure how I felt about the bill until the debate began. I think Representative Oliveira has raised some excellent points. I also though had a thought as we were debating the bill about practically speaking what happens when an employer gets a letter like the letters I as an employer get today from the Attorney General's office telling me that I have to garnish one of my employees wages to pay child support. But this letter is going to say I have to garnish one of my employees wages because my employee committed fraud against one of his previous employers that effected unemployment insurance. Well, guess what I'm not going to garnish any of that employees wages because that employee is not going to get another paycheck. That's the last day that employee worked for me. So the purpose of this bill is to raise money for the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, by garnishing wages. But if you as an employer get a letter saying that you have an employee that committed fraud against a previous employer and owes a debt to the Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund it is highly unlikely that you keep that employee on your staff. They do have mechanisms and Representative Legler has the numbers. Regrettably I don't because as I said I didn't plan to debate this in detail today. They do have mechanisms for collecting funds from people who fraudulently -- who defraud Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. But this won't be one because there won't be anything to collect from an employee whose employer was just notified that the employee defrauded his previous employer. That employee won't be employed anymore and so there won't be any replenishment of the Employee Insurance Trust Fund. So as a practical matter on top of all the principle reasons that Representative Oliveira gave you I can't imagine this bill helping. Last session Representative Harless and others worked hard on unemployment issues to try to find ways to enhance the solvency of the fund when at times employers were getting hit pretty hard by increases in unemployment insurance taxes. I don't think this bill gets us there and I don't think it's worth amending the constitution to dramatically expand the power of government for a purpose that will yield at best marginal benefits. Thank you.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Is there anyone else to speak on, for, or against the bill. The chair recognizes Mr. Legler to close.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Thank you, members, and I appreciate this. This is not --

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: This is such an important issue and I appreciate the debate and that's way it should be.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Would you yield, Mr. Legler?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: In one second, please.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Thank you he does not yield at this time.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: It is very important. I myself, I do not take this lightly. I'm a big constitutionist. I believe in protecting the workers rights and that's what I think this does. This protects the hard workers not by just simple overpayments. This protects the workers and small business owners across our state by fraudulent, fraudulent means of taking UI benefits. They are taking out of your pocket to put in theirs fraudulently and that is by a court making that decision. And that will be allowed by the great citizens of a great state to say we shall take that from their paycheck. Now, I don't know if as an employer if I would fire somebody for that or just because I don't know. I don't know maybe the employee would decide that I should not take these fraudulent charges because I know they're fraudulent because that's what they got to prove. So I don't want to be effected by the other jobs. But I think that person has already decided if it's going to be what they're going to do if by deciding to receive them fraudulently. When they're contacted they can still talk with Texas Workforce Commission and it can be settled before it even goes to the court. This is fraudulent charges. This is a court deciding that they're guilty. That they're taking money away from hard working workers and putting in their pocket.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: For a question.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Yes, I do.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: He does.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Legler you mentioned that we would ask the people of Texas to approve this. But isn't it true like we've debated already there is already a process where people can be taken to court. People that can be charges against them as part of the charge they can also be asked to return the money; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: That is one way and they do that. They even talk to them and some people give them the money back to them right. These are the ones that decided they are fraudulently not going to do that and they are going to accept that and they're not going to give anything back.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: But do you know, as you've already admitted there is already a process if they commit fraud they can be federally -- they can be prosecuted at this time and part of that prosecution is that they give the money back.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Maybe this gives them an extra additional tool. Maybe this gives them an extra additional incentive to people that fraudulently took and pay the money back because they know can be garnished.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: So --

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Like going through expensive court system and getting their money.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: And so, what you're -- you're saying to this body that the reason you're doing this legislation and going all the way to amend -- in the following bill you amend the constitution to get this money back, right?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I am doing this to collect the money that is fraudulently obtained, correct.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Are you aware that in the House Research Organization that the Legislative Budget Board determined that this bill would not recover the money to cause a significant impact to this state.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: Because it goes back into the workforce money.

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Let me ask you again. Are you aware that the Legislative Budget Board determined that House Bill 2494 would not recover enough money to make a significant impact; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I will repeat. Right because it goes right back into the Texas Workforce Fund.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield?

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Mr. Burnam, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I will.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I would like to ask him a couple of questions.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Do you yield, Mr. Legler.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I will, yes.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Representative Legler. I'm curious. I was very interested in Mr. Stramas line of commenting. And I wondered about your fiscal note and I wonder if in fact while you're trying to fix a problem there's actually going to be a negative impact because of what Representative Strama explained.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I don't believe so. And the Workforce Commission doesn't believe so. They believe, in fact, it would save them money.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: I think maybe we should be looking at this more closely than we have looked at it. I think there is more likely, just as likely in this case to be a negative fiscal impact as there is in some of the tax collection bills that I have suggested that are languishing. And I'm sorry, that we haven't had an opportunity to come up with a good idea to address the problem that you are concerned about but I'm afraid there's some unintended consequences here.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I move passage.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, the question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 2494. A record vote has been requested. A record vote has been granted. All those in favor vote aye, those opposed vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Mr. Legler voting aye. Have all members voted? There being 93 ayes, 50 nays, two present not voting. House bill 2494 passes to engrossment. Chair lays out House Bill 1089. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1089 by Martinez Fischer. Relating to the authority of a county or municipality to require the removal of graffiti by a property owner.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Menendez.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. We're going to postpone House Bill 1089 until May the 9th at 9:05.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? At 9:05 a.m. Members you heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill 1979. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1979 by Laubenberg. Relating to strategic partnerships for the continuation of certain water districts and by municipality.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mrs. Laubenberg.

REP. JODIE LAUBENBERG: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to postpone this until next Monday, May 9th. Thank you. At 10:00 a.m.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Dutton for a motion.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker and members I move to request permission for the Committee on Urban Affairs meet at 3:00 p.m. today in 1W14 which is the ag museum to consider House Bill 2672, house bill 2075, House Bill 3363 and other pending business. And it will take only about two or three minutes, members.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Madden for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JERRY MADDEN: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I request permission for the Committee on Corrections to meet while the House in session at 3:30 p.m. today, May 2nd in 3W9 to consider SB 1886, SB 1106 and pending business.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcements. The clerk will read the announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Corrections will meet at 3:30 p.m. today May the 2nd, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 1886, SB 1106 and pending business. The Committee on Urban Affairs will meet at 3:00 p.m. today May the 2nd, 2011 at 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider HB 2672, HB 2075, and HB 3363 and pending business.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I request permission for the Committee on Licensing and Administrative Procedures to meet while the House is in session at 3:00 p.m. May the 2nd, 2011 at 3W.9 to consider pending business.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objections? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on License and Administrative Procedures will meet at 3:00 p.m. on May the 2nd, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 2250. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2250 by Bonnen. Relating to the abolition of the Coastal Coordination Council and the transfer of its functions to the General Land Office.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Mr. Ritter.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move to postpone House Bill 2250 to Wednesday May, 4th at 9:00 a.m.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out House Bill 2608. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 2608 by Harper-Brown. Relating to the continuation and functions of the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs.

REP. CHARLIE GEREN: Chair recognizes Ms. Harper-Brown. Mr. Hancock? Representative Harper-Brown to explain the bill. REPRESENTATIVE LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. HB 2608 is a sunset bill for the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs. DDHCA works to ensure availability of affordable single and multi family housing. Provides funding for community based support services and regulates the manufactured housing industry. The Sunset Commission concluded that Texas has an ongoing need for the function of TDHCA, particularly in disbursing federal funds. However, it was also noted that changes are needed to improve several of the agency's programs. It requires better upfront planning to avoid delays in disaster recovery funds to hard hit Texas communities. It also provides for more consistency in TDHCA enforcement process. The bill improves the states oversight of manufactured home insulations. The licensing of individuals in the manufactured housing industry is strengthened and streamlined and it continues TDHCA for 12 years. And I believe we have some amendments.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you, members. This amendment simply adds a million dollars do a single application round. Back ten years ago when the tax credit allocation was made available there was total of $33 million -- $32 million and each particular project represented 6.25 percent of the overall allocation. Today that fund is 55 million and so the 2 million increase 3 million is simply reflection of the cost of construction going up. The second part of the amendment simply award incentives to developers who have done business in this state and have good compliance history with TDHCA programs. And is intended to eliminate a non-define term and allows TDHCA to identify what constitutes unsatisfactory compliance in accordance with the rules and I think there's an amendment to my amendment.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Riddle.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Riddle.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes, members. All this does is, if points are added to a company because they are in state then an equal amount of points will be added to the letter from the elected official whether it's positive or negative. It will not dilute the members letter. Move passage. I think this is acceptable to the author.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Riddle sends up the amendment to the amendment. Is acceptable to the author. Mr. Dutton, for what purpose?

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: I was hoping to ask either amender or the amendee something about the amendment.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Ms. Riddle, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes, I would be happy to answer his questions.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Thank you. Now, again, tell me, Ms. Riddle, what your amendment does.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: When a low income housing project is coming in through TDHCA there are points that are given.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Right, I understand that.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: So --

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: So, what did you do about the letter the legislative --

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I have amended his amendment. His amendment says that if that company is already working in state, in Texas. Not just coming from out of state but they're already here, they've got a good reputation and they're doing well, then they get an additional point. Now, what my amendment does is if we do not add the same number of additional points to your letter or to mine which is the voice of our constituents then it effectively waters down what our constituents have to say about that low income housing whether it's positive or negative. So this simply keeps us and our constituents voice on the equal plain, that's all.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. So as I understand it then, in the bill currently legislators may send a letter.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'm having difficulty hearing you, Representative.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Well, let me see -- Mr. Speaker could we get a little bit quieter something.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Members, we're having difficulty hearing.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. Thank you.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay. I think we got it. The way I understand the system works now is, a company desiring to have the low income tax credits usually will try to get a letter from one of legislators.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Well, what they do is they actually compete. There's not just one company normally that coming in.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And I understand. I understand --

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: They are competing against other companies.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Oh, I understand. But ultimately they are trying to get a letter from you or me in regards to that particular project.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Yes, either positive or negative. Either supporting them or not supporting them.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: That's right.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And our letters -- our letters --

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Hold on. Hold on --

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: -- have points.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Hold on. You're going too fast for me. You got to go a little slower, it's a Monday.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: If you send the letter you can get up to I believe 12 points.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I think it's 14.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Fourteen, yeah, you're right. Fourteen points for the letter. Tell me how that's changed by what you just did, your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: It doesn't change unless, according to Representative Darby's amendment that the only way it would change is that if you got several companies that are coming in and they're competing each other and they are given points for various reasons.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Correct.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Trying one, to win or to be awarded the okay to go ahead and build this project. His amendment says that if they are already working in Texas. If they have already been a good actor and they are here in Texas, then they get additional points. That's it. That's all his amendment says.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: How many points do they get under his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'm not sure how many.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: It's irrelevant. The get additional points being here in Texas. And it's not a bad amendment because what it does is it shows that if they are already here in Texas and they're doing well, then they get points. But the problem that can exist with this is if one gets extra points and they're coming into your district and you have a letter that you want to submit to either protest or to say that you are fine with it then their additional points that they get dilute your letter. Therefore diluting the voice of your constituents and that we cannot make happen so what this does is it keeps us on an even playing field.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: And how does it keep you on an even playing field; for example --

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: The way that it keeps you on an even playing field is if you have a company.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Mr. Speaker, I still can't -- I can't hear Mrs. Riddle.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Sheets raises a point of order that the gentle ladies time has expired. Point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. HAROLD V. DUTTON JR.: Guess I really won't hear her now.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Now, we can all hear her. Representative Riddle sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection to the adoption of the amendment? Chair hears none. Now we're on the Darby amendment. Members is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the Darby amendment. Chair recognizes Mrs. Harper-Brown.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield about the question about his amendment.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Yes, he will. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, you want me or Mr. Darby.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Yes, Mr. Darby.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Naishtat go ahead. Does the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I certainly will.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you. I just want to understand what your amendment proposes to do. We would raise the cap from $2 million to $3 million.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: So but --

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Per project.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Per project. Right. Right. So this has the potential -- I'm asking this as a question, to concentrate tax credits in fewer and larger projects, is that --

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: But the pot of money has been increased over the last ten years. When this program was first implemented ten years ago there was $32 million in that pot but because the cost to have construction has gone up. There is now 55 million in that pot. Each project ten years ago was about 6.25 percent of the total cost of the program. Today 6.25 percent of 55 million is a little over 3 million. So this change or amendment simply reflects the additional cost of construction.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: But if we're authorizing bigger projects and fewer projects wouldn't this ultimately, despite the fact that we're increasing the amount of money in the pot, wouldn't it still make it harder for smaller, newer organizations to receive these tax credits for their communities.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: But it still reflects the cost of these projects, even though the projects have -- the same number of projects are going to be able to be built. But the 3 million actually reflects the current market conditions of those projects and the actually cost to construct them.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Okay. Is it -- is it possible that as a result of this amendment, we would end up giving bigger awards to developers because they're bigger, because they're larger, not necessarily for doing a good job or producing high quality, low cost housing.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Actually, representative, I think it would have the reverse effect. You know, the reality is the 3 million actually makes it more economically viable to do these projects and would enhance and incentivize these projects being built because it more accurately reflects what it cost to develop these projects.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: My last question is, what was this amendment, was it considered by either the Sunset Commission or the Urban Affairs Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I have no idea whether it reflects consideration through the committee process. I don't think so.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Did you introduce a bill that would have accomplished it.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I did not. I simply had this bill, this amendment simply reflects the added cost to these projects to make them more competitive in the marketplace today and allow these projects to go forward. This makes them more competitive in the real marketplace today.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: I understand that. I just want the membership to be clear that, to the best of your knowledge this amendment what you're proposing today was not considered by either the Sunset Commission or the Urban Affairs Committee.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: To my knowledge neither one was considered.

REP. ELLIOTT NAISHTAT: Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Menendez.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Certainly.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The gentleman yields.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Representative Darby, part of the amendment that I have the most interest in is you said something about compliance. If they have a positive compliance record could you explain that a little further because many times when these apartment projects, these multifamily affordable projects are built, some people have complaints that some developers don't fulfill what they say they're going to do. Could you elaborate on that.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's been a problem. You award these projects on the basis of price with no consideration as to whether or not the developer has previously done this type of project before and their experience with these type of projects has never been considered. What this amendment does is simply allow the TDHCA to consider that as part of their evaluation process, whether or not this developer has done business in this state and whether or not he has a good compliance record or whether he has a bad explanation record.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: So you're amendment would help weed out the bad actors that are out of compliance on a regular basis. It gives them another tool to help us provide our communities the best quality for the money we're investing in.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely, and it allows TDHCA to identify what actually constitutes unsatisfactory compliance in accordance with their rules.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: I think you have a good amendment, thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Just a question or two.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Gentleman, yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I certainly will.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Drew. I want to make sure I understand this. So the $3 million increase from 2 million is just to provide a bigger tax credit and get more people to want to do this. Is that right.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Reflects the current market of construction costs.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And then the underlining portion of the first page two that had has 150 units in rural areas and 350 in urban areas, sounds like urban areas, that's an increase of what we have today.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That is an increase. It simply reflects who has some experience building these type of projects.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And so, if you're from Texas you're going to get a bit of -- there will be more of an advantage for you if you are doing business in Texas today.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Exactly. It gives a little bit -- it awards one point this whole matter is about one point being added to evaluate a developer who has experience in Texas and has done these type of projects before.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And then Ms. Riddles amendment say is that ours as legislators will match that one point.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Got it. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Move adoption.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against the amendment. Chair hears none. Representative Harper-Brown. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I'm going to make a motion to table this amendment. Actually what it does, I don't mind the 2 to $3 million increase. That is consistent with what the agency would like to have, however, the rest of the amendment actually creates a barrier to small scale developers. It would potentially allow the larger scale and instate developers to get more points than the smaller developers. And in addition many developer may have instances of noncompliance but quickly fix those problems with their developments. This provision would prevent those developers from receiving points. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I move to table this amendment.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Darby to close.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this amendment simply reflects the current market conditions and the cost of these projects. The additional language in the amendment is simply designed to say that the TDHCA can award points if you have an instate developer whose done these projects before and has competency and has done them well and allows TDHCA give a point, a single point, for an instate developer who has experience with these types of projects. It promotes jobs and companies in Texas. Keep that in mind when you're voting.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Rodriguez, for what purpose?

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: Just a couple more questions, I'm sorry.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Go ahead.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: I understand affordable house stuff a little bit but I just want to make sure I understand this right. The 150 units what is that an increase from. What do we have today or is that even in law today at all.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: It simply defines it. It's not currently defined in the law right now.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, that's a collective amount of maybe units that a Texas company or builder has done; is that right? In a rural area.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That's correct.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: So, it's not just they open up shop last weak and then they get a one point credit. They've built at least 150 units; is that right?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Right.

REP. EDDIE RODRIGUEZ: And the same thing with the 350.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Correct.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: For what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Will the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Certainly.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Darby, I'm trying to get a handle with respect to the issue that was raised earlier about incentivizing larger projects. Does that project in Uvalde or a Del Rio would that disincentivize those kinds of projects?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This is a maximum credit that could be awarded. It is not a minimum it's a maximum. So it just allows where the cost or the size of the project in the Valley justifies a little more tax credit. TDHCA has the ability has the ability to do that. This sets the ceiling not the floor.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: The impact of that does that make it harder to get projects in a Del Rio or a Uvalde.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. I think to the contrary. It allows projects in those areas to be more market viable.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Okay.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Menendez.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Yes. Real quick. The most important part of your amendment I heard, I think, and I heard Representative Harper-Brown say, this would help incentivize instate developers who are doing a good job; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: That is exactly right.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: So, if they are in the state where the money stays in the state hiring local people, buying things here locally that's going to get more points.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Exactly.

REP. JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you very much.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. Representative Harper Brown moves to table. Question is on the motion to table. Vote aye, vote no, members. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Harper-Brown voting aye, Representative Darby voting no, Representative Strama voting no, Representative Phillips voting no Representative Menendez voting no, Representative Harvey Hilderbran voting no. Representative Kolkhorst voting no. Have all members voted? Have all members voted? We have 23 ayes and 121 nays, motion to table fails. Question is on the Darby amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? The House hears none. So ordered. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Chair recognizes Representative Darby. The amendment is withdrawn, members. Please, excuse Representative Hamilton, Thompson, Geren, Quintanilla, Menendez, Driver, Kuempel, Guitierrez and Ortiz to attend a committee meeting by motion of Representative Brown. Please excuse Representative Harless to attend a meeting by Representative Brown. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this language is to assist the TDHCA and future weatherization programs to ensure that conflicts of interest do not exist. Proper training is in place and there is independence between those who perform the audits and those who provide weatherization and energy efficient products, such as windows and air duct cleaning services. And I think it's acceptable to the author.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Darby sends up an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Riddle for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Would the gentleman yield.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Drew, I was trying to read that as it came up on our computer. Would you tell us just kind of in a few sentences what this amendment does. Just kind of in plain English.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Sure, you know, I've been on the appropriations the last several years and the TDHCA has been a part of that. And we had a huge influx of funds into the weatherization program as a result ARA funding. And there's been a question about disclosure to people who have had these weatherization audits done and then later installation of the weatherization method -- I mean equipment. And when you go in and do an audit there also seems to be peddling additional weather related products. And so, we just want to make sure that that's disclosed to the homeowner that whoever is doing this audit tells them that they're also in the marketing business for these other products. And so that's the purpose, full disclose sure --

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: And does that go for everyone in Texas or low income housing.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Anybody doing these energy audits will be required for the disclosure.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Anybody that was doing these energy audits would be required to disclose that to the homeowner.

REPRESENTATIVE DEBBIE RIDDLE: Okay. Thank you.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objections? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Is Mr. Garza on the floor of the House, Mr. Hildebrand on the floor? Please excuse Representative Alvarado because of committee meeting in Urban Affairs on the motion of Representative Raymond. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Garza.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Chair recognizes, Representative Hildebrand.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker, members, this is an amendment by Representative Garza and I was asked to offer -- apparently there maybe a point of order on it. So I'm waiting to hear about that before I explain things. Oh, there is a violation. So it's being pulled down.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Ms. Harper-Brown raises a point of order on the amendment. Pursuant to Rule 11, Section 2. That the amendment is not germane. The point of order is well taken and sustained. Mr. Martinez-Fischer. Member that completes the amendments. Is there anybody wishing to speak on, for -- Representative Turner.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker, will the gentle lady yield?

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Ms. Harper-Brown yield. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes, I yield for a question.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you, Representative Harper-Brown. In the section on page 5 that deals with the long term disaster recovery plan. The concern that I have is that when we come to disasters we're dividing responsibility between two agencies. The Texas Department of Housing and Community Development will be responsible for housing. Then for infrastructure the primary responsibility for those matters will be the Texas Department of Rural Affairs. I don't know if you know, I chaired the committee over the Emergency Hurricane Preparedness when Hurricane Ike hit a few years ago. And I'm trying to understand how these two sections will work. For example, will the Department of Rural Affairs be responsible for infrastructure needs for example in Harris County, in Galveston, in Dallas, San Antonio to the extent something should happen. Is that the way I should read this. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. And the reason why I raise that question, I understand that the governor can designate a particular entity for purposes of dealing with the Feds. But I don't -- I think there's an unnecessary tension being built in here when we have the Department of Housing being responsible for housing needs in urban areas and the Office of Rural Affairs being responsible for infrastructure needs in urban areas like Harris County. And I've been in the back talking with the drafters of this and we're trying to come up with -- they're working to come up with an amendment to work to resolve some of the tension that will -- that is built into this bill. I just wanted to see -- it's not going to be ready now but on third reading we should at least be willing to take a look at the amendment they're working on. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Absolutely, Representative Turner I will because I think you're right. The legislation -- it does say that each entity will be in charge of the plan but that the governor shall designate one of the agencies to be the primary agency. But I understand your concern and I am willing to look at a third reading amendment so that we can try too clarify the language because I agree with you. We don't want confusion. The intent of this is to try to lessen the confusion, to try to put a plan in place ahead of time so we can get these dollars out to people much more quickly. So yes.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. REP. LINDA HARPER-BROWN: Mr. Speaker, members I move passage.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Members, question occurs on passage to third reading on House Bill 2608. All those in favor say aye, those opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 2608 is passed to third reading. Chair recognizes representative Farias for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE ALISEDA: Mr. Speaker, members, I move to suspend all necessary rules to take up and consider House Resolution 1694.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Farrar, for what purpose.

REP. JESSICA FARRAR: I request that the resolution be read in full.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: The resolution has been approved by the chair of the House Rules and Resolutions to be read only for caption if you would like us to refer it to the committee to be read we will be glad to do so at this time.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Mr. Gallego, for what purpose?

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: State your inquiry.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Is there an issue -- a procedural issue with respect to Mr. Farias suspending the rules on a resolution.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: No, there's not. The following resolution. The clerk will read the caption of the resolution.

CLERK: HR 1694 by Farias. Commending President Barack Obama, intelligence personnel, and members of the armed forces for the successful completion of their operation.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Chair recognizes Representative Farias.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, members. I do have some talking points that I would like to read and then I would like to use a personal privilege and read the resolution. If not, then it's got go back to committee. So please bear with me with the talking points and then I will read the resolution in whole. As a veteran I am proud to stand here today and commend the President of the United States, our nation military personnel, and our intelligence personnel on a mission that has taken ten years to accomplish. On September 11th -- thank y'all. On September 11th we all stood together as one nation. On that day Americans reached out to console each other as we all grieved over the loss of life from the cowardly attacks spearheaded by Osama bin Laden. Yesterday Americans stood together again. This time we took to the streets with relief and pride in our nations leadership who persevered to ensure that justice was done. Members, please, join me today in showing our appreciation to our nation's military personnel, our intelligence professionals, and our President for a mission that has taken ten years to accomplish. And members I ask that you just bear with me as I read the resolution in whole. WHEREAS, On September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden, a sworn enemy of the United States of America, coordinated a series of monstrous and cowardly terrorist attacks that resulted in the tragic loss of 2,977 innocent lives, leading to an engagement in a war on terrorism, across many fronts; WHEREAS, On May 1, 2011, after nearly ten years of bin Laden's evasion of military and intelligence forces seeking his capture, President Barack Obama declared to the nation and the world that bin Laden had finally been killed, and that, "Justice has been done." WHEREAS, The president's patience, leadership, wisdom, and determination have led directly to the demise of the most wanted man in the world, and have hardened this nation's resolve to defeat the forces of malevolent fanaticism, and by destroying the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack on American soil he has struck a significant and historic blow against Al Qaeda; WHEREAS, Following the death of the perpetrator of the attacks, the family members and friends of those who lost their lives in the attacks on September 11 are able to achieve a greater sense of closure; WHEREAS, After months of meetings of the National Security Council, led by President Obama who directed intelligence officials to zero in on bin Laden's whereabouts, intelligence officials devised and carefully carried out a clandestine operation, which had frequently been rehearsed in an effort to minimize casualties, both civilian and military; WHEREAS, As Commander-in-Chief of our great nation, he boldly gave the final authorization to commence the operation to brave and highly trained members of our nation's armed services; WHEREAS, Upon hearing the news of bin Laden's elimination, in an impressive show of unity and in defiance of the fanatics who still today seek to destroy our free way of life, jubilant citizens expressed pride in our nation and our president by spontaneously celebrating the news in cities across the country, singing "The Star Spangled Banner" and loudly chanting "U-S-A", and former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have offered him their congratulations; WHEREAS, Domestically, he has acted with both initiative and organizational acumen toward the precautionary defense of our citizens, and has successfully prevented a terrorist attack on American soil during his service to our nation as president; WHEREAS, Internationally, he has wisely exercised the use of diplomacy to nurture collaborative relationships with other nations, which has helped improve the freedom and safety of the world's people; and WHEREAS, President George W. Bush had the near universal support of the freedom-loving peoples and countries of the world after the attacks on September 11, 2001 when he famously pledged to defend freedom against fear, saying, "We will not tire, we will not falter, and we will not fail," and President Obama had the strength and wherewithal to see that pledge through to fulfillment; and WHEREAS, Legislators in Texas reaffirm the solemn creed that we are one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, who stand strongly behind the president with respect to these several issues as he confronts the grave problems of national and international security; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby congratulate President Obama on his proven and successful policies in the war on terrorism and in homeland security; and, be it further RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commends the intelligence personnel who diligently and quietly toiled for years to uncover the whereabouts of bin Laden, and whose achievement, while historic, may never be fully known to the public; RESOLVED, That the 82nd Legislature of the State of Texas hereby commends the members of the armed forces who successfully and heroically carried out an incredibly sensitive mission with no military losses and with a minimal loss of civilian lives; RESOLVED, That the Texas secretary of state forward official copies of this resolution to the president of the United States, to the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate of the United States Congress, to the governor of Texas, and to all the members of the Texas delegation to the congress with the request that this resolution be officially entered in the Congressional Record as a memorial to the Congress of the United States of America. And members I've always felt very strongly about terror. Our military personnel but at this point in time I cannot really share with you the emotions that I have been going through since last night. So I ask for your full support on this resolution and thank y'all very much for allowing me to be here today to present this resolution to you.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Keffer, for what purpose.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Mr. Speaker, would gentleman yield for a couple of questions.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Yes, I will Representative Keffer.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you very much. Thank you for bringing this resolution. Number one, I hope every state is doing what Texas is proudly doing today in commending our chief, our Commander in Chief as we will remember that George Bush was our Commander in Chief when the terrible 9/11 happened, and Democrats and Republicans stood shoulder to shoulder at that terrible day. And now that we have this victory, let's say, that Osama bin Laden has been found and eliminated that as Commander in Chief that Republicans and Democrat should stand shoulder and shoulder in the celebration and remembrance of this victory today also. And I'm hopeful that every state, like I said, and I would be proud to add my name to your resolution and I hope that every member, I won't speak for every member because I know there are some that our politics sometimes under this dome prevents, but I hope and I pray that every member of the House of Representatives will add his and her name to this wonderful resolution and support our country and our Commander in Chief as we go forward. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Thank you, Representative Keffer.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Gallego -- Representative Taylor for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE LARRY TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker I move to add all members' names to the resolution.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Members, what we're going to do at this time with Mr. Farias' permission we'll allow the coauthor sheet to be opened and allow each of you to personally add your names to this resolution.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Mr. Speaker, would it not be easier to add all members' names and have the understanding that any member can go to the journal clerk or the clerks office and have their name -- so that way --

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: I believe the motion that Representative Taylor has made a motion that all members' names will be added.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: For those members who -- I guess I'm unclear then what you were just talking about in terms of coauthoring.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: You'll be able to go to clerk's office and be able to sign on as well as the motion Representative Taylor made.

REP. PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Members, you've heard the motion that all the members' names be added.

REP. JAMES L. KEFFER: Mr. Farias, should so -- I would be proud to sign. I think we ought to circulate it around the House floor. I think it would be a wonderful thing for everyone to sign as a coauthor on this resolution.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Members, you heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Ms. Thompson has requested a moment of silence for all of those who have lost their lives as well as the men women who have accomplished their task today.

REPRESENTATIVE JOE FARIAS: Mr. Speaker, I move adoption.

REP. KELLY HANCOCK: Representative Raymond moves that all exchanges with Mr. Farias be entered into the journal. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Keffer.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you, Mr. Martinez-Fischer. I am going to accept this very, very worthwhile amendment and I want members to know that there's not a day that goes by that it does not have an article about Hydra tracking in your newspaper at home in a national magazine. It is something that is a concern of people all over this country and is a concern of people in Texas. We have a bill that we've been working on for many months with stakeholders, the industry, environmental groups that we hope to bring to the floor very soon to address this very, very tough issue. A very sensitive issue but a issue the people of Texas -- the State of Texas needs to step forward and take control of because we have so many breathing down our neck, EPA. Many people are looking at Texas on how we're going to handle this and it's something we can do and do it in a well balanced manner. So I appreciate Mr. Martinez-Fischer. It is something that we certainly will be looking at in our committee in the interim also to come up with -- if we're not successful with the bill this session but to come up with for this interim that we will be handling in our committee also. So I thank you for that. And I will say that, you know, the facts are that there's never been a contaminated case of water -- underground water in a tracking incident. However, people want to know what the chemicals are going down a hole. Operators want to know what the chemicals are going down a hole and that's why we're going forward to try to clear up that gray area. So I do accept this amendment and thank you Trey.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Martinez-Fischer sends up an amendment the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 120. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Crownover.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Crownover.

REP. MYRS CROWNOVER: Mr. Speaker, and members. This amendment will not effect the repeal of the current program that is funded by the propane industry. The fee to the propane industry will be repealed and the existing Propane Research and Education Program also will cease to exist. The program will become Fuel Neutral as recommended by the Sunset Commission and I believe it's acceptable by the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Crownover sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 124. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Sheffield.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Sheffield.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Mr. Speaker, members, thank you. This amendment expands the purpose of the pipeline safety fee so it can be used for funding in the gas service division of the Railroad Commission. There is no fee increase or new fee, this amendment simply allows additional use of existing pipeline safety fee and I believe it's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. We're on page 126. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Workman.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Workman. The Workman amendment has been withdrawn. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Villarreal.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. Members, let me describe first the amendment, then there's going to be an amendment to the amendment. This amendment is pretty straightforward. The commission shall periodically meet to review and revise rules adopted under this section to ensure that the tax reduction under this section is efficient and meets the goals of this section. This specific section has to do with the high cost natural gas tax exemption program. Program that was meant to be temporary. It was created more than 20 years ago but has persisted in time. This amendment is going to be amended. This base amendment is real straightforward it suggests that we should do a periodical review. Now I'm going to turn to the amendments to the amendment.

JOE STRAUS: Following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Villarreal.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: This first amendment is about setting priorities. We have a program that since 2004 has cost the State $7.4 billion. In 2009 the exemption cost the State 1.2 billion. 1.2 billion would erase one quarter of the public education shortfall in the Senate budget and allow us to continue providing a path to college for students who need a Texas grant to pursue a college degree. The severance tax on natural gas is 7.5 percent. But because of exemptions, like this one, the industry only paid on average 1.5 percent in 2009. 35 percent of all wells paid zero percent of their severance taxes. Let me explain how this works. This program is basically a rebate back to a business of their business cost. In this case drilling and completion cost. So imagine we have a program that delivers back to businesses the cost of doing business. Capped at half. Over half of all natural gas production currently receives this high cost exemption. Contradictory to the original intent of this program. When this program was first created 23 years ago it was intend to incentivize a new developing technology of fracking. Today that technology is mainstream and is happening all across Texas and in other parts of the country and around the world. This program hasn't been well run. In fact in 2009 the comptroller conducted 93 refund investigations, seven audits. She found that more than half of those that have applied for the program should not have received any exemption. More than half filed a false application or wrong application.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian?

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would Mr. Villarreal yield?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: In a second. The oil and gas industry just reported huge first quarter earnings. That's is great. That is good news for them and also for our state. Profits are good. I have a Wall Street article here from Friday reporting that Exxon Mobile's first quarter earnings was 69 percent. Thanks. And I'll quote the article. Thanks to high oil prices, stronger refining margins and a jump in natural gas production. Mind you this is happening at a time when we are cutting public education by 21 percent. We're cutting nursing homes by 33 percent. I'm bringing this amendment to you today members to suggest that during this time of record level profits for oil and gas. During this time of record level cuts to our children's education we should put a pause on this program. And so let me read you the amendment.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Not at this time but I will.

JOE STRAUS: Not at this time, Mr. Christian.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Each month -- I'm on the wrong amendment. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section the commission may not certify that a gas is high cost gas for purposes of this section during any state fiscal year in which the total amount appropriated for the foundation school program per ADA is less than the total amount appropriated for that program per ADA for the state fiscal year ending August 31st, 2011. And so, what I'm doing here, members, is giving us a chance to take a stand on which is more important. Protecting the quality of our schools or delivering this corporate subsidy to a very profitable industry.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Christian, for what purpose?

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal, do you yield.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Happy to.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Mr. Villarreal, you may not be aware but I'm from an area of the state that just this past biennium became involved in the natural gas business. And are you aware that each one of these rigs are portable and every time that the cost goes up in Texas they can move across the border to another state.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I did a analysis I received some data from an accountant that works in this industry and I looked at a sample well, a sample well in the Barnett Shale. It's a modeling of production levels, the price per month, how much, how valuable this well is and here's what I found and it relates to your question. The rate of return on investment in this typical well is 26.7 percent with the high cost gas exemption. If this exemption was not in place it would be about 20 percent.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that Louisiana does give them that credit as does Oklahoma as does over other state surrounding us.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And what I'm suggesting is that 20 percent is still a very good rate of return.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Not as good as you can have a 7 percent increase. I mean I've seen people move from bank to bank for a half percent difference on a CD rate. Do you know that these portable wells will move to another state for 7 percent you quote.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I don't think they'll take the shale with them.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: They do have the shale from Hainesville it is larger in Louisiana as it is in every other surrounding state. They will simply move as -- are you aware down to the Eagle Ford Shale until the gas prices kind of rose. Then they will come back. The problem is are you aware each one of these wells to my district brings over $3 million in development dollars for every single derrick that stands up producing that natural? Gas. Are you aware of what taxes that brings to our schools.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Well, let me answer your question. I believe this comes down to a difference of opinion on the role of government. This is an industry that is -- that produces a private good. It's not a public good. Certainly we tax it and it generates revenue and that's important because the private sector isn't delivering public goods such as public education but there appears to be a large enough demand and supply and private benefit in this market making it a private market that incentivizes private individuals to invest private capital and generate profit.

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that there are many, many, many, people that can now afford college education, expanded education because the dollars that they're make in jobs that they did not have prior to this natural gas fracking development coming to the State of Texas. A lot in my area. I can tell you that now can send kids to school.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Here's the issue here though, Wayne, we created this program as a temporary program. It was meant to expire. We kicked the expiration date a couple of times into the future. In 2003 and maybe you're not aware of this but this program was made permanent. It was meant to expire in 2010 and the way it was made permanent was with a provision that was tucked inside of an unrelated omnibus bill. With no fiscal note. It passed this chamber on a local and consent calendar. Every single one of us voted for it because it was hidden deep inside this technical corrections comptrollers bill. I believe --

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: But you are aware that oil and gas profits have been a significant funding mechanism for the State of Texas above most other states in the nation. My concern is in a time that we are having financial difficulties why would we turn on the very industry that is bringing in abundant tax dollars to our local community, to our public schools and local school district, especially in rural Texas. And I understand the problem with the Barnett Shale, urban areas but let me just from my own standpoint just tell that you we really are experiencing the best job market growth, opportunities for education expansion because of this natural gas and it will lead us if we crush this tax.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: You're question is?

REP. WAYNE CHRISTIAN: Are you aware that we are in a financial crisis and this is providing excessive dollars to rural Texas to furnish jobs.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I actually question that point. I do recognize that we are in a financial crisis and that is why I bring this amendment forward because we are cutting our schools by 21 percent, nursing homes --

JOE STRAUS: Representative Sheffield brings a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Member,s this amendment will allow us to get our priorities right. It let's us put our public schools ahead of this tax break for the oil and gas industry. So this amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Villarreal sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Villarreal.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Villarreal.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. Now, this amendment to the amendment I think is a very good amendment. It put in place a price trigger. So when the price of gas rises above $6 the tax exemption shuts off. The idea here, members, is that we do not need to incentivize an industry that is making record profits in this area. And so, this is, I think, a smart way of tailoring this program. It preserves the high cost natural cost exemption program by reforming it.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose?

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Villarreal, do you yield?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I yield.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Thank you, Mike, I'm trying to get my hands around what the amendment means. So let's talk about high cost of natural gas generally. What is the number that we forego as a state and revenue for high cost natural gas? What's that? Number?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: It fluctuates depending on the level of activity and the level of activity fluctuates based on price. And so, I can give you a history. Since 2004 we've -- this program has cost the State $7.4 billion on average about -- historically $1.2 billion a year.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: So this is what I'm trying to get my hands around. That's the cost. Now, clearly we derive a benefit from that activity. And what I'm trying to understand is the return on that investment because basically we're saying that we're willing to forego that cost if it yields a certain amount of economic activity. And I think that's what Representative Christian was getting at, right? He was saying, well, there is a benefit to this. Has anybody done an analysis to suggest what the return on that investment is because if the benefit that we received from the economic activity generated by the exemption is greater, then it's a good deal. So what are your numbers show on that?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And my analysis is that -- my study of this issue is that drilling is going to take place when it is highly profitable and so today --

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: What's the tipping point on that.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: And I would consider a rate of return of 27 percent pretty profitable. And when -- that's not even at $6. And so, when you get at $6 which this amendment is all about, it's a price trigger. When the price is at $6 or above the exemption shuts off. We're talking a rate of return of 30 percent and above. That's a powerful motivator to have drillers poking holes in the ground going after natural gas. Look, there have been proposals to entirely do away with this program. I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting that we be smart about targeting our limited tax dollars to motivate behavior that wouldn't be motivated otherwise. I suspect a rate of return of 30 percent to be a powerful motivator. Not needing this tax subsidy. Let me crush that out. I think this brings it to light. Here's a typical well in the Barnett Shale. The initial investment is $1.9 million, the net value after all cost is approximately 700,000. The benefit because of this program back to the driller is $138,000. If this amendment was in place basically it would reduce that benefit to the drilling company by $32,000. So $32,000 --

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Just to be clear, your amendment only takes effect if you hit the price crunch, the $6 price crunch. What's the price today?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: The price today is around 4.25, $4.25.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. So your amendment in fact your amendment would not have any impact today.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: My amendment would have no impact today. And based on the research that we have done on the expected levels of gas I believe some analyst's expect the price to be at $5 into the future over the next 20 years.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Sheffield for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: I would like to call a point of order.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: On.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: On this amendment.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Bring your point of order down front.

REPRESENTATIVE RALPH SHEFFIELD: Okay.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Mr. Villarreal.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Mr. Speaker, members, this amendment is very straightforward. It reforms the high cost natural gas tax exemption by putting in place a price trigger. When gas is at $6 or above I believe that the industry does not need our government dollars to incentivize them to go drilling. They just don't. They will realize a rate of return above 30 percent -- 30 percent. That's a powerful incentive and I think we need to be smart about our economic development dollars especially at a time when we're cutting nursing homes by one-third and cutting our schools by 21 percent. Cutting our college scholarship programs entirely. Zeroing out Texas grants entirely for all freshman in 2012 and 2013. So, members I ask for your consideration. This amendment is an amendment to my amendment and so, when we get through with that it is acceptable to the author.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Villarreal sends up an amendment to the amendment. The amendment to the amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Now we're back on the Villarreal amendment as amended. Is there anyone to speak on, for, or against the Villarreal amendment as amended. The chair recognizes Representative Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, we heard this bill in appropriations. We also heard testimony let me just give you some comparisons. In the state of Louisiana if you have a tight gas formation that this credit applies to in Texas. They're defined the same way. In Louisiana you have a two year one hundred percent exemption from the severance tax. In Texas we still collect severance tax even with the high cost gas. It is what funds and helps fund our economic stabilization fund. The profits that you heard about are not coming from the production of gas at $4 in NZF. It is because oil is at $120 a barrel. It's not the high cost gas exemption that is going to have any effect. What you're going to do is send the rigs out of this state. So if you want to vote for this amendment, then what's fixin to happen down in the Eagle Ford will disappear and they'll go somewhere else. The Hainsville Shale runs all through north Louisiana. They don't have to drill in Texas. So this is actually a tax bill that is being put on a sunset bill and I would move to table.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Will the emperor come back?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He will and he does.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Chairman Otto.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Yes.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Because this issue has been discussed. I mean you will acknowledge that LVB indicated that the cost of this exemption that the State of Texas has lost $7.4 billion since 2004 because of this exemption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: That's the calculation on severance tax. As you know there was no dynamic fiscal note that was put with this bill about what it has brought to the State of Texas.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. In the Gears report in the LVB analysis because of this exemption, because of this exemption we have lost $7.4 billion since 2004.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Because of this exemption we now have a hundred year supply of natural gas.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand that and because of this exemption we are scheduled to loose about $1.2 billion almost every single year.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I disagree with that.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: You're disagreeing the LVB. These are not my numbers now.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I disagree with the fact that the net effect is going to be a loss of $1.2 billion.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: But is it not true that this -- that this exemption came into place in 2003 on the Local and Consent Calendar in 2003.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I wasn't here then, Silvester, so I'm not advised.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I know but I was here will you at least take my word.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I will take your word for that one.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That in 2003 and I want members to clearly understand what we're talking about. This $1.2 billion tax exemption was voted in on a local and consent calendar in 2003.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But, Silvester, we give exemptions to a lot of things for investment in this state. For example, Representative Villarreal is supporting an exemption for Boeing aircraft to be able to finish their planes out here and value them at 10 percent value.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: When that exemption comes I'll deal with it at that time.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Okay. But to argue that this is the only instance.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I understand. Members, can vote however they chose to vote but I just want to put the facts out that this exemption was scheduled to expire. It was scheduled to expire in 2003 and it was extended on the local and consent calendar.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And let me just say that the numbers that are being thrown out here, 1.2 billion a year, assumes that those wells would have been drilled without the incentive.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Let me -- again members can vote however they want to vote but I want them to understand that the cost of keeping the nursing homes open -- the cost of keeping the nursing homes open is one $.2 billion. If this exemption is removed every nursing home in the State of Texas will be able to remain open just by eliminating this exemption.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: They are not tied to get in anyway.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, it is because the money is going.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Last I saw this money was not dedicated.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Now, I understand that y'all are talking about oil rigs and oil companies going outside the State of Texas. I understand all of that but I'm not going put oil rigs or other entity ahead of nursing homes and school children in the State of Texas. And again, members can vote however they want to vote. I just want people to understand that the cost of this exemption is about $1.2. billion to the people of the State of Texas.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I just disagree with the cost. It's not one $1.2 billion.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Representative Sheets raises a point of order that the gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained Representative Villarreal to close.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Members, my amendments are very simple. I'm not suggesting we should eliminate this program entirely. I think we should be smart about how we spend our tax dollars. Do we need to be incentivizing industry when they're making a return above 30 percent. That's what my amendment accomplishes. It puts in place a price trigger. And so, if the price is above $6 their rate of return is going to be above 30 percent and that's plenty motivator to encourage industry and private capitol to invest in drilling in Texas. Regarding whether a rig will pick up and move, I don't believe that.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Hilderbran, for what purpose?

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Does the gentleman yield?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Be happy to.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields, for a question.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Thank you. Thank you, Mike. Okay. Do you really believe these numbers you're throwing out there. I mean seriously they're not real.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Okay. My mike is back on. I received this --

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I thought you weren't going to speak to me for a minute.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: I received these from a CPA who focuses all of his practice on the gas industry. He does not support what I'm trying to do let me make that clear but he had the integrity enough to provide me sample data of a typical well in the Barnett shale. I appreciated that, of course, I turned to the comptroller wanting to verify that the data was accurate. I got a confirmation from the comptroller's office that it was accurate. And so, I believe my numbers are real.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: Representative Villarreal. Do you recognize how much economic impact San Antonio in Bexar County receive because of south Texas oil and gas activity and in particular the high cost gas exemption. It is tremendous.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: It is tremendous and my amendment will not have an effect because of this price trigger. Because price today is about 4.25 and this amendment says that the exemption is not necessary when price rises above $6.

REP. HARVEY HILDERBRAN: I think you've been very clever in how you structure your amendments. But in a series of amendments to keep a point of order from being called but the bottom line is. This is not going to be good for the State of Texas and the Railroad Commission should not be making tax policy. I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting against your amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Yes.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you, Representative Villarreal. I think from conversations around the floor there is some confusion. Your amendment is not an absolute abolishment of this and, therefore, it would not generate $1.2 billion a year; is that correct.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: What your's is, is a refinement and it's tied to the cost, correct?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct. Its tied to the price.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: To the price, I'm sorry.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Which is really about the profitability of this industry.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: And so while the author of the bill and others maybe concerned, we're not talking about the $1.2 billion with this amendment, we were talking about $1.2 billion with a bill that I filed that I can never get a hearing in the Ways and Means Committee for; is that correct?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct. You do have trouble getting hearings.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: The $1.2 billion figure is provided to us by the comptroller's office and LBB; is that correct?

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: That's correct.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Thank you.

REP. MIKE VILLARREAL: Thank you, Lon. Members, I ask you for your support in making a very smart reform to this program. Please, vote no on the motion to table.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Villarreal, sends up an amendment. Representative Otto moves to table the amendment. The question is on the motion to table. Members vote aye or vote no. The clerk will ring the bell. Have all voted? Have all voted? There being 104 ayes, 40 nays, three present not voting, the Villarreal amendment fails to adopt.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Verification.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Representative Gallego. The chair recognizes Representative Gallego for an announcement.

REP. PETE GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I request permission of the House for the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to meet at 5:30 p.m. today in room 3W9 to consider pending business.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members you have heard the motion.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: State your inquiry.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: These are very unique times and I know that some of us are a little out numbered. Can you at least spot us 30. Can we change the formula a little bit.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: We had to do that at that the beginning of the session, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Or if the R's could wait a few minutes before they vote.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: We could certainly do that.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: The fight hasn't started yet. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: State your inquiry, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: When does the session start.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: The next one or the one that's already underway.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Parliamentary inquiry.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: State your inquiry.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Is the Representative from Houston aware that the next spotting will begin on November 2012. The spotting that he's requesting. He'll have a chance at that 2012.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: That parliamentary inquiry is not properly stated. The time is getting late and we do have committee meetings, members. Mr. Gallego sends up a motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement the clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence will meet at 5:30 p.m. today May 2nd, 2011 at 3W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider pending business.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Madam doorkeeper.

MADAM DOORKEEPER: Mr. Speaker, I have a messenger from the Senate at the door of the House.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Admit the messenger, please.

SENATE MESSENGER: Mr. Speaker, I'm directed by the Senate to inform the House that the Senate has taken the following action. The Senate has passed the following measures.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Please excuse Representative Gallego because of a meeting on Criminal Jurisprudence on a motion of Representative Martinez. Members we're on page 141. The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by King of Parker.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Mr. Speaker, members. This amendment which I think is acceptable to the author -- well might not be -- will allow us -- but it -- will allow us to -- the Railroad Commission after they hear all the evidence on a case to -- they'll do like our court of appeals do and adjourn and discuss it and then come out and rule in public. It puts them under all of the requirements of the open meetings act under the government code. Move adoption.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Keffer to speak on the King amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Members, this is a amendment that Mr. King and I have talked about. There are some considerations on open meetings act that I think we need to make sure everybody is aware of and looking at. I think the ability for the three commissioners to meet and discuss and then come out and discuss openly also in the meeting is something to be looked at. But again this is a on that fine line and I just wanted everybody to be aware and to be thinking of those things.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: The chair recognizes Representative King to close on his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you Chairman Keffer. Basically what happens now is -- one of the problems that the railroad has is that they literally hearing evidence on a case cannot lean over to someone else and say what do you thinking about this. And I think it causes some dysfunction within the agency. And I think the ability of them to walk and just like our courts of appeals under very district guidelines where the meetings are tape recorded and everything else to go into executive session talk about a case and then come out publicly rule. I think it will allow some efficiency and I, frankly, it will keep the staff from running things, that sometimes occurs. And so with that I would just recommend that we adopt this. There are a number of other of our state agencies that already have the authority to do this including the Facilities Commission, the Texas Department of Insurance, the Department of Control, Credit Union Commission, Finance Commission of Texas, certainly Public Power utilities, Department of Information Resource. Anyway I would move adoption and ask you favorably vote for this.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose?

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Will the gentleman yield?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields for a few questions.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Representative, just on the procedure on this, I understand what your bill is or your amendment. Is that it allows the commission -- the commissioners to get together, to deliberate after the matter is placed to them and they can deliberate and discuss each others views but then they would actually come out to deliver their vote and actually make their votes in public; is that correct?

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That's exactly right. It's a simple executive session set back under the government code where they will hear the evidence in a contested case just like the courts of appeals do when there's a three judge panel. You know, one of the problems is that -- well, they would be allowed -- they would go back into executive sessions. Those sessions are announced to the public. They are recorded. If there's ever any concern over them a district judge can listen to the tape in camera and determine if there were any problems. So if it moves on to the district court level whatever took place in the executive session is discoverable in camera to the court. It's a very, very common practice but the difficulty they have right now is literally if -- one of the problems if they ask what if's in open session literally someones stock price can go up or down the next day. And so, they have to be so cautious in open session. This just allows them to hear the evidence, go into a formal managed by law statutory executive session, discuss their feelings about the evidence on the case with the others, determine how they're going rule or how they wish to vote and then come out from executive session, meet in public and rule openly.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: So this recognizes that the commission has an adjudicatory function in these cases and just like multi judge panels it allows them to deliberate as long the vote is in public.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Exactly. Exactly. My first thought this only occurs when they put on that robe and they're sitting in that judicial capacity. My first thought was to put them under the same cannons that our courts of appeals operate under but there were a couple of problems. One, they are not always lawyers and so they may not have that experience in those cannons but also we found out that it was simpler just to put them under the existing provisions for a executive session that were already in the code. We didn't have to pull in something new.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: So just like judges and juries do they would be able come out and vote.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Exactly. Exactly. That's exactly what it is. Thank you for those good questions.

REP. TRYON LEWIS: Thank you.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose, Mr. Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Would the gentleman yield.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Certainly.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: He yields.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Yeah, Representative King tell me under the status quo what is taking place right now.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Okay. Right now they will be have a hearing, maybe it's a rape case between a utility and a city or issues between oil and gas operator or pipeline tariff or something. The case works its way up to the staff to where it gets to the commissioners. It's docketed as a contested case and then they have a hearing. The evidence is presented to the three commissioners and then they are never allowed to speak with one another about what -- how they view the evidence. They're never allowed to discuss the case. Frankly, what happens it ends up staff being a go between at times and things like this. They literally cannot walk down the hall and say what are you thinking about this.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: So you're saying around at the table the three of them.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: At the table. They can adjourn to an executive session, posted announced executive sessions, they go into the executive session under the open meetings act, they tape record that executive session, archive the tape. They can discuss to the extent that they want to the evidence that was presented and then they go back out into the open court and reconvene. They then vote at that time on the case.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: So, under the status quo they can meet in an executive session.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They cannot under the status quo.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: They cannot.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They cannot at all. They cannot talk to the case, about any cases with each other.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay. Under your amendment they can meet in a executive session.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Yes, sir.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Is everything taped and recorded in that executive session.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: It is and it is archived in district court where it can be viewed in camera.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And the problem has been what? Has somebody complained that there was a problem under the status quo.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Sure. One of the problems that has come up with the Railroad Commission, with the commission for a long time is that they cannot talk with each other about cases. Picture yourself being on the Railroad Commission and having major issues before the commission and never being able -- never being able to sit down with the other two commissioners saying, what are you thinking about this or discuss the pros or cons.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: You're saying that cannot take place at the table.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: That cannot take place at all today. They literally cannot walk down the hall and say what are you thinking about this.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: No, I'm saying once they meet.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Once they meet.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Once they meet can they not discuss.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They cannot. It creates a quorum if two of them talk about it all of a sudden there a quorum and they are subject to the open meetings act. And so, they can never discuss a case without being in the room in front of all the participants.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And that's what I'm saying, in front of the all participants they can then discuss their contested case.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: They can. And the problem they run into -- and if you remember they had this back on the PUC back, I think, when Chairman Kline was chairing the PUC but one of commissioners -- same type of thing made what if question in front -- in a hearing. The next day someones stock dramatically changed because they were trying to discuss it. This allows them to hear all the facts of a case, go into a executive session governed by the open meetings act, the current open meetings act and discuss their case and then come out and rule publicly.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Is it prescriptive in terms of clearly detailing and delineating what they can discuss in an executive session.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Absolutely. And there's very strict guidelines.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Representative Fletcher raises a point of order. The gentleman's time has expired. The point of order is well taken and sustained.

REPRESENTATIVE PHIL KING: Thank you, members. I think this will make commission more functional and I would just ask for your vote.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members, Representative King sends up an amendment -- the amendment. Is there objection to the adoption of the King amendment? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Veasey.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to explain his amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, I have an amendment to the amendment.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: There's an amendment to the amendment. The clerk will read the amendment to the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment to the amendment by Veasey.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to explain the amendment to the amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, the amendment to the amendment makes this deal applicable only to the Barnett Shale and makes the bill germane by giving the Railroad Commission Authority and I move passage.

UNIDENTIFIED MAN SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane. Thereby violating Rule 11, Section 2 under Article 3, Section 30.

REPRESENTATIVE DWAYNE BOHAC: Please, bring your point of order down front. Members, the point of order is respectfully withdrawn. Now we're back on Veasey's amendment to the amendment.

REP. EDDIE LUCIO III: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: For what purpose?

REP. EDDIE LUCIO III: Point of clarification under Rule 1, Section 1 are freshman allowed to call point of orders.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: The chair is not advised.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Move passage.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Members the Veasey amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? The amendment to the amendment. The chair hears none. The amendment to the amendment is adopted. Now we're back on the Veasey amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I have been waiting to have the opportunity to talk about this for quite sometime and it's issue on the Barnett Shale that we're having with land man. All those of you who live in an area where drill for oil and gas and minerals know that the person that comes to your door and decides whether or not your going to get royalty or whether or not you're going to get a real big bonus check and now it's a much smaller bonus check with the rate at which gas is trading. Those are the landman. We have had considerable issues with landman in the Barnett Shale and I want to read you and also share with you just my personal experience but also other experiences and outside of my personal experience I purposely picked areas that were very Republican areas in which people were having trouble. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. The landman called me several times urging me to sign a mineral lease. The landman said that the company would not negotiate on the bonus or royalty amount because they wanted to pay everyone the same amount. The landman said if I didn't sign they would just cut me out of the pool and I would get nothing at all. Using the drilling permit which I found on the Texas Railroad Commission website I obtained the names of the other mineral owners in the pool, went to city hall and looked up the lease information and found out that everybody was being offered something different. So, therefore I hired an attorney and I ended up getting twice the offered bonus. Now that is exactly what I am talking about with these problems. That is a person that went to this individuals house and they outright lied to them. We cannot have gas drilling. And we need to have gas drilled in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. We need to be able to drill gas in our own backyard. But if the people that come to peoples doors are untrustworthy it is going to make it a lot harder for individuals to be able to have to get neighborhoods behind natural gas drilling. Let me tell you my own personal experience. They came to my neighborhood. The landman was sitting at the church talking to everybody. This is inside of a church. The landman came in and the landman said -- hold on one second Mr. Anchia -- my amendment requires that the landman be licensed. I want the landman to be able to go get education and training. This would only be applicable to the Barnett Shale but I truly believe that the landman needs to be licensed. It would stop a lot of the lying. It would stop a lot of the sort of fibbing and fluffing that goes under the Barnett Shale and more importantly it would get people more behind gas drilling. One of the main reasons why people don't like the Barnett or the drilling of the Barnett Shale is because some of the landman outright lie. I believe the gentleman may have a question.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Mr. Speaker.

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Anchia, for what purpose.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Would the gentleman yield?

REP. DWAYNE BOHAC: Mr. Veasey, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Yes, I yield.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Representative Veasey you're not saying landman are by and large bad guys are you. You're not saying landmen are by and large a bad profession are you.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: No, I'm not saying that but I think oftentimes when people are unlicensed for instance you practice law and because you practice law you have certain ethical standards by which you practice law and if you didn't, you wouldn't want anyone at your firm who wasn't license because they wouldn't necessarily have to be as honest as you were. And that would make it bad on your firm. That would give your firm a bad reputation around town.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: And creating a licensing regime would actually allow the State to pull a license for bad actors, right?

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Right. Absolutely.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: So, you're not saying that landmen are by definition bad but there maybe some bad apples in the bunch and currently there's no way for the state to intervene and pull a license. I'll just go through the list of things that the State licenses. Air-conditioning and refrigeration repairmen, auctioneers, cosmetologists, electricians, barbers and all laudable professions. But wouldn't it stand to reason that the State would also have an interest in licensed landman especially when there -- the way they get paid is directly tied sometimes to how impressive they might be.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Absolutely. No, that is absolutely, correct.

REP. RAFAEL ANCHIA: Okay. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Thank you, Mr. Anchia. And let me just tell you once again about my own experience. The landman came to the church, the church ladies and gentlemen. Came to the church and had a meeting. The landman said, you know what I'm offering twenty percent plus let's say a $500 bonus. I can guaranty you want the 20 percent royalty because the royalty is always higher than the bonus. So, you want to sign for a higher royalty and less bonus because I can promise you that it's going to be higher. I get my check a couple of years later, right before the lease was about to expire. And one of the things they to in the Barnett Shale is they may drill your well just so they can hold your lease. And they told me that my royalty y was going to be higher than my bonus. Guess how much my first royalty check was for? And the landman told me and promised everybody in the room that it was going to be higher -- $1, $1. That's how much that first check was for that I got. Now can we really have people -- can we really have folks out there going into churches, going into community centers promising people one thing and delivering another. Let's license these folks. Almost every other profession in this state where people act as third party agents for other folks or other entities they have to be licensed. Let's extend it to the landman.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Geren in opposition. I will finish tomorrow. Part seven. May two, 2011.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Members, I carried the same bill two years ago. So I'm very familiar with it and got a lot of testimony and they chose to move the bill. It was a mistake to file, it was a mistake -- the bill was a mistake. Six, eight years ago in the Barnett Shale when gas was around $12 and they were running around trying to sign all those leases up it probably would have been a good idea then but since gas has gotten to $4 and all those urban leases are already signed up there's no real need for this anymore. There's not enough landmen in the Barnett Shale now to even worry -- for anybody to worry whether it's the Real Estate Commission or Department of Licensing. There's no reason to do this any longer.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Howard, for what purpose?

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Would the gentleman yield for a question?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I'd be happy to, Mr. Speaker.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Representative do you own a license to operate your restaurant.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I've got one. I've got a real estate broker license too.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: Does that mean that you're going to operate your residence in a good manner I have a real estate license doesn't that mean -- does that mean to guaranty you that you're not going to be --

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: There are bad operators in every business, Mr. Howard.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: That is exactly right.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: Whether its lawyers, brokers, restaurant operators, even people in the field business there are bad operators.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: And we don't need anymore government do we?

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: No, sir this is something that's really at this point in time not necessary. And I really could have seen -- that's what I said. I carried the bill two years ago, interviewed a lot of people, a lot of people came to see me on both sides of it, that's why I chose not to move the bill. I never requested a hearing last time.

REP. CHARLIE HOWARD: I hope you'll put a motion to table. Thank you.

REPRESENTATIVE CHARLIE GEREN: I am and with that members I would move to table.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey to close.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Mr. Speaker members I will be brief. Let's let the Texas Real Estate Commission develop a curriculum for the landman, it's important. It is important that we get people behind getting these minerals, accessing them so we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. If the folks that come and knock on your door, the folks that have community meetings in your churches, your schools, in your backyard, if they are not doing the right thing, if they are going around completely lying to people and I think people in the business think, well, you know, this is how you negotiate this, is how you fluff. But when you go into elderly peoples homes, when you go into churches and community centers and deal with people who are not oil and gas negotiators. Well, when you lie to them all you really have is the person, the landman's word. They don't have anything else to go on. Let's license these folks, let's make them do the right thing. If you look at that the areas in the Barnett Shale where we've had the most resistence, they have been in very Republican areas like Southlake, Flower Mound, and other places like that around the metroplex, the reason and one of the main contributors to those issues and the resistence to gather these minerals so that we can get off of this foreign oil is because of the landman. And like Mrs. Thompson has pointed out to me you'll have an agency that can discipline these folks when they're not right. And Charlie Howard was right, if you have a license it doesn't make you honest but at least it's something.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Veasey sends up an amendment. Representative Geren moves to table. This is on the motion to table. The clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Geren votes aye, Representative Veasey voting no, Representative Sheffield voting aye. Have all voted? Have all members voted? There being 101 ayes, 43 nays, motion to table prevails. Chair recognizes Representative Pitts for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM PITTS: Mr. Speaker members I request permission for the Committee on Appropriations to meet while the House is in session at 6:15 on May the 2nd, 2011 in the ag museum 1W14 to consider Senate Bill 1811 -- 6:15 p.m.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. There objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcements. Clerk will read the announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Appropriations will meet at 6:15 p.m. on May the 2nd, 2011 in the agriculture museum 1W.14. This will be a formal meeting to consider SB 1811.

JOE STRAUS: The following amendment the. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Turner.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Turner.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Mr. Speaker and members, this is a study of consolidated taxes and what we call it deductions and exemptions that are given that will be studied over the interim to determine whether or not there are any savings to consumers in this regard.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Otto, for what purpose? Do you yield?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I would be more than happy to yield.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Representative Turner, I just have a couple of questions. I want to make sure I understand in subparagraph A.

REPRESENTATIVE SYLVESTER TURNER: Hold on a second, let me get it. Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: In subparagraph A on the last line, can you tell me what a hypothetical or non-actual tax expense is.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: What it is these were, I guess, a deduction or expenses -- deductions that were given intended to spur innovations but what I have been told is that sometimes these deductions were given but they were not used for innovation purposes and therefore; for example, people may have gotten the benefit but then actually realized the expense. I do not know whether that's true or not and that's a part of the study.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: All right. Let me ask you going up prior to those lines it says, so the commission can develop methods. So are you determining the outcome of this study before this study is even done.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: No. For legislative purposes period now I can tell you it's not trying to predetermine the outcome. Basically what this is Otto initially there was an amendment that certainly was going to drive the outcome. But there was a lot of questions raise and so instead of trying to deal with the amendment as it was initially written. I put it in the form of a study. It was done when the bill was last on the session, hurriedly in order to get it in and it was turned into a study. So not trying to predetermine the outcome. I simply want the regulatory agency to take a look at it and make a determination of whether or not the deductions or the taxes are actualized or whether or not they have been used for their intended purposes. And then when you look at the other parts of the amendment to see whether or not based on what is given in these deductions or utilization of the tax arrangement whether or not there are any savings tax -- additional savings for consumers.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: I guess where I'm having trouble understanding is. As I understand your amendment, what you're trying to look at is whether or not; for example, in item C whether or not an entity files a consolidated tax return, whether the savings from them doing that are being passed on.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: That is correct.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, that's already been done since 1995, the best I'm aware of. If an entity files a consolidated tax return then they must take into account the federal income tax on that return for purposes of determining their expenses.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: See and that's not the information I received because I know it's being done on the electrical side but it's my understanding it's not the being done on the gas side. And initially when I drafted the amendment the first time it was to seek a parallel status on the gas side as to what is presently being done on the electricity side.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Then I go back to my original question. It does sound like you do have a preconceived idea of what -- where this study -- what you're saying is if there's any difference on how its done on the PUC side you want it done this way by the railroad commission.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: No. Not necessarily. It simply asking them whoever is going to be conducting the study to take a look at it to see whether or not there is any savings on the gas side and to see believe whether or not we should implement a similar pleasure on the gas side as on the electricity side.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: But you do understand also -- or let me, are you aware that if -- let's say you conducted this study.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: And the commission came out with a recommendation that you forced everyone to do consolidated return whether they filed consolidated or not. You do understand that that pendulum swings both ways. Sometimes that will benefit consumers, sometimes it will not.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: And I'm fully aware of that. It could go either way but the way the amendment, Representative Otto, was initially filed it was that it was in a sense mandating that we move in this direction.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: Well, I'm not so sure that it doesn't still to that.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well, when I talked to the industry about turning this into a study, the industry was fine with that. Now there was one particular indignant person who came to me this morning that did like the top portion of it. But I indicated --

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN OTTO: To be honest with you I don't know what a hypothetical or non-actual tax expense is because they don't allow hypothetical deductions on a federal tax return.

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: Well I think that is the reason for the study. You know you may have questions about it, I may have questions about it right now. Certainly the study will be conducted and it will be whatever it will be and then they will report back to regulatory agency, railroad commission, the PUC, both members of the Texas House and Senate by December 1st of 2012. It is whatever it will be but it is not intend to predetermine the outcome it is simply to put it in the form of a study.

JOE STRAUS: Is there anyone wishing to speak on, for, or against this amendment?

REP. SYLVESTER TURNER: I move adoption. I believe it's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak on for or against the amendment. Mr. Turner sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment. It's on page 147.

CLERK: Amendment by Burnam.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Burnam.

REPRESENTATIVE LON BURNAM: Mr. Speaker members, this is a simple *oderization study to look at and I believe it's acceptable to the author. I move its adoption.

JOE STRAUS: The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Members that's the last amendment. Anyone wishing to speak on, for or against the bill. Chair recognizes Representative Keffer to close.

REPRESENTATIVE JAMES L. KEFFER: Thank you very much. I thank the sunset staff. Appreciate it. Our staff put it together. Move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Question occurs on passage to third reading, Senate Bill 655. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. Ayes have it Senate Bill 655 is passed to engrossment. Representative Crownover for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE MYRS CROWNOVER: A moment of appreciation. The committee would like to thank Chairman Keffer the great job he's done. He's been very open and accessible. He's been very reasonable and I think he's been a great communicator and great public policy has truly been his goal. So all the people that got to work with him are appreciative. We have all learned a lot during this committee and we think he has done a great job on the Railroad Commission sunset. Thank you. Chair lays out on second reading HJR 122. Clerk read the resolution.

CLERK: HJR 122 by Legler. Proposing a constitutional amendment authorizing garnishment of wages for the recovery of fraudulently obtained unemployment benefits.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Legler.

REPRESENTATIVE KEN LEGLER: I have --

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Alonzo, for what purpose?

REP. ROBERTO R. ALONZO: I would like to raise a point of order on HJR 122 on Rule 4, Section 32C, Section 1 of the rules.

JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front, please. The point of order is temporarily withdrawn. Representative Legler moves to temporarily postpone his bill until a time certain 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Please excuse Representative Johnson for committee business on the motion of Representative Miles. There any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hunter.

REPRESENTATIVE TODD HUNTER: I request -- Mr. Speaker, members, I request permission for the Committee on Calendars to meet while House is in session at 6:20 p.m. today May 2nd, room 3W9 to consider a calendar.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Is Representative Branch on the floor? The members of the calendar committee because of the meeting of calendars on the motion of Representative Brown. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. The following announcement. The clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Calendars will meet at 6:20 p.m. today May 2nd, 2011 in 13W.9. This will be a formal meeting to consider a calendar. Chair lays out on second read HJR 130, clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HJR 130 by Branch. Requirement Meeting requirements of the United States Department of Education concerning federal student aid by naming private institutions of higher education in the State of Texas that are authorized to operate educational programs beyond secondary education, including programs leading to a degree or certificate.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Branch.

REPRESENTATIVE DAN BRANCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to postpone to a time certain at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow May 3rd, 2011.

JOE STRAUS: Members you've heard the motion. There objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on -- on second reading HJR 137. Clerk will read the resolution.

CLERK: HJR 137 by Ritter. Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Ritter.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you Mr. Speaker I move to postpone HJR 137 until Thursday May 5th at 9:00 a.m.

JOE STRAUS: Members you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Excuse representative Armando Martinez because of committee meeting on the motion of representative Legler. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 8. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 8 by Darby. Relating to prohibiting certain private transfer fees and the preservation of private real property rights; providing penalties.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Thank you members, HB 8 simply addresses the issue of private transfer fees whereby consumers are essentially forced to pay for the right to sell their property. The purpose for which the private transfer fees are imposed are unrelated to the transfer of property. The transfer is simply an opportunity for the beneficiary of the fee to collect and pose a tollgate that must be passed before the transfer may occur. In the last 14 months 27 state legislatures have taken to protect homeowner's from transfer fees with 20 other states considering taking similar action. On February the 1st the Federal House Finance Authority submitted rules to the Federal Register to begin formal rule making authority on private transfer fees. HB 8 language mirrors the proposed rule as well as models what other states have implemented. HB 8 would exclude private transfer fees, pay the homeowners association condominiums corporative in certain tax exempt organizations that use private transfer fees to benefit the property. Fees that do not directly benefit the property would be barred. And there are several amendments.

JOE STRAUS: Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this amendment simply cleans up some language in the bill and establishes another exemption for the Veteran's Land Board for consent or consumption of a contractor sale and purchase. It's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this is an amendment that results stakeholder meetings and it has been agreed to by all the parties involved. It recognizes the potential for Federal lending regulations to be adopted which would jeopardize funding for the properties. This amendment simply recognizes if Federal agencies take action that are more stringent than our state law. A private transfer fee cannot be collected unless it's development covenant is amended to reflect that Federal regulation. It's acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Darby.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Members, this amendment simply gives the Texas Real Estate Commission time on which to update their contract to include language to satisfy the new disclosure requirements in my bill. It is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Darby sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Raymond.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This simply clarifies that this would effect the transfer fees created on or after the effective date of this bill and it's acceptable to the author. Move adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Raymond sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. The following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Raymond.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. This simply says that the -- any property that has a transfer fee will be filed every three years. It's acceptable to the author and I move adoption.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Raymond sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Ms. Dukes, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Darby, do you yield.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Absolutely.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you, Representative Darby. After the amendment by Representative Raymond which purports to make this bill perfected. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions. As amended is it correct that House Bill 8 would not prohibit the Muller Foundation, which is located here in Austin, from continuing to use the foundations funds to benefit education and low income housing within three mile radius of its location in east Austin.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Yes. To answer your question. This bill does not effect the existing agreement that you have in place right now.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Okay. And is it also correct that funds collected through transfers under the terms of covenant existing prior to the effective date as established by the Raymond amendment of this bill are not impacted by the restrictions created in House Bill 8 as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Do the notice requirement provisions or are there any notice requirement provisions in your bill as amended apply to covenants existing prior to the effective date of House Bill 8 as amended.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Well, no, to answer your question. But there are notice requirements that those covenants must be disclosed in a real estate contract but that wouldn't take effect until January 1 of 2012.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Okay. Does the composition of the Muller Foundation board have any bearing on the foundations ability to spend funds collected under the terms of existing covenants.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No. Under the existing covenants that foundation could continue.

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: Thank you. Mr. Speaker.

JOE STRAUS: Ms. Dukes, for what purpose?

REPRESENTATIVE DAWNNA DUKES: I would like to ask that the conversation between myself and Mr. Darby be reduced to writing and put in the journal.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there any objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Mr. Taylor, for what purpose.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Would the gentleman yield?

JOE STRAUS: Mr. Darby, do you yield?

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I certainly will.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Representative Darby, is it true that this bill restricts property rights of Texans.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: In my opinion this bill protects private property rights of Texans.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. Well, respectably I think this bill takes away billions of dollars of private property rights away from Texans that is they currently have and gives them no remuneration, no payments of property rights that we're taking away from them.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: What this bill prohibits is what is considered to me an alienation of the right to transfer property in Texas. It takes substantially billions of dollars from homeowners equity throughout the State of Texas and transfers it to developers.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. But do you understand these transfer fees transactions.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Yes.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Well, the members of the legislature who signed on as coauthors do they understand.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I think there are some 86 that are signed onto this bill and they understand exactly what they're trying to protect. They're trying to protect homeowner's and equity's in their homes.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Are attorneys who practice real estate, are they capable of understanding these transactions.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I hope they are.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. Very well. And then finally is this a very popular bill where you hail from. I mean are people very much in support of this? Are they asking for this, I mean, are they clamoring down your door for it.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: This is simply a continuation of the efforts that were started in 2007 by this legislature that decided that private transfer fees were against good sound public policy. We implemented that bill and threw some amendments that were put on by the Senate after it left this House, then this private transfer fee was misconstrued, in my opinion, to allow nonprofits to continue to collect those transfer fees as long as they paid 5 percent of the income that they received for charitable purposes. I think that's the intent of the legislatures in trying to outlaw completely these private transfer fees.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. Does your bill have anything to do with pigs.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Have anything to do with what?

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Pigs, hogs.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Livestock, cattle.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Okay. Anything to do with the transportation of felons.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: No.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Does it have anything to do with stock securities dealing with Enron.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: Stock security Enron.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Like Enron stock options anything to do with that.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: What is the purpose of your line of questioning.

REPRESENTATIVE VAN TAYLOR: Based on the bill analysis I seem to think that's what your bill did, therefore, I have a point of order under Rule 4, Section 32C the bill analysis is misleading.

JOE STRAUS: Bring your point of order down front. The point of order is temporarily withdrawn. Chair recognizes Representative Darby.

REPRESENTATIVE DREW DARBY: I move to temporarily postpone until 9:00 o'clock in the morning.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair lays outs on second reading House Bill 90. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 90 by Cook. Relating to the minimum age and education requirements necessary to obtain a hardship license.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Thank you Mr. Speaker. House Bill 90 simply amends the transportation code that deals with restricted license, specifically hardship licenses that requires anyone seeking a temporary hardship license take and pass the driver's license education course approved by the TEA. I do have an amendment which will address the concerns by the Texas Home School Coalition and they support it with this amendment.

JOE STRAUS: The following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Cook.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: Mr. Speaker, this amendment allows for the parent taught course as approved by the agency.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Cook sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Cook. Following amendment. Clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Kleinschmidt.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Kleinschmidt.

REPRESENTATIVE TIM KLEINSCHMIDT: Members, this amendment merely allows in rural areas to continue to use the hardship licenses on farm vehicles, tracts existing statute except it does use the 15 1/2 age. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Kleinschmidt sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. The amendment is adopted. Following amendment. The clerk will read the amendment.

CLERK: Amendment by Gallego.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Gallego.

REPRESENTATIVE PETE P. GALLEGO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, this provides some students incentive to stay in school and graduate and it is acceptable to the author.

JOE STRAUS: Representative Gallego sends up an amendment. The amendment is acceptable to the author. Is there objection? Chair hears none. Amendment is adopted. Chair recognizes Representative Cook.

REPRESENTATIVE BYRON COOK: I would like to recognize in the north gallery I have a lady here Lyne Tesmer. She is the lady that brought me this piece of legislation. Her son was tragically killed by a Driver that had a expired temporary license and she's one of those people that found a way to take a devastating event in her life and try to reach out and try and reach out and do good things for people. She spends a lot of her time setting up accident scenes at local high schools. She brings like I say actual crash scenes. She gets DPS and law enforcement and I had the privilege of attending one several months ago and it was interesting because when the kids first came in they were kids and they didn't seem all that engaged. It didn't seem to really effect them but by the time they had gone through it they really realized how important it is to be a good driver and what one bad decision in your life can make. So I'm honored to carry this for her. Ms. Tesmer if you would stand up I would just like the members to recognize you and thank you for your tireless work to save teenagers lives. With that Mr. Speaker I move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Members anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 90. If not the question occurs on passage to engrossment of House Bill 90. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed nay. Ayes have it House Bill 90 is passed to engrossment. Chair lays out on second reading House Bill 123. Clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 123 by Veasey. Relating to an adult diabetes education program in certain county hospital systems and hospital districts.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Veasey.

REPRESENTATIVE MARC VEASEY: Members, this is a bill that we passed last year that allows the Department of State Health Services to assist larger counties in Texas with providing an adult diabetes education program.

JOE STRAUS: Anyone wishing to speak for or against House Bill 123. The question occurs on engrossment of House Bill 123. All those in favor say aye, all those opposed say nay. Ayes have it. House Bill 123 is passed to engrossment. Chair recognizes representative Menendez for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JOSE MENENDEZ: Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, I move to recommit Senate Bill 341 back to the committee on natural resources.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton to call up House Bill 1510 with an amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Members, this is coming back from the Senate. It is bill we passed out on local and consent and it has a couple of technical changes. Move passage.

JOE STRAUS: Members, chair lays out House Bill 1510 Senate amendment. The clerk will read the bill.

CLERK: HB 1510 by Hamilton. Relating to regulation of manufactured housing.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Hamilton.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAMILTON: Move passage. Members, just changed a couple of little bitty words. From it's to's and we move to passage.

JOE STRAUS: Members, Mr. Hamilton to concur the Senate amendment on House Bill 1510. Members this is a record vote. Vote aye, vote nay. Clerk will ring the bell. Showing Representative Gallego voting aye, show Mr. Branch voting aye. Have all voted? There being 137 ayes and 3 nays, House Bill 1510 finally passed. Representative Gonzalez, Representative Kleinschmidt, Representative Davis of Harris, Representative Raymond and Representative Ritter. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira live.

REP. RENE O. OLIVEIRA: Mr. Speaker, members, I move that the House suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Land and Resource Management to consider House Bill 3860 and Senate Bill 402 and to meet 2:00 o'clock today or upon final adjournment which is right now, I hope. And I move to suspend.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Ritter for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE ALLAN RITTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the following five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Natural Resources to consider House Bill 3861, House Bill 3862 at 8:00 a.m. May -- I mean, May 3rd, 2011 E2.010.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard to motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none so ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Raymond for a motion.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend all necessary rules. The following rule, the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Human Services to consider SB 260 and SB 434 at 2:00 p.m. or on upon final adjournment, recess Tuesday May 3rd, 2011 at E2.030.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Guillen.

REPRESENTATIVE RYAN GUILLEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Culture, Recreation and Tourism to consider SB 258, HCR 83 at 2:00 o'clock or upon adjournment or recess on May 4th, 2011 at E1026.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Oliveira.

REP. RENE O. OLIVEIRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. Again, I need to suspend the following rule, the five day posting rule for the Land and Resource Management can hear 3860 and House Bill 3860 and Senate Bill 402 on final adjournment at E2012.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered.

REP. RENE O. OLIVEIRA: Members, that motion to suspend is for today.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Gonzalez.

REPRESENTATIVE VERONICA GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Border and Intergovernmental Affairs to consider HR 1483 and pending business during the reading and referral of bills today in E1010. I also request permission for the Committee of Border and Intergovernmental Affairs to meet during the reading and referral of bills to meet in E1010 to consider HR 1483 and pending business today.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Following announcement. Clerk will read the announcement.

CLERK: The Committee on Culture Recreation and Tourism will meet at 2:00 or upon adjournment or recess on May 4th, 2011 at E1.026. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 258, HCR 83 and previously posted agenda. The Committee on Natural Resources will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday May 3rd, 2011 at E2.010. This will be a public hear to go consider HB 3861, HB 3862 and previously posted business. The Committee on Border and Intergovernmental Affairs will meet during the reading and referral of bills on May 2nd, 2011 at E1.010. This will be a public hearing to consider HR 143 and pending business. The Committee on Land and Resource Management will meet at 2:00 p.m. or upon final adjournment or recess on May 2nd, 2011 at E2.012. This will be a public hearing to consider HB 3860, SB 402 and previously posted agenda.

JOE STRAUS: Chair recognizes Representative Raymond for a motion.

REP. RICHARD PENA RAYMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I just wanted to read this correctly. I like to suspend the five day posting rule for the Committee on Human Services can consider SB 265 and SB 434 at 2:00 p.m. or final adjournment, tomorrow, Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 in room E2.030.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you've heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Truitt for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE VICKI TRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the following -- the five day posting rule to allow the Committee on Pension, Investments and Financial Services to consider Senate Bill 17 and Senate Bill 1612 in a public hearing, tomorrow, Tuesday, May 3rd, 8:00 a.m. in E2.014.

JOE STRAUS: Members, you heard the motion. Is there objection? Chair hears none. So ordered. Chair recognizes Representative Murphy for a motion.

REPRESENTATIVE JIM MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members. I move to suspend the five day posting rule to allow the Economic and Small Business Development Committee to consider Senate Bill 1047 at 9:00 a.m. on May 5th, in E.2014. Relating to certification, performance, continuing education, and appraisal of public school teachers. SB 23 by Nelson. Relating to efficiency, cost-saving, fraud prevention, and funding measures for certain health and human services and health benefits programs, including the medical assistance and child health plan programs. SB 35 by Zaffirini. Following announcements. The clerk will read the announcements.

CLERK: The Committee on Human Services will meet at 2:00 or upon final adjournment or recess on May 3rd, 2011 at E2.030. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 265, SB 434 and posted items. The Committee on Economic and Small Business Development will meet at 9:00 a.m. on May 5th, 2011 at E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 1047 and the previously posted agenda. The Committee on Pensions Investments and Financial Services will meet at 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011 at E2.014. This will be a public hearing to consider SB 17 and SB 1612.

JOE STRAUS: Are there any other announcements. If not Representative Gallego moves that this House stands recess pending the reading and referral of bills and resolutions and messages received from the Senate until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. House stands at recess. The following bills on first reading and referral of the committee.

CLERK: SB 4 by Shapioro. Relating to certification, performance, continuing education, and appraisal of public school teachers. SB 23 by Nelson. Relating to efficiency, cost-saving, fraud prevention, and funding measures for certain health and human services and health benefits programs, including the medical assistance and child health plan programs. SB 35 by Zaffirini. Relating to transition and employment services for public school students enrolled in special education programs. SB 23 by Nelson. Relating to efficiency, cost-saving, fraud prevention, and funding measures for certain health and human services and health benefits programs, including the medical assistance and child health plan programs. SB 35 by Zaffirini. Relating to transition and employment services for public school students enrolled in special education programs. HB 3863 by Garza. Relating to the authority of certain volunteer firefighter and emergency services organizations to hold tax-free sales or auctions. SB 47 by Zaffirini. Relating to the pro re nata administration of psychoactive medications in certain residential health care facilities. SB 100 by van de Putte. Relating to the adoption of certain voting procedures and to certain elections, including procedures necessary to implement the federal Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act, deadlines for declaration of candidacy and dates for certain elections, and to terms of certain elected officials. SB 142 by West.Relating to real property that is subject to restrictive covenants, including the operation of property owners' associations of subdivisions that are subject to restrictive covenants, and to certain foreclosure actions. SB 145 by Hinojosa. Relating to student loan repayment assistance for nurses employed as faculty members at certain institutions of higher education. SB 152 by Huffman. Relating to the admissibility of evidence of other similar offenses in the prosecution of certain sexual offenses. SB 205 by Whitmire. Relating to school district policies to prohibit bullying, cyber bullying, harassment, and intimidation. SB 224 by Nelson. Relating to a program to recognize public schools with successful student health and fitness programs. SB 506 by Deuell. Relating to consumption advisories for mercury contamination in fish, crustaceans, molluscan shellfish, and other aquatic and terrestrial animals. SB 518 by Shapiro. Relating to initiatives designed to improve performance of public school students, including initiatives specifically for students enrolled at the sixth, seventh, and eighth grade levels. SB 530 by Huffman. Relating to granting limited state law enforcement authority to special agents of the Office of Inspector General of the United States Social Security Administration and to updating certain references related to the grant of that authority to other federal law enforcement personnel. SB 533 by Davis. Relating to the minimum standards for the certifications of sexual assault training programs and sexual assault nurse examiners and for certification renewal by those entities. SB 558 by Nelson. Relating to the Swisher Memorial Hospital District. SB 616 by Rodriguez. Relating to the sale or transportation of certain desert plants; providing a penalty. SB 637 by Nichols. Relating to the recovery of certain rate case expenses by an investor-owned water and sewer utility. SB 681 by West. Relating to the establishment of a task force to study the assessments of children in the child welfare system. SB 710 by Van de Putte. Relating to the disclosure of a hazardous drain in a swimming pool or spa by a seller of residential real property. SB 738 by Shapiro.Relating to a parental role in determining sanctions applied to a public school campus under certain circumstances. SB 767 by Ellis. Relating to the regulation of certain residential mortgage foreclosure consulting services; providing a criminal penalty. SB 811 by Zaffirini. Relating to the regulation of the practice of veterinary medicine. SB 841 by Patrick. Relating to the prosecution of and punishment for the offense of breach of computer security. SB 969 by Nelson. Relating to the establishment of the Public Health Funding and Policy Committee within the Department of State Health Services. SB 981 by Carona. Relating to the regulation of distributed renewable generation of electricity. SB 1066 by Estes. Relating to adding certain synthetic stimulants to Penalty Group 2 of the Texas Controlled Substances Act. SB 1081 by Van de Putte. Relating to the dispensing of pharmaceuticals with an esthetic purpose by physicians and therapeutic optometrists. SB 1104 by Jackson. Relating to the operation, powers, and duties of ship channel districts. SB 1107 by Davis. Relating to the vaccination against bacterial meningitis of entering students at public and private or independent institutions of higher education. SB 1125 by Carona. Relating to energy efficiency goals and programs and the participation of loads in certain energy markets. SB 1200 by Patrick. Relating to the venue for prosecution of misdemeanor cases in justice of the peace courts located in certain counties. SB 1294 by Hegar. Relating to the imposition of administrative penalties by the Railroad Commission of Texas. SB 1296 by Hegar. Relating to the use of proceeds of bonds and other financial security filed with the Railroad Commission of Texas by certain persons under the jurisdiction of the commission and deposited in the oil-field cleanup fund. SB 1383 by Shapiro. Relating to an appraisal and professional development system for public school principals. SB 1414 by Duncan. Relating to sexual abuse and child molestation training and examination for employees of certain programs for minors held on campuses of institutions of higher education; providing penalties. SB 1421 by Nelson. Relating to the awarding of grants provided by the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas. SB 1443 by Zaffirini. Relating to the mailing of notices, decisions, and reports by the Texas Ethics Commission. SB 1450 by Zaffirini. Relating to the regulation of crafted precious metal dealers and dealerships; providing a criminal penalty. SB 1472 by Shapiro. Relating to the coordinated dissemination of online information regarding the operation and performance of certain for-profit educational entities. SB 1489 by Whitmire. Relating to educational, juvenile justice, and criminal justice responses to truancy. SB 1505 by Uresti. Relating to the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of a real property interest in oil or gas in place. SB 1511 by West. Relating to minimum standards for approval of educator preparation programs. SB 1518 by Eltife. Relating to the powers and duties of the Texas Historical Commission; imposing a penalty. SB 1522 by Hinojosa. Relating to the entering of a plea in a criminal case by a defendant confined in a penal institution. SB 1534 by Shapiro. Relating to the operation and certification of career schools or colleges. SB 1560 by Ellis. Relating to liability of certain local emergency management or homeland security organizations. SB 1580 by Ogden. Relating to state fiscal matters related to health and human services and state agencies administering health and human services programs. SB 1582 by Ogden. Relating to state fiscal matters related to the judiciary. SB 1608 by Carona. Relating to operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license or financial responsibility; creating a penalty. SB 1619 by Duncan. Relating to participation of public high school students in college credit programs. SB 1620 by Duncan. Relating to substitution of certain career and technology courses for certain mathematics and science courses otherwise required under the recommended high school program. SB 1656 by Watson. Relating to a prohibition on certain underwriting and rating actions based on consumer inquiries. SB 1667 by Duncan. Relating to the administration of and benefits payable by the Teacher Retirement System of Texas and to certain domestic relations orders. SB 1681 by Ellis. Relating to the appointment of counsel and the rights of an accused and other requirements for the purposes of appellate proceedings or community supervision revocation proceedings. SB 1682 by Ellis. Relating to the creation of managed assigned counsel programs. SB 1686 by Ellis. Relating to group health benefits coverage for persons wrongfully imprisoned. SB 1687 by Ellis. Relating to information on turnover among licensed jailers at jails under the jurisdiction of the Commission on Jail Standards. SB 1726 by Zaffirini. Relating to the development of measurable learning outcomes for undergraduate courses at public institutions of higher education. SB 1730 by Zaffirini. Relating to requiring the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to create a tool to allow prospective students to compare general academic teaching institutions by certain criteria. SB 1755 by Van de Putte. Relating to the issuance of certain specialty license plates. SB 1796 by Van de Putte. Relating to the creation of the Texas Coordinating Council for Veterans Services. SB 1798 by West. Relating to retailers engaged in business in this state for purposes of sales and use taxes. SB 1799 by West. Relating to the student loan program administered by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board; authorizing the issuance of bonds. SB 1812 by Nichols. Relating to criminal history record information of certain applicants for a certificate of registration issued by the Texas Real Estate Commission. SB 1872 by Van de Putte. Relating to revising, revoking, or denying renewal of charters of open-enrollment charter schools under certain circumstances. SJR 4 by Lucio. Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of additional general obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board. SJR 5 by Ogden. Proposing a constitutional amendment relating to increasing the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund. SJR 13 by Harris. Proposing a constitutional amendment requiring certain revenue collected by a public entity from the use of a tolled highway project in this state to be used only for transportation projects. SJR 50 by West. Proposing a constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the state to finance educational loans to students. SJR 25 by Hinojosa. Referred to the Committee on House Administration. SJR 56 by Williams.[sic] Referred to State Affairs. SCR 37 by Hinojosa. Designating August 7 as Purple Heart Day for a 10-year period beginning in 2011. SCR 45 by Fraser. Recognizing Otto P. Scharth on the occasion of his 88th birthday. SCR 46 by Ellis. Commemorating the 70th anniversary of The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. Pursuant to rule one section four to correct the following bills and resolution. SB 1504 by Zedler. Relating to the disposal of low-level radioactive waste at the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact waste disposal facility. SB 1605 by Callegari. Relating to the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Compact Commission.

REPRESENTATIVE MIKE VILLARREAL: House stands recessed until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.